And in other news from the early 1900s…

And in other news from the early 1900s…

Reshared post from +Sarah Hill

Mom booted from court­room for breast­feed­ing.
http://​www​.huff​in​g​ton​post​.com/​2​0​1​1​/​1​1​/​1​4​/​n​a​t​a​l​i​e​-​h​e​g​e​d​u​s​-​c​o​u​r​t​r​o​o​m​-​b​r​e​a​s​t​f​e​e​d​i​n​g​_​n​_​1​0​8​9​2​7​1​.​h​tml

Embed­ded Link

Natalie Hege­dus, Mom, Kicked Out Of Court­room For Breast­feed­ing
Appar­ently, feed­ing your child is some­thing to be ashamed of — at least accord­ing to one district court judge. Michi­gan resi­dent and mother of a 5-month-old baby, Natalie Hege­dus, was report­edly “cal…

Google+: View post on Google+

Post imported by Google+Blog. Created By Daniel Tread­well.

Comments

  • I don’t think it’s anyone’s favorite thing in the world, but I certainly am not both­ered by it… at all. It’d be like telling me I can’t hold my husband’s hand in public…

  • I also don’t have a prob­lem with it, but your anal­ogy doesn’t strike me as apt.

    In what way does hold­ing your husbands hand paral­lel breast feed­ing?

  • While the rela­tion­ship of a mother to her child might be reflected in breast feed­ing, I’m pretty sure that it is not an ‘act of affec­tion’ but rather an act of feed­ing a hungry child.

    Agreed that neither are sexual acts, but I don’t think we should group things as alike by defin­ing what they are not.

  • Wow. I wish I was still breast­feed­ing just so I could go sit in that court­room. If it’s appro­pri­ate to bottle feed, it’s appro­pri­ate to breast feed. IMO

  • It appears as though Michi­gan is one of the few states that doesn’t have a law expressly stat­ing that moth­ers shall not be prohib­ited from breast­feed­ing any place (public or private) where the mother it other­wise autho­rized to be. 

    That’s a shame.

  • i would compare it to kick­ing some­one out for eating or drink­ing. breast­feed­ing isn’t an act of affec­tion. sure it can be, but it’s more of an act of NECESSITY.

  • It’s not neces­sar­ily an act of neces­sity when there are alter­na­tive meth­ods for feed­ing a baby. Why does a mother choose to breast-feed over bottle feed­ing?

  • +Erin Leland Are you saying then that a mother who doesn’t breast feed their baby shows a lack of affec­tion?

    I’m sure you wouldn’t, and by exten­sion I don’t think it’s fair to compare hand hold­ing to breast­feed­ing. Keep in mind I’m agree­ing that it’s absurd she got thrown out of the court­room for breast­feed­ing.

  • my neces­sity comment was refer­ring to the fact that feed­ing a child = a neces­sary act. my child has never had formula. i don’t consider that an “alter­na­tive” method of feed­ing her, and im not the only breast­feed­ing mom i know who feels that way. there are a lot of factors to play in this, but the bottom line is that you cant force some­one to formula feed, just like you cant force them to breast­feed out of public view. 

    also, there have been plenty of times that i didn’t want to feed her but did because she was hungry. which plays into my “its not always an act of affec­tion” comment. i dont see how feed­ing your child is an act of affec­tion what­so­ever. its parental respon­si­bil­ity. is chang­ing a diaper an act of affec­tion?

  • +Tim Glaser I’m talk­ing about women who choose to breast­feed, not women who don’t. When there are other options avail­able, and a woman presum­ably has a choice, what is the decid­ing factor for the woman who DOES breast­feed? You’re telling me it’s not got anything to do with bond­ing with the child? Noth­ing to do with the affec­tion between a mother and her baby? Maybe not at 2AM when mom’s trying to sleep, but I think people are just being argu­men­ta­tive to suggest that choos­ing to breast­feed rather than feed your child from a bottle (and who said “formula?”) has absolutely noth­ing to do with the bond between a mother and a child (i.e. affec­tion).

    You don’t think it’s fair perhaps, because you haven’t breast­fed a child. It is a perfectly valid compar­ison on my part. I think that the two things are very much alike. You’re quite welcome to disagree with me, but your disagree­ment doesn’t inval­i­date my view that the two things are morally equiv­a­lent.

    +Vita Haake, neces­sity doesn’t negate affec­tion. Just because I need to do it doesn’t mean that HOW I do it is totally divorced from trying to be close to and nurtur­ing of my child.

  • +Erin Leland Bottle fed babies have a higher rate of sick­ness and obesity. The only reason why women shouldn’t breast­feed is if they are on medica­tions that could pass on to the baby or if they are having a more mechan­i­cal prob­lem and can’t produce enough milk.

    Breast­feed­ing is a necces­sity.

    While a woman can pump, a baby pulls the milk from the breast more effi­ciently, so a woman can bottle feed breast milk but the quan­tity just isn’t there.

  • +Margaret Bailey, I am very well aware of all of the bene­fits of breast­feed­ing. I have breast­fed both of my daugh­ters. This isn’t the point. Whether they should or not isn’t the ques­tion. I am not sure why you are telling me this…

  • You said “It’s not neces­sar­ily an act of neces­sity when there are alter­na­tive meth­ods for feed­ing a baby. Why does a mother choose to breast-feed over bottle feed­ing?“
    Thats why.

  • +Erin Leland If there are people on the fence for this issue, and you would like to work towards persuad­ing people, using the anal­ogy that breast­feed­ing = hold­ing hands is not going to go over.

    I’m sure there is a better anal­ogy.

    Anyways, sorry to derail the thread. Every­one post­ing did agree that the court took a ridicu­lous posi­tion in this case. However this just goes to show that even when there is agree­ment, it is not neces­sar­ily complete agree­ment on all facets.

  • I think the argu­ment is valid because a court of law isn’t likely to defend someone’s right to be affec­tion­ate in public. But their right to eat, on the other hand… 🙂

    I know women who HATE breast­feed­ing but do it for the child’s health.

Comments are closed.

Respond