Babies as wedding accessories?

and I'm not sure how to convince you babies/infants are a lot sturdier than they are given credit for. After coming out the mommy place, they are held upside down by one leg, and suctioned.

By your reasoning, it would be dangerous for any mother to even walk with her baby in her arms, unless there is a team of specialists whisking out every object from in front of her. If the mother ever put on a pair of heels, the baby should be immediately taken away from her by CPS, because women are always tripping while wearing those things, and she could fall on top of her baby at any time and break its neck.

No one would have a problem if she was carrying the baby instead of bouquet. What if she tripped over whatever it is you think she would trip over, and falls, spilling the babies brains all over the hard wooden pew where Aunt Louise is sitting?

Good thing Jennifer Lawrence wasn't holding a baby. That kid would have broken its neck on the stairs, and spun off underneath someone's seats, where it would no doubt be trampled by many.

Ah, but could one trip over a baby in event of a wardrobe malfunction of the bride's?

How can you make a one month old baby a tool for glamour? Big disconnect.
Empathy miss, in this case worrisome.

Staging all this. Christ on a stick.

I agree.

You didn't geta chance to agree with my edit.. so I won't hold you to that. But I may assume..

I don't get it why you assume that everyone who thinks this was a bad idea also insist that CPS should have been called. I never said that CPS should have been called. All my purpose for this thread was to point out what a stupid idea she had and she was lucky nothing bad happened and if it did then she didn't have a right to wonder why something bad happened to her baby child.

omg, I'm not saying you were saying CPS should be called....I was using hyperbole obviously. "the womans' walking in high heels, call CPS" get it?

Also, looking back at the thread, I don't see where I ever brought up anyone calling anybody about this, including CPS. If I did, point it out to me.

You never said CPS should be called, neither did I, except once in an obviously sarcastic way.

I don't think she was particularly lucky nothing happened. I think the odds were overwhelmingly in her favor that nothing would happen.

I can't speak to if the woman is stupid or not. I can't even say what she did in this one case was stupid.

Personally, I think people are more thinking what she did was tacky, cheap, unsophisticated, etc and they are translating it into stupid because it's not something they would do.

Again, looking at comments made online about the story, there's a huge component of "well, what did you expect? She had a baby when she wasn't married. She bound to do anything" people are also upset that she made reference to her religious beliefs, and many are calling her stupid for that.
Then there's the "she was dragging and bouncing this baby along a dusty floor"

Bottom line is, this poor woman can't win for losing at this point. I feel really bad for her. I don't think she put her baby in any type of danger.
She didn't do anything stupid IMO, she was aware every instant where her baby was, and took precautions the baby wouldn't be harmed. Her only sin is overestimating that people would accept, never mind appreciate the gesture she was making, which seemed to be that her baby was involved in this marriage, came from these 2 peoples love for each other, and was part of the joining in matrimony.

You know, people have been having babies for millions of years. Family dogs go up and lick their faces (after the dog got done licking himself) and many parents watch and laugh. They let brothers and sisters hold them, and feeble old people.
Sometimes they even get dropped, and they are just fine. Parents take as good care as they can, but not everyone will agree with their methods.

What this woman did was so low on the list of every day dangers it shouldn't even register.

Actually, I think it's a good thread tsar.

the cps calling idea was in the beginning of the thread and links by others than the rest of us, so far as I can tell.

actually many of those things you mention I would agree is stupid as well as dragging a newborn in a dress.

I don't know how many times I thought how stupid is that parent pushing the stroller in front of traffic almost as if s/he is using it to stop traffic.

Yes - many people complain about many of those things you mentioned - but the thread isn't about that - you can go ahead and start a stupid thread - believe me it would be long lasting.

Ha - I tested this once and I slipped - banana peels are slippery.

I see I wasn't clear - the business about calling cps was mentioned in the buzzfeed link that was on Tsar's first post. Or was there back when I had looked at it.

I agree with my original agreeing. And I am unanimous on this.

Are you being served?

Yeh, I usually get you and you'll know if I don't. I get it we have diff politics, no matter.

I agree with you.

And I think the visual impression created is of a "thing", like a piece of baggage, the bride is dragging along after her, stuck to her, in an impersonal, and detached manner. When I first saw the photos that was my immediate feeling. What kind of statement is she making about her relationship to this child? It looks like the groom will be marrying her, but also getting the child she is dragging along, quite far behind her, simply thrown into the bargain. It's an odd visual perception of the child's place in this marital relationship, and in her mother's life.

If she wanted to include the infant in the wedding ceremony, why didn't she just carry it in her arms, in lieu of flowers? That, at least, would have given it some status as a human being.

That's rather sharp, firefly, but that is what saw when I saw it.. I modified my take, not thinking she actually meant that - and I still don't - but the effect is the same, ride for boopsy. Not that she thought that, in my view, but a major disconnect with the baby.