How is either of these examples comparable to what we're discussing?

Thank you. I was going to say that.

I would want to know if the person's lived experience is that a Muslim cultural center has in fact caused strife and chaos in their own personal life. I would want to know if Obama's religion has caused strife and chaos to them personally.

And I would like to know how pain can be considered as beautiful. So I can ask athletes, and mothers who gave birth, and don't-know-who-else about it. It's not that I'm trying to ignore their views and experiences - on the contrary - I'm trying to see another way of looking into it, through their eyes, but in my words, my reasoning. Why do you think it's wrong if it helps me to understand them better?

If someone who lost anyone on 9/11 feels like the building of the center is inappropriate, why should his/her opinion count less than a mother who gave birth or a about-to-die person who's convinced he saw his late beloveds? According to what I understood of Steph's reasoning, we should listen to them first, and ignore all "objective"/other points of view, because they know what it's all about.

9/11 was an experience shared by millions of people, and the Park51 center is likewise a construction project which will affect an entire neighborhood. Opposition to it comes with rhetoric that affects all American Muslims. The question of "is it right?" is not only a personal/emotional one, but a legal question as well.

Giving birth happens to exactly two people, and only one of them will be able to remember or describe it afterwards.

It's comparing apples to desk lamps.

[eta: And the question of "Is Obama a Muslim?" is even more irrelevant, since it's not even remotely a matter of opinion. It's like asking "Is Obama twelve feet tall?"]

While the building of the Cordoba Center causes personal feelings for a lot of people, on both sides, it is ultimately a public decision, with consequences beyond people's personal feelings.

Having a baby is a personal, private decision, and therefore the person in question's (and potentially, their partner's) feelings are of primary importance.

I don't think the situations are parallel.

Or, you know, what Jess said better than me.

We're discussing beliefs and feelings. If someone who lost anyone on 9/11 feels like the building of the center is inappropriate, why should his/her opinion count less than a mother who gave birth or a about-to-die person who's convinced he saw his late beloveds? According to what I understood of Steph's reasoning, we should listen to them first, and ignore all "objective"/other points of view, because they know what it's all about.

Jessica put it very well, but I would also add that belief that birth is beautiful or than an NDE was a legitimate mystical experience does not impact anyone else's ability to do anything. Conversely, a person who lost someone on 9/11's belief that a Muslim community center near Ground Zero shouldn't happen could directly impact somebody else's freedom to build/enjoy the community center.

ETA: amyth said it well, too.

Why do you think it's wrong if it helps me to understand them better?

I think we're talking past each other.

My original problem was when you said that you're "suspicious" of descriptions of childbirth as beautiful.

I said, well, if they've experienced it and that's how it was for them, then being "suspicious" is saying you don't believe their own lived experience. That is, I think, a reasonable interpretation of what you said.

If what you meant by "suspicious" was that you have never gone through childbirth but it seems painful and not beautiful to you, but you're willing to talk to women who've given birth and then believe their accounts, then I did misunderstand you, because that's not what "suspicious" means to me, particularly in that context, and I apologize. I should have asked for clarification.

And when I see a process of hours of pain, blood and screaming described as beautiful, I have to explain it to myself.

Having been there for the birth of both of my children I think you're maybe a bit too freaked by the pain, blood and screaming. Pain's not the worst thing. As Stephanie notes, it gave her a tremendous feeling of power to overcome the pain and fear. That's the sort of thing you hear from endurance athletes all the time. They felt empowered. And as Teppy notes, people feel pain differently and process it differently.

One of the ways they process it is by screaming. But Emmett's mom didn't really scream during the process. Some yelling during the contractions, but again, they weren't fearful. It was a way to get through the pain. Actually ditto with JZ; she just worked through the pain.

And the blood isn't trauma blood. Just part of the general mess.

So while there certainly are hormones at work, that doesn't mean the people experiencing them are deluded into thinking it was a beautiful experience. It's a kind of trial in some respects that yields something you greatly want. Climbing Everest is romanticized too. But nobody says, "Well your feeling of accomplishment is bullshit because it was really hard." That's the point.

And yes, there are cultural expectations about such a life changing event that shape the experience. But (a) that's true of every life changing event; and (b) not one size fits all. Lots of people give birth and don't have romantic notions about it.

Additionally, I would like to add that the experience of childbirth is inconceivable to me. Quite literally...I will never be able to experience and lack the necessary equipment to accurately empathize on a physical level.

So I am forced to believe women who have experienced childbirth and say it is "beautiful". Now, to me...being a man who will never have to go through it...it does seem like "Really?! 'cause, honey...you didn't seem like you were having a 'beautiful' time when you were, you know, screaming and all that." Nevertheless, when Aims said it was beautiful and she wanted to do it again...well, who am I to say her nay? It was beautiful to her.

ETA: ...and, as Aims is beautiful to me, and Em is a freaking unbelievably beautiful child (to me)...I cannot and will not argue with the end results.

I disagree, Jessica. Giving birth is an experience that is shared by a family; more than two people. And there are legal aspects to that as well: age of consent, who is to decide on what care should the mother and the baby will get if the mother is still under the influence of medical drugs. By your example, 9/11 happened just to the people who were killed/injured/had their loved ones killed or injured in that event. I'm trying to point that like childbirth, terror attacks and you know what? Even theories of Clueless People affect more than the people that are "happened" to them. That's why the experience, the "thing in itself" is so elusive.

Your concerns, BTW, aren't nothing to research. There's the very famous story of Renato Rosaldo. He lost his wife, Michelle Rosaldo, during his fieldwork on headhunters who turn to it after a grave lost. He said that he could only understand what drove them into that after he lost his wife. In anthropology, researches usually give back their research before publication to their informants to hear what they have to say about it.

But a competent neurologist would not try to argue that the NDE didn't happen, or that the rapture felt by most people who have NDEs is false. There's no contradiction between saying "I saw a bright light and my grandmother and felt a sense of peace" and agreeing that it was caused by chemistry.

And a competent scientist would have to agree that because an event COULD be caused by chemistry doesn't mean it WAS caused by chemistry.

(And surely any competent spectral dead grandmother could certainly make use of the available biological processes to tell you everything is going to be ok.)