Miss Manners
LilMtnCbn
Dear Miss Manners:
My unmarried niece gave birth to a little girl last month. Earlier in her
pregnancy, her family sent out invitations for a baby shower. Since she lives
several states away, I sent a monetary gift and received a lovely thank-you
note in return.
I was later quite surprised to learn that the baby was given up for adoption.
Is it appropriate to have a shower when the baby is to be given up for
adoption? If this was a last-minute decision, should I not have been sent a
note of explanation? I do not wish my gift returned, I just feel as if I should
have been informed.
Response:
As a matter of family news, Miss Manners agrees that you should have been
informed, but you seem to relate this courtesy to your contribution to the
shower. That is a mistake: The baby was born, you gave her a present and you
were graciously thanked.
Now -- could we not look too closely into the question of whether there should
have been a shower? The decision about adopting might have been made
subsequently, as you realize. But even if not, perhaps your niece simply craved
this small ritual and wanted to send the child off with things from her family.
Miss Manners is not able to begrudge her that.
kj
>Date: 9/10/2003 10:20 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20030910102000...@mb-m02.aol.com>
Well, I think it's weird. Unless she was originally planning on keeping the
kid.
>
>
>
>
kj
Robibnikoff
I agree ;/
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557
kj
>Date: 9/11/2003 10:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <xz%7b.19596$cJ5....@www.newsranger.com>
Of course you do! Generally I like Miss Manners, but I think she was trying to
be PC or something.
>Robyn
>Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
>#1557
>
>
>
>
>
>
kj
Rhiannon
>
'Or something' is more like! Maybe she's just pleading benefit of
doubt, and not doing a very convincing job of it.
It's weird.
But I once read a letter on another board in which someone was
contemplating having/giving (can't remember which) a shower prior to
relinquishment.
I remember that the general response was that this was at best
inappropriate.
I think that at worst it's pretty pathological.
Rh.
kj
>Date: 9/12/2003 9:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <dafc70.03091...@posting.google.com>
Yup. It seems pretty nutty. And it would be a very weird little party.
geopelia
"kj" <kjs...@aol.comeek> wrote in message
news:20030913130404...@mb-m07.aol.com...
A home here actually has a ceremony for the birth mother to hand the baby
over to the adopting parents!
Geopelia
Dian
A human sacrifice. Any headless goats found in the area?
Di
geopelia
"Dian" <patr...@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message
news:c599139c.03091...@posting.google.com...
so, then hand it over. I think absolutely no contact with the baby is best,
or bonding may take place and it will be harder for her to pick up her life
again.
What I think is wrong, is for the adopting parents not being allowed to take
the baby as soon after birth as is medically possible. To leave it crying in
the nursery seems so wrong. Also I don't think they get the mother to
express the colostrum for the baby, to give it the immunity it needs.
Geopelia
Lainie Petersen
FWIW,
There is a lot we don't know about this: as someone else noted, the
mother of the baby may not have planned to place the child for
adoption, but instead decided to relinquish later on in the pregnancy.
I personally see nothing wrong with "sending the child off" with some
gifts from his/her birthfamily (I did something similar with my son.);
but I do think that a "shower" as such is inappropriate, and that any
solicitation for gifts should have made it clear that the gift was
intended as a token of love from the child's birthfamily.
On the other hand, I think that a small, quiet "tea" or luncheon given
to a woman who is planning on relinquishment as a demonstration of her
friend's/family's concern is just fine. But I would think that the
gifts in that situation would be gifts for the mother, not the baby.
Lainie
WhansaMi
>
>There is a lot we don't know about this: as someone else noted, the
>mother of the baby may not have planned to place the child for
>adoption, but instead decided to relinquish later on in the pregnancy.
>
>I personally see nothing wrong with "sending the child off" with some
>gifts from his/her birthfamily (I did something similar with my son.);
>but I do think that a "shower" as such is inappropriate, and that any
>solicitation for gifts should have made it clear that the gift was
>intended as a token of love from the child's birthfamily.
>
>On the other hand, I think that a small, quiet "tea" or luncheon given
>to a woman who is planning on relinquishment as a demonstration of her
>friend's/family's concern is just fine. But I would think that the
>gifts in that situation would be gifts for the mother, not the baby.
>
>Lainie
Lainie, I was beginning to wonder if I was all alone in this.
I dunno... people seemed pretty quick to jump to malevolent conclusions. My
first thought was that, indeed, the girl had decided, upon careful reflection,
that she couldn't/didn't want to be a mother quite yet, and so decided upon
relinquishment later in her pregnancy.
After Miss Manners brought up the possibility that she wanted to send the baby
to the adoptive parents with things from her family, I thought, "Ohhhh...
that's nice. The child will have baby things that came from his/her family of
origin. What a wonderful idea!"
Assuming everybody didn't send the birthmother cash, which she then used to buy
a car, I don't see the problem.
Sheila
Dian
> "Dian" <patr...@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message
> A home here actually has a ceremony for the birth mother to hand the
> baby
> > > over to the adopting parents!
> > >
> > > Geopelia
> >
> > A human sacrifice. Any headless goats found in the area?
> >
> > Di
> They think the birth mother should look after the baby for the first week or
> so, then hand it over. I think absolutely no contact with the baby is best,
> or bonding may take place and it will be harder for her to pick up her life
> again.
You have got to be smarter than to believe adoption rhetoric over
natural order, surely? Do you really believe mothers pick up the
pieces if they don't see their children, or are you equating not
seeing the baby to having an abortion where the mother CAN move on
after a termination?
The baby is already bonded - in utero with its mother and visa versa.
Why do you suppose nmothers and adoptees need to find each other
decades after an unnatural severing at birth takes place? Why do you
suppose adopted people who had no contact with thei rmothers post
birth also suffer abandonment issues? Didn't their adopters replace
them mothers totally and utterly as if born to them - the way adoption
at birth was supposed to? Do you really believe fetuses earmarked for
adoption are smarter than non adoption designated children and know
NOT to bond with their mothers in utero?
>
> What I think is wrong, is for the adopting parents not being allowed to take
> the baby as soon after birth as is medically possible.
A newborn only knows it's been separated from the safety of its mother
womb and is thrown into a foreign abyss where it has lost her familiar
heartbeat and smell and voice. The adopters might just as well be the
hospital janitor for all the newborn knows or cares at that point.
To leave it crying in
> the nursery seems so wrong.
So is leaving it crying in a stranger home without the safety of its
own mother to comfort it. A baby can't differentiate between its
adoptive mother and a night nurse. It just knows that neither is its
mother.
Also I don't think they get the mother to
> express the colostrum for the baby, to give it the immunity it needs.
Colour me surprised. When did the needs of the newborn ever matter to
you pro-adoption advocates? Adoptees never get colostrum. All you
pro-adoption advocates obviously see them as freaks of nature who do
not bond in utero to their mothers like other babies, and don't need
to be breastfed or given colostrum like all other babies do. What is
known about the needs of non adopted children is never applied to
newborns earmarked for adoption.
Question why adoptees tend to have statistically more gastro
intestinal bowel problams, eating disorders, asthma, and prone to a
plethora of auto immune diseases, MS etc as adults, than their non
adopted peers. And then think colostrum again.
Di
for non adoption designated babies don't apply to them.
> Geopelia
Rupa Bose
> Why do you suppose nmothers and adoptees need to find each other
> decades after an unnatural severing at birth takes place?
Di, as we've seen on this ng -- some do, and others don't.
> To leave it crying in
> > the nursery seems so wrong.
>
> So is leaving it crying in a stranger home without the safety of its
> own mother to comfort it. A baby can't differentiate between its
> adoptive mother and a night nurse. It just knows that neither is its
> mother.
I think the difference is that an adopted baby immediately gets one on
one care. It typically isn't "left crying." In a group nursery, nurses
don't usually have time to respond to individual babies' cries.
>
> Question why adoptees tend to have statistically more gastro
> intestinal bowel problams, eating disorders, asthma, and prone to a
> plethora of auto immune diseases, MS etc as adults, than their non
> adopted peers.
Is this true? I'd like to see the cites, if you have them.
Rupa
Marley Greiner
"Rupa Bose" <rkb...@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message
news:e5619372.03091...@posting.google.com...
> patr...@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote
> >
> > Why do you suppose nmothers and adoptees need to find each other
> > decades after an unnatural severing at birth takes place?
>
> Di, as we've seen on this ng -- some do, and others don't.
>
> > To leave it crying in
> > > the nursery seems so wrong.
> >
> > So is leaving it crying in a stranger home without the safety of its
> > own mother to comfort it. A baby can't differentiate between its
> > adoptive mother and a night nurse. It just knows that neither is its
> > mother.
Babies can't differentiate between anything. Everyting is about them (feed
me, change me wahhh wahhhh wahhh) ; nothing else. They are young,
inexperienced, and stupid. Most grow up and retain the third value.
>
> I think the difference is that an adopted baby immediately gets one on
> one care. It typically isn't "left crying." In a group nursery, nurses
> don't usually have time to respond to individual babies' cries.
> >
> > Question why adoptees tend to have statistically more gastro
> > intestinal bowel problams, eating disorders, asthma, and prone to a
> > plethora of auto immune diseases, MS etc as adults, than their non
> > adopted peers.
They do? That's news to me.
>
> Is this true? I'd like to see the cites, if you have them.
>
> Rupa
Me, too. All those illnesses sound like typical whiney USian traits to me.
Marley
Robin
Marley Greiner at maddog...@worldnet.att.net wrote on 15/9/03 4:34 pm:
I've got a few auto-immune diseases mainly Corhn's, asthma and mild sporadic
rheumatoid arthritis, I'm not a USian though (as far as we know, though some
of my birth mother's other relinquishments allegedly had USian dads). But
then I'd always put it down to a probable HLA-B27 positivity, some wild east
European Jewish genes hiding in the pool somewhere. The kids that my mother
kept seem to have skipped it themselves but passed asthma and other
auto-immune problems on to their offspring. I put the question once on the
Crohn's newsgroup after I noticed that two people there also posted on
adoption groups one of them here. I think we came to a general conclusion
that it is not disproportionately common amongst adoptees.
Robin
kat
> >
> > Why do you suppose nmothers and adoptees need to find each other
> > decades after an unnatural severing at birth takes place?
>
> Di, as we've seen on this ng -- some do, and others don't.
Exactly. Just another one of Di's exaggerated generalizations. I felt no
need to find my bmother.
>
> > To leave it crying in
> > > the nursery seems so wrong.
> >
> > So is leaving it crying in a stranger home without the safety of its
> > own mother to comfort it. A baby can't differentiate between its
> > adoptive mother and a night nurse. It just knows that neither is its
> > mother.
>
> I think the difference is that an adopted baby immediately gets one on
> one care. It typically isn't "left crying." In a group nursery, nurses
> don't usually have time to respond to individual babies' cries.
> >
> > Question why adoptees tend to have statistically more gastro
> > intestinal bowel problams, eating disorders, asthma, and prone to a
> > plethora of auto immune diseases, MS etc as adults, than their non
> > adopted peers.
>
> Is this true? I'd like to see the cites, if you have them.
Same here. My guess though that it is just another in a long line of
exaggeration.
Kathy 1
helicon
"WhansaMi" <whan...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030914222236...@mb-m22.aol.com...
Neither do I. I still have the (28 year old) baby-gro my first son 'came
with'. It was for age up to six months and he was a 'lump' of an eight and
a half-month old! It was stretched almost to transparency, but is very
precious to me. He has asked me to keep it for him. I also have the little
knitted suit my second son came with at 11.5 months. This is even more
precious as it had been bought for him by his birth mother.
By the way, he had been kept until he was 7.5 months, and he was the only
one of our four with allergies. Why was that? I don't know whether he was
breastfed or not, but I do know that two of his uncles suffered from asthma
and eczema. <s>
Helen
>
> Sheila
AdoptaDad
>From: patr...@bigpond.com.au (Dian)
>Date: 9/15/2003 12:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <c599139c.03091...@posting.google.com>
>
>"geopelia" <phil...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:<rm59b.147668$JA5.3...@news.xtra.co.nz>...
>> "Dian" <patr...@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message
>
>> > >A home here actually has a ceremony for the birth mother to
>> > >hand the baby over to the adopting parents!
>> > >
>> > > Geopelia
>> >
>> > A human sacrifice. Any headless goats found in the area?
>> >
>> > Di
>> They think the birth mother should look after the baby for the
>> first week or so, then hand it over. I think absolutely no contact
>> with the baby is best, or bonding may take place and it will be
>> harder for her to pick up her life again.
>
>You have got to be smarter than to believe adoption rhetoric over
>natural order, surely?
She's smart enough to recognize birthmother babble, Di. That's all she needs
when reading your screechings. Oh by the way, don't call her Shirley.
>Do you really believe mothers pick up the pieces if they don't see
>their children,
Some do... some don't. Some deal with it... some descend into madness. I
mean, look how you turned out. :>)
>or are you equating not seeing the baby to having an abortion where the mother
>CAN move on after a termination?
Most women don't make the decision to terminate easily... many feel a deep
loss that stays with them for decades. Conversely, some women give birth in
the john and return to the dance floor.
>The baby is already bonded - in utero with its mother and visa versa.
If the adoption is a fait accompli, a reasonable argument could be made for
breaking the mother/infant bond immediately after birth. Or would you have us
believe it's easier for the child to be separated from the birthmother days...
weeks... months after birth?
>Why do you suppose nmothers and adoptees need to find each other
>decades after an unnatural severing at birth takes place?
Some do... some don't.
>Why do you suppose adopted people who had no contact with their mothers
>post birth also suffer abandonment issues?
Wow. I didn't realize that abandonment issues were exclusive to adoptees
who were removed immediately after birth. A couple hundred thousand foster
children might disagree with you, doofus.
>Didn't their adopters replace them mothers totally and utterly as if born to
>them - the way adoption at birth was supposed to?
I see. So all the little buggers really need is to spend a couple of moments
after birth with their birthmothers - no abandonment issues, no attachment
disorders, no fire starters, no sociopaths, no serial killers.
>Do you really believe fetuses earmarked for adoption are smarter than non
>adoption designated children and know NOT to bond with their mothers in utero?
Gee, I don't believe Geo implied anything even close to that. Why is it that
you seem to insert the most absurd arguments into the mouths of others just so
you can rebuke them?
>> What I think is wrong, is for the adopting parents not being allowed to take
>> the baby as soon after birth as is medically possible.
>
>A newborn only knows it's been separated from the safety of its mother
>womb and is thrown into a foreign abyss where it has lost her familiar
>heartbeat and smell and voice. The adopters might just as well be the
>hospital janitor for all the newborn knows or cares at that point.
Kindly leave Steve out of this.
< snip >
>Question why adoptees tend to have statistically more gastro
>intestinal bowel problams, eating disorders, asthma, and prone to a
>plethora of auto immune diseases, MS etc as adults, than their non
>adopted peers.
Not to mention serial killers and sociopaths.
Dad
Lainie Petersen
> Question why adoptees tend to have statistically more gastro
> intestinal bowel problams, eating disorders, asthma, and prone to a
> plethora of auto immune diseases, MS etc as adults, than their non
> adopted peers. And then think colostrum again.
Ok, I'm, questioning.
I'd like some references for this, please...only from accepted peer
reviewed medical journals.
Thanks!
L.
AdoptaDad
>From: sf...@yahoo.com (Lainie Petersen)
>Date: 9/15/2003 4:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <671d8c26.03091...@posting.google.com>
I guess that leaves out Lori Crackangelo. Bummer.
AdoptaDad
>From: sf...@yahoo.com (Lainie Petersen)
>Date: 9/15/2003 4:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <671d8c26.03091...@posting.google.com>
>
I guess that leaves out Lori Crackangelo.
AdoptaDad
>From: sf...@yahoo.com (Lainie Petersen)
>Date: 9/15/2003 4:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <671d8c26.03091...@posting.google.com>
>
I guess that leaves out Lori Crackangelo. Bummer.
Dad
kj
>Date: 9/14/2003 10:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20030914222236...@mb-m22.aol.com>
>
>>FWIW,
>>
>>There is a lot we don't know about this: as someone else noted, the
>>mother of the baby may not have planned to place the child for
>>adoption, but instead decided to relinquish later on in the pregnancy.
>>
>>I personally see nothing wrong with "sending the child off" with some
>>gifts from his/her birthfamily (I did something similar with my son.);
>>but I do think that a "shower" as such is inappropriate, and that any
>>solicitation for gifts should have made it clear that the gift was
>>intended as a token of love from the child's birthfamily.
>>
>>On the other hand, I think that a small, quiet "tea" or luncheon given
>>to a woman who is planning on relinquishment as a demonstration of her
>>friend's/family's concern is just fine. But I would think that the
>>gifts in that situation would be gifts for the mother, not the baby.
>>
>>Lainie
>
>Lainie, I was beginning to wonder if I was all alone in this.
>
>I dunno... people seemed pretty quick to jump to malevolent conclusions. My
>first thought was that, indeed, the girl had decided, upon careful
>reflection,
>that she couldn't/didn't want to be a mother quite yet, and so decided upon
>relinquishment later in her pregnancy.
>
Hmmm... maybe I'm crazy, but I thought we all agreed that if she was
originally planning on keeping the baby, it wasn't weird. I still think it'd
be weird to have a baby shower when you're planning on reliquishing (unless,
like Lainie said, your planning on sending the stuff with the baby or it's a
gathering for the mother).
>After Miss Manners brought up the possibility that she wanted to send the
>baby
>to the adoptive parents with things from her family, I thought, "Ohhhh...
>that's nice. The child will have baby things that came from his/her family
>of
>origin. What a wonderful idea!"
>
I agree with that. I don't see why a relinquishment should be a big secret.
>Assuming everybody didn't send the birthmother cash, which she then used to
>buy
>a car, I don't see the problem.
>
>Sheila
>
>
>
>
>
>
kj
kj
>Date: 9/15/2003 12:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <c599139c.03091...@posting.google.com>
>
That's funny. Apparently I was incredibly happy from day one. (my adopters
brought me right home from the hospital) I would question the veracity of my
a-mom if I didn't here that from absolutely everybody who ever knew me when I
was a baby.
> To leave it crying in
>> the nursery seems so wrong.
>
>So is leaving it crying in a stranger home without the safety of its
>own mother to comfort it. A baby can't differentiate between its
>adoptive mother and a night nurse. It just knows that neither is its
>mother.
>
> Also I don't think they get the mother to
>> express the colostrum for the baby, to give it the immunity it needs.
>
>Colour me surprised. When did the needs of the newborn ever matter to
>you pro-adoption advocates? Adoptees never get colostrum.
OK, I'm not going to comment on this--argh, I can't help it!!! Like you do!!!
All you
>pro-adoption advocates obviously see them as freaks of nature who do
>not bond in utero to their mothers like other babies, and don't need
>to be breastfed or given colostrum like all other babies do. What is
>known about the needs of non adopted children is never applied to
>newborns earmarked for adoption.
>
>Question why adoptees tend to have statistically more gastro
>intestinal bowel problams, eating disorders, asthma,
Hey, I have asthma... I got it from my birthmother. (a little genetic gift.)
and prone to a
>plethora of auto immune diseases, MS
My sister has MS and she's not adopted. In fact, I live in an MS ridden area.
MS is more likely caused by climate and pollution.
etc as adults, than their non
>adopted peers. And then think colostrum again.
>
>Di
>
>
>for non adoption designated babies don't apply to them.
>
>> Geopelia
>
>
>
>
>
>
kj
kj
>Date: 9/15/2003 4:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20030915163005...@mb-m02.aol.com>
Stop it!!! You're going to make me pee.
>
>
>
>
kj
kj
>Date: 9/15/2003 4:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20030915162936...@mb-m02.aol.com>
That was laugh out loud funny!
>
>
>
>
kj
Rhiannon
I don't know, Helen. Cherishing the little garments that a child
arrived in doesn't seem like the same sort of thing at all. I have my
ason's, and my son's amother has his.
I think that's very different from sending out invitations for an
actual 'shower' (assuming, of course that the decision to relinquish
came after the invitations went out. And if that were the case, I'd
think it weird not to cancel)
I've always been under the impression that the whole point of a of
baby shower is to welcome the new born into the world and into his/her
family, and, indirectly, to celebrate the new parent('s') new
relationship with the child. It's an occasion to celebrate, a time of
joy unalloyed.
But there's base metal to spare (and then some) if a child is to be
relinquished.
Unless glossing over the pain is the purpose, of course
I can see why the original parent(s) might want to give something
personal and symbolic, but lots of random baby stuff from amici et
cognati leporis? Nooo. Not in my book. Uncomfortably cosy, and too
natural to be natural.
Rh.
RB
area.
> MS is more likely caused by climate and pollution.
The cause of multiple sclerosis (MS) is not known. Researchers believe the
combination of heredity, the immune system, and possibly a virus may play a
role in a person developing multiple sclerosis. Individuals may inherit a
susceptibility to the disease, but not the disease itself. ( from
http://www.bandagainstms.org/msinfo_cause.html )
Now PD is another matter see
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/HTMLTemplate/!ctvNews/News/Docs/doc_parkinsons.html
for a review of a recent case in the public eye.
-Ray
kj
>Date: 9/15/2003 7:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <Tks9b.60367$gt1.1...@twister.socal.rr.com>
>
>> My sister has MS and she's not adopted. In fact, I live in an MS ridden
>area.
>> MS is more likely caused by climate and pollution.
>
>The cause of multiple sclerosis (MS) is not known. Researchers believe the
>combination of heredity, the immune system, and possibly a virus may play a
>role in a person developing multiple sclerosis. Individuals may inherit a
>susceptibility to the disease, but not the disease itself. ( from
>http://www.bandagainstms.org/msinfo_cause.html )
>
True--but it does occur an awful lot in western new york. (I was spouting
theories of why this is--not mine!)
>Now PD is another matter see
>http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/HTMLTemplate/!ctvNews/News/Docs/doc_parkinsons.html
>for a review of a recent case in the public eye.
>
>-Ray
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
kj
Steve White
sf...@yahoo.com (Lainie Petersen) wrote:
Since asthma is a big part of what I do for a living, I can state with
virtual certainty that there is no difference in asthma rates or
severity between adopted and non-adopted children, or in adults adopted
as children versus adults not-adopted.
I would challenge Di to provide me with an article in the peer-reviewed
medical literature, or a major medical textbook, that states otherwise.
I just checked Medline, just to be sure, and there is no such article in
the literature.
Ditto for MS.
Ditto for eating disorders.
Ditto for intestinal diseases.
Ditto for auto-immune disorders.
So I'd also like to see the citation.
steve
helicon
"Rhiannon" <sarall...@gosympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:dafc70.030915...@posting.google.com...
You're probably right. It seems unlikely that a woman would be so thrilled
as to show off her baby to all her pals, full of the joys and all that jazz,
while planning - in tandem - to place this child for adoption. It just
doesn't ring true, somehow. Her boyfriend might simply have done a runner,
changing all her plans for the future.
Helen
M is for Malapert
"Steve White" <st...@spam.me.never> wrote in message
news:steve-89F475....@netnews.attbi.com...
> In article <671d8c26.03091...@posting.google.com>,
> sf...@yahoo.com (Lainie Petersen) wrote:
>
> > patr...@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote in message
> > news:<c599139c.03091...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > > Question why adoptees tend to have statistically more gastro
> > > intestinal bowel problams, eating disorders, asthma, and prone to a
> > > plethora of auto immune diseases, MS etc as adults, than their non
> > > adopted peers. And then think colostrum again.
But that could apply to non-breastfed biokids as well.
> > Ok, I'm, questioning.
> >
> > I'd like some references for this, please...only from accepted peer
> > reviewed medical journals.
> Since asthma is a big part of what I do for a living, I can state with
> virtual certainty that there is no difference in asthma rates or
> severity between adopted and non-adopted children, or in adults adopted
> as children versus adults not-adopted.
>
> I would challenge Di to provide me with an article in the peer-reviewed
> medical literature, or a major medical textbook, that states otherwise.
>
> I just checked Medline, just to be sure, and there is no such article in
> the literature.
>
> Ditto for MS.
>
> Ditto for eating disorders.
>
> Ditto for intestinal diseases.
>
> Ditto for auto-immune disorders.
>
> So I'd also like to see the citation.
So are you saying that colostrum has no medical benefit past the first --
units of time? It is known that it provides some protection for some period
of time, correct?
Mjwhaly
>Babies can't differentiate between anything. Everyting is about them (feed
>me, change me wahhh wahhhh wahhh) ; nothing else. They are young,
>inexperienced, and stupid. Most grow up and retain the third va
There are plenty of very accepted medical studies that prove that beyond any
doubt newborns know their mothers and "miss" them to some extent or another.
Many of these studies were not started out to "help" adoptees, of course, but
to "help" preemies who were basically seperated from their mothers in the NICU.
Do you honestly believe babies are stupid or as they used to say decades ago-"a
blank slate"?
mj
Mjwhaly
Wow all the logic we try to insert into this subject. Can we just accept that
throwing a baby shower for a baby that's "leaving"-adopted out- is nuts? Can
we also just accept that perhaps the bmom and her family had mixed feelings
about it and were driven nuts by the final decision of leaving their kin
behind? Who knows?
I got to know a bmom a couple years ago who's adopted- out- baby was only 5
weeks old at the time. I'll never forget she was very bitter that her
coworkers did not throw her a baby shower-even though she was planning on
adoption. I didn't ask her why she would even think they would do that because
I felt sorry for her and figured she was driven half nuts by the whole thing
anyway.
Also many agencies now have that adoption ceremony thing where the baby is
handed over from bmom to amom and poems are said etc, etc. I'm sure some SW
came up with that one.
mj
LilMtnCbn
>From: mjw...@aol.com (Mjwhaly)
>Date: 9/15/03 10:33 PM Mountain Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20030916003342...@mb-m27.aol.com>
Well, to me, that's just plain weird. Maybe she just didn't have a close
friend to arrange it. Did she expect her co-workers to? Who in the world
expects co-workers to throw a damn baby shower?
About 14 or more years ago, I had a shower that I was invited to for a
surrogate mom. It was known ahead of time that she wasn't going to keep the
baby---but this was a celebration among her friends/aquaintences (sp) for
"her".
I saw the episode of Friends, where the character Pheobe was giving birth to
triplets as a surrogate for her brother and wife, and had sort of a baby
shower, years later and laughed my ass off, and felt bad at the same time.
At the shower I attended, there were a lot of gifts for when the "mother" got
back into shape. Some risque undies, etc. I gave a basket of bath
salts/oils/aromatharapy shit.
But I never considered how she might be feeling about the whole thing. Just
gave things to help her body feel/look better. :-(
Steve White
"M is for Malapert" <mi...@sonic.net> wrote:
> So are you saying that colostrum has no medical benefit past the
> first -- units of time? It is known that it provides some protection
> for some period of time, correct?
I'm responding to Di's blabber. You'll have to get in line :-)
steve
Lainie Petersen
> They think the birth mother should look after the baby for the first week or
> so, then hand it over. I think absolutely no contact with the baby is best,
> or bonding may take place and it will be harder for her to pick up her life
> again.
That is absurd.
Denying that one has had a child by avoiding the child isn't going to
help anyone in getting their life back together. Lord knows there have
been enough damaged birthmother's on this group who never got a chance
to spend any time with their babies.
L.
LilMtnCbn
>From: sf...@yahoo.com (Lainie Petersen)
>Date: 9/16/03 12:17 AM Mountain Daylight Time
>Message-id: <671d8c26.03091...@posting.google.com>
I wholeheartedly concur. As long as we are excluding Melinda, the
wannabee-birthmother.
Dian
> sf...@yahoo.com (Lainie Petersen) wrote:
>
> > patr...@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote in message
> > news:<c599139c.03091...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > > Question why adoptees tend to have statistically more gastro
> > > intestinal bowel problams, eating disorders, asthma, and prone to a
> > > plethora of auto immune diseases, MS etc as adults, than their non
> > > adopted peers. And then think colostrum again.
> >
> > Ok, I'm, questioning.
> >
> > I'd like some references for this, please...only from accepted peer
> > reviewed medical journals.
>
>
>
> Since asthma is a big part of what I do for a living, I can state with
> virtual certainty that there is no difference in asthma rates or
> severity between adopted and non-adopted children, or in adults adopted
> as children versus adults not-adopted.
Just to clarify, you won't find the studies between adopted and non
adopted children, Steve. You will find the comparisons between breast
fed and non breast fed children. It goes without saying that adopted
infants have
generally not been breastfed. Which puts thm in the non breastfed
category.
> I would challenge Di to provide me with an article in the peer-reviewed
> medical literature, or a major medical textbook, that states otherwise.
>
> I just checked Medline, just to be sure, and there is no such article in
> the literature.
>
> Ditto for MS.
>
> Ditto for eating disorders.
>
> Ditto for intestinal diseases.
>
> Ditto for auto-immune disorders.
>
>
> So I'd also like to see the citation.
>
>
>
>
>
> steve
With pleasure. Let me know if you need more.
http://www.health.gov.au/pubhlth/strateg/brfeed/
7 reasons why mother's milk is better for your baby and you (1998)
(pdf file 38Kb)
http://www.health.gov.au/pubhlth/publicat/document/brfeed/nmaa2.pdf
http://www.infactcanada.ca/foodgrup.htm
Formula fed infants have more auto-immune disease
Infant feeding in Finnish children < 7 yr of age with diagnosed IDDM.
Virtanin, et al. Diabetes Care 14: 415-417, 1991. Finnish children
exclusively breastfed with delayed exposure to infant formula based on
cow's milk had significantly reduced incidence of diabetes.
Infant feeding and childhood cancer. Davies, et al. Lancet 2: 365-368,
1988. The risk of developing childhood lymphomas was 5 to 8 times
higher for artificially fed infants as compared to infants breastfed
for six months or less.
http://www.breastfeeding.asn.au/bfinfo/asthma.html
http://www.racgp.org.au/document.asp?id=907
http://www.colostrumfirst.com/Health/AZ_benefits.html
http://www.breastfeeding.asn.au/bfinfo/general.html
http://www.health.gov.au/pubhlth/strateg/brfeed/brfacts.htm
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/19/1061059815855.html
Di
Robin
patr...@bigpond.com.au wrote on 16/9/03 11:27 am:
> Steve White <st...@spam.me.never> wrote in message
> news:<steve-89F475....@netnews.attbi.com>...
>> In article <671d8c26.03091...@posting.google.com>,
>> sf...@yahoo.com (Lainie Petersen) wrote:
>>
>>> patr...@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote in message
>>> news:<c599139c.03091...@posting.google.com>...
>>>
>>>> Question why adoptees tend to have statistically more gastro
>>>> intestinal bowel problams, eating disorders, asthma, and prone to a
>>>> plethora of auto immune diseases, MS etc as adults, than their non
>>>> adopted peers. And then think colostrum again.
>>>
>>> Ok, I'm, questioning.
>>>
>>> I'd like some references for this, please...only from accepted peer
>>> reviewed medical journals.
>> Since asthma is a big part of what I do for a living, I can state with
>> virtual certainty that there is no difference in asthma rates or
>> severity between adopted and non-adopted children, or in adults adopted
>> as children versus adults not-adopted.
> Just to clarify, you won't find the studies between adopted and non adopted
> children, Steve. You will find the comparisons between breast fed and non
> breast fed children. It goes without saying that adopted infants have
> generally not been breastfed. Which puts them in the non breastfed category.
I wouldn't say that that necessarily true everywhere, certainly a lot of
children for whom adoption had already been "chosen" were breastfed in M&Bs
in England. A considerable proportion of adoptees here even in the past were
not relinquished at birth most of the ones that I know about here were with
the birth mother for at least a month and more often six weeks, others were
placed with temporary foster parents for the first six weeks, even some of
those were "wet nursed". And of course there are a lot of kept kids who are
not breast fed. I've a whole raft of auto-immune problems and have had to
take immunosuppressants, I was breastfed by my natural mother for six weeks
according to her own account, so I had my full share of beestings.
Down on the farm we were always keen to make sure that calves had the
colostrum, thought to have saved a lot of money on antibiotics later, but it
always seemed that the cow and calf involved were much less distressed if
the calf were removed immediately before she had any chance to lick it etc,
so calves were bucket or bottle fed colostrum.
Robin
Marley Greiner
"Mjwhaly" <mjw...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030916001549...@mb-m27.aol.com...
Yes I do. They are stupid and so are the people who breed them.
Marley
Marley Greiner
> Steve White <st...@spam.me.never> wrote in message
news:<steve-89F475....@netnews.attbi.com>...
> > In article <671d8c26.03091...@posting.google.com>,
> > sf...@yahoo.com (Lainie Petersen) wrote:
> >
> > > patr...@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote in message
> > > news:<c599139c.03091...@posting.google.com>...
> > >
> > > > Question why adoptees tend to have statistically more gastro
> > > > intestinal bowel problams, eating disorders, asthma, and prone to a
> > > > plethora of auto immune diseases, MS etc as adults, than their non
> > > > adopted peers. And then think colostrum again.
> > >
> > > Ok, I'm, questioning.
> > >
> > > I'd like some references for this, please...only from accepted peer
> > > reviewed medical journals.
> >
> >
> >
> > Since asthma is a big part of what I do for a living, I can state with
> > virtual certainty that there is no difference in asthma rates or
> > severity between adopted and non-adopted children, or in adults adopted
> > as children versus adults not-adopted.
>
> Just to clarify, you won't find the studies between adopted and non
> adopted children, Steve. You will find the comparisons between breast
> fed and non breast fed children. It goes without saying that adopted
> infants have
> generally not been breastfed. Which puts thm in the non breastfed
> category.
Bgalllahhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!! Women belong in the workforce, not sitting home
indulging their sprog.
Marley
kat
news:<steve-89F475....@netnews.attbi.com>...
> > In article <671d8c26.03091...@posting.google.com>,
> > sf...@yahoo.com (Lainie Petersen) wrote:
> >
> > > patr...@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote in message
> > > news:<c599139c.03091...@posting.google.com>...
> > >
> > > > Question why adoptees tend to have statistically more gastro
> > > > intestinal bowel problams, eating disorders, asthma, and prone to a
> > > > plethora of auto immune diseases, MS etc as adults, than their non
> > > > adopted peers. And then think colostrum again.
> > >
> > > Ok, I'm, questioning.
> > >
> > > I'd like some references for this, please...only from accepted peer
> > > reviewed medical journals.
> >
> >
> >
> > Since asthma is a big part of what I do for a living, I can state with
> > virtual certainty that there is no difference in asthma rates or
> > severity between adopted and non-adopted children, or in adults adopted
> > as children versus adults not-adopted.
>
> Just to clarify, you won't find the studies between adopted and non
> adopted children, Steve. You will find the comparisons between breast
> fed and non breast fed children. It goes without saying that adopted
> infants have
> generally not been breastfed. Which puts thm in the non breastfed
> category.
Well then you will be glad to know that some amothers do attempt to
breastfeed. Perhaps we should encourage more of that then to erase that
difference ;)
Kathy 1
KL
Not to mention that I think there is bonding made before the birth. I know I
felt like I had a bond with my birthmother when I found her. We just seemed
connected in some way.
KL
M is for Malapert
"kat" <katl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bk73rc$q4pec$1...@ID-203097.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Well then you will be glad to know that some amothers do attempt to
> breastfeed. Perhaps we should encourage more of that then to erase that
> difference ;)
They wouldn't produce colostrum, though.
Windforest
Tonawanda, NY. Real Interesting KJ. However I met my birthsister two
years ago and found out that she also has MS. She also has quite a few
more serious medical conditions that she insist are not hereditary. I am
not so sure though. BTW, She called me on Sunday! First time we talked
in a year. We both promised to stay in better touch. So it seems she is
opened to getting to know me? :)
Windforest
-------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Miss Manners
Group: alt.adoption Date: Tue, Sep 16, 2003, 12:51am (MDT+6) From:
kjs...@aol.comeek (kj)
Palms2pines
>> > intestinal bowel problams, eating disorders, asthma, and prone to a
>> > plethora of auto immune diseases, MS etc as adults, than their non
>> > adopted peers. And then think colostrum again.
>>
Did Di write this?
I seriously doubt its accuracy. There was a time in the US when experts
believed formula was better for babies than breast milk. I was one of the
bottle-fed babies of the fifties, as were the majority of people born in that
era. I have never read anywhere that we bottle-fed ones are more prone to
diseases of any sort.
This is another urban myth.
P2P
WhansaMi
>infants have
>generally not been breastfed. Which puts thm in the non breastfed
>category.
Whoa there. My friend K adopted her daughter at birth and she breastfed for
three years.
:-)
Sheila
Palms2pines
>felt like I had a bond with my birthmother when I found her. We just seemed
>connected in some way.
>
>KL
As you definitely are!
P2P
Palms2pines
>
>Dad
>
STOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LMAO!!
P2P
Rupa Bose
> "Dian" <patr...@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message
> > > Since asthma is a big part of what I do for a living, I can state with
> > > virtual certainty that there is no difference in asthma rates or
> > > severity between adopted and non-adopted children, or in adults adopted
> > > as children versus adults not-adopted.
> >
> > Just to clarify, you won't find the studies between adopted and non
> > adopted children, Steve. You will find the comparisons between breast
> > fed and non breast fed children. It goes without saying that adopted
> > infants have
> > generally not been breastfed. Which puts thm in the non breastfed
> > category.
>
> Bgalllahhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!! Women belong in the workforce, not sitting home
> indulging their sprog.
True, but they could indulge their sproggen for a while before getting
back to the workforce.
Di, I don't know what the other cites say as this was the first one I
checked (a relative of mine has asthma, and it's quite a concern --
even though he was breastfed).
But this cite you included doesn't support your stance.
> > http://www.breastfeeding.asn.au/bfinfo/asthma.html
"Susceptibility to asthma is influenced by events occurring early in
life and reported risk factors include being male, being born with a
low birthweight or preterm, young maternal age, maternal smoking and
exposure to house dust mite or pollen. Breastfeeding as a protective
factor for asthma has been the subject of controversy for many years,
with recent publications reporting either protection or no effect of
breastfeeding.
Furthermore, early exposure to respiratory infections may protect
against asthma whereas some infections may be a definite risk.
Breastfeeding protects against infection in infants, but this
protection has not been consistently demonstrated."
Rupa
Rupa Bose
breast-feeding is a good idea, these cites don't really make a strong
case. I looked at all the URLs in that little list.
Rupa
patr...@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote
>
> http://www.breastfeeding.asn.au/bfinfo/asthma.html
This says there is no real evidence that breastfeeding prevents
asthma.
> http://www.racgp.org.au/document.asp?id=907
This does suggest several health benefits for breastfeeding, and cites
other refs.
> http://www.colostrumfirst.com/Health/AZ_benefits.html
This is about the benefits of bovine colostrum.
> http://www.breastfeeding.asn.au/bfinfo/general.html
> http://www.health.gov.au/pubhlth/strateg/brfeed/brfacts.htm
These two are general pieces supportive of breastfeeding. They quote
"research" rather than specific research.
> http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/19/1061059815855.html
This suggests that if a baby with RSV breastfeeds, the milk contains
an elevated level of anti-bodies. It also suggested that mothers in
developing countries were too healthy to provide really protective
breastmilk, (leading me to the rather weird thought that maybe
3rdworld women should start exporting breast milk.) She suggests that
mothers should expose themselves to more infection. (Perhaps a long
holiday in the 3rd world? And *do* drink the water?)
Quote:
"Ms Bryan said milk samples from mothers of RSV babies contained about
four times as many protective white blood cells than samples from
mothers of healthy infants.
"Breast milk seemed to respond to the virus in order to help the
immune systems of the sick babies," Ms Bryan said. There remained much
to learn about breast milk's protective properties, she said.
"There is a theory that mothers in western societies are not exposing
themselves to enough healthy bacteria and their breast milk is not as
protective as it could be," Ms Bryan said. "
Unquote
geopelia
"LilMtnCbn" <lilm...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20030916005500...@mb-m07.aol.com...
Instead of a baby shower, have a party after the adoption is over to
celebrate her freedom and help her along with her life.
Parties are held to celebrate freedom after a divorce, so why not for
freedom from an unwanted pregnancy?
Today many women have an abortion anyway. Any parties for that?
Geopelia
>
>
Lainie Petersen
> Well, to me, that's just plain weird. Maybe she just didn't have a close
> friend to arrange it. Did she expect her co-workers to? Who in the world
> expects co-workers to throw a damn baby shower?
I think it is very weird to "expect" a baby shower when one isn't
planning on parenting. As I said before, I see nothing wrong with a
luncheon or tea that celebrates this "passage" in a woman's life (if
she is planning on relinquishing), but if someone is not planning on
parenting, a shower, as such, is inappropriate. On the other hand, I
see nothing wrong with family members deciding amongst themselves to
send the baby off with some gifts.
Frankly, I am quite sure that this woman's co-workers were confused
and uncomfortable with the situation to begin with, and they probably
thought that any sort of official recognition of the situation would
make things even more difficult for their co-worker.
L.
Kathy
>From: palms...@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines)
>Date: 9/16/03 1:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20030916165608...@mb-m24.aol.com>
>>> > Question why adoptees tend to have statistically more gastro
>>> > intestinal bowel problams,
eating disorders,
asthma,
and prone to a
>>> > plethora of auto immune diseases, MS etc as adults, than their non
>>> > adopted peers. And then think colostrum again.
>>>
>
>
>Did Di write this?
> P2P
That or Pinocchio is in town.
Kathy
"To err is human; to forgive, divine."
Dian
Simulated breastfeeding does not produce colostrum. Nor is it as
nutritious as milk from a pregnant woman. It's done more for comfort
than anything else. Comforting the adopters illusion that she gave
birth to another woman's baby. Adopted babies in the US will soon come
complete with a razor blade so the adopter can give herself an
episiotomy scar and a few stretch marks as well.
Di
Marley Greiner
There should be!
Marley
> >
> >
>
>
Kathy
>From: patr...@bigpond.com.au (Dian)
>Date: 9/16/03 3:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <c599139c.0309...@posting.google.com>
(snip)
>Simulated breastfeeding does not produce colostrum. Nor is it as
>nutritious as milk from a pregnant woman.
> It's done more for comfort
>than anything else. Comforting the adopters illusion that she gave
>birth to another woman's baby.
Are you ever going to get out of high school?
>Adopted babies in the US will soon come
>complete with a razor blade so the adopter can give herself an
>episiotomy scar and a few stretch marks as well.
You wish so it will give you something new to bitch and obsess about.
>Di
Lainie Petersen
>
> Just to clarify, you won't find the studies between adopted and non
> adopted children, Steve. You will find the comparisons between breast
> fed and non breast fed children. It goes without saying that adopted
> infants have
> generally not been breastfed. Which puts thm in the non breastfed
> category.
Actually, I do know of some birthmothers who have nursed their
children so that the child will get colostrum.
L.
kj
>Date: 9/16/2003 4:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <2363-3F6...@storefull-2152.public.lawson.webtv.net>
>
>Top Post : I have MS and the first ten years of my life were spent in
>Tonawanda, NY. Real Interesting KJ. However I met my birthsister two
>years ago and found out that she also has MS. She also has quite a few
>more serious medical conditions that she insist are not hereditary. I am
>not so sure though. BTW, She called me on Sunday! First time we talked
>in a year. We both promised to stay in better touch. So it seems she is
>opened to getting to know me? :)
>Windforest
First--congratulations on your birthsister coming to her senses! I'm sure
she'll realize that she's making a fantastic decision.
Second--Tonawanda? I have a couple of friends from there. But I do stand by
something to do with either/both pollution in Western New York (remember Love
Canal) and the extreme climate. I hope your doing well, Windforest. The
doctors are giving my sister Prednazone(sp?), and it seems to keep her
flare-ups in check. I know too many women here who have MS.
>-------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Re: Miss Manners
>
>Group: alt.adoption Date: Tue, Sep 16, 2003, 12:51am (MDT+6) From:
>kjs...@aol.comeek (kj)
>"RB" rayb...@socal.rr.com
>Date: 9/15/2003 7:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <Tks9b.60367$gt1.1...@twister.socal.rr.com>
>My sister has MS and she's not adopted. In fact, I live in an MS ridden
>area. MS is more likely caused by climate and pollution.
>The cause of multiple sclerosis (MS) is not known. Researchers believe
>the combination of heredity, the immune system, and possibly a virus may
>play a role in a person developing multiple sclerosis. Individuals may
>inherit a susceptibility to the disease, but not the disease itself. (
>from http://www.bandagainstms.org/msinfo_cause.html )
>True--but it does occur an awful lot in western new york. (I was
>spouting
>theories of why this is--not mine!)
>Now PD is another matter see
>http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/HTMLTemplate/!ctvNews/News/Docs/doc_parkinsons.html
>for a review of a recent case in the public eye.
>-Ray
>kj
>
>
kj
Marley Greiner
"kj" <kjs...@aol.comeek> wrote in message
news:20030916230558...@mb-m13.aol.com...
> >bad...@webtv.net (Windforest)
> >Date: 9/16/2003 4:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <2363-3F6...@storefull-2152.public.lawson.webtv.net>
> >
> >Top Post : I have MS and the first ten years of my life were spent in
> >Tonawanda, NY. Real Interesting KJ. However I met my birthsister two
> >years ago and found out that she also has MS. She also has quite a few
> >more serious medical conditions that she insist are not hereditary. I am
> >not so sure though. BTW, She called me on Sunday! First time we talked
> >in a year. We both promised to stay in better touch. So it seems she is
> >opened to getting to know me? :)
> >Windforest
>
>
> First--congratulations on your birthsister coming to her senses! I'm sure
> she'll realize that she's making a fantastic decision.
>
> Second--Tonawanda? I have a couple of friends from there. But I do stand
by
> something to do with either/both pollution in Western New York (remember
Love
> Canal) and the extreme climate. I hope your doing well, Windforest. The
> doctors are giving my sister Prednazone(sp?), and it seems to keep her
> flare-ups in check. I know too many women here who have MS.
>
>
> >-------------------------------------------------------------
My bdad's girlfriend lives in Tonawanda.
Marley
Steve White
patr...@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote:
> > > > Question why adoptees tend to have statistically more gastro
> > > > intestinal bowel problams, eating disorders, asthma, and prone
> > > > to a plethora of auto immune diseases, MS etc as adults, than
> > > > their non adopted peers. And then think colostrum again.
> > Since asthma is a big part of what I do for a living, I can state
> > with virtual certainty that there is no difference in asthma rates
> > or severity between adopted and non-adopted children, or in adults
> > adopted as children versus adults not-adopted.
>
> Just to clarify, you won't find the studies between adopted and non
> adopted children, Steve. You will find the comparisons between breast
> fed and non breast fed children. It goes without saying that adopted
> infants have generally not been breastfed. Which puts thm in the non
> breastfed category.
That kind of dissembling would qualify you for a seat at the UN! If you
meant breast-feeding, you should say so.
For example, an infant could have been breast-fed and later placed in
adoption -- removed by the state or relinquished after the first year.
These things do happen!
This sort of sloppiness permeates Origins, so I suppose I have to give
you a pass.
But not a weekend pass :-)
steve
Dian
Nice try, Steve. The discussion was to do with newborns. Not older adoptions.
Di
Dian
Hense the word "generally." Still, recent research suggests an infant
should be breastfed for around four months for optimal benefit and
health protection.
This kind of information puts into question the "good" of at birth
adoptions.
I wonder how many mothers would even consider adoption if they knew
they were
depriving child of the best start in life by handing them over at
birth? And
why is the medical and social work profession not warning young
mothers of the health risks to their children when considering infant
adoption? IMO it's professional negligence if not child abuse by
omission to apply this kind of information to non adopted infants and
disregard it when it comes to children earmarked for adoption. I
wonder why their health doesn't matter as much?
Di
Dian
> patr...@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote:
>
> > > > > Question why adoptees tend to have statistically more gastro
> > > > > intestinal bowel problams, eating disorders, asthma, and prone
> > > > > to a plethora of auto immune diseases, MS etc as adults, than
> > > > > their non adopted peers. And then think colostrum again.
>
> > > Since asthma is a big part of what I do for a living, I can state
> > > with virtual certainty that there is no difference in asthma rates
> > > or severity between adopted and non-adopted children, or in adults
> > > adopted as children versus adults not-adopted.
> >
> > Just to clarify, you won't find the studies between adopted and non
> > adopted children, Steve. You will find the comparisons between breast
> > fed and non breast fed children. It goes without saying that adopted
> > infants have generally not been breastfed. Which puts thm in the non
> > breastfed category.
>
>
> That kind of dissembling would qualify you for a seat at the UN! If you
> meant breast-feeding, you should say so.
You mean you couldn't link the two together yourself?
As an asthma expert you didn't say whether you agree that
breastfeeding helps to protect the child from asthma and aids the
child's immune system as those studies indicate. What is your opinion?
Di
Jack Bernhard
"Kathy" <meag...@aol.comsthesun> wrote in message
news:20030916193257...@mb-m28.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: Miss Manners
> >From: patr...@bigpond.com.au (Dian)
> >Date: 9/16/03 3:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <c599139c.0309...@posting.google.com>
>
> (snip)
>
> >Simulated breastfeeding does not produce colostrum. Nor is it as
> >nutritious as milk from a pregnant woman.
> > It's done more for comfort
> >than anything else. Comforting the adopters illusion that she gave
> >birth to another woman's baby.
>
> Are you ever going to get out of high school?
>
I've gotta agree with Di on this one.
See:
http://www.lalecheleague.org/NB/NBadoptive.html
Especially the article called "Child of Mine"
Since adoptive mothers don't produce colostrum and rarely, if ever, produce
enough breastmilk to satisfy (quite often they produce none at all but still
insist that the child suckle) one is left to wonder who it's really for.
Jack
>
Robibnikoff
I have to agree. As an adoptee, I was definitely bottle-fed - in fact I found
the recipe for my formula and it was cow's milk and karo syrup! I never had any
of the problems listed. Not to mention that neither my husband nor any of his
siblings were breast fed and they've never had any of the above disorders
either.
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557
Kathy
>From: "Jack Bernhard" jcber...@deletethisprodigy.net
>Date: 9/17/03 5:30 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <PtY9b.3097$aQ5....@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com>
>"Kathy" <meag...@aol.comsthesun> wrote in message
>news:20030916193257...@mb-m28.aol.com...
>> >Subject: Re: Miss Manners
>> >From: patr...@bigpond.com.au (Dian)
>> >Date: 9/16/03 3:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>> >Message-id: <c599139c.0309...@posting.google.com>
>>
>> (snip)
>>
>> >Simulated breastfeeding does not produce colostrum. Nor is it as
>> >nutritious as milk from a pregnant woman.
>> > It's done more for comfort
>> >than anything else. Comforting the adopters illusion that she gave
>> >birth to another woman's baby.
>>
>> Are you ever going to get out of high school?
>>
>
>I've gotta agree with Di on this one.
I'm not sure what you are agreeing with. Sure there is no colostrum produced by
adoptive mothers' milk but there are psychological benefits for many that give
it a try. If you think like Di that the only reason adoptive mothers choose to
try to breast feed is so that they can delusionally pretend that they birthed,
I think that is wrong. I think that the majority of them do it so that they
have a better attachment/bonding experience with their infants. Why not?
Nothing seems abnormal about that at least ime.
>http://www.lalecheleague.org/NB/NBadoptive.html
>
>Especially the article called "Child of Mine"
I read it.
>Since adoptive mothers don't produce colostrum and rarely, if ever, produce
>enough breastmilk to satisfy (quite often they produce none at all but still
>insist that the child suckle) one is left to wonder who it's really for.
>Jack
If it makes any adoptive mother feel more intimate, (physical and emotional
advantages) with her infant, and vice versa,... I see nothing disadvantageous
about it.
Palms2pines
>complete with a razor blade so the adopter can give herself an
>episiotomy scar and a few stretch marks as well.
>
> Di
Has anyone mentioned lately, Di, that you are a nut?
P2P
Palms2pines
feeding:
>(quite often they produce none at all but still
>insist that the child suckle)>>
Really? I am wondering about all those adoptive mothers you know Jack with
whom you discussed this topic. Care to enlighten?
I am an adoptive mother. I know lots of 'em now. I have never met one who
attempted breast feeding. I have *read* that cases do exist and that
attempting to produce breast milk when one has not been pregnant is very close
to impossible, at least in amounts sufficient to accomplish anything.
What do you suppose the percentages are? My guess would be about one in ten
thousand adoptive mothers decides to force the baby to suckle, nutrition be
damned. But, hey. It sure makes a good story.
P2P
Palms2pines
>children so that the child will get colostrum.
>
>L.
>
>
Me, too. I had a pregnant young woman who was considering placing her newborn
for adoption (before we adopted) tell me she would only place the baby with an
adoptive mother who would at least try to breast feed. Yikes. What a condition
of placement.
P2P
Palms2pines
>I wonder how many mothers would even consider adoption if they knew
>they were
>depriving child of the best start in life by handing them over at
>birth?>>
Good gawd, woman. Do you really think it is not widely known that breast milk
is the absolute best nutritional source for almost all* babies?
P2P
*My sister's first child was not able to digest breast milk efficiently and
doctors switched him to soy formula within weeks of birth. He did fine on the
soy.
P2P
Palms2pines
>
>> P2P
>
>That or Pinocchio is in town.
>
>
>
::::::::::::::spew::::::::::::
P2P
Palms2pines
>three years.
>
>:-)
>
>Sheila
>
Wow. This is the first story of this sort I have read. Was she able to produce
sufficient milk or did she supplement with formula? How did she actually begin
lactating? I mean...once she put her baby to her breast, how long was it
before milk actually flowed?
I realize these questions are intensely personal. However, could you discuss
this with your friend and get back to us?
P2P
Rhiannon
> "Kathy" <meag...@aol.comsthesun> wrote in message
> news:20030916193257...@mb-m28.aol.com...
> > >Subject: Re: Miss Manners
> > >From: patr...@bigpond.com.au (Dian)
> > >Date: 9/16/03 3:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> > >Message-id: <c599139c.0309...@posting.google.com>
> >
> > (snip)
> >
> > >Simulated breastfeeding does not produce colostrum. Nor is it as
> > >nutritious as milk from a pregnant woman.
> > > It's done more for comfort
> > >than anything else. Comforting the adopters illusion that she gave
> > >birth to another woman's baby.
> >
> > Are you ever going to get out of high school?
> >
>
> I've gotta agree with Di on this one.
> >
> >
>
Me too.
>
Rh.
kat
Windforest <bad...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:2363-3F6...@storefull-2152.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> Top Post : I have MS and the first ten years of my life were spent in
> Tonawanda, NY. Real Interesting KJ. However I met my birthsister two
> years ago and found out that she also has MS. She also has quite a few
> more serious medical conditions that she insist are not hereditary. I am
> not so sure though. BTW, She called me on Sunday! First time we talked
> in a year. We both promised to stay in better touch. So it seems she is
> opened to getting to know me? :)
Very cool! :)
Kathy 1
> Windforest
> -------------------------------------------------------------
M is for Malapert
"Kathy" <meag...@aol.comsthesun> wrote in message
> >http://www.lalecheleague.org/NB/NBadoptive.html
> >
> >Especially the article called "Child of Mine"
>
> I read it.
>
> >Since adoptive mothers don't produce colostrum and rarely, if ever,
produce
> >enough breastmilk to satisfy (quite often they produce none at all but
still
> >insist that the child suckle) one is left to wonder who it's really for.
>
> >Jack
>
> If it makes any adoptive mother feel more intimate, (physical and
emotional
> advantages) with her infant, and vice versa,... I see nothing
disadvantageous
> about it.
Didn't the description of the amom rather forcibly training the baby to
suck, to his obvious discomfort, bother you at all?
Rupa Bose
Still, recent research suggests an infant
> should be breastfed for around four months for optimal benefit and
> health protection.
While there is a lot of research being done in the area, I think the
greatest benefits are seen in 3rd world situations where the
alternative is to give the child a formula prepared in less than
sterile conditions. Other than that, the stuff I've seen suggests that
breast-milk is generally a good thing. However, I don't think there's
much evidence for major and persistent differences. Since many people
of our generation were bottle-fed (because mothers were told that
bottle-fed babies gained weight faster and were healthier), I don't
think there's huge support for the "no-formula" approach beyond some
mothers who take breast-feeding very seriously. Baby-formula companies
remain in business, and their clients are not all adoptees.
> This kind of information puts into question the "good" of at birth
> adoptions.
> I wonder how many mothers would even consider adoption if they knew
> they were
> depriving child of the best start in life by handing them over at
> birth?
Usually, mothers giving up their children have other reasons. I
seriously can't see a woman who is making plans to relinquish stopping
and thinking, But what about colostrum?
And
> why is the medical and social work profession not warning young
> mothers of the health risks to their children when considering infant
> adoption?
To my knowledge, no one warns mothers of "health risks" from
bottle-feeding. They might suggest that breast-feeding appears to have
some health benefits, but there are many mothers who don't breast-feed
the babies they've borne. It's not limited to b-moms.
IMO it's professional negligence if not child abuse by
> omission to apply this kind of information to non adopted infants and
> disregard it when it comes to children earmarked for adoption.
Are you equating bottle-feeding with child abuse?
Or failure to advise mothers that "breast is best" ?
Rupa
Julia
wrote:
It isn't so unusual. I've heard many similar stories. I have a friend
who is a researcher looking specifically at post institutionalised
adopted children who seek breastfeeding, breastfeeding children who
are aged 4 months or older at placement, and breastfeeding and
attachment in hurt children.
My son was 5 months old when I adopted him and he was happy to suckle,
though I didn't pursue breastfeeding him for nourishment. It would
have been fairly easy for me to do if I'd chosen to, but he'd been
bottlefed since birth so I didn't push him. Had he been younger, or
from a background where he'd been breastfed (by his birth mother or
wet nurse), it would have been a different matter.
Julia
WhansaMi
>produce
>sufficient milk or did she supplement with formula? How did she actually
>begin
>lactating? I mean...once she put her baby to her breast, how long was it
>before milk actually flowed?
>
>I realize these questions are intensely personal. However, could you discuss
>this with your friend and get back to us?
>
>
>
>
>P2P
Eh. She's one of us radical La Leche League moms. We nurse(d) all over the
place. She doesn't care. ;-)
K had never been pregnant, never gave birth. She was in her mid-30's when she
adopted her daughter. She has since adopted her son, who is now nearly four
and is at the end of weaning.
She prepared herself by taking herbal supplements (I remember milk thistle was
one of them) for several months before the baby was born. Did it help? Who
knows. I think the major thing was that she basically holed up in the house
with the baby, and nursed any time the baby had an inkling-- that whole supply
and demand thing, you know. Initially she supplemented by attaching a thin
tube to her breast, so that as the baby nursed, she got formula as well as
whatever breastmilk was available. As I remember (I just tried to call, but
she isn't home-- she lives in CA, and it is only 3:00 p.m. there) milk
production began within a couple of weeks. Fortunately, the baby was a robust
nurser, so by the time she was eating solid food (at about 5 months) K. didn't
have to supplement at all.
BTW, the "baby" just turned 13 this weekend. :-)
Sheila
KL
palms...@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) writes:
Does that need mentioning? Isn't that a given?
KL
Kathy
>From: rkb...@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose)
>Date: 9/17/03 2:35 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <e5619372.03091...@posting.google.com>
(snip)
Rupa to Di:
>Are you equating bottle-feeding with child abuse?
No, she's equating adoption and all that follows with child abuse.
Kathy
>From: "M is for Malapert" mi...@sonic.net
>Date: 9/17/03 2:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <xX3ab.489917$o%2.217927@sccrnsc02>
This happens with bio moms too. Your point?
Marley Greiner
"Kathy" <meag...@aol.comsthesun> wrote in message
They'd no doubt try to BF an zebra if it fulfilled their maternal fantasies.
Marley
>
>
>
>
Lainie Petersen
> should be breastfed for around four months for optimal benefit and
> health protection.
In the US, it is recommended that they be breast-fed for at least a
year.
> This kind of information puts into question the "good" of at birth
> adoptions.
> I wonder how many mothers would even consider adoption if they knew
> they were
> depriving child of the best start in life by handing them over at
> birth?
But breast feeding is only once component of a "best start". The woman
who parents her child out of a desire to provide it with breast milk,
but who lacks other resources, parenting skills, and a desire to be a
parent could hardly be said to be giving her child the "best start".
And
> why is the medical and social work profession not warning young
> mothers of the health risks to their children when considering infant
> adoption? IMO it's professional negligence if not child abuse by
> omission to apply this kind of information to non adopted infants and
> disregard it when it comes to children earmarked for adoption. I
> wonder why their health doesn't matter as much?
Do you think that hospitals and their social workers should post dire
warnings to women who aren't considering adoption about the need for
breast milk? Do you think that women who don't plan on breastfeeding
their babies should be shamed for their failure to provide breastmilk?
Are hospitals and social workers who don't push breastfeeding on
non-reliquishing mothers guilty of professional negligence? Or do you
think that only potential birthmothers should be subject to such an
information campaign?
You are assuming that all women who parent their babies breastfeed
them. Many don't, and many don't because their schedules don't make
breastfeeding possible. A single mother, who is required to work in
order to support herself and her baby, is probably less likely to
breastfeed than is a married woman who has the luxury of staying at
home full-time with her baby.
In any case, I think the notion of discouraging adoption soley on the
grounds of breastfeeding (or the lack thereof) is also professional
negligence. Children need more than breastmilk to get a good start in
life.
L.
Dian
Yikes! Cows milk killed many babies through gastro-intestinal tracts
infections. Which is why they invented formula in the 1930's.
Di
Lainie Petersen
> Me, too. I had a pregnant young woman who was considering placing her newborn
> for adoption (before we adopted) tell me she would only place the baby with an
> adoptive mother who would at least try to breast feed. Yikes. What a condition
> of placement.
Yeah, I have heard of this too...(Read Suzanne Arms' book on adoption
"A Handful of Hope"). Personally I think it is rather strange, and
suggests a real misunderstanding regarding the advantages of
breastfeeding, much in the same way as many potential birthmothers
misunderstand "bonding" and insist on the potential a-parents being in
the hospital room.
L.
Dian
You need to spend more time on adoptive parent forums and read books
on how ot raise adopted children. Especially by Louise Molina -
American Goddess of all things adoption related. She even outlines how
men can breastfeed.
Di
Marley Greiner
"Dian" <patr...@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message
news:c599139c.03091...@posting.google.com...
I think Marla posted the contraption for men. Or maybe I saw it on another
ng. WHY? Don't we have enough "sensitive males" junking up the
environment?:
Marley
Dian
> Di drones:
>
> >I wonder how many mothers would even consider adoption if they knew
> >they were
> >depriving child of the best start in life by handing them over at
> >birth?>>
>
> Good gawd, woman. Do you really think it is not widely known that breast milk
> is the absolute best nutritional source for almost all* babies?
>
> P2P
>
infant adoption business has not even considered the best interests of
the child. If they did they would be advocating breastfeeding instead
of encouraging at birth relinquishment and depriving the baby of the
"best start in life".
Do you know of any adoption agency which advises the young mother to
breast feed her child for a few months before placement? A simple
yes/no will suffice.
Di
AdoptaDad
>Message-id: <c599139c.03091...@posting.google.com>
< snip >
>> P2P
>>
>Which should indicate to you that everyone involved in the whole
>infant adoption business has not even considered the best interests of
>the child. If they did they would be advocating breastfeeding instead
>of encouraging at birth relinquishment and depriving the baby of the
>"best start in life".
Good gawd, woman. The "best start in life" consists of far more than the act
of breastfeeding alone. In fact, I wouldn't even rank breastfeeding in the top
ten.
Bottle Fed Dad
AdoptaDad
>Message-id: <c599139c.03091...@posting.google.com>
< snip >
>You need to spend more time on adoptive parent forums and
>read books on how ot raise adopted children.
< chuckle > That's rich coming from someone who hasn't raised any children,
much less adopted ones.
Dad
Dian
> >Subject: Re: Miss Manners
> >From: palms...@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines)
> >Date: 9/16/03 1:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <20030916165608...@mb-m24.aol.com>
>
>
>
> >>> > Question why adoptees tend to have statistically more gastro
> >>> > intestinal bowel problams,
>
> eating disorders,
>
> asthma,
>
> and prone to a
> >>> > plethora of auto immune diseases, MS etc as adults, than their non
> >>> > adopted peers. And then think colostrum again.
> >>>
> >
> >
> >Did Di write this?
>
>
> That or Pinocchio is in town.
>
>
Di
Jack Bernhard
"Kathy" <meag...@aol.comsthesun> wrote in message
news:20030917134115...@mb-m11.aol.com...
> >From: "Jack Bernhard" jcber...@deletethisprodigy.net
> >Date: 9/17/03 5:30 AM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <PtY9b.3097$aQ5....@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com>
>
>
>
> >"Kathy" <meag...@aol.comsthesun> wrote in message
> >news:20030916193257...@mb-m28.aol.com...
> >> >From: patr...@bigpond.com.au (Dian)
> >> >Date: 9/16/03 3:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >> >Message-id: <c599139c.0309...@posting.google.com>
> >>
> >> (snip)
> >>
> >> >Simulated breastfeeding does not produce colostrum. Nor is it as
> >> >nutritious as milk from a pregnant woman.
> >> > It's done more for comfort
> >> >than anything else. Comforting the adopters illusion that she gave
> >> >birth to another woman's baby.
> >>
> >> Are you ever going to get out of high school?
> >>
> >
> >I've gotta agree with Di on this one.
>
> I'm not sure what you are agreeing with.
That breastfeeding by adoptive mothers is soley for her benefit.
Sure there is no colostrum produced by
> adoptive mothers' milk but there are psychological benefits for many that
give
> it a try.
Prove it.
If you think like Di that the only reason adoptive mothers choose to
> try to breast feed is so that they can delusionally pretend that they
birthed,
> I think that is wrong. I think that the majority of them do it so that
they
> have a better attachment/bonding experience with their infants.
Same difference. Why should they have difficulty attaching/bonding? Why is
the breastfeeding experience neccesary to facilitate this?
Why not?
Well jeez. There's gotta be a better option than offering a dry tit when
the kid is hungry. My son was bottle fed and he certainly never had any
problems bonding. So yeah, I think it is a maternal issue.
> Nothing seems abnormal about that at least ime.
Really? Making a child suck on a dry tit in order for one to develop a
maternal bond, which previously was non-existant, before you will allow him
the food he's craving doesn't seem at all abnormal? Wow.
>
> >http://www.lalecheleague.org/NB/NBadoptive.html
> >
> >Especially the article called "Child of Mine"
>
> I read it.
So the portion when the hungry child was arching and protesting cause she
was hungry for food while the adoptive mother was hungry for bonding didn't
strike you at all as a bit over the top? Food as an enticement for bonding?
It's sick.
>
> >Since adoptive mothers don't produce colostrum and rarely, if ever,
produce
> >enough breastmilk to satisfy (quite often they produce none at all but
still
> >insist that the child suckle) one is left to wonder who it's really for.
>
> >Jack
>
> If it makes any adoptive mother feel more intimate, (physical and
emotional
> advantages) with her infant,
That's exactly what Di was saying. So you, at least, partially agree. It
allows her to pretend.
and vice versa,
Maybe, maybe not. If I was a kid I'd be hungry and pissed.
... I see nothing disadvantageous
> about it.
>
'Cept a squallering hungry kid at a dry tit. It's way fucked up. My
parental experience has taught me that when a baby is hungry, feed him.
When he's dirty change him. When he's tired, let him sleep. This whole
crap reeks of Pavlovian response.
I used to do the same kind of stuff, though. I'd make my dog do tricks and
when she'd get it right I'd give her a portion of a Milk Bone. We've
bonded, though.
Jack
PS: Why am I getting crap in my e-mail about this?
Jack Bernhard
"Palms2pines" <palms...@aol.comh8spam> wrote in message
news:20030917140339...@mb-m29.aol.com...
> Jack writes of all the adoptive mothers he knows who have attempted breast
> feeding:
>
> >(quite often they produce none at all but still
> >insist that the child suckle)>>
>
> Really? I am wondering about all those adoptive mothers you know Jack
with
> whom you discussed this topic. Care to enlighten?
Well, I can't say I know any, but all the adoptive mother breastfeeding
sites pretty much say that. Don't be so damned defensive, though. I'm not
condemning adoptive motherhood, I'm just pointing out that the practice of
adoptive mothers who breastfeed are doing solely for their own benefit.
>
> I am an adoptive mother. I know lots of 'em now. I have never met one who
> attempted breast feeding.
Great. Personally, I think it's wierd.
I have *read* that cases do exist and that
> attempting to produce breast milk when one has not been pregnant is very
close
> to impossible, at least in amounts sufficient to accomplish anything.
Exactly. Yet, it's not about nutrition for these freaks.
>
> What do you suppose the percentages are? My guess would be about one in
ten
> thousand adoptive mothers decides to force the baby to suckle, nutrition
be
> damned. But, hey. It sure makes a good story.
>
I have no idea what the percentages are. I believe it's more common that
your figure, but I can't be sure. Either way, you've gotta admit, it's a
fucked up practice.
Jack
Dian
> patr...@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote in message >
>
> Still, recent research suggests an infant
> > should be breastfed for around four months for optimal benefit and
> > health protection.
>
> While there is a lot of research being done in the area, I think the
> greatest benefits are seen in 3rd world situations where the
> alternative is to give the child a formula prepared in less than
> sterile conditions. Other than that, the stuff I've seen suggests that
> breast-milk is generally a good thing. However, I don't think there's
> much evidence for major and persistent differences. Since many people
> of our generation were bottle-fed (because mothers were told that
> bottle-fed babies gained weight faster and were healthier), I don't
> think there's huge support for the "no-formula" approach beyond some
> mothers who take breast-feeding very seriously. Baby-formula companies
> remain in business, and their clients are not all adoptees.
The AAP's opinion tends to differ to yours.
Breastfeeding and the Use of Human Milk (RE9729)
AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS
Policy Statement
http://www.aap.org/policy/re9729.html
Epidemiologic research shows that human milk and breastfeeding of
infants provide advantages with regard to general health, growth, and
development, while significantly decreasing risk for a large number of
acute and chronic diseases. Research in the United States, Canada,
Europe, and other developed countries, among predominantly
middle-class populations, provides strong evidence that human milk
feeding decreases the incidence and/or severity of diarrhea,1-5 lower
respiratory infection,6-9 otitis media,3,10-14 bacteremia,15,16
bacterial meningitis,15,17 botulism,18 urinary tract infection,19 and
necrotizing enterocolitis.20,21 There are a number of studies that
show a possible protective effect of human milk feeding against sudden
infant death syndrome,22-24 insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus,25-27
Crohn's disease,28,29 ulcerative colitis,29 lymphoma,30,31 allergic
diseases,32-34 and other chronic digestive diseases.35-37
Breastfeeding has also been related to possible enhancement of
cognitive development.38,39
>
> > This kind of information puts into question the "good" of at birth
> > adoptions.
> > I wonder how many mothers would even consider adoption if they knew
> > they were
> > depriving child of the best start in life by handing them over at
> > birth?
>
> Usually, mothers giving up their children have other reasons. I
> seriously can't see a woman who is making plans to relinquish stopping
> and thinking, But what about colostrum?
>
Her "other reasons" are often based on the baloney that adoption is a
loving act that will provide best for her child. AND given that it is
a policy of the we all know that breast is best it becomes a duty of
care by your Govt Health Departments to advise young women considering
adoption of the benefits of breastfeeding their children. Given this
information infant adoption should never be encouraged.
> And
> > why is the medical and social work profession not warning young
> > mothers of the health risks to their children when considering infant
> > adoption?
>
> To my knowledge, no one warns mothers of "health risks" from
> bottle-feeding. They might suggest that breast-feeding appears to have
> some health benefits, but there are many mothers who don't breast-feed
> the babies they've borne. It's not limited to b-moms.
Of course it's not limited to nmums. But it almost systematically
deprives the adopted infant of the same protection as is afforded non
adopted infants.
Why doesn't their long term health matter as much?
> IMO it's professional negligence if not child abuse by
> > omission to apply this kind of information to non adopted infants and
> > disregard it when it comes to children earmarked for adoption.
>
> Are you equating bottle-feeding with child abuse?
> Or failure to advise mothers that "breast is best" ?
>
Promoting infant adoption and the separation of an infant from an
otherwise capable mother whose breasts are full of the nutrients he
needs for his optimal development is IMO child abuse. Or more
precisely - child neglect.
Di
> Rupa
Marley Greiner
As I've written before, when I was grwoing up, BF was considered low class.
IMO, it still is. Only a breeder cow would do it. If the kid gets sick--so
what. It's a Darwinian world. Baybees bond with whatever is near that
satisifies their narcissistic need for attention. Kinda like men.
>
>
>
> >
> > > This kind of information puts into question the "good" of at birth
> > > adoptions.
> > > I wonder how many mothers would even consider adoption if they knew
> > > they were
> > > depriving child of the best start in life by handing them over at
> > > birth?
> >
> > Usually, mothers giving up their children have other reasons. I
> > seriously can't see a woman who is making plans to relinquish stopping
> > and thinking, But what about colostrum?
> >
> Her "other reasons" are often based on the baloney that adoption is a
> loving act that will provide best for her child. AND given that it is
> a policy of the we all know that breast is best it becomes a duty of
> care by your Govt Health Departments to advise young women considering
> adoption of the benefits of breastfeeding their children. Given this
> information infant adoption should never be encouraged.
>
> > And
And abortion should.
> > > why is the medical and social work profession not warning young
> > > mothers of the health risks to their children when considering infant
> > > adoption?
> >
> > To my knowledge, no one warns mothers of "health risks" from
> > bottle-feeding. They might suggest that breast-feeding appears to have
> > some health benefits, but there are many mothers who don't breast-feed
> > the babies they've borne. It's not limited to b-moms.
>
> Of course it's not limited to nmums. But it almost systematically
> deprives the adopted infant of the same protection as is afforded non
> adopted infants.
> Why doesn't their long term health matter as much?
The thought of breast feeding makes me gag. It's has sissy girl written all
over it.
>
> > IMO it's professional negligence if not child abuse by
> > > omission to apply this kind of information to non adopted infants and
> > > disregard it when it comes to children earmarked for adoption.
> >
> > Are you equating bottle-feeding with child abuse?
> > Or failure to advise mothers that "breast is best" ?
> >
> Promoting infant adoption and the separation of an infant from an
> otherwise capable mother whose breasts are full of the nutrients he
> needs for his optimal development is IMO child abuse. Or more
> precisely - child neglect.
>
> Di
Bllllagaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Tha's a disgusting picture.
Marley
>
> > Rupa
Steve White
patr...@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote:
> > > > > > Question why adoptees tend to have statistically more
> > > > > > gastro intestinal bowel problams, eating disorders, asthma,
> > > > > > and prone to a plethora of auto immune diseases, MS etc as
> > > > > > adults, than their non adopted peers. And then think
> > > > > > colostrum again.
> >
> > > > Since asthma is a big part of what I do for a living, I can
> > > > state with virtual certainty that there is no difference in
> > > > asthma rates or severity between adopted and non-adopted
> > > > children, or in adults adopted as children versus adults
> > > > not-adopted.
> > >
> > > Just to clarify, you won't find the studies between adopted and
> > > non adopted children, Steve. You will find the comparisons
> > > between breast fed and non breast fed children. It goes without
> > > saying that adopted infants have generally not been breastfed.
> > > Which puts thm in the non breastfed category.
> >
> >
> > That kind of dissembling would qualify you for a seat at the UN! If
> > you meant breast-feeding, you should say so.
> >
> > For example, an infant could have been breast-fed and later placed
> > in adoption -- removed by the state or relinquished after the first
> > year. These things do happen!
> >
> > This sort of sloppiness permeates Origins, so I suppose I have to
> > give you a pass.
> >
> > But not a weekend pass :-)
>
> Nice try, Steve. The discussion was to do with newborns. Not older
> adoptions.
A fair proportion of non-adopted infants are not breast-fed, even today.
Infamil and Simulac sales are doing fine.
I realize this will be tough on you, but you have to be specific when
you start spouting medical "facts" next time. The issue isn't adoption
in this case, it's breast-feeding, and anyone with an IQ > 85 will
understand that the two don't necessarily march in lockstep.
steve
Steve White
adop...@aol.com (AdoptaDad) wrote:
> Bottle Fed Dad
Ah, that explains you. Better git yer colostrum next time :-)
steve
KL
(AdoptaDad) writes:
Well Dad, you know what they say about those who can, do.......
KL