OT/formula moms love babies less??
Mike and Diane O'Neill
Hi, there was a post asking why formula feeding moms felt that
breastfeeding moms think that the formula feeding moms love their babies
less. Was that confusing?? Sorry!! Anyway, I tried to explain from a
formula feeding moms point of view, but don't know if it came out the
right way. I have been thinking about it and I think I have another way
to help. Maybe.
For those mothers who are breastfeeding: think about when you were in
labor. Did you have an epidural or take any pain killers? I am not
talking about if you had a C section obviously. If you did, for
whatever your reasons were, how would you feel if someone questioned you
for not putting your babies need above your own? There is a lot of
debate over whether or not epidurals affect the baby, especially if you
go to the misc.kids.pregnacy. The point I am trying to make is to make
the connection of how you would feel if you did have the epi and someone
told you that a completely natural birth was the best thing you could
have done for your baby. Even if they did not know the circumstances
around your epi choice. Obviously if you did not have an epi then this
does not apply.
Or on a more sensitive subject, one which I do not want to start a
debate over,as there have been too many already, if you have a boy and
chose to have him circumsized, and someone told you that you harmed your
baby. How would you feel??
I think if you can relate to either of those, then you can relate to how
a formula feeding mom may feel when someone says that "breast if best."
It is not always a guilt issue. For some it may be, but not for all.
This was not meant to insult anyone, and definitely not intended to
start a big war thing. I thought relating it to something that more
people may be familiar with may help.
Diane
Barbara Fraire
In article <3561DE06...@earthlink.net>, Mike and Diane O'Neill
<mc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
<Snip>
>
>For those mothers who are breastfeeding: think about when you were in
>labor. Did you have an epidural or take any pain killers? I am not
>talking about if you had a C section obviously. If you did, for
>whatever your reasons were, how would you feel if someone questioned you
>for not putting your babies need above your own? There is a lot of
>debate over whether or not epidurals affect the baby, especially if you
>go to the misc.kids.pregnacy. The point I am trying to make is to make
>the connection of how you would feel if you did have the epi and someone
>told you that a completely natural birth was the best thing you could
>have done for your baby. Even if they did not know the circumstances
>around your epi choice. Obviously if you did not have an epi then this
>does not apply.
>
>Or on a more sensitive subject, one which I do not want to start a
>debate over,as there have been too many already, if you have a boy and
>chose to have him circumsized, and someone told you that you harmed your
>baby. How would you feel??
>
>I think if you can relate to either of those, then you can relate to how
>a formula feeding mom may feel when someone says that "breast if best."
>It is not always a guilt issue. For some it may be, but not for all.
>
>This was not meant to insult anyone, and definitely not intended to
>start a big war thing. I thought relating it to something that more
>people may be familiar with may help.
>
Diane,
I think what you've said is really, really salient and interestingly, I
already posted to the alt.parenting.solutions thread something that
parallels what you're talking about. Here's what I was responding to
(somewhat snipped) and what I posted:
> >But perhaps this experience, coupled with more information, might
> >help them choose to breastfeed a subsequent child, if they have one.
>
> To assume that parents who choose to bottle
> feed are either inexperienced, uninformed or just plain idiots is
> pretty low, and to assume that it is your job to show all those
> poor misguided fools the light so they will make the "right" choice
> the next time is presumptuous to say the least.
Experience affects choices. Some personal examples:
1. My labor was induced and I chose to have an epidural. I had a very
satisfactory delivery in most respects, but I didn't *know* it was going
to take 4 hours for me to feel my legs again. I didn't *know* what labor
and delivery were going to be like. I made a decision based on
inexperience and lack of knowledge. I now know I want to do something
different next time (no induction, no epidural). This doesn't mean what
I did the first time was *wrong*, only that I now have more knowledge on
which to base subsequent decisions.
2. I chose to have my son circumcised (ooh, God, I'm in trouble now with the
anti-circ flamethrowers!) based on what I thought was good information. I
will almost certainly not have my next son circumcised, if indeed I have
one. Experience and information (much of it from the anti-circ bunch on
these newsgroups) has made me consider doing something different. Again, I
don't think I was *wrong* to circ my son, though some may choose to disagree
quite loudly with that statement; I just think not circing is a better
decision.
When I say that experience and information affect future
decision-making, I am not saying the first decision was *wrong* in an
objective sense. But we all learn from trial and error, and if we
encounter a problem, we usually look for ways to avoid that problem in
the future. I simply suggested a way to avoid a problem.
FWIW, I don't happen to feel that parents who formula-feed love their
children less. I do feel quite strongly that many who try to breastfeed fail
due to poor information and poor support and that many who choose not to
breastfeed make that choice based on incomplete knowledge and breastfeeding
horror stories from friends and acquaintances. I can say some of the same
things about the decisions I made about meds in labor and circing my son.
Be well, Barbara (Julian's mom)
========================
"Ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I will not
put." - Winston Churchill
Reply to ci...@worldnet.att.net.
rebecca didt
Barbara Fraire wrote:
> I think what you've said is really, really salient and interestingly, I
> already posted to the alt.parenting.solutions thread something that
> parallels what you're talking about. Here's what I was responding to
> (somewhat snipped) and what I posted:
>
> > >But perhaps this experience, coupled with more information, might
> > >help them choose to breastfeed a subsequent child, if they have one.
> >
> > To assume that parents who choose to bottle
> > feed are either inexperienced, uninformed or just plain idiots is
> > pretty low, and to assume that it is your job to show all those
> > poor misguided fools the light so they will make the "right" choice
> > the next time is presumptuous to say the least.
>
> Experience affects choices.
(my machine here won't let me quote all of what Barbara wrote, but
it was v.interesting)
Barbara, excellent post! I only wish I were so eloquent. In
ignorance, I ended
up in a 'medication followed by c-section' downward spiral with my
first baby.
Better informed, by talking to people with experience, I had a
glorious,
drugfree VBAC with #2. Living in Germany, I don't have the right
perspective on
the circumcision issue, but just for the record, it is beyond me
why anyone
would want to chop the end off a baby's penis except in a medical
emergency. I
agree entirely that most women are able to breastfeed their
children, and that
many choose not to because of ignorance and misinformation.
Please, don't give
up trying to dispel the myths. - Rebecca
Hadass Eviatar
rebecca didt wrote:
> drugfree VBAC with #2. Living in Germany, I don't have the right
> perspective on
> the circumcision issue, but just for the record, it is beyond me
> why anyone
> would want to chop the end off a baby's penis except in a medical
> emergency.
Well, Rebecca, some of us have religious reasons. You might have phrased
that a little less belligerently.
Be well, Hadass, Ima to Rafi, 26 months and circumcised (not chopped).
--
Dr. Hadass Eviatar (XX) mailto:evi...@ibd.nrc.ca
National Research Council of Canada Phone: (204) 984 - 4535
Institute for Biodiagnostics Fax: (204) 984 - 7036
435 Ellice Avenue, Winnipeg,MB,R3B 1Y6 http://www.ibd.nrc.ca/~eviatar
Obligatory disclaimer: NRC wouldn't dream of saying a thing like that.
rebecca didt
I apologise for my choice of words. I didn't mean to sound mean -
Rebecca
David & Colette
Hadass Eviatar wrote:
>
> rebecca didt wrote:
>
> > drugfree VBAC with #2. Living in Germany, I don't have the right
> > perspective on
> > the circumcision issue, but just for the record, it is beyond me
> > why anyone
> > would want to chop the end off a baby's penis except in a medical
> > emergency.
>
> Well, Rebecca, some of us have religious reasons. You might have
> phrased that a little less belligerently.
Except that the ancient jews only cut off the very tip of the foreskin,
leaving most of the fused foreskin over the glans. In some Jewish
encyclopedias one can read that it was only by Rabbinical order that the
entire glans was to be exposed, because some Jews were tying off the end
of their foreskins for various reasons. The Rabbi (or rabbies) didn't
want Jews hiding who they were to avoid persecution or to participate in
Roman games (the naked penis was considered normal but an exposed glans
was considered obscene).
I feel it's slightly inaccurate to say you had a radical circ for
religious reasons (implying it's to meet jewish biblical law) when
historically it was changed by a Rabbi (or group of rabbies), not G_D.
I won't even get into my personal theories about why the whole thing
started in the first place.
--
Colette, mom to 2 beautiful homebirthed children
The remarkable 3.5 year old Amy
and the magnificent 17 month old Jake
*** for email please replace bamph with ripco ***
Due to the overly repressive Medical Practice Act of the state of
Illinois, which is being used to wrongly persecute Certified
Professional Midwives, I feel compelled to state that this post is
simply for informational purposes and/or to relay my personal
experience. It is not to be construed as a diagnosis or suggestion of
treatment. Please visit the Illinois Midwives Homepage at
http://www.geocities.com/Wellesley/5510 for further information <a
href="http://www.geocities.com/Wellesley/5510">The Illinois Midwives
Homepage</a>
Hadass Eviatar
rebecca didt wrote:
> I apologise for my choice of words. I didn't mean to sound mean -
> Rebecca
Apology accepted. 8-)
Be well, Hadass, Ima to Rafi, 26 months.
(P&M)
Hadass Eviatar
David & Colette wrote:
> Hadass Eviatar wrote:
> >
> > rebecca didt wrote:
> >
> > > drugfree VBAC with #2. Living in Germany, I don't have the right
> > > perspective on
> > > the circumcision issue, but just for the record, it is beyond me
> > > why anyone
> > > would want to chop the end off a baby's penis except in a medical
> > > emergency.
> >
> > Well, Rebecca, some of us have religious reasons. You might have
> > phrased that a little less belligerently.
>
> Except that the ancient jews only cut off the very tip of the
> foreskin,
> leaving most of the fused foreskin over the glans. In some Jewish
> encyclopedias one can read that it was only by Rabbinical order that
> the
> entire glans was to be exposed, because some Jews were tying off the
> end
> of their foreskins for various reasons.
I really shouldn't be getting into this argument ... but I'll bite, at
least briefly. I am glad that you are such an expert on Jewish law. This
may or may not be true, but in normative Judaism today (as opposed to
the Karaite sect, which believed only in the Written Law and rejected
the Oral Law), the later injunctions of the Rabbis are taken to be of
the same status as Biblical Law, in the sense that they must be followed
by all Jews. Some Jewish denominations, such as Reform and
Reconstructionism, dispute their relevance to modern Jews. But AFAIK
none of them has rejected Rabbinic Law in favour of a return to a
literal interpretation of Biblical Law.
> The Rabbi (or rabbies) didn't
> want Jews hiding who they were to avoid persecution or to participate
> in
> Roman games (the naked penis was considered normal but an exposed
> glans
> was considered obscene).
This may well be. Why is that relevant?
> I feel it's slightly inaccurate to say you had a radical circ for
> religious reasons (implying it's to meet jewish biblical law) when
> historically it was changed by a Rabbi (or group of rabbies), not G_D.
How dare you define for me what my religious reasons are? As an
observant Jew, I believe that the laws as set by the Rabbis *are* G-d's
Law. *You* may be a Karaite, but then you are not a normative Jew. (I
have no idea whether you are Jewish or not, BTW).
> I won't even get into my personal theories about why the whole thing
> started in the first place.
Thanks. I'm not interested.
Be well, Hadass, Ima to Rafi, 26 months.
--
David & Colette
It is believed to be part of the reason for the rabbinical order
changing the type of circumcism required ...
> > I feel it's slightly inaccurate to say you had a radical circ for
> > religious reasons (implying it's to meet jewish biblical law) when
> > historically it was changed by a Rabbi (or group of rabbies), not G_D.
>
> How dare you define for me what my religious reasons are? As an
> observant Jew, I believe that the laws as set by the Rabbis *are* G-d's
> Law.
Thank you for clearing that up for me! I now have a better understanding
of the "jewish circ issue." Thank you very much for not being too
offended by the poor wording of this paragraph to respond! I should have
worded it "I do not understand why full, radical circ is considered
g*d's law when it was handed down by a group of men."
I've asked a few Jewish people, none of whom were sure if a rabbinical
order carried the same weight as biblical law, so are you saying it
does? (Is this similar to the infallability of the Pope for Roman
Catholics?) I have not seen a rabbi since forming the question, or I'm
sure I would have a full and accurate answer.
Now obviously since I feel that no other human (or group of humans) can
tell me how best to deal with that higher being or how to interpret
"g_d's" devine revelations, it is far beyond my comprehension how
another person's or group of people's words can hold such control over
someone else's life as to dictate specific actions like cutting off the
most sensitive part of a newborn baby's body.
Conversely, as a pagan I fully understand the power of a blood ritual.
However, I would never presume to make that decision for another human
like parents do when deciding for their boys and girls to circ them.
> *You* may be a Karaite, but then you are not a normative Jew. (I
> have no idea whether you are Jewish or not, BTW).
My husband was born Jewish but does not participate in that religion
currently. I am pagan (for lack of a better term), if my label matters.
Hadass Eviatar
David & Colette wrote:
> Hadass Eviatar wrote:
> >
> > David & Colette wrote:
> > > The Rabbi (or rabbies) didn't
> > > want Jews hiding who they were to avoid persecution or to
> participate
> > > in
> > > Roman games (the naked penis was considered normal but an exposed
> > > glans
> > > was considered obscene).
> >
> > This may well be. Why is that relevant?
>
> It is believed to be part of the reason for the rabbinical order
> changing the type of circumcism required ...
>
Could well be. The fact remains that for observant Jews (except for
Reform Jews), knowing the reason for a rabbinical order is not a factor
in deciding whether or not to follow it. That is why it is not relevant
to the decision whether and how to circ a child. However, should an
authorised group of rabbis decide to change this order (as a
Conservative Jew, I believe that the Committee on Jewish Laws and
Standards is authorised; Orthodox posters on this newsgroup probably do
not), then it will be time enough to review it. I know there is a
movement among some Jewish groups now to reduce the amount of foreskin
removed; however, this position has not been espoused by any rabbis whom
I am inclined to follow.
> > > I feel it's slightly inaccurate to say you had a radical circ for
> > > religious reasons (implying it's to meet jewish biblical law) when
>
> > > historically it was changed by a Rabbi (or group of rabbies), not
> G_D.
> >
> > How dare you define for me what my religious reasons are? As an
> > observant Jew, I believe that the laws as set by the Rabbis *are*
> G-d's
> > Law.
>
> Thank you for clearing that up for me! I now have a better
> understanding
> of the "jewish circ issue." Thank you very much for not being too
> offended by the poor wording of this paragraph to respond! I should
> have
> worded it "I do not understand why full, radical circ is considered
> g*d's law when it was handed down by a group of men."
*All* of G-d's Law has been handed down by a group of men, you might
say, since we haven't had any revelations recently. The amount of faith
people have in the *accuracy* of this transmission varies by movement
8-).
> I've asked a few Jewish people, none of whom were sure if a rabbinical
>
> order carried the same weight as biblical law, so are you saying it
> does?
It doesn't carry quite the same weight, in that it is a lesser violation
to break rabbinic law than to break biblical law. But it is a violation
nonetheless.
> (Is this similar to the infallability of the Pope for Roman
> Catholics?)
I don't know how Papal Infallibility works, so I can't answer that. The
rabbis are certainly not considered infallible; as I said above, it is
possible for their rulings to be repealed. However, this has not
happened in the case of circumcision.
> I have not seen a rabbi since forming the question, or I'm
> sure I would have a full and accurate answer.
>
I'm sure you would. I'd be interested to know if you got a different
answer than given above.
> Now obviously since I feel that no other human (or group of humans)
> can
> tell me how best to deal with that higher being or how to interpret
> "g_d's" devine revelations, it is far beyond my comprehension how
> another person's or group of people's words can hold such control over
>
> someone else's life as to dictate specific actions like cutting off
> the
> most sensitive part of a newborn baby's body.
People die in the name of these words. We aren't called The People of
the Book for nothing 8-).
> Conversely, as a pagan I fully understand the power of a blood ritual.
<shudder> I guess that's what it is ...
> However, I would never presume to make that decision for another human
>
> like parents do when deciding for their boys and girls to circ them.
Whoa, don't equate male and female circumcision here ... from *my*
perspective, I would be failing my son if I didn't bring him into the
Covenant at the prescribed age. I know converts who have had it done as
adults and it is much much worse then, believe me. (Like chicken pox).
> My husband was born Jewish but does not participate in that religion
> currently. I am pagan (for lack of a better term), if my label
> matters.
No, it doesn't. I was just curious.
M&D
I've asked a few Jewish people, none of whom were sure if a rabbinical
order carried the same weight as biblical law, so are you saying it
does?
It is my understanding that Rabbinic order carries equal weight as biblical
law. One doesn't supercede the other. It's called the oral tradition and it
goes had in hand with the written tradition. They're inseparable. There is
much speculation as to the original circ ritual but it is only that, mere
speculation. To circumcise without peeling up the the foreskin would be
risking urinary obstruction due to the fact that in a baby that foreskin is
fused unlike in an adult. A partial circ on an adult is doable, on a baby
you're asking for problems. The healing tissues on a tiny penis where
foreskin is fused literally up to the tip could overlep the urinary opening
and constrict. If this method was ever employed it was probably done away
with because of the complications.
M&D