Which is more indecent? A mother nursing her baby in the back of the church sitting on the floor between pews moderately uncovered ie. shirt pulled up so you can see part of the boob but only if you are staring. Or a mother feeding her baby in the front row fully uncovered ie. shirt pulled up to the point you can see the whole boob. Or is it indecent to you if the mother is fully covered yet you just know she is nursing her baby ie. shirt pulled up just enough for the baby to nurse but the boob is fully covered and you can’t even see any skin the whole time. Maybe you are so sensitive you can’t even handle a baby nursing under a blanket.

Let me give you some background, the first person was prosecuted by her Pastor and church family of 5 years. She has nursed 3 other children in a similar manner except she was slightly more covered. The last baby was/is having problems latching on due to a disability so it required her to be able to see if the baby was latched on and sucking while nursing. But she was careful even then to be decent and sit on the floor where the only way you could see was to look down. More importantly the Pastor and those in authority on stage could not see her. Everyone else could turn away at will. Yes when confronted she got mad and made a scene but what mother dealing with a similar situation would not? After all a breastfeeding mom is using her God given ability to nurture and sustain her baby. I know I would have thrown a tantrum too. Unfortunately they have been kicked out of the church for refusing to be used as an example. And are currently not going and probably never will go to a church again. Now the second one is true also. the baby was older and very capable of latching on so to me it is the only indecent example here. Why you ask. Well she was uncovered in the front row where every one could see especially the Pastor (while preaching) and others on stage. They did not have the choice or the ability to look away. Now all the other examples we have seen in various ways while shopping etc., even though it’s a normal function, people still have a fit.
Where have things gone so wrong where we can only see a boob as a sex symbol and not see the other slightly more important reason for them being there? Is it because everywhere you look women have their cleavage or more hanging out? Or is it women that wear their shirts so tight that it leaves nothing to the imagination? Let me inform you THEY ARE THERE TO FEED OUR BABIES THE WAY THAT YHWH CREATED THEM BACK IN THE GARDEN. It has only been in the past 60 years that bottle feeding has become the standard over the breast.

To me it is indecent to see a mother that is fully capable of breastfeeding to be shoving a bottle into their baby’s mouth and saying oh its the same as the breast. But I can shove this duty off on someone else whenever I feel like not being responsible for my child. Now I know there are times when medically it may be necessary to bottle feed but those times are few and far between when breastfeeding is done properly.
What has happened to mothers bonding with their baby and giving them the care and attention they deserve? When you breastfeed you have the assurance that you are giving your baby the best nutrition that you can. Even the Academy of Pediatrics agrees that the breast is best nutritionally speaking. Besides that you get sanctioned cuddle time with your baby, a time to rest that mom’s need in the first 2 to 3 months after giving birth, and a time to bond with your baby that lasts for years not just as long as you have a bottle. The baby bonds with the mother not the bottle. How wonderful is that? I think that’s why YHWH created us this way, babies need the bonding, cuddling, etc that breastfeeding gives besides the superior nutrition that breast milk has over formula.
For me I try to be decent and cover as much as possible even using a blanket for the squeamish around me. But at home I prefer (as most do I’m sure) to just let it hang out. But how many people who bottle feed cover their baby? Oh they would say that is excessive, the baby can’t see what is going on around it, the baby gets too hot, or any other number of excuses. I say all these apply as to why I think it is silly to expect a mother to excessively cover while breastfeeding. 
Instead of persecuting breastfeeding mothers we should be supporting them and encouraging them. Giving them our love and support when appropriate. Not by degrading them or making them feel self-conscience. How would bottle feeding mothers feel if society turned on them? Not allowing them to feed their babies in public. Discriminating against their choice of feeding their babies? People giving them a nasty stare or comment when they whip out the bottle? I think bottle feeders would give a big outcry. Just as us that breastfeed should assert our rights and not let others get in our way of feeding our babies with modesty and sensitivity to the more squeamish (or childish).
Here is a link a friend sent to us today. About harvesting stem cells from breast milk. I found this article more interesting because of the points they make about “breast milk” vs “formula” and its effect on our children.
“The point is that many mothers see milks as identical – formula milk and breast milk look the same so they must be the same. But we know now that they are quite different and a lot of the effects of breast milk versus formula don’t become apparent for decades. Formula companies have focussed on matching breast milk’s nutritional qualities but formula can never provide the developmental guidance.”
Read more here:
http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20081102-16879.html
We have been using cloth diapers since our third child (Mercy Fire) was born. It has helped keep cost down. Since I make all our own diapers, that cost is even lower. Many that I have made, have come from re-used fabrics. Including but not limited to our old flannel shirts, worn out jeans, and the like. Also I have made many out of new fabrics, including polar fleece. We have sold them on e-bay before and hope to sell diapers again soon, as soon as I can get a sewing space set up in this new house. I even have a couple of bolts of flannel waiting for me.
We do have a “limited number” still on hand available for sale. Contact us via email if you are interested. We can do payments through PAYPAL – VISA or MC.
This is a pair of tie-dye prefold polar fleece diapers. The advantage to a prefold is it fits a wide range of sizes up to about 30 pounds or so. The prefold is my favorite style of diaper because you don’t have to buy new ones every couple of months because baby outgrew the fitted ones. This pair has tie-dye polar fleece on one side and a coordinating red flannel on the other side with a piece of flannel sandwiched between them making a three layer diaper. These diapers may need a doubler, they were made with the idea of drying quickly when line dried. The dimensions are 14 by 15 3/4 before washing. They are serged on all four sides. They are made of new material so they may shrink a little. The polar fleece may pill but this does not affect its function.
This is a set of three prefold cloth diapers. They have bunnies on them and are similar to receiving blankets used by some hospitals. They even say hospital property on them, (really I bought this bolt of fabric from Walmart – we didn’t rob the hospitals) They are made from new material and have half a washcloth as a pad. The layers are 3-4-3 not including the pad. The outer material is a woven cotton blend with a flannel layer inside. They have serging on the ends and folded over on the long sides. I purposely left the raw edge in the pad area because I didn’t want to lose the writing next to it. It says “bunnyland 2 cinncinati, ohio”.I thought it was cuter this way. These diapers also may need a doubler, as mentioned above.
This set of three bright blue flannel prefold diapers have baby paraphernalia designs (bottle, bib, pacifier and rattle) in yellow. The layers are also 3-5-3. They have serging on the ends and folded over on the long sides.These diapers may also need a doubler, as mentioned above.