This post is locked. You won't be able to comment.

Meta: Moderation and the rules

submitted by circlingmyownvoid2 from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Breasts aren’t an essential part of reproduction. Infants can survive without breast milk.

In modern-day life, breast milk isn't essential for babies to survive. But before infant formulas were developed and awareness of germ theory led to the invention of sterilization methods, pray tell exactly how human infants survived without breast milk?

The fact that that breast milk is not essential to the survival of human infants nowadays still doesn't change the fact that breasts are sexual organs that evolution has equipped women with in order to fulfill a reproductive purpose.

You don't seem to understand what "essential" means in categories. The fact that bicycles, canoes and trains are not essential methods of transportation doesn't mean they're not modes of transport. Ice cream and lima beans are not essential foods, but they're still food.

I look forward to finding out how prior to formula infants survived from the neonatal period until they could eat and digest solids without breast milk.

As for my other points and questions, how come you avoided addressing and answering them the way you typically avoid addressing and answering most points and questions directly put to you?

[–]circlingmyownvoid2[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

They died, but that’s hit the case anymore and it still doesn’t make breasts a sexual organ.

I didn’t avoid anything. Ask a non rhetorical question without writing a novel if you want every single sentence addressed.

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

First you said:

Breasts aren’t an essential part of reproduction. Infants can survive without breast milk.

Now when challenged on that you say that before there was infant formula

They died.

So now dying is the same as surviving?

And how does this prove your preposterous and misogynistic claim that infants' need of breast milk to survive the first 6-8 months of life for all of human evolution and history until very recently "still doesn't make breasts a sexual organ"?

In addition to insulting all women who have breastfed their/our own children, and all those who have breastfed or provided breast milk for other women's children too, your claim that human breasts are not sexual organs that fulfill a reproductive purpose is basically the same as saying that humans are not mammals.

Also, if human breasts are not sexual organs meant to play a key role in reproduction; the nourishment, immunity & survival of young offspring; and the perpetuation of the species Homo Sapiens, what's their purpose then?

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

It's almost like you are saying some babies would need to survive in order to grow up and make factories, and baby formula, and cans, and refrigeration, and can openers, and baby bottles, and rubber baby bottle nipples, and a way to sanitize it all. Those things have been around longer than any of us have been alive. Check mate, MT. I normal am impressed by your logic and sound reasoning, but I think I found the flaw in your reasoning today. Or, am I missing something?

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

FK, you might well have found a flaw in my reasoning, but I honestly don't understand what you are saying in this last post.

My comment was a response to COMV's claim that because infants nowadays can survive without breast milk, this means breasts aren't sexual organs that play or have played a part in reproduction. My comment wasn't a response to what you said about baby formula and can openers.

Also, just for the record, whilst the inventions and tech you mention - formula, cans, can openers, bottles, nipples, sanitizing equipment & refrigeration - have indeed been around longer than any of us have been alive, they have not been around everywhere on earth. Even today in 2021, a huge percentage of the human population can't use baby formula because they do not have access to clean water with which to make the powdered form, they don't have the means and funds to pay for the fuel to boil water to sterilize it, they don't have refrigerators in which to safely store the canned versions once the cans are opened, they live in shacks or huts where the conditions make it impossible to sanitize bottles & nipples. Nor can they afford to buy infant formula in powdered or pre-made liquid form.

According to WHO, as of 2019 one-third of the world's population do not have access to water that's safe to drink, and 3 billion people are unable to engage in hand-washing that would make their hands clean enough to safely prepare or handle infant formula or cleanse/sanitize items like bottles and nipples.

https://www.who.int/news/item/18-06-2019-1-in-3-people-globally-do-not-have-access-to-safe-drinking-water-unicef-who

If you visit "third world" countries, you'll see that even in homes where people have electricity, they often only have power some of the time. Moreover, even homes with electricity 24/7 often are such that basic cleanliness is impossible.

Finally, baby formula can't provide the immune benefits that breasts do. It takes several days after birth for a mother's milk to "come in" - but before then, the breasts of women who've just given birth secrete colostrum that is rich in both antibodies and nutrients.