tronvillain

99Percent:
Ah, but in the situation you described there is simply a verbal disagreement, to which no resolution whatsoever is required. Now, if it should escalate beyond that point you may be correct that the final outcome will be resolved by whoever has the most political or physical force. What is your point? That is obviously how fundamental moral disagreements are settled. Indeed, it appears to be the only way they can be settled.

Primal

Glory:

STRAW MAN

Not so I think. Sources please? Also will the baby die or suffer any permanent effects if not fed then and there? I doubt it. The mom at the very least could take the baby to the restroom to do her duty.

Given that reasoning should we likewise allow diaper changes in crowded areas, because leaving feces on a baby sounds even more cruel then not breast feeding.

The definition most people have is meaningless.

What really seperates preference from a need?

dictionary.com:

Hmm something required, or wanted? Sounds just like a preference to me. Also required, for what?

Needs are just merely derivatives of preferences.

Hence you cannot put a babies preference for immediate feeding over an adults need for immediate sexual gratification.

As for frost:

Well I know babies don't have as much cognitive control. But the mother does. And someone doesn't have to hear the whelp shriek if the mom is polite enough to take it into the restroom instead of giving all around her the unpleasant site of her nursing her pup.

As for the prostitutes comment, there's more to it then that. One being that sending prostitutes would be expensive, would probably be coercive, risky, and the natives can usually get sex from other natives. We are also talking about the difference between someone who is going to die from lack of food, from a baby that simply has to wait a bit.

In any case I attribute all this thought to prejudice against sex, seeing sex as partly "immoral", and "unimportant" or at least less important then "sacred" motherhood. One is no more "sacred" then the other in my eyes. A need for immediate sexual gratification is just as legitimate as a need for immediate feeding. Only old ladies of both sexes would say otherwise.

RufusAtticus

Mmmmmmm breasts. Don't you just love being a mammal.

"Female," comes from Latin "felare" which mean "to suck milk."

Glory

</strong>

I asked you a question. I made no argument. A straw man is a type of argument falacy.

</strong>

Sources for what? The health benefits of breast feeding? Dr. Kelly Pfiefer at Sutter Medical center in Santa Rosa, Dr. T Berry Brazleton, The pediatric dept. of Kaiser Medical...these are the people with whome I personally consulted. Or, were you asking for sources on the benefits of pasturization and the fact that Human breast milk does not come out having undergone this process? Or, did you need someone to confirm that it is difficult to store breast milk for safe transport? Or do you disbelieve that pumping is time consuming and painful? Clarity please!

I am going to proceed assuming that you are asking for sources on the health benefits of breast milk, some of which I have already provided. If you like, ask Doctor Rick. I have know doubt that he will confirm this.

</strong>

Do you have any idea what a delicate doily you are?

I hate to be the one to break this to you but there are no laws regarding where one may change a diaper. Diapers are changed all the time in very crowded places. If you have a problem with this I suggest you try spending some time standing in line behind a person with a baby that needs changing. It will soon become quite clear to you that changing diapers is and should be a very high priority. You will be begging the parent to do something about the stench right there, right then.

As for the cruelty of leaving a baby in a dirty diaper, it is not just cruel it is neglectful. Feces is extremely harsh to the skin and should be cleaned as soon as possible, period.

</strong>

Good luck trying to find anyone who thinks your "need" to be protected from something you don't want to see should take precedence over the health and well being of a helpless baby. I am sure that all the people who have to hear the infant crying until it is finally fed will be very sympathetic to your plight.

As for your definition of need, I can be absolutely sure that your wants do not constitute most people's definition of need. If you are correct however, I need you to give me all the money you'll be making in the next ten years. When can I expect a cheque?

</strong>

Do you eat in the bathroom? Do you know anyone who eats in the bathroom? Even my hamster knows better than to eat in the same place she shits. The ladie's public toilet is not a lounge or rest area. It is a shit-house. If you can't tell the difference between the dining table and the shit-house you have a much bigger problem than I ever suspected.

Glory

MadMordigan

For crying out loud. A chick wants to hang her tits out in public, and guys get all upset about it? What fucking planet are you from?

Glory

Thankyou!

Glory

sentinel00

And, no, you may NOT see Glory's tits.

Sabine Grant

Oh nothing is wrong with nudity. Take it from someone who grew up in Africa and was used to running naked on the beach with african children. Then the French Riviera was my next upbringing. Guess who lurks at topless "babes" on the beach in Cannes ? american tourists!!!! who uses their zoom lenses.... our little american sailors right off a giant aircraft carrier. It is a cultural thing really. It was my turn to "feel out of place" when I came to the US 20 years ago. I faced the heritage of puritanism in this land and found myself having to readjust to this culture. Suddenly I had to cover my breasts as I fed my baby for fear of offending someone, I could not run freely on my beach anylonger as I could become an object of " lust and temptation".... etc etc....when it comes to nudity truly evil is in the eye of the beholder ( just like beauty). Puritanism is the root of evil so often. It was not a divine intention for us to watch a nude body and project all the "forbidden" taboos locked up by our inhibitions.
We are all born naked...Job presented himself naked to God as a sign of profound humility. David danced naked......interesting how puritanism took the divine intent to keep our nudity a source of innocence and turned it into some form of evil which opened the door to pornography etc....
We cannot reverse that process. We can only make sure that we do not go to extremes by allowing the laws to prosecute a mother or father who took a naked picture of their infant on the traditionnal blanket.... that is the real danger there. Is to give evil intentions to an act of innocence while the real evil remains rampant.

DarkDruid

Oh, right... sorry about that. I forgot I was a male and under certain obligations to oogle and stare. Would a wolf-whistle put your mind at ease?

Pomp

I believe, and I may be wrong, that MM's comment was intended as a sort of reality check for us, reminding us just how silly some discussions of moral principles can get. People rape, murder, etc. every day, yet we (not necessarily "we" in this thread, but "we" insociety) are capable of working ourselves into a frenzy of moral outrage over a person who prefers not to cover their body, as though that decision were actually harming someone.