Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The Other Michael · 09-20-2002, 05:19 AM

A related news story: <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/americas/09/20/offbeat.canada.nudity.reut/index.html" target="_blank">Marchers escape public nudity charges</a>

cheers,
Michael

frostymama · 09-20-2002, 06:08 AM

<boob nazi hat on>

Human milk has been shown in numerous studies to be much better for human babies than either cow's milk or soy based formulas. I seriously doubt that trend will change in the near future. If you think about the evolution of or species IMO that makes sense. We are mammals. We make milk to feed our young. There weren't even any commercially availiable infant formulas as recently as 200 years ago (which meant that babies that didn't have access to their mother or a wet nurse often died being fed some homade concoction like pap).

For our entire existence on this planet (up until very recently) human infants have nursed. Does anyone really believe that our biology is somehow so screwed up that something as basic as lactaion is going to lose out against something artificial and "close, but not quite the same"? Baby cows' nutritional needs are not even close to those of a human infant. Soy is even less comparable to human milk than cows milk is. Even commercially prepared formulas lack crucial ingredients that our milk has (antibodies, certain lipids). Barring a serious medical problem, human milk is the best for human babies.

</boob nazi hat off>

As far as comparing it to an adult that "needs" to defecate in public... there is one major difference. Unless that person is disabled and has no control over his bowels it just isn't the same (and I do hope that people would have a little bit of tact when dealing with someone in that situation). Infants are allowed to do things in public that healthy adults normally don't do. Babies DO crap in public. That is why they wear diapers. They have very little control over their physical needs. Babies also do things like drool, cry, fart, vomit, etc... and hardly anyone bats an eye. It is more acceptable for them to do these things in public because they don't have control over it.

I guess the correct question would be whether you would rather hear the "pup" shriek for 30 minutes while you are trying to eat your burger... or have it be nursing quietly under a blanket. Bottles are not an option for every nursing mother. Not every breastfed baby will take a bottle. Not every woman can pump effectively (not to mention that if a woman were to just give her baby bottles while in public she would still have to pump to keep her supply from dropping and to keep from getting painfully engorged)

[ September 20, 2002: Message edited by: frostymama ]

DarkDruid · 09-20-2002, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by frostymama:
As far as comparing it to an adult that "needs" to defecate in public... there is one major difference. Unless that person is disabled and has no control over his bowels it just isn't the same.

I'm just saying that as long as we're thinking along the lines of "who does it hurt" we ought to at least consider public defication/urination. I heard earlier that nobody has a right not to be offended, so how is it differant in that regard? As long as I use a scooper and a baggie, then why can't people just look the other way? I mean, sure, I could scour the *entire* mall for a bathroom, just as a nursing mother could leave a public place.

Also, please note I'm not being sarcasic about this. It's an issue I really would like to explore.

Glory · 09-20-2002, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DarkDruid:


I'm just saying that as long as we're thinking along the lines of "who does it hurt" we ought to at least consider public defication/urination. I heard earlier that nobody has a right not to be offended, so how is it differant in that regard? As long as I use a scooper and a baggie, then why can't people just look the other way? I mean, sure, I could scour the *entire* mall for a bathroom, just as a nursing mother could leave a public place.

Also, please note I'm not being sarcasic about this. It's an issue I really would like to explore.

Where should this nursing mother go?

Deficating and urinating in places not connected to the correct sewage system causes major health problems. Take a look at the history of the Thames river for reference. There is absolutely no comparison between breast feeding and shitting. The only connection between the two is that one will eventually lead to the other.

Also, malls have public restrooms. They do not have any areas set aside for breast feeding. I'll ask for the third time. Where should nursing mothers go to perform this act?

Glory

Loren Pechtel · 09-20-2002, 11:24 AM

Originally posted by DarkDruid:
I'm just saying that as long as we're thinking along the lines of "who does it hurt" we ought to at least consider public defication/urination. I heard earlier that nobody has a right not to be offended, so how is it differant in that regard? As long as I use a scooper and a baggie, then why can't people just look the other way? I mean, sure, I could scour the *entire* mall for a bathroom, just as a nursing mother could leave a public place.

There's a definite sanitary issue involved. Don't merely bring a scooper and baggie, do it in the baggie. Under those conditions I would have no problem with it being legal.

tronvillain · 09-20-2002, 08:07 PM

Well, urinating in public probably wouldn't cause any significant health problems, but I wouldn't be enthusiastic about the moisture, smell, and possible stains. As for people "not having a right to not be offended", they do if enough people say they do. We only say "people do not have a right to not be offended" when the behavior does not offend us enough that we wish to prevent it.

99Percent · 09-20-2002, 10:48 PM

Sounds pretty logical what you are saying tron, but I see a problem.

What if a person is offended that someone else is by this person's "indecency"? What if there is a disagreement between just two people to the point that they both are willing to take action? Say that I am offended that person's urinating in public, and I take action by approaching this person to tell him to stop urinating. This person in turn feels offended that I even had the guts to tell him my disaproval. How do you propose such a situation be resolved?

tronvillain · 09-21-2002, 12:00 AM

I see nothing to be resolved if if that is all there is to the conflict - it is a simple verbal disagreement on a matter of taste. Where is this "problem" of which you speak?

99Percent · 09-21-2002, 11:11 AM

if someone is offended enough to take action against someone else who happens to also take enough action to defend his "offense" then there can be no positive resolution. The final outcome is resolved entirely on who has enough force on the matter either politically or physically. Thats the problem I see.

99Percent · 09-21-2002, 11:12 AM

Curiously today's Dilbert is:

<a href="http://www.unitedmedia.com/comics/dilbert/archive/images/dilbert2002091354521.gif" target="_blank">http://www.unitedmedia.com/comics/dilbert/archive/images/dilbert2002091354521.gif</a>

[ September 21, 2002: Message edited by: 99Percent ]

09-20-2002, 06:08 AM	#72
frostymama Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Georgia USA Posts: 927	<boob nazi hat on> Human milk has been shown in numerous studies to be much better for human babies than either cow's milk or soy based formulas. I seriously doubt that trend will change in the near future. If you think about the evolution of or species IMO that makes sense. We are mammals. We make milk to feed our young. There weren't even any commercially availiable infant formulas as recently as 200 years ago (which meant that babies that didn't have access to their mother or a wet nurse often died being fed some homade concoction like pap). For our entire existence on this planet (up until very recently) human infants have nursed. Does anyone really believe that our biology is somehow so screwed up that something as basic as lactaion is going to lose out against something artificial and "close, but not quite the same"? Baby cows' nutritional needs are not even close to those of a human infant. Soy is even less comparable to human milk than cows milk is. Even commercially prepared formulas lack crucial ingredients that our milk has (antibodies, certain lipids). Barring a serious medical problem, human milk is the best for human babies. </boob nazi hat off> As far as comparing it to an adult that "needs" to defecate in public... there is one major difference. Unless that person is disabled and has no control over his bowels it just isn't the same (and I do hope that people would have a little bit of tact when dealing with someone in that situation). Infants are allowed to do things in public that healthy adults normally don't do. Babies DO crap in public. That is why they wear diapers. They have very little control over their physical needs. Babies also do things like drool, cry, fart, vomit, etc... and hardly anyone bats an eye. It is more acceptable for them to do these things in public because they don't have control over it. I guess the correct question would be whether you would rather hear the "pup" shriek for 30 minutes while you are trying to eat your burger... or have it be nursing quietly under a blanket. Bottles are not an option for every nursing mother. Not every breastfed baby will take a bottle. Not every woman can pump effectively (not to mention that if a woman were to just give her baby bottles while in public she would still have to pump to keep her supply from dropping and to keep from getting painfully engorged) [ September 20, 2002: Message edited by: frostymama ]</p>

09-21-2002, 11:12 AM	#80
99Percent Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: my mind Posts: 5,996	Curiously today's Dilbert is: <a href="http://www.unitedmedia.com/comics/dilbert/archive/images/dilbert2002091354521.gif" target="_blank">http://www.unitedmedia.com/comics/dilbert/archive/images/dilbert2002091354521.gif</a> [ September 21, 2002: Message edited by: 99Percent ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-20-2002, 05:19 AM	#71
The Other Michael Honorary Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: In the fog of San Francisco Posts: 12,631	A related news story: <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/americas/09/20/offbeat.canada.nudity.reut/index.html" target="_blank">Marchers escape public nudity charges</a> cheers, Michael

09-20-2002, 11:24 AM	#75
Loren Pechtel Obsessed Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Not Mayaned Posts: 96,752	Originally posted by DarkDruid: I'm just saying that as long as we're thinking along the lines of "who does it hurt" we ought to at least consider public defication/urination. I heard earlier that nobody has a right not to be offended, so how is it differant in that regard? As long as I use a scooper and a baggie, then why can't people just look the other way? I mean, sure, I could scour the entire mall for a bathroom, just as a nursing mother could leave a public place. There's a definite sanitary issue involved. Don't merely bring a scooper and baggie, do it in the baggie. Under those conditions I would have no problem with it being legal.

09-20-2002, 08:07 PM	#76
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	Well, urinating in public probably wouldn't cause any significant health problems, but I wouldn't be enthusiastic about the moisture, smell, and possible stains. As for people "not having a right to not be offended", they do if enough people say they do. We only say "people do not have a right to not be offended" when the behavior does not offend us enough that we wish to prevent it.

09-20-2002, 10:48 PM	#77
99Percent Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: my mind Posts: 5,996	Sounds pretty logical what you are saying tron, but I see a problem. What if a person is offended that someone else is by this person's "indecency"? What if there is a disagreement between just two people to the point that they both are willing to take action? Say that I am offended that person's urinating in public, and I take action by approaching this person to tell him to stop urinating. This person in turn feels offended that I even had the guts to tell him my disaproval. How do you propose such a situation be resolved?

09-21-2002, 12:00 AM	#78
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	I see nothing to be resolved if if that is all there is to the conflict - it is a simple verbal disagreement on a matter of taste. Where is this "problem" of which you speak?

09-21-2002, 11:11 AM	#79
99Percent Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: my mind Posts: 5,996	if someone is offended enough to take action against someone else who happens to also take enough action to defend his "offense" then there can be no positive resolution. The final outcome is resolved entirely on who has enough force on the matter either politically or physically. Thats the problem I see.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.