Yes, you. Firstly, for this:
...and then for the "I Don't Support Breast Feeding in Public" Facebook group.
But, let's assume for one second that you're simply an ill-educated fool who doesn't have a clue about babies feeding, and break down every single word of your stupid Facebook group to give you a little education:
I am not a mother myself and I was breast fed as a child. In public though I was given a bottle. I had a bottle since day one. I simply switched back and forth between breast feeding and a bottle.
Well done. Your mother risked nipple confusion because she was a prude. Nipple confusion, caused by the totally different suckling method between bottles and the breast, that can cause a baby to totally reject the breast. And what happens if she rejects the breast? No more breast milk. Yay, score one to the formula companies!
I do not believe I should have to watch other woman breast feed.
I do not believe I should have to watch fat people jiggle their bellies out of the top of their tight-fitting clothes. I do not believe I should have to watch teenagers chewing gum like cows chew cud. I do not believe I should have to watch couples sticking their tongues down each other's throats. But they do, and I live with it, because it's none of my fucking business. It doesn't harm me, therefore I "live and let live".
There are private lounges, bathrooms, and other private area where you can go if you have to breast feed.
Some places have private facilities where breastfeeding can be done. Some of these places are too hot, too cold, too smelly, too uncomfortable for me to even consider going in them. I don't see why any breastfeeding mother should have to put up with that for the sake of one or two prudes.
As for bathrooms - do you eat in the bathroom? Do you consume food in a room where bacteria lingers for hours on every surface after a toilet is flushed? "If you flush with the lid up, a polluted plume of bacteria and water vapour erupts out of the flushing toilet bowl. The polluted water particles float for a few hours around your bathroom before they all land.
"
Otherwise I feel you can give them a bottle. [..] If the child is fussy or hungry enough it will take the bottle or give it a pacifier.
And what if the child will take neither a bottle or a pacifier? My daughter does not know HOW to drink out of a bottle. She has no need to, therefore has never learned. If you place a bottle in her mouth, she sticks her tongue out and tries to make a back-forth motion with her tongue as she would to remove milk from the breast. This achieves nothing with a bottle, and would serve to frustrate her further if she was "fussy or hungry enough". Likewise, she will not take a dummy/pacifier, and it's easy to see why.
Let's suppose, though, that Isabel is unique. That she's the only baby in the world that cannot drink from a man-made nipple on a man-made bottle. What are all of these babies who're out in public going to drink? Breastmilk? Not all mothers can express milk. It's hard work. Imagine having your breast placed inside a hard plastic funnel, and your nipple tugged at unforgivingly by a stream of air powerful enough to pull your eyeball out. Yeah, I'm going to sit there and do that every time I need to nip to the shop just in case Isabel needs a feed... not. Of course, there's an alternative, formula! Except that it's inadequate and unnecessary when there are large milky breasts just waiting to be emptied.
The child will not starve to death in a few short hours.
A newborn infant has a stomach roughly the size of a marble/walnut (little people, little bellies). Furthermore, breast milk is digested rapidly; more quickly than artificial milk. It takes roughly 20 minutes for a baby to make use of that lovely, healthy milk. It makes sense, therefore, that it would require frequent small filings to keep a baby from going hungry. As the baby grows so does the stomach, but this is a slow process, and infants are designed to graze at the breast constantly (much like adults graze on snack food constantly, but we don't expect them to eat in a bathroom).
It's only in the West that we try and push a baby to go hours between feedings. No, a child will not starve to death in a "few short hours", but a child does not know the meaning of "few short hours" and a baby that is hungry enough to cry for food needs it there and then, not in 3 hours time. Or would you rather listen to a hungry baby crying, wailing pitifully because its only source of nutrition is gone?
Anyone who says yes to that has clearly never heard a baby crying for food.
I don't think I should have to watch you breast feed in front of me.
So turn around?
Breast feeding may be natural, but so is peeing and so is sex.
Have you ever tried to make an infant hold in their pee? It's like asking them to wait for milk. It's impossible. They have the need and the desire to urinate (or drink) now now now. They are not adults. Applying adult logic such as "suck it up, I'm to prude to watch you pee!" to a baby or a small child is just as stupid as "suck it up, I'm too prude to watch you eat!" hence why babies have diapers (nappies). So, while you can hold your full bladder, or your empty stomach for "a few short hours", a baby cannot hold it for that long.
And if you can't wait until you get home to have sex? See a doctor.
My baby's needs are more important to me than your stupid, immature objections to a woman breastfeeding. If you don't like it, look away.
Welcome to the blog of girl geek & php ninja; Jem. Web developer, mum and crazy cat lady talks about parenting, pets and php 
