Comments on: Breastfeeding while driving

Breastfeeding while driving

peterb — Wed, 06 Aug 2003 07:46:10 -0800

Breastfeeding while driving seemed like a good idea to Catherine Donkers, but now she is (thankfully) on trial for it. Since she's a member of a weird cult that believes the Bible should be the law of land, this should be entertaining. Presumably, they can just keep appealing for a few years until the crazies run the country.

By: jontyjago

jontyjago — Wed, 06 Aug 2003 07:48:05 -0800

And I read that as "Breastfeeding while Diving". Now that's a story...

By: pizzasub

pizzasub — Wed, 06 Aug 2003 07:53:16 -0800

"How can you prosecute someone for violating a law that doesn't exist?" Donkers said. "There is no law that has been violated." ... misdemeanor charges of child endangering, failure to comply with the order of a police officer, driving without a license and several other driving infractions. Say what? Sounds like someone's a little far gone here...

By: widdershins

widdershins — Wed, 06 Aug 2003 07:55:01 -0800

After Donkers' arrest, Barnhill said he wanted to be prosecuted instead because his religious belief is that he is the only one who can punish his wife for a public act. Let the games begin... Michigan and Ohio require children under age 4 to be in child-restraint systems while traveling in cars, but Michigan excludes children being nursed. I am assuming the exclusion refers to children being nursed by someone other than the driver?

By: thomcatspike

thomcatspike — Wed, 06 Aug 2003 08:03:42 -0800

that believes the Bible should be the law of land, driving without a license and several other driving infractions. What Bible is she reading; following the laws of the land is a commandment in the Bible, not: follow the bible only. Now if the law of the land was to murder, well then you follow the Bible; thou shalt not murder. What is sad, this cult has them thinking: common sense must be a law in our bible for one to follow. Think these folks will jump off a cliff if their priest tells them? weird cult agree, from their site, Bullet proof George Washington . Wako wako, so him being bullet proof saved his life. Talk about fitting the Bible into one's thoughts.

By: vraxoin

vraxoin — Wed, 06 Aug 2003 08:06:16 -0800

Speaking as a parent whose wife breastfed until our daughter was over two years old, this woman is nuts. Whatever small benefit she might have given the child by nursing while driving was far, far outweighed by the dangers. Nursing or not, it's simply irresponsible to have an unrestrained young child in a vehicle.

By: thomcatspike

thomcatspike — Wed, 06 Aug 2003 08:07:45 -0800

My comment's punctuation sucked, sorry.

By: Slothrup

Slothrup — Wed, 06 Aug 2003 08:11:45 -0800

Barnhill said, "Just like we don't need permission to get married, why should I need permission from the state to use my property on the road?" Um, because the road is the state's property, maybe?

By: orange swan

orange swan — Wed, 06 Aug 2003 08:12:25 -0800

Jeez, where to start... Sounds like these two don't acknowledge the right of government to make or enforce any laws. I don't think any argument would carry any weight with them. Even if you started a whole "render unto Caesar what is Caeser's" line of discussion they'd come back with some other Biblical verse and their weirdass interpretation of it - the Bible can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean. I think they might end up losing their daughter though.

By: UncleFes

UncleFes — Wed, 06 Aug 2003 08:14:19 -0800

Why is it that people who say that only follow the law of the {insert text here] tend to pick only those passages which support their previous inclinations? To wit... the obligatory Matthew 22:15: "Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." Romans 13:1-5: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake." Titus 3:1: "Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work." I Peter 2:13-16: "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men."

By: UncleFes

UncleFes — Wed, 06 Aug 2003 08:17:24 -0800

I mean, OK, Titus you could safely ignore, he was a nut, but Romans? That's friggin Paul, man! One of the big time early Christians!

By: taumeson

taumeson — Wed, 06 Aug 2003 08:20:44 -0800

Very nice, UncleFes. Boy, the bible is a festering hole in Christianity (of which I am a member of). Bah. I actually BLAME Paul for most of that..he was a big time early Christian, but so was St. Augustine, and I'm pretty sure he hated Paul too. Paul was an idiot that totally misinterpreted a lot of what Christianity meant, and almost singlehandedly created the idea of an infallible book. Obviously not a bible thumper, here. But I digress. My snarky comment was gonna be: "Oh great, yet MORE warning labels. Sheesh."

By: troutfishing

troutfishing — Wed, 06 Aug 2003 08:27:26 -0800

I'd have to second vraxoin's comment ("Nursing or not, it's simply irresponsible to have an unrestrained young child in a vehicle.") As an infant, before the era of child safety seats and seat belt awareness campaigns, I went through a windshield (in fairly minor car crash). And look where it got me. Breast feeding while driving is dumb and reckless, yes, but what I want to know is: Was she talking on a cellphone too?

By: jonmc

jonmc — Wed, 06 Aug 2003 08:30:15 -0800

Presumably, they can just keep appealing for a few years until the crazies run the country. What you mean "when" keemosabe?

By: PigAlien

PigAlien — Wed, 06 Aug 2003 08:32:01 -0800

Christ will smite you all.

By: humuhumu

humuhumu — Wed, 06 Aug 2003 08:34:10 -0800

Wow - fourteen comments in to a thread about child-rearing, Bible interpretation, crazies running the government, and traffic violations and no one has fallen out with anyone else yet.

By: tomplus2

tomplus2 — Wed, 06 Aug 2003 08:34:37 -0800

just like we don't need permission to get married, why should I need permission from the state to use my property on the road?" Who's road?

By: quonsar

quonsar — Wed, 06 Aug 2003 08:37:01 -0800

i just encountered an idiot with a large, unstable box wedged into her trunk and held in place with bungee cord. she was right in front of me and her brake lights kept flashing spastically as she overreacted to vehicles in front of her, the nearest probably 50 yards ahead. when i had the opportunity i went around her, and was stunned to see that she was writing in a checkbook splayed against the steering wheel, a pen in one hand and a cellphone crushed between her shoulder and her ear. i couldn't see if she actually had a baby hanging off of her somewhere.

By: gwint

gwint — Wed, 06 Aug 2003 08:37:28 -0800

That woman is donkers.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Wed, 06 Aug 2003 08:37:42 -0800

oh, i forgot the best part: the 'my boss is a jewish carpenter' bumper sticker.

By: rushmc

rushmc — Wed, 06 Aug 2003 08:39:43 -0800

I Peter 2:13-16: "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake Damn, guess we have to shut up and accept the Patriot Act and the intellectual property grab laws, then. Bummer. Can't I at LEAST ignore the one about not riding naked in a car with a polar bear on the third Tuesday of the month?

By: matteo

matteo — Wed, 06 Aug 2003 08:41:36 -0800

Since she's a member of a weird cult that believes the Bible should be the law of land the Republican Party?

By: stupidsexyFlanders

stupidsexyFlanders — Wed, 06 Aug 2003 08:43:02 -0800

My boss actually is a Jewish carpenter. My wife's boss is an Episcopalian human resources manager. I guess that doesn't work on a bumper sticker. Or does it... *rushes off to cafepress*

By: Vidiot

Vidiot — Wed, 06 Aug 2003 08:44:55 -0800

Nope, rushmc -- it's every ordinance of "man", not "every ordinance of Ashcroft." I'm pretty sure there's a difference somewhere.

By: stupidsexyFlanders

stupidsexyFlanders — Wed, 06 Aug 2003 08:59:11 -0800

OK, bumper sticker now available. [self-link]

By: thomcatspike

thomcatspike — Wed, 06 Aug 2003 09:06:05 -0800

Wait we missed the boat in ~~bashing~~ giving a public service announcement, being a steering wheel will do the most damage even in a minor crash to the child; don't recall the Bible talking about cars. Why do the Ommish believe in not using motored vehicles?(know, some use tractors and cars now) PS, did her car have an airbag?

By: stonerose

stonerose — Wed, 06 Aug 2003 09:09:08 -0800

I don't see what's new here. Drinking and driving has been illegal for quite a while.

By: JanetLand

JanetLand — Wed, 06 Aug 2003 09:25:22 -0800

Michigan and Ohio require children under age 4 to be in child-restraint systems while traveling in cars, but Michigan excludes children being nursed. I am assuming the exclusion refers to children being nursed by someone other than the driver? No, it doesn't. It's a very poorly written statute. "(1) . . . each driver transporting a child less than 4 years of age in a motor vehicle shall properly secure that child in a child restraint system that meets the standards prescribed in 49 C.F.R. 571.213. (2) This section does not apply to any child being nursed." Somebody needs to amend that thing, quick. But I don't see how the Michigan law matters, because she was driving in Ohio at the time, and Ohio's statute doesn't have that exception at all. Since when do you only have to obey the laws of the state you live in, as opposed to the state you happen to be physically occupying at the moment?

By: quonsar

quonsar — Wed, 06 Aug 2003 09:30:30 -0800

the ommish are those guys who squat around in airports going "ommm.... ommm"?

By: Cerebus

Cerebus — Wed, 06 Aug 2003 10:00:09 -0800

taumeson: The real Paul was actually a Gnostic who got edited & forged into the current mishmash of crap we associate with him. Literalists have been the bane of real gnosis since the beginning.

By: thomcatspike

thomcatspike — Wed, 06 Aug 2003 10:03:24 -0800

quonsar, thought it was a differetn group that squats at the airports, you know the one: hurry christian, give us your money before your flight leaves.

By: nofundy

nofundy — Wed, 06 Aug 2003 10:07:15 -0800

StoneRose wins! Suckling is great practice for red state knuckle draggers and corporate whores.

By: Guy Smiley

Guy Smiley — Wed, 06 Aug 2003 10:11:16 -0800

You ain't half kidding about that "weird cult" link:

I abhor and denounce, as satanic, any and all numbers, tattoos, electronic identification, my name spelled in all CAPITAL LETTERS and not with correct capital and lower case letters, or other devices compelled, forced, or coerced by any government or its agents upon Sovereign individuals or private groups to thus label, track, brand, mark or identify Sovereigns or non-governmental associations.

By: UncleFes

UncleFes — Wed, 06 Aug 2003 10:47:25 -0800

red state knuckle draggers and corporate whores. Smile when you say that, nofundy! *adjusts corporate garters to be more corporately enticing*

By: UncleFes

UncleFes — Wed, 06 Aug 2003 10:49:34 -0800

Sorry, can't remember if I'm in a red state or a blue state. Otherwise, the previous wisecrack would have been longer. And, with any luck, funnier. Please extend my apologies to the Central Committee.

By: waldo

waldo — Wed, 06 Aug 2003 11:02:19 -0800

I've known Brad for many years. I don't want to say anything mean, because he's a nice and intelligent guy. But I will say this: it all started when he went down the path to being a Libertarian. First he wanted to protect the Bill of Rights (I'm down with that), but then he objected to a background check before coaching kids soccer, he fought a ticket for running a stop sign (it was his son's right as an American to run stop signs), stopped paying for social security, stopped paying taxes... It was a bad scene. But I never thought that it would come to this. For more information about this, see his letter to Charlottesville, VA weekly newspaper The Hook.

By: thomcatspike

thomcatspike — Wed, 06 Aug 2003 11:03:10 -0800

Guy Smiley, your all CAPITAL LETTERS link, they have to sign it, that's what they are against contracts, right? These people seem they like being controlled by anyone whom is not under authority.

By: Nauip

Nauip — Wed, 06 Aug 2003 11:36:43 -0800

Pear Pimples for Hairy Fishnuts?

By: tr33hggr

tr33hggr — Wed, 06 Aug 2003 11:38:30 -0800

Wow waldo, you know that guy? Weird world.

By: mabelcolby

mabelcolby — Wed, 06 Aug 2003 12:09:34 -0800

The cult page is scary. someone's trying to get rich off of it though - If you wish to be a "Sovereign in Good Standing" with a fellowship certificate, and a letter stating that you are a "Sovereign in Good Standing" and to be placed upon the Fellowship's official records so that if we are contacted by a government agency we may inform them, upon your written request, that you are a member of our Fellowship; please send a $100.00 minimum yearly love offering.

By: MrMoonPie

MrMoonPie — Wed, 06 Aug 2003 13:24:39 -0800

I got yer love offering right here...

By: stonerose

stonerose — Wed, 06 Aug 2003 13:32:15 -0800

StoneRose wins! Hmph. I bet the prize is tits, isn't it? Or milk? Or a bible? You can keep 'em. I'm gay, lactose intolerant, and atheistic.

By: aramaic

aramaic — Wed, 06 Aug 2003 14:05:30 -0800

I'll take the prizes on behalf of Stonerose, especially if they involve tits.

By: konolia

konolia — Wed, 06 Aug 2003 14:40:04 -0800

Look, I nursed all my youngun's (three total) and while I wouldn't recommend driving and nursing at the same time, I would say that driving while listening to a screaming hungry baby ain't all that safe either. On long car trips, I did feed (as a passenger) and saw nothing wrong with it. But only on the interstate. Anyone who would try that trick driving thru Atlanta or something has a screw loose. As to the bible quoting, I am an official bible thumper and I get rather livid at those who want to use "scripture" to get away with being a scofflaw. *sigh*

By: Sidhedevil

Sidhedevil — Wed, 06 Aug 2003 20:09:05 -0800

I have to say that I agree that writing in all capital letters is Satanic. And the Baby Jesus cries every time someone types "c U l8r."

By: peterb

peterb — Tue, 12 Aug 2003 10:37:47 -0800

Followup to troutfishing: according to this article she was on her cell phone while breastfeeding.