Breast Feeding in Public:Yay or Nay? (Poll Added)

[AiliailiA]

To equate the excretion of milk for the nourishment of a baby, with excretion of waste which nobody wants, is quite dishonest. "Bodily functions" you call it.

Well I could just as easily say that talking with your mouth is a "bodily function". You should not talk where others can hear you, because that's just like taking a dump on the sidewalk.

It isn't dishonest, it's accurate enough.

No, it's the fallacy of equivocation. Because you can find one phrase which covers both breastfeeding and defecation you try to treat both the same (as something obscene to be done in private).

Excretion of waste and nourishing your child are both necessary functions, but that doesn't give one license to subject others to the sight of it. Use a bathroom, or other secluded area. Or better yet, just use a baby bottle in the latter case.

Ironic how you claim I made a dishonest comparison, and then go on to equate speaking with defacation.

That's exactly the point. The phrase "bodily functions" does cover speaking ... or a better example someone else had which I should have used instead: breathing. It's a necessary bodily function so by your logic it should be treated the same as a child's need to feed, or any person's need to defecate.

You made a false equality (between feeding and defecation) and I extended it under the term "bodily function" precisely to demonstrate to you how faulty that reasoning is.

[Scottstan]

Because it's okay for YOU to impose your wants on them, but not for their needs to impose on you?

What I have suggested is that mothers satisfy the needs of their babies in a way that is sensitive to the wants of others. Is that not a fair compromise?

[Drobak]

Only if the mom is attractive. Or if the mother has great tits.

[New England and The Maritimes]

Because it's okay for YOU to impose your wants on them, but not for their needs to impose on you?

What I have suggested is that mothers satisfy the needs of their babies in a way that is sensitive to the wants of others. Is that not a fair compromise?

Black folks should get back in the fields and out of our white schools, they have to be sensitive to the wants of others you know.

[Farnhamia]

Because it's okay for YOU to impose your wants on them, but not for their needs to impose on you?

What I have suggested is that mothers satisfy the needs of their babies in a way that is sensitive to the wants of others. Is that not a fair compromise?

Sure. Perhaps they could go around to each table and ask, and then, if the majority of the people have no problem, they can breast-feed. Or maybe anyone who objects can get 5% off the cost of their meal.

[Norstal]

Do you get off to breastfeeding women? Cause, you know, everything can be "graphic arts". Even mastication.

What I get off to is neither here nor there. It's a generally agreed upon perception by upstanding people.

Not really. "Upstanding people" wouldn't get sexually aroused by breastfeeding mothers.

[AiliailiA]

Which is irrelevant. When breastfeeding mothers start shitting with their tits, I'll come leaping to your side of the argument.

To the Awesome Quotes Thread with this!

Why do babies have to eat where people shit, but no one else has to?
I am curious as to this.

I can't think of a single good reason for it.

Yes, that does indeed describe the logic of the average American liberal.

Except it's mostly Reich-wingers making up the Morality Police.

I'm guessing your name is from Harvey Milk ... but gee it looks funny in this context.

Because it's okay for YOU to impose your wants on them, but not for their needs to impose on you?

Obviously

I personally find breastfeeding not so pleasant. The idea of it is somewhat distasteful to me.

You know what I think is more disgusting or distasteful? The idea of a baby eating in a toilet.

That's good. There are all sorts of things we don't enjoy the sight or sound of (I don't like piercings for instance) but simply have to tolerate because they matter more to the other person than they do to us.

"Not really anyone else's business" is a good rule of thumb for whether something is a right.

[AiliailiA]

What I have suggested is that mothers satisfy the needs of their babies in a way that is sensitive to the wants of others. Is that not a fair compromise?

Sure. Perhaps they could go around to each table and ask, and then, if the majority of the people have no problem, they can breast-feed. Or maybe anyone who objects can get 5% off the cost of their meal.

People should have to ask the permission of the other patrons before ordering anything smelly. Like meat for instance.

[Farnhamia]

Sure. Perhaps they could go around to each table and ask, and then, if the majority of the people have no problem, they can breast-feed. Or maybe anyone who objects can get 5% off the cost of their meal.

People should have to ask the permission of the other patrons before ordering anything smelly. Like meat for instance.

Well, I like meat, but I see your point. Maybe each restaurant should hand out applications. Some people might not qualify to eat in certain places.

[Saint Jade IV]

Because it's okay for YOU to impose your wants on them, but not for their needs to impose on you?

What I have suggested is that mothers satisfy the needs of their babies in a way that is sensitive to the wants of others. Is that not a fair compromise?

Breastfeeding mothers are sensitive to my wants. My want is that mothers care appropriately for their children and do what is best.

I find breastfeeding personally distasteful. I find it more distasteful that you would ask women to feed their babies somewhere that you would not reasonably eat yourself.

I personally find it distasteful that parents even bring their children to restaurants where I am eating. Should parents be barred from bringing their children out, in order to be sensitive to my wants?

[Dyakovo]

Maybe by prudes...
All breast-feeding is is a mother feeding her child. Nothing graphic about that at all.

Regardless of whether or not you feel it's prudish, the society at large (at least in the US) outside of the hyper-permissive NationStates community dislikes it being done openly and on display. And in this certain case, I don't think it's a huge sacrifice on the part of the mother to be considerate of others. In other cultures, they have a different experience with it. Cool for them. Don't do it here.

I don't think it's too much for people to get over their feelings of disgust about the human body. Don't want to watch a woman feeding her child in the healthiest way possible? Don't watch.

[Dyakovo]

Do you get off to breastfeeding women? Cause, you know, everything can be "graphic arts". Even mastication.

What I get off to is neither here nor there. It's a generally agreed upon perception by upstanding people.

[Milks Empire]

STRANGE, ISN'T IT?
Actually, that's just something that MSNBC has told you. It's not really true. There are two conflicting planes of morality, one espoused by the Republicans, and the other pushed forward by the Democrats. And I say planes from a geometric perspective, in that they only intersect along one line: that their way is the only correct way, and that everyone who opposes that should die

Except I'm not a Democrat or a liberal, and MSNBC is corporate-owned and therefore just as much full of shit as Fox. Try again.

What I have suggested is that mothers satisfy the needs of their babies in a way that is sensitive to the wants of others. Is that not a fair compromise?

Black folks should get back in the fields and out of our white schools, they have to be sensitive to the wants of others you know.

I'm guessing your name is from Harvey Milk ... but gee it looks funny in this context.

You would be incorrect.

[Egrek]

They're just breasts penises. Animals (except bonobos)don't have to cover their breasts penises , so I don't see why they should be covered even if they're doing their purpose (feeding infants urinating). The taboo around breastspenises is ridiculous sensible if you ask me, as all they are are milk suppliers sewage pipes disposing of filthy waste.

Fixed, in the hopes that you understand.

Fixed, again, and yay for breast feading in public and for being modest about it.

[AiliailiA]

Regardless of whether or not you feel it's prudish, the society at large (at least in the US) outside of the hyper-permissive NationStates community dislikes it being done openly and on display. And in this certain case, I don't think it's a huge sacrifice on the part of the mother to be considerate of others. In other cultures, they have a different experience with it. Cool for them. Don't do it here.

You want to talk about the US then?

Forty-five states have laws specifically allowing public breastfeeding. Usually in the form "breastfeeding is permitted anywhere the woman can legally be"

Of the five states (Idaho, Michigan, South Dakota, Virginia and West Virginia) which do not have such laws, all but two have laws specifically exempting a breast-feeding mother from public indecency laws.

Source.

So don't say "at least in the US" when what you mean is "in West Virginia or Idaho" where 1% of the US population lives.

[AiliailiA]

I'm guessing your name is from Harvey Milk ... but gee it looks funny in this context.

You would be incorrect.

OK, I'm happy to have it remain a mystery. Mosasauria can be That Fish Guy and you can be That Milk Guy.

[Scottstan]

Really I wonder where you think a ban on breastfeeding is "generally agreed upon". According to Wikipedia even Saudi Fucking Arabia permits public breastfeeding.

Allow me to clarify. I didn't say, or else didn't mean to say that a ban on breastfeeding is generally agreed upon. From a legal standpoint, it is permissible under the law within most states in North America, and I wouldn't support legislation changing this since it would be pointless. I don't even consider it an issue of any great import beyond cultural mores, but I was asked why I didn't support it generally and I elaborated why.

I do find it bemusing that in Australia, the act of a male urinating on a wall or a bush is far more culturally acceptable than a mother feeding her child. So much more acceptable in fact, that males often will pee on fences and walls rather than walk a couple hundred metres to a toilet in many circumstances.

Hm. Well, I wouldn't question the cultural ways of Australians. If that is how they live, they can have at it. But I don't think it has to be the same here.

2. I do think it's disingenuous to equate breast-feeding with evacuating, as in, "As for why I am against it, as has been compared earlier, it's like peeing in a bush or on a wall out in public."

Personally, I think an infant won't perish if it gets a bottle of formula when its parents take it out for a night on the town (I know I always loved those times, the three of us going from club to club, partying until the dawn ... all the other kids said I had the really cool parents), but I find your tone in being "put upon" by a woman breast-feeding just a little ... pompous.

Well, I don't really feel like going in a circle back to that argument again, so I'll just agree to disagree . Sorry you find my tone pompous, but I try hard not to be a nuisance to other people as I go about my day-to-day business, I don't see why it's so evil that others do the same. And yet apparently, New England and the Maritimes feel that expecting a certain standard of behavior is like marginalizing black people.

Not really. "Upstanding people" wouldn't get sexually aroused by breastfeeding mothers.

It isn't a matter of arousal, it's of people having the decency of not performing bodily functions in public.

No, it's the fallacy of equivocation. Because you can find one phrase which covers both breastfeeding and defecation you try to treat both the same (as something obscene to be done in private).

This has already been addressed. They aren't just bodily functions, they are graphic as they entail the open exposure of body parts which are seen as needing to be covered up (boobs with breast-feeding, and the ass/dick when evacuating). It isn't a matter of "we only disallow public urination because it leaves waste", it's that PLUS people don't feel like staring at your hairy balls and dick while they are trying to eat, or walk their dog, or whatever.

[New England and The Maritimes]

If you've never seen a human breast before, I'm more concerned for your obviously strange childhood than I am about your precious icky feelings.

[Norstal]

It isn't a matter of arousal, it's of people having the decency of not performing bodily functions in public.

Where is the line drawn? Everything we do is a "bodily function". Oh, I suppose I can't whistle anymore because I have to use my mouth.

[Timurid Empire]

The world could always use more boobs.

But seriously, I am not against a mother nursing her child, tis what nature made them for!

[Farnhamia]

It isn't a matter of arousal, it's of people having the decency of not performing bodily functions in public.

Where is the line drawn? Everything we do is a "bodily function". Oh, I suppose I can't whistle anymore because I have to use my mouth.

You can whistle, but not with that pursed lips thing. Disgusting.

[Norstal]

Where is the line drawn? Everything we do is a "bodily function". Oh, I suppose I can't whistle anymore because I have to use my mouth.

You can whistle, but not with that pursed lips thing. Disgusting.

You call that disgusting? Well...you're sweating! That's even worse!

[Transbalkania (Ancient)]

Only if the mom is attractive. Or if the mother has great tits.

Ahahahah.

[Saint Jade IV]

I do find it bemusing that in Australia, the act of a male urinating on a wall or a bush is far more culturally acceptable than a mother feeding her child. So much more acceptable in fact, that males often will pee on fences and walls rather than walk a couple hundred metres to a toilet in many circumstances.

Hm. Well, I wouldn't question the cultural ways of Australians. If that is how they live, they can have at it. But I don't think it has to be the same here.

I'll bet that you can find areas of the US that are the same.

Its bemusing to me that an act which has the best interests of another human being at heart is less culturally acceptable than male urination in public.

They aren't just bodily functions, they are graphic as they entail the open exposure of body parts which are seen as needing to be covered up (boobs with breast-feeding, and the ass/dick when evacuating). It isn't a matter of "we only disallow public urination because it leaves waste", it's that PLUS people don't feel like staring at your hairy balls and dick while they are trying to eat, or walk their dog, or whatever.

I don't know how you picture breastfeeding, but usually the boob is more covered than by most dresses that the young people like to wear nowadays. A breastfeeding mother has no need to actually remove her entire shirt, and unless she is an exhibitionist I doubt she would.

Seriously, what is your hang up with boobs? I don't get what is so scary about them...

[Scottstan]

Where is the line drawn? Everything we do is a "bodily function". Oh, I suppose I can't whistle anymore because I have to use my mouth.

The thing is that I think you're over-generalizing the term after I said it. I felt it would have been clear that bodily functions in this case refer to acts that you normally wouldn't flaunt in public. But Dyakovo has this problem as well. He thinks eating and shitting/breast-feeding/probably everything is in the same field, since they are all "bodily functions" and therefore there are no distinctions drawn. By this argument, one could lobby for public masturbation. After all, one is fulfilling a "natural" function, and one can simply "look away" if they don't like it. If legislation was passed which enabled it, would you automatically just line up with it?