NEWS: The Mother's Bill of Rights

I have to also come down on the side of private businesses having the right in the United States to say that children are unwelcome. I also fully support the collective rights of consumers to respond as they see fit to such a policy.

I thought this was a well-written article, but I find it simplistic to say that we as a society are not used to children. While I love children (really!) I have decided that I am not going to have any of my own, and I further have difficulty understanding why it is okay to completely ignore the members of society that truly dislike children. Why don't their rights matter here?

On this train, these parents brought their loser kids, and the little girl had the Harry Potter book with her. So when the kids were acting like dicks, I got up and yelled at the children "TURN TO PAGE 608, SNAPE KILLS DUMBLEDORE!!!", and the girl started crying. Half the people near though just started laughing though.

You have a right to bring your piece of shit kids to inconvenient places for kids, and I also have a right to express my anger and displeasure at such. Of course it's a dick move, but so is bringing your loud kids to a movie im trying to enjoy or a nice restaurant.

For the same reason that your "right" to truly dislike black people, or Asians, or women, or any other group doesn't matter.

I see. Apparently it's also a dick move to use public transportation if you have children, and you deserve to have an asshole deliberately make your kids cry if you do.

I have a question. So what you're saying is that we should reconstruct our society to over accommodate women because they decided to be mothers? Yes we accommodate various disabilities in our society today, but pregnancy and motherhood is not a disability. Being a mother is a choice. If someone were to get pregnant by accident, they don't have to be mothers.

Also, I don't believe that children know how to behave in every social setting (nor do some adults). That's knowledge they would gain as they got older and I don't believe that children should be allowed in every venue of society. It's simply not appropriate. Yes, children are members of society as well, but they lack the social knowledge that I believe is needed to be allowed in certain venues (college classes, outside of daycare in the workplace, etc.).

I have another question.

As members of society we're supposed to correct misbehavior in children that are not ours? I don't see that going well. Telling someone else's child to listen to their mother (neither of whom you know) is inappropriate. It's not your place to correct someone else's child's behavior.

My functional dyslexia kicked in somewhere in the 3rd para.

Ever heard of the word 'edit'.

I would have loved to read thru, but I just don't have a spare couple of hours.

sounds almost convincing... but I doubt the fact that birth control options being limited are good ol boys fault..probally a mixture of conservative religuos freaks and liberal feminists lobbying err bribing the hell out of congress..(God forbid males have any rights in regard to procreation..lol).
As long as liberals ignore sperm theft(the action of stealing sperm from condoms in the garbage for self insemination or giving a guy a BJ and using that material) It would be hypocritical to support any measure to advance any socialized program designed to further the enslavement.
But subsidized child care would make moral sense if it allowed for one of the biological "parents" to sign off on the child(might sound harsh but females in general do have control of there bodies and have the ability to determine if they want to have a child while males have no rights and the swines on the left and the right say dont want kids dont have sex{similar argument the right makes for the elimination of abortion and the continuation of there fake sex ed class's}),And quite frankly that approach does violate the whole illegalization of slavery thing...

So are you saying that blacks, Asians, and women as a whole tend towards distraction, self-absorption, and an inability to focus relative to adults on the whole? Surely not. Further, "children" is not a minority group. It is humans that haven't hit puberty yet. At issue here is what people who love kids already understand: they're not geared (nor should they be) to, for instance, sit-down dining at a time they are unused to eating, or any other similar social situation. They have no business whatsoever being in violent R-rated movies, on the whole. I personally feel they have no business in casinos. The list isn't long, but I feel as if a truly reasonable one can be made.

Personally, I find it far more unrealistic to hold lofty and likely unattainable social goals for six-year-olds (which does not mean that anyone should sell children short) than it is to say that part of the social contract is not pushing your kids on people who didn't parent them.

If women (rightfully) shouldn't have to bow to "biological destiny"--i.e., being solely responsible for birth control, pregnancy, and being expected to carry any pregnancy to term--then why should society as a whole be forced to? No, I am not equating the right to choose with choosing to be childless, but I'm unsure how to reconcile this with the idea that children should be universally welcomed regardless of location or environment.

Let me ask you this: What would be places that you would say are inappropriate for children? Do such places exist? I have to say I'm chagrined that my point was answered with "it's just like racism and sexism." Perhaps if that were fleshed out a bit better it might be a more appealing argument. If nothing else, it reminds us that there are, in fact, all sorts of places where one's "right" to dislike blacks, Asians or women is not only catered to, but celebrated. I suppose I'm more worried about actual hate crime preventing adults from participating in society than I am about children who are being prevented from this solely because they haven't learned the ropes yet. It's a different problem from race and gender exclusion. As is, it really seems to be the sole Achilles' heel in this article, discounting random trolls hollering "SOCIALISM!" and whatnot.

They make pet carriers and muzzles for a reason.

I really don't think that's the proposal at all. Unless you're talking about "accomodation" solely on the psychological level, in which case I would agree with you and answer the question a resounding "yes."

Now, I'm obviously disagreeing with Bitch_PhD on one facet of this issue, but honestly, why is a pregnant woman such a big deal? Naturally there are certain jobs one can't perform pregnant, whether due to logistics or regulation, but we make such a big deal in this country about women getting pregnant and being pregnant, when I just don't see how useful such behavior and belief is. Pregnant women can do plenty, and when they can't, well, that's life, literally. That's how I look at it, and I truly feel that's how any company management should feel. Anything else seems at cross-purposes to the propagation of our species, and that's no good for anybody's bottom line.

Re: Children:

I agree with you, and feel that because "society" is an often-times completely unfair game that children are roughly and rudely introduced to, it's almost more humane to kids to hold off on sit-down dining, movies, plays, etc.

*smacks forehead*

I just realized something: Bitch_PhD: If you were actually talking about attitudes towards parents ending up needing to bring a child somewhere such as work or school (grocery, i.e., anywhere necessary), then I say that should never be an issue. Ideally both work and school would manage some kind of daycare situation, but when you're talking about depriving a human being of livelihood and betterment exclusively because they have a child? Well, that's leaning towards monstrous.

And overnight freight.

So...you're saying that having a child is like taking a shit?