The Breastfeeding Debate

Breastfeeding in public: Is it okay?

Yes. It's natural.	49.0%	[ 48 ]
No. Use a bottle if you're out in public.	11.2%	[ 11 ]
As long as a blanket/nursing shirt is used, I'm fine with it.	32.7%	[ 32 ]
Indifferent.	3.1%	[ 3 ]
TL;DR (Gold)	4.1%	[ 4 ]
Total Votes:			[ 98 ]

[Aven Loreli]

daChaosKitty

GuardianCentauri

I don't think it's fair to assume that everyone who chooses not to have children are selfish snobs or something like that. Perhaps some are, but in general I think that different people have different goals in life, different things that they want, different personalities, different lives that they envision living in the future, etc.

On the other hand, if part of this was sort of a reactionary response to some of the commentary in this thread that makes all children sound like some kind of horrible plague, then I sympathize. I've never wanted to have children myself, but I don't usually think badly of other people's kids or get judgmental or look down on others who have choosen to start a family. If that's what they want to do and is part of what makes them happy, then that's great. And besides, just because some of us choose not to have our own children doesn't mean we can't at least take some partial responsibility for others' children at times, like with extended family and society as a whole by supporting measures in government and in business that are family-friendly. ^^

I'm not suggesting that they're snobs. I'm suggesting that they're privileged. Not some, most, choose not to have children because they don't want to give up their lives like that. They don't like children for, generally, frivolous reasons. I've also found that most child-free people are only child-free for so long. Eventually, they, for lack of a better term, grow out of it, their biological clock starts ticking, or something.

It's not just reactionary to some of the responses here, but also vile, vitriolic hatred-spewing child-free types I've run into, prior, who call children "crotch droppings," "crotch fruit," "sprogs," "t**t turds," etc., refer to women with breastfed children, derisively, as "moos," and expect women with children to basically stay in the house to take care of them, because heaven forbid that children, or their mothers, ever see the light of day, let alone with each other. Forget "seen and not heard," anymore, children are expected not to be seen, period. And, this is purely a societal thing. The difference can be seen, especially, when you compare first-world societies with industrial, or third-world. Hell, the difference can be seen if you go through different, local, cultural circles. Children, at the middle, and higher (sans Hollywood), rungs of society, are often viewed as, potentially necessary, inconveniences. For example, childfree.net:

Quote:

We consider ourselves childFREE - free of the loss of personal freedom, money, time and energy that having children requires.

Sounds selfish to me.

I'm not suggesting all people who don't want children are privileged, but a majority are and just don't want children to screw up their precious plans. Children are "accidents," very often. My best friend's reasoning was family problems, and whatnot. She has recently changed her mind, however. Me? I've always been "mothering." In the end, I usually just resign myself to what I said, before. People who don't want children are just bloodlines that are intended to die.

On the other hand, children are part of life. I hate when people try to do away with them like they're something dirty, or evil, or disgusting. Like they're basically s**t, to be quarantined off to their own little corner of the cosmos until they come of age.

Quote:

Not some, most, choose not to have children because they don't want to give up their lives like that. They don't like children for, generally, frivolous reasons.

Once again, how is that bad or selfish?

I want to travel and get my career started. I can't do that if I have a kid I need to focus on.

Being an artist who's very much into character design/storyboarding/animation, a child would be too much for me to handle right now and be able to concentrate and/or meet deadlines.

It'd be SELFISH of me to have a kid right now, on horrid financial means and then to ignore it for periods of time as I work on my art projects.

Not to mention I have a short fuse and I like yell at annoying things that happen constantly. That'd be bad for a child.

Plus, I have NO intention of being a stay at home mom, which, for a period of time, I'd be and I HATE being cooped up like that.

I lose all kinds of motivations that way and get very meh and kind of depressed, to a certain extent.

A child doesn't need that.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Keltoi Samurai

Suicidesoldier#1

Love Muffin88

Suicidesoldier#1

daChaosKitty

Suicidesoldier#1

Right, but butt's aren't even remotely sexual, but are seen as such.

At least boobs have a sexual based purpose.

Don't butts have some proto connection to sex from when humans were knuckle draggers? Additionally, a larger butt, when placed with a smaller waist, suggests sexual fertility in a female.

Well boobs and stuff but yeah, wide hips do usually indicate healthy uterus's but, I'm not sure that knuckle dragging had much to do with it. O_o

Otherwise they are completely non-sexual by themselves.

That reminds me of when my grandpa told me that I had "child baring hips" redface

Your Grandpa? O_o

Is there anything illegal I need to report...?

just because something creepy's going on, don't mean it's also illegal

I'm not sure that's entirely accurate.

[Gopher dude]

Whats there to debate about?


You make milk.
You have hungry babies.
You apply baby directly to swollen n****e.
You now have less milk and a filled baby.


DAS ALL THERE IS TOO IT.

[chinchinchiller]

Keltoi Samurai

princess_pillow

Do you think breastfeeding women should be forced to go to a public restroom to feed their child?
Yes.

that's disgusting

I'm really hoping that they misread the question, especially given their other answers. If not... mad

[Keltoi Samurai]

Gopher dude

Whats there to debate about?


You make milk.
You have hungry babies.
You apply baby directly to swollen n****e.
You now have less milk and a filled baby.


DAS ALL THERE IS TOO IT.

it's like basic thermodynamics, in a way.

y'know, like how heat transfers from a body with lots of heat, into a body with less heat, until equilibrium is reached. likewise, the milk moves from the body with an abundance of milk, into the body that is lacking in milk.

[daChaosKitty]

Ms Ragnarok

TBH, I think you have a bit of a weird idea of selfish.
"Childfree people are extremely selfish because when they're old and decrepit the state will have to take care of them."
"Having children is good because I will have my children and grandchildren to take care of me when I'm old and decrepit."
Having children in hopes to ensure someone will take care of you as you die seems just as selfish as not having a child because you enjoy your childfree lifestyle. In my opinion it's more selfish to have children to (eventually) burden them with your dying self as opposed to just not having a child to burden. (Or at least seeing them as that type of investment is very selfish in nature.)
Might just be fair to say that everyone is extremely selfish. cat_smile

Well, the question is to be a burden to one's own, or to be a burden to... well... everyone? I, personally, never viewed the thought of taking care of my parents as a "burden." But, some people do, which is why I used the term. In fact, I look at it, possibly, as penance, should they ever come to live with me and live by my rules.

I tend to go by definition:
1: concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself

[daChaosKitty]

GuardianCentauri

The very existence of people who don't feel a desire to have children up to the day they die is evidence that the notion of a biological clock, or at least that it exists in 100% of the population, is perhaps a myth.

Which is why I pointed out that most grow out of it, not all. I try to use modifiers, because this isn't a black and white issue.

I also brought up the eugenics, because in its infancy, that is what being child-free led to. The feminists who were going out for votes, going to school, and whatnot, were faced with the fact that the minorities were procreating more than the privileged, instead of going with the idea that they have more children, they supported the idea of sterilizing people. Obviously, that isn't really viewed as an issue, today, but, there are some white people who still hold that belief, who believe that the white people are doomed to die out because they're not procreating at replacement rate. Which, is probably true. But, that's their choice.

GuardianCentauri

I totally agree with you that those are pretty horrible terms for children. However, I honestly only rarely ever hear anyone say them, and most people would probably agree with you that they are vile descriptions.

I'm also not seeing where this widespread hatred of children in society is. Are there certain places and people who view them unfavourably? Yes, of course. Is much of the corporate environment mostly unsupportive of parenting and unsympathetic to their needs? Yes, unfortunately. But most people aside from stuff like that? No, I don't think so. Maybe it's my particular region's culture, but there are plenty of children around, and I far more often hear and see people playing with them or even just smiling upon seeing them rather than some vitriolic response.

Granted, the corporate structure has a vast influence on the lives of parents and their ability to be parents with any level of ease, so that's a barrier for those wanting to balance parenting with work that needs to be amended greatly.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.childfree/topics
I like to know what's out there.
Child-free restaurants are popping up, child-free cruises, child-free flights, child-"free" well... many places. And of course you don't see the response in public. The people who feel this way know it's unacceptable, and that, in general, they're outnumbered. I don't know about any other mothers here, but I am certainly disgusted with the idea of being thought of as a "moo," just as much as I'm disgusted with the idea of being thought of as a "s**c," or having my daughters thought of as "sprogs," or whatever term of favor they happen to hold.

GuardianCentauri

Actually, it simply sounds like a statement of their personal desires to me. Why should they be criticized for choosing not to have children? I think it can only be viewed as selfish if you have a warped perspective that everyone must have children out of some kind of obligation or duty. neutral

It's not the sentiment, itself, that's offensive. I have no issue with people who choose to avoid having children. I have opinions about some of them, sure. But, the delivery of that statement. It's essentially, "I choose not to have children because they're little leeches on time, money, etc." The underlying message behind it is just as offensive.

GuardianCentauri

I think lots of people can be subjectively considered priviledged in lots of different ways, including people who do have children, either in ways that are not related to having children or are. It's far from black and white that those who are childless are priviledged and those who have children are not.

I can't speak for everyone, but to me, a totally unplanned pregnancy being considered an "accident" is because children are precious. Children require a vast amount of responsibility, commitment, time, money, etc., so parenting isn't something that should be chosen by just anyone on a whim. People shouldn't be guilt-tripped into attempting parenting when they don't really want it or are unsure of it. In such a case, it's not even just about the person themselves; a person who isn't ready or totally willing to become a parent may not make a very good one if they're not responsible enough or commited enough to handle the task for decades of their life, which has an impact on the child that we both agree is precious and should be treated as such.

I think of pets similarly. Some people get pets because they think it's cool, but then they neglect them or even treat them cruelly or abandon them when they lose interest, which is awful. It needs to be carefully thought out beforehand, and the person must be commited to taking care of the animal for the rest of its life until the day it dies.

Regarding the "just bloodlines that are intended to die" part, I won't argue on the genetic side of things. Obviously if an organism doesn't produce offspring, they won't pass on their genetic information. However, it's the "just" part that I disagree with. A person who doesn't have children may go on to do things in their career that has an impact on those around them or possibly even on society as a whole. They may also play a supportive role within their extended family that can include things like sometimes being a trusted babysitter for another family member who had children, which can be a positive benefit for both the parent and the child. Granted, this is becoming less common as more and more families find themselves separated via culture's more recent emphasis on the nuclear family over the extended family, sadly.

Well, it would be nice if maiden aunts had a bigger role in the world than they do. My mother has a maiden aunt, who is currently the matriarch of our family. Nothing wrong with it. Yes, they may impact their family, but beyond a couple generations after they die, what impact would they have? Additionally, the people who choose to not have children may go on and do something great. But, that's an extremely remote possibility.

GuardianCentauri

Agreed.
EDIT:
Oh, one other thing I wanted to add was that I hope you're careful about distinguishing who out there was actually able to make the choice not to have children. Some people who are childless weren't able to for biological reasons of course, and any mention of "choice" to them might be a very painful thing. sweatdrop

Oh, most definitely. I have nothing but sympathy for those who can't biologically have children of their own. And really? I'm not just talking about having children of one's own, but adoption as well. Adopting a child can be a wonderful, beautiful thing to do. To let a child know that they're wanted, when they might think that no one does. It's even more noble, in ways, than having your own. Because there are often biological drives that help us become attached to our own offspring, but we have little actual drive in us to do so with other children.

As an aside... DAMN this is a big post. >_<

[daChaosKitty]

Aven Loreli

And wanting to do things for oneself or your partner is some how.....bad?

Since when is that a bad thing?

I'd find it MUCH more selfish to continue to do that s**t when one HAS kids than to do that when one DOESN'T.

That runs the risk of neglecting a child.

Maybe those women and men know this about themselves and decide to NOT have kids so they don't run that risk. Or they just don't like kids. Simple as that.

That's remarkably UNselfish, IMO.

And as I suggested, we're all free to our opinions.

[daChaosKitty]

Aven Loreli

I want to travel and get my career started. I can't do that if I have a kid I need to focus on.

Being an artist who's very much into character design/storyboarding/animation, a child would be too much for me to handle right now and be able to concentrate and/or meet deadlines.

It'd be SELFISH of me to have a kid right now, on horrid financial means and then to ignore it for periods of time as I work on my art projects.

Not to mention I have a short fuse and I like yell at annoying things that happen constantly. That'd be bad for a child.

Plus, I have NO intention of being a stay at home mom, which, for a period of time, I'd be and I HATE being cooped up like that.

I lose all kinds of motivations that way and get very meh and kind of depressed, to a certain extent.

A child doesn't need that.

1. Wanting to travel is a silly reason not to. People can travel with children, and do, every day. One of my aunts, even after having children, took trips to Europe almost yearly.

2. Wanting to get your career off the ground is a valid reason to put it off, if nothing else. Being unfit to be a parent is a good reason not to have children. Hopefully, you'll leave a legacy of art to outlast your life. But, the chances of that actually happening are slim. Particularly in animation. There are few Walt Disneys, Glen Keanes, or Don Bluths.

3. As for being a stay-at-home mom, staying at home doesn't mean you can't work. There's this nifty thing in the advent of telecommuting called, "work-at-home" moms.

But, if you don't want kids, that's your deal. As I said, we all have our opinions.

[Aven Loreli]

daChaosKitty

Aven Loreli

I want to travel and get my career started. I can't do that if I have a kid I need to focus on.

Being an artist who's very much into character design/storyboarding/animation, a child would be too much for me to handle right now and be able to concentrate and/or meet deadlines.

It'd be SELFISH of me to have a kid right now, on horrid financial means and then to ignore it for periods of time as I work on my art projects.

Not to mention I have a short fuse and I like yell at annoying things that happen constantly. That'd be bad for a child.

Plus, I have NO intention of being a stay at home mom, which, for a period of time, I'd be and I HATE being cooped up like that.

I lose all kinds of motivations that way and get very meh and kind of depressed, to a certain extent.

A child doesn't need that.

1. Wanting to travel is a silly reason not to. People can travel with children, and do, every day. One of my aunts, even after having children, took trips to Europe almost yearly.

2. Wanting to get your career off the ground is a valid reason to put it off, if nothing else. Being unfit to be a parent is a good reason not to have children. Hopefully, you'll leave a legacy of art to outlast your life. But, the chances of that actually happening are slim. Particularly in animation. There are few Walt Disneys, Glen Keanes, or Don Bluths.

3. As for being a stay-at-home mom, staying at home doesn't mean you can't work. There's this nifty thing in the advent of telecommuting called, "work-at-home" moms.

But, if you don't want kids, that's your deal. As I said, we all have our opinions.

Well, good for your aunt. SHE can balance that. But not everyone is like your aunt. Not everyone can handle the kind of balance and sacrifice that's needed to have a child AND travel at the same time.

Stop using people like that as some evidence that EVERYONE can do it. That simply isn't true.

But what I'm getting at is how. is. that. selfish?

You've been stuck on the selfish thing, mainly because I think you're too blinded by your OWN kid/children that you can't/don't/won't see any other view on it.

Wanting to be YOUR OWN SELF and not being tied down to anything but YOU isn't selfish. That's just being human and one's own self.

A Child is NOT needed to make any one person's life fulfilled or have more meaning.

Every individual person has MANY a thing that make their lives have meaning and fulfilled, and for many of those people, just having a partner is enough. Or just having a job. Or just being single. Or just traveling. Or just disappearing from everyone and being completely alone.

It'd be unfair to THEM and any offspring they have if they were forced to have kids to, supposedly, make that life "less selfish" or "meaningful." In those situations, there'd be nothing but resentment and no child needs that in their life.

THAT, would be SELFISH.

[ID Namarra]

Quote:

Is breastfeeding in public acceptable?

Yes

Quote:

How do you react when you see a woman breastfeeding in public?

I would find it endearing but would give her privacy by looking elsewhere.

Quote:

If a woman does breastfeed in public, do you believe she should make use of a blanket, or a nursing shirt?

Not at all; it's a bonding experience for both mother and child in which breasts are far from being the sexual things men make them out to be.

Quote:

Do you think breastfeeding women should be forced to go to a public restroom to feed their child?

Definatly not (I would think a vast majority of people agrees by now but I'm an idealist I guess).

*Purposedly posts this randomly in order to get back to topic while avoiding any type of involvment in other people's bickering*

[daChaosKitty]

Aven Loreli

Well, good for your aunt. SHE can balance that. But not everyone is like your aunt. Not everyone can handle the kind of balance and sacrifice that's needed to have a child AND travel at the same time.

Stop using people like that as some evidence that EVERYONE can do it. That simply isn't true.

But what I'm getting at is how. is. that. selfish?

You've been stuck on the selfish thing, mainly because I think you're too blinded by your OWN kid/children that you can't/don't/won't see any other view on it.

Wanting to be YOUR OWN SELF and not being tied down to anything but YOU isn't selfish. That's just being human and one's own self.

A Child is NOT needed to make any one person's life fulfilled or have more meaning.

Every individual person has MANY a thing that make their lives have meaning and fulfilled, and for many of those people, just having a partner is enough. Or just having a job. Or just being single. Or just traveling. Or just disappearing from everyone and being completely alone.

It'd be unfair to THEM and any offspring they have if they were forced to have kids to, supposedly, make that life "less selfish" or "meaningful." In those situations, there'd be nothing but resentment and no child needs that in their life.

THAT, would be SELFISH.

Hmm, it would appear that we're getting defensive.

Really, anyone can do whatever they put their mind to. If people don't want to put the effort into it, well, then you get hopeless housewives whose entire lives revolve around their family. You'd be surprised what you can do if you put your mind to it.

Now, how is it selfish?

Selfish:
: concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure.
: exclusive regard to one's own interest or happiness
: chiefly concerned with one's own interest, advantage, etc

Concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure, refusing the "inconvenience" of a child because they are viewed as such. Exclusive regard to one's own interest or happiness, "I want to be my own self, not tied down to anyone but myself." To use your words, also an example of being chiefly concerned with one's own interest, advantage, etc. So, my use of the word is not wholly inappropriate, it just happens to be a word that you dislike.

Now, it is also selfish having a child when you know that they'll likely have some sort of genetic disorder, be mentally handicapped, and so on. In spite of understanding of such things. But, love is a selfish thing, be it love of self, love of children, love of significant others, etc.

As I have said, you're free to your choices, and I'm free to my opinions. Now... how to tie this back into breast feeding... ah yes, some people would suggest it's selfish to feed a child in public at the sacrifice of others' discomfort. However, as it is not a mother's concern for her self that is driving her to want to feed the child, but her concern for a baby, it really isn't selfish.

[Keltoi Samurai]

[******** stupid. People look down on women who don't breastfeed because they are being "selfish" yet get all ******** offended if women breastfeed in public. LOGICAL RIGHT?

******** it. It's not hurting anyone but a bunch of uppity classist white folks (most likely) who think it's "bad taste", God forbid.
And I really don't have any ******** to give to a bunch of uppity classist white folks.

y'know, not everything's about white people.

other'n that, I agree.