I remember an article about the Anglican Church’s opposition in the 18th century to the use of chloroform, from the psychometric exam I took a few years ago. I thought about it a lot in the past.
Some Protestant Christians today argue that thanks to faith in the sacrifice of Jesus, original sin was forgiven and the woman is vindicated and no longer liable to punishment. But in Judaism there is no theological reason to ease women’s suffering.
Strange as it is, in Judaism there is almost no discussion of the issue, whereas in Christianity it occupied quite a few theologians.

The Rabbi’s explanation is a bit strange. After all, if a person evades a punishment imposed by a court—for example, by escaping prison—they will do everything to return him, and the act itself is considered unlawful. There are countries that don’t impose an additional punishment on a fugitive because they recognize his desire for freedom, but he is still breaking the law, and if he is law-abiding he ought to accept the punishment and not evade it.
A person who thinks one must obey the word of God has to accept the punishment and not evade it. Otherwise he is a kind of offender.

The comparison to a court is incorrect. There is no option of escaping from God. If you don’t receive the punishment, it is purely because God doesn’t want to impose it.
If you are able to use an epidural, that is a sign that God is allowing it. And as Rabbi Michi said, the verse “In pain you shall bear children” is a punishment and not your responsibility.

“And you shall be driven mad” is a conditional curse—if you do not obey the voice of God—and you can’t know exactly how He measures it.
But a punishment that isn’t conditional, like “In pain you shall bear children,” is like God’s will without it being a command. And although God can do everything on His own, we too are supposed to advance His will, and maybe that is precisely why the verse was written in the Torah: so that we should know we need to make sure there is great pain in childbirth.

Correct answers, but unnecessary. The prohibition against fleeing a punishment of a religious court is because the obligation to punish me also rests on me. The obligation to punish offenders rests on the public as a whole, and I am part of that public. The court merely carries this out in our name. Therefore I am forbidden to flee punishment, because the obligation to be punished lies on me.
But a punishment decreed by the Holy One, blessed be He, is not an obligation incumbent on me.
And by the way, I’m not sure it is forbidden to flee a punishment of a religious court. See Mishneh LaMelekh, chapter 1 of the laws of the murderer, who discusses whether someone liable for execution may kill the court’s agent sent to execute him (like Zimri, who could kill Pinchas), and concludes that he may not. But regarding escape, one can infer that perhaps it is permitted. Though in my opinion it is forbidden for the reason stated above.

With God’s help, 21 Kislev 5782

The first theologian who introduced the idea that a person can seek relief from his punishment was Cain, who asked for mercy and was answered. With this mitigation, justice was not impaired, for through this request Cain merited to repair his first sin. Now he brought the proper offering: “The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit.” The punishment did not come for the sake of revenge, but in order to bring the sinner onto a path of repair.

Following Cain’s innovation, Lamech took another step and introduced the idea that a person’s actions can bring about a mitigation of the divine decree. Therefore he assigned to his son Noah the destiny: “This one will comfort us from our work and from the toil of our hands, from the ground which the Lord has cursed.” This destiny was fulfilled by Noah, who invented the plow, which eased the work of the land (as our Sages say), and indeed Noah succeeded in producing from the earth a vineyard of wine, far more pleasant than “thorns and thistles.”

If Adam’s sin was that he was persuaded by the serpent’s slander that God does not desire man’s good, then an invention that perfects creation and improves human life expresses faith that the Creator does desire man’s good, and therefore implanted in him the knowledge that would improve his living conditions.

And still, man’s ability to produce better results through his labor does not release him from his obligation to labor hard. On the contrary: the more human technological ability develops, the more he is required to work hard—but on the other hand he also sees blessing in his labor. In this way the sin of the Tree of Knowledge is repaired. Knowledge is not attained easily by eating some magical fruit; rather, a person will labor for many years to increase knowledge, and not infrequently, “he who increases knowledge increases pain.” That too is a punishment, but also a blessing. What is attained through hard work, a person knows how to appreciate.

So too with the decree “In pain you shall bear children”: there is a repair of the sin within it. If Adam and his wife sinned through ingratitude to their Creator, now bringing children into the world—something bound up with hard work and endless worries—causes the partners in the creation of the child to value one another, to recognize the goodness of the “third partner,” without whose spirit and providence they could not succeed, and to love deeply the fruit of their investment.

An epidural, like anesthesia in surgery, spares one the maddening pain of labor contractions, but is far from completely exempting the woman in labor from tension and pain. As with surgery, the anesthesia does not exempt one from the pain of the incision and stitches that come after it wears off, nor from the endless worry of “the pain of raising children.” But easing the pain in childbirth makes it possible to go through it with less trauma and with greater inner strength, which will strengthen her for the long struggle of caring for the child, raising him, and educating him.

Easing suffering makes it easier for a person to transform pain from being “Sisyphean pain” into a state of effort that bears fruit. In this way the curse becomes a blessing, and the “punishment” achieves its true purpose: turning the person into someone better.

With blessings,
Elyam Fishel Wahrheimer

Paragraph 2, line 2
…assigned to his son Noah….

Paragraph 4, line 4
…rather, he will labor for years…

Paragraph 6, line 2
…is far from completely exempting…

That same punishment also includes a punishment for the male: “By the sweat of your brow shall you eat bread.”
Obviously it is permitted to earn a living in an air-conditioned office job.

In order to get rid of or reduce the punishment, humanity is required to invest great effort.
And indeed humanity made the effort, produced wise doctors and scientists, and developed all kinds of things that reduce the punishment—whether in livelihood, in epidurals, or in every invention.

It would make more sense for males to ask the Rabbi about “By the sweat of your brow shall you eat bread,”
and females to ask about “In pain you shall bear children,” rather than the other way around.

Who told you the questioner wasn’t a woman?