Don Homuth wrote:

On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 06:34:20 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote:

Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote:

On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 22:18:00 -0400, <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:

Certain practices are best done in private; breast feeding being a
prime example.

Why? Historically tht wasn't the case. It simply became
unFashionable about the time that baby formula was first being
marketed.

Gee, you don't suppose ...

I don't -- there's no need to suppose. One of the ways the baby
formula makers decided to open a market niche was actively to campaign
Against breast feeding, especially in the Third World.

They marketed their formula as Modern and Hygenic and Western -- and
depicted breast feeding as something archaic.

http://multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1987/04/formula.html

There were organized international boycotts against Nestle's campaign:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestl%C3%A9_boycott

Nestlé's perceived marketing strategy was first written about in New
Internationalist magazine in 1973 and in a booklet called The Baby
Killer published by the British non-governmental organization War On
Want in 1974. Nestlé attempted to sue the publisher of a
German-language translation (Third World Action Group). After a
two-year trial, the court found in favor of Nestlé and fined the group
300 Swiss francs because Nestlé could not be held responsible for the
infant deaths 'in terms of criminal law'.

The widespread publicity led to the launch of the boycott in
Minneapolis, USA. In May 1978, the US Senate held a public hearing
into the promotion of breast-milk substitutes in developing countries
and joined calls for a Marketing Code. This was developed under the
auspices of the World Health Organization and UNICEF and adopted by
the World Health Assembly in 1981 as the International Code of
Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes. The Code covers infant formula
and other milk products, foods and beverages, when marketed or
otherwise represented to be suitable as a partial or total replacement
of breast-milk. It bans the promotion of breast-milk substitutes and
gives health workers the responsibility of advising parents. It limits
manufacturing companies to the provision of scientific and factual
information to health workers and sets out labeling requirements.

In 1984, boycott coordinators met with Nestlé and accepted the
company's undertaking that it would abide by the Code, but the
coordinators were not satisfied with Nestle's subsequent action and
the boycott was relaunched in 1988.

In May 1999 a ruling against Nestlé was issued by the UK Advertising
Standards Authority (ASA). Nestlé claimed in an anti-boycott
advertisement that it markets infant formula "ethically and
responsibly". The ASA found that Nestlé could not support this nor
other claims in the face of evidence provided by the campaigning group
Baby Milk Action.

In November 2000, the European Parliament held a public hearing into
Nestlé's alleged malpractices. Although management told shareholders
months before that they welcomed the hearing, they refused to send a
representative. At the time, Nestlé objected to a presence of an
expert witness from the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) and
the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN). Later Nestlé
claimed none of its 230,000 employees was available.

http://www.breastfeedingtaskforla.org/advocacy/nestle-marketing.htm

Nestle's website continues to maintain that breastfeeding is superior
for a couple of months, rather than the longer period that most
experts in neonatal nutrition support:

http://www.babymilk.nestle.com/FAQ/

It's certainly not Immoral or sexually titillating -- unless you are
Really weird!

Ah, he IS!

I have met Xtians who have objected to calling humans "mammals"
because it suggests we are part of the Animal Kingdom in the world,
and not The Lowered's Own Chosen Species. It opens the door to
evolutionist thinking, doncha know.

I have met atheist who have objected to looking for christians who can
see how creation and evolution can be applied together.

The reason that christians object to this is because the bible explains it. God
made man, with a soul. Animals, do not have a soul. It's in Genesis.

Reading it and actually asking Christians and being
objective...well...it opens the door to being open minded, doncha know.

On 2 Jul 2006 22:45:24 -0700, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

Eris wrote:

On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 19:34:45 -0700, Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net>
wrote:

On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 22:18:00 -0400, <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:

Certain practices are best done in private; breast feeding being a

example.

Why? Historically tht wasn't the case. It simply became
unFashionable about the time that baby formula was first being
marketed.

It's certainly not Immoral or sexually titillating -- unless you are
Really weird!

The Jesus freaks decided the breast was obscene along with their
buddies the mullahs.

When you say Jesus freaks, who are you refering to? Are you refering
to anyone who believes in God?

If so, I know a LOT of people who believe in God and don't think the
breast is obscene at all, and I know many that don't mind a woman
breast feeding in public because it's a perfectly natural part of life.

No I am referring to the 16 percent of the followers of any religion
who are essentially anti sexual, be because they don't like sex or
that they find morality an easy way of controlling others.

osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

Eris wrote:

On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 19:34:45 -0700, Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net>
wrote:

On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 22:18:00 -0400, <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:

Certain practices are best done in private; breast feeding being a prime
example.

Why? Historically tht wasn't the case. It simply became
unFashionable about the time that baby formula was first being
marketed.

It's certainly not Immoral or sexually titillating -- unless you are
Really weird!

The Jesus freaks decided the breast was obscene along with their
buddies the mullahs.

When you say Jesus freaks, who are you refering to? Are you refering
to anyone who believes in God?

How do you manage to be so stupid and still use a computer?