Breast is best, was Re: Internet survey - should mothers breastfeed in public?
shmily
--
x-no-archive:yes
RICECRISPI <ricec...@aol.comtreat> wrote in message
news:20000506171832...@ng-fs1.aol.com...
> > That is what mothering is all
> >about: nurturing and nursing your baby, anything else is a total fake
job,
> >especially on your baby with his bottle of sludge propped up in a
stroller.
> >shmily
>
> now this isn't fair. I know plenty of GREAT moms who chose to bottle
feed. I
> know one lady who SO wanted to breast feed, and her milk NEVER came in ...
About 1-2% of the mothers cannot biologically breastfeed. The others are
just making excuses. It's like feeding a two year old fast food.
>
> OTOH, not every woman is comfortable with that choice,
If a mom cannot "choose" to feed the best food on earth to her baby, even
though she *can*, then why does she have children? If she loves then so
much why doesn't she care enough to feed them the best food on earth.
98-99% of mothers can breastfeed, yet much lees do, and much less than that
even stop after a few weeks. It's selfishness that has no place when
caring for an infant.
Deborah
deaths a year would be avoided.
--
Deborah
Dorothy wrote:
: your business and it won't *harm* her baby. Any deaths from formula
: that have occurred have been in third world countries and for
: reasons that do not have much to do with those in the US or other
: high tech societies where bottle feeding is safe, nutritious and not
: something you should be browbeating mothers about.
shmily
Folks, attitudes like Karen's and Mary's are what keep alot of women from
even trying breastfeeding, or even breastfeeding for more than a few weeks
or months, or even trying to overcome small nursing problems like
positioning. It's these kind of attitudes that contribute to 20,000
deaths per year.
Norma
--
x-no-archive:yes
Deborah <spa...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:wv1R4.8901$OO6.9...@nnrp4.clara.net...
shmily
--
x-no-archive:yes
toto <tot...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:e2a9hs8g9sd6kcioc...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 07 May 2000 09:11:31 +1000, Robert Davidson
> <s03...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>
> >toto wrote:
> >
> >> Any deaths from formula
> >> that have occurred have been in third world countries and for
> >> reasons that do not have much to do with those in the US or other
> >> high tech societies where bottle feeding is safe, nutritious and not
> >> something you should be browbeating mothers about.
> >
> >Since when did this discussion become restricted to "the US or other high
tech
> >societies"? Man, I'm sick of the yank-dominated attitude of usenet.
> >
> >Robert Davidson
>
> All I was talking about here was the attitude of Norma towards women
> who choose bottle feeding. It's none of her business if they do and
> no one has a right to guilt trip them about it.
Yet according to WHO 20,000 babies would not die every year if breastfed.
That makes it every person's business, because it is a serious health
threat!
N
shmily
--
x-no-archive:yes
just me <thede...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Ba4R4.34249$x4.10...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> "shmily" <shm...@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:u8FAbG8t$GA.227@cpmsnbbsa03...
> Yes, and lots of folks would not die annually if they took the flu shot,
and
> a bunch more would not die if they didn't have unprotected sex. Are you
> proposing some legislation, world-wide or otherwise to force all parents
to
> provide breast milk for all children? Be careful, you are walking out
onto
> some very thin ice when you start discussing legislating mores and norms.
What I *mean* is that if people did like Mary and Karen did not *frown* on
nursing in public, and if it were more positively *accepted*, more mothers
would breastfeed and it would save *lives*. It is *less* destructive to
give Coca Cola to a toddler for a refreshment! Laws are not needed,
people need to stop *validating* snotty attitudes like nursing in public is
somehow wrong! And you *know* it! ~fume~ !!!!!
KatNipper
If certain people in this group had your attitude, more mothers
would be willing to breastfeed, imo. It's the militants that
scare so many away.
~Nancy~
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
shmily
> scare so many away.
> ~Nancy~
No, from the posts we have seen on the breastfeeding newsgroups in the past,
it is unsupportive doctors and friends and family that scare so many away,
and that is the truth Nancy.
Charlotte Millington
recently? Am I thinking of someplace else?
just me (thede...@earthlink.net) wrote:
: "shmily" <shm...@msn.com> wrote in message
: news:OEotMo8t$GA.206@cpmsnbbsa03...
: >
: >
: > --
: > x-no-archive:yes
: > just me <thede...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
: > news:Ba4R4.34249$x4.10...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
: > > > Yes, and lots of folks would not die annually if they took the flu
: shot,
: > and
: > > a bunch more would not die if they didn't have unprotected sex. Are you
: > > proposing some legislation, world-wide or otherwise to force all parents
: > to
: > > provide breast milk for all children? Be careful, you are walking out
: > onto
: > > some very thin ice when you start discussing legislating mores and
: norms.
: >
: >
: >
: > What I *mean* is that if people did like Mary and Karen did not *frown* on
: > nursing in public, and if it were more positively *accepted*, more mothers
: > would breastfeed and it would save *lives*. It is *less* destructive
: to
: > give Coca Cola to a toddler for a refreshment! Laws are not needed,
: > people need to stop *validating* snotty attitudes like nursing in public
: is
: > somehow wrong! And you *know* it! ~fume~ !!!!!
: >
: Certainly, if we could fully educate every person in the world that a
: certain thing was the proven, most beneficial way of doing something, more
: people would do that thing. But, not all of them would. And, then the
: educators and those who passionately believed in their cause would find
: themselves in the position of either forcing the remaining individuals to
: comply or acknowledging that there is such a thing as free will and let them
: live their lives as they see fit. The best available example right now is
: smoking. When I smoked I was still able to smoke where-ever I pleased:
: there was no legislation about that at all. But, even then, the Surgeon
: General's warning was on every single pack of US made cigarettes I smoked.
: I knew what it said by heart. But, I chose to smoke. Now the studies are
: seemingly even more conclusive that smoking can cause conditions that lead
: to death [as well as horribly yucky lingering illnesses], and it is much
: harder to find a place to smoke and people treat smokers [generalizing here]
: as social misfits, to put things mildly. But, there are still lots of
: people who make the decision to smoke.
: So, feel free to educate the world about the benefits of breastfeeding
: children. I support that concept whole-heartedly and have done everything
: that I could to support breastfeeding women working for me. But, remember
: that not everyone will agree with you, or agreeing, will feel that they
: still must do what they have chosen that is contrary to what you are
: teaching. There is an old proverb that just might fit in here: Judge not
: that you be not judged. Inform, support, teach, but do not condemn. When
: you condemn you do not support. Start where the person is at and you are
: much more likely to bring them along with you when you try to help them into
: a "better" place.
: -Aula
--
A birth counsellor is someone who watches everybody else when a new baby
enters a room!
Visit http://www.birth.bc.ca!
Charlotte Millington
: "just me" <thede...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
: news:Ba4R4.34249$x4.10...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
: > The only person who has any business caring about a decision to breast or
: > bottle feed is the particular child's parents.
: I must take exception to this:
: Parents - and their children - don't live in a vacuum. It's a mistake to
: think that a person's decisions don't impact anyone else and therefore. If
: a child who is formula-fed is sicker than he would have been if breastfed,
: clearly it impacts that child very personally, not to mention any children
: who become sick through contact with that sick child ...and those childrens'
: families, and so on.
Catherine Young, the editor of The Compleat Mother was diagnosed last year
with breast cancer. The surgery took a quarter of her breast. Now, she
has found out she has spinal cancer. Her doctor has given her two to
eight years to live. She is one of the leading breastfeeding activists in
Canada. She breastfed her children for years. (Breastfeeding is supposed
to reduce your chances of getting cancer.)
Recently, she wrote in her editorial for The Compleat Mother that she was
sitting with a few other women with cancer (four women I believe). All
but one had breastfed. All of the women had been fed carnation milk and
corn syrup as babies. Evidence written up in the Journal of the National
Cancer Institute says: "We have long known breastfeeding protects children
from infection; now evidence suggests its immune-stimulating effects
provide protection against cancer."
While cancer is not a contagious disease, it certainly affects more than
just the child. It also affects the child's children, and the child's
loved ones. For those of us who have seen what cancer does, not only to
the person suffering with cancer, but to the family cancer leaves behind,
any extra prtection is worth it.
Charlotte
: I would say it certainly is my place to care if my child is unnecessarily
: sick because of someone else's "choices".
: --angela
shmily
--
x-no-archive:yes
Karen Horn <kah...@king.cts.com> wrote in message
news:8f2tlk$iqi$9...@thoth.cts.com...
> In alt.parenting.solutions shmily <shm...@msn.com> wrote:
> :
> : If a mom cannot "choose" to feed the best food on earth to her baby,
even
> : though she *can*, then why does she have children?
> :
>
> Maybe she should just commit suicide if her milk doesn't come in and
> let one of you earthmother's raise the kid.
>
> Karen
Idiot. I plainly said above "if she *can*"
shmily
--
x-no-archive:yes
Karen Horn <kah...@king.cts.com> wrote in message
news:8f2to1$iqi$1...@thoth.cts.com...
> In alt.parenting.solutions shmily <shm...@msn.com> wrote:
> : THANK YOU DEBORAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> :
> : Folks, attitudes like Karen's and Mary's are what keep alot of women
from
> : even trying breastfeeding, or even breastfeeding for more than a few
weeks
> : or months, or even trying to overcome small nursing problems like
> : positioning. It's these kind of attitudes that contribute to 20,000
> : deaths per year.
> :
> : Norma
>
> Who said I was anti-breastfeeding? I am anti-people-who-don't-have-
> the-sense-to-plan-20-minutes-ahead.
>
> Karen
I will feed my baby whenever he is hungry wherever I happen to be, and so
will millions of other moms. Deal with it.
shmily
--
x-no-archive:yes
Karen Horn <kah...@king.cts.com> wrote in message
news:8f2ts7$iqi$1...@thoth.cts.com...
> In alt.parenting.solutions shmily <shm...@msn.com> wrote:
> :
> : What I *mean* is that if people did like Mary and Karen did not *frown*
on
> : nursing in public, and if it were more positively *accepted*, more
mothers
> : would breastfeed and it would save *lives*. It is *less* destructive
to
> : give Coca Cola to a toddler for a refreshment! Laws are not needed,
> : people need to stop *validating* snotty attitudes like nursing in public
is
> : somehow wrong! And you *know* it! ~fume~ !!!!!
>
> Wrong again. How quickly you hallucinate. There's nothing wrong
> with breastfeeding, overall it's the way to go. But just because
> a woman is breast feeding doesn't mean she and her kid are the only
> people suddenly on the planet where rules of courtesy no longer apply.
>
> Karen
There is NOTHING discourteous with nursing in public, but there is rudeness
in looking/saying something negative to a nip mother. You don't like nip?
Change the laws. The people have spoken, and they have passed laws
insinuating it is not discourteous or rude and that we have a right to nip
ANYWHERE. Deal with it, it's the law.
Robert Davidson
Deborah
news:e2a9hs8g9sd6kcioc...@4ax.com...
: And we were talking about breastfeeding in public in the US, since
: that it the society where Karen frowns upon it. As far as I know, no
: one in the third world countries or even in Europe is so hung up
: about the fact that women breastfeed and do it when and where
: the infant needs it done.
Sitting here in Europe, begging to differ! Believe me, there are plenty of
places in Europe where breastfeeding is frowned upon, never mind doing it in
public!
Deborah
(in Northern Ireland, which has one of the lowest breastfeeding rates in the
world)
just me
>
>
> --
> x-no-archive:yes
> > who choose bottle feeding. It's none of her business if they do and
> > no one has a right to guilt trip them about it.
>
>
>
> Yet according to WHO 20,000 babies would not die every year if breastfed.
> That makes it every person's business, because it is a serious health
> threat!
>
a bunch more would not die if they didn't have unprotected sex. Are you
proposing some legislation, world-wide or otherwise to force all parents to
provide breast milk for all children? Be careful, you are walking out onto
some very thin ice when you start discussing legislating mores and norms.
The only person who has any business caring about a decision to breast or
bottle feed is the particular child's parents. The parents are the only
ones who have the inherent right to decide how to best care for their child.
Unless someone decides that failure to provide breast milk to all infants is
child abuse and starts prosecuting for that, while removing the children
into foster situations where they would also be unable to obtain breast
milk, then it is only the parent's business and not yours. Oh, well, yes,
it *is* yours in that you should help to educate people. But, effective
education does not bash people for making decisions that they felt were well
thought out. It provides information and lets others make the decisions.
-Aula
D.
"just me" <thede...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Ba4R4.34249$x4.10...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
Thank you, Aula, for stating that so well!!!!
I completely agree with everything you wrote.
just me
>
>
> --
> x-no-archive:yes
> just me <thede...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:Ba4R4.34249$x4.10...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
shot,
> and
> > a bunch more would not die if they didn't have unprotected sex. Are you
> > proposing some legislation, world-wide or otherwise to force all parents
> to
> > provide breast milk for all children? Be careful, you are walking out
> onto
> > some very thin ice when you start discussing legislating mores and
norms.
>
>
>
> nursing in public, and if it were more positively *accepted*, more mothers
> would breastfeed and it would save *lives*. It is *less* destructive
to
> give Coca Cola to a toddler for a refreshment! Laws are not needed,
> people need to stop *validating* snotty attitudes like nursing in public
is
> somehow wrong! And you *know* it! ~fume~ !!!!!
>
Certainly, if we could fully educate every person in the world that a
certain thing was the proven, most beneficial way of doing something, more
people would do that thing. But, not all of them would. And, then the
educators and those who passionately believed in their cause would find
themselves in the position of either forcing the remaining individuals to
comply or acknowledging that there is such a thing as free will and let them
live their lives as they see fit. The best available example right now is
smoking. When I smoked I was still able to smoke where-ever I pleased:
there was no legislation about that at all. But, even then, the Surgeon
General's warning was on every single pack of US made cigarettes I smoked.
I knew what it said by heart. But, I chose to smoke. Now the studies are
seemingly even more conclusive that smoking can cause conditions that lead
Karen Horn
Karen Horn
:
: Folks, attitudes like Karen's and Mary's are what keep alot of women from
: even trying breastfeeding, or even breastfeeding for more than a few weeks
: or months, or even trying to overcome small nursing problems like
: positioning. It's these kind of attitudes that contribute to 20,000
: deaths per year.
:
: Norma
Who said I was anti-breastfeeding? I am anti-people-who-don't-have-
the-sense-to-plan-20-minutes-ahead.
Karen
:
: --
: x-no-archive:yes
: Deborah <spa...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
: news:wv1R4.8901$OO6.9...@nnrp4.clara.net...
:> According to the WHO, if every baby in the US were breastfed, 20,000
: infant
:> deaths a year would be avoided.
:>
:> --
:> Deborah
:>
:> Dorothy wrote:
:>
:> : your business and it won't *harm* her baby. Any deaths from formula
:>
:>
:>
:
:
Karen Horn
: nursing in public, and if it were more positively *accepted*, more mothers
: would breastfeed and it would save *lives*. It is *less* destructive to
: give Coca Cola to a toddler for a refreshment! Laws are not needed,
: people need to stop *validating* snotty attitudes like nursing in public is
: somehow wrong! And you *know* it! ~fume~ !!!!!
Wrong again. How quickly you hallucinate. There's nothing wrong
with breastfeeding, overall it's the way to go. But just because
a woman is breast feeding doesn't mean she and her kid are the only
people suddenly on the planet where rules of courtesy no longer apply.
Karen
:
:
:
:
:
Angela
"just me" <thede...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Ba4R4.34249$x4.10...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> The only person who has any business caring about a decision to breast or
> bottle feed is the particular child's parents.
I must take exception to this:
Parents - and their children - don't live in a vacuum. It's a mistake to
think that a person's decisions don't impact anyone else and therefore. If
a child who is formula-fed is sicker than he would have been if breastfed,
clearly it impacts that child very personally, not to mention any children
who become sick through contact with that sick child ...and those childrens'
families, and so on.
I would say it certainly is my place to care if my child is unnecessarily
Karrde
Karen Horn wrote in message <8f2to1$iqi$1...@thoth.cts.com>...
>the-sense-to-plan-20-minutes-ahead.
Meaning what exactly? That people who would choose to feed their children
crap should plan ahead and use a condom? If that's what you're saying, then
I wholeheartedly agree.
--Jerry
Karrde
Karen Horn wrote in message <8f2tlk$iqi$9...@thoth.cts.com>...>:
>: If a mom cannot "choose" to feed the best food on earth to her baby, even
>: though she *can*, then why does she have children?
>:
>
>Maybe she should just commit suicide if her milk doesn't come in and
>let one of you earthmother's raise the kid.
>
If her milk doesn't come in, then she falls into the 2% of the population
who can't bf. Norma wasn't speaking of them. I know it must be hard, but
try to keep up.
--Jerry
Karrde
KatNipper wrote in message <09ba7aca...@usw-ex0101-007.remarq.com>...
>/me applauds Aula!!
>If certain people in this group had your attitude, more mothers
>scare so many away.
>~Nancy~
If someone can scare you away from doing what you know is best for your
child, then you are too weak-willed to have children. That is the lamest of
all excuses to not bf.
--Jerry
Karrde
Angela wrote in message <8f2ujn$qd4$0...@216.39.147.153>...
>I would say it certainly is my place to care if my child is unnecessarily
>sick because of someone else's "choices".
>
Not to mention incresed health care premiums because of all the added
illnesses. Now that I think of it, bottlefeeders are costing me big money.
Deborah
news:Ba4R4.34249$x4.10...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
: The only person who has any business caring about a decision to breast or
: bottle feed is the particular child's parents. The parents are the only
: ones who have the inherent right to decide how to best care for their
child.
Sorry, but I disagree. You are failing to take into account that when a
mother breastfeeds, her society benefits from lower healthcare costs, less
environmental pollution, & many many other variables.
This argument also fails to take into consideration the rights of the child.
I believe that if you give birth to a child you have a responsibility
towards that child to do your best for it.
I am not saying that those who formula-feed are child abusers. But the fact
of the matter is, that most women who choose not to breastfeed (& many who
choose to do so & fail) are not making their decisions on the basis of
factual information. They are deciding on the basis of poor support &
advice, & on the basis of information provided by formula manufacturers. You
can only make an informed decision if you have the information.
Deborah
shmily
--
x-no-archive:yes
_!!O*_ The MarchHare <march...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:11218-39...@storefull-142.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> ****Parents - and their children - don't live in a vacuum. It's a
> mistake to think that a person's decisions don't impact anyone else and
> therefore. If a child who is formula-fed is sicker than he would have
> been if breastfed, clearly it impacts that child very personally, not to
> mention any children who become sick through contact with that sick
> child ...and those childrens' families, and so on.
> I would say it certainly is my place to care if my child is
> unnecessarily sick because of someone else's "choices".****
>
> Simple question angela? NAME the diseases your child faces by being
> exposed to a bottlefed child?
Uh, statistically formula fed infants get sick much more often than
breastfed infants. From the sniffles all the way to illnesses that can
and do kill the baby, and yes they are contagious *that's the point*:
breastmilk is a natural immunizer.
just me
"Angela" <cho...@theglobe.com> wrote in message
news:8f2ujn$qd4$0...@216.39.147.153...
>
> "just me" <thede...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:Ba4R4.34249$x4.10...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> > The only person who has any business caring about a decision to breast
or
> > bottle feed is the particular child's parents.
>
>
> think that a person's decisions don't impact anyone else and therefore.
If
> a child who is formula-fed is sicker than he would have been if breastfed,
> clearly it impacts that child very personally, not to mention any children
> who become sick through contact with that sick child ...and those
childrens'
> families, and so on.
>
> I would say it certainly is my place to care if my child is unnecessarily
>
Then you are advocating legislating that all parents must breastfeed or
obtain a wet nurse? Are you also advocating that children who are not
breastfed must not be taken out in public or, since their parents have
violated your law, must be removed from parental custody as abused children
and raised in foster care by a wet nurse? Will you make it a requirement
that all parents adopting infants have a wet nurse on standby for when an
infant is identified for them? Further, are you also advocating that all
people, adults and children, who have a hint of any illness [cold, sniffles,
whatever] must be quarantined to their home for the full duration of the
illness as they may well spread the illness further?
I think you may see where I am going with this. While it remains important
for everyone to become as educated as possible on how best to parent, it
also remains the parent's choice how they will use that information. That
is, unless we want to live in Brave New World, 1984, or other similar
societies.
Breast is best. That is true. But, there are individuals who cannot nurse,
others who will not, and those who attempt and do not succeed. If we, as a
people, can focus on supporting those who need our support, and educate
those who do not have the data, then the incidence of breastfeeding will
continue to rise. But, my main point in this whole series of conversations
remains: if you want to convince someone that your information is the
correct information and that they should do what you want to do DON'T BEAT
THEM OVER THE HEAD WITH IT AND ACT JUDGMENTAL! Sorry about yelling but it
appears that a number of folks are getting polarized and have stopped
listening. And, for that very reason, I will probably stop responding to
this particular piece of the conversation because it is becoming very
apparent to me that most of those responding to me are not listening to what
I am saying but rather continue to shout from their bully pulpits even after
the crowd has turned it's back.
-Aula
just me
"Karrde" <Kar...@smugglers.alliance.org> wrote in message
news:Hi8R4.52182$fV.32...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
way I did. Restated: militants in *Any* cause are not particularly
supportive. They are loud, demanding, judgmental, and not easy to approach
with problems in complying with their conception of how things ought to be.
Now, most new movements need a few militants to get it going, so they do
have their place. But, in order to help those who are having difficulty,
some supportive, empathic individuals who get right to where the person is
at [emotionally, etc.] are much more likely to pull the person through their
difficulties. That is basic social work, psychology, and human relations
101.
-Aula
just me
groups noted above! Or, I missed it at aps.
-Aula
"Charlotte Millington" <ye...@vtn1.victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message
news:3915...@news.victoria.tc.ca...
> Haven't we just had the smoker's rights vs. breastfeeding rights debate
> recently? Am I thinking of someplace else?
>
> just me (thede...@earthlink.net) wrote:
>
> : "shmily" <shm...@msn.com> wrote in message
> : news:OEotMo8t$GA.206@cpmsnbbsa03...
> : >
> : >
> : > --
> : > x-no-archive:yes
> : > just me <thede...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> : > news:Ba4R4.34249$x4.10...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> : > > > Yes, and lots of folks would not die annually if they took the flu
> : shot,
> : > and
> : > > a bunch more would not die if they didn't have unprotected sex. Are
you
> : > > proposing some legislation, world-wide or otherwise to force all
parents
> : > to
> : > > provide breast milk for all children? Be careful, you are walking
out
> : > onto
> : > > some very thin ice when you start discussing legislating mores and
> : norms.
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > What I *mean* is that if people did like Mary and Karen did not
*frown* on
> : > nursing in public, and if it were more positively *accepted*, more
mothers
> : > would breastfeed and it would save *lives*. It is *less*
destructive
> : to
> : > give Coca Cola to a toddler for a refreshment! Laws are not
needed,
> : > people need to stop *validating* snotty attitudes like nursing in
public
> : is
> : > somehow wrong! And you *know* it! ~fume~ !!!!!
> : >
>
> : Certainly, if we could fully educate every person in the world that a
> : certain thing was the proven, most beneficial way of doing something,
more
> : people would do that thing. But, not all of them would. And, then the
> : educators and those who passionately believed in their cause would find
> : themselves in the position of either forcing the remaining individuals
to
> : comply or acknowledging that there is such a thing as free will and let
them
> : live their lives as they see fit. The best available example right now
is
> : smoking. When I smoked I was still able to smoke where-ever I pleased:
> : there was no legislation about that at all. But, even then, the Surgeon
> : General's warning was on every single pack of US made cigarettes I
smoked.
> : I knew what it said by heart. But, I chose to smoke. Now the studies
are
> : seemingly even more conclusive that smoking can cause conditions that
lead
> : to death [as well as horribly yucky lingering illnesses], and it is much
> : harder to find a place to smoke and people treat smokers [generalizing
here]
> : as social misfits, to put things mildly. But, there are still lots of
> : people who make the decision to smoke.
>
> : So, feel free to educate the world about the benefits of breastfeeding
> : children. I support that concept whole-heartedly and have done
everything
> : that I could to support breastfeeding women working for me. But,
remember
> : that not everyone will agree with you, or agreeing, will feel that they
> : still must do what they have chosen that is contrary to what you are
> : teaching. There is an old proverb that just might fit in here: Judge
not
> : that you be not judged. Inform, support, teach, but do not condemn.
When
> : you condemn you do not support. Start where the person is at and you
are
> : much more likely to bring them along with you when you try to help them
into
> : a "better" place.
>
> : -Aula
>
>
>
KatNipper
thou attitudes that not only scare women away, but also make all
bfing moms look bad.
KatNipper
reason to not breastfeed is a lame excuse??? Oh boy, you must be
some kind of God.
KatNipper
~Nancy~
In article
<F9cR4.35043$x4.11...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "just
>some supportive, empathic individuals who get right to where the
person is
>at [emotionally, etc.] are much more likely to pull the person
through their
>difficulties. That is basic social work, psychology, and human
relations
>101.
>
>-Aula
>
>
>
>
Megan A. B. Hull
Deborah wrote:
> According to the WHO, if every baby in the US were breastfed, 20,000 infant
> deaths a year would be avoided.
Why? How? I like to throw these statistics at my MIL ;-), but she'll want to
know "why."
Megan
Marie
Marie
Karrde wrote in message ...
>
>KatNipper wrote in message <09ba7aca...@usw-ex0101-007.remarq.com>...
>>/me applauds Aula!!
>>If certain people in this group had your attitude, more mothers
>>would be willing to breastfeed, imo. It's the militants that
>>scare so many away.
>>~Nancy~
>
>
>If someone can scare you away from doing what you know is best for your
>child, then you are too weak-willed to have children. That is the lamest
of
>all excuses to not bf.
>
>--Jerry
>
>
Marie
breastfeed, she can't bottlefeed, either, and see how long that lasts.
Marie
Karen Horn wrote in message <8f2ts7$iqi$1...@thoth.cts.com>...
>In alt.parenting.solutions shmily <shm...@msn.com> wrote:
>:
>: What I *mean* is that if people did like Mary and Karen did not *frown*
on
>: nursing in public, and if it were more positively *accepted*, more
mothers
>: would breastfeed and it would save *lives*. It is *less* destructive
to
>: give Coca Cola to a toddler for a refreshment! Laws are not needed,
>: people need to stop *validating* snotty attitudes like nursing in public
is
>: somehow wrong! And you *know* it! ~fume~ !!!!!
>
hamilton
wrote:
> In alt.parenting.solutions shmily <shm...@msn.com> wrote:
> :
> : What I *mean* is that if people did like Mary and Karen did not *frown* on
> : nursing in public, and if it were more positively *accepted*, more mothers
> : would breastfeed and it would save *lives*. It is *less* destructive to
> : give Coca Cola to a toddler for a refreshment! Laws are not needed,
> : people need to stop *validating* snotty attitudes like nursing in public is
> : somehow wrong! And you *know* it! ~fume~ !!!!!
>
> Wrong again. How quickly you hallucinate. There's nothing wrong
> with breastfeeding, overall it's the way to go. But just because
> a woman is breast feeding doesn't mean she and her kid are the only
> people suddenly on the planet where rules of courtesy no longer apply.
>
> Karen
The idea that nursing a baby is discourteous is the biggest load of horse
shit I have seen published outside the Elian Gonzalez thread in weeks.
Chuckle.
hamilton
(Charlotte Millington) wrote:
> Angela (cho...@theglobe.com) wrote:
>
> : "just me" <thede...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> : news:Ba4R4.34249$x4.10...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> : > The only person who has any business caring about a decision to breast or
> : > bottle feed is the particular child's parents.
>
> : I must take exception to this:
>
> : Parents - and their children - don't live in a vacuum. It's a mistake to
> : think that a person's decisions don't impact anyone else and therefore. If
> : a child who is formula-fed is sicker than he would have been if breastfed,
> : clearly it impacts that child very personally, not to mention any children
> : who become sick through contact with that sick child ...and those childrens'
> : families, and so on.
>
> Catherine Young, the editor of The Compleat Mother was diagnosed last year
> with breast cancer. The surgery took a quarter of her breast. Now, she
> has found out she has spinal cancer. Her doctor has given her two to
> eight years to live. She is one of the leading breastfeeding activists in
> Canada. She breastfed her children for years. (Breastfeeding is supposed
> to reduce your chances of getting cancer.)
>
> Recently, she wrote in her editorial for The Compleat Mother that she was
> sitting with a few other women with cancer (four women I believe). All
> but one had breastfed. All of the women had been fed carnation milk and
> corn syrup as babies. Evidence written up in the Journal of the National
> Cancer Institute says: "We have long known breastfeeding protects children
> from infection; now evidence suggests its immune-stimulating effects
> provide protection against cancer."
>
> While cancer is not a contagious disease, it certainly affects more than
> just the child. It also affects the child's children, and the child's
> loved ones. For those of us who have seen what cancer does, not only to
> the person suffering with cancer, but to the family cancer leaves behind,
> any extra prtection is worth it.
>
> Charlotte
and there is ZERO evidence that having been formula fed as an infant is
related in any way to later breast cancer.
hamilton
<momtob63...@aol.com.invalid> wrote:
> Wrong again Norma. It is people like YOU with your holier than
> thou attitudes that not only scare women away, but also make all
> bfing moms look bad.
and you have to wonder what kinds of mothers they make too. Is a kid
better off with a mother who wants to denigrate anyone who isn't just like
her and push other people around OR a relaxed accepting Mom who is feeding
baby formula. Ideally one would have a relaxed accepting Mom who
breastfeeds -- but zealots make lousy parents.
KatNipper
their children begin to grow into individuals, beginning to make
up their own minds and making decisions for themselves. An over-
zealous mother would try to beat them into submission, demanding
that her ways are best!
~Nancy~
In article <hamilton-0705000831150001@host-209-214-116-
linda-renee
> According to the WHO, if every baby in the US were breastfed, 20,000
infant
> deaths a year would be avoided.
If I would have been required to breast-feed my baby, she would have died.
I was pre-eclamptic and didn't lactate. Score one for formula.
I loathe nutritional bigots.
Deborah
Stating facts does not constitute bigotry.
If you were unable to lactate, that is unfortunate, but it does not mean
that formula is a better product for it.
--
Deborah
linda-renee <lindarenee*ilovekellyanne*@5catsmindspring.com> wrote in
message news:8f3vah$oof$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...
: Deborah <spa...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
:
:
:
Deborah
Formula-fed babies have higher rates of:
Crohns disease; juvenile, insulin-dependent diabetes; diarrhea; respiratory
infections; certain childhood cancers including Hodgkins disease; ulcerative
colitis; hemophilus influenza b; allergies; asthma; cardiopulmonary distress
while feeding, & SIDS, amongst others. Not all of these are included in the
WHO calculations, but let's take an example of SIDs.
The figures are calculated as follows:
Let's say that in a population group practising behavior A, 1 in 1,000
babies dies of SIDS, & in a population group practising opposite behavior B,
1 in 5,000 babies dies of SIDS.
If the group practising behavior A were to stop doing that & start
practising behavior B, the number of babies who would be saved would be 4 in
1,000 (1 in 1,000 being equal to 5 in 5,000).
If the population group consisted of 1,000 babies a year, the number of
babies saved would be 4.
This is, of course, very simplified, & corrections to the statistics are
made for such factors as economic status etc. But it should give you
something to throw at your MIL! ;-)
--
Deborah
Megan A. B. Hull <mhu...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:39156C8D...@bellsouth.net...
:
:
: Deborah wrote:
:
: > According to the WHO, if every baby in the US were breastfed, 20,000
infant
: > deaths a year would be avoided.
:
: Why? How? I like to throw these statistics at my MIL ;-), but she'll want
to
: know "why."
:
: Megan
:
Deborah
news:hamilton-070...@host-209-214-116-118.bna.bellsouth.net...
:
: and there is ZERO evidence that having been formula fed as an infant is
: related in any way to later breast cancer.
Wrong. Women who were formula-fed as infants have higher rates of breast
cancer as adults. For both premenopausal & postmenopausal breast cancer,
women who were breastfed as children, even if only for a short time, had a
25% lower risk of developing breast cancer than women who were bottle-fed as
infants.
Reference: Freudenheim, J., et al. 1994 "Exposure to breast milk in infancy
and the risk of breast cancer"
from the journal: Epidemiology, vol 5, pp324-331.
Deborah
Naomi Lynne Pardue
In misc.kids.breastfeeding KatNipper <momtob63...@aol.com.invalid> wrote:
> Wrong again Norma. It is people like YOU with your holier than
> thou attitudes that not only scare women away, but also make all
> bfing moms look bad.
How exactly does this work? How does being told (with whatever level of
politeness) that something is better and healthier scare someone away from
doing it? I can see how some women might decide not to just be be
spiteful, but that isn't fear.
Naomi
Charlotte Millington
: > corn syrup as babies. Evidence written up in the Journal of the National
: > Cancer Institute says: "We have long known breastfeeding protects children
: > from infection; now evidence suggests its immune-stimulating effects
: > provide protection against cancer."
: and there is ZERO evidence that having been formula fed as an infant is
: related in any way to later breast cancer.
I've left the quote from my post above. Apparently, there is a link.
It's not just that breastfeeding protects mamas from breastcancer, it is
that breastfeeding also appears to protect those who have been breastfed
from cancer.
See also:
"Breastfeeding for any length means a 21% reduction in the risk of acute
lymphoblastic leukemia and acute myeloid leukemia. 'The reduced risks were
observed for M0, M1, and M2 morphologic subtypes of acute myeloid leukemia
and early pre-B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Breastfeeding beyond
six months gave the greatest protection.'" -Dr. Joseph P. Neglia, The
University of Minnesota Cancer Center in Minneapolis
I'm just quoting, not interpreting or papaphrasing.
Charlotte
Charlotte Millington
: In article <15cfc0d0...@usw-ex0103-086.remarq.com>, KatNipper
: <momtob63...@aol.com.invalid> wrote:
: > Wrong again Norma. It is people like YOU with your holier than
: > thou attitudes that not only scare women away, but also make all
: > bfing moms look bad.
: and you have to wonder what kinds of mothers they make too. Is a kid
: better off with a mother who wants to denigrate anyone who isn't just like
: her and push other people around OR a relaxed accepting Mom who is feeding
: baby formula. Ideally one would have a relaxed accepting Mom who
: breastfeeds -- but zealots make lousy parents.
I disagree. Us "zealots" make fantastic parents. We teach our kids to
stand up for what we believe in. And frankly, the idea that my daughter,
born to a zealot, might grow up to be someone with high standards and
moral convictions makes me very proud. I'll love my daughter any way she
turns out, but I can't say I'd be happy if she grew up to be a passive,
unopinionated lump. Opinionated people change the world.
just me
"Naomi Lynne Pardue" <npa...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:8f4443$mn$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu...
>
> In misc.kids.breastfeeding KatNipper <momtob63...@aol.com.invalid>
wrote:
> > Wrong again Norma. It is people like YOU with your holier than
> > thou attitudes that not only scare women away, but also make all
> > bfing moms look bad.
>
> politeness) that something is better and healthier scare someone away from
> doing it? I can see how some women might decide not to just be be
> spiteful, but that isn't fear.
>
probably do not understand my answer.
-Aula
Naomi Lynne Pardue
In misc.kids.breastfeeding just me <thede...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Angela" <cho...@theglobe.com> wrote in message
>> I would say it certainly is my place to care if my child is unnecessarily
>> sick because of someone else's "choices".
>>
> Then you are advocating legislating that all parents must breastfeed or
> obtain a wet nurse? Are you also advocating that children who are not
> breastfed must not be taken out in public or, since their parents have
> violated your law, must be removed from parental custody as abused children
> and raised in foster care by a wet nurse? Will you make it a requirement
> that all parents adopting infants have a wet nurse on standby for when an
> infant is identified for them? Further, are you also advocating that all
> people, adults and children, who have a hint of any illness [cold, sniffles,
> whatever] must be quarantined to their home for the full duration of the
> illness as they may well spread the illness further?
> I think you may see where I am going with this. While it remains important
Where you are GOING, is making a really enormous leap of logic. Saying
that something is better, that women SHOULD (in a broad sense) do it, and
that others are affected if they DON'T do it, does not automatically lead
to legislation forcing people to do it or the removal of children from
their homes if they dont' do it.
And the nonsense about quarentining people who have the sniffles is a
total non-sequiteur.
It is very simple. Breastfeeding is, in the great majority of cases
(aside from situations like HIV+ status or lack of milk) the best thing
medically, for the baby. It is also the best thing financially, the best
thing in terms of pollution and landfills, and in every other way.
Women SHOULD breastfeed if it is at all possible to do it. Society
(doctors, workplaces, etc.) SHOULD support women's ability to breastfeed.
Women SHOULD know that the great majority of women are capable of
breastfeeding, and should be educated enough to know how to make it work,
and have access to good help if they run into significant problems.
Now, despite all that, SOME women are not going to bf. A small percentage
will not bf due to physical/practical true inability. Others will not
breastfeed for lesser reasons. And, just because we recognize that some
women really CAN"T bf, and we recognize that it is every other woman's
CHOICE to bf or not, does not mean that we must agree with those who
choose to formula feed, or say that it really doen't matter or has no
effect on us.
It is your right to smoke if you choose to.
I really don't anticipate the U.S. government outlawing tobacco totally
in my lifetime. But if you did choose to smoke, your choice WOULD affect
me. It would also effect your children. It would affect YOU in ways that
go beyond the pleasure of the smoke. Meaning that *I* would be well
within my rights to think, and to say, that smoking is a nasty habit that
affects many people besides the smoker herself. I wil not rush up to you
and grab the cigarette out of your hand. I will not scream obscenities at
you. But I will not hide the fact that *I* know that tobacco is an
unhealthy, unpleasant, addictive, lifestyle choice.
> Breast is best. That is true. But, there are individuals who cannot nurse,
True.
> others who will not,
True.
and those who attempt and do not succeed.
A very small percentage, mostly part of group #1, the women who cannot bf.
If we, as a
> people, can focus on supporting those who need our support, and educate
> those who do not have the data, then the incidence of breastfeeding will
> continue to rise.
True. But part of that 'support' needs to go to 'support' those women who
have chosen to formula feed by helping them decide to make the better
choice, and succeed at it.
Naomi
KatNipper
politeness from certain posters. I don't believe I mentioned
"fear" I mentioned over-zealousness scaring women away that may
want to overcome struggles with breastfeeding. Some people just
don't seem to understand that if you try and help someone with
compassion and understanding, you get much farther than if you
judge them.
~Nancy~
hamilton
> hamilton (hami...@dnvln.com) wrote:
> : In article <15cfc0d0...@usw-ex0103-086.remarq.com>, KatNipper
> : <momtob63...@aol.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> : > Wrong again Norma. It is people like YOU with your holier than
> : > thou attitudes that not only scare women away, but also make all
> : > bfing moms look bad.
>
> : and you have to wonder what kinds of mothers they make too. Is a kid
> : better off with a mother who wants to denigrate anyone who isn't just like
> : her and push other people around OR a relaxed accepting Mom who is feeding
> : baby formula. Ideally one would have a relaxed accepting Mom who
> : breastfeeds -- but zealots make lousy parents.
>
> I disagree. Us "zealots" make fantastic parents. We teach our kids to
> stand up for what we believe in. And frankly, the idea that my daughter,
> born to a zealot, might grow up to be someone with high standards and
> moral convictions makes me very proud. I'll love my daughter any way she
> turns out, but I can't say I'd be happy if she grew up to be a passive,
> unopinionated lump. Opinionated people change the world.
>
> Charlotte
LOL zealots are not much interests in kids who 'stand up for what they
believe in ' --- they want kids who kowtow to what Mom believes in. A
goodly portion of the evil in the world has been done by self righteous
people with 'moral conviction' and the will to impose it on others. I
would love to hear the conversation the first time your daughter, for
example, articulates a pro-choice position.
hamilton
<s03...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> Charlotte Millington wrote:
>
> > Opinionated people change the world.
>
> Genghis Khan, Hitler, Pol Pot, Unabomber, Stalin. . .
the witch hunters of New England, the Spanish Inquisition --
Angela
> >
> > "just me" <thede...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:Ba4R4.34249$x4.10...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> > > The only person who has any business caring about a decision to breast
> or
> > > bottle feed is the particular child's parents.
> >
> > I must take exception to this:
> >
> > Parents - and their children - don't live in a vacuum. It's a mistake
to
> > think that a person's decisions don't impact anyone else and therefore.
> If
> > a child who is formula-fed is sicker than he would have been if
breastfed,
> > clearly it impacts that child very personally, not to mention any
children
> > who become sick through contact with that sick child ...and those
> childrens'
> > families, and so on.
> >
unnecessarily
> > sick because of someone else's "choices".
> >
> Then you are advocating legislating that all parents must breastfeed or
> obtain a wet nurse? Are you also advocating that children who are not
Oh, for pete's sake. I'm not advocating any such thing. But it's incorrect
to suggest that if my child becomes sick because of contact with a (formula
fed, to keep this argument consistent) child who is sick (who might not have
been sick if he had been breastfed), that it doesn't affect me. Of course
it affects me. And my child, obviously. And maybe I'll get sick too - then
it really affects me.
If I may, I will use an example from when my daughter was hospitalized. This
isn't about breastfeeding, just about how others' choices can affect you in
a very personal way, and even have long-term consequences.
One of my twins was born at 3 lbs 9 oz with a severe congenital heart
defect. When she reached 7 lbs, she was transferred from the hospital in
which she had been born, to Children's Hospital in Seattle. There, for
reasons I cannot fathom, a 12 year old girl who had a bad cold and cough was
put in the bed next to my immuno-compromised child for 3 days. My child got
sick. She coughed so hard she would vomit....and by the time she managed to
get over that cough (6 weeks later), she had acquired vomiting as a habit.
She was also so congested that we had to suction her nose every hour or so
around the clock for a week, and several times a day for several more weeks,
an invasive procedure that made her absolutely hysterical and could take a
half-hour to calm her down after.
My child became orally aversive because of all these negative experiences
(vomiting a dozen times a day isn't exactly pleasant), as well as negative
experiences related to her heart surgery (tracheal intubation,
hypersensitized gag reflex, etc). It took much longer to get her to
surgery-weight than it should have, because she couldn't keep any calories
down. And she doesn't eat. Anything. Ever. I have to take her to therapy
once a week, and if we're *really* lucky she'll eat normally by the time
she's 2 or 2 1/2 years old.
Somebody else's choices have impacted my life dramatically - namely, whoever
the idiot was who put that sick girl in a bed next to my vulnerable baby.
(I'll never find out who it was because the hospital administration refuses
to accept responsibility for where they put their sick patients, even if
every doctor and nurse I've spoken to there agrees with me that it was a
colossally bad decision.)
Would my daughter still have gotten sick? Who knows. But it seems less
likely.
I'm not advocating forcing people to do what I want them to do, just because
I want them to do it. But if I could find the person who put that girl in
the room with my daughter, I'd like to shake them vigorously, and make them
come along with me every week to therapy, and help me clean up the mess from
my baby vomiting forcefully, many times a day, and SEE what THEIR decision
did to MY life, and the life of my child.
We don't live in a vacuum, and the choices we make can have real
consequences in the lives of people we don't even *know*. That's all I'm
saying, and all I hope you'll acknowledge.
--angela
just me
>
> <alot of snippage >
We don't live in a vacuum, and the choices we make can have real
> consequences in the lives of people we don't even *know*. That's all I'm
> saying, and all I hope you'll acknowledge.
>
Certainly, personal choices often have effects on others. This discussion
has often crossed lines in and out of legislating choices. Many choices are
already legislated in various countries. Things like abortion, helmet use
on bicycles and motorcycles, driving after drinking, etc. The question that
this discussion continues to beg, but you come closest to dealing with, is
where do we draw the line in regards to choices a parent makes about what to
feed their child. And, even in that realm there are some choices that have
been legislated that are called child abuse/neglect/maltreatment in various
jurisdictions. But, some statements by some posters on this and related
threads have clearly intimated that women who do not breastfeed start to
finish are unfit mothers and should not be allowed to have children, that
breastfeeding is a basic inalienable right that should not be abrogated.
Period. That led to my extending the argument into the sublime and the
ridiculous.
I am certain that many, if not all, of the people writing on all of these
inter-related threads are wonderful folk who do everything that they
understand to do to promote the well-being of their children. We all have
different backgrounds, values, beliefs and ways of dealing with things. We
are not going to agree even on what at first seems like such a simple
question: is breastfeeding always the best thing for a child. What we can
do is state our opinions, engage in dialogues that expand information
exchanged, avoid the use of derogatory and judgmental statements and
generalities, and ultimately agree that we disagree respectfully.
I find some statements remain tempting to respond to but am trying to bite
my tongue and back out of these conversations as it seems that there is very
little, if nothing, new to state and we are all simply repeating polarized
statements, moving closer and closer to personalizing the whole thing. That
is not healthy for any of us.
On the more personal note, I am truly sorry to hear about the difficulties
your daughter is having. To be born with so many difficulties to surmount,
and then have yet another thing thrown her way when it was not necessary or
reasonable. You must be frequently frustrated and saddened for her. I hope
that she is able to leave all of this behind her as she grows and I hope
that your therapists are the best around. I also hope that your laughter
with her soon outnumbers your tears.
-Aula
Naomi Lynne Pardue
In misc.kids.breastfeeding KatNipper <momtob63...@aol.com.invalid> wrote:
> politeness from certain posters.
Yes, I agree. ANd I do think that there are better ways and worse ways of
preventing information. I also think that judgement and insults are worse
ways, but NOT because they scare people away from trying; rather because
they are so easy to argue against and because SOME people will, as I
suggested, decide to not take the advice just to spite the preacher.
I don't believe I mentioned
> "fear" I mentioned over-zealousness scaring women away that may
I'd say that 'scaring someone away' involves 'fear' of some point.
"Afraid" and "scared" are synonyms.
> want to overcome struggles with breastfeeding. Some people just
> don't seem to understand that if you try and help someone with
> compassion and understanding, you get much farther than if you
> judge them.
I agree. But 'compassion and understanding' does not equal "Whatever you
want to do for whatever reason you might want to do it is automatically
makes it a good choice." Far too often ANY post supporting bf, or
discussing its benefits, is met with dozens of "How dare you call me a bad
mother for not breastfeeding!" and "My child was formula fed and was never
sick a day in his life, so it cannot be true that breast is best," or
(strangest of all, IMO) "Of COURSE we all know that breastfeeding is
better, but that doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with formula or
that it makes any difference how you feed your child."
Naomi
*Mary*
breastfeeding...even got literature from the La Leacea Leauge (I know that's
not spelled right.) Even with all the information I had, I choose not to
breatfeed my kids.... A lot of you are saying that women who become mothers
should breatfeed so that 20,000 kids don't die a year....as someone else
said, are they going to pass a law saying that you have to breastfeed your
child? They passed laws saying you had to vaccinate your kids becuase so
many kids died a year of a disease. But how would they enforce a law like
that? Come beating on your door with a search warrent at 2 am to look for
formula in your house? If a cop sees you bottle feeding a child in public
going up to you and asking you to opne the bottle so smell the milk inside
to see if it was formula or breast milk? Putting you in jail if it was and
taking away your kids?
Mary
Deborah <spa...@bigfoot.com> wrote in >
> I am not saying that those who formula-feed are child abusers. But the
fact
> of the matter is, that most women who choose not to breastfeed (& many who
> choose to do so & fail) are not making their decisions on the basis of
> factual information. They are deciding on the basis of poor support &
> advice, & on the basis of information provided by formula manufacturers.
You
> can only make an informed decision if you have the information.
>
> Deborah
>
>
>
>
linda-renee
> Are you calling me a bigot, or the WHO?
Are you disavowing the statistics you cite?
> Stating facts does not constitute bigotry.
Numbers dreamed up by the World Health Organization doesn't make those who
rail against bottle-feeding parents less bigoted.
> If you were unable to lactate, that is unfortunate, but it does not mean
> that formula is a better product for it.
It means that to each her own. Formula was *absolutely* the best product
for my child at the time.
linda-renee
> How exactly does this work? How does being told (with whatever level of
> politeness) that something is better and healthier scare someone away from
> doing it? I can see how some women might decide not to just be be
> spiteful, but that isn't fear.
It works like this: I never cared about who breast fed and who didn't,
believing it's an individual choice. After years of enduring the outrageous
zealotry of the BF bigots, I started to think that all BF moms are bigoted
zealots. And if I were ever (God forbid) to have another child, I'd make
sure I used formula so I wouldn't be like them.
linda-renee
> It is very simple. Breastfeeding is, in the great majority of cases
> (aside from situations like HIV+ status or lack of milk) the best thing
> medically, for the baby. It is also the best thing financially, the best
> thing in terms of pollution and landfills, and in every other way.
> Women SHOULD breastfeed if it is at all possible to do it.
Women *should* do what works for them, without interference from nosy
know-it-alls.
> It is your right to smoke if you choose to.
> I really don't anticipate the U.S. government outlawing tobacco totally
> in my lifetime. But if you did choose to smoke, your choice WOULD affect
> me. It would also effect your children. It would affect YOU in ways that
> go beyond the pleasure of the smoke
Comparing bottle-feeding to smoking????????
Now I know the BF zealots are off the deep end...............
Suzanne Dallapè
>Then you are advocating legislating that all parents must breastfeed or
>obtain a wet nurse?
I don't think even the "Nazis" would go this far. We all understand that
formula is a life saving substance that is necessary for about 2% of
American babies. However, most people do not NEED to use formula, and this
is where the problems arise. Mothers who understand the benefits of
breastfeeding (and not just the outward ones, but also the more subtle ones)
often DO get distressed when they see otherwise healthy babies getting
formula instead of breast milk, when breast milk is available. Much in the
same way we shake our heads when we see a mother holding her baby in the car
instead of using a car seat, we get similarly upset when we see a child
denied breast milk.
When the alternative is death, then formula is a godsend. But when the
alternative is breast milk, then some people do see it as criminal to deny
it.
--S.
JDal...@att.net
Suzanne Dallapè
>I had tons of factual information about breastfeeding. I read a lot about
>breastfeeding...even got literature from the La Leacea Leauge (I know
that's
>not spelled right.) Even with all the information I had, I choose not to
Why on EARTH not? I know I am going to get flamed out the wazoo for this,
but this is the worst type of parenting I can think of. Someone who
actually KNOWS the facts STILL choosing to give her baby less than best?
This floors me. It is one thing when a mother is ignorant--of course she
should have gotten the info before having the kid in the first place, but at
the same time she can almost be forgiven for perhaps getting bad advice from
relatives or even doctors. But someone who KNOWS how much better breast
milk is??? And still chooses not to do it?
--S.
JDal...@att.net
Charlotte Millington
: In article <391596A0...@student.uq.edu.au>, Robert Davidson
: <s03...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
Ina May Gaskin, Gloria Steinem, Ghandi, Mother Teresa, my mom...
We done trading names or do you have something else to share with the
group?
Charlotte Millington
: would love to hear the conversation the first time your daughter, for
: example, articulates a pro-choice position.
I'll let you know how it goes. As it turns out, I am pro-choice.
Charlotte Millington
: Naomi Lynne Pardue <npa...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
: > How exactly does this work? How does being told (with whatever level of
You would?
Marie
a point to a bunch of strangers. How ugly.
Marie
linda-renee wrote in message <8f4jvc$9a3$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>...
Cheryl Nakao
information so I could breastfeed my youngest, the militants were not a
good source of support for me. It made me afraid to look for support
because almost everyone I had run into at that point were militants and
instead of helping me find the information I needed, they were beating
me over the head for "caving in" and giving my oldest formula when my
milk supply dried up because of that lousy pump.
Have you ever heard of the saying that you attract more flies with honey
than with vinegar? The approach that a lot of militants tends to take
away from the credibility of the rest of us breastfeeding supporters.
Cheryl
just me wrote:
>
> "Angela" <cho...@theglobe.com> wrote in message
> news:8f2ujn$qd4$0...@216.39.147.153...
> >
> > "just me" <thede...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:Ba4R4.34249$x4.10...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> > > The only person who has any business caring about a decision to breast
> or
> > > bottle feed is the particular child's parents.
> >
> > I must take exception to this:
> >
> > Parents - and their children - don't live in a vacuum. It's a mistake to
> > think that a person's decisions don't impact anyone else and therefore.
> If
> > a child who is formula-fed is sicker than he would have been if breastfed,
> > clearly it impacts that child very personally, not to mention any children
> > who become sick through contact with that sick child ...and those
> childrens'
> > families, and so on.
> >
> > I would say it certainly is my place to care if my child is unnecessarily
> > sick because of someone else's "choices".
> >
> Then you are advocating legislating that all parents must breastfeed or
> obtain a wet nurse? Are you also advocating that children who are not
> breastfed must not be taken out in public or, since their parents have
> violated your law, must be removed from parental custody as abused children
> and raised in foster care by a wet nurse? Will you make it a requirement
> that all parents adopting infants have a wet nurse on standby for when an
> infant is identified for them? Further, are you also advocating that all
> people, adults and children, who have a hint of any illness [cold, sniffles,
> whatever] must be quarantined to their home for the full duration of the
> illness as they may well spread the illness further?
>
> I think you may see where I am going with this. While it remains important
> for everyone to become as educated as possible on how best to parent, it
> also remains the parent's choice how they will use that information. That
> is, unless we want to live in Brave New World, 1984, or other similar
> societies.
>
> Breast is best. That is true. But, there are individuals who cannot nurse,
> others who will not, and those who attempt and do not succeed. If we, as a
> people, can focus on supporting those who need our support, and educate
> those who do not have the data, then the incidence of breastfeeding will
> continue to rise. But, my main point in this whole series of conversations
> remains: if you want to convince someone that your information is the
> correct information and that they should do what you want to do DON'T BEAT
> THEM OVER THE HEAD WITH IT AND ACT JUDGMENTAL! Sorry about yelling but it
> appears that a number of folks are getting polarized and have stopped
> listening. And, for that very reason, I will probably stop responding to
> this particular piece of the conversation because it is becoming very
> apparent to me that most of those responding to me are not listening to what
> I am saying but rather continue to shout from their bully pulpits even after
> the crowd has turned it's back.
>
> -Aula
Cheryl Nakao
> I disagree. Us "zealots" make fantastic parents. We teach our kids to
> stand up for what we believe in. And frankly, the idea that my daughter,
> born to a zealot, might grow up to be someone with high standards and
> moral convictions makes me very proud. I'll love my daughter any way she
> turns out, but I can't say I'd be happy if she grew up to be a passive,
> unopinionated lump. Opinionated people change the world.
>
> Charlotte
>
A good parent would be one that teaches their child to stand up for what
they believe in, not what the parent believes in. You said "We teach our
kids to stand up for what WE believe in." A good parent acknowledges
that their children might have differing views, and a good parent
teaches their child to stand up for what they (the child) believes in,
no matter whether the parent holds the same view or not.
Cheryl
KatNipper
anyone else's place to tell a mother she's bad because she chose
to formula feed! Get a clue for heaven's sake!!!!!!!
linda-renee
> It's really sad that you'd risk the health of your own children just to
make
> a point to a bunch of strangers. How ugly.
It's really sad that a bunch of strangers would be so interested in the
health of my child. Where were all these helpful souls when I was
struggling to raise my preemie alone?
It's even more bizarre, considering that most of an entire generation was
raised on formula and, miracle of miracles, lived to tell. How moronic.
"Get a life" is an incredibly tired cliche, but it seems sooooo applicable
here.........
linda-renee
> In misc.kids.breastfeeding linda-renee
<lindarenee*ilovekellyanne*@5catsmindspring.com> wrote:
> > Women *should* do what works for them, without interference from nosy
> > know-it-alls.
> Absolutely. If it 'works for you' to leave your baby home unattended while
> you work, you should be able to do it without interference. Right?
Nice strawman. Did it take you all day to think it up? It's *illegal* to
leave your baby home alone, or lock her in the car trunk, or throw her down
the stairs. Are you proposing that bottle-feeding be made illegal, and
bottle-feeders be tossed into the poky?
> > Comparing bottle-feeding to smoking????????
> > Now I know the BF zealots are off the deep end...............
> In some ways, yes. Both are less desirable, from a medical standapoint
> than the alternative. Both cost taxpayers and health providers a great
> deal of money every year.
I'm terribly curious how my having used formula was a burden on any taxpayer
or any health provider. My best friend breast fed for years and her kids
are sick about ten times as often as mine, no exaggeration.
It's pretty nauseating that you compare the food that kept my baby alive and
healthy to a repulsive killer activity like smoking......
Marie
Marie
linda-renee wrote in message <8f52e5$bee$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>...
hamilton
<s03...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> My point is that you shouldn't feel that you can't have kids because you can't
> get the latest pumping technology. Hand pumping will work if you really
need to
> do it too. There are means, though old fashioned methods will take more
effort
> and be much more difficult, but that doesn't mean only people with cash
can have
> kids, work and express milk.
>
> Robert Davidson
the point is you don't know diddly squat and should not be telling women
how easy it is to express milk -- having had the experience of ONE wife
who could do it easily and no experience yourself.
Kalera
linda-renee wrote:
> Naomi Lynne Pardue <npa...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
>
Robert Davidson
baby will be hungry exactly twenty minutes from now? That's mad. A baby's
hunger doesn't run like clockwork (not usually anyway).
Robert Davidson
Karen Horn wrote:
> In alt.parenting.solutions shmily <shm...@msn.com> wrote:
> : THANK YOU DEBORAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> :
> : Folks, attitudes like Karen's and Mary's are what keep alot of women from
> : even trying breastfeeding, or even breastfeeding for more than a few weeks
> : or months, or even trying to overcome small nursing problems like
> : positioning. It's these kind of attitudes that contribute to 20,000
> : deaths per year.
> :
> : Norma
>
> Who said I was anti-breastfeeding? I am anti-people-who-don't-have-
> the-sense-to-plan-20-minutes-ahead.
>
> Karen
> :
> : --
> : x-no-archive:yes
> : Deborah <spa...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> : news:wv1R4.8901$OO6.9...@nnrp4.clara.net...
> :> According to the WHO, if every baby in the US were breastfed, 20,000
> : infant
> :> deaths a year would be avoided.
> :>
> :> --
> :> Deborah
> :>
> :> Dorothy wrote:
> :>
> :> : your business and it won't *harm* her baby. Any deaths from formula
> :> : that have occurred have been in third world countries and for
> :> : reasons that do not have much to do with those in the US or other
> :> : high tech societies where bottle feeding is safe, nutritious and not
> :> : something you should be browbeating mothers about.
> :>
> :>
> :>
> :
> :
Robert Davidson
died without formula, a wonderful contribution to human health as it saves
many lives. (we got back to full breastfeeding after six weeks).
Robert Davidson
linda-renee wrote:
> Deborah <spa...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>
> > According to the WHO, if every baby in the US were breastfed, 20,000
> infant
> > deaths a year would be avoided.
>
> If I would have been required to breast-feed my baby, she would have died.
> I was pre-eclamptic and didn't lactate. Score one for formula.
>
> I loathe nutritional bigots.
Robert Davidson
> Opinionated people change the world.
Genghis Khan, Hitler, Pol Pot, Unabomber, Stalin. . .
Naomi Lynne Pardue
In misc.kids.breastfeeding linda-renee <lindarenee*ilovekellyanne*@5catsmindspring.com> wrote:
> Naomi Lynne Pardue <npa...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
>> It is very simple. Breastfeeding is, in the great majority of cases
>> (aside from situations like HIV+ status or lack of milk) the best thing
>> medically, for the baby. It is also the best thing financially, the best
>> thing in terms of pollution and landfills, and in every other way.
>> Women SHOULD breastfeed if it is at all possible to do it.
> Women *should* do what works for them, without interference from nosy
> know-it-alls.
Absolutely. If it 'works for you' to leave your baby home unattended while
you work, you should be able to do it without interference. Right?
>> It is your right to smoke if you choose to.
>> I really don't anticipate the U.S. government outlawing tobacco totally
>> in my lifetime. But if you did choose to smoke, your choice WOULD affect
>> me. It would also effect your children. It would affect YOU in ways that
>> go beyond the pleasure of the smoke
> Comparing bottle-feeding to smoking????????
> Now I know the BF zealots are off the deep end...............
In some ways, yes. Both are less desirable, from a medical standapoint
than the alternative. Both cost taxpayers and health providers a great
deal of money every year. Both are heavily advertised by companies who
very much want people to use their products, and will therefore promote
them, even though the manufacturers themselves know that the product is
unhealthy. Both habits can negatively affect the health of people who do
not directly make the choice to indulge in them.
In other ways, they are different. The most obvious difference being that
a small percentage of women have no choice but to formula feed, whiel
NOBODY has to smoke.
Naomi
Naomi Lynne Pardue
Organization:
In misc.kids.breastfeeding just me <thede...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Angela" <cho...@theglobe.com> wrote in message
> Certainly, personal choices often have effects on others. This discussion
> has often crossed lines in and out of legislating choices. Many choices are
> already legislated in various countries. Things like abortion, helmet use
> on bicycles and motorcycles, driving after drinking, etc. The question that
> this discussion continues to beg, but you come closest to dealing with, is
> where do we draw the line in regards to choices a parent makes about what to
> feed their child.
One very clear difference between feeding choices and most of the other
issues you list is that there ARE some people who truly cannot breastfeed
(for physical or practical reasons.) Therefore, it is not realistic to
try to legislate it, or you end up having to deal with all those
exceptions, and trying to decide (and trying to decide who GETS to decide)
if Mrs. Jones' reasons for formula feeding are good enough.
But EVERYONE can wear a helmet on a motorcycle, and EVERYONE can avoid
getting behind the wheel of a car after drinking.
So no, we can't (and shouldn't) legislate it. But neither should we turn
around and say it doesn't matter, and whatever a mother chooses to do is
ALWAYS the best choice for her baby. We should encourage women to bf. If
they don't breastfeed the first baby, we should encourage them to
breastfeed the next. And we should help them succeed. And we SHOULDN"T
back away from the idea that it DOES matter and, while we can't all ALWAYS
do what is best, that shouldn't stop us from trying and from doing the
best that we CAN, rather than the best that seems most convieneint at the
time.
Naomi
Naomi Lynne Pardue
In misc.kids.breastfeeding *Mary* <maryg...@teal.net> wrote:
> I had tons of factual information about breastfeeding. I read a lot about
> breastfeeding...even got literature from the La Leacea Leauge (I know that's
> not spelled right.) Even with all the information I had, I choose not to
> should breatfeed so that 20,000 kids don't die a year....as someone else
> said, are they going to pass a law saying that you have to breastfeed your
> child?
Tell me Mary, if the law didn't say that you HAD to use a carseat, but you
knew that thousands of babies lives (including possibly the lives of YOUR
child) would be saved every year if all mothers would use carseats, would
you use one? Or would you say that, since the law doesn't insist, it must
not be very important?
Naom
Naomi Lynne Pardue
>> It's really sad that you'd risk the health of your own children just to
> make
>> a point to a bunch of strangers. How ugly.
> It's really sad that a bunch of strangers would be so interested in the
> health of my child. Where were all these helpful souls when I was
> struggling to raise my preemie alone?
You commented in another post that you know that I read sci-med-nursing.
Meaning that you presumably read it too? I find myself hoping that YOU
are not a nurse. Surely, as a nurse YOU would care about the health and
well being of others, and surely as a nurse YOU would have learned in
nursing school that breastmilk is by far the best food for babies.
> It's even more bizarre, considering that most of an entire generation was
> raised on formula and, miracle of miracles, lived to tell. How moronic.
And I"m sure you'll quote the post where someone claimed that all formula
fed babies die...
Naomi
Robert Davidson
get the latest pumping technology. Hand pumping will work if you really need to
do it too. There are means, though old fashioned methods will take more effort
and be much more difficult, but that doesn't mean only people with cash can have
kids, work and express milk.
Robert Davidson
Angela wrote:
> "just me" <thede...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:26cR4.35042$x4.11...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Angela" <cho...@theglobe.com> wrote in message
> > news:8f2ujn$qd4$0...@216.39.147.153...
> > >
> > > "just me" <thede...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > > news:Ba4R4.34249$x4.10...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > >
> > > > The only person who has any business caring about a decision to breast
> > or
> > > > bottle feed is the particular child's parents.
> > >
> > > I must take exception to this:
> > >
> > > Parents - and their children - don't live in a vacuum. It's a mistake
> to
> > > think that a person's decisions don't impact anyone else and therefore.
> > If
> > > a child who is formula-fed is sicker than he would have been if
> breastfed,
> > > clearly it impacts that child very personally, not to mention any
> children
> > > who become sick through contact with that sick child ...and those
> > childrens'
> > > families, and so on.
> > >
> > > I would say it certainly is my place to care if my child is
> unnecessarily
> > > sick because of someone else's "choices".
> > >
> > Then you are advocating legislating that all parents must breastfeed or
> > obtain a wet nurse? Are you also advocating that children who are not
> > breastfed must not be taken out in public <....>?
>
> Oh, for pete's sake. I'm not advocating any such thing. But it's incorrect
> to suggest that if my child becomes sick because of contact with a (formula
> fed, to keep this argument consistent) child who is sick (who might not have
> been sick if he had been breastfed), that it doesn't affect me. Of course
> it affects me. And my child, obviously. And maybe I'll get sick too - then
> it really affects me.
>
> If I may, I will use an example from when my daughter was hospitalized. This
> isn't about breastfeeding, just about how others' choices can affect you in
> a very personal way, and even have long-term consequences.
>
> One of my twins was born at 3 lbs 9 oz with a severe congenital heart
> defect. When she reached 7 lbs, she was transferred from the hospital in
> which she had been born, to Children's Hospital in Seattle. There, for
> reasons I cannot fathom, a 12 year old girl who had a bad cold and cough was
> put in the bed next to my immuno-compromised child for 3 days. My child got
> sick. She coughed so hard she would vomit....and by the time she managed to
> get over that cough (6 weeks later), she had acquired vomiting as a habit.
> She was also so congested that we had to suction her nose every hour or so
> around the clock for a week, and several times a day for several more weeks,
> an invasive procedure that made her absolutely hysterical and could take a
> half-hour to calm her down after.
>
> My child became orally aversive because of all these negative experiences
> (vomiting a dozen times a day isn't exactly pleasant), as well as negative
> experiences related to her heart surgery (tracheal intubation,
> hypersensitized gag reflex, etc). It took much longer to get her to
> surgery-weight than it should have, because she couldn't keep any calories
> down. And she doesn't eat. Anything. Ever. I have to take her to therapy
> once a week, and if we're *really* lucky she'll eat normally by the time
> she's 2 or 2 1/2 years old.
>
> Somebody else's choices have impacted my life dramatically - namely, whoever
> the idiot was who put that sick girl in a bed next to my vulnerable baby.
> (I'll never find out who it was because the hospital administration refuses
> to accept responsibility for where they put their sick patients, even if
> every doctor and nurse I've spoken to there agrees with me that it was a
> colossally bad decision.)
>
> Would my daughter still have gotten sick? Who knows. But it seems less
> likely.
>
> I'm not advocating forcing people to do what I want them to do, just because
> I want them to do it. But if I could find the person who put that girl in
> the room with my daughter, I'd like to shake them vigorously, and make them
> come along with me every week to therapy, and help me clean up the mess from
> my baby vomiting forcefully, many times a day, and SEE what THEIR decision
> did to MY life, and the life of my child.
>
> We don't live in a vacuum, and the choices we make can have real
> consequences in the lives of people we don't even *know*. That's all I'm
> saying, and all I hope you'll acknowledge.
>
> --angela
Naomi Lynne Pardue
>> Absolutely. If it 'works for you' to leave your baby home unattended while
>> you work, you should be able to do it without interference. Right?
> Nice strawman. Did it take you all day to think it up? It's *illegal* to
> leave your baby home alone, or lock her in the car trunk, or throw her down
> the stairs. Are you proposing that bottle-feeding be made illegal, and
> bottle-feeders be tossed into the poky?
So only things that are illegal are undesirable or potentially harmful?
>> > Comparing bottle-feeding to smoking????????
>> > Now I know the BF zealots are off the deep end...............
>> In some ways, yes. Both are less desirable, from a medical standapoint
>> than the alternative. Both cost taxpayers and health providers a great
>> deal of money every year.
> I'm terribly curious how my having used formula was a burden on any taxpayer
> or any health provider. My best friend breast fed for years and her kids
> are sick about ten times as often as mine, no exaggeration.
Is it SOOO hard to grasp the difference between individual anecdotes and
statistical data?
> It's pretty nauseating that you compare the food that kept my baby alive and
> healthy to a repulsive killer activity like smoking......
But... but ... we ALLLLL know people who have smoked for DECADES, and
lived to the ripe old age of 99 with no significant health issues related
to smoking. So OBVIOUSLY smoking is a harmless habit and nobody should
ever say anything negative about it or suggest that people shouldn't
smoke.
Naomi
JoAnne Clark
<Kar...@smugglers.alliance.org> wrote:
>*Mary* wrote in message <8f4g5c$o5d$1...@news.chatlink.com>...
>>I had tons of factual information about breastfeeding. I read a lot about
>>breastfeeding...even got literature from the La Leacea Leauge (I know
>that's
>>not spelled right.) Even with all the information I had, I choose not to
>>breastfed my kids....
>
>Why on EARTH not? I know I am going to get flamed out the wazoo for this,
>but this is the worst type of parenting I can think of. Someone who
>actually KNOWS the facts STILL choosing to give her baby less than best?
Because "less than best" does NOT equal "bad."
>This floors me. It is one thing when a mother is ignorant--of course she
>should have gotten the info before having the kid in the first place, but at
>the same time she can almost be forgiven for perhaps getting bad advice from
>relatives or even doctors. But someone who KNOWS how much better breast
>milk is??? And still chooses not to do it?
Have you ever given your child (or let him/her eat) a cookie? A piece
of candy? A potato chip?
JoAnne
Mommy to:
Gabriel 5-23-98
Laura 3-1-00
-------------------------------------------------------
"Nothing so needs reforming as other people's habits."
-Mark Twain
Karrde
hamilton wrote in message ...
>and you have to wonder what kinds of mothers they make too. Is a kid
>better off with a mother who wants to denigrate anyone who isn't just like
>her and push other people around OR a relaxed accepting Mom who is feeding
>baby formula.
You ladies seem anything but relaxed and accepting. If this is what all
formula feeding mothers are like . . .
No, I won't stoop, I won't stoop.
--Jerry
Karrde
just me wrote in message ...
>It appears that you did not understand Nancy's statement, at least in the
>way I did.
No, I understood it that way, but my point still stands. If you are going
to let someone else's attitude (or perceived attitude) stop you from doing
what you know is best for your child, then you are a horrible parent and a
horrible person.
--Jerry
Karrde
KatNipper wrote in message <2750dce6...@usw-ex0103-019.remarq.com>...
>And you have given yourself the authority to decide whether a
>reason to not breastfeed is a lame excuse??? Oh boy, you must be
>some kind of God.
Finally, someone who understands. ;-)
--Jerry
Karrde
just me wrote in message
>Then you are advocating legislating that all parents must breastfeed or
>obtain a wet nurse? Are you also advocating that children who are not
>violated your law, must be removed from parental custody as abused children
>and raised in foster care by a wet nurse? Will you make it a requirement
>that all parents adopting infants have a wet nurse on standby for when an
>infant is identified for them? Further, are you also advocating that all
>people, adults and children, who have a hint of any illness [cold,
sniffles,
>whatever] must be quarantined to their home for the full duration of the
>illness as they may well spread the illness further?
>
>I think you may see where I am going with this.
Yes, down a slippery slop of idiocy. Give me a break.
--Jerry
Karrde
KatNipper wrote in message <14298240...@usw-ex0105-037.remarq.com>...
>If you read many of the posts, there is very little, if any,
>politeness from certain posters. I don't believe I mentioned
>"fear" I mentioned over-zealousness scaring women away that may
>want to overcome struggles with breastfeeding. Some people just
>don't seem to understand that if you try and help someone with
>compassion and understanding, you get much farther than if you
>judge them.
Now who is judging? If you would spend a little time reading this board,
you would see that there is quite a bit of coaching and support for women
having difficulty breastfeeding. The lack of compassion you are sensing is
because we are dealing with people who have already made their choice and
are thumbing their noses at the facts. This is disturbing enough coming
from someone who is being entrusted with a human life. Add to that the fact
that we are being called Nazis and of course people are going to get pissed.
--Jerry
Karrde
>health of my child.
Someone needs to be, since you don't appear to be.
Where were all these helpful souls when I was
>struggling to raise my preemie alone?
>
>It's even more bizarre, considering that most of an entire generation was
>raised on formula and, miracle of miracles, lived to tell. How moronic.
>
And that geneation turned out such lovely kids as the Trenchcoat Mafia
crowd. Your point?
--Jerry
Karrde
KatNipper wrote in message <0bb120f0...@usw-ex0102-013.remarq.com>...
>You still don't get it either, do ya? It is NOT yours, nor
>anyone else's place to tell a mother she's bad because she chose
>to formula feed! Get a clue for heaven's sake!!!!!!!
>
I can't stop you from formula feeding and you can't stop me from telling you
that you are a bad parent. Don't tell someone they don't have the right to
an opinion. Now who's being a Nazi?
--Jerry
Karrde
linda-renee wrote in message <8f4k16$bi2$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>...
>> (aside from situations like HIV+ status or lack of milk) the best thing
>> medically, for the baby. It is also the best thing financially, the best
>> thing in terms of pollution and landfills, and in every other way.
>> Women SHOULD breastfeed if it is at all possible to do it.
>
>Women *should* do what works for them, without interference from nosy
>know-it-alls.
>
A pregnant woman really stressed out over her personal life decides that
resuming her smoking habit makes her feel much calmer. Hey, it works for
her. Do I let that one slip by without comment so that I don't harm her
fragile ego?
--Jerry
Karrde
hamilton wrote in message ...
Martin Luther King Jr., Ghandi, Albert Einstein.
The point is, opinionated people *do* change the world, for better and
for worse. Raise your children with high moral standards and they will be
more likely to do the latter. If you raise a passive lump, then they will
make no contribution to society. Is that any better?
--Jerry
Karrde
hamilton wrote in message ...
>I
>example, articulates a pro-choice position.
You are assuming you know what any given poster's opinion is on this issue.
Now we are getting to the root of your problem.
--Jerry
Karrde
Naomi Lynne Pardue wrote in message
<8f5ecv$549$9...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>...
>But... but ... we ALLLLL know people who have smoked for DECADES, and
>lived to the ripe old age of 99 with no significant health issues related
>to smoking. So OBVIOUSLY smoking is a harmless habit and nobody should
>ever say anything negative about it or suggest that people shouldn't
>smoke.
>
Woohoo! I'm going to light up right now. Heck, I'll even blow a bunch of
smoke in my baby's face since it's that healthy. ;-)
--Jerry
Karrde
JoAnne Clark wrote in message
>Have you ever given your child (or let him/her eat) a cookie? A piece
>of candy? A potato chip?
Yes, but never as his sole source of nutrition!
--S.
Robert Davidson
> the point is you don't know diddly squat and should not be telling women
> how easy it is to express milk -- having had the experience of ONE wife
> who could do it easily and no experience yourself.
The point is you are being very presumptious as you know nothing about me. I know a
great many mothers and have a wide experience of being around people expressing.
Careful with your words.
Robert Davidson
Robert Davidson
advocates here.
Robert Davidson, a father who strongly supports breastfeeding but thinks
formula is a wonderful, life-saving technology.
Karrde wrote:
> hamilton wrote in message ...
shmily
--
x-no-archive:yes
KatNipper <momtob63...@aol.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:15cfc0d0...@usw-ex0103-086.remarq.com...
> Wrong again Norma. It is people like YOU with your holier than
> thou attitudes that not only scare women away, but also make all
> bfing moms look bad.
>
It's a good thing I'm only like this on the newsgroup then, huh?!
;o)
shmily
--
Deborah <spa...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:rLfR4.12845$rR2.1...@nnrp3.clara.net...
> Megan -
>
> Formula-fed babies have higher rates of:
>
> Crohns disease; juvenile, insulin-dependent diabetes; diarrhea;
respiratory
> infections; certain childhood cancers including Hodgkins disease;
ulcerative
> colitis; hemophilus influenza b; allergies; asthma; cardiopulmonary
distress
> while feeding, & SIDS, amongst others. Not all of these are included in
the
> WHO calculations, but let's take an example of SIDs.
>
> The figures are calculated as follows:
>
> Let's say that in a population group practising behavior A, 1 in 1,000
> babies dies of SIDS, & in a population group practising opposite behavior
B,
> 1 in 5,000 babies dies of SIDS.
>
> If the group practising behavior A were to stop doing that & start
> practising behavior B, the number of babies who would be saved would be 4
in
> 1,000 (1 in 1,000 being equal to 5 in 5,000).
>
> If the population group consisted of 1,000 babies a year, the number of
> babies saved would be 4.
>
> This is, of course, very simplified, & corrections to the statistics are
> made for such factors as economic status etc. But it should give you
> something to throw at your MIL! ;-)
>
> --
> Deborah
>
> Megan A. B. Hull <mhu...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:39156C8D...@bellsouth.net...
> :
> :
> : Deborah wrote:
> :
> : > According to the WHO, if every baby in the US were breastfed, 20,000
> infant
> : > deaths a year would be avoided.
> :
> : Why? How? I like to throw these statistics at my MIL ;-), but she'll
want
> to
> : know "why."
> :
> : Megan
> :
>
>
Cindy Kandolf
| Sitting here in Europe, begging to differ! Believe me, there are plenty of
| places in Europe where breastfeeding is frowned upon, never mind doing it in
| public!
|
| Deborah
| (in Northern Ireland, which has one of the lowest breastfeeding rates in the
| world)
Sorry to hear that! 8-( Here in Norway it's so common to breastfeed,
and seen as so normal to feed the baby wherever you happen to be, that
it can be a problem if you *want* to find a secluded spot to nurse.
"No, no, don't feel you have to go and hide, we don't mind..." (Well,
you don't mind, and i don't mind, but a distractable baby is a lot
easier to feed in a quiet, boring mother-and-baby room than in the
middle of a noisy, busy shopping mall...)
- Cindy Kandolf, mamma to Kenneth (6) and Robby (new)
thefl...@ivillage.com ** Bærum, Norway
Bilingual Families Web Page:
http://www.nethelp.no/cindy/biling-fam.html