It is the same story. What I showed you was from Aug 6th "Hannity & Colmes." There is a civil rights attorney discussing it and asking the woman to call her. That is discussed in the story. You heard wrong, unless you can show another link. I would think that attorney would have mentioned another case of this in the interview in my link, if there was one.
Who's polite society? Prudish Amercian society is not the standard for the world, although if you look around much at all these days, breastfeeding is taking place in public. I never really noticed it until we had a baby and were committed to breastmilk for the baby.
Originally posted by heypartner ... The mother is supposed to expose the child to her germs. That is one of the main benefits stressed by breastfeeders. Not really, at all. Breastmilk has immune factors and antibodies, but breastmilk is sterile...no germs are passed to the baby at all. Parents go to great length to sterilize bottles and you let the nipples touch NOTHING but the baby's lips. The newborn's immune system is not prepared for the world.
Are we having a semantics argument. Because "sterile" is not true if you consider illnesses things that the mother can transmit through milk. I thought this was common knowledge. I guess not. We arent' talking about what is sterile or not, that bottle is not sterile. What we are talking about is if the breastfeeding mother can contaminate the child. The baby is exposed to nearly every virus/illness the mother has, whether via milk or not. Like I say, is this a semantics argument to say that is sterile because it is from the mother? If medicine, alchohol and antibodies and cayenne pepper gets through via milk, you can count on most everything does. I found this in a quick search under "breastfeeding and viruses." Where are we disagreeing??
heypartner-- It is the case that was detailed on the August 8, 2002 edition of Hannity & Colmes, not on August 6, 2002. There are 2 cases. I checked the Hannity & Colmes site, but they do not have accounts of all their stories. To insinuate that I would mislead people on this or any other topic is inflammatory, stupid and just plain inaccurate. But I appreciate your undying suspicion.
Hopefully everyone from now on. Power to the people! You keep it up security persons! This is ethnocentric, Refman, lol. Boobs are baby feeding devices. Victorian ideals romanticized boobies, and in turn made them the object of my lust. If we had more boobs in public, sure... I would stare and drool all over myself. However, just as racism becomes increasingly antiquated as old bigots keel over, perverts such as myself will give rise to a society of boob-actualized individuals. btw, heypartner is right about everything (I'm inferring semantics on Cohen's concern, if I really read Cohen's concern). 'Contamination' is some weird idea. In fact, if this woman licked her baby and then breast fed her, the child would be even healthier. Granted, she's not supposed to stick her finger in her butt and then wipe it on the baby's lip, but mothers are pretty much designed to be..... mothers. ps, when our species starts creating individuals that are allergic to their own parents, I suggest we start culling the ****ing herd.
My wife breastfeeds in public and most of you could be sitting at the table next to us in the restaurant and not even know. And even if you did know, the courts have already established it's a person's right to breastfeed in public so look away if you are offended. We have a 2 year old girl and a 4 month old boy and neither has ever had a drop of formula... not a drop. Its a fact I'm so proud of that once she makes our goal of nothing but breastmilk for a year with our son, she gets her choice of diamond ear rings or a trip to the location of her choice. That's my breastfeeding Rant... The problem at hand is really that our security screeners are spending their time harrasing mothers about breast milk, kids about toy guns, confiscating nail clippers, etc. instead of using some common sense when confronted with these issues. It's all done to make us feel safe, but probably doesn't increase our safety at all.
I skimmed this post earlier and didn't see this point raised. If someone was trying to sneak some sort of poisonous material (disguised as breast milk) onboard, and the airport screener made them drink it, wouldn't that probably kill the person trying to sneak it onboard? If so, is that legal? To kill the person in that instance? I'm not asking if anyone thinks it's justified. I'm talking legal here. If they caught you with a gun in your pocket, they couldn't take it and shoot you in the head with it. They have to arrest you. So how is it justifiable for the screener to force someone to drink what the screener ostensibly thinks is a poisonous liquid?
An outstanding point. I wouldn't think that such action is legal...especially now that the screeners are federal employees so it becomes state action. Any way you slice it this is a BS policy.
Anyone else find it funny that 2 planes crash into the WTC, and as a result people are freaking out about breast milk? I mean is breast milk only dangerous now that planes have crashed into the WTC? I mean I know the reason, but it's just funny to think about it that way. heypartner, I think you're wrong about the contamination. You can't give a baby a bottle, have him not finish the bottle, and give him the rest later. He must finish the entire bottle in that sitting. The milk is bad after that if it is not finished (contaminated). If you can tell me that you're an experienced breast-feeder, you may be able to influence me, but since I'm guessing that is unlikely, I'll have to believe my wife on this.
I think that the legal reasoning is that no one is actually physically forcing you to drink the liquid. You still have the option of not getting through security. It's still technically a persons choice to drink the liquid therefore, if they die from it its thir own fault.
This is a clear case of duress. You can't expect people to pay hundreds of dollars for an airline ticket and not use it because some government jackass questions your breast milk. I guess you don't have to get on the plane. But the decision is largely made due to the economic forces at work. I see your point, but it's a weak argument.
Refman, I think you missunderstood me. I am not disagreeing with your point at all. My argument was based on the sutuation BrianKagy was talking about. If someone is actually trying to pass something dangerous through they don't have to kill themselves by drinking it.
I understand. Think about it this way. I would hope that would not be so brazen as to ask somebody to drink their aftershave. I know you'd just throw it out. But follow the scenario out to its logical conclusion. Assume it's really pricey $150 a bottle perfume. You'd not want to throw that out and would likely keep it in your carryon. Assume that you were on the flight to go to an out of town interview. You really feel that you need your perfume. You also need the flight to get the job. The options are not appealing.
Good point, I didn't really consider non-food(cant think of a better term) liquids such as cosmetics and toiletries.
Well, my original point stands. How is it legal for the screener to encourage a person to sip a liquid that may be poison? How would they test a gun to see if it were loaded, put it up to the person's head and pull the trigger? Additionally, if it were a terrorist, and the liquid was poisonous or explosive, now all the screener has done is encourage the terrorist to set it off in the terminal out of desperation. If the screener really suspects the liquid is harmful, shouldn't he or she confiscate it immediately? This frat-initiation stunt crap-- "Drink it"-- is ridiculous. What if the liquid is explosive/flammable, but small amounts can be ingested without harm? What if the terrorist fakes swallowing?
Going back to the fake guns thing, when my son flew to Dallas from Amarillo back in 1999, they confiscated his empty SuperSoaker water gun. They wouldn't even let him check it or have someone in the party who wasn't travelling to take it back out to the car before proceeding through security. They insisted the squirt gun be thrown away. So, even before September 11th, one could get toy guns taken away, even those that are very obviously not real guns. Of course, you could take box cutters and knives aboard (and in that airport, you could've gotten explosives through their crack security at that time), but not empty SuperSoakers. I guess that's why these stories seem so infuriating. We see all this effort expended that isn't making security any tighter (say what you will about rules and following them, but nobody is going to hijack a plane with a GI Joe gun). The fear is that when security is spending all this time making women drink breast milk and confiscating tiny plastic guns, they might be missing the real threats. Have we not had any more hijacked planes because of the increased security measures or is it just a happy coincidence?
The other loophole is shampoo in marked bottles that was mentioned before. All you have to do is put the substance in a marked shampoo bottle and it will pass through fine without the sip test. I went through 2 airport security checks last weekend and had shampoo with me both times which wasn't even looked at, much less tested in some way. For the sip test, all they have to do is ask the right way. "If this is milk, please take a drink, if it is a harmful substance please step aside so you can be arrested." No one is asking them to drink poison in that situation.
