If you ask me (and nobody did), I think this whole thing over arguing about whether seniors should have end of life counseling and things like that is a lot of silliness.
Why? Well, because it doesn't seem to be ANYTHING like people are trying to make it out to be.
End of life counseling does not mean that you are 70 years old, so instead of getting the health treatment that you need, you are sent to a person who is going to counsel you on the fact you are going to die soon instead.
It means that if you are 70 years old, you probably don't have as much of an estimated lifespan as you did when you were 20. I think anybody who has made it to 70 can tell you they might think they have 20 years, but not 50 more years or 60 more years.
It just simply means (and it seems to me that's what it means from the context I've seen it in the bill they're trying to pass) that it's an option (not a mandate) that the elderly will have access to if they want it.
Why would they want it? Well, first of all that doesn't mean that they can choose either to go to the doctor and get a problem fixed or just go to counseling about how they'll die soon. It IS true that a lot of elderly men and women ARE a afraid of dying, have realized that they probably don't have several decades before they're going to just simply die of natural causes, and they might want to talk to someone about it.
I would. I definitely would NOT forgo medical treatment if I were 70 and got sick or had an injury. And nobody would be forcing me to. But, regardless of whether I was sick or not, I'd probably want to talk to someone about my fears or just my thoughts about the fact that...hey...I could go to sleep tonight and not wake up tomorrow, because sometimes people in their 70's do that.
Not always. But, it's a real possibility you have to account for when you are that old. It isn't that Obama is trying to say that you're going to die anyway, so you can't have health care because you are not a productive member of society anymore, or you are not going to be a productive member of society much longer.
I don't know why this is so hard to understand. Is it so hard to believe that people who once used to look in the mirror when they were 20 and saw a young and vital person, who now are 70 or so and look into the mirror and see what time and age has just simply naturally done (which they always knew it would) would maybe feel sad?
And under the bill that's out now, if they feel sad from what I understand from what I've read, it will be covered by their health insurance if they are under the public option to go and talk to a professional about it. They wouldn't have to worry about paying for it out-of-pocket, because lets face it not all elderly men and women have the money to do something like that.
I think its a good thing. It's not deciding for you when to pull the plug on grandma. I find that insinuation to be very insulting and very mean and nothing but fearmongering. And to misinform the public on something like that, by using such examples, is almost tantamount to evil in my opinion.
Not all elderly will take advantage of something like that, even if it were covered by their health care. Why? Well, not all elderly even need it. Some seniors are very happy where they are in life and have little to no trouble accepting their age and the fact that they don't have as long to live anymore as they did when they were 20.
My grandmother was always very upset at the way she had aged, but I thought she was beautiful. Then again, maybe that's 'cause she was my grandma. :p
By contrast, my grandfather was just fine with how old he was, and it didn't bother him that he didn't have as much time as he would've if he were still 20.
Everyone is different. So therefore, everyone has different needs and wants. That's fine.
But, if my grandmother wanted to take end of life counseling, and this bill were in place at the time, she would not have needed to be ill to do it. She would not have needed to forfeit any future health care just because she was old and chose to talk to someone about her fears, feelings and thoughts on growing old and maybe dying soon.
And nobody would force her to do it, either. Even if it were to be something encouraged, they wouldn't have to say yes. Encouragement and making something mandatory are not the same thing. And having an "option" has never meant that you HAVE to take it. That is why it's an option and not a mandate.
I don't know, I just thought someone ought to say it out like this. Maybe it'll make people angry. Maybe it won't. I don't know, and I don't care.
I've read it and this is what I garnered from it.
To me, from what I understood, it would be like when my primary care physician recommended to me that I have a pelvic exam. I'm uncomfortable with the ideas of this. So, I said no. She didn't like it, she encouraged it, but she couldn't FORCE me to do it.
In the same token, under this new bill, if I were 70 and my primary care physician recommended that I have end of life counseling for whatever reason, I could easily just say no and whether he/she liked it didn't matter. It would be my decision.
There are other things in this bill, as well, that I've noticed people are being misinformed about. Here is what I used to look things up.
H.R. 3200
This is a PDF file, though. Just so you know. :p If the link becomes broken, let me know and I will do my best to fix it.
Also, if anyone would like to, I don't mind if people give ME links. Just, if you think I'm wrong, I do want you to back it up by giving me a link. I'm from Missouri, and anyone that knows us here knows that we're The Show Me State for a reason! ;)
Anyway...I just wanted to get that off my chest.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Monday, August 3, 2009
It seems to me...
That some people are confuse about what equality really means. I have a friend who went to college and had a feminism class, and most of the class was about finding anti-woman remarks in just about anything someone might say. Even if that meant taking things out of context.
I have nothing against feminism. I am all for it! I just don’t agree with the fanatical feminists. Fanatics in any group kind of scare me, because they are the ones that truly give the groups bad names anymore.
Feminism is about equality. It is not about women rising above men. I don’t buy the idea, either, that women must rise above men in order to be equal to men because the world is pro-man and anti-woman.
If we were all equal, then the world would not be pro-man or pro-woman, it would just be pro-person. And feminism is also about women being allowed to make their own choices without anyone telling her she is wrong because of her sex.
Yet, many feminists get all bent out of shape when women want to choose to be stay-at-home mothers. They insist that that woman is lazy, or that she has no backbone or no ambition. Isn’t feminism about not judging women for their choices based on the fact that they are women? So, then, why are so many feminists all bent out of shape over this particular issue?
I suppose that it is possible they see it as a woman who is taking a step backward, rather than a step forward. I don’t see it that way, myself. I am not a mother, so no this is not me being angry because people called me lazy because I wanted to be a stay-at-home mom. But, I do know women who are mothers, and a couple of them wanted to be stay-at-home mothers and came up against much opposition from family and friends who couldn’t understand their point of view.
I think it is anti-feminist to judge a woman for wanting to be a stay-at-home mom just because she is a woman and “could do more” with her life. There is nothing wrong with staying home and raising the children. Just so long as this is a choice SHE wants to make. Not that her husband wants to make.
In fact, when you are married decisions like this need to be mutual. Not one person making a choice over another person. So, as long as they can afford to live on a single income, and as long as the choice is mutual between the couple, what is wrong with her staying at home? Nothing, from what I see.
However, I do agree that if a woman wants to stay home to raise the kids because she thinks that is what she is expected to do, or because her husband has decided to be controling over it…is extremely wrong. I also think that if she wants to stay at home because she thinks that that is just a woman’s job, that is also wrong.
A woman’s job does not begin and end with her reproductive organs. A woman has just as much potential as any man does, and should have every same right as a man does.
But, if a man is allowed to choose to stay at home or go to work, should not then a woman also be allowed to choose to do that? I hear quite often, “let the man stay home, while the woman goes to work!” and other such suggestions.
My answer? Fine. Let him! If he wants to. But, if a woman wants to do that it is wrong to judge her for wanting to.
That, to me, is true equality. There should be no “male” role or “female” role in society as far as such things go.
Being a stay-at-home mom when a woman wants to be is just fine. Provided, as I said, it is realistic. The same thing goes for stay-at-home dads. Again, provided it is realistic.
In this economy right now, though, it is probably unrealistic for most families to opt for one parent to stay at home. It IS lazy, or at least irresponsible, for a woman OR a man to be a stay-at-home parent if they cannot afford to do so.
And that is the only time a person should be judged on such things. Not because she is a woman staying at home raising the kids. Not because he is a man doing a “woman’s” job. But, because, instead, it is under unrealistic circumstances.
I am very tired of hearing women who claim to be feminists calling other women lazy or spineless because they would rather stay at home and raise their children when they have the realistic means to do so. Why? Because, those women are not feminists. They are anti-feminists, because they are judging the woman on the basis of the fact that she is a woman.
I know that often women who do this will insist that it isn’t true. But, it is! I can’t see how else you can spin it. Many of those same women will also say, “let the man stay home instead!” but that is proving my point! It’s okay for the man to do it, but not the woman? That’s just reversing the problem.
Reversing a problem doesn’t give a solution to it. It just furthers the same problem with the shoe on the other foot. I suppose that revenge is a nice thought, but it is silly and petty. The only goal should be equality, because that is what feminism is about. Equality.
It should be no more okay for a woman to go to work, than for a man to go to work. It should also be no more okay for a man to stay at home and raise the children than for a woman to do so. Just so long as she is doing it because SHE wants to. Not because she HAS to or because a man TOLD her to.
And please understand that I am not bashing feminism or feminists with this post! I am only referring to the feminists who take such a fanatical stance on feminine rights that they want to elevate women above men, rather than just stand equally beside each other.
Equality is equality. Equal rights are equal rights. In my opinion, it deminishes the whole concept of feminism and the entire struggle if we try to put the shoe on the other foot rather than put the shoes away instead.Standing Ground
US Soldier Kidnapped by the Taliban is 23-year-old Paratrooper Bowe Bergdahl
I remember when these kinds of kidnappings, and not just of soldiers but of civilians and reporters, even of missionaries, were making headline and breaking news just about every day back in the early days of the war.
Just like now, and in other recent kidnappings, the Taliban seemed to think that if they just got hold of an American, soldier or not, they would be able to use that person as leverage against the United States to achieve a goal. Usually, it was some kind of demand. As it is this time, with this soldier.
I don't know why they haven't come to understand yet, that like every single time they've tried this kind of tactic it fails because the United States will never give in to demands of terrorists. It is imperative that the United States stand its ground. Not out of pride, however. No, if there is pride involved in such a decision it is merely incidental.
The fact of the matter is, that the United States can't give in to the Taliban, or any other terrorist group. If it does, and it meets the demands, more than likely what will happen is that a precedent will be set. Anytime anyone wants to get something out of the US, what will happen is that they will kidnap an American. Hold them for ransom until the demands are met.
Many people want our troops out of the Middle East, so some people may think it would be just as well to give in. But, that is not the point. I want our troops out of the Middle East as well. But, I can see the reasoning behind not meeting the demands of the Taliban.
Soon, it will not be just wanting our troops gone, it will be for other reasons. And no, bringing the troops out will not stop Americans from being kidnapped in the Middle East. The fact is, Americans were there long before the troops went there to fight wars. Missionaries were there, charity workers were there, tourists were there.
I remember in the early days of the war, when this kind of thing was being reported all the time, that people were often outraged when W. Bush wouldn't meet the demands to save the lives of the kidnapped Americans. I agree that W. Bush did a lot of stupid things, and as it turns out he apparently did a lot of horrible things. That is not the point, though. Not caving in to the demands of the terrorists was probably the smartest thing he did.
It's like with a child. If you give in to them too much, they become spoiled and think they get whatever they want if they just apply the same or similar tactics every time. And as they continue to get what they want, it reinforces the behavior and they move on to more extreme demands.
Now, a child isn't going to hold an adult hostage and demand that they give the child what he or she wants or the adult "gets it" but it's essentially the same pattern.
If we give in, it sets a bad precedent of likely future events that are more than likely going to be far worse than the ones we see now.
I don't think I've noticed any outrage over recent incidents of the US not giving in. But, in the beginning of the war I remember hearing about it. I remember having discussions with my grandfather over it, is the only reason I really remember the public outrage.
Unfortunately, it's not just stubbornness and pride that play a factor in the fact that America cannot give in to the Taliban and give them what they want in order to get Private First Class Bergdahl back to where he needs to be, safe and sound. If they would truly let him go alive. It really is that it would be giving way to more heinous crimes later, to a huge spike in abductions, possibly even people being abducted from US soil itself and brought to the Middle East for these types of things.
If they can recruit men and women in the US to their cause, it should be no problem to abduct them for ransom instead. Let's hope that doesn't happen.
I'm just glad that I don't hear such outrage anymore over a US decision not to give in to the demands. My heart does go out to Private First Class Bergdahl and his family, and his friends and his girlfriend. And to all those who had similar experiences before him. To those who will have experiences like this after him. To those who made it through and to those who did not. To those that will and to those that won't.
It really does, I feel for them all. And I, myself, would not want to be in such a situation. Nor would I want my friends or family members to be.
But, I can understand why we can't give in. I can only hope that he is being treated as well as we are being led to believe he's being treated. That he is still alive, and still being treated well. And that they will let him go, alive, even though they won't get what they want. Or that, at the very least, where is being held is found and he is rescued. If that ever becomes a possibility.
I also have to wonder if he is being forced to say the things he is saying. At least some of them. Some of it sounds a little odd for a kidnapped US soldier to be saying, but...then again there are could be a stockholm syndrome element coming into play.
I don't know which to hope for, really. I just hope only that he is truly being treated well, and that he will be let go safe and alive and allowed to go home.
I don't know if that is a realistic hope, but I'm hoping for it anyway. Because, the US can't give in. And those in power to make the decisions over this know that. So, the US won't be giving in. So, hope for him to be set free alive is really one of the only options I can think of, aside from US troops being allowed to search for him where they really think he has the better chance of being located at and finding him, rescuing him. Other than those two options, there really is no other option, except the more tragic ones.
Right now, hope is all that is left.
I remember when these kinds of kidnappings, and not just of soldiers but of civilians and reporters, even of missionaries, were making headline and breaking news just about every day back in the early days of the war.
Just like now, and in other recent kidnappings, the Taliban seemed to think that if they just got hold of an American, soldier or not, they would be able to use that person as leverage against the United States to achieve a goal. Usually, it was some kind of demand. As it is this time, with this soldier.
I don't know why they haven't come to understand yet, that like every single time they've tried this kind of tactic it fails because the United States will never give in to demands of terrorists. It is imperative that the United States stand its ground. Not out of pride, however. No, if there is pride involved in such a decision it is merely incidental.
The fact of the matter is, that the United States can't give in to the Taliban, or any other terrorist group. If it does, and it meets the demands, more than likely what will happen is that a precedent will be set. Anytime anyone wants to get something out of the US, what will happen is that they will kidnap an American. Hold them for ransom until the demands are met.
Many people want our troops out of the Middle East, so some people may think it would be just as well to give in. But, that is not the point. I want our troops out of the Middle East as well. But, I can see the reasoning behind not meeting the demands of the Taliban.
Soon, it will not be just wanting our troops gone, it will be for other reasons. And no, bringing the troops out will not stop Americans from being kidnapped in the Middle East. The fact is, Americans were there long before the troops went there to fight wars. Missionaries were there, charity workers were there, tourists were there.
I remember in the early days of the war, when this kind of thing was being reported all the time, that people were often outraged when W. Bush wouldn't meet the demands to save the lives of the kidnapped Americans. I agree that W. Bush did a lot of stupid things, and as it turns out he apparently did a lot of horrible things. That is not the point, though. Not caving in to the demands of the terrorists was probably the smartest thing he did.
It's like with a child. If you give in to them too much, they become spoiled and think they get whatever they want if they just apply the same or similar tactics every time. And as they continue to get what they want, it reinforces the behavior and they move on to more extreme demands.
Now, a child isn't going to hold an adult hostage and demand that they give the child what he or she wants or the adult "gets it" but it's essentially the same pattern.
If we give in, it sets a bad precedent of likely future events that are more than likely going to be far worse than the ones we see now.
I don't think I've noticed any outrage over recent incidents of the US not giving in. But, in the beginning of the war I remember hearing about it. I remember having discussions with my grandfather over it, is the only reason I really remember the public outrage.
Unfortunately, it's not just stubbornness and pride that play a factor in the fact that America cannot give in to the Taliban and give them what they want in order to get Private First Class Bergdahl back to where he needs to be, safe and sound. If they would truly let him go alive. It really is that it would be giving way to more heinous crimes later, to a huge spike in abductions, possibly even people being abducted from US soil itself and brought to the Middle East for these types of things.
If they can recruit men and women in the US to their cause, it should be no problem to abduct them for ransom instead. Let's hope that doesn't happen.
I'm just glad that I don't hear such outrage anymore over a US decision not to give in to the demands. My heart does go out to Private First Class Bergdahl and his family, and his friends and his girlfriend. And to all those who had similar experiences before him. To those who will have experiences like this after him. To those who made it through and to those who did not. To those that will and to those that won't.
It really does, I feel for them all. And I, myself, would not want to be in such a situation. Nor would I want my friends or family members to be.
But, I can understand why we can't give in. I can only hope that he is being treated as well as we are being led to believe he's being treated. That he is still alive, and still being treated well. And that they will let him go, alive, even though they won't get what they want. Or that, at the very least, where is being held is found and he is rescued. If that ever becomes a possibility.
I also have to wonder if he is being forced to say the things he is saying. At least some of them. Some of it sounds a little odd for a kidnapped US soldier to be saying, but...then again there are could be a stockholm syndrome element coming into play.
I don't know which to hope for, really. I just hope only that he is truly being treated well, and that he will be let go safe and alive and allowed to go home.
I don't know if that is a realistic hope, but I'm hoping for it anyway. Because, the US can't give in. And those in power to make the decisions over this know that. So, the US won't be giving in. So, hope for him to be set free alive is really one of the only options I can think of, aside from US troops being allowed to search for him where they really think he has the better chance of being located at and finding him, rescuing him. Other than those two options, there really is no other option, except the more tragic ones.
Right now, hope is all that is left.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Practice What You Preach
I have heard this phrase a lot in my short lifetime so far. Sometimes directed at me, to make me stop and think about what I was doing or saying. Sometimes directed at someone else for the same purpose.
The other day I was browsing websites, and came upon a blog site that talked about the shooting in Tel Aviv.
If anyone reading my blog doesn't know what shootings I'm referring to, here are some links:
Gunman Kills 2 at Tel Aviv Club for Gay Youths (Reuters)
2 Shot Dead at Gay Center in Tel Aviv (New York Times)
This did not happen in America, that's true. But things like this DO happen in America. And in just about every other country I can think of.
Why? Because most governments don't practice what they preach. It's chic now to preach tolerance for the LGBT people and communities. Even in countries other than the United States. It's chic now to do this, to preach that we should be tolerant of LGBT people, to let them live their lives and do as they wish, to express themselves. To be open about their sexuality and their "alternative" lifestyle.
But, this is part of the problem! Why? Because, the governments of the countries that do this do NOT practice what they preach. You cannot preach tolerance and understanding, tell your citizens not to discriminate against a minority group, and then turn around and practice intolerance against that same group (or groups) and discriminate against them and expect the citizens to understand that these are people and not freaks.
The very way that the governments of these countries act (or do not act, as the case may be!) is a major part of the problem. This is a major reason that I think governments need to make LAWS protecting minorities, INCLUDING the LGBT people.
And I do not think hate crime laws are good enough. No. Laws need to be enacted that give minorities like the LGBT citizens of a country not only the same protections as the majorities of these countries, but also the same rights. ALL of the same rights. Not just some. Not rights with separate names from that of the majority, either.
Civil unions are NOT marriages. And they do NOT provide all of the same protections and securities that an actual marriage does.
In a way, by not treating the LGBT communities as if they are the same as the rest of the majority citizens, we are truly harming them.
No, making these laws and guaranteeing these rights will not solve the problem. I never meant to imply that they would. BUT, it will be a major step in the right direction. It would be like the governments of these countries are saying, "we will no longer tolerate or facilitate the intolerance and discrimination of the LGBT community."
Because, if our own governments cannot bring themselves to recognize and embrace LGBT people, then how can the rest of the majority citizens who do not share these lifestyles ever hope to do the same as a majority whole?
They can't. Until the governments really get serious, and stop just chuckling and patting the LGBT community on the head as if it were a small, dull child that needs to be made to think it is getting its way when it really is not, we will not see much of a decline in the type of behavior in Tel Aviv by that masked gunman.
For those who do not want to read the articles, I will tell you right now that the gunman opened fire on a group that was mostly teenagers. That's right. Teenagers. Kids. Three people as far as I know are dead. Two died at the scene, one later in the hospital.
These people were, to my knowledge (unless I missed something when reading these articles myself, or unless new information that I haven't read on this subject yet is out) were minors. That's right. Not even legal adults, yet.
They did NOTHING wrong. I do not know whether this masked gunman had a religious reason behind what he did, or if it was just simple homophobia without any reason other than he just does not like LGBT people.
These kids did not deserve what happened to them. None of them deserved the injuries, none of them deserved to die, their families don't deserve to go through this, their friends don't deserve to have to go through this, and none of them deserve the nightmares that will like follow and probably psychological damage.
I can't say that they will, I am not a doctor. I just know that if it were me, I sure as hell would have nightmares and psychological damage. If my friend died because she or he did nothing wrong but attend an LGBT support group, I would damn sure have problems. If my brother, or sister, or daughter, or son died for no reason other than he or she was gay, I sure as hell would have issues.
It's time people stopped seeing LGBT people as freaks or second-class citizens, set apart from the rest of society.
And it has to start with the governments. It must. Government needs to lead by example in this. Only then can we begin to truly see changes start to be made.
Anyway. That's my opinion.
The other day I was browsing websites, and came upon a blog site that talked about the shooting in Tel Aviv.
If anyone reading my blog doesn't know what shootings I'm referring to, here are some links:
Gunman Kills 2 at Tel Aviv Club for Gay Youths (Reuters)
2 Shot Dead at Gay Center in Tel Aviv (New York Times)
This did not happen in America, that's true. But things like this DO happen in America. And in just about every other country I can think of.
Why? Because most governments don't practice what they preach. It's chic now to preach tolerance for the LGBT people and communities. Even in countries other than the United States. It's chic now to do this, to preach that we should be tolerant of LGBT people, to let them live their lives and do as they wish, to express themselves. To be open about their sexuality and their "alternative" lifestyle.
But, this is part of the problem! Why? Because, the governments of the countries that do this do NOT practice what they preach. You cannot preach tolerance and understanding, tell your citizens not to discriminate against a minority group, and then turn around and practice intolerance against that same group (or groups) and discriminate against them and expect the citizens to understand that these are people and not freaks.
The very way that the governments of these countries act (or do not act, as the case may be!) is a major part of the problem. This is a major reason that I think governments need to make LAWS protecting minorities, INCLUDING the LGBT people.
And I do not think hate crime laws are good enough. No. Laws need to be enacted that give minorities like the LGBT citizens of a country not only the same protections as the majorities of these countries, but also the same rights. ALL of the same rights. Not just some. Not rights with separate names from that of the majority, either.
Civil unions are NOT marriages. And they do NOT provide all of the same protections and securities that an actual marriage does.
In a way, by not treating the LGBT communities as if they are the same as the rest of the majority citizens, we are truly harming them.
No, making these laws and guaranteeing these rights will not solve the problem. I never meant to imply that they would. BUT, it will be a major step in the right direction. It would be like the governments of these countries are saying, "we will no longer tolerate or facilitate the intolerance and discrimination of the LGBT community."
Because, if our own governments cannot bring themselves to recognize and embrace LGBT people, then how can the rest of the majority citizens who do not share these lifestyles ever hope to do the same as a majority whole?
They can't. Until the governments really get serious, and stop just chuckling and patting the LGBT community on the head as if it were a small, dull child that needs to be made to think it is getting its way when it really is not, we will not see much of a decline in the type of behavior in Tel Aviv by that masked gunman.
For those who do not want to read the articles, I will tell you right now that the gunman opened fire on a group that was mostly teenagers. That's right. Teenagers. Kids. Three people as far as I know are dead. Two died at the scene, one later in the hospital.
These people were, to my knowledge (unless I missed something when reading these articles myself, or unless new information that I haven't read on this subject yet is out) were minors. That's right. Not even legal adults, yet.
They did NOTHING wrong. I do not know whether this masked gunman had a religious reason behind what he did, or if it was just simple homophobia without any reason other than he just does not like LGBT people.
These kids did not deserve what happened to them. None of them deserved the injuries, none of them deserved to die, their families don't deserve to go through this, their friends don't deserve to have to go through this, and none of them deserve the nightmares that will like follow and probably psychological damage.
I can't say that they will, I am not a doctor. I just know that if it were me, I sure as hell would have nightmares and psychological damage. If my friend died because she or he did nothing wrong but attend an LGBT support group, I would damn sure have problems. If my brother, or sister, or daughter, or son died for no reason other than he or she was gay, I sure as hell would have issues.
It's time people stopped seeing LGBT people as freaks or second-class citizens, set apart from the rest of society.
And it has to start with the governments. It must. Government needs to lead by example in this. Only then can we begin to truly see changes start to be made.
Anyway. That's my opinion.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Breastfeeding in Public
New Public Breastfeeding Law Takes Effect March 1, 2009 in Rhode Island (Medical News Today)
I can't imagine why this is even an issue. There are a lot of women who breast feed their children, and contrary to what people might think there are issues with pumping breast milk before going somewhere and then bringing it along with you in a bottle.
Just look these complications up, or ask someone who has breastfed their baby before and run into these complications. Storage is not quite as easy as people think. Breast milk must stay cold in order to be preserved for the child. And, then, when you get ready to feed the baby you will need to warm it up.
Okay, so now what? You are in a mall or in Wal-Mart or somewhere else with the child, who wants to eat, and you have to warm up the bottle because you had to carry it around packed in ice or something equally cold in order to keep it fresh for the baby. That's fine, you found a way to do that. But, now you have to warm up the bottle. No microwave. Nobody wants to help you out in the food court or deli or snack bar. Most of these places have industrial microwaves, anyway, so these would more than likely make the bottle too hot anyway.
Beforehand, anyway, pumping your breast milk only gets a little milk at a time from what I've found out (not first-hand, but seen and read of), so the above situation would only make sense if you planned far enough in advance before having to go anywhere (which would make an emergency run to the store or something impossible) to get enough milk to have enough while you were gone with the baby.
Another thing is that people don't seem to be able to distinguish the difference between exhibitionism and breastfeeding.
A mother is not having sex with anyone in public when she is breastfeeding her baby. It is not the same thing as whipping out her boobs, either, and fondling them in front of your boyfriend, husband or children.
It just baffles me that people can't figure out that there is nothing indecent about a mother feeding her baby just because she chooses to breastfeed in public. The child should not be made to starve just for people with tender sensibilities.
If someone doesn't want to see, then don't look. It's that simple. If you find it hard not to look, that is not the mother's fault and it is not the mother's problem. It is the person who can't keep their eyes to themselves.
She should not have to cater to the people who don't like it. Just as she is free to get up and leave, so is the person finding it just simply impossible not to look at.
And if you ask, "why should I have to leave just because she wants to feed her child in public??" well then why should SHE have to leave just because "you" don't like to watch? Avert your gaze. If it is too sexually erotic for you to handle, seeing a mother breastfeeding her child, then you have other issues that need addressing and they are not her problem or fault.
It isn't the same as exhibitionism, it isn't the same as smoking in public where the second-hand smoke is HARMFUL to people INHALING it.
A mother breastfeeding her baby harms no one and nothing. And if someone thinks it does...well, I think they have issues they need to address with a doctor.
If my opinion stated so bluntly is offensive to someone I apologize for that, but not for my opinions themselves.
I am glad that there are states making it harder for establishments to throw breastfeeding mothers out, or to ask them to leave or cover up. I am hoping that more states enact them. In fact, it would be nice if they would become federal laws. I am already thankful for the states that exempt breastfeeding mothers from public indecency laws.
Nosy busybodies should stay out of other people's business. But, since they apparently cannot, I think these laws all need to go federal. I don't know if they will or not, it's probably unlikely that they will. But, at the very least I think they SHOULD be federal.
I can't imagine why this is even an issue. There are a lot of women who breast feed their children, and contrary to what people might think there are issues with pumping breast milk before going somewhere and then bringing it along with you in a bottle.
Just look these complications up, or ask someone who has breastfed their baby before and run into these complications. Storage is not quite as easy as people think. Breast milk must stay cold in order to be preserved for the child. And, then, when you get ready to feed the baby you will need to warm it up.
Okay, so now what? You are in a mall or in Wal-Mart or somewhere else with the child, who wants to eat, and you have to warm up the bottle because you had to carry it around packed in ice or something equally cold in order to keep it fresh for the baby. That's fine, you found a way to do that. But, now you have to warm up the bottle. No microwave. Nobody wants to help you out in the food court or deli or snack bar. Most of these places have industrial microwaves, anyway, so these would more than likely make the bottle too hot anyway.
Beforehand, anyway, pumping your breast milk only gets a little milk at a time from what I've found out (not first-hand, but seen and read of), so the above situation would only make sense if you planned far enough in advance before having to go anywhere (which would make an emergency run to the store or something impossible) to get enough milk to have enough while you were gone with the baby.
Another thing is that people don't seem to be able to distinguish the difference between exhibitionism and breastfeeding.
A mother is not having sex with anyone in public when she is breastfeeding her baby. It is not the same thing as whipping out her boobs, either, and fondling them in front of your boyfriend, husband or children.
It just baffles me that people can't figure out that there is nothing indecent about a mother feeding her baby just because she chooses to breastfeed in public. The child should not be made to starve just for people with tender sensibilities.
If someone doesn't want to see, then don't look. It's that simple. If you find it hard not to look, that is not the mother's fault and it is not the mother's problem. It is the person who can't keep their eyes to themselves.
She should not have to cater to the people who don't like it. Just as she is free to get up and leave, so is the person finding it just simply impossible not to look at.
And if you ask, "why should I have to leave just because she wants to feed her child in public??" well then why should SHE have to leave just because "you" don't like to watch? Avert your gaze. If it is too sexually erotic for you to handle, seeing a mother breastfeeding her child, then you have other issues that need addressing and they are not her problem or fault.
It isn't the same as exhibitionism, it isn't the same as smoking in public where the second-hand smoke is HARMFUL to people INHALING it.
A mother breastfeeding her baby harms no one and nothing. And if someone thinks it does...well, I think they have issues they need to address with a doctor.
If my opinion stated so bluntly is offensive to someone I apologize for that, but not for my opinions themselves.
I am glad that there are states making it harder for establishments to throw breastfeeding mothers out, or to ask them to leave or cover up. I am hoping that more states enact them. In fact, it would be nice if they would become federal laws. I am already thankful for the states that exempt breastfeeding mothers from public indecency laws.
Nosy busybodies should stay out of other people's business. But, since they apparently cannot, I think these laws all need to go federal. I don't know if they will or not, it's probably unlikely that they will. But, at the very least I think they SHOULD be federal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
