Ludivici has just quoted Dr. Grantly Dick-Read: 

Finally, "there is no evidence that can be based upon the theory of evolution which suggests that parturition should be accompanied by any discomfort greater than a normal and natural defæcation. . . .  Evolution demonstrates that pain is necessarily the protector of the individual, but there is no evidence that any normal function, whether muscular, metabolic, or reproductive has ever been intended to be painful."96

Here's a quote from astronomer and minister Hugh Ross that is applicable to this discussion (n.b.:  he does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution).  It's from his book Creation and Time, pp. 57-58, emphasis added:

[W]hen science appears to conflict with theology, we have no reason to reject either the facts of nature or the Bible's words.  Rather, we have reason to reexamine our interpretations of those facts and words because sound science and sound biblical exegesis will always be in harmony.

With that in mind, let us consider Dr. Dick-Read's assertion that "there is no evidence that any normal function, whether muscular, metabolic, or reproductive has ever been intended to be painful" in light of the Bible.  What was the Designer's original intent for childbirth?  Did He design birthing to be painful, or pain-free?  And what about Christendom's long-held belief that it is simply women's lot to experience childbirth as great pain and suffering, that such was ordained in Scripture?  Is that belief based in fact, or on a misreading of the Word of God?

I refer you to Genesis 3:16, where the LORD says to Eve, "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception;  in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children" (KJV).  Per Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, the first use of sorrow in this verse is the Hebrew word itstsâbôwn, which means "worrisomeness, i.e. labor or pain:- sorrow, toil".  The second use of sorrow in Gen 3:16 is etseb, meaning "an earthen vessel;  usually (painful) toil;  also a pang (whether of body or mind):- grievous, idol, labor, sorrow."  Consider that the word itstsâbôwn is also used in Gen 3:17 when the LORD says to Adam, "cursed is the ground for thy sake;  in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life".  He goes on to say in verses 18 and 19, "Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee;  and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;  In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground..."

It is reasonable to infer from these verses that, prior to the Fall, birth was not intended to be a "labor"ious, toilsome task.  Think on the inverse of Genesis 3:16:  birth was originally designed to be not sorrowful, but joyous;  not painful, but painless (or pleasurable);  not hard work, but easy.  This is perfectly in line with the idyllic life of total trust, oneness and openness that Adam and Eve enjoyed with each other and with God before the Fall, and it confirms Dr. Dick-Read's assertion that normal reproductive functions were, like other normal bodily functions, not intended (designed) to be painful. 

Moreover, the Hebrew makes it clear that these verses are not a flat-out, blanket guarantee that all women will always experience pain in childbirth.  Etseb, the word for sorrow used in the phrase "in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children", means "usually (painful) toil", per Strong's.  So "in etseb thou shalt bring forth children" was a declaration that, from then on, childbirth would be usually but not in all cases painful, and usually but not in all cases toilsome.  Note, too, that both of these Hebrew words for sorrow encompass mental as well as physical pain or pangs.  To me, this shows how well God knew the way fallen women's minds would mess up their births - through worry (fear and doubt) and other mental pangs.  And as Dr. Dick-Read taught, fear is the number one inhibitor to normal, healthy women experiencing easy, painless births.

It is interesting that in modern translations such as the NASB and CEV, the rendering of the multi-shaded Hebrew words of Genesis 3:16-19 gives all the pain to Eve and all the toil to Adam.   I feel that the modern renderings are in this instance incorrect and that the KJV, though here more egalitarian and less "sexist" (because both Eve and Adam get to have "sorrow"), it is, in its archaism, unclear to us moderns.   For these reasons, it's helpful to examine the original Hebrew.

There are lots of other verses in the Bible mentioning birth pangs or pains.  There's also the verse "she [woman] shall be saved through childbearing" (1Tim 2:15, KJV).   For centuries people have taken all those verses, together with the ones in Genesis 3, to mean that  painful birth is (1) a given, (2) a cross that women must bear, and/or (3) a cleansing, ennobling, even holy experience for women to undergo.  As our society has slid ever more into secularism, the "birth is always painful" attitude has come right along with it.  The fact that unmedicated birth can be painless and even pleasurable seems impossible for most medical and midwifery personnel, and for the vast majority of women, to imagine.  Birth is "supposed to" hurt, that's the way it's always been, and that's that.  But I and other women are living proof that that attitude is uninformed and incorrect.  The facts simply do not support the commonly-held belief that birth always equals pain.  Indeed, women throughout history and across cultures have experienced easy, painless births (see the book Unassisted Childbirth for a researched discussion of this).

As we have seen, the Bible does seem to indicate that God's original design was for joyous, painless, pleasurable, easy birth, and that painless births would continue to be possible even after the Fall.  There is, moreover, nothing "unchristian" or "unspiritual" about seeking or experiencing such a birth.  In fact, I would venture to say that a birth free of drugs and pain, and full of pleasure and exaltation, can be one of the most supremely spiritual experiences a woman can have.