Just what I want when I've plunked down $ for a theater ticket...the gacking, gagging, puking squalls of infants who are tied to the tit.

Brilliant.

Are there NO sensible new mothers out there? None whatsoever? Not One?

Look, breed all you want, breast all you want, pump it out and leave it with the fracking sitter. But have the decency to keep your shrieking offspring out of venues where other adults have paid the very same amount as you to be there and enjoy the actual show--not The Spectacle Of What A Fabulous New Mother You Are.

And most ESPECIALLY, do not expect to be subsidized for that little performance.

Motherhood is not so sacred that it gives new moms the right to inconvenience the rest of us, who appreciate being able to enjoy our own $75 theater seats (or $10 movie seats, for that matter) without straining to catch the dialogue over the fussing, squalling, and suckling noises.

I understand that new moms need a break sometimes. But when you choose to have a baby, you also choose to make certain sacrifices -- like, say, the ability to go to the theater whenever you want. The theater will still be there after your kid is old enough to stay home with a sitter. In the meantime, rent a DVD.

A couple of movie theaters near where I live have "baby night" -- a couple of screenings a week that parents can attend with babies under a year old. If you don't arrive with a baby, they make sure you know the deal before you buy your ticket. This allows parents a chance to get out during the evening without unduly inconveniencing other movie-goers. There is usually a fair amount of shrieking during the earlier shows, but the later ones are fairly quiet, since most of the babies are asleep.

I would never bring my daughter with me to a live performance. And you know, on the nights when my husband and I go out without our daughter, we don't particularly want to have to listen to other people's kids in the theater or restaurant.

I breastfed my son for 15 months and would have done it longer had he been interested in continuing. I even consider myself a bit of a lactivist, since I think that women should be allowed and even encouraged to nurse discreetly in all kinds of public places, including restaurants, airplanes, malls, and coffee shops. That does not, in my opinion, extend to live theater and music, because a crying baby (or even a sweetly cooing baby) will not only disrupt audience members but also the players/actors! And, no matter how well-behaved your baby is, *every* newborn has the ability to go from zero to ballistic in a matter of seconds.

The plain fact is that if you think you can take a newborn to the theater and have a good time or relax for even a full minute, you're probably insane. We never even chanced a movie with our infant son for fear of ruining everyone else's experience.

Yes, nursing moms are more tethered to their infants physically, but that phase doesn't last forever. It certainly doesn't last long enough to justify taking a newborn to the symphony.

"A state rep. introduced the bill after hearing from a mother who paid for an extra $75 ticket for her nursing infant so she could attend a show with the tot."

This is weird--I guess the idea was that if she bought a ticket, it didn't matter how disruptive the child was? What bugs me is the idea that money can buy anything.

When I was a nursing mother (twice), I didn't expect to have to pay anything to bring in my nursing infant, who was in a sling or in my lap. But I also figured it was my obligation as a considerate human being to leave immediately if the baby was bothering other people. So I didn't go anywhere that I couldn't afford to forfeit the ticket price. Paid $6 for a movie, and hoped the baby would fall asleep nursing so I could enjoy the film. Sometimes that worked--hooray. But if the baby started fussing, I moved toward the door, watched the movie from the back, and hoped for the best. If the baby didn't stop fussing, that meant I had to leave. Tough noogies about the six bucks.

I was really desperate to get out and do stuff when I had a nursing baby who couldn't be left with a babysitter, so I understand the impulse, but I would never expect other people to put up with my problems--even if I could afford to buy the place off.

I've been taking my daughter out to restaurants, including some very nice ones, since she was an infant. We usually go in a group, so there are lots of faces to entertain her and once she was old enough, we always brought some quiet (that is, no electronic noise) toys for her to play with if she got bored. I can honestly say that I don't think she ever disturbed anyone else at a restaurant (even while discreetly breastfeeding) and if she had become noisy or disruptive, we would've left immediately.

I think she has learned to be quiet and reasonably well behaved when we're out. At least partially because of that, she was very nicely behaved when we took her to the Radio City Christmas Show (ticket price $150) at just over age 2. Granted, that is a show where you expect a lot of kids and are prepared for all kinds of noise, but she sat nicely in her seat until she climbed into my lap and fell asleep a little more than halfway through the show (it's probably for the best that she missed the Living Nativity anyway).

Was it worth $150 to take a 2 year old to a show? Probably not. Was it worth it to take her along with my husband, who'd never seen the show before? Absolutely. Seeing the pure joy on her face when she saw Santa made the show even better for him.

To me, it seems like every situation requires the use of some judgment. I wouldn't take a little kid to see "Wicked," a serious classical music concert, or a straight play, but I wouldn't hesitate to take a child to see "Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat" or an outdoor concert.

I appreciate that people who don't have kids don't want to be inconvenienced, but how are children supposed to learn how to behave in public if they never go anywhere?