USA wrote:
> On 20 Feb 2005 14:21:10 -0800, "bluesmama"

> wrote:
>
> >
> >USA wrote:
> >> On 20 Feb 2005 13:49:41 -0800, "bluesmama"

> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >USA wrote:
> >> >> On 20 Feb 2005 13:24:15 -0800, "bluesmama"
> >
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >_TR_ wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Birth is a natural process, of course.
But try not to
confuse
> >> >> >natural
> >> >> >> > with easy or uncomplicated; natural
doesn't necessarily
mean
> >> >> >without
> >> >> >> > effort, effect or pain.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> So, having a cancerous tumor removed *by
someone else* is a
> >"great
> >> >> >> achievement" on behalf of the bearer
of the tumor?  Well, it
> >> >involves
> >> >> >> effort of some sort, surely effect of
various sorts and most
> >> >likely a
> >> >> >great
> >> >> >> deal of pain.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> TR II
> >> >>
> >> >> >Well, I'd hardly call my children cancerous
tumors that were
> >removed
> >> >> >from my body, or even anything remotely like
that, so I have a
> >> >problem
> >> >> >with your analogy right off.
> >> >>
> >> >> No one asked you what *you* would call anything.  You were
posed a
> >> >> question and you failed to answer it.
> >> >
> >> >Giving birth to a child was compared to a cancerous tumor. The
> >analogy
> >> >used to pose the rhetorical question was suspect. So I pointed
the
> >> >inappropriateness out, and didn't answer the question that didn't
> >seem
> >> >written to elicit an answer. It was a statement masquerading as a
> >> >question, and espousing a point of view I disagree with.
> >>
> >> Yadda yadda yadda.  Your responses are so predictable.
> >>
> >> Here's the issue:  You were asked a question by TR and you've been
> >> dodging it ever since it was asked.  Obviously if you could answer
it
> >> you would have already done so.
> >
> >Is this the question you are referring to:
> >
> >"So, having a cancerous tumor removed *by someone else* is a
"great
> >> >> >> achievement" on behalf of the bearer
of the tumor?"
> >
> >If so, my answer to the question is no. Obviously. Though I still
> >consider the analogy hopelessly inadequate and inappropriate to the
> >comment it engendered, which was this:
> >
> >"> >> >> > Birth is a natural process, of
course. But try not to
> >confuse
> >> >> >natural
> >> >> >> > with easy or uncomplicated; natural
doesn't necessarily
mean
> >> >> >without
> >> >> >> > effort, effect or pain."
> >
> >Now, if you can't see that the comment was discussing birth as a
> >natural process, and the analogy of surgery, which is NOT a natural
> >process is not appropriate, then I'm quite surprised and maybe a
little
> >sad for you.
>
> Don't bother fretting about me.  I'm fine and I know a dodge when I
> see one.  You are trying to turn the subject around to focus on me
> but it won't work.  This is about *you* failing to answer a question.

The question, however ridiculous, was answered. So find something else
to obsess about.

> >I believe birth is both a great achievement, and a natural process.
I
> >also believe many things can be great achievements, coal-mining and
> >bridge-building among them. However, I see neither of those
> >achievements as natural, and neither of them as important as
producing
> >a human life.
>
> I assume you go to the bathroom unassisted.  That is a completely
> natural act and the analogy to childbirth is applicable and obvious.

Many things are natural acts. Many things are not natural. Birth, a
natural process, was compared to surgery, a unnatural intervention. I
really don't know why this is such a confusion. I neither implied nor
stated that "natural" was better than "not natural". I
simply made the
distinction, the conclusion was jumped to without my assistance.

> According to you, doing some natural is somehow "better" or "more
> noble" than having assistance; therefore you must believe taking a
> dump is one of the most noble things any human being can accomplish
in
> life.  Obviously there is something very wrong with your view of
life.

What you infer is not my responsibility. Read more carefully, and
consider a little more before you go off on a rant.

> Giving birth is no big deal in the grand scheme of things.  Cats do
> it, dogs do it, cows and even pigs do it.

Just because a cat or a cow or a pig or a possum gives birth doesn't
make it any less an amazing occurrence. If you want to think about the
miracle of birth - human or otherwise - that way, analogous to taking a
shit, well, that's certainly your choice.

> At the same time I don't know one bridge that was designed or built
by
> a dog.  Do you?  I've never known a pig to mine coal, have you?
> "As important as producing a human life?"  That's what you said above
> about giving birth.  Are we supposed to just *assume* like you do
that
> all human life is equally valuable to mankind?  Do you really wish to
> assert that giving birth to Albert Schweitzer is equal to giving
birth
> to Adolf Hitler so far as humanity is concerned?

The life, yes. The potential of it. What it ends up to be "worth", in
the larger scheme of things, will obviously differ greatly.

> >> >> >Surgery isn't a natural procedure, either, so again the
analogy
> >> >doesn't
> >> >> >work for me. Can you think of an other example
that might get
> >your
> >> >> >point across?
> >> >>
> >> >> No reason to.  Ever hear of a CESAREAN SECTION?
> >> >
> >> >Yes, a Caesarean Section is a common surgical procedure.
> >> >
> >> >> Surigical procedures aren't "natural
procedures" according to
you.
> >> >So
> >> >> women who have C-Sections aren't really giving birth?  Or are
> >those
> >> >> births just less important and valuable than your vaginal
births?
> >> >
> >> >Are surgical procedures natural to you? Maybe you're talking
about
> >> >faith healing c-sections, done with magic instead of instruments?
> >> >Because having your belly cut open doesn't seem at all natural to
> >me.
> >> >
> >> >Is it a less important and valuable way to give birth. No. But
that
> >> >doesn't make it natural.
> >>
> >> What about women who have an episiotomy, or have pain killers
> >> administered to them during labor?  What about labor that is
> >monitored
> >> by fetal monitors?  How "natural" is any of this?
> >
> >Not natural at all. Next question?
> >
> >> You and I know you had at least one of the above during your labor
> >and
> >> deliveries.  Unless you're talking about "faith healing"
episotomies,
> >> pain killers, or fetal monitors"  to paraphrase your own not so
funny
> >> comment above.
> >
> >As happens so often, you miss the point entirely.
>
> One cannot miss that which does not exist.

If I was high, that would be profound.

> >I had an episiotomy
> >with one child, drugs given to try and stop labor because in two
cases
> >the deliveries were premature, and one completely natural birth.
Birth
> >is a natural process. Hospital birth and the procedures many doctors
> >use, while useful and often life-saving, are not natural.
>
> According to you, you have then never given birth naturally.

No, I didn't say that at all. I've had three children, one of whom was
a completely natural home birth.

> For some strange reason you gave an exalted position to the act of
> natural childbirth putting it over and above giving birth via
> c-sections and yet now you eagerly admit that your childbirth
> experiences are inferior.  Apparently you don't know what you
believe.

The only exalting that went on was in your fevered imagination. Natural
doesn't mean superior any more than surgical means inferior. Different,
yes. One a biological process and one a man-made or woman-made
intervention. The inferior/superior conclusion was something you jumped
to yourself, for some reason.

> Here's where you screwed up.  You painted yourself into a corner when
> you belittled c-sections as being somehow "less" than natural
> childbirth.

They _are_ less natural. That does not make them "less". The belittling
was all in your mind. Again.

> After I pointed out the error in your "thinking" you had no where to
> go so you tried spinning your way out of that painted corner and in
> the process unintentionally admitted your own so-called contributions
> to mankind (giving birth) were inferior.  Now you look like just one
> more feminist who can't admit she was wrong.

When I'm wrong, I can admit it, though like most people, it isn't
always easy. In this case, your misunderstanding is the problem.

> >> [...] because having wires run up your crotch and connected to a
> >> machine or a doctor cutting your crotch open with a scalpel or
> >> shooting you up with pain killing drugs doesn't seem "at all
natural
> >> to me."    ;-)
> >
> >Well we agree on that at least. And I can attest to the fact that I
> >know exactly how the procedures feel, from firsthand experience.
>
> So what?  Are you looking for applause for birthing again?

Didn't look for applause in the first place. You want to see it, as I
said before, as nothing more than a glorified shit, be my guest.

> I didn't applaud my cat when she had her litters.  She had all of her
> kittens naturally (not even one fetal monitor in the mix and she
never
> so much as asked for pain killers).  All were healthy kittens and
> there were no threats of premature labor.  What have you done in
> giving birth that is inherently greater than that?

Congratulations to your cat. I'm sure she's a fine companion to you,
not being able to challenge your thinking and all. Let me know when her
kittens have something intelligible to say.

> No fluffy answers please.  I take my cat's contributions to humanity
> very seriously.

I'm not at all surprised.



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/21/05 1:25:27 PM ---