Yuyitsu, all these 'spiritual' experiences you speak of are merely your' beliefs. They are not a given fact in life, or a fact that can be proved.

You can't say what sort of 'experience' Poirot had, because you don't know her mind, and nor were you at the birth.

How about explaining your' 'birth experience' to us all?

Yuyutsu, with the greatest of respect, you're talking rot.

"Some scientists working in the field hypothesize that the basis of spiritual experience arises in neurological physiology. Speculative suggestions have been made that an increase of N-Dimethyltryptamine levels in the pineal gland contribute to spiritual experiences.[15][verification needed] Scientific studies confirming this have yet to be published. It has also been suggested that stimulation of the temporal lobe by psychoactive ingredients of Magic Mushrooms mimics religious experiences.[16] This hypothesis has found laboratory validation with respect to Psilocybin.[17][18]"

Having tried gold top muchrooms (Psilocybe subaeruginosa) when I was a young man I'd have to agree with the comment above.

My nature is to be quite areligious. I don't get any great uplifting feeling from any of the things that are supposed to be "spiritual" experiences. My philosophy, such as it is, is based very much on observable phenomena and causal chains. However, the use of those mushrooms gave me a real sense of the numinous and a feeling of belonging to something greater.

When the psilocybin wore off, this passed, as did the various swings of emotional state that accompanied them.

IOW, the "spirituality" was no more than an expression of the same types of neurochemicals (dopamine, serotonin, etc) that cause emotional responses. Pretending otherwise is simply silly, no matter how much you'd like to feel special.

Dear Antiseptic,

I do not agree with you that it's "all in the chemistry", but getting into a discussion about the nature of reality would side-track us from the current topic (and frankly I just don't have the necessary time right now to get into that). I would however wonder, if you believe what you claim to believe, that it's all down to chemicals in the brain, then why should you care to go on living, why continue to serve a blob of chemicals?

The topic at hand is about our right to keep away from doctors, for any reason whatsoever, be it perhaps the belief in the value of whale songs, but specifically for the sake of maintaining one's spiritual integrity.

I have no problem with Suze, Beck and Poirot choosing to call on the doctors when they give birth. The question is what right has the state to forbid me to choose otherwise.

Given that government is controlled by secular humanists who consider us to be nothing but a bunch of chemicals and have as their ideology the prolonging of the biological act of breathing at all costs, with no concern to the spiritual/religious implications, and given that they have delegated the powers of the state to the medical profession, who obviously enjoy the fame and fortune that comes with these powers, no wonder that people of God must run for the hills, die as martyrs or go underground. All that is left for us is to cry and pray to our Father in Heaven (a metaphor of course, I have no intent of getting into a full-scale theological debate right now) to save us and uproot this evil government from the face of the earth.

What next are they going to do to enforce their version of spirituality on us and oppress religion and true spirituality? perhaps pump those psychedelic mushrooms, which are no more than emotion-inducing drugs, into our water as they already do with fluoride?

Yuyutsu:"why should you care to go on living"

It beats the alternative for the moment. Why do you need some overarching purpose other than the dissemination of your genes? Isn't life enjoyable for its own sake?

Otherwise, I think we tend to agree on the topic of personal freedoms, even if you are basing your view on a rather nebulous case, I must say.

Worried that there are only books on romantic ideas of home birth available for pregnant women, GO AND WRITE ONE ABOUT HOSPITAL BIRTH OPTIONS. Or better still write an intelligent book about all options.
When I was having my children back in the 70's/80's there were books around about the new ideas, fathers in the delivery room, babies rooming in with the mother, Leboyer method birthing even. The ideas were not just "hippy trippy" stuff but based on research.
Unfortunately, I was not a private patient and had an awful time with the birth of my first son. With my second I asked about the practices at all the other hospitals and could not find a good record with any for public patients. I investigated home birth and deciding on this as an option I hit the books and researched. I am not talking about romantic books on home birth and never did I consider giving birth in a tent, or on a boat or anything else as stupid. I even had a doctor rather than a midwife. Everything went swimmingly...
Son no. 3, my original doctor had been de-registered because two babies had died. Again I prepared for a home birth with another doctor. He decided to move me to a hospital birth because he felt I did not have enough support at home. The baby had other ideas and came before anyone was ready and a friend ("Don't go into labour around me, I haven't delivered a baby in 17 years") assisted. Because the labour was so short I began to go into shock and was transferred to hospital. In the delivery room I was told the baby needed vitamin K and before I could question the nurse on that, my research had said it was for over-long or traumatic labours, she went on to tell me that the doctor had lost two babies the previous week so I should let him give my baby the injection.....
I am not going to discuss the appalling number of caesarean births and what that means to women, babies and families.

Jenny H "I am not going to discuss the appalling number of caesarean births and what that means to women, babies and families."

I'll put in another 50cents worth here. C-sections have saved a lot of lives of both mothers and infants since the surgery was developed. However these days the procedure is overused and abused.

There are situations where a Caesarean is basically essential if a live birth and live mother are to result. Conditions include pelvic insufficiency, placenta previa, transverse presentation, fetal distress before or during labour, life threatening maternal complications of pregnancy or labour to name the main reasons.

Then there are situations where a Caesarean may be indicated. Some of these are large foetus with untested (1st birth) pelvis, breech presentation, pregnancy complications not immediately threatening, previous Caesarean, multiple pregnancy and 'slow' labour.
However with trial of labour, patience and the skill expected of highly trained 1st world medics and midwives, one would expect that the majority of these mothers would deliver vaginally. Of course in the hospital setting a C-section is just around the corner if needed.

However in todays reality the vast marjority of those mothers will end up having a Caesarean and a large proportion an elective one. Why? The best answer I can come up with is convenience and profit - mainly for the Obstetrician.

Finally there is the so-called "Social" C-section where the mother makes the decision to have a caesarean regardless of any other factor. This has become a trend in some circles with celebrities often leading the fashion. The phenomenon is most commonly observed in the private hospital setting. Obstetricians, no doubt, have few objections. The patient is booked for a set date & time and of course they will pay ...

Continued ....