Breastfeeding in public

[Loppan Torkel]

Now you have shifted from indecency to legality, and I'm consequently still unsure of where you stand. What's your take on long-peeing in the middle of a road when it is legal?

I'm just saying that the illegality of peeing in public mostly has to do with the indecency of it.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

How did you make the jump from the juridical application of "Indecent exposure" to third world people dying of diarrheal diseases?

Going to have to agree with him. That was a bit melodramatic, BSsmith. We're just talking about peeing against a wall.

Oh, speaking of which, another reason for the health risk being more important than the indecency is that the offending member is usually zipped up shortly, or the offender goes somewhere. Urine doesn't disappear as quickly.

 

[Patroklos]

That mom fails at parenting. Milk goes in the mouth, not on the ground. Also, one doesn't wait that long to wipe it out. If you wait until food spoils until you clean it up, evolution has failed.

Why does urine have to go to the ground. Is it your normal habit to take craps onto the ground, or to deposit it into a sanitary receptical that then transports it away?

I still want to know why nursing a child should have the same sexual connotation as masturbation. I'd really like to know.

I have made no connection regarding sexuality, merely a healthy bodily function with similiarly involves bodily fluids.

Oh, and which one would you rather come into contact with?

Irrelevant.

Yes, the difference between these two molecules are semantics. Volatility? Semantics. Reactivity? Semantics!

Irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that they are both bodily fluids and neither one is any more or less of a biohazard than the other.

Fecal coliform bacteria? Also semantics. I mean if you arrange carbohydrates, protein and fat, they can form a cell. Therefore, breast milk is the same as fecal coliform bacteria. Any difference is semantics.

And breast milk caries HIV. Sorry, but you objections along these lines remain irrlevant.

 

[warpus]

I think the equivalent term in English would be "house training". It means that you train the dog not to all over your house. He kind of holds it in to a more appropriate time... We had such a hyperintelligent dog a few years ago.

And he had his own bathroom, right? Why are we talking about dogs pooping anyway?

 

[Patroklos]

BTW, you all seem to be fixated on people peeing on the ground. As I said before, this would not be required if we simply had urinals and toilets out in the open. There is no logical consistant arguement against segregating bathrooms into private spaces that doesn't apply equally to breast feeding.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Why does urine have to go to the ground.Is it your normal habit to take craps onto the ground, or to deposit it into a sanitary receptical that then transports it away?

So you missed my point. I'll say it clearer then. Spilled breast milk is less of a problem than other spilled body fluids.

I have made no connection regarding sexuality, merely a healthy bodily function with similiarly involves bodily fluids.

Then why compare breastfeeding to masturbation? Don't take me for a fool blind to implications.

Irrelevant.

So the amount of possible harm a substance causes has no relevance to whether its disposal should be regulated or not. And here I thought that the "con" side considered objectionability to be a valid argument.

Irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that they are both bodily fluids and neither one is any more or less of a biohazard than the other.

Ammonia is not a living organism. "Biohazard" applies only to biologicals, not chemicals.

And breast milk caries HIV. Sorry, but you objections along these lines remain irrlevant.

All breastmilk does? Just as feces always has bacteria? Sorry, last time I checked I was in the West, where HIV infection rates were quite low.

 

[Patroklos]

So you missed my point. I'll say it clearer then. Spilled breast milk is less of a problem than other spilled body fluids.

Your point was not missed, it is simple unattested to and also irrelevant. All bodily fluids are biohazards, and none is more or less hazardous to any degree that is relevant.

The only exception is urine, which is mostly sterile. Which of course crushes your sanitation position.

Then why compare breastfeeding to masturbation? Don't take me for a fool blind to implications.

As Aegis stated, the comparison was between actions that have recently enjoyed a reversal of public opinion concerning what is "healthy and natural." If we are going to wave normal social mores regarding exposure for breast feeding, then there is no logically consistant reason to not also do so for masterbation. The fact that it is sexual is of no consequence, we obviously allow kissing, but it is rather the standards for indecent exposure that are at play. In the US, breasts are covered by indecent exposure laws.

Being as breasts are covered by indecent exposure laws, then it is irrelevant as to whether the action itself is sexual or not. If it did then you would never have to cover you penis when not engaged in sexual activities. You do, and the same standard applies to breasts.

Note I am not argueing for the banning of public breast feeding, but rather simply pointing out you do not have a valid or logically consistant position right now.

So the amount of possible harm a substance causes has no relevance to whether its disposal should be regulated or not. And here I thought that the "con" side considered objectionability to be a valid argument.

All bodily fluids have different properties so they pose different hazards, but none is more or less hazard to any meaningful degree. Breastmilk contains AIDS, feces does not. Feces caries ecoli, breast milk does not. Its irrelevant, both pose health hazards, and that is all that matters.

You are engaged in a strawman, namely that the bodily fluids of urination of defication are assumed to be uncontroled while in the case of breast feeding it will be. This is a manufactured postion, we can control urine and feces via appropriate recepticals as easily as we can breast milk. And unless you habitually crap on your floor, then you probably practice the use of those recepticals often.

You objections based on sanitation are not logically consistant as stated.

Ammonia is not a living organism. "Biohazard" applies only to biologicals, not chemicals.

Fine, hazards dervived from biological sources.

All breastmilk does? Just as feces always has bacteria? Sorry, last time I checked I was in the West, where HIV infection rates were quite low.

And not all feces carries the same sanitary properties either. It depends on lots of things. Its irrelevant though, as both are bodily fluids that pose sanitation hazards, the fact that they are different hazards is of no consequence to your position.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

If people would see naked bodies of all kinds and shapes from day one it would not be an issue. Some were prettier or uglier than others as nowadays faces are prettier or uglier than others. We notice it according to our image of beauty, but we don't get unbearably disgusted by it. It is not more than a matter of culture and culture not more than a matter of to what one is used to. There is also reason to hope that this would counteract superficial attitudes towards looks.

Now one only has to forget reactionary attitudes for a moment and soberly ask him or herself if a culture of open discourse or a culture of closed-up shame is preferable/morally better.

 

[JollyRoger]

Keep it in the bathroom or in a discrete area.

Do you dine in the bathroom?

 

[stormbind]

Now one only has to forget reactionary attitudes for a moment and soberly ask him or herself if a culture of open discourse or a culture of closed-up shame is preferable/morally better

Shut up

Spoiler :

Freedom of speech is a constitutional right in the US, and surely that must extend to absolutely-natural human body language? Has anyone tested naked non-verbal expression under the freedom of speech?

Regarding SiLL's point, humans are creatures of habit - we are no smarter than mice when it comes to judging our social norms

 

[warpus]

BTW, you all seem to be fixated on people peeing on the ground. As I said before, this would not be required if we simply had urinals and toilets out in the open. There is no logical consistant arguement against segregating bathrooms into private spaces that doesn't apply equally to breast feeding.

Yeah, that's fine. That image somebody posted of urinals out in the public - I would support that.

 

[stormbind]

Do you dine in the bathroom?

Sometimes

What's wrong with dining in the bath tub?

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

What about sex in public? I think Japan has relaxed laws on that.

Is this another one of those media fuelled 'Japan is weird' misconceptions?

 

[BSmith1068]

How did you make the jump from the juridical application of "Indecent exposure" to third world people dying of diarrheal diseases?

Sigh. My argument is that raw sewage in the street is a public health risk. The places where we see this still in our world is in developing countries. Peeing and crapping on the street in public is placing raw sewage into the local environment. Not that hard to follow if you ask me.

Going to have to agree with him. That was a bit melodramatic, BSsmith. We're just talking about peeing against a wall.

What’s the difference in their argument (natural and healthy for the individual to do) between peeing on a wall and crapping on the sidewalk?

If we are going to draw these conclusions we might as well go all the way.

BSimth,

... as is sneezing, coughing and sweating. Any public expulsions can transmit various diseases

All of which require immediate/close contact with the contaminated individual. Transmission of disease through sewage does not have this restriction.

Why does urine have to go to the ground. Is it your normal habit to take craps onto the ground, or to deposit it into a sanitary receptical that then transports it away?

BTW, you all seem to be fixated on people peeing on the ground. As I said before, this would not be required if we simply had urinals and toilets out in the open. There is no logical consistant arguement against segregating bathrooms into private spaces that doesn't apply equally to breast feeding.

I’m sorry. I am talking about our existing society for this discussion. When people talk about peeing/breastfeeding in public I am assuming normal infrastructure as it exists today. We don’t see open air urinals or toilets sitting on sidewalks that people can use. If that were the case, this discussion would be different. Relieving one’s self in public implies going on the wall or sidewalk. Not in a “sanitary receptacle”. When someone pees in public, I hardly think they are going to take the pee with them when they are done or otherwise dispose of it properly.

99% of breast milk does not end up in the local environment. It ends up in the belly of the baby, or at worst a drop or two on mom’s clothes or a rag/towel.

99% of public elimination ends up in the environment.

 

[Patroklos]

Obviously your denial of the constuction of public viewd bathroom facilities is just your prudish nature being imposed on freedom loving people

 

[BSmith1068]

Obviously your denial of the constuction of public viewd bathroom facilities is just your prudish nature being imposed on freedom loving people

 

[stormbind]

Is this another one of those media fuelled 'Japan is weird' misconceptions?

It is not a misconception: evidence is easily obtained. Would you like more?

All of which require immediate/close contact with the contaminated individual. Transmission of disease through sewage does not have this restriction.

The NHS adverts on the topic of certain viral transmissions does suggest that viruses do not require immediate/close contact any more that sewage-born diseases. See advert here.

 

[Elrohir]

Honestly, they should at least use a blanket!

There's no argument for banning a woman from showing her breasts in public unless you specifically forbid men from doing the same. It can't be done without applying some sort of gender discrimination. Men have mammary tissue and are able to lactate, so trying to include that won't work.

I have no legal problem with topless women, let alone breast feeding women.

If that's the case, then let's ban men from going topless too! (If we're equalizing conditions, I don't see why we should loosen laws so that they're equally applied rather than tightening them)

 

[Grisu]

Honestly, they should at least use a blanket!

Some kids don't take well to have their head covered in a blanket. Especially very small babies. Add to that that the mother can't really tell then if her baby is really eating properly, which too is often an issue with very young babies.

As for the whole peeing/crapping vs. breastfeeding in public discussion. I can't believe you're being seriously equating their possible health hazard. HIV...

 

[Elrohir]

Some kids don't take well to have their head covered in a blanket. Especially very small babies. Add to that that the mother can't really tell then if her baby is really eating properly, which too is often an issue with very young babies.

She can't lift up the blanket and look inside?