I think its should be encouraged... but in a private area-like bathrooms.

There is disagreement and then there is a blatant attack. Now I wasn't directly going against you or what you have said previously. And by not going to read the entire thread doesn't change my original post. I am not going against everybody in who posted in this thread. I actually am only commenting on the more recent ones. I'm sorry if I seemed like I was going against anyone or if I was misunderstood. I am not. I just don't want to see someone criticized for their opinion. Just saying you disagree because such and such is one thing. To say their are wrong for what they think is another. I also apologize if it sounds like I am repeating myself.[/QUOTE]

I took nothing you said as directly personal. I only commented on your post regarding people disagreeing and all that. My personal opinion is that in a debate, the only thing not acceptable is a direct personal attack. An example for me would be "I think you're an idiot" versus "I think what you said is idiotic". The first is a direct personal attack; the second is not, and is directed towards what the person said, not the person themselves. Also, I don't see anything wrong with thinking someone IS an idiot. You could say that someone even has the right to say just that, as it is their own opinion and they do have a right to their opinion. It's just not nice though and IS specifically against the rules :)!. Why is it so wrong to criticize someone for their opinion, by the way? We are all entitled to our opinions, but it doesn't mean that everyone else has to accept or like them. Why do we only have freedom of speech as long as it's nice?

As for staying on topic (:)), if you didn't read the whole thread, then you have missed other responses that would possibly have been directly related to your own. I would think that they should be addressed, else you then have someone like me who will have to restate their position AGAIN, which gets very tiring. For example, I've commented on bathroom feeding and pumping with what I think were very good responses to those who suggest such things, and am frustrated that someone else couldn't take the time to address what I said simply because they feel their opinion is SO important that to read anyone else's is simply too much trouble.

Did I make any sense at all?

You did make sense. It is not that I thought my opinion was so righteous. I only wanted to address the recent threads without going after certain people by name. I am sure you may have had a great opst that could or could not have related to my original post. But I wasn't commenting on breatfeeding with these posts. I was only expressing what I saw to be an attack on someone else.

But I guess that is what a debate is.[/QUOTE]

We're really closer in thinking than I think you originally thought (oh geez, now I know that sounded screwy!). I think the only problem here was in distinguishing (?) a debate versus a general discussion. Sometimes I use a post simply as a jumping point to enter the debate/discussion, other times I'm responding directly to that poster's particular point. Still other times, I do what I'm doing now, which is kind of like you are, addressing other things that have come up along the way that are more off topic than on. I don't see anything wrong with THAT either, as long as we are able to get it back to the topic without much problem. Sometimes I think it's fun and makes for a good break in the atmosphere, especially if it's gotten pretty "hot". Either way, it's not usually meant to be personal, even when responding directly to a particular poster. Again, I'm having a really hard time explaining myself tonight. Ugh! I think I'll give up for tonight :lol:

i've heard of people getting kicked out and stuff for breastfeeding in public. that's just ridiculous. i live in New Mexico, and it's actually the law here to allow mothers to breastfeed in public. thats good cuz i have a baby due any day now.
if someone were to tell me to leave while i was feeding my baby, i'm sure my husband would sue them (he's sue-crazy).
i remember hearing from one lady, she said she was breastfeeding her baby in a restaurant, and a waiter asked her if she'd rather do that in the restroom. she responded by saying "do you eat in the restroom?" that is such a great response. =^_^=

i have always been pro breast feeding. it has way too many pros to not do it. i don't like how some women don't do it because they are afraid of what people will think. they weren't embarrassed to have a room full of people staring at their crotch in delivery, why should they be embarrassed about breast feeding? it is not like they have to take their tops off to do this... well depending on their top. just cover yourself with a rag or blanket of some sort and no one will see your breast.

This kind of contributes nothing to the topic. Just a general observation I saw earlier this weekend when I went to a chinese restaurant in town.

I was standing outside with my friends waiting on my cabbie to show up. I hear Zach say "Holy shit! That lady is breastfeeding and walking!" Myself and Diep just went "Damn, that is impressive. Wonder how her back feels after a day of doing that."
His jaw was just dropped, cause he isn't use to it. But it happens in most countries, just in North America it is shunned it as the devils apprentice.

Let's say I like my boyfriend to wear a dog collar when we have kinky, dirty sex.
Is that a sexual act?

Yes, yes it is, because it would turn me on to see him wearing a dog collar (lol). However, when I see a dog wearing a dog collar, I am not turned on. It is not sexual.

What does this mean?
That different things can imply different things in different contexts. A grown person sucking on a tit is sexual, just like a grown adult wearing a dog collar is sexual.
However, a baby sucking a breast to eat is not sexual, just like a dog wearing a dog collar is not sexual.

Are you starting to see how this works?

And of places where there is nowhere for a child to nurse, and they are in public? Let's say you are at a beach or a park. According to you, people are justified to get upset when a child is hungry and needs food, and if a mother feeds them, they are in the wrong. They are the one who needs to change their act. Well, when they don't have a bathroom or a secluded corner to feed the child in.
Should the child go hungry?


Alright, then. She didn't pump. She didn't buy expensive formula.
So, did the milk magically appear in your cousin's baby bottle?


"Ma'am, you cannot feed your child. Please go to the corner for about half an hour or never step outside until your child is old enough to be odd breast milk. Please make sure your breasts cause you pain because of the lactating. Other people will feel odd when your child needs to eat."
Sounds like a penalty to me.

How in the world is taking food from a place you're not supposed to go like feeding an infant? How is taking a shit in a hallway anything like making sure your child is nourished?

There is always a more discreet location. I'll address the other stuff later because I have the same response to both.


She got formula. I never said anything about her not having formula. My point was, she used formula for the few hours she was in public, and it didn't affect the baby.


Seriously, do you even have children? It's not like there's a magic switch for breastmilk and babies. They don't get hungry for one second and one second only, so if they are not fed in one second we might as well just kill them. And, as I already said, mom's don't feed their babies at the drop of a hat at home either, they'll usually finish something they are doing first, which could take a few minutes.

Also, babies have pretty regular schedules, maybe not down to the minute, but fairly regular. The mom can schedule their outings appropriately or make better plans for having to feed in public, when there is not a big enough window between feeding times. Mom's bring diapers, extra clothes, and a bunch of other stuff for their babies because they are prepared to take care of the babies needs properly and effectively.

Other people have rights too. Babies rights don't come before all others, especially when the babies rights can be satisfied in a way that also satisfies other peoples rights.


Are you kidding me? Do you really not understand the analogies? I'm really not trying to be mean, but can you really not see the correlation.

Why aren't we supposed to go there?
We have a right to eat.
Babies have a right to eat.
We can't eat in a resteraunt kitchen because it disturbs the people in the kitchen and in the resteraunt.
Babies shouldn't be able to eat out in the open because it would disturb the people around him/her.
We have to take certain measures that may be uncomfortable for the sake of politeness, like waiting 30 minutes or more at a resteraunt to be fed no matter how hungry we are. Moms and their babies should have to take certain precautions for the sake of politeness, too. They are certainly included in the laws of freedom, but they are not above them.

There's a vast difference between getting directly in the way of people functioning and just making them uncomfortable. People have rights, but those rights do not include the right to not be offended.

What does that have to do with anything? :| They are entitled to their opinions. I know many mothers who fully support public breastfeeding. That you know three who don't contributes nothing to the discussion.

Because I have seen the word "Natural" mentioned so much, I decided to restate a quote I saw in another thread.

Just because something is natural, does not make it morally accepted, whether it is due to our upbringings are not. In the end, if we can state that this is "natural", so it must be accepted, we must also allow every other natural event to occur wherever the person pleases right? It's only fair.

We aren't getting in the way of their basic function to be fed except to say that the moms have to be better prepared.

Again, Babies DON'T die or lose any health from having to wait a few minutes. It is a fairly common occurance if you have ever taken care of a baby; you can't do everything a baby needs the instant it needs it. They will be perfectly fine if they have to wait just a few minutes.

And, it is the mom's responsibility to better prepare for the babies needs. It is not fair for the public that the mom have to be inappropriate with breastfeeding because they did not prepare to breastfeed their baby. They should know when a baby will need to eat and be ready to be considerate.

When a baby is crying during a movie, the mom is considerate enough to take the child out of the theater before attending to his or her needs.

But, mom's certainly aren't held to the same standards. We can't offend them by asking them not to offend us?

I was only voicing mothers opinions hear because there are probably not many others in this debate. This, below, is my main point:

Quote:

It is natural but so is sex and basically, excreting waste -yet we do not do either in public. There are places for it. It should be a private thing done away from public eye.

@ Goldenlici: You are a Goddess. I could not have said it better myself in my lifetime.

Just out of curiosity: if someone is deeply offended by glimpsing a nursing infant in public, won't they be just as offended if they see it in a bathroom?

...Or do we expect mothers to literally sit on the pot while they feed their infants?

That has nothing to do with what I said.

You argued that breastfeeding in public is somehow akin to going into the kitchen of a restaurant and eating in there. The two scenarios don't relate, however, because you're not allowed to eat in a kitchen because you would be getting in the way of people working. A woman breastfeeding doesn't get in anyone's way. Or, rather, if she does, she would be getting in the way just as much if she were bottlefeeding.

It's not about offense. It's about needlessly expecting them to do something in private that is just as easily done in public, solely for the reason that some people are offended. That alone is not good enough justification for policing someone's actions.

I'm glad you live in a lovely world where everyone can afford formula.


I don't have children, thank you.
And I never said that there is some magical switch. In fact, I didn't even remotely imply it. If you'll stop putting words in my mouth, that would be great. I realize that they don't feed children at once. I know that.

But you know what? Things like eating dinner take longer than a few minutes. If a woman is at a restaurant and her child is crying, she cannot finish her dinner in a moment and then feed her child. And even if it would only take ten minutes, do you understand how these same people who are bitching about a woman feeding her child would bitch about how they can't get their child to be quiet.

So, you know what? I think a baby crying loudly because a mother is being told that she'll have to let the food she paid for go cold so she can feed her kid in some secluded corner (which is also rude to her company) is more distracting than a baby eating and only making a few prudes get squeamish.

Yes, thank you for filling us all in.
You know what? Sometimes it can't be helped. Let's say a woman has to go get her child's birth certificate at an office at a scheduled time. Her child is (obviously) very young and the time was scheduled when her child needs to eat. The office is very quiet, and the baby gets hungry. The baby begins to scream and disturb the whole office.
Now, the entire office can be disturbed, or the one prude against children eating in public can be the only one disturbed and the office go on as usual.
Which sounds like a more responsible mother - the one who will continue to let the child cry and make everyone upset, or the one who will breastfeed and make one person bitch about how babies need food.

Except, you have to eat. You need it to live. Do you have to complain about every time you see a part of human anatomy?
Besides, both can't always be satisfied.

Your analogies make no sense. That is why I asked you to explain them.
If you can't do that, perhaps you shouldn't be debating.

Except, you have no right to trespass. You can always go to another restaurant. You could always go home.
Where will the baby go? The next breastmilk bar?
Besides that, you can prevent people from doing their job if you trespass. A baby eating will not stop anyone else from doing anything at all.

Not releasing breastmilk for some time can cause the woman pain - real, physical pain. Not a tight-ass complaint. Having to make a baby wait for five or ten minutes for food will disturb everyone in a room. It can also hurt the child to have to wait that long to feed, if done often enough.

No one is saying that the mother and child are above anything, but that there needs to be flexibility in the law and that prudes and people's discomfort should not always be catered to. If there is not flexibility in the law, then there would be problems. And you know what? A baby's health and a woman's physical comfort are more important than a few people's nosy inability to turn their heads.

Analogies are a perfectly logical argument. You can't say that analogies don't matter because they don't support you point.

The two things relate because we are talking about a person's (adult or baby) requirement to feed and when and how it is acceptable. It is not acceptable for adults to blow off every person around them to satisfy a need. A baby should not have that right either. It is the responsibility of the mother to make sure that the baby does not disturb other people.

No, because bottle feeding does not involve exposing a woman's private parts. Have you ever lifted up your shirt in public to scratch an itch near your breasts? Your not exposing your breast for sexual reasons. Your just dealing with a discomfort. What else should be allowed because it is a bit more comfortable?


How can it not be about offense when you clearly said: This entire debate is about who should be uncomfortable: a mother or the public? There are ways for a mother to avoid making the public uncomfortable, but the only way for the public to void making the mother uncomfortable is to leave a place that is designed for the public to use not for individuals to use for their personal use. Taking care of a baby means you have to be responsible for that baby and make sure it does not cause trouble for others. Breastfeeding is the mom's responsibility not the public's.

And I haven't. Stop beating up strawmen.


And the reason and extent to which it disturbs other people varies greatly between the two scenarios. You cannot work when someone is in your way in a confined, crowded, busy area like a restaurant kitchen. There is no comparison to be made between that and a woman breastfeeding unless she is physically getting in your way.

Where have I said I don't think such should be allowed? Again with the strawmen.

Because we're talking about the people are being most affected by the ban or lack thereof. In that case, it has nothing to do with "offending" them by making them feed their babies in private rather than public.

Well, what about racists who are uncomfortable seeing a mixed couple walking together in public? Or those who think tattoos and piercings are an abomination? We cannot and generally do not cater to people's individual comfort levels. It simply isn't practical. Once again, you cannot police people's behavior when it cannot possibly harm or even inconvenience you unless you want other people who may be very uncomfortable with something you do that you consider completely normal to do the same.

To Philomel: Your argument is pretty much coinciding with Kris, so I am just going to use Kris's argument. I just happened to write that one first and I think she covered a wider range of what I am talking about.

Oh please, don't go there. Babies are expensive. Mom's and Dad's know that. Formula isn't that expensive. Mom's don't just not buy diapers because they are expensive. And, again, I'm not against breastfeeding as long as it is done away from the center of a public place.

You did say it was important for a child to be fed right then right there. That is the whole basis of your argument.
It does not hurt a baby to have to wait ten minutes. How many children have you taken care of? Besides, didn't you just say above: So, which did you really mean?

Those are both the mother's responsibility. When a child cries, the mother will take him/her out of the room to take care of it. Why should breast feeding be more important than cleaning a diaper or giving him/her a bath orsinging it a lullaby or any or the other things children need? I think, if anything, mom's should be even more considerate when it comes to breastfeeding because it does involve exposing her breast while the others don't.

So it is okay for a mother's dinner not to be disturbed, but other people's dinner can be disturbed by the mom. The mother is the one with the responsibility for that child. Mom's know they will have to give up dinners, regular sleep, and all sorts of other thins when they have a child, but it is the mom who has to deal with those things, not the public.

Like I already said, if it can't be avoided, the mother should be prepared to deal with the feeding discreetly.

Yes. Quite simply, it is the etiquette of our society to cover our private parts. If you don't like it, move to a nudist colony.

It is not the job of the person who makes the analogy to explain it. You should be capable of drawing the analogies yourself. I have no problem elaborating if you have a point of misunderstanding, but I don't have to explain it the first time around. I expected the analogy to be simple enough. You really should stop arguing that I am wrong simply because I used an analogy.

I don't even get what you are talking about with the trespassing. A restaurant is a public place.
The mom can go home; the mom can leave the restaurant. The mom is the one responsible for the life of that child, so she is the one who has to deal with the consequences of having that child.


Flexibility? So I should be allowed to walk around without pants so I don't have to go through the process of taking them off when I have to use the restroom. I should be allowed to go over to another person's table and take their food because I am hungry and it is uncomfortable to be hungry.

THIS.

You have never taken care of a baby, or you'd know that babies don't sleep, eat, or poop with any sort of schedule (notwithstanding that there's usually a pretty solid interval between eating and pooping, but if eating isn't scheduled, pooping is just as not-scheduled). "Rhythm" is something that develops with age.

This statement is unfathomable! I don't even know what to say to this, except this is completely unrealistic. If I haven't eaten in three days, you can be damned sure that I will blow off something to go eat. I "blow off" parts of my class lectures to go use the bathroom. I've blown off classes to make sure I get an adequate amount of sleep. I blew off parts of my job when my grandfather died to go be with my family 120 miles away. I bet you think I'm a terrible person, don't you?

Well I guess it's safe to say you've never been pregnant either. Two problems: 1) You can scratch your breast through your shirt. You can't feed a baby through your shirt. 2) Lactation goes a little beyond "discomfort." Lactation is painful.

Uh, they kindof do. Moms on a budget will opt for cloth, washable, reusable diapers. My parents did. And my mother breastfed me. Because it's less painful and less expensive.

Because it's unhygenic to change a diaper in the middle of a restaurant and then eat off of that same surface. Breastfeeding has nothing to do with the hygene of others.

The definition of "private parts" differs from culture to culture, and I have proposed several times that we should change our society so that female breasts are no longer included in our definition of "private parts." Is that so wrong?

Yes, it is your job to explain it. Also, she asked you after "the first time around" and you have still refused. What is the issue? Why don't you just explain it instead of parrying requests to do so? I don't need you to explain it for my own benefit, I'm just wondering why you don't do it.

No, a restaurant is not a public place, it is privately owned. As such, the owner of the restaurant can make any rules he or she wants that do not conflict with any applicable laws. The owner can have you removed from the restaurant if you violate any of its rules (such as entering restricted access areas like kitchens or a loading dock, or showing up without a shirt or shoes).

So, if the mom is visiting San Francisco, but lives in Houston, she should fly all the way back just to feed her child? My guess is that you'll tell her not to travel.