bottle feeding: am I doing something morally wrong?
dio...@iscweb.com
breast vs. the bottle, but it seems nowadays that there's hardly even an
argument, since almost everyone with a vocal opinion seems pro-breast. Well,
this concerns me because I was planning to bottle feed from the beginning!
Since it seems to be such a hot topic and I seem to be the minority opinion,
which is very unusual for me, I am looking at my reasons for wanting to
bottle feed and reassurance that my logic and morality aren't flawed here. #1
is that I take medications that complicate breastfeeding. #2 is that I would
like to take turns doing nightly feedings with my husband so I can actually
get some rest and be a functional mother to my baby, plus then my husband
will have more chance to bond with our child. #3 is that, because of my
economic situation I plan to go back to work early and don't want to have to
wean at such a young age. #4 is that I just feel no attraction to breast
feeding and find it somehow unpalatable (no pun intended), not for weird
religious reasons or anything, it just seems "icky" to me, although I fully
support women who find this natural process beautiful. #5 It's more of a
matter of practicalities for me then philosophy. #6 Even though I know
studies have shown breast fed infants have better immune systems, the health
problems related to bottle feeding are not necessarily chopped liver. In
short, although breast milk is the ideal food for infants, formula is a
perfectly adequate food nutritionally. All right I'm losing track of my
argument here, but I still feel the way that I feel and highly doubt it will
change. I think breast feeding is ideal for women with high levels of
patience and a good economic situation for the infants first months of life.
Anyway, even though I agree that breast feeding is ideal, sometimes ideal is
unreal. I strongly plan to have a natural childbirth and raise my child as
well as I humanly can. Already I love my unborn baby so much that all I want
is the best for my baby that I can provide as a less then perfect human
being. Okay, am I totally messed up for not wanting to breastfeed? Thanks
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Pamela A. O'Keefe
> I am looking at my reasons for wanting to
>bottle feed and reassurance that my logic and morality aren't flawed
>here. #1
>is that I take medications that complicate breastfeeding.
I pretty much stopped reading right here. (And then finished the post
anyway.) The idea, IMO, is to get the best possible food into the baby
in the best possible manner. In your case, because of your medication,
it sounds like #1, your breastmilk would be tainted (therefore, *not*
the best possible food) and/ or #2, you wouldn't be able, physically,
to breastfeed (therefore, not able to feed via the best possible
method). I hereby give you permission to quit second guessing yourself
and prepare to enjoy the loving and cuddling you will get to do in
spite of bottlefeeding.
My *only* humble suggestion would be this: if you will need to be off
your medication during pregnancy, you might want to consider attempting
just a couple of weeks of breastfeeding, so that your baby will benefit
from your colostrum. It has some great antibodies in it. But if you
choose not to do that, *it's okay*! How many of us in the 25-45 year
old age group can honestly say they *ever* suckled at their mother's
breast, or if so, for any great length of time?
Later,
Pam
Agnes Vojta
to breast- or bottlefeed. I am not trying to convince you to bf,
just want to look at your arguments.
#1 the meds - this is perfectly valid reason IF indeed the meds prevent
bfing. There is a lot of wrong information out, so there is a chance
you might be able to - check with your doc. But of course, there are
meds that make bfing impossible.
#2 Getting rest by taking turns for the night feeding seems like
a valid need. However, I would like to point out that this is nowhere
necessary for great bonding between dad and baby - my DH could never
feed our daughter till 12 mos (almost exclusively bfd) and has a great
relationship with her.
#3 If you wanted to, you could always pump. Many mothers do so
successfully. As for economics: formula is expensive, breastmilk free.
#4 if you dont like the idea, well, then there is nothing anybody
can do. Looks like a good reason to me, even though I can not share
your POV.
#5 practicalities - dont know whether anybody has told you how much
EASIER bfing is than bottle feeding. Much more portable and everything.
So, dont quite see what would be more practical about bottle.
#6 you are certainly right that formula fed babies thrive and grow
and can be healthy. I personally did not bf for health reasons, but
because it was so much simpler and ,not to mention, free.
Anyway, I am not quite sure why you posted this - you are certainly
not morally wrong to bottle feed! After all, it is your decision
and if you are strongly opposed to the idea of bfing I think it is
unfortunate, but this is the way it is. You are certainly not harming
you baby for life - after all, almost out entire generation was
formula fed...
I would,however, strongly encourage you to at least give it a try after
the birth and see whether your perception changed - maybe you feel
differently with your own newborn than with the abstract idea of
breastfeeding. Good luck
Agnes
mom to Sophia 18 mos (weaned last week) and ?? due april 99
LeapnLizzy
You are not morally wrong. PLENTY of children have been formula fed and they
turn out just fine. Go with your instincts, and don't feel like you have to
justify you decisoins to anyone. Good luck with your new baby!
Beth
Mom of 2
Due Dec 98
St. Cloud, MN
Leela Keshavan
Beth - what a fantastic response!! :-)
naomi pardue
> which is very unusual for me, I am looking at my reasons for wanting to
> bottle feed and reassurance that my logic and morality aren't flawed here. #1
> is that I take medications that complicate breastfeeding.
You don't say what the medication is. There are a small handful of drugs
that ARE contraindicated during breastfeeding, however, I would do more
research on this. (Asking your doctor may not be enough, since many
doctors will simply look in PDR, which tends to spout the standard "We
dont' know if X gets into the milk. SInce some drugs get into the milk
and may harm the baby, we recommend that nursing mothers not take X.") La
Leche League should be able to help here, or if you post the name of the
drug, readers with access to various breastfeeding/medication books can
look it up.
#2 is that I would
> like to take turns doing nightly feedings with my husband so I can actually
> get some rest and be a functional mother to my baby, plus then my husband
> will have more chance to bond with our child.
Your husband can certainly help with night feedings, even if he doesn't
feed the baby. He can go get baby, change her if necessary, and bring her
to you. You can then doze while nursing. (In any case, even if dh were to
formula feed at night, I can almost guarantee that you WILL wake up when
baby cries for those night feeds, so this won't save you much sleep.)
As for the bonding part, there are MANY ways your husband can bond, and
frankly, mixing a bottle in a cold, dark kitchen at 3 a.m. and then
sitting there in the dark with a sleepy hungry baby is probably not the
prime method. (It is generally recommended that night feeds be kept as
quiet and boring as possible so that baby will go quickly back to sleep.)
(And, after nursing is well established, he can certainly
give an occassional night feed of EBM or formula from a bottle, if that is your
preference.)
#3 is that, because of my
> economic situation I plan to go back to work early and don't want to have to
> wean at such a young age.
It is generally possible to breastfeed, at least partially, while working
outside the home. Don't assume that working must mean weaning. (And even
if you do have to, even a few weeks of breastfeeding is MUCH better than
none at all from a health standpoint.)
#4 is that I just feel no attraction to breast
> feeding and find it somehow unpalatable (no pun intended), not for weird
> religious reasons or anything, it just seems "icky" to me, although I fully
> support women who find this natural process beautiful.
I would honestly urge you to give it a try. If you REALLY don't like it,
you can stop, and your baby will still have gotten the benefit of a few
days/weeks of breastmilk. And, who knows, once you try it, you may find
that it isn't so terrible ... or that you even ENJOY it. But really,
nobody is going to make you sign a contract saying that nursing for a
week requires you to nurse for a year. Surely there have been other
things in your life that have seemed 'icky' at first, and then turned out
to be enjoyable.
#5 It's more of a
> matter of practicalities for me then philosophy.
You of course know your life situation best. If it is truly impractical
for you, then you must do what you think best. However, none of the
objections you have stated so far seem to make it particularly
impractical for you. (Except, possibly the medications.)
#6 Even though I know
> studies have shown breast fed infants have better immune systems, the health
> problems related to bottle feeding are not necessarily chopped liver. In
> short, although breast milk is the ideal food for infants, formula is a
> perfectly adequate food nutritionally.
THousands of medical studies have found hundreds of ways in which
breastmilk is much superior to formula. Formula is adequate. Breastmilk
is ideal. I honestly don't quite understand why a person who COULD
provide the ideal quite easily would opt for the merely adequate without
even trying.
All right I'm losing track of my
> argument here, but I still feel the way that I feel and highly doubt it will
> change. I think breast feeding is ideal for women with high levels of
> patience and a good economic situation for the infants first months of life.
Not quite sure what patience has to do with it. Yes, it takes a little
while to get the hang of it. It takes a little while to get the hang of
ANY new skill. Let me let you in on a little secret. It takes a little
while to get the hang of being a mother, period. Breastfeeding is just
one small part of the picture.
And as for the economic part ... breastmilk is free. Formula costs a good
bit of money. (And lets not ignore lost work time for being home with a
sick baby, doctor bills, bottles, and other formula-related expenses.)
Since breastfeeding does not require you to stay home with your baby, I
can't see any other economic factors.
Again, you must do what you find best. And you are certainly not immoral
for wanting to formula-feed. However, I would encourage you to research
this a little further (esp. the medication issue) and then give
breastfeeding a try if it turns out to be compatable with your meds.
If it really doesn't work out for you, you can stop, and your baby will
have still benefited.
Naomi
J_D...@webtv.net
thought of breast feeding kind of repulses me too. But, I'm going to try
to do it anyway. I always thought of my breasts as sex objects, and the
transition to food supply is difficult for me. But, after reading all
the things in and about breast milk that are good for your baby, my
repulsion is a small compromise towards my childs health. I want my baby
to have every chance to be as healthy and smart as possible. The
November issue of American baby magizine has a small article on DHA in
breast milk. It's not in formula, and it helps form the brain. It says
that there is evidence to suggest that babies fed DHA supplemented
formulas have improved visual and cognitive functioning compared to
infants fed regular formula. And, in some studies, breastfed babies have
been found to develop slightly higher IQs than formula fed babies, but
it's not known whether the difference is because of DHA because breast
milk contains many other ingredients that formulas don't have. Now, for
me that is enough to sway me to the breast milk side of the issue,
especially since eye problems and poor eyesight run in my family.
Jennifer
Mary Samios
I am a new mother to be and I am reading all I can on the Net about the
breast vs. the bottle, but it seems nowadays that there's hardly even an
argument, since almost everyone with a vocal opinion seems pro-breast.
Well,
this concerns me because I was planning to bottle feed from the beginning!
Since it seems to be such a hot topic and I seem to be the minority
opinion,
which is very unusual for me, I am looking at my reasons for wanting to
bottle feed and reassurance that my logic and morality aren't flawed here.
#1
is that I take medications that complicate breastfeeding. #2 is that I
would
like to take turns doing nightly feedings with my husband so I can actually
get some rest and be a functional mother to my baby, plus then my husband
will have more chance to bond with our child. #3 is that, because of my
economic situation I plan to go back to work early and don't want to have
to
wean at such a young age. #4 is that I just feel no attraction to breast
feeding and find it somehow unpalatable (no pun intended), not for weird
religious reasons or anything, it just seems "icky" to me, although I fully
support women who find this natural process beautiful. #5 It's more of a
matter of practicalities for me then philosophy. #6 Even though I know
studies have shown breast fed infants have better immune systems, the
health
problems related to bottle feeding are not necessarily chopped liver. In
short, although breast milk is the ideal food for infants, formula is a
perfectly adequate food nutritionally. All right I'm losing track of my
argument here, but I still feel the way that I feel and highly doubt it
will
change. I think breast feeding is ideal for women with high levels of
patience and a good economic situation for the infants first months of
life.
Anyway, even though I agree that breast feeding is ideal, sometimes ideal
is
unreal. I strongly plan to have a natural childbirth and raise my child as
well as I humanly can. Already I love my unborn baby so much that all I
want
is the best for my baby that I can provide as a less then perfect human
being. Okay, am I totally messed up for not wanting to breastfeed?
=====================
No, I don't think that you're "totally messed up".
It sounds like you've thought this out and have made up your mind. While I
consider myself a "breastfeeding advocate", I also believe that women who
have taken the time to consider all of the factor regarding this choice,
and still choose to use formula, should not feel like they have to defend
their choices.
It seems to me that your reasons are sufficient, and that you just want
someone to say you are doing the right thing. Sounds to me like you *are*
doing the right thing for you -- you have carefully thought about the pros
and cons, and have decided that it your case, formula is the better choice.
Don't feel guilty about your choice. However, your comment about economic
status really doesn't apply -- breast milk is free, you have to purchase
formula; and returning to work doesn't necessarily keep a woman from
breastfeeding her child (many women pump while at work, others
supplement -- formula during working hours, breastfeed while at home).
Your strongest, and certainly valid, reasons for not breastfeeding are the
medications you need to take, and your aversion to breastfeeding. If
anyone asks why you have chosen not to breastfeed, and you chose to
respond, let them know that you take medications which interfere with
nursing. Unfortunately, some people don't recognize the emotional reasons
as "valid", so I wouldn't even mention that part, should you choose to
answer people who ask about your feeding choice. Really, though, you don't
have to answer that question at all (it *is* rather nosy -- though I have
to admit, I've asked people it before, because I *am* nosy!).
Anyway, back to the point. Your decision is a valid one -- there is no
need to second guess yourself.
Mary (who has breastfeed Lili and Jenny, and will also nurse #3)
mother to Lili (5-3-95), Jenny (9-21-97), and ???, (2/14/99)
Lisa A. Person
the right to challenge your decision. The hospital will want to know your
decision, but will not make you feel unfit. Yes, breastmilk is better in any
amout that the child can get, but if you are uncomfortable or on medication,
then you have reason to not do it. I was on blood pressure medication for a
too fast heart rate and was told thatit would affect the baby, so I didn't
breastfeed. She got sick more than other children, but she was also early by
4 weeks. I have found out now (4 years later) that she got more of the
medicine through the placenta than she would have gotten in breastmilk.
Anyway.... good luck.
P.S. There are a lot of Moms that wanted to breastfeed after delivery and
couldn't, and they don't get criticized.
Lisa A. Person
dio...@iscweb.com wrote in message <71rm86$c4r$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
Diana Carroll
Me, I plan to breastfeed, if possible, but I'm not hung up on it. If I
end up with medication issues (which I very well might), then so be it.
I have no opinion on the breastfeeding "controversy" and no axe to
grind.
BUT...my general attitude on all things baby is: why not give it a try?
I don't want to reject something just because I *think* it might be
unpleasant, or I don't *think* it will be useful. So I plan to try
cloth and disposable diapers; cribs and family bed; bottles and
breastfeeding; demand feeding and scheduled feeding; etc. If something
doesn't feel right or doesn't mesh with my way of doing things, I'll
stop. (Obviously, I won't try things that might be *dangerous*; but if
a lot of people say something will help, and I have nothing to lose by
doing so, I'll give it a whirl!) Deciding a priori that you won't like
breastfeeding seems like deliberately limiting your options. (I am
speaking here to the issue of thinking breastfeeding is "icky", not to
the medication problem. That falls into the "dangerous" category of
things I won't try "just cuz".)
But then, maximizing my options and keeping an open mind is my approach
to *everything*. I'm one of those people who will try any food twice,
no matter how unappealing it sounds, if someone else is eating and
enjoying it! I know lots of people aren't like that, and would rather
stick to things they *know* they'll like.
I can't tell you how many things I felt an aversion for that later
became my favorites. (Like step aerobics...and waking up early...like
going to church...and 100% cotton clothing...like low-fat
fishsticks...and scoopable cat litter...and Maui...and backpacking...)
Peace,
D!
--
--------------- mailto:db...@shore.net -------------- ______ -+
| "Having imagination without creativity __\___ / |
| is like being a perfectionist and not being \ // |
| able to do anything right." - Jane Wagner \ // |
|------------ http://www.shore.net/~dbang ----------- \/ -----|
Karyl Raber
Just adding my $.02, and some anecdotal experiences...
Personally, I found nursing to be *much* easier than bottlefeeding could
be - especially at night! When Aaron got hungry I'd just bring him into
bed with him and would pretty much sleep through the feedings. Even
though Aaron was nursing more often than my friend's bottle-fed baby was
taking bottles, I was *way* more rested than she was because she had to
fully awaken in order to fix / warm a bottle and stayed awake through the
feeding.
Regarding the cost issue... I, too went back to work fairly quickly after
my son was born - but nursed him until he was about 13 months old. The
cost of a pump was *way* cheaper than the cost of formula. I have two
friends who nursed for a while and then switched to formula shortly after
they came back to work, and both of them ended up having colicky children
*only* after they quit BF and had to use the *very* pricey Nutramigen
formula. Check the cost of formula before you decide that it is cheaper
than BF! And there is nothing that says you can't nurse while you're with
your child, and give bottles of formula during the workday if that is what
works for you and/or pumping is inconvenient...
And as far as the 'Daddy bonding" issue - My hubby gave Aaron a *very*
rare bottle of EBM, but I don't think that he's any *less* bonded than a
daddy who gives regular bottles.. My sister, on the other hand, pumps
enough milk during the day that her husband can give a bottle to my niece
when she wakes up early in the morning. This works well for them because
both Daddy and the neice are super early risers (the baby wants to play
for an hour or so around 4:30 am, when my BIL is awake anyway) and my
sister gets a little extra sleep. Her supply has adjusted quite well to
this schedule. So nursing doesn't necessarily mean that Daddy can't
participate in the joys of waking up in the middle of the night ;-).
I guess I'm among those who would suggest *trying* to BF, at least for a
little while. If you do decide its not for you, then you can quit - but
if you've never tried, its pretty difficult to start after a week or
two... FWIW, after seeing my experiences at least *3* friends who
bottle-fed their first children have decided to nurse their second
children, and all tell me they are glad they did!
Karyl
Mom to Aaron, who turns 3 next week
and expecting another little boy sometime around Thanksgiving!
--
@->-- @->-- @->-- @->-- @->-- @->-- @->-- @->-- @->-- @->-- @->--
Karyl Raber **** I've gone to look for myself. ****
kra...@primenet.com **** If I should return before I get back, ****
Phoenix, Arizona **** Please keep me here! ****
@->-- @->-- @->-- @->-- @->-- @->-- @->-- @->-- @->-- @->-- @->--
Daegmorgan
Though I firmly believe that breastfeeding is *not* best if it is
something a mom *truely* does *not* want to do, I would like to make one
comment here.
First of all let me say that your reasons for not wanting to
breastfeed make sense. For your particular situation breastfeeding is not
wanted, therefor there is a good chance it would not work out all that well if
you caved in to the pressure and decided to nurse for 6+ months.
I do have one suggestion though...
You mentioned that you have to go back to work and don't want to wean
that early. Though you can very well continue to nurse while working, I don't
feel that is an option that you would be very happy with. But...it is very,
VERY beneficial for your baby if you nurse him for even a short time. Even
though you may have to wean at 6 weeks, why not give your child the best
possible start by providing him with the best possible food for those first
few weeks?
The great thing about this is that; 1) You will still be able to go to
work, your husband can take turns after the 6 week mark with bottles, if you
can be off your meds for a short period of time then you don't have to worry
about that, etc. & 2) Who knows?...maybe you will end up really enjoying
nursing and decide to continue, but whether or not you do your options will be
left open for you.
Jenny Daegmorgan
Mommy to Galen Micheal (2 years old!),
Maia Usha (Miscarried 4/7/98),
& my little dancer (due 3/24/99)
Mette Sabram
I know exactly what you mean - there are pros and cons on both choices and I
think your decision is very good in your situation!
I just want to add that my mom didn't breastfeed me at all - she didn't have any
milk for it - and I still bonded with my mom very early on, and loved being near
her skin (the breast isn't the magic "formula" for bonding) and while I got some
rash etc, my brother who wasn't breastfed either have always been very healthy,
so don't worry at all!
I can understand you don't want to wean your little baby that early on....:)
I do plan to breatsfeed though, since my situation is different than yours -
although I must admit that I am a bit afraid since my nipples are always overly
sore....ouch! They are right now off limits for even m DH..poor guys...:)
tired...@my-dejanews.com
"Lisa A. Person" <lpe...@esn.net> wrote:
> If this is the way you feel, then go for it. I don't feel that anyone has
> the right to challenge your decision. The hospital will want to know your
> decision, but will not make you feel unfit. Yes, breastmilk is better in any
> amout that the child can get, but if you are uncomfortable or on medication,
> then you have reason to not do it. I was on blood pressure medication for a
> too fast heart rate and was told thatit would affect the baby, so I didn't
> breastfeed. She got sick more than other children, but she was also early by
> 4 weeks. I have found out now (4 years later) that she got more of the
> medicine through the placenta than she would have gotten in breastmilk.
> Anyway.... good luck.
>
> P.S. There are a lot of Moms that wanted to breastfeed after delivery and
> couldn't, and they don't get criticized.
>
> Lisa A. Person
>
Lisa,
First, I agree with you.
This is off-topic but I was curious...what med were you taking when "they"
told you you couldn't breastfeed with it? I was on INderal first then
Lopressor for the same reason you were-tachycardia-and I was told there was
no problem taking it during pregnancy or nursing-although once my son was
born and the stress on my heart was reduced I didn't need the med anymore-so
he never got it through the milk at all. My cardioloigist said that women
with chronic heart problems take beta-blockers like these all the time and
there are no problems. My son and I were monitored during teh pregnancy-the
OB as concerned that the rapid heartrate would deprive him of blood and
effect his growth. It didn't, he was perfect.
Jill-just being nosy:)
Nancy C Reynolds
>friends who nursed for a while and then switched to formula shortly after
>they came back to work, and both of them ended up having colicky children
>*only* after they quit BF and had to use the *very* pricey Nutramigen
>formula. Check the cost of formula before you decide that it is cheaper
>than BF! And there is nothing that says you can't nurse while you're with
>your child, and give bottles of formula during the workday if that is what
>works for you and/or pumping is inconvenient...
My daughter is 3 months, 28 days old. She gets a lot of formula, though
she gets some expressed breast milk and occasionally breastfeeds. She's
not colicky in the least. I don't think we've heard her cry for even
10 minutes at a stretch.
>and expecting another little boy sometime around Thanksgiving!
Congratulations to Karyl!
-Nancy Reynolds
mary....@hydro.on.ca
view breasts as sexual.
I dunno. Having a baby is going to change forever how you regard your body,
breasts, belly, vagina, everything. It is going to change you sexually. It is
going to change your relationship with your partner. You are going to do so
many about faces on various ideas that your head will be spinning.
You may feel a whole lot different about nursing your baby in that primal
shining moment after birth, when you are lying there sweaty, bloody and
breathless and your wet newborn is placed on your belly. He or she may do as
mine did - open its eyes and look at you...and start rooting for your breast,
as babies have done since the dawn of time. Gathering to your breast and
giving him what he was born to want and need and you were born to provide may
seem exactly right.
Don't think too much about this stuff - this is the part of you that has no
words. You can't imagine how it will feel until you get there - and there is
time to decide when you know that.
Mary G.
Mother of 3
Red Sonja
formula. Breast is best when bf is not medically contraindicated,
but in your case it sounds like it is not an option for you. You are
entirely right to bottlefeed. Don't let anyone make you feel bad
about it, you ARE doing the absolute best thing for your baby. Good
luck and CONGRATULATIONS!!
and then...
pam...@pol.org (Pamela A. O'Keefe) sayeth thusly:
> How many of us in the 25-45 year
>old age group can honestly say they *ever* suckled at their mother's
>breast, or if so, for any great length of time?
I can, and so can my younger brother. Me for 6 mos. YB for 8 mos.
I'm pushing 29 and YB is 25.
I know it's unusual, but all the women on my mother's side of the
family bf'd their kids, from my mom and her sisters, to my grandmother
and gr-grandmothers. So not every women in those generations gave in
to the "new-fangled" baby formula fad.
Unfortunately, I'm the only one of MY generation who has exclusively
bf her offspring.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sonja M. Cannon in Myrtle Beach, SC USA
Mom to Samuel Alexander, 3/16/95
m/c blighted ovum at 10 weeks lmp 2/22/98
EDD 1/24/99 with #2 son
SPAMTRAPPED! Email redsonja at bigfoot dot com
Mary Samios
"touchy" subjects become war zones, whereas this thread has been full of
information, but as of yet, I haven't read any messages that were
judgmental.
Way to go ladies!
Mary
Amy Jones
bottlefeed for partially economic reasons, don't forget to budget $60-80 per
month for formula (and that's for the cheapest kind and using every coupon you
can get), money for bottles (we used the disposable baggie bottles because of the
air/burping/gas benefits, and they were about $4-8 per month, I think), and money
for replacing nipples--I had to buy about one or two dozen nipples over the
course of a year's bottlefeeding, about $20 worth.
Formula was the most expensive part, though.
This time, I am planning on using a lact-aid device with expressed milk that my
SIL is saving for me (she's got about 200 oz banked for me so far! her son is 8
weeks old and I'm not due for another 8 weeks). I'm really hoping that this time
I can get my own supply established. I hate washing bottles, going down to the
kitchen at night, and the smell of bottlefed baby diapers.
But that's just my reasons for breastfeeding.
Amy
dio...@iscweb.com wrote:
Trish Stewart
"food for thought" (pun intended *grin*) to the conversation at hand.
http://cnn.com/HEALTH/indepth.health/infants/faqs/breastfeeding.html
A list of pros for either side of the issue...as found in WTETFY. I found it
interesting...
Trish
Kim
really feel formula feeding is for you, then go with it. I too formula
fed all three of my children. I only considered breastfeeding for #3
for a few days and just decided I couldn't do it. (Or I should say I
didn't want to do it) I know it is a very *natural* thing to do, but
the thought of my baby drinking from my breasts kind of grossed me out.
I posted to misc.kids.breastfeeding asking for some suggestions and the
people there are very nice and helpful. I don't feel bad about my
decision. (To answer Pam's question, I am 25 and I was formula fed and
so was my sis, and she is 28.) Kim mom to Kali 4yrs, Lacey 20mos, &
Alex 8 mos
JoAnne Clark
>Anyway, even though I agree that breast feeding is ideal, sometimes ideal is
>unreal. I strongly plan to have a natural childbirth and raise my child as
>well as I humanly can. Already I love my unborn baby so much that all I want
>is the best for my baby that I can provide as a less then perfect human
>being. Okay, am I totally messed up for not wanting to breastfeed? Thanks
No, you're NOT totally messed up for not wanting to breastfeed. I can
relate to your dilemma, because I experienced something similar. I,
however, had planned to breastfeed all along, primarily for the health
benefits. Well, things didn't go as planned and my baby had to be put
on IVs and formula after birth. I pumped to keep up my milk supply,
but when the time finally came that I could try to nurse, my son
wouldn't latch on. I was *terribly* depressed after his birth, and so
very tired, and struggling to breast feed just wasn't something I
wanted to put myself or my baby through. I also really enjoyed
watching my husband feed our baby, and knew that he would miss it a
lot. At any rate, I decided not to nurse...but I felt guilty. One of
the nurses at the hospital suggested a nipple shield and it worked
well enough that I was able to nurse for 10 weeks, which was actually
about 6 weeks longer than I planned to. I felt a little melancholy
when I had to wean my son, but in retrospect I'd have to say that I'm
a much less stressed-out mommy now that I bottle-feed. Which isn't to
say I'd bottle-feed from the beginning, just that nursing IS very
intensive. What I'm trying to say is that you have legitimate reasons
to not breastfeed and NOBODY should give you any grief if you choose
to formula feed from the beginning. Having said that, you might want
to just *think* about nursing and give it a try. But if you don't,
THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT, AND DON'T LET *ANYONE* TRY TO MAKE
YOU FEEL GUILTY ABOUT IT. One of the books I had said that the very
most important thing is that you feel comfortable with your choice of
feeding methods and that you do what feels right for you. A calm,
relaxed bottle-feeding mother is worlds better for a baby than a
tense, anxious nursing one.
Go with your gut instinct. It's usually right.
JoAnne
-------------------------------------------------------
"Nothing so needs reforming as other people's habits."
-Mark Twain
Amy Kreager
> Anyway, even though I agree that breast feeding is ideal, sometimes ideal is
> unreal. I strongly plan to have a natural childbirth and raise my child as
> well as I humanly can. Already I love my unborn baby so much that all I want
> is the best for my baby that I can provide as a less then perfect human
> being. Okay, am I totally messed up for not wanting to breastfeed? Thanks
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
I don't think there's anything wrong with the fact that you don't want to breast
feed . A lot of women can't breast feed . For example I couldn't breast feed
because at the time of my c-section the doctor discovered that I has a massive
infection in my uterus do to the fact the there was a leak in the bag of water
that wasn't caught , so I was put on IV antibiotics which made it impossible for
me to breast feed . I also know women who both breast and bottle feed because
they went back to work shortly after their baby was born . I say make the choice
that makes you comfortable and then go from there .
Amy
--
" You may shoot me with your words , you may cut me with your eyes , you may kill
me with your hatefulness , but still , like air , I rise "
Maya Angelou
Tecia
dio...@iscweb.com wrote in article <71rm86$c4r$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> I am a new mother to be and I am reading all I can on the Net about the
> breast vs. the bottle, but it seems nowadays that there's hardly even
an
> argument, since almost everyone with a vocal opinion seems pro-breast.
Well,
> this concerns me because I was planning to bottle feed from the
beginning!
> Since it seems to be such a hot topic and I seem to be the minority
opinion,
> which is very unusual for me, I am looking at my reasons for wanting to
> bottle feed and reassurance that my logic and morality aren't flawed
here.
<smile> I'll bet you'll get a lot of responses on this one
>#1 is that I take medications that complicate breastfeeding.
If this was the only reason, and you actually wished you could
breastfeed, you'd probably find there were far less medications
contraindicated than you might think. But...
#2 is that I would
> like to take turns doing nightly feedings with my husband so I can
actually
> get some rest and be a functional mother to my baby, plus then my
husband
> will have more chance to bond with our child.
I've always found this argument to be quite convincing (not so much the
husband bonding part, because you don't have to be feeding a bottle to a
baby to bond with it) but definitely the part about getting rest! I
think most breastfeeding mothers have moments when they would love
someone else to be able to take a hand. Again, it can be got around, for
a determined breastfeeder, by either expressing milk for use later or by
feeding the baby in bed while dozing. Otherwise, pretty good reason...!
#3 is that, because of my
> economic situation I plan to go back to work early and don't want to
have to
> wean at such a young age.
This bit I'm not quite sure of the logic because why is weaning at such a
young age any "worse" than not breastfeeding at all? Yes, lots of people
don't want to wean early, but that's because they feel babies should be
nursed for at least six, or twelve months or whatever. In the case of
breastmilk, some is defininitely better than none.
>#4 is that I just feel no attraction to breast
> feeding and find it somehow unpalatable (no pun intended), not for
weird
> religious reasons or anything, it just seems "icky" to me, although I
fully
> support women who find this natural process beautiful.
Fair enough. Myself, I don't feel that (I love breastfeeding) so I don't
really understand it, but if that's the way you feel. I don't like the
idea of oral sex (sorry, I can't believe I just wrote that......!) but
others love it. YMMV, I guess.
>#5 It's more of a
> matter of practicalities for me then philosophy.
I think the philosophy part can be WAY overstated. I breastfeed because
its free and I like it. End of story.
#6 Even though I know
> studies have shown breast fed infants have better immune systems, the
health
> problems related to bottle feeding are not necessarily chopped liver.
In
> short, although breast milk is the ideal food for infants, formula is a
> perfectly adequate food nutritionally.
I quite agree. The only thing that formula really, really can't replace
is the colostrum of the first 3-4 days, which passes on all your
immunities. So I would ask to you consider (in as much as it is any of
my business, after all, this is your baby, not mine: not really my
problem) to breastfeed maybe just for the first week, just so the baby
gets the colostrum.
>Already I love my unborn baby so much that all I want
> is the best for my baby that I can provide as a less then perfect human
> being. Okay, am I totally messed up for not wanting to breastfeed?
Thanks
>
*I* don't personally understand it because *I* like breastfeeding. But
it isn't about me, its about you, and you're perfectly entitled to make
any decision you like and not feel bad about it. Breastfeeding doesn't
make you perfect, any more than bottle feeding makes you bad. A baby
isn't just a milk-holder with legs, its a little person, and what you put
into its stomach is only one small part of being its parent.
--
C.
Mama to
Peter (9/96), Isabel (3/98)
and working on
Georgia Alexandra and Anna Natasha - due March 99
====================================
"Babies are such a nice way to start people"
Simu...@my-dejanews.com
"
>Okay, am I totally messed up for not wanting to breastfeed?
Not at all if you have, for example, an extremely rare disorder that causes
you to produce toxic breastmilk. After all, compromised or deficient
development from artificial milk ("formula") feeding is better than no
development from starvation. Right? "
[More replies below]
In article <71rm86$c4r$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
dio...@iscweb.com wrote:
> I am a new mother to be and I am reading all I can on the Net about the
> breast vs. the bottle, but it seems nowadays that there's hardly even an
> argument, since almost everyone with a vocal opinion seems pro-breast. Well,
> this concerns me because I was planning to bottle feed from the beginning!
> Since it seems to be such a hot topic and I seem to be the minority opinion,
> which is very unusual for me, I am looking at my reasons for wanting to
> bottle feed and reassurance
^^^^^^^^^ From your lament, one would tend to conclude that you might only
be looking for an affirmation of your beliefs, however invalid, in order to
ease your conscience about compromising the developmental integrity of your
offspring.
> that my logic and morality aren't flawed here. #1
> is that I take medications that complicate breastfeeding.
What do you mean by "complicate"? If you have had an independently
corroborated diagnosis of a serious disorder preventing you from
breastfeeding, then, of course, you should have no reason to feel guilty.
After all, you are only morally responsible for circumstances in your
control.
> #2 is that I would
> like to take turns doing nightly feedings with my husband so I can actually
> get some rest and be a functional mother to my baby, plus then my husband
> will have more chance to bond with our child.
[Note: The following responses only apply to the specific cases stated
immediately above.]
If you feel breastfeeding is too onerous a responsibility of motherhood,
perhaps you should have reconsidered having a baby in the first place. It is
hardly the qualification of a good mother to have a cavalier disregard about
depriving an offspring of its desideratum for breasmilk--the species-specific
substance that exclusively comprises numerous essential organic constituents,
including hormones, anti-bodies and hundreds of compounds of which "formula"
is devoid.
As for your husband bonding with your child, there are plenty of other ways
of doing so without depriving your offspring of the birthright nature
intended it.
> #3 is that, because of my
> economic situation I plan to go back to work early and don't want to have to
> wean at such a young age.
You don't have to wean at an early age. Seek counsel from groups such as LLL.
>#4 is that I just feel no attraction to breast
> feeding and find it somehow unpalatable (no pun intended), not for weird
> religious reasons or anything, it just seems "icky" to me, although I fully
> support women who find this natural process beautiful.
Maybe you shouldn't allow the perverse, crass commercialization of breasts
and the sad consequential cultural conditioning to influence your attitude
towards doing what is natural and proper for your offspring. If you feel
such a morbid aversion to breastfeeding, some psychotherapy might be of some
service. Perhaps you should make as priority providing what is proper for
your baby rather than catering to your bizarre personal phobia.
> #6 Even though I know
> studies have shown breast fed infants have better immune systems, the health
> problems related to bottle feeding are not necessarily chopped liver. In
> short, although breast milk is the ideal food for infants, formula is a
> perfectly adequate food nutritionally.
Breastmilk is not "ideal" at all since it is merely normal, basic nutrition
nature intended; anything less is of course substandard and deficient,
notwithstanding an erroneous belief that superfluous are the numerous
essential organic components and hundreds of compounds in breastmilk that are
missing in the artificial, synthetic substance called formula. If needlessly
compromising the development of your offspring's corporeal, cognitive, or
immunogenic integrity doesn't bother you, then of course there is always the
substandard, deficient nutrition of formula waiting for you. Give peace a
chance...give breastfeeding a chance...oh, sorry, I digress. ;-)
> All right I'm losing track of my
> argument here, but I still feel the way that I feel and highly doubt it will
> change. I think breast feeding is ideal for women with high levels of patience
Again, breastfeeding is actually far from "ideal" as it is merely the
fundamental, normal nutrition nature intended. As to your claim that a
breastfeeding mother needs extraordinary patience and endurance, it simply
isn't true. Indeed, many mothers have come to realize that breastfeeding is
much easier and far less laborious than artificial milk feeding entailing the
added burdensome routine of sterilization, heating, mixing, etc.
> Anyway, even though I agree that breast feeding is ideal,
Read the response above.
>sometimes ideal is unreal.
Speaking of "unreal," don't you know that formula is an artificial and dead
substance lacking the numerous essential organic, living constituents
necessary during the critical, vulnerable one-year-plus phase of infant
growth for the complete, uncompromised developmental integrity of humans?
If depriving offspring of breastmilk were of trivial importance and had none
of the noted developmental compromises, breastfeeding would be neither needed
nor so strongly urged by the reputable health authorities in the AAP, WHO,
and UNICEF.
>I strongly plan to have a natural childbirth and raise my child as
> well as I humanly can. Already I love my unborn baby so much that all I want
> is the best for my baby that I can provide as a less then perfect human
> being.
Nobody is perfect; but if there is no medical reason not to breastfeed, you
should do so for your child's sake.
>Okay, am I totally messed up for not wanting to breastfeed?
Not at all if you have, for example, an extremely rare disorder that causes
you to produce toxic breastmilk. After all, compromised or deficient
development from artificial milk ("formula") feeding is better than no
development from starvation. Right?
SRHami
friend...... I have a sister that was unable to nurse because of medication she
took for epilespy. If you're taking any kind of drug on a long term basis
then it's best to bottle feed. I'll add that wet nurses are no longer a thing
of the past. I'll also add that I too felt that it was "icky" but decided to
breastfeed anyway and had a wonderfull experience with breastfeeding both my
children. I probably decided on breastfeeding out of rebelion for my own
mother who felt it was "icky". I weaned them early and neither of them have
had ill effects from that.
2 more notes: The biggest myth about breastfeeding is that you will loose
LOTS of weight FAST!! not quite so.....you will loose a lot of weight but
this is temporary. Once the baby's appetite picks up (around 4mos) you will
need to eat A LOT in order to produce enough milk. anything containing sugar
and fast is great for boosting milk supply and also for boosting your body.
I weaned my children early because I have never been a healthy eater and I
normally skip breakfast. Hence, my milk supply dropped and my children were
not getting enough...so I slowly supplemented with formula. However, once
your child is weaned you will notice a weight loss but it could take months to
fit back in your old clothes....many women get depressed and give up on getting
back into their old clothes and continue their eating habits from when they
breatfed. Weaning itself is also a source of temporary depression because it
is the first time since conception that your child is biologically independant
without you.
My other note: For all those who think it is "icky" I'll remind you that
during Jesus' time there was no formula....Hence, Jesus was breestfed! After
millions of years of evolution and breastfeeding was it only until this century
that women thought it was "icky"
Yes, I'm pro breast but you can't (of course) put your baby at risk if your
taking medicaion. I hope that I've presented my opinion as non-preachy as
possible....I realize this is a senstive issue for many and I hope not to
offend.
Sherri
Mom to Lauryn Angela, 6 and Angela Renae, 3 (my two "ANGELas")
SRHami
>they came back to work, and both of them ended up having colicky children
>*only* after they quit BF and had to use the *very* pricey Nutramigen
This may be due to maternal smoking or genectics! not a breastfeeding/bottle
issue.
It's proven that ADD is also genectic....Lord knows that's true in my house!
LOLOLOL
SRHami
Edward and Phantom MacLennan
>
> I don't normally hang out in here but I just referred this newsgroup to a
> friend...... I have a sister that was unable to nurse because of medication she
> took for epilespy. If you're taking any kind of drug on a long term basis
> then it's best to bottle feed.
Not necessarily so. There a actually very few medications which
contraindicate breastfeeding. Most of them are anti-cancer drugs, in
which case you'd have a whole host of other problems which would make
breastfeeding un-likely.
>
> 2 more notes: The biggest myth about breastfeeding is that you will loose
> LOTS of weight FAST!! not quite so.....you will loose a lot of weight but
> this is temporary. Once the baby's appetite picks up (around 4mos) you will
> need to eat A LOT in order to produce enough milk. anything containing sugar
> and fast is great for boosting milk supply and also for boosting your body.
This is a BIIIIIIG YMMV thing, and YOUR experience is no more fact than
mine. In my case, with both kids, I dropped down to well below my
pre-preg weight by about 8 mo pp. You don't NEED to eat A LOT (emphasis
yours) to "produce enough milk"-- starving women in third world
countries seem to manage it on practically nothing.
However, once
> your child is weaned you will notice a weight loss but it could take months to
> fit back in your old clothes.
Actually, I found that I gained weight after I weaned, (and I never had
the eating pattern you describe). Again, this is a matter of YMMV.
Please don't present your own experience as "the way it WILL be". It's
not, no more than mine is.
To answer the original question-- I like the suggestion of one poster
to not make this decision now. You may feel totally different once the
baby is born. But please consider the following:
1- most medications do not cause a problem for breastfeeding. Those
that do usually have alternatives which do not. Ask your doctor or
(better yet) an LC.
2- breastfeeding is the easiest way to not miss sleep-- just feed the
baby in bed with you. I wake up rsy and rested every morning even if my
baby feeds a dozen times in the night (like he did last night). Daddy
does not need to feed bottles to bond with the baby. If he finds that
this is essential to him, and that he cannot possibly wait 6 months or
so to feed the baby solids, you can express milk inot a bottle for him
to feed after about 4 weeks of age.
3- Returning to work does not necessarily mean weaning. It is usually
possible to pump at work for the baby, or feed formula durring the day,
and still nurse in the morning and evenings and on weekends. Your milk
supply will adjust. If you must wean because of work-- SOME breastmilk
is better than none at all.
4- Yes, formula is "perfectly adequate"-- but do not fool yourself into
believing that "adequate" means "just as good"-- or even "almost as
good". Formula-feeding carries a host of medical disadvantages, risks
if you will, for both mother and baby. Babies were MEANT to be
breastfed.
That said, I don't think it's morally wrong to formula-feed. It's not a
decision or position I personally understand, but feelings are feelings,
whether I understand them or not. One idea for you about thinking it's
"icky"-- I have a friend who felt just this way. She exclusively pumps
for her baby.
Phan
naomi pardue
> Excerpt:
>
> "
> >Okay, am I totally messed up for not wanting to breastfeed?
>
> Not at all if you have, for example, an extremely rare disorder that causes
> you to produce toxic breastmilk. After all, compromised or deficient
> development from artificial milk ("formula") feeding is better than no
> development from starvation. Right? "
[snip rest of long, obnoxious, judgemental post.]
Well, we had 25 good posts before someone came along trying to start a
war. Probably a record.
Naomi
H Schinske
You'll make colostrum anyway, you'll make the first milk anyway, you'll be
getting all engorged anyway, and for sure the first week or two you will have
erratic sleep patterns anyway! Moreover, the "I want my body back" feeling is
certainly not limited to mothers who breastfeed -- postpartum is pretty
up-and-down physically and emotionally, no matter how you feed the baby. Why
not let your baby have the benefits of colostrum and a week or two of milk and
see how it goes? Then, if you are doing okay with it, set a further goal, say a
month or six weeks. Or switch gradually over to formula, if that's what you
want.
Yeah, I'd like to see all babies breastfed for a year, but even a small amount
is worth doing, especially for the colostrum period. Someone posted the
advantages to a baby from different lengths of time breastfed a few months back
-- anyone have the list?
I agree with the woman who posted that she was going to try a lot of different
things and see what worked for her and her baby. And you _can't_ ever get the
colostrum back, and it's darned difficult to get the milk back, so if you want
to try b'f at all, you have to start with that.
Re the father's role -- I think my husband would laugh (in a nice way) to hear
that he might not have enough to do with the babies since I breastfed. He has
been the most involved dad ever. --Helen
Peggy
> Formula was the most expensive part, though.
It is horribly expensive isn't it and that doesn't include the hidden
costs of increased illness, time off of work to care for babies that
get sick more often, and other related health problems.
>
> This time, I am planning on using a lact-aid device with expressed milk
> that my
> SIL is saving for me (she's got about 200 oz banked for me so far! her son
> is 8
> weeks old and I'm not due for another 8 weeks). I'm really hoping that this
> time
> I can get my own supply established.
What happened last time that you were not able to establish your
supply?
Curious,
Peggy
>I hate washing bottles, going down to
> the
> kitchen at night, and the smell of bottlefed baby diapers.
>
> But that's just my reasons for breastfeeding.
>
> Amy
>
> dio...@iscweb.com wrote:
>
> > I am a new mother to be and I am reading all I can on the Net about the
> > breast vs. the bottle, but it seems nowadays that there's hardly even an
> > argument, since almost everyone with a vocal opinion seems pro-breast.
> Well,
> > this concerns me because I was planning to bottle feed from the
> beginning!
> > Since it seems to be such a hot topic and I seem to be the minority
> opinion,
> > which is very unusual for me, I am looking at my reasons for wanting to
> > bottle feed and reassurance that my logic and morality aren't flawed
> here. #1
> > is that I take medications that complicate breastfeeding. #2 is that I
> would
> > like to take turns doing nightly feedings with my husband so I can
> actually
> > get some rest and be a functional mother to my baby, plus then my husband
> > will have more chance to bond with our child. #3 is that, because of my
> > economic situation I plan to go back to work early and don't want to have
> to
> > wean at such a young age. #4 is that I just feel no attraction to breast
> > feeding and find it somehow unpalatable (no pun intended), not for weird
> > religious reasons or anything, it just seems "icky" to me, although I
> fully
> > support women who find this natural process beautiful. #5 It's more of a
> > matter of practicalities for me then philosophy. #6 Even though I know
> > studies have shown breast fed infants have better immune systems, the
> health
> > problems related to bottle feeding are not necessarily chopped liver. In
> > short, although breast milk is the ideal food for infants, formula is a
> > perfectly adequate food nutritionally. All right I'm losing track of my
> > argument here, but I still feel the way that I feel and highly doubt it
> will
> > change. I think breast feeding is ideal for women with high levels of
> > patience and a good economic situation for the infants first months of
> life.
> > Anyway, even though I agree that breast feeding is ideal, sometimes ideal
> is
> > unreal. I strongly plan to have a natural childbirth and raise my child
> as
> > well as I humanly can. Already I love my unborn baby so much that all I
> want
> > is the best for my baby that I can provide as a less then perfect human
> > being. Okay, am I totally messed up for not wanting to breastfeed? Thanks
> >
Peggy
> #6 Even though I know
> > studies have shown breast fed infants have better immune systems, the
> health
> > problems related to bottle feeding are not necessarily chopped liver.
> In
> > short, although breast milk is the ideal food for infants, formula is a
> > perfectly adequate food nutritionally.
>
> I quite agree. The only thing that formula really, really can't replace
> is the colostrum of the first 3-4 days, which passes on all your
> immunities.
This is not true. Breastmilk is a substance that continues to help
one's baby (or babies in your case) grow and fight off infection as
long as the baby is drinking it. I like to think of it as a mini
factory that identifies germs as they come and fights them off.
Formula is not only lacking in some very important nutritional
components, but is totally lacking in this ability to fight off
environmental germs.
>So I would ask to you consider (in as much as it is any of
> my business, after all, this is your baby, not mine: not really my
> problem) to breastfeed maybe just for the first week, just so the baby
> gets the colostrum.
Again, as important as colosturm is, it is not the whole picture.
I also wanted to mention how healing the breastfeeding relationship
can be to those of us who had less than optimal parenting. There is a
give and take, a cue and response that can be so healing.
Peggy
Joy Evensen
>is that I take medications that complicate breastfeeding.
What kinds of medications are they? It's actually true that very few
medications are out and out contraindicated for nursing. And even if the
ones you are taking are, there may be alternate drug therapies that would be
compatible to nursing.
>#2 is that I would
>like to take turns doing nightly feedings with my husband so I can actually
>get some rest and be a functional mother to my baby, plus then my husband
>will have more chance to bond with our child.
This is a myth, I'm afraid. I'm yet to meet the mother who sleeps blissfully
through a feeding. I was so anxious about each of our children that there's
no way I could've gone back to sleep when one of them woke up crying and
hungry. What's the point in both of you being awake? And if you implement
the family bed into your parenting arsenal, you can nurse AND sleep at the
same time. As for your husband having more of a chance to bond with your
child if he feeds, that's not necessarily true. Your husband can bond just
as closely with your child in other ways.
>#3 is that, because of my
>economic situation I plan to go back to work early and don't want to have
to
>wean at such a young age.
If your economic situation is a big factor, then consider the fact that
breastmilk is free. Have you checked the price of formula lately? It's
astounding! And as far as nursing and working, it can be successfully and
satisfactorily combined. There are a multitude of ways to combine the two.
1) You could nurse while you are home and wean when yougo back to work. That
way, your baby would get at least some of the great benefits of that early
colostrum and breastmilk. 2) You could nurse while you are home with the
baby and supplement while you are at work. I know several folks who have
successfully combined the two. 3) You could express your milk while at work
(buying a pump is still cheaper in the long run than formula) and have your
caregiver feed the baby your milk while you're at work. I've successfully
nursed two children (am still doing it!) and have worked full time outside
the home since the first was 8 weeks and my second was 12 weeks.
>#4 is that I just feel no attraction to breast
>feeding and find it somehow unpalatable (no pun intended), not for weird
>religious reasons or anything, it just seems "icky" to me, although I fully
>support women who find this natural process beautiful.
The only thing I can suggest here is to give it a try and see. You can
always quit if it continues to be "not for you" but you can't start it once
it's too late, you know?
> #5 It's more of a
>matter of practicalities for me then philosophy.
As a breastfeeding mother, I have trouble seeing how bottlefeeding is
practical. I can rattle off a list of the convience and practicalness of
breastfeeding vs. bottlefeeding (no bottles to mix, always have food at the
ready, my breasts are with me everywhere I go, no worries about allergies to
my milk, etc. etc.) but I'm hard pressed to think of any real benefits to
bottlefeeding. YMMV.
>#6 Even though I know
>studies have shown breast fed infants have better immune systems, the
health
>problems related to bottle feeding are not necessarily chopped liver. In
>short, although breast milk is the ideal food for infants, formula is a
>perfectly adequate food nutritionally.
Why settle? If you can have the best, why not have it? If your baby deserves
the best, why not give it?
All right I'm losing track of my
>argument here, but I still feel the way that I feel and highly doubt it
will
>change. I think breast feeding is ideal for women with high levels of
>patience and a good economic situation for the infants first months of
life.
I know it's a matter of perspective, but I feel the exact opposite. That
breastfeeding is better for those low on patience (ever tried to quickly
prepare a bottle while your baby is screaming her head off?). And for those
who have to worry about their economic situation, again breastmilk is
totally free vs. a can of formula that costs $7-$9 and lasts, what? 2 or 3
days?
joy
Mary Samios
naomi pardue wrote:
[snip rest of long, obnoxious, judgemental post.]
Well, we had 25 good posts before someone came along trying to start a
war. Probably a record.
=================
Gee, I don't have to take back my congratulations now, do I? Guess not --
25 good ones are certainly reason enough for congratulations!!
Tom and Daniela Farrington
>
> C. wrote
>
> > #6 Even though I know
> > > studies have shown breast fed infants have better immune systems, the
> > health
> > > problems related to bottle feeding are not necessarily chopped liver.
> > In
> > > short, although breast milk is the ideal food for infants, formula is a
> > > perfectly adequate food nutritionally.
> >
> > is the colostrum of the first 3-4 days, which passes on all your
> > immunities.
>
> This is not true. Breastmilk is a substance that continues to help
> one's baby (or babies in your case) grow and fight off infection as
> long as the baby is drinking it. I like to think of it as a mini
> factory that identifies germs as they come and fights them off.
> Formula is not only lacking in some very important nutritional
> components, but is totally lacking in this ability to fight off
> environmental germs.
>
Which is why, for example, studies have shown that breastfed babies
rarely get diarrhea, or for much shorter duration (caused by rotavirus)
as the breastmilk wards off this virus very well. Then of course there
are ear infections, which are also more frequent in formula fed babies
over the long term. All of this isn't so serious as to make formula
bad, of course, nor does breastfeeding guarantee an absence of the
above.
I don't think formula is morally wrong (this is not an issue of good or
evil IMHO), it's just inconvenient (from someone who mostly formula fed
her first two, and remembers just how much she hates bottle-washing!)
and expensive. Breasts are just so portable, too.
Daniela
mom to Derek, Lauren, Brian and Tommy
Pamela A. O'Keefe
>I dunno. Having a baby is going to change forever how you regard your
>body,
>breasts, belly, vagina, everything. It is going to change you sexually.
>It is
>going to change your relationship with your partner. You are going to
>do so
>many about faces on various ideas that your head will be spinning.
This is sooo, true. Even my dh views me differently now. For eg.,
(this is about to get silly ;-)), when we were first married and I was
a nice, perky little 34B, he used to talk about how nice a handful was.
But he seems to be wildly happy now that I'm a saggy, sometimes lumpy,
engorged 38D. Go figure. ;-)
The point is, before kids, breasts ARE sexual, and nothing more. After
kids, they change, even if you don't breastfeed. Even if you don't
breastfeed (which is OK), you will still produce at least colostrum, if
not actual milk. That, IMO is a miracle in itself.
Later,
Pam
Pamela A. O'Keefe
>I can, and so can my younger brother. Me for 6 mos. YB for 8 mos.
>I'm pushing 29 and YB is 25.
>I know it's unusual, but all the women on my mother's side of the
>family bf'd their kids, from my mom and her sisters, to my grandmother
>and gr-grandmothers. So not every women in those generations gave in
>to the "new-fangled" baby formula fad.
This is great! My mom did try for a couple of weeks w/ my sister and
me, but due to lack of support, and being a few thousand miles from her
own mother, gave up as did many other mothers. At least ignorance,
less and less, is a factor in mothers not bf'ing-- although it's still
there.
Later,
Pam
angela
Peggy wrote in message <36449C3...@linmax.sao.arizona.edu>...
>SIDS, insulin dependent diabetes, cow milk allergy, respiratory
>illness, otitis media, childhood cancer, gastrointestinal disease and
>infections, urinary tract infection, contamination due to bottle
>feeding, and allergies.
>
>Frankly, it's a roll of the dice and how do you know your own baby
>might not develop some of these diseases at a later date?
>
>With the weight of medical evidence against formula feeding how can
>one consider this a "personal choice"? After all, our children are the
>ones who will live with the consequences of our decision.
While I don't consider formula-feeding to be a "moral" issue, I certainly do
consider it a biological issue.
Human and other primate infants are born at a very young developmental age,
compared to most other species of mammals. A marsupial, of course, is born
as little more than a mobile embryo, and crawls into its mother's pouch
where it attaches to a nipple - and there it stays, developing, without
detaching from the nipple - until it is considerably larger and
better-developed. Every other species with which I am familiar is either
capable of walking (equines, all ruminants, elephants and their kin, etc),
or swimming (whales, porpoises) within hours of birth, or does so within a
couple of weeks at most (canines, felines, lapines, seals. Human babies are
born so early because if they were born later, they'd be too big for their
bipedal mothers' pelvises to accomodate. Human babies can hardly even crawl
until they're 5, 6 or 7 months old - compare that to an elephant, or a
gazelle, or even a dog. The younger and less-developed the infant, I would
therefore think, the *more* the infant needs its mother's milk to complete
its maximum development. I consider human milk to be the external
equivalent, for the human infant, of the placenta - minus oxygen,
naturally - vital for continued development to that infant's genetic
potential.
Or, think of it this way: synthetic milks (soy-based or cow's milk-based)
are certainly adequate - in the same way that a heart-lung machine can keep
a body functioning. But no one pretends that a heart-lung machine is the
same thing, or just as good as, the body functioning on its own. No one
pretends that feeding someone through an IV is as good as eating a balanced
diet, either. Sometimes it's necessary. But the difference is in how it's
perceived.
While we have a couple of generations worth of proof that feeding human
babies the milk of other species (goats, cows - and let's don't forget the
occasional claim of wolf-children) works, and most of them survive and do
well (remarkable, given the species-specific nature of proteins and other
components in milk), we also know this:
In the cattle industry, they say that: "A calf that doesn't get colostrum is
a dead calf." Sheep breeders know this too, so orphaned lambs they want to
survive are fed frozen colostrum taken from either the dead ewe or from
another ewe.
I have no idea why colostrum, invaluable to the survival of a valuable calf
or lamb, is considered "optional" for a human baby. And I have no idea why
mother's milk, 97% digestible, chock full of just the right blend of fats,
proteins, antibodies and other things, is considered an inconvenience, an
option - and replaceable by a synthetic manufactured in a factory.
Now, all of this said, there are certainly times when breastfeeding is a bad
choice:
There are drugs and antibiotics (fewer than you think - see _Medications and
Mother's Milk_ by Tom Hale) which a baby MUST NOT have.
There are diseases which can pass through the breastmilk to the baby -
Hepatitis B and C, HIV, and HTLV-I and HTLV-II.
There are babies who cannot digest lactose, of which there is a great deal
in human milk.
There are babies with physical problems which prevent them from nursing at
the breast.
And there are women who cannot produce enough milk for their babies' needs,
for whatever physical reason.
For all other children, it seems to me that breastfeeding is the ideal
choice. It's what they were born to eat. And what their mothers' bodies were
designed to nourish them with.
Yes, I know I'm going to be flamed for being intolerant, and judgemental of
situations, life choices, and so on. But that doesn't change biology, or
the fact that children die, even in the United States, because they were not
fed breastmilk.
If you wish to at least attempt to nurse, for the sake of the colostrum,
there a lot of women on this newsgroup, misc.kids.breastfeeding, and
alt.support.breastfeeding - not to mention at your local La Leche League who
have breastfed successfully, who can help you. You may find it to be very
natural. You may not find it offensive at all to have a baby 'drinking' at
your breast - not when that is what that baby was born to do. Plus anyway
your body-image will be very different after pregnancy. (I, at any rate,
was tickled that my breasts were finally *good* for something besides
decoration.) You will certainly find it cheaper than feeding formula - even
if you buy a Pump In Style electric pump for $200 dollars or so, so you can
pump while at work, it still doesn't add up to $60-$100/month for formula,
for months and months on end.
Morally wrong? No. Biologically? I'd have to say yes. But when you've
weighed out all the factors, only you know what decision you have to make.
And when you make it, be content with it.
So, now....flame away, I guess.
--angela b
Pamela A. O'Keefe
LOL-- which brought to my mind a cartoon image of an old-style milk can
w/ pudgy arms and legs. . .
Later,
Pam
Pamela A. O'Keefe
>It is horribly expensive isn't it and that doesn't include the hidden
>costs of increased illness, time off of work to care for babies that
>get sick more often, and other related health problems
This is another YMMV issue. Some kids are just really strong and
healthy and just don't get sick even if you drop them in a vat of
viruses; other kids look at a doorknob and start sneezing. And the
first one might be ff'd and the second, bf'd.
Later,
Pam
P. Reilly
I second Pam's comment. My 5 month-old, who has, for all his life, been
primarily formula fed, has never had so much as a sniffle. He has had a
fair amount of exposure to a variety of people - we never did keep him
in the house for that six week period - and we have a houseful of pets.
I have friends whose babes are exclusively BF who have had all kinds of
problems with their babies having colds and the like. I do have to say
that my son had a pretty healthy dose of colostrum and BM his first two
months - but formula alone does not a sick baby make.
Pamela
Peggy
>
> pe...@linmax.sao.arizona.edu,NewsGroups writes:
> >It is horribly expensive isn't it and that doesn't include the hidden
> >costs of increased illness, time off of work to care for babies that
> >get sick more often, and other related health problems
>
> This is another YMMV issue.
YMMV, but studies have conclusively shown that among the general
population, that is among groups of people, that breastfed babies get
sick less often and also when they are sick they have less severe
symptoms.
Here's a Table of antimicrobial factors in human milk you might find
interesting:
http://www.latrobe.edu.au/www/microbio/table1.html
>Some kids are just really strong and
> healthy and just don't get sick even if you drop them in a vat of
> viruses; other kids look at a doorknob and start sneezing. And the
> first one might be ff'd and the second, bf'd.
But, studies have shown, over and over again, that among the general
population formula feeding can cause direct links between:
SIDS, insulin dependent diabetes, cow milk allergy, respiratory
illness, otitis media, childhood cancer, gastrointestinal disease and
infections, urinary tract infection, contamination due to bottle
feeding, and allergies.
Frankly, it's a roll of the dice and how do you know your own baby
might not develop some of these diseases at a later date?
With the weight of medical evidence against formula feeding how can
one consider this a "personal choice"? After all, our children are the
ones who will live with the consequences of our decision.
All the best,
Peggy
Kim
I try really hard not to get in on the bottle vs breast debates because
it never ends. However, you are starting to get on my nerves. Yes, we
all know breastfeeding is best, but not everyone wants to do it. If you
think that makes me a bad mother, then so be it. We all know breastfed
babies never get sick. (Sarcasim of course) Kim
Amy Kreager
Amy
angela wrote:
--
Michael David Jones
>I bottle fed and my son had non of these problems .
You can *probably* drive around without wearing your seat belt for a
year or so and not have any problems. That doesn't make it the best
idea.
Mike Jones | jon...@rpi.edu
Though the future's there for everyone to change,
Still you know it seems
It would be easier sometimes to change the past.
- Jackson Browne, "Fountain of Sorrow"
Michael David Jones
>>You can *probably* drive around without wearing your seat belt for a
>>year or so and not have any problems. That doesn't make it the best
>>idea.
>your turn to be in an accident. Oh ya, don't walk out of your house, the
>shingles might fall on your head. C'mon., get real, if it wasn't for formula,
>lots and lots of kids would starve to death. Yes, we all know that breastmilk
>is best. But is it best if the mother resents doing it? Bottlefeeding is not
>one of the great contributions to ills in our society.
This is as far wrong as the people who say you should feel guilty
about not breastfeeding. The idea that "lots and lots" of kids would
"starve to death" is just plain wrong. They didn't starve to death
before formula was available. The question is what is a *realistic*
amount of risk and whether the people who choose to formula feed do it
with knowledge of the actual risk they are assuming. It is a fact that
the death rate in the first year of life is higher for formula fed
babies. Are you being neglectful if you give your baby formula? I
wouldn't say so; the death rate isn't that much higher and everyone
has to make their own choices regarding risk, but anyone who chooses
to not breastfeed should know that there is a better choice for the
health of their baby.
Mike Jones | jon...@rpi.edu
In an age when we have more choice than ever before, more mobility,
more information, more opportunity to fulfill ourselves, how is it that
people can prefer to be identical?
- John Brunner, The Shockwave Rider
angela
Raymond (Marty) Mason wrote in message
<7261ub$6c7$1...@oak.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>
>Barbara Fraire wrote in message <7250o2$3...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>>In article <364509CF...@intersatx.net>, Amy Kreager>>Repeat after me: "The plural of anecdote is not data."
>>
>>Be well, Barbara (Julian's mom)
>>========================
>A bit arrogant, aren't we? Jeez, Amy was sharing her experiences with the
>group. Where in the "rule book" does it say we must not share personal
>anecdotes....that we can *only* share data?? Get off your high horse...
If I might point out, Amy didn't actually share anything with the group. She
merely attempted, with a few words and her own single experience, to
discredit a previous post (not quoted here) wherein someone pointed out that
when you look at the millions of children who are fed formula, and the
millions who are breastfed, you see more problems with illness and allergies
among those fed formula than among those fed human milk.
It's not that I (or Barbara) disbelieve her. It's just that her anecdote,
however true, doesn't alter facts or general health trends in society, and
does not itself constitute data. It is not arrogance to point this out,
because many people mistake anecdotes for Truth.
--angela b
LeapnLizzy
>year or so and not have any problems. That doesn't make it the best
>idea.
Actually, maybe you shouldn't even go out in a car, you never know when it is
your turn to be in an accident. Oh ya, don't walk out of your house, the
shingles might fall on your head. C'mon., get real, if it wasn't for formula,
lots and lots of kids would starve to death. Yes, we all know that breastmilk
is best. But is it best if the mother resents doing it? Bottlefeeding is not
one of the great contributions to ills in our society.
Beth
Mom of 2
Due Dec 98
St. Cloud, MN
rbrand
while I breastfed all of my children,And would advise women to, if you
don't want to you won't be any good at it. I've know women bagdered into
nursing and due to the fact that they hated it they had poor milk supply
and ended up weening at a very early age. Bottle or breast, who cares In
the long run, as long as you love and care for your baby, that's what
matters.
Rhonda
dio...@iscweb.com wrote in article <71rm86$c4r$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> I am a new mother to be and I am reading all I can on the Net about the
> breast vs. the bottle, but it seems nowadays that there's hardly even an
> argument, since almost everyone with a vocal opinion seems pro-breast.
Well,
> this concerns me because I was planning to bottle feed from the
beginning!
> Since it seems to be such a hot topic and I seem to be the minority
opinion,
> which is very unusual for me, I am looking at my reasons for wanting to
> bottle feed and reassurance that my logic and morality aren't flawed
> is that I take medications that complicate breastfeeding. #2 is that I
would
> like to take turns doing nightly feedings with my husband so I can
actually
> get some rest and be a functional mother to my baby, plus then my husband
> economic situation I plan to go back to work early and don't want to have
to
> feeding and find it somehow unpalatable (no pun intended), not for weird
> religious reasons or anything, it just seems "icky" to me, although I
fully
> matter of practicalities for me then philosophy. #6 Even though I know
> studies have shown breast fed infants have better immune systems, the
health
> problems related to bottle feeding are not necessarily chopped liver. In
> short, although breast milk is the ideal food for infants, formula is a
> argument here, but I still feel the way that I feel and highly doubt it
will
> change. I think breast feeding is ideal for women with high levels of
> patience and a good economic situation for the infants first months of
life.
is
> unreal. I strongly plan to have a natural childbirth and raise my child
as
> well as I humanly can. Already I love my unborn baby so much that all I
want
> is the best for my baby that I can provide as a less then perfect human
> being. Okay, am I totally messed up for not wanting to breastfeed? Thanks
>
one...@gsinet.net
Hello new-mother-to-be!
Thanks for being honest... it's refreshing. That word moral will surely
get you in trouble-- it isn't politically correct and often seems to
step on some toes. IMHO and spiritual arena, I believe our Creator
expects us to be free thinkers, transformed, not conforming to the
world's ideals. I don't know where you're coming from but if you can
see BF as a source of nutrition, then is it moral to give your baby the
gold of nutrition?
Of course you love your baby and he? she? loves you. You are his
world!! While most folk may *say* breast is best, the majority do bottle
feed (US). You seem to have some reasonable objections to BFing. Maybe
I can ally some of those concerns. I think it's hard to describe how
you will blossom once you birth that baby. This love just almost bursts
and suddenly you become mother lion ready to protect that babe with all
your might (ok, it might take a few minutes...). That said, I would
encourage you to at least make an INFORMED decision whether you BF or
formula feed or a combo.
I too thought it was icky. I mean-- my chest, my nipples (hush tones).
I had never seen a baby nursed up close. Have you yet? It's a lot
different when you know the person BFing-- takes the mystique out of it.
Could I suggest that you attend a few La Leche League mtgs to check it
out? These veteran Moms really helped us. They talk about common
concerns, working, the transition from couple to parents etc. That way
if after a few meetings, you have some basic info and met real moms
doing it, AND still have no desire for it you can say in an honesty, I
examined this and *chose* not to.
As for $$, working etc. We thought we'd have to have me go back early
too. But, my husband made the sacrifice for us and got a second job.
Then he quit his reg job and got a better job w/a different company.
Like I said, once that tike is born--- you'll want to do everything you
can to be there & protect her. We got creative and learned how to do
without a few things, or defer and save $. Then after a year I started
back per diem. Working and nursing works, no need to wean. And two
boons-- great kid health (very few dr visits) and the weight came off
FAST!!
Hope this helps! Shalom, Daleen
To find a La Leche meeting near you, check out their directory:
http://www.lalecheleague.org/
and the top reasons why some folk formula feed:
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~kolina/advantages-of-formula.html
FUSHIMI, Emma
Bottlefeeding may not be one of the great contributions to ills in
Western society, but it kills many many babies (due to contaminated
water/poor sanitation etc) in developing countries where the formula
companies aggressively market their products. I object to formula for
political reasons and refuse to contribute to the vile practices the
formula companies. Read `Milk Money and Madness - the culture and
politics of breastfeeding` (Naomi Baumslag and Dia Michels).
Off rant!
Emma mum to Maya (11/11/97) and #2 next April
In article <7233kb$d...@alumni.rpi.edu>, jon...@alumni.rpi.edu (Michael
David Jones) wrote:
t. & p. & t.
>
#1
> is that I take medications that complicate breastfeeding. #2 is that I would
> like to take turns doing nightly feedings with my husband so I can actually
> get some rest and be a functional mother to my baby, plus then my husband
> will have more chance to bond with our child. #3 is that, because of my
> economic situation I plan to go back to work early and don't want to have to
> wean at such a young age. #4 is that I just feel no attraction to breast
> feeding and find it somehow unpalatable (no pun intended), not for weird
> religious reasons or anything, it just seems "icky" to me, although I fully
> support women who find this natural process beautiful. #5 It's more of a
> matter of practicalities for me then philosophy.
1. OK, could be a good reason, depending on the medication & the
complications.
2. This business about hubbies only getting to bond with their babies
if they feed them is totally untrue. He can hold your baby for hours a
day without feeding, and trust me, they'll be bonded. Talking, cuddling,
diapering, napping...
3. Returning to work doesn't mean you have to wean. Pumping can
really work.
4. Well, I guess you could say it's kind of icky to grow a baby in your
tummy and push it out your vagina, too. But right now, that's the only
way to get a baby. If breastfeeding hadn't been sexualized &
stigmatized, if formula hadn't become this commercially pushed
product, I doubt so many women would feel "icky" about nursing.
5. Nursing is much more practical, IMO. No bottles to wash (unless
you pump, even then, fewer), none of that gross (to me) formula
powder to deal with, no bottle warming in the middle of the night,
and the diapers smell a LOT nicer.
I am certainly not trying to convince you to change your mind, but
since you are going out of your way to invite comment, I'm obliging.
t.r., "still" nursing Torin, who's 2 years, 9 months
mpea...@cybersurf.net
KAL...@webtv.net (Kim) wrote:
> Peggy
> I try really hard not to get in on the bottle vs breast debates because
> it never ends.
No, it is really because it is morally untenable to needlessly fill
defenceless, vulnerable--and voiceless--human beings with the dead, deficient
substance of artificial, synthetic milk and thereby depriving them of their
birthright nature intended. In short, it's because deep down you know
needlessly (i.e. without a medical reason) depriving your offspring of its
birthright to the natural standard of breastmilk is morally indefensible.
> However, you are starting to get on my nerves.
On my nerves are people like you who seek to trivialize the importance of
breastfeeding to ease their conscience about having needlessly deprived their
own progeny of the birthright to breastmilk--an intrinsically irreplaceable
component to the integrity of human development.
> Yes, we
> all know breastfeeding is best,
This oft-abused term "best" can be very misleading as it incorrectly suggests
that the variety and number of breastmilk's essential organic constituents
are superfluous when in fact they are just the right, adequate content for
the infant's needs; the misuse of the term apparently does a good job of
misleading the benighted public into inferring that the woefully deficient
substance of artificial, synthetic milk is adequate and thereby "good" rather
than a last resort for survival.
> but not everyone wants to do it.
If those certain people want to shirk the essential part of responsible
motherhood, shouldn't they perhaps reconsider the thought of having a baby?
> We all know breastfed
> babies never get sick. (Sarcasim of course) Kim
As much as you try to trivialize breastfeeding's intrinsic importance to the
integrity of human development, the simple indisputable fact remains:
breastmilk makes the best of a dysgenetically predisposed offspring or "a
baby with corrupt genes making it illness-prone." So why do you try to
peddle the ludicrous rationalization above as an excuse to shirk
breastfeeding when in fact breastmilk minimizes the health problems of a
genetically illness-prone infant while artificial, synthetic milk only
exacerbates them?!
You shouldn't have to be reminded that only breastmilk provides the complex
variety of nutrients, compounds, hormones and other organic constituents
essential to an offspring's corporeal, cognitive and immunogenic integrity.
As was noted earlier, if needlessly compromising the development of your
offspring's corporeal, cognitive, or immunogenic integrity doesn't bother
you, then of course there is always the substandard, deficient nutrition of
formula waiting for you.
If depriving offspring of breastmilk were of trivial importance or of merely
negligible consequence, breastfeeding would be neither needed nor so strongly
pushed by the reputable health authorities in the AAP, WHO, and UNICEF.
Teresa Prud'homme
>if they feed them is totally untrue. He can hold your baby for hours a
>day without feeding, and trust me, they'll be bonded. Talking, cuddling,
>diapering, napping...
This comment always gets me. You hear from so many that they will
bottlefeed so dad can bond. Well, Brady has never had a bottle and I just
don't see the bonding problem. From the time he was little, dad rocked
him, held him, walked him, bathed him, changed him, loved him and slept
in the recliner with B on his chest. For some reason they "still" managed
to bond. :)
Brady is almost 16 months now and every weekday we start looking for dad
out the window when that time comes. He sees his dad's work van coming up
the street and yells "dada dada" over and over. Then he runs to the door
to wait for him. So, even though dad never gave 1 single bottle, for some
reason Brady still likes him.
Teresa
Mary_...@tvo.org
a baby involves a moral responsibility - most parents feel that they owe
their children the best they are able to give them, no matter how hard that
is. The children did not ask to be born, we chose to bring them here - and
that places a burden of moral responsibility on us to do the very best we can
with what we have available to us. To give them the best care, the best
protection and the best opportunities we possibly can. So, looking at it
honestly, can we really say that if we have an open choice about something
(i.e. both choices are possible and do-able), and we KNOW that one of the
choices is inferior, that choosing the inferior option is not immoral?
No one can make you feel guilty. Guilt comes from an awareness of not having
lived up to your own moral standards. No moral standards...no guilt.
mpea...@cybersurf.net
KAL...@webtv.net (Kim) wrote:
> Peggy
> I try really hard not to get in on the bottle vs breast debates because
> it never ends.
No, it is really because it is morally untenable to needlessly fill
defenceless, vulnerable--and voiceless--human beings with the dead,
deficient substance of artificial, synthetic milk and thereby depriving
them of their birthright nature intended. In short, it's because deep down
you know needlessly (i.e. without a medical reason) depriving your
offspring of its birthright to the natural standard of breastmilk is
morally indefensible.
> However, you are starting to get on my nerves.
On my nerves are people like you who seek to trivialize the importance of
breastfeeding to assuage their guilty conscience about having needlessly
deprived their progeny of the birthright to breastmilk--an intrinsically
irreplaceable component to the integrity of human development.
> Yes, we
> all know breastfeeding is best,
This oft-abused term "best" can be very misleading as it incorrectly
suggests that the variety and number of breastmilk's essential organic
constituents are superfluous when in fact they are just the right, adequate
content for the infant's needs; the misuse of the term apparently does a
good job of misleading the benighted public into inferring that the
woefully deficient substance of artificial, synthetic milk is adequate and
thereby "good" rather than a last resort for survival.
> but not everyone wants to do it.
If those certain people want to shirk the essential part of responsible
motherhood, shouldn't they perhaps reconsider the thought of having a baby?
> We all know breastfed
> babies never get sick. (Sarcasim of course) Kim
As much as you try to trivialize breastfeeding's intrinsic importance to the
integrity of human development, the simple indisputable fact remains:
breastmilk makes the best of a dysgenetically predisposed offspring or "a
baby with corrupt genes making it illness-prone." So why do you try to
peddle the ludicrous rationalization above as an excuse to shirk
breastfeeding when in fact breastmilk minimizes the health problems of a
genetically illness-prone infant whereas artificial, synthetic milk only
serves to exacerbates them?!
You shouldn't have to be reminded that only breastmilk provides the complex
variety of nutrients, compounds, hormones and other organic constituents
essential to an offspring's corporeal, cognitive and immunogenic integrity.
As was noted earlier, if needlessly compromising the development of your
offspring's corporeal, cognitive, or immunogenic integrity doesn't bother
you, then of course there is always the substandard, deficient nutrition of
formula waiting for you.
If depriving offspring of breastmilk were of trivial importance or of
merely negligible consequence, breastfeeding would be neither needed nor so
strongly pushed by the reputable health authorities in the AAP, WHO, and
UNICEF.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Michael David Jones
>So far, I haven't seen too many posting dealing with the moral issue. Having
>a baby involves a moral responsibility - most parents feel that they owe
>their children the best they are able to give them, no matter how hard that
>is. The children did not ask to be born, we chose to bring them here - and
>that places a burden of moral responsibility on us to do the very best we can
>with what we have available to us. To give them the best care, the best
>protection and the best opportunities we possibly can. So, looking at it
>honestly, can we really say that if we have an open choice about something
>(i.e. both choices are possible and do-able), and we KNOW that one of the
>choices is inferior, that choosing the inferior option is not immoral?
The problem with that (and I'm about a pro-breastfeeding as anyone
you'll ever meet) is that none of us - NONE OF US - put the best
choice for our children in front of what we need - or want - 100% of
the time. I don't believe it's possible, and if it were it certainly
wouldn't be psychologically healthy for either parent or child. I
don't think you can apply a label like "immoral" to an activity unless
doing it (or not doing it) is going to have a large immediate material
impact on the child. Yes, breastfeeding is better. Yes, I believe it
would be better for both mothers and children if everyone who is
physically able would breastfeed. But it's not an ideal world. There
are mothers whose attitudes - developed over the course of their lives
- are such that they are effectively psychologically unable to
breastfeed. I do not feel anger at these people as though they were
doing something to harm their children. I feel sad for these people
because they are unable to experience something wonderful. Most of
them are trying to to THEIR BEST to raise their children, and they
deserve our help and support, not our scorn.
Mike Jones | jon...@rpi.edu
Not enough design time occurs up front because the boss starts asking
"Why isn't Sam coding anything?" This is the WISCA syndrome, which
sabotages early planning in the interest of giving the appearance of
making progress.
- P. J. Plauger
Hamilton
> Mary_...@tvo.org writes:
> >So far, I haven't seen too many posting dealing with the moral issue. Having
> >a baby involves a moral responsibility - most parents feel that they owe
> >their children the best they are able to give them, no matter how hard that
> >is. The children did not ask to be born, we chose to bring them here - and
> >that places a burden of moral responsibility on us to do the very best we can
> >with what we have available to us. To give them the best care, the best
> >protection and the best opportunities we possibly can. So, looking at it
> >honestly, can we really say that if we have an open choice about something
> >(i.e. both choices are possible and do-able), and we KNOW that one of the
> >choices is inferior, that choosing the inferior option is not immoral?
Oh how priggish can you get? Parents make countless choices every day
that are not perfect -- life goes on. I doubt there is a parent alive
who has not put their child at greater risk by many of their choices
than they have by their choice of infant feeding . e.g. Do you sacrifice
your retirement $ in order to always buy a very expensive large safe car
like a Volvo or Mercedes to make automobile accidents less likely to
be fatal? [even if a $40 K car is hard for you to buy -- I bet you
could do it if you took a second job, or mortgaged the house again, or
made other sacrifices] Do you forbid your child to ever drive in anyone
else's economy size car? If you don't do this, then you are choosing
an inferior option and you are immoral!! Yeah, right.
I breast fed mine for years -- think it is a good thing to do -- but
have no illusions that in a country where good safe formula is available
that this is an earth shatteringly important choice with major
consequences for most babies. To suggest that another mother's compromises
are 'immoral' when her choice has such minor consequences for her children
without putting ALL of one's own choices under the microscope is
pretty sanctimonious.
Barbara Fraire
>I bottle fed and my son had non of these problems .
>Amy
Repeat after me: "The plural of anecdote is not data."
Be well, Barbara (Julian's mom)
========================
"Outside of a dog, a book is surely a man's best friend. Inside of a dog,
it's too dark to read." -- Groucho Marx
Reply to ci...@worldnet.att.net
Pamela A. O'Keefe
>Pamela A. O'Keefe wrote:
>>
>> pe...@linmax.sao.arizona.edu,NewsGroups writes:
>> >It is horribly expensive isn't it and that doesn't include the hidden
>> >costs of increased illness, time off of work to care for babies that
>> >get sick more often, and other related health problems
>>
>> This is another YMMV issue.
>YMMV, but studies have conclusively shown that among the general
>population, that is among groups of people, that breastfed babies get
>sick less often and also when they are sick they have less severe
>symptoms.
>Here's a Table of antimicrobial factors in human milk you might find
>interesting:
>http://www.latrobe.edu.au/www/microbio/table1.html
>>Some kids are just really strong and
>> healthy and just don't get sick even if you drop them in a vat of
>> viruses; other kids look at a doorknob and start sneezing. And the
>> first one might be ff'd and the second, bf'd.
>But, studies have shown, over and over again, that among the general
>population formula feeding can cause direct links between:
>SIDS, insulin dependent diabetes, cow milk allergy, respiratory
>illness, otitis media, childhood cancer, gastrointestinal disease and
>infections, urinary tract infection, contamination due to bottle
>feeding, and allergies.
The operative word being "can"-- not "does", not "will", but "can". I
"can" walk across the street and get plowed down by a city bus, too.
If your sentence read "formula feeding *causes* SIDS, diabetes, yadda,
yadda, yadda," then you would be right in having a fit over someone
deciding, because she has to take medication, that she's going to ff
instead of bf. However, everything you listed can be directly caused
by things *other* than ff, too.
>Frankly, it's a roll of the dice and how do you know your own baby
>might not develop some of these diseases at a later date?
>With the weight of medical evidence against formula feeding how can
>one consider this a "personal choice"? After all, our children are the
>ones who will live with the consequences of our decision.
Quite frankly, Peggy, it *is* a personal choice. I don't think you
will find a soul on this board who would say that bf'ing is *not* best.
However, *you* are not the one deciding to ff, someone else is. *You*
have not one shred of cold, hard proof that her child will be any worse
off if she does ff.
I have chosen to begin ff'ing because I do *not* want to give my child
bm tainted w/ medication. Would you give your child medicine s/he
didn't need? Would you deny yourself medicine that you *did* need?
Perhaps you would-- but that is *your personal choice*.
Later,
Pam
Pamela A. O'Keefe
>Going a little OT I know but.......
>Bottlefeeding may not be one of the great contributions to ills in
>Western society, but it kills many many babies (due to contaminated
>water/poor sanitation etc) in developing countries where the formula
>companies aggressively market their products. I object to formula for
>political reasons and refuse to contribute to the vile practices the
>formula companies. Read `Milk Money and Madness - the culture and
>politics of breastfeeding` (Naomi Baumslag and Dia Michels).
>Off rant!
>Emma mum to Maya (11/11/97) and #2 next April
And if we were in a third world country, I'd be right there w/ you
saying, "No way-- do NOT ff-- it will cause serious problems."
However, I think most of us assume that the original poster lives in a
country where clean water is available.
Later,
Pam
Pamela A. O'Keefe
>This is as far wrong as the people who say you should feel guilty
>about not breastfeeding. The idea that "lots and lots" of kids would
>"starve to death" is just plain wrong.
As the mother of a son who probably *would* have starved to death (or
at least become severely dehydrated) if we hadn't bottlefed him, I must
wonder what the *heck* you think you're talking about.
>They didn't starve to death
>before formula was available. The question is what is a *realistic*
>amount of risk and whether the people who choose to formula feed do it
>with knowledge of the actual risk they are assuming.
Why is the assumption *always* that people are uninformed? Granted,
many are. However, the orignator of the thread did not sound
uninformed. If she had been, IMO, she would not have listed her
*first* reason for not bf'ing as being that she will be taking
medication that she does not wish to pass on, via bm, to her child.
Would *you* give your child medicine s/he doesn't need?
>It is a fact that
>the death rate in the first year of life is higher for formula fed
>babies. Are you being neglectful if you give your baby formula? I
>wouldn't say so; the death rate isn't that much higher and everyone
>has to make their own choices regarding risk, but anyone who chooses
>to not breastfeed should know that there is a better choice for the
>health of their baby.
> Mike Jones | jon...@rpi.edu
>In an age when we have more choice than ever before, more mobility,
>more information, more opportunity to fulfill ourselves, how is it that
>people can prefer to be identical?
> - John Brunner, The Shockwave Rider
Later,
Pam
Pamela A. O'Keefe
>In article <6440-364...@newsd-153.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
> KAL...@webtv.net (Kim) wrote:
>> Peggy
>> I try really hard not to get in on the bottle vs breast debates
>because
>> it never ends.
>No, it is really because it is morally untenable to needlessly fill
>defenceless, vulnerable--and voiceless--human beings with the dead,
>deficient
>substance of artificial, synthetic milk and thereby depriving them of
>their
>birthright nature intended. In short, it's because deep down you know
>needlessly (i.e. without a medical reason) depriving your offspring of
>its
>birthright to the natural standard of breastmilk is morally
>indefensible.
You know, if you aren't also 100% against abortion, I'd have to call
you a complete hypocrite.
Anyway, that said, I for one think that the reason given, taking
medication, makes the breastmilk tainted. If *I* decide that I would
prefer feeding formula to my baby rather than *tainted* breastmilk,
that's what I'm going to do. And in fact, that's what I *am* doing.
Yes, breastmilk is the norm-- it is not necessarily common, but it is
normal. Yes, feeding formula to a baby is abnormal. So is the need
for the mother to take medication.
I personally don't mind your position all that much-- except for in
this thread. Bottle-feeding, in and of itself is *not* evil. Get over
it.
Later,
Pam
>> However, you are starting to get on my nerves.
>On my nerves are people like you who seek to trivialize the importance
>of
>breastfeeding to ease their conscience about having needlessly deprived
>their
>own progeny of the birthright to breastmilk--an intrinsically
>genetically illness-prone infant while artificial, synthetic milk only
Enid Y. Karr
>
> As much as you try to trivialize breastfeeding's intrinsic importance to the
> integrity of human development, the simple indisputable fact remains:
> breastmilk makes the best of a dysgenetically predisposed offspring or "a
> baby with corrupt genes making it illness-prone." So why do you try to
> peddle the ludicrous rationalization above as an excuse to shirk
> breastfeeding when in fact breastmilk minimizes the health problems of a
> genetically illness-prone infant while artificial, synthetic milk only
> exacerbates them?!
>
> You shouldn't have to be reminded that only breastmilk provides the complex
> variety of nutrients, compounds, hormones and other organic constituents
> essential to an offspring's corporeal, cognitive and immunogenic integrity.
>
> As was noted earlier, if needlessly compromising the development of your
> offspring's corporeal, cognitive, or immunogenic integrity doesn't bother
> you, then of course there is always the substandard, deficient nutrition of
> formula waiting for you.
>
> If depriving offspring of breastmilk were of trivial importance or of merely
> negligible consequence, breastfeeding would be neither needed nor so strongly
> pushed by the reputable health authorities in the AAP, WHO, and UNICEF.
>
Guess I'm doomed, then ;)
Homestly, while I believe breastfeeding ought to be advocated, I think
your methods
are only going to irritate people. I don't see anyone being persuaded by
this
kind of inflamtory talk.
Enid
Barbara Fraire
D Klau) wrote:
>In article <7250o2$3...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, "Barbara Fraire"
><xx...@out.out.damned.spam!> wrote:
>
>> In article <364509CF...@intersatx.net>, Amy Kreager
>> <jus...@intersatx.net> wrote:
>>
>> >I bottle fed and my son had non of these problems .
>> >Amy
>>
>> Repeat after me: "The plural of anecdote is not data."
>>
>
>Barbara,
>
>I love this, can I use it, too? :-)
Of course! I stole it from someone else, though, so I can't take much credit
;->!
Be well, Barbara (Julian's mom)
========================
"Adam and Eve had many advantages; chief among them that they escaped
teething." - Mark Twain
Reply to ci...@worldnet.att.net
LeapnLizzy
>Homestly, while I believe breastfeeding ought to be advocated, I think
>your methods
>are only going to irritate people. I don't see anyone being persuaded by
>this
>kind of inflamtory talk.
>
>Enid
>
Ditto, Ditto, Ditto....!!!!!
Raymond (Marty) Mason
>>Amy
>
>
>========================
Simu...@my-dejanews.com
KAL...@webtv.net (Kim) wrote:
> Peggy
> I try really hard not to get in on the bottle vs breast debates because
> it never ends.
No, it is really because it is morally untenable to needlessly fill
defenceless, vulnerable--and voiceless--human beings with the dead, deficient
substance of synthetic milk, depriving them of their birthright nature
intended. In short, it's because deep down you know needlessly (i.e. without
a medical reason) depriving your offspring of its birthright to the natural
standard of breastmilk is morally indefensible.
> However, you are starting to get on my nerves.
On my nerves are people like you who seek to trivialize the importance of
breastfeeding to assuage their guilty conscience about having needlessly
deprived their progeny of the birthright to breastmilk--an intrinsically
irreplaceable component to the integrity of human development.
> Yes, we
> all know breastfeeding is best,
This oft-abused term "best" can be very misleading as it incorrectly suggests
that the variety and number of breastmilk's essential organic constituents
are superfluous when in fact they are just the right, adequate content for
the infant's needs. The misuse of the term apparently does a good job of
misleading the benighted public into inferring that the woefully deficient
substance of artificial, synthetic milk is adequate and thereby
"good"--rather than what it actually is: the inferior substitute to be used
only as a last resort for survival, when breastfeeding is medically
impossible.
> but not everyone wants to do it.
If those certain people want to shirk the essential part of responsible
motherhood, shouldn't they perhaps reconsider the thought of having a baby?
> We all know breastfed
> babies never get sick. (Sarcasim of course) Kim
As much as you try to trivialize breastfeeding's intrinsic importance to the
integrity of human development, the simple indisputable fact remains:
breastmilk makes the best of a dysgenetically predisposed offspring or "a
baby with corrupt genes making it illness-prone." So why do you try to
peddle the ludicrous rationalization above as an excuse to shirk
breastfeeding when in fact breastmilk minimizes the health problems of a
genetically illness-prone infant while artificial, synthetic milk only
exacerbates them?!
You shouldn't have to be reminded that only breastmilk provides the complex
variety of nutrients, compounds, hormones and other organic constituents
essential to an offspring's corporeal, cognitive and immunogenic integrity.
As was noted earlier, if needlessly compromising the development of your
offspring's corporeal, cognitive, or immunogenic integrity doesn't bother
you, then of course there is always the substandard, deficient nutrition of
formula waiting for you.
If depriving offspring of breastmilk were of trivial importance or of merely
negligible consequence, breastfeeding would be neither needed nor so strongly
pushed by the reputable health authorities in the AAP, WHO, and UNICEF.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
mpea...@cybersurf.net
"Raymond (Marty) Mason" <marty...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Barbara Fraire wrote in message <7250o2$3...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
> >In article <364509CF...@intersatx.net>, Amy Kreager
> ><jus...@intersatx.net> wrote:
> >
> >>Amy
> >
> >
> >Be well, Barbara (Julian's mom)
> >========================
> A bit arrogant, aren't we? Jeez, Amy was sharing her experiences with the
> group. Where in the "rule book" does it say we must not share personal
> anecdotes....that we can *only* share data?? Get off your high horse...
Unfortunately, Mr. Mason, you are the one out of order. Peddling any dubious
anecdote or specious conclusion (as the one above) as though it were a
probative datum refuting what pediatric science has long established
contributes nothing to this discussion or our understanding; rather it only
serves to promote and foster public ignorance about this important health
issue.
Pamela A. O'Keefe
>If those certain people want to shirk the essential part of responsible
>motherhood, shouldn't they perhaps reconsider the thought of having a
>baby?
So *this* is "the essential part of responsible motherhood?"
Breastfeeding is it folks! I guess once that child is done nursing,
there are no essential parts of motherhood left and we can all just
leave them at the bus stop or something and let someone else take care
of them.
Sheesh.
The good part of this: I might not quit being judgemental myself, but
I'll certainly have a better idea of the impact of my words when I am.
Later,
Pam
kerri
>Well, we had 25 good posts before someone came along trying to start a
>war. Probably a record.
I was thinking the same thing! :-)
--kerri
Peggy
Emma wrote:
> >Western society, but it kills many many babies (due to contaminated
> >water/poor sanitation etc) in developing countries where the formula
> >companies aggressively market their products. I object to formula for
> >political reasons and refuse to contribute to the vile practices the
> >formula companies. Read `Milk Money and Madness - the culture and
> >politics of breastfeeding` (Naomi Baumslag and Dia Michels).
>
> >Off rant!
>
> >Emma mum to Maya (11/11/97) and #2 next April
>
>
> And if we were in a third world country, I'd be right there w/ you
> saying, "No way-- do NOT ff-- it will cause serious problems."
> However, I think most of us assume that the original poster lives in a
> country where clean water is available.
The problem is that it is not only in the so-called third world that
fake mommy milk causes problems. Many children (and their parents)
here in the US are suffering from the ill effects of formula. The
problem is the common misconception that formula is just as good as
mother's milk; it is not, it is a *poor* substitute with clear health
risks.
It does not contain the proper nutrients for human brain development.
It does not contain the anti microbial factors that help human babies
fight off environmental germs. It also puts a significant portion of
its users at risk for severe allergy.
I think the facts should speak for themselves. Many of us made the
decision to formula feed or supplement based on the idea that formula
was in fact equal to human milk. How many of us would have made that
decision if we were aware of how poor a substitute it really is? There
is no guilt for a mother making a decision based on poor information.
But, do we really want our daughter's to continue to feed their babies
this poor substitute? That is why it is so important that the true
facts about formula and the horrible and misleading practices of the
profit seeking mega companies who sell this slop should be open
knowledge to all mothers.
I am not questioning your own right to choose the possibility of
contamination and allergy and disease over possible ill effects of
medication -- that is your right. We need to make these choices based
on clear and precise information, not on the advertisements of those
who make enormous profits like the formula companies. We deserve, as
mothers, to know as much as we can, and that information needs to be
the truth!
Peggy
Pamela A. O'Keefe
>The problem is that it is not only in the so-called third world that
>fake mommy milk causes problems. Many children (and their parents)
>here in the US are suffering from the ill effects of formula. The
>problem is the common misconception that formula is just as good as
>mother's milk; it is not, it is a *poor* substitute with clear health
>risks.
<rest of sanctomonious, jugdemental, overblown post snipped>
It is a *substitute*, period. No substitute will meet the standards of
the real thing. But a *poor* substitute? Get off your high horse,
Peggy.
You mention something about how poorly brains develop on formula.
Again, I say, get over it. My formula fed first born, who is now seven
years old, is about 3/4 of the way through the second grade. Go look
at your calendar and do the math. And he's working on tougher
curriculum than is assigned in the public schools.
No, as one person quipped (and I might use the line myself) the plural
of anecdote is *not* data. However, the data do not support the
contention that formula is poisonous, or ruining the health and
well-being of our children. The data support that breastmilk is the
normal food for infants and that it promotes optimal development.
OTOH, this does NOT mean that formula *undermines* optimal
development-- it merely means that formula is not as good as
breastmilk. But when there are compelling (for the mother!) reasons
not to breastfeed, formula is a GOOD THING.
Perhaps, if the original poster's only reason for not wanting to
breastfeed was that she thought it was icky, we might be doing her and
her infant a service in attempting to change her mind. However, if she
listened and *still* thought it was icky, would it be helpful for her
do carry all that negative baggage into what the rest of us know to be
a beautiful, joyous experience? Have you never done something that you
resented? Have you done something that you resented doing, and done a
good job at it anyway? If so, you are a better person than I.
Later,
Pam
Dard M. Mason
>It's not that I (or Barbara) disbelieve her. It's just that her
>anecdote,
>however true, doesn't alter facts or general health trends in society,
>and
>does not itself constitute data. It is not arrogance to point this out,
>because many people mistake anecdotes for Truth.
Sure it doesn't alter the truth (whatever that may be). However, many
times people share their experiences with the group....I feel she was
only telling *her* side of the feeding issue and that's totally
appropriate here. I think it *is* arrogant to point out that her
experiences weren't relevant, especially since the style of the
"rebutal" post was sarcastic. Also, please doen't be so condescending
to assume that all of us, who read this newsgroup, are so stupid that
we can see the difference between what one person experienced and what
the data of a much larger group supports. We didn't get lobotomies
when we got pregnant, we still can use our brains.
Dard
>--angela b
Dard M. Mason
>Unfortunately, Mr. Mason, you are the one out of order. Peddling any
>dubious
>anecdote or specious conclusion (as the one above) as though it were a
>probative datum refuting what pediatric science has long established
>contributes nothing to this discussion or our understanding; rather it
>only
>serves to promote and foster public ignorance about this important
>health
>issue.
Whoa......take a break, this is not a scientific community. This is a
newsgroup that is frequented my many different types of people who
share their personal experiences. Go back and read the original post,
it merely tells of one person's experiences, who are you to say that
they aren't valid? When were you appointed moderator? Sharing
experiences is what this group is about. Too bad we all can have
experiences that fit your personal agenda, but heck.....that's life! I
support breastfeeding, but I don't believe militant tactics like yours
do the "cause" any good. If fact, I think people who are as pushy as
you seem to be do more harm than good. Most people don't respond to
well to aggressive, unyeilding people who are trying to force their
beliefs down other people's throats.
Dard
Peggy
>
> >The problem is that it is not only in the so-called third world that
> >fake mommy milk causes problems. Many children (and their parents)
> >here in the US are suffering from the ill effects of formula. The
> >problem is the common misconception that formula is just as good as
> >mother's milk; it is not, it is a *poor* substitute with clear health
> >risks.
>
> <rest of sanctomonious, jugdemental, overblown post snipped>
>
> It is a *substitute*, period. No substitute will meet the standards of
> the real thing. But a *poor* substitute? Get off your high horse,
> Peggy.
No. It is a *poor* substitute. The formula companies lied to me and
they lied to you. So, what can we do about it? Feel guilty and
responsible for being taken in by false and deceptive advertising? Not
me. I would rather get mad. Mad at the doctors and nurses who help
promote it and mad at the companies who give them the money. Women
need to quit snipping at one another and fight the real bad guys --
the ones who make so much money off of us that they have millions to
throw away on cute little commercials and hospitals and doctors.
> You mention something about how poorly brains develop on formula.
> Again, I say, get over it. My formula fed first born, who is now seven
> years old, is about 3/4 of the way through the second grade. Go look
> at your calendar and do the math. And he's working on tougher
> curriculum than is assigned in the public schools.
An interesting data point, but studies have shown a clear 10 point
increase in intelligence in babies who were breastfed. Does that mean
breastmilk is superior? No. It means that formula is inferior and
lacking in essential components.
> No, as one person quipped (and I might use the line myself) the plural
> of anecdote is *not* data. However, the data do not support the
> contention that formula is poisonous, or ruining the health and
> well-being of our children.
No, as research continues (something our mother's generation did not
have access to) the overwhelming evidence among the general population
is that formula *does* cause significant health problems, is often
contaminated itself with inaccurate levels of minerals, and does not
promote optimal development of the human baby. Those are the facts
that are supported by specific references.
>The data support that breastmilk is the
> normal food for infants and that it promotes optimal development.
> OTOH, this does NOT mean that formula *undermines* optimal
> development-- it merely means that formula is not as good as
> breastmilk.
I'm sorry but that is exactly what lack of optimal development is.
When they show that formula isn't as good that means that it has
negative effects. We're talking human growth and development here --
not a good tasting breakfast cereal.
>But when there are compelling (for the mother!) reasons
> not to breastfeed, formula is a GOOD THING.
Absolutely. And that mother has the right and the need to know the
truth about what she is going to use. Forcing accountability on the
formula companies means they will be forced to make better products,
not worse.
Formula companies use the cheapest product they can, the runoff whey
from curds, to make formula. It is not the closest thing to mother's
milk they can get; it is the cheapest. Don't you wish, since you made
the decision based on your own heath to use formula, that it was the
very best product for your baby, rather than the cheapest with the
most margin for profit?
Peggy
Turid Mevold
| No, as one person quipped (and I might use the line myself) the plural
| of anecdote is *not* data. However, the data do not support the
| contention that formula is poisonous, or ruining the health and
| well-being of our children.
And if formula were _soooo_ bad, wouldn't our generation, the ff
generation, have more people with really poor health?
I bf, but my way of promoting bfing (not that much needed as I live in
a country where 70% of the babies are still bfd at nine months) is
nursing in public if Lydia gets hungry in public, and telling people I
plan on bfing as long as Lydia wants it.
--
Turid Mevold / tme...@online.no
Mum to Lydia Marie, born 980721.
Lydia's playground:
http://www.geocities.com/Wellesley/Garden/8660/
Dard M. Mason
>Unfortunately, Mr. Mason, you are the one out of order. Peddling any
>dubious
>anecdote or specious conclusion (as the one above) as though it were a
>probative datum refuting what pediatric science has long established
>contributes nothing to this discussion or our understanding; rather it
>only
>serves to promote and foster public ignorance about this important
>health
>issue.
Whoa......take a break, this is not a scientific community. This is a
newsgroup that is frequented my many different types of people who
share their personal experiences. Go back and read the original post,
it merely tells of one person's experiences, who are you to say that
they aren't valid? When were you appointed moderator? Sharing
experiences is what this group is about. Too bad we all can't have
Edward and Phantom MacLennan
>
> >This is as far wrong as the people who say you should feel guilty
> >about not breastfeeding. The idea that "lots and lots" of kids would
> >"starve to death" is just plain wrong.
>
> As the mother of a son who probably *would* have starved to death (or
> at least become severely dehydrated) if we hadn't bottlefed him, I must
> wonder what the *heck* you think you're talking about.
Not Mr. Jones, but... I think the reference was not that *no* child
would starve to death without some form of alternative to milk directly
from mother (there are clear examples where this is the case), but that
the term "lots and lots" was not an apt estimation of those numbers.
"Some" "a few" or even "several" would have been a much better choice of
words than "lots and lots".
>
> >They didn't starve to death
> >before formula was available. The question is what is a *realistic*
> >amount of risk and whether the people who choose to formula feed do it
> >with knowledge of the actual risk they are assuming.
>
> Why is the assumption *always* that people are uninformed? Granted,
> many are. However, the orignator of the thread did not sound
> uninformed. If she had been, IMO, she would not have listed her
> *first* reason for not bf'ing as being that she will be taking
> medication that she does not wish to pass on, via bm, to her child.
> Would *you* give your child medicine s/he doesn't need?
This is where that "personal choice" thing comes into play. If it were
me, and the medication I was taking was not directly counterindicated in
breastfeeding, I would rather my child get minute amounts of a
medication they didn't need than feed formula. Someone else might make
a different decision, as you did. By the way, how is that going?
Phan
Beki
in a society where only about 50% of babies ever get any breastmilk, it
can be hard to imagine breastfeeding is better than bottlefeeding after
all "all those babies had formula and grew up just fine".
if you are really against breastfeeding, i say do not do it. however, if
there is any postive feelings towards breastfeeding, i say do it.
remember, god or the goddess is still giving us breasts that about 95% of
the time produce enough breastmilk for whatever size baby we have (i have
nursed 2 babies with different results...will get into that soon).
there is quite a difference between bottlefeeding and breastfeeding. in
the long run it is way cheaper and easier on mom and dad, which is hard
for most people in this bottlefeeding culture to imagine, when they rarely
see a baby over even 1 or 2 months still nursing. think about it, no
formula to buy or prepare or travel with....instant gratification and
comfort for your baby.
you will need to feed your baby on demand or you will not produce enough
milk, esp if you have a small baby like mine. i took the bad advice of a
ped. and only fed #1 every 2-3 hours, for only 10 min a side, within weeks
i had not enough milk for her. for #2, i fed her every 45min to 2 hours,
when she wanted milk, and i started her off on one breast and let her
finish it, then the next feeding she would get the other breast until at 3
weeks she could finish both in one feeding! i was so proud of her. in this
fashion, she was able to get her foremilk and hindmilk in one session and
actually gained weight and i had lots of milk for her! i was proud of
myself too, for following the advice of breast feeding moms, and my own
research.
you can bf even if you work. you can definately breastfeed, even if you
live in the woods, cause, hey, it is free! i can loan you my breastpump if
you need one. all throught the thousands of years of mankind, until the
greedy rich women wanted wetnurses, and this century with our blind faith
of some corporations to make artificial inferior breastmilk substitutes to
feed our flesh and blood, women have breastfed their babies and thought
nothing more of it.
i urge anyone to consider breastfeeding and please follow my advice, not a
pediatrician who rather get a pen and paper pad from a formula manuf than
urge you to feed your baby the way nature intended.
sorry to get on the soapbox there, but bf is religion to me.
beki
Trish Stewart
with more than one account? Once was more than enough, thanks.
And please...if you feel the need to restate this all again, do mince words.
This isn't a term paper, you don't get graded on obnoxious vocabulary. Not only
does it impress no one, but I'd guess many readers didn't bother to read past the
first paragraph.
Trish (A bit pissy tonight, can you tell? *smile*)
DL8605
have 3 adopted kids and I HAD to formula feed them. I had no choice but to
feed them this inferior dangerous product. Except for the fetal alcohol
syndrome that affects one of them, they're all healthy. Two of them have only
had one ear infection in their lives. None of them are prone to infections of
other kinds. The oldest was a fragile preemie born at 29wks who was on
pregestimil, then isomil, then whole milk and he is perfectly healthy. He's
also an A student. (I bet if he'd been breast-fed, he'd be a genius!) I
wanted to be a mother more than life itself and I agree that breastmilk is
"best" but that doesn't mean that formula is "bad" and "dangerous" to use. I
read so much here that puts down women. I can't believe how hateful and
non-supportive women are to each other. It is truly disgusting. As an
adoptive mother, I already had "failed" at conception. Now, it seems I also
"failed" at feeding because I had no choice but to bottle feed. Finally, I had
a biological child this past summer and breastfed for two months. It was a
wonderful experience and if I ever have another child, I'll do it again. I am
now bottle feeding this child. He drinks Similac with iron. He's also 5mo
old, weighs nearly 19 pounds, is 28 inches long, rolls over, babbles, has
reached all of his developmental milestones earlier than the "books" say he
should, and has NEVER been sick. It seems to me that he is thriving just fine.
I sure don't want to argue with anyone about the mechanisms of intelligence
but I think intelligence is also an INHERITED thing. I like to think that I'm
smart. I also know my husband is bright, too. My son is a bright active baby
but it's also a matter of genetics, as well as nutrition! All the optimum
nutrition in the world can't help you if you're not genetically programmed to
be intelligent!
I have no problem with anyone encouraging breastfeeding. I do it ALL the
time. I love helping moms continue to breastfeed their sick infants. I feel
sad when they have to stop or if it's not working for them. However, I also
know that infant formulas are safe to use.
Lisa
DL8605
score at least 10 points higher in intelligence. I read an article somewhere
that this study is ongoing and so far, the current study hasn't been able to
recreate those numbers. (Statistics are a WONDERFUL thing.......you can twist
them to and fro and ANYTHING is true!) Even so, I took an IQ test when I was
in college and mine is supposedly 132 - An extra ten points probably wouldn't
improve my life. (I was born in 1963 and was fed a brew of canned milk, water,
and caro syrup. My mom also started me on cereal when I was 3wks old, fruits
at 6wks, veggies at 8wks, and meats by 4mo. She also swears I was drinking out
of a cup at 5mo. I assume this is true because I found the formula recipe and
a food record in my baby album.) I was HORRIFIED when I saw this, but that's
how babies were fed then. I survived and I'm perfectly fine......I think.
Lisa (wearing my fire resistent clothing with extinguisher close-by.)
JoAnne Clark
wrote:
>In article <msg247377.thr...@pol.org>, pam...@pol.org (Pamela A.
>O'Keefe) wrote:
>
>> Simu...@my-dejanews.com,NewsGroups writes:
>>
>> >If those certain people want to shirk the essential part of responsible
>> >motherhood, shouldn't they perhaps reconsider the thought of having a
>> >baby?
>>
>> So *this* is "the essential part of responsible motherhood?"
>> Breastfeeding is it folks! I guess once that child is done nursing,
>> there are no essential parts of motherhood left and we can all just
>> leave them at the bus stop or something and let someone else take care
>> of them.
>>
>> Sheesh.
>
>Okay, now that Ari and Miriam are well past weaning, which bus do you
>suppose they should catch?? ;-)
Well past weaning? Oh, hell...since breastmilk is the perfect food
for humans, we should ALL still be nursing. Otherwise our mommies
didn't love us as much as they should have.
JoAnne
-------------------------------------------------------
"Nothing so needs reforming as other people's habits."
-Mark Twain
P. Reilly
> It does not contain the proper nutrients for human brain development.
> It does not contain the anti microbial factors that help human babies
> fight off environmental germs. It also puts a significant portion of
> its users at risk for severe allergy.
And as a mother who tried (but was unable) to breast feed, should I
quake at the future stupidness of my children? Worry that though my son
has not yet been sick, he will be stricken one day with a deadly disease
which he won't be able to fight off? Shield him from peanuts and
strawberries and pollen and pet dander (damn, gotta get rid of the dogs
and cat, I s'pose) and heck, just go ahead and get out the bubble
environment for him, since he was fed formula (and is still fed formula,
as there is no available breast milk around here, thanks to my
uncooperative breasts)? What of those of us who had no alternative, but
apparently have made poor choices regardless of the lack of other
options? To hear you talk about it, letting the poor child die of
starvation would have been a more merciful fate than would have been
switching to formula. Gee, as if motherhood isn't already fraught with
concerns and worries without the specter of poisonous formula (or, as
you so diplomatically call it, "slop") hanging over our heads... Thanks
for the heads-up - think I'll ship my bubble boy off to a group home
right now, as there seems to be no hope for him now that I've doomed him
with Enfamil...
Guilty regards,
Pamela, with Liam (5/21/98) and Inkling (due 4/23/99 - probably will be
formula fed, as well - but maybe I'll just have my tubes tied next time
so as not to poison any more babies)
Simu...@my-dejanews.com
pam...@pol.org (Pamela A. O'Keefe) wrote:
> Simu...@my-dejanews.com,NewsGroups writes:
>
> >If those certain people want to shirk the essential part of responsible
> >motherhood, shouldn't they perhaps reconsider the thought of having a
> >baby?
>
> So *this* is "the essential part of responsible motherhood?"
What sense of the word "part" do you not understand? Don't you think that
perhaps you now have a little more reason to improve your understanding of
basic English given your mistaking the word "part" for its antonym "whole"?
As for the preceding article "the," you failed to recognize the context of
its usage, as in THE understood subject in question.
> Breastfeeding is it folks!
As was duly noted, breastfeeding certainly is the essential part of
motherhood in question.
> I guess once that child is done nursing,
> there are no essential parts of motherhood left and we can all just
> leave them at the bus stop or something and let someone else take care
> of them.
> Sheesh.
I guess this is what is called intentionally malicious misrepresentation.
> The good part of this: I might not quit being judgemental myself, but
> I'll certainly have a better idea of the impact of my words when I am.
In future you can avoid unnecessary embarrassment by being more circumspect.
Simu...@my-dejanews.com
pam...@pol.org (Pamela A. O'Keefe) wrote:
> Simu...@my-dejanews.com,NewsGroups writes:
>
> >If those certain people want to shirk the essential part of responsible
> >motherhood, shouldn't they perhaps reconsider the thought of having a
> >baby?
>
> So *this* is "the essential part of responsible motherhood?"
What sense of the word "part" do you not understand? Don't you think that
perhaps you now have a little more reason to improve your understanding of
basic English given your mistaking the word "part" for its antonym "whole."
Lindsay
P. Reilly wrote in message <3647F3...@charlotte.infi.net>...
>Peggy wrote:
>
>> It does not contain the proper nutrients for human brain development.
>> It does not contain the anti microbial factors that help human babies
>> fight off environmental germs. It also puts a significant portion of
>> its users at risk for severe allergy.
>
>And as a mother who tried (but was unable) to breast feed, should I
>quake at the future stupidness of my children?
Well, heavens! If it's any consolation, I was bottle fed and I have my
Master's Degree. My DH was bottle fed and he's got his DPhil. His sister
was bottle fed and she's a medical doctor who's almost finished her
radiology training. So, we're the ones whose brains were starved of the
proper nutrients for development...
Added to which, my in-laws both worked and as we all know, children
whose parents work don't do as well, academically, as those who have a
stay at home parent.
I hate to think how intelligent DH and Sister in Law would have been if
they'd been breast fed and their mum had stayed at home...
Do what's right for *you*! Formula these days is far better than 30
years ago. And there are some odd people out there who'll look at you
strangely no matter *what* choice you make :-/
Linz
--
oh, not really a pedant, I wouldn't say
reply to: li...@earthling.net
You can also find linz at gofar dot demon dot co dot uk
Edward and Phantom MacLennan
>
> In article <msg247377.thr...@pol.org>,
> pam...@pol.org (Pamela A. O'Keefe) wrote:
> > Simu...@my-dejanews.com,NewsGroups writes:
> >
> > >If those certain people want to shirk the essential part of responsible
> > >motherhood, shouldn't they perhaps reconsider the thought of having a
> > >baby?
> >
> > So *this* is "the essential part of responsible motherhood?"
>
> What sense of the word "part" do you not understand? Don't you think that
> perhaps you now have a little more reason to improve your understanding of
> basic English given your mistaking the word "part" for its antonym "whole."
> As for the preceding article "the," you failed to recognize the context of
> its usage, as in THE understood subject in question.
If you're going to pick on mis-used English, start in your own backyard,
dear. "The essential part of responsible motherhood" most definitely
indicates that this subject, breastfeeding, is the only required part
and all the rest is just fun and frolic, so to speak. "AN essential
part" would have been a much better choice of words, though for a few
women who cannot (for whatever medical reason) provide breastmilk to
their babies, even that may not be an accurate statement.
Phan
kerri
pe...@linmax.sao.arizona.edu says...
>An interesting data point, but studies have shown a clear 10 point
>increase in intelligence in babies who were breastfed. Does that mean
>breastmilk is superior? No. It means that formula is inferior and
>lacking in essential components.
No. One study showed that *premautre* breastfed infants had an IQ 8 points
higher than their formula-fed counterparts at age 3 (I think it was 3, I'll
have to go back and double check). In this study, though, the population was
self-selected, and thus couldn't be properly controlled for maternal and
environmental factors.
--kerri
Amy Kreager
Amy Kreager wrote:
> I see absolutely No reason to become so nasty about this subject . When it comes
> right down to it , you have to do what makes you comfortable . If you don't feel
> comfortable in public or private breast feeding , don't do it . If you feel breast
> feeding is a wonderful thing and you want to do it , by all means go ahead . But
> as far as I'm concerned there is know right or wrong in this situation.
> Amy
>
> Simu...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > In article <msg247377.thr...@pol.org>,
> > pam...@pol.org (Pamela A. O'Keefe) wrote:
> > > Simu...@my-dejanews.com,NewsGroups writes:
> > >
> > > >If those certain people want to shirk the essential part of responsible
> > > >motherhood, shouldn't they perhaps reconsider the thought of having a
> > > >baby?
> > >
> > > So *this* is "the essential part of responsible motherhood?"
> >
> > What sense of the word "part" do you not understand? Don't you think that
> > perhaps you now have a little more reason to improve your understanding of
> > basic English given your mistaking the word "part" for its antonym "whole."
> > As for the preceding article "the," you failed to recognize the context of
> > its usage, as in THE understood subject in question.
> >
> > > Breastfeeding is it folks!
> >
> > As was duly noted, breastfeeding certainly is the essential part of
> > motherhood in question.
> >
> > > I guess once that child is done nursing,
> > > there are no essential parts of motherhood left and we can all just
> > > leave them at the bus stop or something and let someone else take care
> > > of them.
> > > Sheesh.
> >
> > I guess this is what is called intentionally malicious misrepresentation.
> >
> > > The good part of this: I might not quit being judgemental myself, but
> > > I'll certainly have a better idea of the impact of my words when I am.
> >
> > In future you can avoid unnecessary embarrassment by being more circumspect.
> >
> > -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> > http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
> --
> "To love another person is to see the face of God."
> - Lyric from Les Miserables -
hha...@xs4all.nl
<pu...@charlotte.infi.net> wrote:
>Peggy wrote:
>
>> It does not contain the proper nutrients for human brain development.
>> It does not contain the anti microbial factors that help human babies
>> fight off environmental germs. It also puts a significant portion of
>> its users at risk for severe allergy.
>And as a mother who tried (but was unable) to breast feed, should I
>quake at the future stupidness of my children? Worry that though my son
>has not yet been sick, he will be stricken one day with a deadly disease
>which he won't be able to fight off? Shield him from peanuts and
>strawberries and pollen and pet dander (damn, gotta get rid of the dogs
>and cat, I s'pose) and heck, just go ahead and get out the bubble
>environment for him, since he was fed formula (and is still fed formula,
>as there is no available breast milk around here, thanks to my
>uncooperative breasts)? What of those of us who had no alternative, but
>apparently have made poor choices regardless of the lack of other
>options? To hear you talk about it, letting the poor child die of
>starvation would have been a more merciful fate than would have been
>switching to formula. Gee, as if motherhood isn't already fraught with
>concerns and worries without the specter of poisonous formula (or, as
>you so diplomatically call it, "slop") hanging over our heads... Thanks
>for the heads-up - think I'll ship my bubble boy off to a group home
>right now, as there seems to be no hope for him now that I've doomed him
>with Enfamil...
Come on, Pamela,
I grew on Similac because my mother had no milk and I survived it....
I have heard of mothers who couldn't feed their first, but who did
have milk for nr. 2. Maybe maybe maybe this goes for you too.
I hope it does, because I like breastfeeding even though we have a lot
of trouble with it. I still think (with 100% pumping for 6 weeks and
lots of latching on problems to this day, about week 14) it is easier
than bottle feeding, leaving aside any possible health issues....
>Guilty regards,
>Pamela, with Liam (5/21/98) and Inkling (due 4/23/99 - probably will be
>formula fed, as well - but maybe I'll just have my tubes tied next time
>so as not to poison any more babies)
I am sorry you are getting sarcastic about this. I do hope Liam and
the little one to be are doing well and I am sure you give them
everyting you possibly can, just not what is impossible for you.
Who-ever blames you for that is a very insensible person.
Heleen Hayes
hha...@xs4all.nl
da...@hotmail.com
I'm not sure which study you mean, Kerri (maybe the paper in the Lancet?), but
there is a larger body of research than one paper on premature infants, and
there is at least one longitudinal study. Here are some references you may want
to look up (from www.promom.org - excellent site for anyone interested in
breastfeeding):
The latest study to support this statement was done in New Zealand. Here an 18
year longitudinal study of over 1,000 children found that those who were
breastfed as infants had both better intelligence and greater
academic achievement than children who were infant-formula fed. Horwood
and Fergusson, "Breastfeeding and Later Cognitive and Academic
Outcomes", Jan 1998 Pediatrics Vol. 101, No. 1
Morrow-Tlucak M, Haude RH, Ernhart CB. Breastfeeding and cognitive development
in the first 2 years of life. Soc Sci Med. 1988:26;635-639
Lucas A., "Breast Milk and Subsequent Intelligence Quotient in Children Born
Preterm". Lancet 1992;339:261-62
Wang YS, Wu SY. The effect of exclusive breastfeeding on development and
incidence of infection in infants. J Hum Lactation. 1996; 12:27-30
As I said before, I don't think this is a moral issue, but a health issue. For
some babies, formula is truly lifesaving. There are certainly cases where the
risks of not using formula outweigh the risks of using it. Still, the risks of
using substitutes for human milk are very real and are well-documented, and they
encompass many aspects of the child's development and well-being. A summary of
risks of formula is available from the American Academy of Pediatrics statement
on breastfeeding, and more info can be found at Promom's site and La Leche
League's web site.
Dale Rosenberg
Beki
> years ago. And there are some odd people out there who'll look at you
> strangely no matter *what* choice you make :-/
i would agree with that, however there is still not the essential elements
to aid HUMAN brain and immune development, after all, formula is still
made from cow's milk or soy. it is interesting to note in europe,
ingredients are added to formula to aid in brain development, according to
a fantastic nutritionalist i know who was among the only 4-5% of women who
are physically unable to breastfeed, and she added ingredients to her
daughter's formula herself....i am sorry, but again if someone does not
want to breastfeed, that is truly fine with me, but i really do not truly
understand how ANYONE can feel formula is as good as breastmilk. beki
da...@hotmail.com
breastfeeding and cognitive development. These are collected by Dr. Jack
Newman.
Dale
Cognitive Development
CD (review): Andraca I, Uauy R. Breastfeeding for optimal mental development.
Simopoulos AP, Dutra de Oliveira JE, Desai ID (eds): Behavioral and Metabolic
Aspects of Breastfeeding. World Rev Nutr Diet. Basel, Karger, 1995;78:1-27
CD-1: Morrow-Tlucak M, Haude RH, Ernhart CB. Breastfeeding and cognitive
development in the first 2 years of life. Soc Sci Med 1988;26:635-9
CD-2: Taylor B, Wadsworth J. Breastfeeding and child development at five years.
Dev Med Child Neurol 1984;26:73-80
CD-3: Lucas A, Morley R, Cole TJ, Lister G, Leeson-Payne C. Breastmilk and
subsequent intelligence quotient in children born preterm. Lancet 1992;339:261-4
CD-4: Nettleton JA. Are n-3 fatty acids essential nutrients for fetal and infant
development. J Am Diet Assoc 1993;93:58-64
CD-5: Rogan WJ, Gladen BC. Breastfeeding and cognitive development. Early Hum
Dev 1993;31:181-93
CD-6: Silver LB, Levinson RB, Laskin CR, Pilot LJ. Learning disabilities as a
probable consequence of using chloride-deficient infant formula. J Pediatr
1989;115:97-9
CD-7: Willoughby A, Moss HA, Hubbard VS, Bercu BB, Graubard BI, Vietze PM, et
al. Developmental outcome in children exposed to chloride deficient formula.
Pediatrics 1987;79:851-7
CD-8: Wing CS. Defective infant formulas and expressive language problems: a
case study. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools 1990;21:22-7
CD-9: Crawford MA. The role of essential fatty acids in neural development:
implications for perinatal nutrition. Am J Clin Nutr 1993;57(suppl):703S-10S
CD-10: Temboury MC, Otero A, Polanco I, Arribas E. Influence of breastfeeding on
the infant’s intellectual development. J Pediatric Gastroenterol Nutr
1994;18:32-36
CD-11: Pollock JI. Longterm associations with infant feeding in a clinically
advantaged population of babies. Dev Med Child Neur 1994;36:429-40
CD-12: Makrides M, Neumann MA, Byard RW, Simmer K, Gibson RA. Fatty acid
composition of brain, retina and erythrocytes in breast and formula fed infants.
Am J
Clin Nutr 1994;60:189-94
CD-14: Anderson GJ, Connor WE, Corliss JD. Docosohexaenoic acid is the
preferred dietary n-3 fatty acid for the development of the brain and retina.
Pediatr
Res 1990;27:87-97
CD-15: Neuringer M, Connor WE, Lin DS, Barstad L, Luck S. Biochemical and
functional effects of prenatal and postnatal fatty acid deficiency on retina and
brain
in rhesus monkeys. Proc Natl Acad Sc USA 1986;83:4021-5
CD-16: Florey C Du V, Leech AM, Blackhall A. Infant feeding and mental and motor
development at 18 months of age in first born singletons. Int J Epidem 1995;24
(Suppl 1):S21-6
CD-17: Wang YS, Wu SY. The effect of exclusive breastfeeding on development
and incidence of infection in infants. JHL 1996;12:27-30
CD-18: Greene LC, Lucas A, Livingstone BE, Harland PSEG, Baker BA.
Relationship between early diet and subsequent cognitive performance during
adolescence. Biochem Soc Trans 1995;23:376S
CD-19: Riva E, Agostoni C, Biasucci G, Trojan S, Luotti D, Fiori L, et al. Early
breastfeeding is linked to higher intelligence quotient scores in dietary
treated
phenylketonuric children. Acta Pædiatr 1996;85:56-8
CD-20: Niemelä A, Järvenpää A-L. Is breastfeeding beneficial and maternal
smoking
harmful to the cognitive development of children? Acta Pædiatr 1996;85:1202-6
CD-21: Rodgers B. Feeding in infancy and later ability and attainment: a
longitudinal
study. Devel Med Child Neurol 1978;20:421-6
CD-22: Horwood LJ, Fergusson DM. Breastfeeding and later cognitive and academic
outcomes. Pediatrics 1998;101:p. e9
In article <729p08$b...@drn.newsguy.com>, da...@hotmail.com says...
Beki
> read so much here that puts down women. I can't believe how hateful and
> non-supportive women are to each other. It is truly disgusting. As an
> adoptive mother, I already had "failed" at conception. Now, it seems I also
> "failed" at feeding because I had no choice but to bottle feed.
Finally, I had
i for one do not feel that way. i have an adoptive neice who was never
breastfed...
> a biological child this past summer and breastfed for two months. It was a
> wonderful experience and if I ever have another child, I'll do it again. I am
> now bottle feeding this child. He drinks Similac with iron. He's also 5mo
> old, weighs nearly 19 pounds, is 28 inches long, rolls over, babbles, has
> reached all of his developmental milestones earlier than the "books" say he
> should, and has NEVER been sick. It seems to me that he is thriving
just fine.
that is great!
> sad when they have to stop or if it's not working for them. However, I also
> know that infant formulas are safe to use.
yes. they must be, in the first world at least :) but seriously, you as
well as others realize breastmilk is the best start-and finish for babies.
A liquid invented in a laboratory, is to me, never the best substitute for
infants. we are talking about a lifestyle choice in this century. perhaps
a "i was abused as a child" or "my breasts belong to my husband" choice.
fine. but let's not ever say formula is better for babies. it would be
great if formula was made from human milk...or avail by prescription. i
think i better shut up now!
beki
kerri
>>An interesting data point, but studies have shown a clear 10 point
>>increase in intelligence in babies who were breastfed. Does that mean
>>breastmilk is superior? No. It means that formula is inferior and
>>lacking in essential components.
In article <729p08$b...@drn.newsguy.com>, da...@hotmail.com says...
>I'm not sure which study you mean, Kerri (maybe the paper in the Lancet?)
Yup.
>there is a larger body of research than one paper on premature infants
Showing a 10 point higher IQ in breastfed kids? Where?
>Here are some references you may want to look up
I've looked up, and discussed, most of these before.
>Horwood
>and Fergusson, "Breastfeeding and Later Cognitive and Academic
>Outcomes", Jan 1998 Pediatrics Vol. 101, No. 1
>Morrow-Tlucak M, Haude RH, Ernhart CB. Breastfeeding and cognitive development
>in the first 2 years of life. Soc Sci Med. 1988:26;635-639
This study did not measure IQ. It was based on the Bayley Scales of development
(a subjective developmental test that measures cognitive development, among other
things. A statistically significant difference was found at age four months,
but...
"At age 6 months, the direction of the relationship...did not reach
significance...Alternative explanations for the results are discussed."
No mention of controls.
>Lucas A., "Breast Milk and Subsequent Intelligence Quotient in Children Born
>Preterm". Lancet 1992;339:261-62
That's on preterm infants. And...
"Children whose mothers chose to provide milk but failed to do so had the same IQ
as those whose mothers elected not to provide breast milk."
Only controls in this study were mother's education and social class. Inadequate.
>Wang YS, Wu SY. The effect of exclusive breastfeeding on development and
>incidence of infection in infants. J Hum Lactation. 1996; 12:27-30
Famously uncontrolled study. Also, didn't measure intelligence at all.
>Taylor B, Wadsworth J. Breastfeeding and child development at five years. Dev
>Med Child Neurol 1984;26:73-80
"It is concluded that breast feeding may have an effect on children's development
at five years..."
..but was inconclusive due to inadequate controls.
>Nettleton JA. Are n-3 fatty acids essential nutrients for fetal and infant
>development. J Am Diet Assoc 1993;93:58-64
Basically, fetuses and preterm infants need DHA to avoid retinal problems. Eat a
lot of fish in your last trimester. LNA may provide adequate amounts if a
deficiency is found, for example, in a preterm infant.
>Rogan WJ, Gladen BC. Breastfeeding and cognitive development. Early Hum
>Dev 1993;31:181-93
"a volunteer, 95% white sample of middle class children" which was uncontrolled.
And, "Testers were not specifically blind to feeding method."
>Silver LB, Levinson RB, Laskin CR, Pilot LJ. Learning disabilities as a
>probable consequence of using chloride-deficient infant formula. J Pediatr
> 1989;115:97-9
Can't even get an abstract on this one, sorry.
>Willoughby A, Moss HA, Hubbard VS, Bercu BB, Graubard BI, Vietze PM, et
>al. Developmental outcome in children exposed to chloride deficient formula.
> Pediatrics 1987;79:851-7
Current infant formula is not chloride deficient. If I remember correctly, this
study was instigated as a result of formula that had to be recalled.
>Wing CS. Defective infant formulas and expressive language problems: a
>case study. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools 1990;21:22-7
Ditto above.
This is getting tedious...maybe I'll finish later...
--kerri
Simu...@my-dejanews.com
the8...@visi.net wrote:
> Simu...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <msg247377.thr...@pol.org>,
> > pam...@pol.org (Pamela A. O'Keefe) wrote:
> > > Simu...@my-dejanews.com,NewsGroups writes:
> > >
> > > >If those certain people want to shirk the essential part of responsible
> > > >motherhood, shouldn't they perhaps reconsider the thought of having a
> > > >baby?
> > >
> > > So *this* is "the essential part of responsible motherhood?"
> >
> > What sense of the word "part" do you not understand? Don't you think that
> > perhaps you now have a little more reason to improve your understanding of
> > basic English given your mistaking the word "part" for its antonym "whole."
> > As for the preceding article "the," you failed to recognize the context of
> > its usage, as in THE understood subject in question.
>
> dear. "The essential part of responsible motherhood" most definitely
> indicates that this subject, breastfeeding, is the only required part
> and all the rest is just fun and frolic, so to speak.
For the record, I had already identified the relevant matter of the subject
as "an intrinsically irreplaceable component." Using the article "the" in a
reply some space below simply denoted it as understood from logical
inference, so a solecism it is not when read in context. Apparently the
previous poster's omission of the critical excerpt caused some confusion.
Nonetheless, upon review I see I could have written more clearly and intend
to do so in future, so I still appreciate your effort.
> Phan
JoAnne Clark
>In article <msg247377.thr...@pol.org>,
> pam...@pol.org (Pamela A. O'Keefe) wrote:
>> Simu...@my-dejanews.com,NewsGroups writes:
>>
>> >If those certain people want to shirk the essential part of responsible
>> >motherhood, shouldn't they perhaps reconsider the thought of having a
>> >baby?
>>
>> So *this* is "the essential part of responsible motherhood?"
>
>What sense of the word "part" do you not understand? Don't you think that
>perhaps you now have a little more reason to improve your understanding of
>basic English given your mistaking the word "part" for its antonym "whole."
>As for the preceding article "the," you failed to recognize the context of
>its usage, as in THE understood subject in question.
But you didn't refer to breastfeeding as "*this* essential part of
motherhood," you referred to it as THE (as in "the one and only")
essential part of motherhood. FYI, "the" means "this one." How else
is someone supposed to interpret your words as anything other than
"this ONE essential part of responsible motherhood" as if there are no
others? Essential means "necessary" i.e. "this ONE NECESSARY part of
motherhood" as if all other parts of motherhood were less important,
if not UNnecessary. FWIW, I have no doubt that you do, in fact, think
breastfeeding to be the *most* important thing you can do as a mother,
and you are somehow negligent if you don't breastfeed. Certainly,
your obnoxious, sanctimonious post indicates thusly.
>> Breastfeeding is it folks!
>
>As was duly noted, breastfeeding certainly is the essential part of
>motherhood in question.
Don't be coy. That isn't what you meant.
>I guess this is what is called intentionally malicious misrepresentation.
No, this is what I'd call a pretty good interpretation of what YOU
wrote. Your post indicated that you have nothing but contempt for
women who choose not to breastfeed, regardless of whatever other
qualities they may bring to motherhood.
Think about it.