Nursing in swimming pool - article - Page 4 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#91 of 272 Old 11-16-2008, 07:30 PM
 
ramama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maine
Posts: 2,078
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
How is that not precedence? There is an example from the past that illustrates that "no food no drink" is not a reason, in and of itself, to expel a BFing mother from a pool. We can't act like this is the first time this has happened, and keep arguing that a "no food, not drink" rule is all-encompassing and infallible when it's not.

Wife to DH and mama to DD(7) blahblah.gifand DD(5) moon.gif...Lola the Wiener Dog dog2.gif, Faulkner the Little Giant dog2.gif, Ginger the Wonder Cat cat.gif,  Azkaban the blue parakeet, Sunny the yellow parakeet, 3 nameless hermit crabs, and a whole bunch of fish!

ramama is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#92 of 272 Old 11-16-2008, 08:06 PM
 
KirstenMary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,382
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by TCMoulton View Post
I thought the point of the lactivism movement was to normalize breastfeeding and guarrantee that it is treated equally with other methods of feeding a baby. If bottle feeding is not allowed in the pool then not allowing breastfeeding would be giving the two equal rights. When people start demanding more rights than the bottle feeders I believe it hurts those trying to improve the image of breastfeeding in the eyes of the general public.

Bottom line is the main purpose of breastfeeding is to nourish your child - if food and drinks are not allowed within the walls of the pool then that rule would include both formula feeders and breastfeeders alike.
Yes, yes, yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ramama View Post
I think that constantly comparing breastfeeding to formula feeding cheapens the image. We have rights as breastfeeding mothers that do not hinge on what formula feeders are allowed to do, or not allowed to do.

By constantly saying "If bottle-feeding isn't allowed then breastfeeding isn't allowed" only serves to push the idea that bottle-feeding in the norm, the standard, the big-sister-who-gets-a-later-curfew-when-I-have-to-go-to-bed-at-8 POUT!!
I disagree. Completely. Why are breastfeeding mothers elite and above the rules? Frankly, we shouldn't be, nor should we desire to be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCMoulton View Post
So what about the moms that feed their children pumped breastmilk in a bottle - do they not deserve equal rights to feed their children in the pool?
Good question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ramama View Post
I think it's irrelevant, to be honest. We're talking about a mother who has the legally-protected right to feed her child in the biologically normal manner. All other manners of feeding are not concerned with this specific situation.
It most certainly is relevant. Your post really implies second-class status of the EPing mothers who are not feeding their children in the "biologically normal manner."

Kirsten - wife to Mark and co-sleeping, breastfeeding mother to , :, and
Photography, including Breastfeeding Photography, in my Homepage.
KirstenMary is offline  
#93 of 272 Old 11-16-2008, 08:25 PM
 
junipermuse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,130
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnsmom View Post
I'm just not sure that the toddler in this incidence was being 'fed'. I think she was being 'comforted'. And nursing is how this mother comforts her toddler.
I don't know if the question "would a bottlefed baby be allowed to eat in the pool?" is appropriate here. I think the question is "Would a non-nurisng toddler be allowed to be cuddled in the pool?"
This little girl wasn't looking for a snack in the pool, she just needed some attention from her mother in a way that is normal to her and should be normal to all of us. Nursing is a biologically normal way for a mother to offer comfort to her kids, not just food.
I haven't read all the way through yet, but this is exactly what I was thinking. Nursing can't be totally compared to bottle feeding because nursing is often not about nutrition but about meeting a need for comfort. And of course for some children a pool is a new and scary experience in which they need lots of comforting.

I personally have nursed in the pool on many occasions. Frankly if we were told that we couldn't nurse in the pool it would pretty much mean we would stop going to the pool. We really can not go anywhere where nursing isn't allowed because of the kind of nurser dd is. She's a grazer. She nurses many many times in an hour period. It's her way of checking in with me. It's helps her to feel secure. She's had a lot of issues with being afraid of the water and I believe the reason she loves it so much now is because she's been allowed to nurse in the pool as way to acclimate to it. Also because she needs to always know the boobs are there if she needs them we'd have to get out of the pool and back in every three minutes. It would be pointless for us to even go. On the other hand once she's nursed a couple of quick times and realizes that the boobs are there whenever she wants them she's more likely to get over it and just enjoy playing in the water. But if I have to make a big production of taking my kid all the way out of the pool and to the changing room than she's going to get tense, clingy, and demanding because she feels I'm withholding boob from her. And every time you get out you have to sit there cold and wet which is not at all a good experience. So we would have to pretty much get dressed and leave if we were asked not to nurse in the pool.

The other reason its so hard to limit nursing in the pool is because the boobs are right there in the child's face the whole time. How unfair is that? Can you imagine dangling a bottle in the face of a bottle-fed baby and then saying sorry "no eating in the pool." My breasts are much more noticeable in my swim suit than the are in my clothes and I'm holding my baby close to my chest and then I'm supposed to tell her "no" you can't have them. That's a total disaster for us. I mean other food and bottles are out of sight out of mind, but your breasts are just right there.

Jennifer, mama to darling dancing Juliette, and sweet baby Jameson
junipermuse is offline  
#94 of 272 Old 11-16-2008, 08:33 PM
 
ramama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maine
Posts: 2,078
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joyster View Post
It's a law.

Ontario Health Protection/Promotion Act, RRO 1990, Reg # 565, Public Pools Section # 10, Paragraph # 5: "Every owner and very operator shall ensure that no food or beverage except water is supplied or consumed in the pool or on the deck".
This is a regulation. A regulation is less than a law. Where a regulation and a law conflict, the law overrides the regulation. Where a law protects a woman's right to BF wherever she has a right to be, a regulation cannot interfere.

Wife to DH and mama to DD(7) blahblah.gifand DD(5) moon.gif...Lola the Wiener Dog dog2.gif, Faulkner the Little Giant dog2.gif, Ginger the Wonder Cat cat.gif,  Azkaban the blue parakeet, Sunny the yellow parakeet, 3 nameless hermit crabs, and a whole bunch of fish!

ramama is offline  
#95 of 272 Old 11-16-2008, 08:39 PM
 
junipermuse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,130
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by KirstenMary View Post

Breastfeeding is NOT unique and it should not be treated as such.

.
Breastfeeding is very very very unique.

It is unlike any other experience. It is very different from bottle feeding in many many ways. It is unlike any other experience. It is intimate yet it is not sexual. It is feeding, but it is so much more than just feeding. It's eating and cuddling and loving all rolled together. I just don't think breastfeeding should be thought of as an equivalent to bottle feeding. Breastfeeding can be normalized without it being equal to bottlefeeding. Breastfeeding needs to be understood and appreciated and accepted for what it is in its very complicated, different-for-every-person form. We get into a lot of trouble when we expect breastfeeding mothers to feed there babies in the exact same way as bottlefed babies. It just doesn't work that way. Breastfeeding is what it is, and it should be accepted as "normal" because it is our biological norm and not because we're matching it as closely as possible to bottle-feeding culture.

P.S. I haven't read past this post yet, so if I'm repeating anything I apologize

Jennifer, mama to darling dancing Juliette, and sweet baby Jameson
junipermuse is offline  
#96 of 272 Old 11-16-2008, 08:57 PM
 
Momily's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,219
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Oooops
Momily is offline  
#97 of 272 Old 11-16-2008, 09:33 PM
 
ramama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maine
Posts: 2,078
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by KirstenMary View Post
Yes, yes, yes.



I disagree. Completely. Why are breastfeeding mothers elite and above the rules? Frankly, we shouldn't be, nor should we desire to be.



Good question.



It most certainly is relevant. Your post really implies second-class status of the EPing mothers who are not feeding their children in the "biologically normal manner."
BFing women are not elite and above the rules. We are protected by laws. Should a person of any race be excluded from an establishment because of that establishment's "rules" should he not be enraged that his lawfully protected rights are being violated? Is he elite or above the rules? Geez. All I want is the laws that are in place to protect us to be respected. Nothing elitist about that.

Additionally, I implied nothing about the status of EPing mothers. The law does not address EPing, so I speak only of those who are protected under the law. Any feelings of inferiority were not fostered by my post. And I've expressed in the lactivist forum and elsewhere on MDC repeatedly my admiration for mothers who EP. Just because this issue isn't about EPers doesn't mean that EPers need be offended.

Wife to DH and mama to DD(7) blahblah.gifand DD(5) moon.gif...Lola the Wiener Dog dog2.gif, Faulkner the Little Giant dog2.gif, Ginger the Wonder Cat cat.gif,  Azkaban the blue parakeet, Sunny the yellow parakeet, 3 nameless hermit crabs, and a whole bunch of fish!

ramama is offline  
#98 of 272 Old 11-16-2008, 09:59 PM
 
1littlebit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,775
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
i guess i don't see why it would have been a big deal for her to nurse on the deck
it wouldnt have been that big of a deal. this seems like it was one of those 'its the principle of the thing' kind of issues. (though i think they way the mama was approached was kind of rude some people are just sort of tactless though)

i also don't see why nursing in the pool is such a big deal.
mom and babe are in the pool. babe wants to nurse. nursing takes place. the end.
whats the big deal?

its not really comparable to ff or even ebm feeding b/c for both of those you have to take yourself and presumably your baby out of the water to get the bottle or cup, take them back to the water to drink it, and then take it back out to put it away. whats the point of doing that? it would be easier just to feed the kid on the deck and then get back in the water, (i bottle btw and i think bottle feeding in a pool would be tricky.. and sort of pointless since you have to get out anyway)

i don't think bfing moms should get special rights. i just think its kind of dumb to make an issue out of bfing in a pool. whats the big deal? it makes sense that if mom and babe are both allowed then bfing is too. i don't know. i guess i feel like if everyone (or most people) breast fed this would not have been an issue. and because of this i don't think it should be an issue at all.

i also don't get the whole 'well if bottle feeders can't do it' argument. for two reasons. the first reason and kind of the main one is because i think posing restrictions on where a person can feed their baby regardless of delivery method is kind of dumb. and secondly because aside from the fact that they are both used to nourish babies they literally have nothing in common.

the pool thing is sort of like going to outback and ordering a bloomin onion and steak vs going to carrabas ordering lasagna and taking it across town to outback to eat it. why not just eat it at carrabas? (sry lol i used to work at carrabas and outback is also pt of the company) would you be allowed to do it? sure probably.. but what's the point?

now if you are in a pizzahut kfc combo you should be able to order either and eat them at the same place! like say if two mama are sitting on the pool deck and one pulls out a boob the other pulls out a bottle... both should be fine.

wow i am completely useless lol..i don't see a problem with either situation
1littlebit is offline  
#99 of 272 Old 11-16-2008, 10:01 PM
 
Joyster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,495
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ramama View Post
How is that not precedence? There is an example from the past that illustrates that "no food no drink" is not a reason, in and of itself, to expel a BFing mother from a pool. We can't act like this is the first time this has happened, and keep arguing that a "no food, not drink" rule is all-encompassing and infallible when it's not.
Legally, it's not. It's a contract between the city of Hamilton and a person, and that person got a settlement and the city to enact a new policy. However that contract is not legally enforcable in other cities.

The human rights code was written with the intent and it's pretty clear in the code that women aren't to be disturbed while nursing for concerns of decency. The human rights code does not allow a woman to nurse wherever she'd like. She couldn't sit down in front of a fire hall, she can't park in front of a hydrant, she couldn't park in a disabled spot, she can't go into a foundry or assembly line and nurse. Why? Because there are rules, regs, laws that prevent that. There is currently a reg that is in conflict with the human rights code, but it's not the first or only.

Don't trust anyone under 5! Mom to 3 boys under 5. Blogging to save my sanity.
Joyster is offline  
#100 of 272 Old 11-16-2008, 10:20 PM
 
pumpkinhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: The Great North
Posts: 4,308
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ramama View Post
This is a regulation. A regulation is less than a law. Where a regulation and a law conflict, the law overrides the regulation. Where a law protects a woman's right to BF wherever she has a right to be, a regulation cannot interfere.

Here Act=Law. Breastfeeding protection act = law.

Mama to Thing 1 and Thing 2.
pumpkinhead is offline  
#101 of 272 Old 11-16-2008, 10:50 PM
 
polykow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: SE MN
Posts: 132
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by readytobedone View Post
i still think it's kind of yuck to breastfeed in a public pool.
and why is that?
polykow is offline  
#102 of 272 Old 11-16-2008, 10:54 PM
 
ramama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maine
Posts: 2,078
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joyster View Post
Legally, it's not. It's a contract between the city of Hamilton and a person, and that person got a settlement and the city to enact a new policy. However that contract is not legally enforcable in other cities.

The human rights code was written with the intent and it's pretty clear in the code that women aren't to be disturbed while nursing for concerns of decency. The human rights code does not allow a woman to nurse wherever she'd like. She couldn't sit down in front of a fire hall, she can't park in front of a hydrant, she couldn't park in a disabled spot, she can't go into a foundry or assembly line and nurse. Why? Because there are rules, regs, laws that prevent that. There is currently a reg that is in conflict with the human rights code, but it's not the first or only.
It's still a precedence. Not a legal one, per se, but one that will carry a bit of weight if the woman in this situation chooses to pursue the matter.

The Code does not state that women should not be asked to refrain from BFing only out of concern or decency. She has a right to BF in public. End of story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pumpkinhead View Post
Here Act=Law. Breastfeeding protection act = law.
Act equals law, but the individual regulations contained in the act are not laws. Yes, there may be a penalty for breaking them or not adhering. But the fact remains that in the rare instance when a rule violates legally given rights, the laws prevail.

Wife to DH and mama to DD(7) blahblah.gifand DD(5) moon.gif...Lola the Wiener Dog dog2.gif, Faulkner the Little Giant dog2.gif, Ginger the Wonder Cat cat.gif,  Azkaban the blue parakeet, Sunny the yellow parakeet, 3 nameless hermit crabs, and a whole bunch of fish!

ramama is offline  
#103 of 272 Old 11-16-2008, 11:04 PM
 
BugMacGee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,447
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by polykow View Post
and why is that?
Not the poster this is addressed to but,

Um, peeing in the pool. Sweaty, icky people. I know there is the occasional poop in the pool. It's like a big bathtub with large amounts of chemicals in it.



I personally wasn't fond of DD nursing from my very chlorine-y boob, so I'd go rinse off first.
BugMacGee is offline  
#104 of 272 Old 11-16-2008, 11:25 PM
 
SwanMom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: WA
Posts: 549
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by junipermuse View Post
I haven't read all the way through yet, but this is exactly what I was thinking. Nursing can't be totally compared to bottle feeding because nursing is often not about nutrition but about meeting a need for comfort. And of course for some children a pool is a new and scary experience in which they need lots of comforting.

I personally have nursed in the pool on many occasions. Frankly if we were told that we couldn't nurse in the pool it would pretty much mean we would stop going to the pool. We really can not go anywhere where nursing isn't allowed because of the kind of nurser dd is. She's a grazer. She nurses many many times in an hour period. It's her way of checking in with me. It's helps her to feel secure. She's had a lot of issues with being afraid of the water and I believe the reason she loves it so much now is because she's been allowed to nurse in the pool as way to acclimate to it. Also because she needs to always know the boobs are there if she needs them we'd have to get out of the pool and back in every three minutes. It would be pointless for us to even go. On the other hand once she's nursed a couple of quick times and realizes that the boobs are there whenever she wants them she's more likely to get over it and just enjoy playing in the water. But if I have to make a big production of taking my kid all the way out of the pool and to the changing room than she's going to get tense, clingy, and demanding because she feels I'm withholding boob from her. And every time you get out you have to sit there cold and wet which is not at all a good experience. So we would have to pretty much get dressed and leave if we were asked not to nurse in the pool.

The other reason its so hard to limit nursing in the pool is because the boobs are right there in the child's face the whole time. How unfair is that? Can you imagine dangling a bottle in the face of a bottle-fed baby and then saying sorry "no eating in the pool." My breasts are much more noticeable in my swim suit than the are in my clothes and I'm holding my baby close to my chest and then I'm supposed to tell her "no" you can't have them. That's a total disaster for us. I mean other food and bottles are out of sight out of mind, but your breasts are just right there.
: Thank you. (Thank you ramama as well).

I'll let the rest of you discuss the legal stuff...

RE: rinsing off the boob before nursing:
When DS2 wants to nurse, he wants to nurse. If I feel a pool is sanitary enough to immerse myself in, I'm not going to have an issue nursing DS2 there. (who always wants to nurse in unfamiliar situations and when I am in a swimsuit--easy access) (He did refuse to nurse when we were at the seaside once and it tasted salty!)

If I couldn't nurse in a pool, we would never go swimming. I would constantly be carrying a screaming, pawing-at-my-chest toddler : (and dragging along a reluctant and perhaps also loudly protesting 4-year-old) over to the designated nursing area. This is because DS2 is breastfed and is used to nursing when he's with me. It was never an issue with bottlefed DS1. He ate when it was time to eat and swam when it was time to swim.

Also, if indeed this is about people being squeamish about breasts, might I point out that in my theoretical situation, I might easily be exposed by the time I got to the designated nursing area if I needed an arm/hand for each boy and I couldn't keep DS2 away from my suit. Quietly (and discreetly, if it matters) nursing in the pool gives me a better chance of keeping them contained.
SwanMom is offline  
#105 of 272 Old 11-16-2008, 11:43 PM
 
grniys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,705
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by LaughingHyena View Post
Our local pool has a no food policy in the pool and surrounding area. This includes breastfeeding and bottle feeding. That seems reasonable to me.

Anywhere else in the building it's fine, if I'm in the cafe I have usually been offered a glass of water.
I agree. It seems like a perfectly reasonable rule.

SAHM to Ninja Boy (6) surf.gif and Monkey Man (4) carrot.gif.

grniys is offline  
#106 of 272 Old 11-17-2008, 12:09 AM
 
KirstenMary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,382
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ramama View Post
BFing women are not elite and above the rules. We are protected by laws. Should a person of any race be excluded from an establishment because of that establishment's "rules" should he not be enraged that his lawfully protected rights are being violated? Is he elite or above the rules? Geez. All I want is the laws that are in place to protect us to be respected. Nothing elitist about that.

Additionally, I implied nothing about the status of EPing mothers. The law does not address EPing, so I speak only of those who are protected under the law. Any feelings of inferiority were not fostered by my post. And I've expressed in the lactivist forum and elsewhere on MDC repeatedly my admiration for mothers who EP. Just because this issue isn't about EPers doesn't mean that EPers need be offended.
Wanting to breastfeed where bottlefeeding is not allowed is elitist. And bringing race into this discussion is like telling an apple that it's really an orange.

Quote:
Originally Posted by junipermuse View Post
Breastfeeding is very very very unique.

It is unlike any other experience. It is very different from bottle feeding in many many ways. It is unlike any other experience. It is intimate yet it is not sexual. It is feeding, but it is so much more than just feeding. It's eating and cuddling and loving all rolled together. I just don't think breastfeeding should be thought of as an equivalent to bottle feeding. Breastfeeding can be normalized without it being equal to bottlefeeding. Breastfeeding needs to be understood and appreciated and accepted for what it is in its very complicated, different-for-every-person form. We get into a lot of trouble when we expect breastfeeding mothers to feed there babies in the exact same way as bottlefed babies. It just doesn't work that way. Breastfeeding is what it is, and it should be accepted as "normal" because it is our biological norm and not because we're matching it as closely as possible to bottle-feeding culture.

P.S. I haven't read past this post yet, so if I'm repeating anything I apologize
I've both breastfed (and still am), and I have given my baby pumped milk, and I can say the two are definitely comparable. When I bottlefed Jordan, cuddling and loving and all of that wonderful stuff were there just as they were when I nursed from the breast.

Please don't assume otherwise.

Kirsten - wife to Mark and co-sleeping, breastfeeding mother to , :, and
Photography, including Breastfeeding Photography, in my Homepage.
KirstenMary is offline  
#107 of 272 Old 11-17-2008, 12:22 AM
 
mammal_mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Urban Midwestern USA
Posts: 6,378
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
I keep hearing people talking as if bottle-feeding mothers are regularly getting asked to go someplace more private to feed their babies -- and that's the whole reason why we breastfeeding mamas are "also" getting asked --

But, the fact is, though I know of heaps of cases (and also have personal experience) where breastfeeding mothers have been asked "not to 'do that' here."

I do not know of one. single. case where a bottle-feeding mother was ever asked to move.

I think bottle-feeding is less likely to happen in a pool, simply because the bottle is not attached to the mother. So if Baby gets hungry, Mommy takes him out, gets the bottle, and probably feeds him on the lawn-chair.

Also, as other posters have mentioned, since formula takes longer to digest, babies tend to go longer between bottle-feedings. And they aren't as likely to root around for the bottle in the pool, since it's not right in front of their face -- whereas (as someone else already pointed out) a breastfeeding baby is more likely to try to nurse in the pool, since Mommy's breast is right there.

But, seriously, I just imagine that if a mama decided to sit on the steps of the pool and give Junior his bottle, no one would likely say anything or ask them to move ("no-food" rule or not). And if they did ask them to move, it's likely their only motivation would be to keep us breastfeeders from thinking that gave us a right ...

Seriously -- has anyone ever heard of a bottle-feeding mama being told, "You can't do that here! -- we have a perfectly lovely toilet that's perfect for feeding your baby!"? Ever?

Susan -- married unschoolin' WAHMomma to two lovely girls (born 2000 and 2005).
mammal_mama is offline  
#108 of 272 Old 11-17-2008, 01:02 AM
 
ramama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maine
Posts: 2,078
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
From http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/commission/...l-CHAPTER.html
Quote:
Pursuant to section 47(2) of the Code, where an Ontario statute or regulation infringes the Code, the Code prevails. Except in circumstances where a statute or regulation specifically provides that it is to apply notwithstanding the Code, the Code has primacy over other statutes and legislation.

In other words, the Code supersedes all other acts unless there is a clause that states it does not. As an example, the Regulations under the Highway Traffic Act contain a "notwithstanding clause", to allow for certain requirements to apply despite the Code, such as the age requirements for graduated licences and for certain vision and hearing and medical requirements for a driver's license.
And now I'm done with the legal aspect of this argument.

Wife to DH and mama to DD(7) blahblah.gifand DD(5) moon.gif...Lola the Wiener Dog dog2.gif, Faulkner the Little Giant dog2.gif, Ginger the Wonder Cat cat.gif,  Azkaban the blue parakeet, Sunny the yellow parakeet, 3 nameless hermit crabs, and a whole bunch of fish!

ramama is offline  
#109 of 272 Old 11-17-2008, 01:13 AM
 
ramama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maine
Posts: 2,078
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by KirstenMary View Post
Wanting to breastfeed where bottlefeeding is not allowed is elitist. And bringing race into this discussion is like telling an apple that it's really an orange.
Bringing EPing into a discussion about BFing is like telling an apple that it's really an orange.

I guess it's just so wrong for BFing mother to actually BF where they are legally allowed to. Exercising your rights is not elitist. (Darn those women who insist on voting. They're so elitist.)

Wife to DH and mama to DD(7) blahblah.gifand DD(5) moon.gif...Lola the Wiener Dog dog2.gif, Faulkner the Little Giant dog2.gif, Ginger the Wonder Cat cat.gif,  Azkaban the blue parakeet, Sunny the yellow parakeet, 3 nameless hermit crabs, and a whole bunch of fish!

ramama is offline  
#110 of 272 Old 11-17-2008, 02:09 AM
 
readytobedone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: not dissertating
Posts: 3,466
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BugMacGee View Post
Um, peeing in the pool. Sweaty, icky people. I know there is the occasional poop in the pool. It's like a big bathtub with large amounts of chemicals in it.



I personally wasn't fond of DD nursing from my very chlorine-y boob, so I'd go rinse off first.
yep, all this is why i think it would be yuck to nurse in a public pool. i honestly can't imagine doing it. of course, i have a toddler who isn't nursing constantly like a newborn. but i don't think i'd take a newborn into a public pool, to be honest

i also think other people kind of have a reasonable case in being skeeved out about a baby drinking breastmilk in a pool. i dunno, it just seems less than sanitary for all parties. i wouldn't want to see a baby getting spoonfed jarred carrots in a pool either. and carrots (like breastmilk) in and of themselves aren't gross.

dissertating wife of Boo, mama of one "mookie" lovin' 2 year old girl! intactlact:: CTA until 7/10 FF 1501dc
readytobedone is offline  
#111 of 272 Old 11-17-2008, 02:13 AM
 
syd'smom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 530
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
But toddlers and preschoolers are blowing bubbles and opening their eyes in and swallowing way more of this water than a baby would ever get from the skin while nursing.

Kelly , mama to 4yo and 1yo ,
syd'smom is offline  
#112 of 272 Old 11-17-2008, 02:19 AM
 
annettemarie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the Restricted Section
Posts: 34,451
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
I don't think the point is whether or not we as individuals think breastfeeding a baby in a pool is a good idea or not. She's the mama; she gets to feed the baby wherever she's legally permitted.

I don't think the question is even whether or not other people are skeeved out by the idea of breastmilk in a pool. Again, she's the mamas and she gets to feed the baby wherever she's legally permitted.

I think the real question is whether or not she us legally permitted to feed the baby in the pool.

It has been really interesting and informative to see people roll up their sleeves and really dig into the law.

Flowers, fairies, gardens, and rainbows-- Seasons of Joy: 10 weeks of crafts, handwork, painting, coloring, circle time, fairy tales, and more!
Check out the blog for family fun, homeschooling, books, simple living, and 6 fabulous children, including twin toddlers

annettemarie is offline  
#113 of 272 Old 11-17-2008, 02:33 AM
 
pumpkinhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: The Great North
Posts: 4,308
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ramama View Post
Bringing EPing into a discussion about BFing is like telling an apple that it's really an orange.

I guess it's just so wrong for BFing mother to actually BF where they are legally allowed to. Exercising your rights is not elitist. (Darn those women who insist on voting. They're so elitist.)

Feeding a baby expressed milk is still breastfeeding.

This goes beyond exercising one's rights.

Mama to Thing 1 and Thing 2.
pumpkinhead is offline  
#114 of 272 Old 11-17-2008, 02:38 AM
 
pumpkinhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: The Great North
Posts: 4,308
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think we must remember the element of common courtesy. I understand very well the world we're living in, but I think there is still room for this.

An example: There are surgical waiting rooms in which several children waiting for sugeries are forced to wait in together. Many of these children are hungry and cranky and have not eaten for 12-24 hours. Even though it would be my legal right to nurse my child in such a waiting room, I would respect the signs that said no food or drink and not nurse my child there.

If a pool has a rule that states no food or drink in the pool area, I would respect that as well whether or not it was my legal right to nurse there. I will restate that I think the way this pool owner dealt with the issue was disrespectful and OTT, but I don't personally think her rights were violated by being asked not to nurse in a pool with a no food or drink policy. Breastmilk is both food and drink regardless of delivery.

Mama to Thing 1 and Thing 2.
pumpkinhead is offline  
#115 of 272 Old 11-17-2008, 02:51 AM
 
Momily's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,219
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pumpkinhead View Post
I think we must remember the element of common courtesy. I understand very well the world we're living in, but I think there is still room for this.

An example: There are surgical waiting rooms in which several children waiting for sugeries are forced to wait in together. Many of these children are hungry and cranky and have not eaten for 12-24 hours. Even though it would be my legal right to nurse my child in such a waiting room, I would respect the signs that said no food or drink and not nurse my child there.

If a pool has a rule that states no food or drink in the pool area, I would respect that as well whether or not it was my legal right to nurse there. I will restate that I think the way this pool owner dealt with the issue was disrespectful and OTT, but I don't personally think her rights were violated by being asked not to nurse in a pool with a no food or drink policy. Breastmilk is both food and drink regardless of delivery.
On the other hand, there are "no food or drink" signs all over our subways, and yet I bottlefed and tube fed my son on them without hesitation and would have breastfed as well. Similarly, I would never eat or drink (other than communion) in church -- it would feel incredibly disrespectful, but I'd feed an infant without second thought.

I do think think there are differences between infants eating and adults eating, and there are time when the rules that apply to adults should exclude infants, and times when they shouldn't. Unfortunately, sorting out the two can be difficult. So, I think the question here is whether the pool owners had a reasonable reason to believe that breastfeeding in the pool might be potentially problematic. Given that there's debate about that here I can say that I think it is (potentially problematic, not definitely problematic).
Momily is offline  
#116 of 272 Old 11-17-2008, 02:53 AM
 
Novella's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Rural Canada - peaceful prairie
Posts: 1,140
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MommyofAngelBabies View Post
Trying to get this "special" treatment, is creating a bad image of breastfeeding. It is a normal natural way to feed and comfort a baby. By demanding rights, above and beyond what other mothers would be allowed to do in the same situation, is part of the reason some people are having negative feelings about bf in public. Don't most bf mothers want breastfeeding normalized, and not raticalized?
I'm surprised by how many posters in this thread shared thoughts along this line. Recognizing that breastfeeding is a unique, biological means of nourishment and comfort does not radicalize it. Something can be "normal" and still be "special".

By way of comparison: people with physical disabilities seek to be accepted as "normal". Yet they have real physical needs and emotional needs (eg. independence and dignity) that require that "the rest of us" make special accommodations for them in public. We change our building codes to improve accessibility. We build wheelchair ramps. These "special" changes do help to normalize the entire matter. Advocates worked to have these changes accepted. I've yet to hear of those advocates being accused of creating a bad image of the disabled, or being part of the reason that some people may have negative feelings about disabled people being in public!

Same difference.

Six kids, sixth sense, six degrees of separation. . . from sanity!
Not sure that I'm crunchy, but definitely a "tough chew".
Novella is offline  
#117 of 272 Old 11-17-2008, 02:53 AM
 
Meredith&Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Keller, TX
Posts: 493
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
What would be the point of not allowing breastfeeding in the pool?

I cannot get in the pool without my breasts. And they leak, so there's going to be some breastilk in there anyway. Probably more if I don't nurse than if I do. I can't drop my breast into the pool and make a mess, or have it float away into the system.

Breastfeeding is entirely unique, and is different even than bottlefeeding breastmilk, because it's not separate from the people involved. All the elements to breastfeed are present when mother and child are in the pool, whether you like it or not. So what would prohibiting the act of breastfeeding accomplish?

Seems to me like the whole point of not allowing it is a misguided attempt at fairness that actually accomplishes nothing for the health or safety of anyone.
Meredith&Alexander is offline  
#118 of 272 Old 11-17-2008, 02:54 AM
 
jennifer_lc1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 408
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by KirstenMary View Post
Breastfeeding should be treated as a normal, everyday occurrence. If a woman can bottlefeed at a certain location, I should be able to nurse there - no questions asked. But if a woman cannot bottlefeed in a certain location, well, I wouldn't want to nurse there anymore than I would want to give my 5 y/o a bag of goldfish crackers.

I understand the desire for nursing mothers to be treated equally...to be able to nurse their babies without anyone looking twice - just like that which would happen with a bottlefed child. What I will never understand is the desire to be "special" in certain circumstances under which even bottlefed babies wouldn't be allowed to feed. When we are excluded, we want to be included. Yes, when we are included - even if the end result is undesirable - well, then we want to be selectively excluded. And if we keep acting as such, breastfeeding will always be stigmatized by the bfing nazis (and I really hate that word) who think that the "rules" don't apply to them.



It's the attitude of some lactivists that gives lactivists a bad name.
beautifully said
jennifer_lc1 is offline  
#119 of 272 Old 11-17-2008, 03:32 AM
 
Novella's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Rural Canada - peaceful prairie
Posts: 1,140
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meredith&Alexander View Post
Seems to me like the whole point of not allowing it is a misguided attempt at fairness that actually accomplishes nothing for the health or safety of anyone.

Six kids, sixth sense, six degrees of separation. . . from sanity!
Not sure that I'm crunchy, but definitely a "tough chew".
Novella is offline  
#120 of 272 Old 11-17-2008, 03:48 AM
 
ramama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maine
Posts: 2,078
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novella View Post
I'm surprised by how many posters in this thread shared thoughts along this line. Recognizing that breastfeeding is a unique, biological means of nourishment and comfort does not radicalize it. Something can be "normal" and still be "special".

By way of comparison: people with physical disabilities seek to be accepted as "normal". Yet they have real physical needs and emotional needs (eg. independence and dignity) that require that "the rest of us" make special accommodations for them in public. We change our building codes to improve accessibility. We build wheelchair ramps. These "special" changes do help to normalize the entire matter. Advocates worked to have these changes accepted. I've yet to hear of those advocates being accused of creating a bad image of the disabled, or being part of the reason that some people may have negative feelings about disabled people being in public!

Same difference.
Perfect!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meredith&Alexander View Post
What would be the point of not allowing breastfeeding in the pool?

I cannot get in the pool without my breasts. And they leak, so there's going to be some breastilk in there anyway. Probably more if I don't nurse than if I do. I can't drop my breast into the pool and make a mess, or have it float away into the system.

Breastfeeding is entirely unique, and is different even than bottlefeeding breastmilk, because it's not separate from the people involved. All the elements to breastfeed are present when mother and child are in the pool, whether you like it or not. So what would prohibiting the act of breastfeeding accomplish?

Seems to me like the whole point of not allowing it is a misguided attempt at fairness that actually accomplishes nothing for the health or safety of anyone.
Couldn't agree more!

Wife to DH and mama to DD(7) blahblah.gifand DD(5) moon.gif...Lola the Wiener Dog dog2.gif, Faulkner the Little Giant dog2.gif, Ginger the Wonder Cat cat.gif,  Azkaban the blue parakeet, Sunny the yellow parakeet, 3 nameless hermit crabs, and a whole bunch of fish!

ramama is offline  
Reply

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off