Mother criticises commuters who forced her to stand on a packed train while she breastfed her baby

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


The same that we have seats for the elderly, disabled etc.

So that is not the answer based around safety, trying to hold a child, whilst standing on a moving train.

I thought you said it was stationary. When she wasn't breast feeding, she could put the kid in the push chair.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


lol, that makes no sense at all. She clearly took the picture when the train was stationary. It still means she needs a seat for when the train is moving, as she will be less balanced.
I not trying to force anyone, I am merely going off your negative and aggressive words towards her.

Its okay, I see Horatio is breaking the rules starting a thread to personally get at me.

I actually found it funny, as I never even brought it up on the open forum that he did banned me this morning.

She didn't need a seat when the train was moving. She could have put the kid in the push chair.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

She didn't need a seat when the train was moving. She could have put the kid in the push chair.

Whilst breastfeeding him?

That would be a neat trick

I see you are back to just regurgitating everything you said yesterday

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Whilst breastfeeding him?

That would be a neat trick

I see you are back to just regurgitating everything you said yesterday

So are you. Just accept that not everyone thinks this lady is a "victim".

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So are you. Just accept that not everyone thinks this lady is a "victim".

Nobody claimed she was a victim in this debate.

What I do not get is why you are so hostile to people because they speak out on things

veya_victaous wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Just out of curiosity, did she ever ask anyone to give her a seat?  I mean, if it was an expectation....

She could have saved herself a lot of trouble.

Read the article Quill.
The answers are there for you.

The reason why I ask is, on the transportation system I'm on the board of, we have decals that state that preference should be given to seniors and people with disabilities.  

If there is some law or an expectation that breastfeeding women should be given a preference in the UK, that should be posted.  She would only have to point to the sign.

it is in sydney, there is the 'less able' seats and the pregnant nursing mothers seats that you are supposed to give up.

HoratioTarr wrote:She's posted some footage on her facebook of the men who were supposed to be 'gawping' at her.  Sure, she gets a couple of glances from the man directly opposite but the others totally ignore her.   These men are also standing.   When you have a child suckling on your exposed breast in a public place, then expect people to look at you, particularly young men.  Men can't even keep their eyes off a woman's breasts when she's wearing a low cut dress, never mind when they're out.   I think she got miffed because people weren't jumping to her feminist tune, and they also ignored her.   Sadly, the days are gone when men were more chivalrous, but then again the days are also gone where women behaved in a ladylike way with some decorum.

Lord Foul wrote:I used to stand automatically for any woman.....when I was younger and fitter (and stupider)

Thorin wrote:Why do you and others consistently think this is just about women? This is about any parent, whether male or female with a child on public transport

but a while back I realised that women were snarling when you opened a door for them...the "I'm capable of opening a door you know" bra burning brigade" etc...so then I stood only for the elderly/ disabled and pregnant women.

Thorin wrote:Eh?
I would have thought opening the door for anyone.No matter their age, gender etc, was the polite thing to do?

Now I stand for no one....I now need a seat as much as anyone does if my joints are having a "bad day"

Thorin wrote:Yes because we know you are a grumpus  

Oh and didge...stop it with tne hysterical straw man arguments

a child harness and lead are NOT the same (though they serve the same purpose) as a leash on an animal...It is NOT "treating a child like an animal" and indeed IMO should be compulsary for children under 3 who are walking....

Thorin wrote:Seems to be the exact same thing to me. You are taking both for a walk and thus are unable to contain them. Thus control them through a leash, just as slaves once were. Its about the most appalling instrument used in order to go outside with children. As they are neither slaves nor pets.

Its all very well this idea of "holding their hand" but it is so very easy for a youngster to slip the hand and then what.....out into the road and splat....ANNNNND then its the fault of the bastard motorist isnt it....or te kid gets lost in the crowd with all the risk and panic that causes...

Thorin wrote:You think a leash would stop the same, when its no more than a natter of feet between death? Very poor argument, when you should have a child in a pushchair in built up areas or carrying them at the vest least or holding their hands.

moreover it gives the child "some" personal freedom in as much as they are not held by the hand and thus have both their hands free....

Thorin wrote:You mean as much freedom as a pet? To then more easily fall over and hurt themselves?

of course...if you wish to teach the kid to sit and heel ...thats your perogative....though you might get some funny looks......

sassy wrote:It's truly said that women are always undermined by other women, this thread rather proves it.   I breastfed my eldest daughter until she was 18 months (quite normal at that time) this child was only 15 months.   My eldest didn't walk until she was nearly two, because babies tend to focus on learning one thing at a time, and she was focused on speech, could string a sentence before she was 18 months and quite happy shuffling on her bottom.   We couldn't afford a car at the time, so we went by public transport.  Do you think I never went out in case she needed a feed?   And Dodge is right, you can't feed a child in a pushchair, you have to pick them up.    Just think how far forward women could be if they weren't undermined all the time by other women, who should be standing up for them, shoulder to shoulder.

Original Quill wrote:

sassy wrote:It's truly said that women are always undermined by other women, this thread rather proves it.   I breastfed my eldest daughter until she was 18 months (quite normal at that time) this child was only 15 months.   My eldest didn't walk until she was nearly two, because babies tend to focus on learning one thing at a time, and she was focused on speech, could string a sentence before she was 18 months and quite happy shuffling on her bottom.   We couldn't afford a car at the time, so we went by public transport.  Do you think I never went out in case she needed a feed?   And Dodge is right, you can't feed a child in a pushchair, you have to pick them up.    Just think how far forward women could be if they weren't undermined all the time by other women, who should be standing up for them, shoulder to shoulder.

I grant you everything you have said, and I applaud.  But the issue here is a special privilege that this woman is asking the world to grant her.  She wants everyone to get out of her way so she can be accommodated with someone else's seat on a train.

My response to her is the same as anyone: "Awww......and someone got there first?  I hate it when that happens."

eddie wrote:You shouldn't need reigns for a child. Your voice should be enough if you've trained them right (yes children need to be trained) and nobody should rely on "gimmicks" to get a job done.

My voice has always been enough to get the job done regarding my children.

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I grant you everything you have said, and I applaud.  But the issue here is a special privilege that this woman is asking the world to grant her.  She wants everyone to get out of her way so she can be accommodated with someone else's seat on a train.

My response to her is the same as anyone: "Awww......and someone got there first?  I hate it when that happens."

Accommodating?
Again have you tried to stand, hold a baby whilst feeding on a train, using only one hand to steady yourself?
Your ignore the fact this is difficult and less safe for the baby. When it would be best placed feeding sat down. Just as many mothers do when they feed their children.

You are placing everything about the mother here, when its always been about the safety and due care of the child.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Accommodating?
Again have you tried to stand, hold a baby whilst feeding on a train, using only one hand to steady yourself?
Your ignore the fact this is difficult and less safe for the baby. When it would be best placed feeding sat down. Just as many mothers do when they feed their children.

You are placing everything about the mother here, when its always been about the safety and due care of the child.

No question, having children is a huge responsibility.  It's because of children, in large part, that we have high taxes, particularly burdening the rich: education, food, shelter, health, protection, etc.  But we do that by laws, and not rules invented on the spot.

Since the beginning of time there has been one consistent rule: first come, first served.  That is the rule of public space, including seats on a public conveyance.  Everybody brings their own particular needs and handicaps...but that rule is only trumped by laws regarding seniors and the disabled...not motherhood.

This case has all the earmarks of someone trying to unilaterally change the rules by victim-posturing.  I admire all her efforts and sacrifice in mothering, but it simply doesn't provide the requisite amount of pity to change the rules.  

eddie wrote:You shouldn't need reigns for a child. Your voice should be enough if you've trained them right (yes children need to be trained) and nobody should rely on "gimmicks" to get a job done.

My voice has always been enough to get the job done regarding my children.

HoratioTarr wrote:

eddie wrote:You shouldn't need reigns for a child. Your voice should be enough if you've trained them right (yes children need to be trained) and nobody should rely on "gimmicks" to get a job done.

My voice has always been enough to get the job done regarding my children.

Reins.  Not reigns.   I never used them myself but I've seen mothers using them and they sell them in Mothercare.   After what happened to the Bulger kid,  a lot of mothers started using them.  Better safe than sorry.

Thorin wrote:There is no law here, its just simple a concept on first come, first served. Do you think medically emergencies are dealt with, like this?

Thorin wrote:The view to first come, first served is born from a selfish disposition. As it fails to take into consideration anyone else

Thorin wrote:You have ignored the point being made here in regards to the well-being and safety of the child.

Original Quill wrote:
Not at all.  There are rules that doctors follow in triage.  That’s why we have rules, to bring order to chaos.

Thorin wrote:Which means its not first come first serve is it?

Yes, but we are not talking about capitalism here.  Suffice it to say that the same criticism brought to first come, first serve is the criticism that socialists bring to unrestricted market dealings.

But there is still a need for rules in advance.  

Thorin wrote:No, you are talking about Capitalism here. First come, first served can be found on either side of the political spectrum. Again the concept is one of selfishness, when others have more of a need in a given situation

Not ignored.  Just not given these particular facts the same significance that you have in the grand scheme of things

Thorin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Reins.  Not reigns.   I never used them myself but I've seen mothers using them and they sell them in Mothercare.   After what happened to the Bulger kid,  a lot of mothers started using them.  Better safe than sorry.

You mean more lazy and not able to teach their children properly boundaries and consequences.

What do you progress up to when they reach 6, if the parents cannot properly control their children?

Chains?

HoratioTarr wrote:

Thorin wrote:


You mean more lazy and not able to teach their children properly boundaries and consequences.

What do you progress up to when they reach 6, if the parents cannot properly control their children?

Chains?

Now you're just being silly.    Show me one incidence where child reins have physically or psychologically damaged a child?   More children die choking on window blinds.    A parent has just as much right to use them if they desire as a parent who chooses not to.   If they were detrimental to children they wouldn't be on sale.    It could be argued that breast feeding your child long after it's got a full set of teeth is bone idle too.  Or waiting to potty train it long after it should be out of nappies.  

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:
Not at all.  There are rules that doctors follow in triage.  That’s why we have rules, to bring order to chaos.



Yes, but we are not talking about capitalism here.  Suffice it to say that the same criticism brought to first come, first serve is the criticism that socialists bring to unrestricted market dealings.

But there is still a need for rules in advance.  



Not ignored.  Just not given these particular facts the same significance that you have in the grand scheme of things

So again we have here a child that is feeding and would be better placed with the mother sitting down. As this would be more safe for the child.

As a point on interest. How do people expect parents to feed their child with solids in their prams, without them having a seat themselves. This even becomes more difficult for the parent on a moving train and bus.

Now lets add the reins into the argument on trains and buses. Do you think the child is going to be steady left standing up on its own, with just a leash held by the parent?

HoratioTarr wrote:

Thorin wrote:

So again we have here a child that is feeding and would be better placed with the mother sitting down. As this would be more safe for the child.

As a point on interest. How do people expect parents to feed their child with solids in their prams, without them having a seat themselves. This even becomes more difficult for the parent on a moving train and bus.

Now lets add the reins into the argument on trains and buses. Do you think the child is going to be steady left standing up on its own, with just a leash held by the parent?

A child is supported by baby reins and is less likely to take a wrench to the hand, shoulder and arm than if held by the hand.   Children are unpredictable, particularly toddlers.  Relying solely on your own brand of 'training' is never going to be 100 per cent safe.   Children have died from wriggling free from their parents grip, or wandering off.  That split second most parents dread when your child is no longer under your full protection.   So, it's hardly fair to criticise parents who choose to use reins just because you're using them as an 'argument'  against those on here who disagree with you.

Thorin wrote:

eddie wrote:You shouldn't need reigns for a child. Your voice should be enough if you've trained them right (yes children need to be trained) and nobody should rely on "gimmicks" to get a job done.

My voice has always been enough to get the job done regarding my children.

+1

Exactly Eddie. As what boundaries and consequences are being taught using reigns?
Boundaries and consequences  should be taught at the earliest ages.

Syl wrote:I haven't read the thread replies yet but addressing the OP...
I think people are incredibly ignorant to NOT stand up and give a nursing mother a seat. I have never seen a mum breast feeding on public transport, but I would give up my seat in a heartbeat, same as a mother with young children, an elderly person (obviously I don't consider myself old and in dire need of a seat yet) or in fact anyone who needed a seat more than I did.

On the reverse side....this mum could well have NOT breast fed and made a huge fuss. The child is big enough and old enough to eat and drink pre prepared or food. Yes her fellow passengers were ignorant, but I don't believe DEMANDING or SHAMING people into doing something is the right way either...especially as with a bit of forward thinking the problem would never have arisen..

Thorin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

A child is supported by baby reins and is less likely to take a wrench to the hand, shoulder and arm than if held by the hand.   Children are unpredictable, particularly toddlers.  Relying solely on your own brand of 'training' is never going to be 100 per cent safe.   Children have died from wriggling free from their parents grip, or wandering off.  That split second most parents dread when your child is no longer under your full protection.   So, it's hardly fair to criticise parents who choose to use reins just because you're using them as an 'argument'  against those on here who disagree with you.

Supported in mid air on reigns, when they can easily be held by an arm? It does not need to be wrenched at all. So what you claim is a mass over exaggeration. Yet a child on reins can easily become over balanced, if pulled back by the parent and I have often seen this happen.

Its not about my own brand, but common sense to set boundaries and consequences for children. A child is not going to learn many on the end of a leash.

Sorry you think its unfair to criticize, after you have been critical of this mother throughout?

The irony.

Using the case of very rare incidents is not a case or need to use one. They are generally rare accidents.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:I haven't read the thread replies yet but addressing the OP...
I think people are incredibly ignorant to NOT stand up and give a nursing mother a seat. I have never seen a mum breast feeding on public transport, but I would give up my seat in a heartbeat, same as a mother with young children, an elderly person (obviously I don't consider myself old and in dire need of a seat yet) or in fact anyone who needed a seat more than I did.

On the reverse side....this mum could well have NOT breast fed and made a huge fuss. The child is big enough and old enough to eat and drink pre prepared or food. Yes her fellow passengers were ignorant, but I don't believe DEMANDING or SHAMING people into doing something is the right way either...especially as with a bit of forward thinking the problem would never have arisen..

I think you'll find that those of us who think this woman did wrong, agree with your post, as we've already stated we'd give up a seat depending on our own health and capability.   She didn't actually ask anyone for their seat.   She asked if she could sit on a suitcase.   Nobody said nay or yay so she saw her arse.   Yes, it's annoying that people don't have the same manners they should, but she's actually fallen foul of her own lack of manners by filming those people and putting it on her public facebook.   I'm sure most of the people on that train weren't even aware she needed a seat.   She was standing at the area where the bikes are stored...apparently there were empty seats further up the carriage.   Perhaps those lads knew that so just chose to ignore her, or perhaps she had an attitude which usually rubs folks up the wrong way.    

HoratioTarr wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Supported in mid air on reigns, when they can easily be held by an arm? It does not need to be wrenched at all. So what you claim is a mass over exaggeration. Yet a child on reins can easily become over balanced, if pulled back by the parent and I have often seen this happen.

Its not about my own brand, but common sense to set boundaries and consequences for children. A child is not going to learn many on the end of a leash.

Sorry you think its unfair to criticize, after you have been critical of this mother throughout?

The irony.

Using the case of very rare incidents is not a case or need to use one. They are generally rare accidents.

There's absolutely no logic to the above.  None at all.    Tedious.  

eddie wrote:

Thorin wrote:


+1

Exactly Eddie. As what boundaries and consequences are being taught using reigns?
Boundaries and consequences  should be taught at the earliest ages.

I agree.  

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:

I agree.  

Ahh...the topic has moved on.
Re reigns, I never used them but I have known mums who have.
I see no harm in them if the child is hyper or hard to control when out.
I would rather see a small child controlled this way then run into danger or get lost if the parent ever feels they are not in complete control.....its a good short term remedy to teach a wayward kid imo.

Lord Foul wrote:thorin is displaying the modern attitude.......

Thorin wrote:Incorrect again, as mine was passed on

that the safety of the child is everyone elses responsibility

Thorin wrote:At no point have i stated its everyone's responsibility

NO its not

Thorin wrote:Which proves you cannot read

just as, beyond certain bounds, out side of the workplace YOUR H&S is NOT my responsibility (or at least shouldnt be)

Thorin wrote:But there is nothing wrong in caring for others when they have needs. That does not means its your responsibility, but its the decent thing to do, because its a duty of care to others who need it.

for instance the drunk in dark clothes wandering along an unlit road....

the uninvited guest (burglar)
the common or garden variety of feeble minded body vandal

etc.....

Thorin wrote:I think any rational person would help a drunk, in order that they do not harm themselves.
If by your actions you did nothing and they died, then ethically and as a duty of care you have failed them.How you equate a child needing a seat whilst feeding to burglar is about as absurd as it gets

oh and I include in the above those thick ignorant insolent vile feral youths who take it upon themselves to amble accross the road at the slowest pace to deliberately force you to slow down and or stop for them....

Thorin wrote:Getting even further irrelevant and off point

THEY should be on the "general licence" and fair game

what part of "wait for a safe moment to cross and then do so promptly etc etc" do they NOT understand?

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Ahh...the topic has moved on.
Re reigns, I never used them but I have known mums who have.
I see no harm in them if the child is hyper or hard to control when out.
I would rather see a small child controlled this way then run into danger or get lost if the parent ever feels they are not in complete control.....its a good short term remedy to teach a wayward kid imo.

And what if they continue to remain difficult and at what age do they then stop using them?
Has it then been effective at all?
No, where as boundaries and consequences would work far better and quicker.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:

And what if they continue to remain difficult and at what age do they then stop using them?
Has it then been effective at all?
No, where as boundaries and consequences would work far better and quicker.

If a child continues to remain difficult past a certain age it wont be anything to do with the reins though will it?
In my opinion reins are a short term answer to a particular problem.
My own son was hyperactive...I had to have eyes in the back of my head to make sure he didn't run off or get hurt when he was small.
I always held a firm grip of his hand, but I had only one son and could manage....had I had other small kids I probably would have used reins, its always better to be safe than sorry when dealing with toddlers.

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't see why I should stick up for someone just because they're the same sex as me, and I approve of reins for children. That's all really.

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:

If a child continues to remain difficult past a certain age it wont be anything to do with the reins though will it?
In my opinion reins are a short term answer to a particular problem.
My own son was hyperactive...I had to have eyes in the back of my head to make sure he didn't run off or get hurt when he was small.
I always held a firm grip of his hand, but I had only one son and could manage....had I had other small kids I probably would have used reins, its always better to be safe than sorry when dealing with toddlers.

It will be because the parents never taught them properly boundaries and consequences Syl.
So if its down to boundaries and consequences as to how toddlers and children learn.

Then is the leash an effective teaching method?

No

The leash is a form of control, proving the parents do not have control without it.
Hence they require a tool in order to gain control, when it should be how they teach themselves. In how they will properly gain control.

As I say its a poor teaching method Syl.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't see why I should stick up for someone just because they're the same sex as me, and I approve of reins for children. That's all really.

What does the sex matter here?

Its about the child.

Of which you were one once.

Where you once benefited off a free education, you never even paid for but the nation collectively did so.

That all your medical needs as a child were taken care of

Now imagine you are 15 months, and the train you are on, is the entire nation. With nobody giving you a seat for education or medical needs.

Do you think the same now?

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:

It will be because the parents never taught them properly boundaries and consequences Syl.
So if its down to boundaries and consequences as to how toddlers and children learn.

Then is the leash an effective teaching method?

No

The leash is a form of control, proving the parents do not have control without it.
Hence they require a tool in order to gain control, when it should be how they teach themselves. In how they will properly gain control.

As I say its a poor teaching method Syl.

Hmmm....I'm not a great believer of telling other parents how to act when it comes to their own children Thor.
I work on the assumption that decent parents know what's best for their own kids....not one rule fits all.

The reins do give the parent control.....so if they feel that that is the best way to keep their child safe when out who are we to say different?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


What does the sex matter here?

Its about the child.

Of which you were one once.

Where you once benefited off a free education, you never even paid for but the nation collectively did so.

That all your medical needs as a child were taken care of

Now imagine you are 15 months, and the train you are on, is the entire nation. With nobody giving you a seat for education or medical needs.

Do you think the same now?

I was referring to Sassy's post. The rest of your post is a red herring.

Thorin wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:thorin is displaying the modern attitude.......

Thorin wrote:Incorrect again, as mine was passed on

that the safety of the child is everyone elses responsibility

Thorin wrote:At no point have i stated its everyone's responsibility

NO its not

Thorin wrote:Which proves you cannot read

just as, beyond certain bounds, out side of the workplace YOUR H&S is NOT my responsibility (or at least shouldnt be)

Thorin wrote:But there is nothing wrong in caring for others when they have needs. That does not means its your responsibility, but its the decent thing to do, because its a duty of care to others who need it.

for instance the drunk in dark clothes wandering along an unlit road....

the uninvited guest (burglar)
the common or garden variety of feeble minded body vandal

etc.....

Thorin wrote:I think any rational person would help a drunk, in order that they do not harm themselves.
If by your actions you did nothing and they died, then ethically and as a duty of care you have failed them.How you equate a child needing a seat whilst feeding to burglar is about as absurd as it gets

and...just why as a motorist, does it become MY responsibility to spot said inebriated idiot in dark clothes on an unlit rural road as he wanders into the path of my vehicle....hes drunk...thats HIS fault....hes wearing dark clothes.....thats his fault....and hes wandering drunkenly all over a dark unlit road....

I mean...I accept that is my duty as a driver to look out the front and not bang into things....but hey....give us a chance FFS

oh and I include in the above those thick ignorant insolent vile feral youths who take it upon themselves to amble accross the road at the slowest pace to deliberately force you to slow down and or stop for them....

Thorin wrote:Getting even further irrelevant and off point

THEY should be on the "general licence" and fair game

what part of "wait for a safe moment to cross and then do so promptly etc etc" do they NOT understand?

The point is the golden rule. How what you would want others to do for you, if in that situation yourself.

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Hmmm....I'm not a great believer of telling other parents how to act when it comes to their own children Thor.
I work on the assumption that decent parents know what's best for their own kids....not one rule fits all.

The reins do give the parent control.....so if they feel that that is the best way to keep their child safe when out who are we to say different?

Syl I am not telling them, but advising them.
There is a big difference as I am not stopping anyone from using them.
As stated I think they are a poor teaching tool as explained.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I was referring to Sassy's post. The rest of your post is a red herring.

I knew you would avoid answering like the plague.

You see its easy to place people into a situation, where they would want the same.

Assistance from others.

Lord Foul wrote:and...just why as a motorist, does it become MY responsibility to spot said inebriated idiot in dark clothes on an unlit rural road as he wanders into the path of my vehicle....hes drunk...thats HIS fault....hes wearing dark clothes.....thats his fault....and hes wandering drunkenly all over a dark unlit road....

Thorin wrote:It is his fault his is drunk, but does that excuse you from helping someone?

I mean...I accept that is my duty as a driver to look out the front and not bang into things....but hey....give us a chance FFS

Thorin wrote:What if because its dark, that you do not see that in fact its your nephew (hypothetically) who then falls into a river a drowns? You could have prevented that? What if they start to choke on their own sick? You could help them and prevent them from dying.
Just because people get themselves into idiotic situations. Does not mean we should just walk away.

oh and I include in the above those thick ignorant insolent vile feral youths who take it upon themselves to amble accross the road at the slowest pace to deliberately force you to slow down and or stop for them....

Thorin wrote:Maybe you are driving to fast then and they are doing a good think, being as its country roads where many accidents happen

THEY should be on the "general licence" and fair game

what part of "wait for a safe moment to cross and then do so promptly etc etc" do they NOT understand?

and the point I think is "how about taking some responsibility for your OWN, and not expect every other member of society to look out for what is in essence YOUR responsibility"

Thorin wrote:Fine so you think all babies should take responsibility for themselves and never have an education or medical help just as you did. Even though you never took any responsibility or this and neither did your parents. The nation did.

OH and "the golden rule" merely states ...do no harm

It does not perforce require extraordinary effort to avoid the harm caused to others by their own lack of forethought.


the "sin of ommision" was never conscripted into the golden rule

the same as the hippocratic oath...it reinforces the positive requirement of not DOING harm, but that oath does not force a doctor to PREVENT harm.....otherwise every doctor present at an execution would perforce be obliged to take all and every step to prevent it , including those steps deemed illegal...

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


I knew you would avoid answering like the plague.

You see its easy to place people into a situation, where they would want the same.

Assistance from others.

I now pay tax so that children can be educated and people can receive child benefits. It's how it works Didge. The kid wouldn't have cared about anyone giving up their seat. It wasn't about the kid anyway, the mother just wanted to put yet another photo of herself on Facebook and whinge about some people who were minding their own business.