CreateDebate


Debate Info

16
4
yes no
Debate Score:20
Arguments:23
Total Votes:23
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 yes (14)
 
 no (4)

Debate Creator

Megan3955(7) pic



Breast feeding in public

Do you think breast feeding should be allowed or not take your pick????

yes

Side Score: 16
VS.

no

Side Score: 4
2 points

I'd say yes. Here's what I'd do. This is going to sound stupid but...

Have breast feeding stations, kind of like bathrooms, where a mother can bring her baby into and take her shirt off an breast feed. This could be done in public, even if people decided against nudity, it would still be discrete.

I personally think that there might be a problem with nudity in public for a lot of people, but the need for clothes are purely evolutionary, cited source:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4HGfagANiQ

So, I kind of think that video is relevant. I consider it an argument in favor of allowing nudity, but some people might think otherwise.

Why Do We Wear Clothes?
Side: yes
1 point

It strikes me as fairly asinine to restrict the harmless behavior of others simply because it may make some people uncomfortable. And I think creating privacy areas within public settings rather sidesteps the matter of public breast feeding. It also strikes me as an unnecessary waste of funds, space, and energy... particularly when we could instead just insist that people get over their baseless entitlement and stop regulating the behavior of others when it has nothing to do with them.

Side: yes
1 point

Kinda like the religious freedom bill.

Side: yes
ghostheadX(1105) Clarified
1 point

I'm not disputing you I'm supporting you. I'm just saying I can see the perspective of someone who thinks this works against your point and not for it. What I'm saying is, if its purely evolutionary than it isn't rational unless they made the law and the evolutionary purpose turns out to be right and people start fucking in people and having children with random people they don't know. At that point, maybe clothing is a good idea, but I don't think that would happen.

I do think, to be fair to the other side, there's a good point that both boys and girls, at a young age, are immature about seeing such things and it affects them mentally. A lot of parents don't want their children seeing such things, so if people are scared of it, it might make it a less practical law to make if parents are covering their kids eyes and then when the kid gets old enough they aren't allowed to leave home because their crazy nut job parents don't want them going out in public. I see nothing wrong with that as an opposing argument, but I agree with your main point that it should be allowed.

I feel like in a lot of these debates there is not enough respect and understanding for the opposing perspective. Maybe what I just said clarifies what I think the opposing logical argument is.

Don't take this as sarcasm. I completely agree with you, but my point is that such a law is easier said than done.

Side: yes
1 point

yes because a baby needs nourishment it cant just go hungery and besides no one want to hear a crying baby That terrible

Side: yes
1 point

Yes, a mother feeding her hungry baby is the most natural and beautiful thing in the world. I cannot for the life of me, understand how anyone could have the slightest objection. When babies want fed they let you know in no uncertain manner and the only thing to do is feed them. What else do the morons expect you to do? Permit me this little joke;- the only problem is that the baby gets in the way and spoils the view, L.O.L. Just a light hearted wise crack, no offence intended to anyone.

Side: yes
ghostheadX(1105) Clarified
1 point

Have you ever actually done this in public? I know the answer is no, but my point is that people have gone out naked in public before. They have all gotten arrested. If you allow this, which I agree with you, then do you believe in nudity in public?

Side: yes

I won't get into an argument regarding the necessity of covering ones sex organs.

Breasts, however, are not sex organs. Sure, the breasts and nipples are sexually attractive and sexually sensitive. So what? A male chest is sexually attractive, and male nipples are certainly sexually sensitive. The idea that one should be covered up and the other needn't be is ridiculous as far as I'm concerned.

Many guys find legs sexually attractive, even moreso than breasts, and there are several erogenous zones in the legs. Should women be required to wear long pants or skirts at all times too?

What is the rationale for the double standard that considers a bare-chested male a-ok but a bare-chested female to be unacceptably exposed? If anything, the male chests should be covered- there is no functional use for male nipples beyond sexual titillation that I'm aware of, unlike women who breastfeed. With that in mind, there's a much stronger argument for requiring men to cover their chests in my opinion.

Side: yes
2 points

You just want to see boobies.

Side: yes
thousandin1(1931) Clarified
1 point

This is true, but not what I'm going for.

Spent a lot of time on the beach? I'd wager that a high proportion of the exposed boobies would not be ones that I would personally like to see :b

Side: yes
1 point

Breast feeding is the most natural and healthy way of feeding an infant.

If our society didn't have such a hang up about breasts as sex objects this subject would not be an issue. It is warped minds that make it wrong.

Most breastfeeding mothers in public do it discretely so where is the problem.

Side: yes
1 point

Of course you should be able to breastfeed wherever and whenever you goddamn please. I've been breastfeeding my daughter for a year now. Have I breastfed in public? No. Why? Because I don't feel comfortable. I shouldn't feel this way about feeding my child. "But my significant other is with me! I don't want him/her seeing your breast". Yes, because he/she will leave you because they caught a partial glimpse of a woman's breast. "But-but my child/children are with me and they shouldn't be seeing that!" Oh no, children should never learn about or see a natural way of feeding an infant. "BUT-BUT-BUT it's not okay for me to pull my penis out, why should you be able to pull your breast out? I should be able to urinate in public because it's NATURAL". Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you could nourish an infant with your urine. Oh, and there's a restroom practically any place you go, unlike nursing stations. "BUT-BUT-BUUUUUT I think it is very inappropriate and I don't feel comfortable. Breasts are not to be seen!" Guess what? Look away. A lot of breastfeeding mothers try their hardest to conceal their breast the best that they can when feeding their child. Many of them use covers, which can be very uncomfortable for the child,leading many others to abandon the cover. "BUT HOLY SHIT can't you just pump some milk or take formula when you go out into public?!" Do you know how much pump and the accessories cost? Sure, some insurances cover the cost, but some don't. Mine sure didn't. I was lucky to have a friend to give me one. Only problem was that my daughter never took a bottle. Even if you have a pump and your child takes a bottle, do you understand how difficult the process of pumping and storing is? A breast pump normally does not extract as much milk as an infant could, meaning you may have to build up a supply first. Some women's breasts do not even respond to a pump. So next time you see a woman breastfeeding in public, do not judge her. She is doing what she believes is best for her child and does not deserve judgement for doing so.

Side: yes
1 point

I am fine with it as long as the mother wears a cover. .

Side: yes

In my opinion, No. It equates to a male changing a catheter in a public place.

Side: no
-2 points
AwfulOctopus(1) Disputed
1 point

That totally makes sense. Because a baby is ALWAYS hungry right before you leave and they NEVER get hungry when you're out.

Side: yes