Feel ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTED stories

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
We just disagree about the inherent disgustingness of lotus birth,

I'm beginning to suspect that you haven't read a number of the posts here.

In which case moving on is probably for the best.
 
Yeah Jeevey. Get it together. Let FYM mom-shame and discuss the non-consciousness of babies in peace.

I don't appreciate that snarky tone, and you also missed the point of what I was saying.

But whatever. No need to beat a dead horse.
 
jeevey said:
disgustingness

there it is again.
This isn't an opinion based conversation. Its a health issue. There is a right answer and you're terribly misinformed.
 
As an aside, what the hell is "mom-shaming"?

Is that like a thing these days?
 
Nathan thinks that moms should be able to do whatever they want and be free of ridicule. It's her baby. Back off!

And facts about the lack of consciousness in babies is dehumanizing. Let's ignore the facts! His ignorance makes him feel warm and fuzzy
 
facts about the lack of consciousness in babies is dehumanizing. Let's ignore the facts! His ignorance makes him feel warm and fuzzy

Having held three of my newborn babies and a baby born still born, I can assure you, there is assuredly a difference between a conscious newborn and not.

You ignorant little prick.
 
nathan1977 said:
Read the previous comments directed at this woman (and at Jeavey) and I think you'll have a pretty good idea.

No, actually I don't.
 
Is your line of thinking that using profanity automatically constitutes mom-shaming? Or is it that moms should not be criticized for how they raise their children? I'm utterly at a lost.
 
Is your line of thinking that using profanity automatically constitutes mom-shaming?

No. Mom-shaming constitutes mom-shaming.

"Fucking moron."

"That woman is an idiot."

"Idiotic."

"Insane."

"Dick hooks."

"People like these should be barred from ever having children."

And the more colorful commentaries since.
 
nathan1977 said:
Having held three of my newborn babies and a baby born still born, I can assure you, there is assuredly a difference between a conscious newborn and not.

You ignorant little prick.

That means nothing. You don't know what you're talking about. Don't flaunt your ignorance. Help yourself to a science book because you sound like an idiot. The difference between a live baby and a dead one does not equal the difference between consciousness and not. Your appeal to emotions is worthless, but not unexpected.

Ignorant little prick? Hahaha Alright, tough guy
 
nathan1977 said:
No. Mom-shaming constitutes mom-shaming.

"Fucking moron."

"That woman is an idiot."

"Idiotic."

"Insane."

"Dick hooks."

"People like these should be barred from ever having children."

And the more colorful commentaries since.

If you think calling out an idiot for putting her child a risk is mom-shaming, your values are pretty fucking twisted
 
Having held three of my newborn babies and a baby born still born, I can assure you, there is assuredly a difference between a conscious newborn and not.

You ignorant little prick.

Conscious in the strictest, most basic sense of the word. You're talking about the difference between an alive baby and a dead baby (I'm not trying to be insensitive here, sorry if it comes across that way).

What me (and I think JT and Peef and Pearl and Anitram) are trying to say is that there are no benefits to leaving a piece of dead tissue attached. A baby that is born into a puddle of water or a baby born and left with the umbilical cord attached is not going to be any different to a baby that isn't. Babies are conscious, yes, but they don't have the same level of consciousness as a five year old or a teen or an adult. Otherwise we'd all remember being born.
 
BSAF3YtCcAAsoXQ.jpg:large


'Euthanize' autistic teen for being 'nuisance,' says anonymous letter - CNN.com

To be fair, that handicapped kid should not be killing whales in a suburban neighbourhood
 
Here's some easy reading for Nathan so he can - ironically, given his previous comments - stop speaking from a literal and profound ignorance of reality. Of course, there's always the chance he just has a completely rudimentary, 5th grade understanding of what consciousness means, but I'm hopeful he can actually learn something either way.

Traces of Adults' Consciousness in Babies' Brains, Study Shows | TIME.com

Best of luck!
 
I know that, I meant conscious as in "alive"... wrong word.

That's what nathan's problem is. A newborn baby is alive and awake, but it doesn't yet have consciousness. Until 2 months or so, they act purely on instinct. They don't take stock of their surroundings and make conscious reactions to them. They have no working memory. For lack of a better term, they're on autopilot
 
No. Mom-shaming constitutes mom-shaming.

"Fucking moron."

"That woman is an idiot."

"Idiotic."

"Insane."

"Dick hooks."

"People like these should be barred from ever having children."

And the more colorful commentaries since.

Calm down. None of these statements are directed at every mother in the world, just a handful. I think you are taking this debate far too personally and making it more than it actually is.

I'm sorry for your loss, but we are not talking about life and death here. Just different forms of development in the brain that leads to consciousness.
 
No. Mom-shaming constitutes mom-shaming.

"Fucking moron."

"That woman is an idiot."

"Idiotic."

"Insane."

"Dick hooks."

"People like these should be barred from ever having children."

And the more colorful commentaries since.

???

What part of this has to do with shaming her BECAUSE she is a mother?

Her ignorance of the effects of UVA/UVB rays is related to her identity as a mother now?

You've totally lost the plot here.
 
Ok, folks, things have gotten way too contentious in the last few pages. Let's ease off the trigger a little here.

Nathan, I appreciate that this may hit a nerve for you, but I think the comments you object to, while maybe not the most politely phrased, are not directed at all mothers, but at one mother who engages in practices that, scientifically, put her child's health at risk. Should we accept as okay any and all ideas about raising a child?
 
No. Mom-shaming constitutes mom-shaming.

"Fucking moron."

"That woman is an idiot."

"Idiotic."

"Insane."

"Dick hooks."

"People like these should be barred from ever having children."

And the more colorful commentaries since.
I know it's been said, but since it's directed at me, I just want to reply that this explanation tells me absolutely nothing. Again, all you're doing is copy and pasting the same quotes from three pages ago that I was asking you about. You seem to think this is self-explanatory, but trust me, it's not.
 
No. Mom-shaming constitutes mom-shaming.

"Fucking moron."

"That woman is an idiot."

"Idiotic."

"Insane."

"Dick hooks."

"People like these should be barred from ever having children."

And the more colorful commentaries since.

That's not mom shaming. It's idiot shaming. And the idiot in case just happens to be a mom...


Ok, folks, things have gotten way too contentious in the last few pages. Let's ease off the trigger a little here.

Nathan, I appreciate that this may hit a nerve for you, but I think the comments you object to, while maybe not the most politely phrased, are not directed at all mothers, but at one mother who engages in practices that, scientifically, put her child's health at risk. Should we accept as okay any and all ideas about raising a child?

You had me at scientifically. :flirt:


But that is indeed the point we all had. :)
 
To be fair, that handicapped kid should not be killing whales in a suburban neighbourhood

Thank you for the momentary laugh.


As for the topic at hand, I do have a bit of curiosity about something, not that I have any plans, mind you, but I do wonder about something. Maybe we could start a thread for birthing practices after all, but I digress, here's the question: These "water births", my only familiarity with them comes from the show King of the Hill, actually. While I'm sure the show was a fount of factual information, I had read an article on Cracked once (man, I am batting 1.000 on great sources here), that discussed the idea that the current practices for giving birth in hospitals (e.g. in the horizontal) are completely backwards from the way women should be giving birth.

Is that correct? Is it (scientifically speaking) better to give birth in a more....for lack of a better word...squatted position? And is that the idea behind water births?

And IF that's the case, is it true that in a water birth, you have to go all the way with the naturalness of it and you can't have access to the drugs?

I, uh...am totally...not...thinking of future plans or anything here >_>
 
There is a lot of truth to the notion that you should keep moving in labour. There is also a lot of truth to the idea that doctors are too quick to induce labour with drugs which have the effect of slowing it down and making it more difficult. Definitely plenty of material for a thread.

But let us also not lose sight of the fact that women used to routinely die in labour for centuries upon centuries. So if you are one of the lucky ones who has a straightforward labour and everything is great, perfect. But there are many women for whom birthing in a pool or squatting at home is simply not a medical option. So it is never going to be a one-size-fits-all answer.
 
Back
Top Bottom