Welcome to Gaia! ::

Breastfeeding in public: Is it okay?

Yes. It's natural. 0.48453608247423 48.5% [ 47 ]
No. Use a bottle if you're out in public. 0.11340206185567 11.3% [ 11 ]
As long as a blanket/nursing shirt is used, I'm fine with it. 0.32989690721649 33.0% [ 32 ]
Indifferent. 0.030927835051546 3.1% [ 3 ]
TL;DR (Gold) 0.041237113402062 4.1% [ 4 ]
Total Votes:[ 97 ]
< 1 2 3 ... 15 16 17 >
Aven Loreli's avatar

Swashbuckling Dabbler

7,050 Points
  • Signature Look 250
  • Jolly Roger 50
  • Clambake 200
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.


Nope.

I give up on you.

You'll continue to think ill of child-free persons because you refuse to see THEIR side of things and you'll continue to think children make EVERYTHING BETTER EVER.

Wanting to start MY life and live it how I want, even if that means that it'll only be me and my partner, well, apparently, I'm some sort of "scum" in your eyes.

I have nothing left to say you.
daChaosKitty's avatar

Fashionable Genius

6,300 Points
  • Forum Explorer 100
  • Treasure Hunter 100
  • First step to fame 200
Aven Loreli
Nope.

I give up on you.

You'll continue to think ill of child-free persons because you refuse to see THEIR side of things and you'll continue to think children make EVERYTHING BETTER EVER.

Wanting to start MY life and live it how I want, even if that means that it'll only be me and my partner, well, apparently, I'm some sort of "scum" in your eyes.

I have nothing left to say you.

Very defensive, and putting words into my mouth. Alright. Have a good day.
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

And wanting children (as an investment) to take care of you while you're old and decrepit is not being concerned excessively about yourself? Especially when you do not know whether or not that child will view taking care of you as you die as a burden? Please. You don't want to rot alone so you have children to take care of you and keep you company as you rot. Pretty selfish. Having a child doesn't even guarantee that you will not need government assistance when you're older. You can be a burden on your children and on, well, almost everyone else. (I don't see the elderly as a burden.) Having a child hardly exempts you from burdening almost everyone else. The difference is that you made a person because you hope to burden them, with your needs, later. You want to bring people into the world as an investment that you'll have someone to guilt and burden with your dying self and some people do not want to bring people into the world as investments to guilt and burden with their dying self. You're creating a whole new person for your benefit and that's not being concerned excessively with yourself?

See, you can look at anything through the right scope and interpret it as extremely selfish. I still say out of the person who wants children as an investment to burden them with their rotting self later on and the person who does not want children because they enjoy their current lifestyle, the former is the more selfish one. The former creates a new person in hopes it will benefit them, the latter abstains from creating a new person because it benefits them. The latter haven't created a person because they want to benefit from that person.

(These may or may not be generalized yous, by the by.)
Ratttking
Knitty Witty
Ratttking
I would prefer to avoid smelling it at all, and wish parents with children that are not housebroken would not bring them to public restaurants ever. Everyone at their table and the tables they pass on the way to the bathroom will have their appetite ruined by the smell. Babies are not even paying customers so there is no good reason they should be allowed.
Oh dear, your parents must have had no social life at all to instill those values into you.

Mothers and Fathers do not stop being individuals because of a new addition to the brood. I'm a mother of three, and yet I still geek out to the same things, cosplay as my favorite characters, and *GASP* GO OUT TO EAT!

Now if one of my kids act like a little Sh*t head, no doubt my husband or I will remove the brat from the situation and stay outside, or in the car, until little Timmy can calm his @ss down. But to not go out and enjoy sometime away from home just because two are in diapers? Sorry, never gonna happen. Unless it's a nice ritzy place. There are restaurants out there to DO give off the "adults only" vibe. And with those places, my husband and I respect it and ditch the kidlets with a babysitter.
My parents used these strange things to take care of me when they went out, what were they called? Oh yes. BABYSITTERS.



Honestly, she just said when it comes to adult only places they get a babysitter.
Quote:
Restaurants have the right to refuse service to anyone, and a non-paying customer such as a baby brings them no revenue, takes up space with a high chair, and annoys other patrons with its noise and bad smell.


You know, except the parents in question.

Quote:
Doesn't matter how fancy the place is, no one wants to smell or hear your brats while they are eating or see them barf as they so often do or get their colds.


How bout' you stay inside if you can't handle socialization or coming across people you don't like? It's going to happen and you're the one acting up about it, therefore shouldn't you be restricted to the inside? Probably.

Quote:
Children are gross, especially babies and toddlers.


No, self - entitled, undisciplined, self centered, anti - social and see only through bias people such as yourself are gross.
GuardianCentauri's avatar

Lonely Hunter

daChaosKitty
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.

Ah, sorry. I didn't realize that the qualifiers in the previous sentences applied to the last one too.

Um... no. While there were some people in women's rights who supported some theories and policies within the concept of eugenics, yes, that does not mean that all or even most feminists at the time did too. You seem to be putting the blame for the rise of eugenics squarely on the shoulders of not just feminists but on the child-free period, which isn't fair. Eugenics was already a popular concept back then and primarily backed by a lot of men and large portions of the status-quo in general. For some in women's rights, the concept merged to some degree with their support for birth control and abortion. Therefore, I don't think you can conclusively say that eugenics came about because some women were child-free.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics


daChaosKitty
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.

You're going to have to be more specific about what you find so appalling about those pages. I'm a little confused just trying to navigate it because a lot of posts seem to be job postings, which I don't find anything wrong with, interspersed by what appear to be some attempts by one or maybe two individuals to troll the group to provoke angered responses. And sure, some of the replies may not be the most polite or tactfully put, but have you seen much of the internet in general? You can go to a lot of websites all over the place and find people making less than insightful commentary, regardless of whether they are or aren't child-free.

I sympathize with you to a certain degree on any places that restrict children, but I'm really not seeing it being anywhere near as rampant as you claim it is, seriously. I guess that's a matter of opinion on how much is too much, though.



daChaosKitty
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.

The statement doesn't say anything about "little leeches"; I don't feel that it's meant to be conveyed that way either. You're adding that in, and it changes the entire context of the statement.


daChaosKitty
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.

The impact is in how they may directly or indirectly affect the lives of those around them, which can possibly have an effect on future generations. Maybe they enriched the child's life by providing a larger family and more opportunities to play and interact with. Maybe they inspired the child with ideas or seeing their own lives and careers that would lead the child to do something similar as he or she grows up. Maybe they even raised the standard of living by providing some financial support. It doesn't have to be your own genetic information being passed on in order to have an impact. And on the other hand, simply having children is no guarantee that a person will leave behind a positive effect either.

Also, since you introduced the subject of how something is delivered, I'd like to note that the word "maiden" is somewhat offensive to some people. Strictly speaking, it's just a definition of course, but it has implied for generations that women who don't have children should somehow be labeled by being unmarried or even their distinct lack of children since some versions of the definition imply virginity as well. The same is rarely done to men. Yes, sometimes you'll hear the word "bachelor" tossed around, but it doesn't usually convey the same kind of negative consequences as it does for women. It's similar to how women were originally stuck with the dichotomy of being a Miss or a Mrs. while men are referred to as Mr. regardless of their marital status.



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

Heh... I like to write out my thoughts thoroughly! sweatdrop


daChaosKitty
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.

Traveling with children is generally more costly, and children often require lots of attention, especially when you're bringing them to all sorts of new places every day which can excite, bore, and tire them out long before you're tired of visiting sites yourself. But again, I think the fulcrum of the argument isn't even the various practical problems raised by bringing children while traveling, but the simple fact that just because some do doesn't mean that anyone else has to or should be labeled as selfish for going without children.

We're talking legacy now? I agree with the gist of your statement further up that few people will ever leave behind a monumental legacy, unfortunately, so why is legacy being raised as an argument against career now? Most people won't ever have much of a major legacy or none at all, but that doesn't stop them from pursuing their desired careers and personally enjoying their lives. That applies to those with children as well. However, my counterpoints above offer various ways that a childless person can still have some sort of an impact on the lives of others.

Telecommuting isn't going to work for everyone, nor is everyone going to be content with or want to do it. Couldn't it also be viewed as selfish of you to suggest that people should have to abandon their preferred pick of careers in order to have children that they don't personally want in their own lives? It's simply a choice for each person based on what they want; why can't you leave it at that and leave the judgments of what is supposedly selfish out of it?

On the subject of the very definition of the word selfish, consider the fact that most childless people still don't fit that description most of the time. They sacrifice time for other family members and to hang out with friends and colleagues, etc. Many jobs require some form of cooperation, so a responsible adult also has to learn to balance her or his own needs with those of other co-workers and the company/organization. Being totally self-centered would be a major detriment to that.



daChaosKitty
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.

Wait... What exactly are you suggesting here? If parents find out by whatever means that their child or their pregnancy has a major problem in terms of a disorder or a handicap, what should they do about it? Abortion? If they found out somehow before ever conceiving, should they be encouraged to never have their own children? Should they perhaps seek out some form of surgery to prevent any chance of accidentally conceiving?

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with any of these ideas myself, so I don't mean it as a judgment of your values. I'm just seeking some clarification on how you feel about this.
Ratttking's avatar

Fuzzy Bunny

18,450 Points
  • Bunny Spotter 50
  • Elocutionist 200
  • Cat Fancier 100
Hearts Control
Ratttking
Knitty Witty
Ratttking
I would prefer to avoid smelling it at all, and wish parents with children that are not housebroken would not bring them to public restaurants ever. Everyone at their table and the tables they pass on the way to the bathroom will have their appetite ruined by the smell. Babies are not even paying customers so there is no good reason they should be allowed.
Oh dear, your parents must have had no social life at all to instill those values into you.

Mothers and Fathers do not stop being individuals because of a new addition to the brood. I'm a mother of three, and yet I still geek out to the same things, cosplay as my favorite characters, and *GASP* GO OUT TO EAT!

Now if one of my kids act like a little Sh*t head, no doubt my husband or I will remove the brat from the situation and stay outside, or in the car, until little Timmy can calm his @ss down. But to not go out and enjoy sometime away from home just because two are in diapers? Sorry, never gonna happen. Unless it's a nice ritzy place. There are restaurants out there to DO give off the "adults only" vibe. And with those places, my husband and I respect it and ditch the kidlets with a babysitter.
My parents used these strange things to take care of me when they went out, what were they called? Oh yes. BABYSITTERS.



Honestly, she just said when it comes to adult only places they get a babysitter.
Quote:
Restaurants have the right to refuse service to anyone, and a non-paying customer such as a baby brings them no revenue, takes up space with a high chair, and annoys other patrons with its noise and bad smell.


You know, except the parents in question.

Quote:
Doesn't matter how fancy the place is, no one wants to smell or hear your brats while they are eating or see them barf as they so often do or get their colds.


How bout' you stay inside if you can't handle socialization or coming across people you don't like? It's going to happen and you're the one acting up about it, therefore shouldn't you be restricted to the inside? Probably.

Quote:
Children are gross, especially babies and toddlers.


No, self - entitled, undisciplined, self centered, anti - social and see only through bias people such as yourself are gross.
Any parents who claim they are not bothered by their children's smells and noise are either lying or are too intoxicated to notice. There is no means of socializing with an ignorant child who cannot talk. Oh, I enjoy coming across people I don't like - I talk about them to my companion just loudly enough to make him laugh and for the people I am talking about to get nervous. Afraid I'm none of the things on your list. Try again.
daChaosKitty's avatar

Fashionable Genius

6,300 Points
  • Forum Explorer 100
  • Treasure Hunter 100
  • First step to fame 200
Forwarning, I need sleep, so my thoughts may not make any sense at points, and some points are likely to be non-indicative of intent. Sadly, that happens even when fully awake.
GuardianCentauri

Ah, sorry. I didn't realize that the qualifiers in the previous sentences applied to the last one too.

Um... no. While there were some people in women's rights who supported some theories and policies within the concept of eugenics, yes, that does not mean that all or even most feminists at the time did too. You seem to be putting the blame for the rise of eugenics squarely on the shoulders of not just feminists but on the child-free period, which isn't fair. Eugenics was already a popular concept back then and primarily backed by a lot of men and large portions of the status-quo in general. For some in women's rights, the concept merged to some degree with their support for birth control and abortion. Therefore, I don't think you can conclusively say that eugenics came about because some women were child-free.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

It wasn't my intention to suggest that it was the whole reason behind the eugenics movements of the early 1900's, and on, but it was part of it. Women of upper classes, enjoying their pseudo-freedom (saying pseudo almost strictly because they were still likely under the governance of some man) that when faced with the issue of population disparity between the upper class, and the lower class (the lower class had more kids, thus appearing as a "threat" to the upper classes), and faced with the two solutions (at the time) of either have more kids, themselves, or work to support the lower classes not having children, they generally opted for the latter.


GuardianCentauri
You're going to have to be more specific about what you find so appalling about those pages. I'm a little confused just trying to navigate it because a lot of posts seem to be job postings, which I don't find anything wrong with, interspersed by what appear to be some attempts by one or maybe two individuals to troll the group to provoke angered responses. And sure, some of the replies may not be the most polite or tactfully put, but have you seen much of the internet in general? You can go to a lot of websites all over the place and find people making less than insightful commentary, regardless of whether they are or aren't child-free.

I sympathize with you to a certain degree on any places that restrict children, but I'm really not seeing it being anywhere near as rampant as you claim it is, seriously. I guess that's a matter of opinion on how much is too much, though.

Yes, I saw that. It appears to have been relatively abandoned for other sites. This might be a better example?
http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,84864,page=1
Luckily, through that filth I've managed to locate a forum of moderate people whose complaints and commentary I can read without beginning to feel physically ill.


GuardianCentauri
The statement doesn't say anything about "little leeches"; I don't feel that it's meant to be conveyed that way either. You're adding that in, and it changes the entire context of the statement.

I'm not sure it really does change the statement. Many childfree people readily admit to hating children, actually hating them. Which, to me is like hating any other possible group pointlessly (gays, minorities, women, etc.) for just being what they are. That is what I get from that quoted statement from the site. Mostly because of the inferrence of the word "free." I dislike the term "childfree," because it suggests that being without a child is greater than having one. On the other hand, I dislike the term "childless" for the people who genuinely don't want children. To me, the former is suggestive of a dislike of children, a desire to be "free" from them, and the latter suggests a desire for, but an inability to get. I wish there was a term that could be used for more moderate types.


GuardianCentauri
The impact is in how they may directly or indirectly affect the lives of those around them, which can possibly have an effect on future generations. Maybe they enriched the child's life by providing a larger family and more opportunities to play and interact with. Maybe they inspired the child with ideas or seeing their own lives and careers that would lead the child to do something similar as he or she grows up. Maybe they even raised the standard of living by providing some financial support. It doesn't have to be your own genetic information being passed on in order to have an impact. And on the other hand, simply having children is no guarantee that a person will leave behind a positive effect either.

Also, since you introduced the subject of how something is delivered, I'd like to note that the word "maiden" is somewhat offensive to some people. Strictly speaking, it's just a definition of course, but it has implied for generations that women who don't have children should somehow be labeled by being unmarried or even their distinct lack of children since some versions of the definition imply virginity as well. The same is rarely done to men. Yes, sometimes you'll hear the word "bachelor" tossed around, but it doesn't usually convey the same kind of negative consequences as it does for women. It's similar to how women were originally stuck with the dichotomy of being a Miss or a Mrs. while men are referred to as Mr. regardless of their marital status.

That's true, and a person may give birth to a little monster that grows into a big monster. It's a crap shoot, admittedly. But, as I said, short of doing something grand, their effect will be extremely limited to maybe a handful of generations, if they're lucky.

I rather prefer "Miss," personally, at least until I become a "Mrs.," and I, again personally, loathe "Ms." (miz) As for the use of "maiden aunt" it is purely what I'm familiar with. But, I don't necessarily see the connotation as bad... "spinster" I see as worse, or "old maid." There is "bachelor girl," but that's awkward. I never really cared about labels, unless they were genuinely offensive, such as slurs. Beyond slurs, people can label me as they like, I'm me. But, not everyone has this outlook, so, if there is a better term by which one might refer one of these elder women who have chosen to forego having children, while still being specific to their situation, I'd appreciate knowing that I may update my lexicon.


GuardianCentauri
Traveling with children is generally more costly, and children often require lots of attention, especially when you're bringing them to all sorts of new places every day which can excite, bore, and tire them out long before you're tired of visiting sites yourself. But again, I think the fulcrum of the argument isn't even the various practical problems raised by bringing children while traveling, but the simple fact that just because some do doesn't mean that anyone else has to or should be labeled as selfish for going without children.

We're talking legacy now? I agree with the gist of your statement further up that few people will ever leave behind a monumental legacy, unfortunately, so why is legacy being raised as an argument against career now? Most people won't ever have much of a major legacy or none at all, but that doesn't stop them from pursuing their desired careers and personally enjoying their lives. That applies to those with children as well. However, my counterpoints above offer various ways that a childless person can still have some sort of an impact on the lives of others.

Telecommuting isn't going to work for everyone, nor is everyone going to be content with or want to do it. Couldn't it also be viewed as selfish of you to suggest that people should have to abandon their preferred pick of careers in order to have children that they don't personally want in their own lives? It's simply a choice for each person based on what they want; why can't you leave it at that and leave the judgments of what is supposedly selfish out of it?

On the subject of the very definition of the word selfish, consider the fact that most childless people still don't fit that description most of the time. They sacrifice time for other family members and to hang out with friends and colleagues, etc. Many jobs require some form of cooperation, so a responsible adult also has to learn to balance her or his own needs with those of other co-workers and the company/organization. Being totally self-centered would be a major detriment to that.

True. It may also depend on where you're going. One article I read about the growing lack of acceptance of children in the U.S. compared a flight leg to a country in Africa, from here, and back. On the way to Africa, the writer, and her husband were irritated by the people's children being awake all hours on the flight, etc., but, they had a child while they were there, and when they flew back, they were afraid of what others would feel about their baby. Interestingly, those rambunctious children that annoyed them, before, made themselves busy by fussing over the baby, along with the adults. However, once the flight changed to an American carrier, the attitude was noticably different. I didn't suggest that they were selfish for that reason. I said it was a silly reason to avoid it, though. I meant on its own. She obviously has other things holding her back from it.

Well, it's true that the measure of success, in the end, is largely subjective. I suppose there isn't much for any of us to do that is really going to get our names down in history. In fact, the only woman I know who got into history by becoming a mother was Mary of Nazareth. lol It was just a point against driving one's self into work.

Well, as this person wants to be an animator/storyboard artist/whatever, and there are successful individuals in that field who have children, I fail to see where one would have to give up the career in order to have a child. I'm not suggesting that she should, I'm just offering arguments. Given the demanor she has shown, I will make the judgment that she probably shouldn't be a parent. Not everyone's cut out to be one, I know. And I hate to say, but in civilian jobs, selfishness is often seen, even where cooperation is required. It's amazing how fast some people in the work force will throw a coworker under the bus for something that they participated in. Being selfish doesn't hurt, if they're smart about it, because they would acknowledge what would benefit them best (ie. not get them fired), and adjust accordingly.


GuardianCentauri
Wait... What exactly are you suggesting here? If parents find out by whatever means that their child or their pregnancy has a major problem in terms of a disorder or a handicap, what should they do about it? Abortion? If they found out somehow before ever conceiving, should they be encouraged to never have their own children? Should they perhaps seek out some form of surgery to prevent any chance of accidentally conceiving?

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with any of these ideas myself, so I don't mean it as a judgment of your values. I'm just seeking some clarification on how you feel about this.

I believe abortion would be best in those situations, but if people want to raise those children, more power to them. This is where I get a little callous, because I really don't like how humanity's advances have prevented so many deaths that nature would have otherwise brought on (generally through stupidity). And yes, I think that people who are highly likely to pass on bad genetics should be discouraged from reproducing, but I don't believe they should be unwillingly sterilized. I'd much rather it be willing. I'm more for positive eugenics than negative; encouraging the "right" people to procreate, instead of discouraging the "wrong" ones.
daChaosKitty's avatar

Fashionable Genius

6,300 Points
  • Forum Explorer 100
  • Treasure Hunter 100
  • First step to fame 200
Ms Ragnarok
And wanting children (as an investment) to take care of you while you're old and decrepit is not being concerned excessively about yourself? Especially when you do not know whether or not that child will view taking care of you as you die as a burden? Please. You don't want to rot alone so you have children to take care of you and keep you company as you rot. Pretty selfish. Having a child doesn't even guarantee that you will not need government assistance when you're older. You can be a burden on your children and on, well, almost everyone else. (I don't see the elderly as a burden.) Having a child hardly exempts you from burdening almost everyone else. The difference is that you made a person because you hope to burden them, with your needs, later. You want to bring people into the world as an investment that you'll have someone to guilt and burden with your dying self and some people do not want to bring people into the world as investments to guilt and burden with their dying self. You're creating a whole new person for your benefit and that's not being concerned excessively with yourself?

See, you can look at anything through the right scope and interpret it as extremely selfish. I still say out of the person who wants children as an investment to burden them with their rotting self later on and the person who does not want children because they enjoy their current lifestyle, the former is the more selfish one. The former creates a new person in hopes it will benefit them, the latter abstains from creating a new person because it benefits them. The latter haven't created a person because they want to benefit from that person.

(These may or may not be generalized yous, by the by.)

I highly doubt many people actually think about children and say, "Hey, I want to have kids so I'll have someone to take care of me when I'm old." On the flip-side, there are people who say, "Hey, I don't want to have kids because I don't want to be responsible for another person, I don't want to spend my money/time/etc. on another person." Or, here's a popular one, "I don't want to be a slave to something I pop out for the rest of my life." I don't get the "rest of my life," thing, maybe they think they'll have a special needs child? I don't know.

I'm sure that the thought of having someone to take care of them, to visit them when they're old is a passing thought for most who choose to have children, I'd wager that, short of the surprises/accidents/oopses/what have you, people choose to have children because they want to create a, hopefully, productive member of society, and, yes, this is a very selfish reason, have a child. Some may do it because they're driven to, because humans do have drives. Hopefully, the driven ones remain, and those without, well, get their wish and don't pass on their genes.
Ratttking's avatar

Fuzzy Bunny

18,450 Points
  • Bunny Spotter 50
  • Elocutionist 200
  • Cat Fancier 100
daChaosKitty
Ratttking
daChaosKitty
Ratttking
A pregnant woman takes up one seat. A woman and a child take up two, and it seems high chairs always end up in the aisle, making their presence inconvenient for servers etc. She might even be dieting to try to lose weight gained during pregnancy as many women do, and if she gained as much as some women, she's got plenty of calories to be burned from her own fat stores.

A woman and child may take up two, or one and a carrier, or one and a high-chair. A regular chair can be removed, unless the child's the odd-man-out.

As for dieting, they lose weight, anyway, just by virtue of their body focusing nutrition into the milk. So, again, a breastfeeding mother, who knows what she's doing, knows that she needs to take in extra calories, even while losing weight.
What if it's a booth and the arrier won't fit? You have no idea how many people demanded to be seated in booths when tables that could indeed have a regular chair replaced with a high chair were available.

You assume she knows what she's doing. Even if she is consuming more calories, there is no reason to presume she will consume them all at any particular meal. If she divides the figure given of 300-500 calories over three meals, that comes out to 100-166 calories per meal, which is not enough for an entree, appetizer, or dessert, more like a slice of bread or a roll - which are often complimentary.

Or possibly an actual salad upgrade from a side salad, which would cost extra. You are acting under the assumption that she doesn't. Either could happen, and neither should be expected. However, anymore, hospitals are really good about informing mothers about breastfeeding, so, she may well have a few clues about things like that.

That said, a carrier can fit in a booth, normally, unless it's full up with adults, and/or other children. It would be the same inconvenience, in that case, either way, because the number of people at a booth would normally be the same as at a 4-top, unless you really squish.

However, I've also seen teens/adults bring up extra seats from other tables, and sit in the aisle with no more, or less, issue than a high chair. And, having been a server, before, in at least three restaurants, yes, I do have an idea.
She might even opt for a shot or two, at 90 calories per.

I've seen carriers big enough to hold the child until it's old enough to get a driver's license. There is no good reason to insist on sitting in a booth too small to hold all the members of the party. It is easy enough for the hostess to arrange to have two (or more) tables pushed together in a manner that does not inconvenience the staff or other patrons, assuming there is not already a table big enough.
daChaosKitty's avatar

Fashionable Genius

6,300 Points
  • Forum Explorer 100
  • Treasure Hunter 100
  • First step to fame 200
Ratttking
She might even opt for a shot or two, at 90 calories per.

I've seen carriers big enough to hold the child until it's old enough to get a driver's license. There is no good reason to insist on sitting in a booth too small to hold all the members of the party. It is easy enough for the hostess to arrange to have two (or more) tables pushed together in a manner that does not inconvenience the staff or other patrons, assuming there is not already a table big enough.

Cute. You never know, she might. A glass of wine usually won't hurt.

That's a big carrier. That said, some people just want their booth, be it a group of too many adults, or a family. It's not a good reason for anyone. But, all you can do is complain rather impotently to generally uninvolved parties, or those who won't really do anything about it.
Ratttking's avatar

Fuzzy Bunny

18,450 Points
  • Bunny Spotter 50
  • Elocutionist 200
  • Cat Fancier 100
daChaosKitty
Ratttking
She might even opt for a shot or two, at 90 calories per.

I've seen carriers big enough to hold the child until it's old enough to get a driver's license. There is no good reason to insist on sitting in a booth too small to hold all the members of the party. It is easy enough for the hostess to arrange to have two (or more) tables pushed together in a manner that does not inconvenience the staff or other patrons, assuming there is not already a table big enough.

Cute. You never know, she might. A glass of wine usually won't hurt.

That's a big carrier. That said, some people just want their booth, be it a group of too many adults, or a family. It's not a good reason for anyone. But, all you can do is complain rather impotently to generally uninvolved parties, or those who won't really do anything about it.
But why a booth? What is so wrong with chairs and a table? I'm not even talking about families at this point, I've known singles insist on having a booth (at busy times, too.) What exactly is so special about a booth? sweatdrop
daChaosKitty's avatar

Fashionable Genius

6,300 Points
  • Forum Explorer 100
  • Treasure Hunter 100
  • First step to fame 200
Ratttking
But why a booth? What is so wrong with chairs and a table? I'm not even talking about families at this point, I've known singles insist on having a booth (at busy times, too.) What exactly is so special about a booth? sweatdrop

lol That is a really good question, actually. It might be the seats? The illusion of seclusion? Having to "slide" into your spot? For me, the cushions on the seats are usually more comfortable, because most restaurants I've been to that have the choice either have hardwood chairs, or booths. If there's a bar option with a cushioned stool, I'd go for that, especially if it spins. >_>
Ratttking's avatar

Fuzzy Bunny

18,450 Points
  • Bunny Spotter 50
  • Elocutionist 200
  • Cat Fancier 100
daChaosKitty
Ratttking
But why a booth? What is so wrong with chairs and a table? I'm not even talking about families at this point, I've known singles insist on having a booth (at busy times, too.) What exactly is so special about a booth? sweatdrop

lol That is a really good question, actually. It might be the seats? The illusion of seclusion? Having to "slide" into your spot? For me, the cushions on the seats are usually more comfortable, because most restaurants I've been to that have the choice either have hardwood chairs, or booths. If there's a bar option with a cushioned stool, I'd go for that, especially if it spins. >_>
OK, those sound good. LOL, my fave diner has booths with hardwood benches. I'm trying to remember what the chairs have, and if the counter stools spin. I think I've only sat at a table there once in two decades...because we had too many for a booth. lol
Mrtyu-Mara's avatar

Dapper Informer

9,100 Points
  • Super Tipsy 200
  • Forum Sophomore 300
  • Person of Interest 200
Ratttking
daChaosKitty
Ratttking
She might even opt for a shot or two, at 90 calories per.

I've seen carriers big enough to hold the child until it's old enough to get a driver's license. There is no good reason to insist on sitting in a booth too small to hold all the members of the party. It is easy enough for the hostess to arrange to have two (or more) tables pushed together in a manner that does not inconvenience the staff or other patrons, assuming there is not already a table big enough.

Cute. You never know, she might. A glass of wine usually won't hurt.

That's a big carrier. That said, some people just want their booth, be it a group of too many adults, or a family. It's not a good reason for anyone. But, all you can do is complain rather impotently to generally uninvolved parties, or those who won't really do anything about it.
But why a booth? What is so wrong with chairs and a table? I'm not even talking about families at this point, I've known singles insist on having a booth (at busy times, too.) What exactly is so special about a booth? sweatdrop

I'll answer this one, since I am guilty of doing this.

I prefer seating in a booth for a few reasons, but I don't DEMAND I get one. I simply say "Anywhere's fine, but preferably a booth."

Reason being is because I don't have to feel like I'm in anyone's way. I don't have to scoot this way or that way to let other patrons or staff to get by me.

Also, elbow room. In some restaurants I've been in, they would have the tables unnecessarily close to one another, and sometimes when I'd order a piece of food that was a little tough to cut (steak, etc) I feel like I wouldn't be able to do so comfortably. In a booth, I can have my wing-span as wide as I feel necessary.

And as daChaosKitty said, seclusion. Privacy. Maybe I feel like when I'm in a booth, I feel like it's a little more private than an open, exposed table.
daChaosKitty
Ms Ragnarok
And wanting children (as an investment) to take care of you while you're old and decrepit is not being concerned excessively about yourself? Especially when you do not know whether or not that child will view taking care of you as you die as a burden? Please. You don't want to rot alone so you have children to take care of you and keep you company as you rot. Pretty selfish. Having a child doesn't even guarantee that you will not need government assistance when you're older. You can be a burden on your children and on, well, almost everyone else. (I don't see the elderly as a burden.) Having a child hardly exempts you from burdening almost everyone else. The difference is that you made a person because you hope to burden them, with your needs, later. You want to bring people into the world as an investment that you'll have someone to guilt and burden with your dying self and some people do not want to bring people into the world as investments to guilt and burden with their dying self. You're creating a whole new person for your benefit and that's not being concerned excessively with yourself?

See, you can look at anything through the right scope and interpret it as extremely selfish. I still say out of the person who wants children as an investment to burden them with their rotting self later on and the person who does not want children because they enjoy their current lifestyle, the former is the more selfish one. The former creates a new person in hopes it will benefit them, the latter abstains from creating a new person because it benefits them. The latter haven't created a person because they want to benefit from that person.

(These may or may not be generalized yous, by the by.)

I highly doubt many people actually think about children and say, "Hey, I want to have kids so I'll have someone to take care of me when I'm old." On the flip-side, there are people who say, "Hey, I don't want to have kids because I don't want to be responsible for another person, I don't want to spend my money/time/etc. on another person." Or, here's a popular one, "I don't want to be a slave to something I pop out for the rest of my life." I don't get the "rest of my life," thing, maybe they think they'll have a special needs child? I don't know.

I'm sure that the thought of having someone to take care of them, to visit them when they're old is a passing thought for most who choose to have children, I'd wager that, short of the surprises/accidents/oopses/what have you, people choose to have children because they want to create a, hopefully, productive member of society, and, yes, this is a very selfish reason, have a child. Some may do it because they're driven to, because humans do have drives. Hopefully, the driven ones remain, and those without, well, get their wish and don't pass on their genes.

Edit: I actually decided, since I'm not too fond of derailing threads, that I'm going to drop this one. I actually forgot for a minute that this isn't a thread about child-free vs not. cat_xd Perhaps this discussion may continue another time. cat_3nodding

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games