Richard Foy (
Thu, 11 Jul 1996 15:01:46 GMT

In article <4s1tlp$>,
david l burkhead <> wrote:
>In article <> (Richard Foy) writes:
>>In article <4s1de4$>,
>>david l burkhead <> wrote:
>>>In article <> (Richard Foy) writes:
>>>[ 8< ]
>>>>Did you read Karfen's post about the LaManns birthing classes?
>>> Yes. I've also seen a TV special on it some years ago. However,
>>>the time I saw that special I happened to be dating a nurse. I asked
>>>her about it and was told that the footage for those films is rather,
>>>well, "hand picked." The "accident" rate for this form of birth is, I
>>>was told, rather high.
>>And of course that was scientific data.
> More "scientific" than any TV puff piece. A health care
>professional with experience in the field probably knows more about it
>than you or I.

You are certainly knowledgeable you. But you have no idea what I have
read on the subject. By the way did the hospital/clinics where the
nurse worked provide services for underwater birth?

>>> Also a baby holding its breath before breathing is induced is
>>>hardly surprising. Likewise, a baby kicking its legs and waving its
>>>arms (which Karen didn't mention) is something baby's do in general.
>>>Hardly evidence of anything.
>>And I assume that you have data showing that baby chimps, and other
>>apes etc do the same thing?
> Relevance? Human baby's kick their legs and wave their arms.
>Most animals I've seen _also_ kick their legs. I don't have much
>experience with chimps so I can't say offhand.

Immediately after birth? If so your experience is different from my
experience with farm animals when I was a kid?

> However, it's up to the one's trying to claim that there's some
>remarkable difference to show that the difference exists. Perhaps you
>have data that baby chimps and other apes do _not_ kick their legs and
>wave their arms as a common thing?

No I don't have data. I am not trying to claim anything. I am only
tryting to question what *appears* to me to be a knee jerk reaction
against anything anyone says that is remotely supportive of sort sort
of AAH.

> You see, it's up to those proposing the hypothesis to provide
>evidence for the hypothesis. Okay, newborns kick their legs in water.
>Well and good. But they _also_ kick their legs when _not_ in water.
>Thus, leg kicking is a general newborn behavior. It is not something
>special about their being in water. Thus, the "in water" part of the
>claim is irrelevant and the kicking has no discernable connection to
>being in water. The result is that "kicking" is not evidence of any
>"instinctual swimming" in newborns.

This is fallacious logic!

"The form is the content in motion, and the content is the form at
rest." --Northrup Frye

URL Unity and Diversity