McDowell's
Rookie
- Jul 27, 2010
- 883
- 239
- 0
- Banned
- #101
I'm learning about logical fallacies. So I''m practicing my critical thinking skills by identifying them in myself and others. Though of course now I'm looking for them, I'm not going to make them. Or maybe I am..that in and of itself is a no-no in critical thinking, but an idiot like Liefinger will never catch on, and I have the added benefit of watching him cry in public.
win win!
Or we could just dispense with the nit-picky bullshit and talk about the larger issues.
Bachman thinks it's idiotic to fund breast pumps to encourage women who are below the poverty line to breast feed.
Considering the relative health benefits to mother and child of breast feeding versus bottle feeding, I think it's pennies on the dollar.
I mean, the government funds circumcision which is basically a cosmetic surgery that's health benefits are so minuscule that it's hard to make an argument for circumcision with a straight face. We basically do it, because of our judeo-christian heritage.
Why is funding something with proven health benefits such a controversial notion?
So are we coming back to the argument breast pumps are necessary to or encourage breast feeding? I guess I should go to the breast pump museum and check out the prehistoric pumps made out of coconuts and bamboo because no one in their right mind would breast feed without one. Even if you do think you need a breast pump, you can buy a mechanical one for thirty dollars or less.
Aside from the health benefits of breast feeding - which are widely known, no one is keeping it a secret - the cost benefits of breast feeding are astronomical. Formula is extremely expensive and not an option for most low income people anyways. The simple fact is the government doesn't need to subsidize breast pumps in order for breast feeding to make economic sense. And again, breast pumps are NOT a necessary part of breast feeding.