"problems with English"? I really didn't know I had any, but, if i do, attribute it to English not being my first language. First, let's get out of the way the argument that we should all support other people's children because we need children to continue our society. I don't think this country is in any danger of not having enough people, and i already support other people's children through the taxes that i pay. i really would like it to end there. But more importantly, "'hobbies are a choice" but "children are people." Yes, children are people, but so are adults, and all i'm saying is, let's treat other people's children the say way we treat other adults, which is, with equality and a balance. Why is it that people think that their children's existence should dictate, in part, how i live my life, but not vice versa?..."

Exactly. As you said previously, the kids are usually fine but the parents are a trip. The problem is that their argument in this case is generally suspect. They are trying to turn a perk into a "right". That's why they almost instantly resort to labeling or name calling. If you disagree with them you are either "anti-mother" or anti-kids" or anti-something or another or, telling, left out of the so-called COMMON GOOD. Amazing, huh?

It's interesting that on the one hand certain parents here imply that, by definition, people without kids are selfish because they don't have kids and (the real reason) they disagree with them, while at the same time, they imply or outright say, that parents, by definition, are somehow virtuous selfless beings simply because they have kids. That's absurd reasoning and there's not one person posting here who can't point out numerous examples to prove that it's nonsense.

Also, when is the "good of society" lie finally going to be put to bed? What self-centered tripe. There's not one parent here that was thinking about the "good of society" when they were babymaking Johnny or Jane. It's such a ridiculous lie that I'm amazed that it keeps getting trotted out, but unfortunately, it seems to be part of what was earlier called here (Velora?), the "congratulatory backslapping" that accompanies modern parenting among a certain set of parents. There's this very weird notion among some current parents that modern parenting is some sort of heroic martyrdom or state of grace. Aside from the outrageous presumption that they can speak for all parents, it's like nobody's ever been a parent before they blessed the earth with their offspring.

When you really think of how arrogantly delusional the "good of society" argument is, it's stunning. See, they didn't have kids simply because they wanted to have them. They had them for your and everybody else's good too. I know, I know...if people stopped having kids...well, people never haved stopped and aren't going to stop and, of course, they shouldn't stop (in fact, I'm not sure people could stop), but the idea that certain people can turn that simple biological imperative into a self-flattering whine (e.g. THEY are doing it for YOUR good and, in general, the good of society) while at the same time calling others self-centered speaks for itself.

"As a person who has no children and has no plans to have children I must say that I am appalled at the ...."

C'mon now, that sounds like "as a lifelong Democrat I must say that I'm appalled by Clinton's behavior ......" type astroturf.

Because parents need flexiblity only to take care children while people without kids need flexiblity only for frivilous things like pedicures? Right....because we all know that parents spend every waking minute taking care of kids while childfree folks are merely lollygagging around getting pedicures. Unbelieveable.

"Why are people so angry about parents needing time to do things with kids? Why do they think the need to take care of kids is a personal affront to their life and lifestyle choices? Where are all the live and let live hippies when you need them??"

Why are people falsely using an "angry" label as a tactic against others? Why do they continue to invent and misinterpet others positions so that they can play the victim? Where are people who realize that disagreeing with some here has no effect whether others live and let live? Probably hanging with those hippies...

Actually xylu, this was a point I raised earlier. As this talk of breastfeeding aside, does it even make sense for a barista to bring her infant to work at a retail Starbucks location? The answer I got was an exception - a perfect story about one local coffeehouse who allowed the whole nine yards. That was fine but it was an exception and doesn't apply to Starbucks.

If people think it through, aside from the hot liquids safety type issue, you're talking about several thousand locations that, at best, might have small offices. I've seen several that don't have any office space. So, where would they put the baby while they worked and in between breastfeedings? Plus, they are heavily trafficed by the general public and throw in the hot liquid issues and, from a liability perspective, Starbucks would be crazy to allow it at the store level. People talk this "right" stuff but, if they did allow it, we all know what's going to happen the first time a baby gets injured in the store while her mother was working - Starbucks would get sued like crazy.

Good point about pumping. One could do that and feed later. Still the logistics in your typical Starbucks location would be tricky.