General discussion - Mom and Dad Esq.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
You still don't get it. Let me try it this way: In a hypothetical utopia in which everyone buys their babies at thrift stores, males and females alike will think differently about the costs of bringing new life into the world than we presently do. They will think that cost is somewhat lower than a neighboring hypothetical utopia in which 85% of them buy babies at thrift stores and 15% deliver vaginally, and of that group .05% die. This is true whether or not those deliveries are painless.

Continue to note, if you will, that I make this observation, which I continue to believe is true, without believing that it is a good thing that people suffer and die. I only note it has an effect on their dispositions and appreciation of life that they do. You, meanwhile, are beating the crap out of a straw man that we presently lack an understanding of the cost of life because of the wide availability of epidurals today (an argument I did not make). I join you in thinking such an argument would be, if made, ludicrous. Now join me in acknowledging that no one here has yet made it.

Maybe I'm being dense here. Wouldn't be the first time, certainly. But in the context of what you were talking about (we chose natural; wouldn't do an epideral; would have considered demerol, but thankfully no need) and in light of the posts of others here (horrible, long labor before deciding to do an epideral), it is very hard to read your post that fringey and I quoted as not saying something akin to "other people may choose to get epiderals, but I don't believe in doing that and it seems to somewhow be making our society less cognizant of the miracle that is childbirth and the long-standing risks associated with it". I'm not sure really how different that is from my original interpretation of your comment. I mean really. You are now changing your point to "if everyone had painfree childbirth, we wouldn't appreciate historically how difficult it has been"? Because even the posters here who went the epideral route seem to have some first-hand understanding beyond the level of yours about the difficulty of childbirth.

So what was your point? And why were you making it in the midst of an epideral discussion if that was not the point of it?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive


So what was your point? And why were you making it in the midst of an epideral discussion if that was not the point of it?

I think his point was, if god had intended for epidurals to be used women would be born with little intake valves at the base of their spine, no?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I think his point was, if god had intended for epidurals to be used women would be born with little intake valves at the base of their spine, no?

As usual, you're not helping.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Maybe I'm being dense here. Wouldn't be the first time, certainly. But in the context of what you were talking about (we chose natural; wouldn't do an epideral; would have considered demerol, but thankfully no need) and in light of the posts of others here (horrible, long labor before deciding to do an epideral), it is very hard to read your post that fringey and I quoted as not saying something akin to "other people may choose to get epiderals, but I don't believe in doing that and it seems to somewhow be making our society less cognizant of the miracle that is childbirth and the long-standing risks associated with it". I'm not sure really how different that is from my original interpretation of your comment. I mean really. You are now changing your point to "if everyone had painfree childbirth, we wouldn't appreciate historically how difficult it has been"? Because even the posters here who went the epideral route seem to have some first-hand understanding beyond the level of yours about the difficulty of childbirth.

So what was your point? And why were you making it in the midst of an epideral discussion if that was not the point of it?

I appreciate your putting it that way. However, at the end of the day this is just another useless discussion of "You posted X and that evinces you harbor objectionable belief Y because I think X can't exist without Y (mostly because all the people I've personally met who believe X also believe Y)." Some form of this argument is at the root of every stupid flamewar this place has to offer. It's surreal reading a written debate in which smart people tell you that you must believe Y, something you don't believe, because they can construct an argument about why you should, and then destroy Y because it is dead wrong.

My point was that some component of our appreciation for new life comes from the suffering and sacrifice necessary to accomplish it. No one has taken on this assertion head-on. It's a superficial and quite mean interpretation of that argument to say that I favor suffering, especially suffering of women in particular, which is what you and Fringey imputed to me. But all I said was that if all suffering were eliminated from all childbirth, our view of children would change in unexpected ways --- some of them good, perhaps. I don't think anyone who's experienced childbirth, epidural nor not, would describe the experience in the utopian way I did to make my point about this connection.

Within two posts it turned into:

• Me: If X, then Z.
  
  NCS & Fringey: If .80X, then .80Z. And by our observation, Z is not 80%. Your correlation is therefore false.
  
  Me: I agree Z is not = 80%. There is no unit correlation. My point what that when X is completely obtained, Z will be completely obtained, not incrementally.
  
  Fringey: You are an asshole because two things cannot be correlated unless they are correlated in proportions, and you must secretly believe that non-mothers and mothers who have epidurals have no concept of the pain of childbirth. Most mothers have epidurals; by your argument most women should have no concept of the value of life.
  
  Me: Not so. This has never been about whether women with epidurals, childless women, men, nuns, whatever have this knowledge. The question is whether they, or anyone for that matter, will have it when we have no more stories of difficult childbirths.
  
  [And so on.]

I would have thought that I would have been taken at face value when I said I do not oppose epidurals. I was born with one, as were some of my favorite people. Shit, I suppose we would have done one if it had gotten bad enough. It's strange to me that my statement that this was our order of preference this time around because of our personal risk-balancing would be taken necessarily as judgmental of others when I went so far to say I was not. If we simply disbelieve people's descriptions of their views as posted, the point of this board breaks down.

[Flinty_McFlint]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I appreciate your putting it that way. However, at the end of the day this is just another useless discussion of "You posted X and that evinces you harbor objectionable belief Y because I think X can't exist without Y (mostly because all the people I've personally met who believe X also believe Y)." Some form of this argument is at the root of every stupid flamewar this place has to offer. It's surreal reading a written debate in which smart people tell you that you must believe Y, something you don't believe, because they can construct an argument about why you should, and then destroy Y because it is dead wrong.

My point was that some component of our appreciation for new life comes from the suffering and sacrifice necessary to accomplish it. No one has taken on this assertion head-on. It's a superficial and quite mean interpretation of that argument to say that I favor suffering, especially suffering of women in particular, which is what you and Fringey imputed to me. But all I said was that if all suffering were eliminated from all childbirth, our view of children would change in unexpected ways --- some of them good, perhaps. I don't think anyone who's experienced childbirth, epidural nor not, would describe the experience in the utopian way I did to make my point about this connection.

Within two posts it turned into:

• Me: If X, then Z.
  
  NCS & Fringey: If .80X, then .80Z. And by our observation, Z is not 80%. Your correlation is therefore false.
  
  Me: I agree Z is not = 80%. There is no unit correlation. My point what that when X is completely obtained, Z will be completely obtained, not incrementally.
  
  Fringey: You are an asshole because two things cannot be correlated unless they are correlated in proportions, and you must secretly believe that non-mothers and mothers who have epidurals have no concept of the pain of childbirth. Most mothers have epidurals; by your argument most women should have no concept of the value of life.
  
  Me: Not so. This has never been about whether women with epidurals, childless women, men, nuns, whatever have this knowledge. The question is whether they, or anyone for that matter, will have it when we have no more stories of difficult childbirths.
  
  [And so on.]

I would have thought that I would have been taken at face value when I said I do not oppose epidurals. I was born with one, as were some of my favorite people. Shit, I suppose we would have done one if it had gotten bad enough. It's strange to me that my statement that this was our order of preference this time around because of our personal risk-balancing would be taken necessarily as judgmental of others when I went so far to say I was not. If we simply disbelieve people's descriptions of their views as posted, the point of this board breaks down.

Pssst. Chicks can't do math.

Ever helpful,

Flinty

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Flinty_McFlint
Pssst. Chicks can't do math.

Ever helpful,

Flinty

Atticus is your favorite?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
However, at the end of the day this is just another useless discussion...............stupid flamewar............It's surreal reading a written debate..............[And so on.]..............If we simply disbelieve people's descriptions of their views as posted, the point of this board breaks down.

So, at the beginning of the next day is it safe to conclude that you agree that in the statistics for birthing, women who get epidurals should have an asterisk next to their entry?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
So, at the beginning of the next day is it safe to conclude that you agree that in the statistics for birthing, women who get epidurals should have an asterisk next to their entry?

As usual, you're not helping.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
As usual, you're not helping.

Dude, you dug the hole. Can't blame penske if he helps you shovel a little bit.

[dtb]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
You still don't get it. Let me try it this way: In a hypothetical utopia in which everyone buys their babies at thrift stores, males and females alike will think differently about the costs of bringing new life into the world than we presently do. They will think that cost is somewhat lower than a neighboring hypothetical utopia in which 85% of them buy babies at thrift stores and 15% deliver vaginally, and of that group .05% die. This is true whether or not those deliveries are painless.

Continue to note, if you will, that I make this observation, which I continue to believe is true, without believing that it is a good thing that people suffer and die. I only note it has an effect on their dispositions and appreciation of life that they do. You, meanwhile, are beating the crap out of a straw man that we presently lack an understanding of the cost of life because of the wide availability of epidurals today (an argument I did not make). I join you in thinking such an argument would be, if made, ludicrous. Now join me in acknowledging that no one here has yet made it.

Now Atticus, you know I love[d] you (once), so please know that I have nothing against you, and know you are all smart and shit.

That said, there is something ever-so-slightly condescending and superior in your tone that rather rankles.

Yes, yes; anyone who takes it that way must be retarded and/or willfully obtuse, but, there it is.

We know you're proud of the Mrs. and people actually GAPE IN AWE at the fact that she delivered children without pain medication. But you know what? BFD. Great. Big whoop, etc. To draw some sort of conclusion about anything based on a person's (or a sex's) decision whether to use pain medication during childbirth is patently absurd. Furthermore, it is unseemly to boast about it (and whether or not you are intending to "boast" -- that's how it sounds), and insulting to, well, me, and perhaps others who are taking issue with your theory.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by dtb
................GAPE IN AWE...............

Was this pun intended?

[dtb]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Was this pun intended?

What do you think?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by dtb
What do you think?

As usual, I am not helping?

[nononono]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I appreciate your putting it that way. However, at the end of the day this is just another useless discussion of "You posted X and that evinces you harbor objectionable belief Y because I think X can't exist without Y (mostly because all the people I've personally met who believe X also believe Y)." Some form of this argument is at the root of every stupid flamewar this place has to offer. It's surreal reading a written debate in which smart people tell you that you must believe Y, something you don't believe, because they can construct an argument about why you should, and then destroy Y because it is dead wrong.

My point was that some component of our appreciation for new life comes from the suffering and sacrifice necessary to accomplish it. No one has taken on this assertion head-on. It's a superficial and quite mean interpretation of that argument to say that I favor suffering, especially suffering of women in particular, which is what you and Fringey imputed to me. But all I said was that if all suffering were eliminated from all childbirth, our view of children would change in unexpected ways --- some of them good, perhaps. I don't think anyone who's experienced childbirth, epidural nor not, would describe the experience in the utopian way I did to make my point about this connection.

Within two posts it turned into:

• Me: If X, then Z.
  
  NCS & Fringey: If .80X, then .80Z. And by our observation, Z is not 80%. Your correlation is therefore false.
  
  Me: I agree Z is not = 80%. There is no unit correlation. My point what that when X is completely obtained, Z will be completely obtained, not incrementally.
  
  Fringey: You are an asshole because two things cannot be correlated unless they are correlated in proportions, and you must secretly believe that non-mothers and mothers who have epidurals have no concept of the pain of childbirth. Most mothers have epidurals; by your argument most women should have no concept of the value of life.
  
  Me: Not so. This has never been about whether women with epidurals, childless women, men, nuns, whatever have this knowledge. The question is whether they, or anyone for that matter, will have it when we have no more stories of difficult childbirths.
  
  [And so on.]

I would have thought that I would have been taken at face value when I said I do not oppose epidurals. I was born with one, as were some of my favorite people. Shit, I suppose we would have done one if it had gotten bad enough. It's strange to me that my statement that this was our order of preference this time around because of our personal risk-balancing would be taken necessarily as judgmental of others when I went so far to say I was not. If we simply disbelieve people's descriptions of their views as posted, the point of this board breaks down.

I realize this thread has gone down the meta-discussion route, but for the record, I didn't miss a thing by not continuing the pain. Rather, the lack of pain allowed me to avoid being so caught up in it that I missed the birth itself. I was able to observe and experience simultaneously. The mystery of life, regard for it, etc., wasn't damaged. And though I went in fairly enamored of the romance of a natural birth, I don't miss the not having it. It wasn't a matter of not being able to take it, either - as mentioned, my body + pain = long stall in the delivery. There was no immediate danger of which I was advised, but rather than fighting it more, I decided to do something to ease it. Perineal massage, special breathing, epidural - all are methods of getting to the same place.

[bold_n_brazen]

Originally posted by nononono


Perineal massage, special breathing, epidural - all are methods of getting to the same place.

My ex was once asked if he knew what my favorite flowers were. He replied, triumphantly, "Perineums!" Oh, how we laughed.

For future reference, I like peonies. And lilacs.

And pain medication, in all its forms.