Formula feeding has killed babies was Re: Internet survey - should mothers breastfeed in public?
shmily
> > >
> > > Babies grow up perfectly healthy on formula. I am an advocate of BF
and
> > > fed my own that way -- BUT only a real crank thinks it is her business
to
> > > assault mothers who make different choices -- and for most kids, it
> > > doesn't make a whole lot of difference. Formula is not 'bad
nutrition'
> >
> >
> > Compared to breastmilk yes it is indeed. Formula feeding has killed
> > babies.
>
> and you and Karen deserve each other -- you are an ass.\
No, I am not, I speak the truth.
There are studies to back me up.
I do not know the links, but I know those who do.
Ladies, speak up!
Norma
shmily
> I cannot begin to enumerate the number of women I know who started breast
> feeding but had to give it up because of economics [I'll be interested to
> see how many figure that one out
I'd like you to explain it to me. I want to know why it is more expensive
to feed free breastmilk to a baby, even if you have to buy a quality pump
and pump from work, it is still 100 times less expensive than formula
feeding. Explain it to me will ya?
Marie
shmily wrote in message ...
With WIC formula is free. So all you'd have to pay for is bottles.
Marie
>
>
shmily
--
x-no-archive:yes
Marie <mommy...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:sh9hvl...@corp.supernews.com...
What if you try formula on your baby and she cannot abide it and your milk
has dried up. Breastmilk is always right there, any time any place. No
bottles to wash or sterilize no formula to pick up at the store, no need to
go to WIC (alot of people don't qualify). Free and best : Breastmilk :-)
shmily
--
x-no-archive:yes
just me <thede...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:754R4.34242$x4.10...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> "shmily" <shm...@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:OyK5fL8t$GA.226@cpmsnbbsa03...
> >
> > > I cannot begin to enumerate the number of women I know who started
> breast
> > > feeding but had to give it up because of economics [I'll be interested
> to
> > > see how many figure that one out
> >
> >
> > I'd like you to explain it to me. I want to know why it is more
> expensive
> > to feed free breastmilk to a baby, even if you have to buy a quality
pump
> > and pump from work, it is still 100 times less expensive than formula
> > feeding. Explain it to me will ya?
> >
> >
> Not everyone has a job where they are allowed the time and ability to
relax
> enough to pump. They need to work, economically speaking, in order for
> their family to remain any where near solvent. Many women find that they
> cannot pump enough to meet their child's needs unless they are nursing
> simultaneously. This creates further difficulties for those who cannot
> nurse at work or leave work for a while to go to the baby. WIC can help
> with cost, but even so, the cost of the formula does not offset the income
> lost should they quit and stay home.
>
> Pumps, by the way, are rather expensive if they are any good. I bought a
> cheapie for something like $35, four years ago. It ran on batteries or an
> adapter and worked ok, but only when I was nursing on the other side. It
> died by the time my son was six months old, but by then I was cutting out
> the noon nursing anyway. Rentals sound cheap until you consider how long
> one will be renting. Either way, the cost adds up, many employers do not
> actively support the breastfeeding mother in providing a decent place to
> nurse or pump, let alone quiet, peaceful time to do so [remember how hard
it
> is to let down when one is uncomfortable or less than relaxed?].
>
> Does that make things more understandable?
No, sounds like a big bunch of excuses to me. The law provides for 15
minute breaks every 2-3 hours. Lawsuits have been won over firings from
pumping so that is unlawful now to fire someone for that reason. And even
if a good pump costs $200 that is nowhere near the cost of nottles, formula,
etc. never mind time involved in preparing formula. Formula fed babies
get sick much more often so there is extra doctor bills, time off from work
to take baby to doctor, and to stay home with sick baby, etc. If you
think formula is cheaper you are seriously deluded.
>
> -Aula
>
>
Marie
formula didn't work, they'd have to just keep trying different ones and
letting the baby suffer.
Marie
shmily wrote in message ...
>
>
>--
>x-no-archive:yes
>Marie <mommy...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:sh9hvl...@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> shmily wrote in message ...
>> >
>> >> I cannot begin to enumerate the number of women I know who started
>> breast
>> >> feeding but had to give it up because of economics [I'll be interested
>to
>> >> see how many figure that one out
>> >
>> >
>> >I'd like you to explain it to me. I want to know why it is more
>> expensive
>> >to feed free breastmilk to a baby, even if you have to buy a quality
pump
>> >and pump from work, it is still 100 times less expensive than formula
>> >feeding. Explain it to me will ya?
>>
Marie
that's why they can't breastfeed, they could still keep breastfeeding, even
if the baby has to bottlefeed while away from the mother. So that is just
another excuse to not BF in my eyes.
Marie
the child. Even if she used formula while she's at work, she could still be
breastfeeding in the evenings (or whenever her home hours are.)
Marie
just me wrote in message ...
>
>"Naomi Lynne Pardue" <npa...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
>news:8f2lnm$rok$2...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu...
>>
>> In misc.kids.breastfeeding just me <thede...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> > "shmily" <shm...@msn.com> wrote in message
>> > news:ePqn2j8t$GA.235@cpmsnbbsa03...
>> > Please share your experiences of working, pumping and successfully
>> > breastfeeding your children until they weaned themselves. From what
you
>> > write it sounds like you have not experienced the working world while
a
>> > breastfeeding mother and also that you feel that $200 is not expensive.
>For
>> > many people that is a very very sizeable amount of money and is beyond
>their
>> > means.
>>
>> If they can't afford a pump, how can they afford formula? 10 weeks worth
>> of formula, roughly, will pay for a pump.
>>
>
>Laying out a large sum at one time can often be much harder to do [harder
to
>have the money available] than having it go out in dribs and drabs. For
>many many folks that $200 is the electricity, phone and water bill for the
>month, if paid out at once. Many people live pay check to pay check. Many
>people. Are you saying that those folks should not have children? and,
>don't forget the inherent assumption being made throughout this whole group
>of related threads: that all children are born to adults who are married
to
>each other who have a stable source of income. That is not an accurate
>assumption.
>
>-Aula
>
>
>
shmily
on, since you are replying to a person in alt.parenting.solutions
HTH,
Norma
--
x-no-archive:yes
AGreen3865 <agree...@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:20000507003711...@ng-fd1.aol.com...
> >Not everyone has a job where they are allowed the time and ability to
relax
> >enough to pump.
>
> It is possible to use formula for when at work, and bf the rest of the
time.
> So far I have not had to do this, but even if I had no time to pump and
had to
> formula feed my son at work, I would still bf him at home. And that would
be
> cheaper than totally formula feeding him. Your argument just doesn't
work. If
> someone is committed to bf their child, she will. I know a while back
everyone
> posted their stories, and just about everybody had had their share of
problems.
just me
prevent individuals from acknowledging that there are a number [myriad] of
situations in the world where moms make decisions that others judge them
for, without all the information. That what is right and works for one may
not do so for a bunch of others.
Sit down, relax, take some deep breaths, all of [us] and start acknowledging
this.
I cannot begin to enumerate the number of women I know who started breast
feeding but had to give it up because of economics [I'll be interested to
see how many figure that one out], because they required medications that
would be passed on to the nursing infant and could potentially be harmful to
the child, because they received no support and lots of bashing, because
they did not know how to successfully nurse and did not even begin to know
where to turn for help, because because because. I am one of the very few
women I know who has successfully breast fed to weaning as initiated by the
child. But, many of the women I know started out to breastfeed.
So, everyone, chill out and start trying to walk a mile in someone else's
moccasins. Yeah, better get that flame retardant stuff out again....
-Aula
"shmily" <shm...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:u05U9N6t$GA.231@cpmsnbbsa03...
just me
>
> > I cannot begin to enumerate the number of women I know who started
breast
> > feeding but had to give it up because of economics [I'll be interested
to
> > see how many figure that one out
>
>
expensive
> to feed free breastmilk to a baby, even if you have to buy a quality pump
> and pump from work, it is still 100 times less expensive than formula
> feeding. Explain it to me will ya?
>
>
their family to remain any where near solvent. Many women find that they
cannot pump enough to meet their child's needs unless they are nursing
simultaneously. This creates further difficulties for those who cannot
nurse at work or leave work for a while to go to the baby. WIC can help
with cost, but even so, the cost of the formula does not offset the income
lost should they quit and stay home.
Pumps, by the way, are rather expensive if they are any good. I bought a
cheapie for something like $35, four years ago. It ran on batteries or an
adapter and worked ok, but only when I was nursing on the other side. It
died by the time my son was six months old, but by then I was cutting out
the noon nursing anyway. Rentals sound cheap until you consider how long
one will be renting. Either way, the cost adds up, many employers do not
actively support the breastfeeding mother in providing a decent place to
nurse or pump, let alone quiet, peaceful time to do so [remember how hard it
is to let down when one is uncomfortable or less than relaxed?].
Does that make things more understandable?
-Aula
just me
>
>
> No, sounds like a big bunch of excuses to me. The law provides for 15
> minute breaks every 2-3 hours. Lawsuits have been won over firings from
> pumping so that is unlawful now to fire someone for that reason. And
even
> if a good pump costs $200 that is nowhere near the cost of nottles,
formula,
> etc. never mind time involved in preparing formula. Formula fed babies
> get sick much more often so there is extra doctor bills, time off from
work
> to take baby to doctor, and to stay home with sick baby, etc. If you
> think formula is cheaper you are seriously deluded.
Please share your experiences of working, pumping and successfully
breastfeeding your children until they weaned themselves. From what you
write it sounds like you have not experienced the working world while a
breastfeeding mother and also that you feel that $200 is not expensive. For
many people that is a very very sizeable amount of money and is beyond their
means. But, the purchase of formula is not, on a weekly basis, as
expensive, bottles are given to you by your friends and relatives as they
are done with them, etc. Many mothers feel that they are put in a corner
where they have to do what they do, and they will certainly not appreciate
people coming to them and loudly judging in the manner which you are using
what they felt was the best decision that they could make at the time, .
I repeat myself, if you wish to teach, you provide the information without
beating people over the head with it. You also provide the source
information so that they can check it out themselves. While I do not doubt
that WHO feels that x number of children die annually due to being formula
fed, I would like to see your data, not your interpretation of it.
Personally, I doubt that we will agree to disagree on this one and be able
to be friendly about it because you are very very certain that you are right
and no one else might have some credible information or opinion as well.
Perhaps you need to come down out of your lofty tower and truly examine what
it is that so many of the rest of us claim to be our experiences before you
continue to judge us out of hand.
-Aula
Naomi Lynne Pardue
In misc.kids.breastfeeding just me <thede...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "shmily" <shm...@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:ePqn2j8t$GA.235@cpmsnbbsa03...
> Please share your experiences of working, pumping and successfully
> breastfeeding your children until they weaned themselves. From what you
> write it sounds like you have not experienced the working world while a
> breastfeeding mother and also that you feel that $200 is not expensive. For
> many people that is a very very sizeable amount of money and is beyond their
> means.
If they can't afford a pump, how can they afford formula? 10 weeks worth
of formula, roughly, will pay for a pump.
Now yes, I will agree that a few jobs are not amenable to pumping, and
some are not amenable even to nursing while at home and having the
caregiver give formula. But, given that only about 20% of women are bf at
ALL by 6 months, it is VERY clear that this issue is responsible for only
a very small percentage of the women who formula feed.
But, the purchase of formula is not, on a weekly basis, as
> expensive, bottles are given to you by your friends and relatives as they
> are done with them, etc.
$200 all at once is exactly the same money as $200 spread over 10 weeks.
And, as hard as it is to accept, if you can't afford to pay for the basic
necessities of baby care, perhaps you should think twice about having
children, because, in the greater scheme os things, $200 is chicken feed.
(And if your child gets one or two extra illnesses due to being formula
fed, the doctor bills and antibiotics could well equal $200.
> I repeat myself, if you wish to teach, you provide the information without
> beating people over the head with it.
Yet, too often, when information IS presented (basic facts like bf being
healthier, or most women being able to bf) the responses come back saying
"Well MY child was never sick, so any studies that claim that bf babies
are healthier are clearly biased or flawed." (Even though the studies
do not say that ALL formula fed babies are sick all the time.)
You also provide the source
> information so that they can check it out themselves. While I do not doubt
> that WHO feels that x number of children die annually due to being formula
> fed, I would like to see your data, not your interpretation of it.
I also do not, unfortunately, have the specific cite to hand for the
increased deaths due to ff. But it doesn't take a huge leap of faith to
see the logic in it. FF babies are much more likely to get sick. They are
especially more likely to get serious illnesses. SOME babies who get
seriously ill die. So if a larger percentage of FF babies get sick, a
larger percentage of them will die.
Naomi
just me
"Naomi Lynne Pardue" <npa...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:8f2lnm$rok$2...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu...
>
> increased deaths due to ff. But it doesn't take a huge leap of faith to
> see the logic in it. FF babies are much more likely to get sick. They are
> especially more likely to get serious illnesses. SOME babies who get
> seriously ill die. So if a larger percentage of FF babies get sick, a
> larger percentage of them will die.
I have been scanning the WHO site for the last fifteen minutes or so for
info on deaths related to formula feeding. Now that you add the info that
the deaths have increased I am further intrigued as the current generation
of American women is breastfeeding at much higher rates than the American
women of the WWII through 1970's years did. It would seem to me, then, that
those rates should be *declining* as more women breast feed. Now I really
want to see that data, particularly the longitudinal stuff.
-Aula
just me
"Naomi Lynne Pardue" <npa...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:8f2lnm$rok$2...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu...
>
>
> > "shmily" <shm...@msn.com> wrote in message
> > news:ePqn2j8t$GA.235@cpmsnbbsa03...
> > Please share your experiences of working, pumping and successfully
> > breastfeeding your children until they weaned themselves. From what you
> > write it sounds like you have not experienced the working world while a
> > breastfeeding mother and also that you feel that $200 is not expensive.
For
> > many people that is a very very sizeable amount of money and is beyond
their
> > means.
>
> If they can't afford a pump, how can they afford formula? 10 weeks worth
> of formula, roughly, will pay for a pump.
>
Laying out a large sum at one time can often be much harder to do [harder to
AGreen3865
Well, bf comes with free dispensers ;-)
AGreen3865
>enough to pump.
It is possible to use formula for when at work, and bf the rest of the time.
Karrde
AGreen3865 wrote in message
<20000507003422...@ng-fd1.aol.com>...
>>With WIC formula is free. So all you'd have to pay for is bottles
>
>Well, bf comes with free dispensers ;-)
Plus, not everyone qualifies for WIC. In fact, that is a very small
percentage of the population. This argument is faulty.
Karrde
just me wrote in message
I must agree with Norma on this one. You have a very defeatist attitude
towards breastfeeding. Can't, can't, can't. I have much more faith in
women's ability to "get the job done" when it comes to providing for their
children. You seem to think that, just because a woman feels she needs to
work (in most cases childcare costs alone make working a bad financial
decision), that she can't correctly make the other choices she needs to
make.
>Please share your experiences of working, pumping and successfully
>breastfeeding your children until they weaned themselves. From what you
>write it sounds like you have not experienced the working world while a
>breastfeeding mother and also that you feel that $200 is not expensive.
For
>many people that is a very very sizeable amount of money and is beyond
their
>means. But, the purchase of formula is not, on a weekly basis, as
>expensive
Paying for formula week after week is not as expensive as a $200 investment
in a breastpump? Economics 101.
>Many mothers feel that they are put in a corner
>where they have to do what they do, and they will certainly not appreciate
>people coming to them and loudly judging in the manner which you are using
>what they felt was the best decision that they could make at the time, .
They may have felt it was the right desisiion at the time, but that doesn't
mean it was. Why should we continue to feed this co-dependency by allowing
people to believe that every choice they make is a valid one?
>I repeat myself, if you wish to teach, you provide the information without
>beating people over the head with it.
Unfortunately, that is the only thing some people understand. More
unfortunately still, some people do not even understand this.
--Jerry
Karrde
Naomi Lynne Pardue wrote in message
<8f2lnm$rok$2...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>...
>$200 all at once is exactly the same money as $200 spread over 10 weeks.
>And, as hard as it is to accept, if you can't afford to pay for the basic
>necessities of baby care, perhaps you should think twice about having
>children, because, in the greater scheme os things, $200 is chicken feed.
>(And if your child gets one or two extra illnesses due to being formula
>fed, the doctor bills and antibiotics could well equal $200.
Also, if you are relying on WIC, chances are you don't have health insurance
at your job. One or two illnesses can be financially devistating in that
case.
--Jerry
Karrde
just me wrote in message ...
>Many people live pay check to pay check. Many
>people. Are you saying that those folks should not have children?
If that means that you will not be able to take care of your child, then
yes, yes, YES. Why is that so hard to understand? I am not talking about
those situations where someone has a child and then gets into a bad
financial situation. I am talking about people who are so destitute that
they can't give their children basic care.
--Jerry
Jill Drake
Karrde wrote in message ...
Gotta agree here. As a troll (snowjob3) put it in response to another
thread "Don't you people think, Why have a kid if you can't afford one?"
Obnoxiously put, but rather accurate.
Karrde
Jill Drake wrote in message ...
>Gotta agree here. As a troll (snowjob3) put it in response to another
>thread "Don't you people think, Why have a kid if you can't afford one?"
>Obnoxiously put, but rather accurate.
>
Sometimes life isn't fair and reality is harsh. I'm sorry if that offends
some, but it's just not fair to the children to bring them into a life of
poverty and hunger and starvation and suffering. I consider myself very
lucky to be in a position to be able to have children and feel badly for
those who are not, but I can't pretend to feel it is okay for them to feed
the cycle of poverty.
--Jerry
Deborah
:
: I have been scanning the WHO site for the last fifteen minutes or so for
: info on deaths related to formula feeding. Now that you add the info that
: the deaths have increased I am further intrigued as the current generation
: of American women is breastfeeding at much higher rates than the American
: women of the WWII through 1970's years did. It would seem to me, then,
that
: those rates should be *declining* as more women breast feed. Now I really
: want to see that data, particularly the longitudinal stuff.
Pardon me, Naomi, for leaping in here but,
I believe when Naomi said 'increased deaths due to ff' she was not saying
the number of deaths have increased over recent years, but rather that the
number of deaths is increased when babies are formula-fed. That is,
formula-fed babies are more likely to die than breastfed babies.
I don't have a URL, but here is one of many articles on this:
Van Den Bogaard, C. "Relationship Between Breast Feeding in Early Childhood
and Morbidty in a general Population", Fan Med, 1991; 23:510-515
Deborah
just me
"Karrde" <Kar...@smugglers.alliance.org> wrote in message
news:JJ8R4.52189$fV.32...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> just me wrote in message ...
>
> >Many people live pay check to pay check. Many
> >people. Are you saying that those folks should not have children?
>
> If that means that you will not be able to take care of your child, then
> yes, yes, YES. Why is that so hard to understand? I am not talking about
> those situations where someone has a child and then gets into a bad
> financial situation. I am talking about people who are so destitute that
> they can't give their children basic care.
>
individuals and enforce birth control measures and only the approved adults
may reproduce. Ah, I've got it now!
-Aula
just me
If you are relying on WIC then the baby probably has Medicaid, which is a
health insurance. I personally would rather that my taxes be used as little
as possible to support folks who can work, but I must recognize that there
are those who need these resources, at least for a while. If we want as few
people as possible to be using tax dollars to support themselves and their
families, then we'd better get real used to seeing parents of small children
working, leaving them at day care, having them go to day care after school,
and being fed as best the parent can. You cannot have your cake and eat it,
too. Either the moms work because they are able bodied individuals or they
stay at home and raise the kids there and are probably benefiting from some
tax supported programs.
And, let's be really real folks, there are a lot of jobs out there that do
not carry benefits with them, including health insurance. Then, there are
the health insurance plans with the ridiculously high deductibles, which
essentially means that you are paying for everything except the catastrophic
illnesses that come up once every ten years, maybe. There are many
situations and basing judgments on what is sounding increasingly like middle
and upper middle class life styles are wrong.
just me
"Deborah" <spa...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:JK9R4.12528$rR2.1...@nnrp3.clara.net...
be "increased" but "higher" or some similar word, which would make somewhat
more sense in the context used. "Increased" means that there is a change in
something measured. "Higher" or "Lower" means that you are comparing two
rates and are noting that one is different from the other in frequency,
duration, whatever.
-Aula
hamilton
> > No, sounds like a big bunch of excuses to me. The law provides for 15
> > minute breaks every 2-3 hours. Lawsuits have been won over firings from
> > pumping so that is unlawful now to fire someone for that reason. And
> even
> > if a good pump costs $200 that is nowhere near the cost of nottles,
> formula,
> > etc. never mind time involved in preparing formula. Formula fed babies
> > get sick much more often so there is extra doctor bills, time off from
> work
> > to take baby to doctor, and to stay home with sick baby, etc. If you
> > think formula is cheaper you are seriously deluded.
I am stunned to think that anyone would imagine that a 15 minutes break
was adequate for pumping milk for a baby. Let's see -- Mom is on the
factory floor or office floor, she has to get up and go to a private place
[perhaps a crowded bathroom where other women are lined up to use the
toilet]; she herself needs to go to the bathroom; she then needs to wash
her hands, attach pump, pump, clean up; store the milk in a refrigerator
and get back to her post. It would be a rare woman who could pump enough
milk to feed her baby under those conditions.
I nursed and worked -- but I was able to take more time off to do it and I
also didn't need to return to work until the baby was 4 mos old and
nursing was very well established. I also worked part time during her
first year. I don't assume that everyone has it so easy.
Of course BF is best -- but given the high quality of infant formula today
and the standards of sanitation in this country, most babies do fine with
it. There are many choices we make every day that are not ideal -- that's
life.
hamilton
<mommy...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I understnand what you're saying, I'm just playing the other side. If one
> formula didn't work, they'd have to just keep trying different ones and
> letting the baby suffer.
> Marie
>
> shmily wrote in message ...
and women who have trouble establishing their supply as many women do,
have to let their baby be hungry and 'suffering' as well. Give it a rest.
hamilton
"Karrde" <Kar...@smugglers.alliance.org> wrote:
so you favor abortions for poor women?
linda-renee
> Any mother who has to work could still breastfeed while she is actually
with
> the child. Even if she used formula while she's at work, she could still
be
> breastfeeding in the evenings (or whenever her home hours are.)
*Any* mother?????? How 'bout those of us who never lactated?
But I will say that even if I had lactated, I wouldn't have breast-fed. I
hate nipple contact, so it would have been miserably uncomfortable.
And I had a 28-week preemie (now ten years old) who gets sick *less* often
than most kids.
Generalizations generally fail.
linda-renee
> Ah yes, Brave New World Syndrome. We will screen all sexually mature
> individuals and enforce birth control measures and only the approved
adults
> may reproduce. Ah, I've got it now!
But what exactly is the solution? Encourage poor people to have kids who
will either starve or be supported by the rest of us?
Reproduction isn't a *right*, merely a biological capability.
Deborah
news:hamilton-070...@host-209-214-116-118.bna.bellsouth.net...
: so you favor abortions for poor women?
I favour the use of contraceptive methods for those who cannot afford to
raise a child at that point in their lives. Which is why I delayed having
children until I could afford them.
Deborah
just me
Clapping and applauding loudly.
-Aula
"Robert Davidson" <s03...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:39158744...@student.uq.edu.au...
> This is really dodgy stuff you're spouting. The human right to have kids
> should not be kept from those you consider poor. Man, in my year in India
I
> saw some poor kids, but they were happy and loved.
>
> What's considered necessary in the West for bringing up a kid is really a
> waste of money - cots, prams, video cameras, beds, electric breast pumps,
> expensive toys, tvs, "organic" food - -- you really don't need to spend
very
> much at all to bring up a very healthy, happy kid. It's a consumerist
Western
> myth.
>
> Robert Davidson
Naomi Lynne Pardue
In misc.kids.breastfeeding just me <thede...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Naomi Lynne Pardue" <npa...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
> news:8f2lnm$rok$2...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu...
>>
>> I also do not, unfortunately, have the specific cite to hand for the
>> increased deaths due to ff. But it doesn't take a huge leap of faith to
>> see the logic in it. FF babies are much more likely to get sick. They are
>> especially more likely to get serious illnesses. SOME babies who get
>> seriously ill die. So if a larger percentage of FF babies get sick, a
>> larger percentage of them will die.
> I have been scanning the WHO site for the last fifteen minutes or so for
> info on deaths related to formula feeding. Now that you add the info that
> the deaths have increased
Sorry? Where did I say that deaths have increased over time? I said that
the death rate among FF babies is higher than among BF babies. This has
ALWAYS been true. (FF babies have always died at higher rates than BF
ones, though the total numbers have declined over time [with the
introduction of antibiotics, safer child care practices, etc.] and the
ratio of deaths has also decreased. (Pre antibiotics the ratio was about 6
to 1. I'm not sure what it is today, but it isn't quite that high.)
Naomi
Deborah
to work than among women who don't. Working does not necessarily mean not
breastfeeding. And breastfeeding does not necessarily mean not working.
--
Deborah
Robert Davidson <s03...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:391584EC...@student.uq.edu.au...
: How about that giving up a job is much more expensive than buying formula?
That
: is usually the biggest cost of parenthood.
:
: Robert Davidson
:
: shmily wrote:
:
: > > I cannot begin to enumerate the number of women I know who started
:
Naomi Lynne Pardue
In misc.kids.breastfeeding just me <thede...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Naomi Lynne Pardue" <npa...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
> news:8f2lnm$rok$2...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu...
>> If they can't afford a pump, how can they afford formula? 10 weeks worth
>> of formula, roughly, will pay for a pump.
>>
> Laying out a large sum at one time can often be much harder to do [harder to
> have the money available] than having it go out in dribs and drabs. For
> many many folks that $200 is the electricity, phone and water bill for the
> month, if paid out at once.
Yet they presumably know, at least 9 months in advance, that they will
need such a gadget. So they could put aside $20 a month and would be able
to buy it by the time the baby arrives.
Many people live pay check to pay check. Many
> people. Are you saying that those folks should not have children?
Well... yes .... people who cannot afford it, should not be having
children. And if a couple (or individual) is truly living paycheck to
paycheck, where a single additional expense would mean not buying food or
paying the utility bills, they should NOT be having children? How do they
expect to buy clothes? Pay medical bills? (Kids DO get sick, even bf
kids.)
and,
> don't forget the inherent assumption being made throughout this whole group
> of related threads: that all children are born to adults who are married to
> each other who have a stable source of income. That is not an accurate
> assumption.
I'll agree there. However, that doesn't make it a GOOD thing. Perhaps such
women should consider adoption or abortion.
Naomi
just me
{miracle baby, only one to live out of five pregnancies}, b] thought that we
had enough income to support our family. Then, six months later we lost
half our income due to hubby being injured and disabled permanently.
Finances have remained very challenging ever since, but we are making it,
although we are not exactly middle middle class, let alone above that. Our
son remains well cared for, happy, well-adjusted and minus a whole bunch of
foo-fa that we believe is not necessary, but a lot of other people think is
requisite for raising a normal child. Now, would you advocate that our
child be removed from our custody [permanently?] when our income present and
future was significantly reduced? Let's be real
-Aula
"Deborah" <spa...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:wRfR4.12861$rR2.1...@nnrp3.clara.net...
Charlotte Millington
: just me wrote in message ...
: >Many people live pay check to pay check. Many
: >people. Are you saying that those folks should not have children?
: If that means that you will not be able to take care of your child, then
: yes, yes, YES. Why is that so hard to understand? I am not talking about
: those situations where someone has a child and then gets into a bad
: financial situation. I am talking about people who are so destitute that
: they can't give their children basic care.
For a little while, that was definitely my situation. However, thanks to
mother nature, I was always able to give my infant basic child care.
Shortly after Brigitte was born, I got free milk samples arrive in two
convenient packages that required no sterilising or refridgeration.
Everyone can afford to give their child basic care, not everyone realises
it or wants to.
Charlotte
--
A birth counsellor is someone who watches everybody else when a new baby
enters a room!
Visit http://www.birth.bc.ca!
Naomi Lynne Pardue
In misc.kids.breastfeeding Robert Davidson <s03...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> This is really dodgy stuff you're spouting. The human right to have kids
> should not be kept from those you consider poor. Man, in my year in India I
> saw some poor kids, but they were happy and loved.
> What's considered necessary in the West for bringing up a kid is really a
> waste of money - cots, prams, video cameras, beds, electric breast pumps,
> expensive toys, tvs, "organic" food - -- you really don't need to spend very
> much at all to bring up a very healthy, happy kid. It's a consumerist Western
> myth.
Oh yes, I'll agree absoluely with that ... to a very large extent. It is
very possible to raise children on a fairly small amount of money.
(Though surely many of those 'poor but happy and loved' children in India
are also malnourished, have no access to basic medical care when they get
sick, and live in unhygenic conditions. I hardly consider those to be
'wastes of money.'
And I'm not talking about video cameras and expensive toys. I'm talking
about basic needs. If a mother is employed, the ability to provide breast
milk while she is away IS a basic need. And if that means buying an
electric breast pump, then she NEEDS one. Those poor Indian mothers likely
don't need them, because they are home with their babies all the time.
Naomi
Naomi Lynne Pardue
In misc.kids.breastfeeding just me <thede...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Karrde" <Kar...@smugglers.alliance.org> wrote in message
> news:JJ8R4.52189$fV.32...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> financial situation. I am talking about people who are so destitute that
>> they can't give their children basic care.
>>
> Ah yes, Brave New World Syndrome. We will screen all sexually mature
> individuals and enforce birth control measures and only the approved adults
> may reproduce. Ah, I've got it now!
Don't know about Jerry, but I'm not talking about external screening and
approval. I'm talking about individual common sense and responsibility,
using the brains that ALL humans were granted at birth.
Naomi
Naomi Lynne Pardue
> You don't need a $200 pump anyway. Just get a $10 hand pump - they work just
> as well anyway. Go to a church fete or a second hand shop.
And how much milk have YOU pumped, Robert?
Naomi
Naomi Lynne Pardue
> advocating the sorts of things Hitler and Mao were fond of.
No, you are mistaken. Hitler said nothing about income or ability to
feed children. And Mao, for MANY years, encouraged large families.
No-one SHOULD have a right to have children who will simply starve because
their parents cannot feed them.
Naomi
Naomi Lynne Pardue
>> Now yes, I will agree that a few jobs are not amenable to pumping, and
>> some are not amenable even to nursing while at home and having the
>> caregiver give formula. But, given that only about 20% of women are bf at
>> ALL by 6 months, it is VERY clear that this issue is responsible for only
>> a very small percentage of the women who formula feed.
> Where did you get that statistic? It sounds dramatically lower than other
> statistics I've read (if we're talking globally, which we should be here).
Sorry, I was referrring to the U.S. The statistic has come from a variety
of articles, including one in Pediatrics. (Don't have the precise cite,
about 1993, I think.) Most other industrialized countries offer ample
paid maternity leave, so the pumping issue is even less relevent there.
Naomi
Naomi Lynne Pardue
In misc.kids.breastfeeding Marie <mommy...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Something I just thought of- the women who just have to go to work and
> that's why they can't breastfeed, they could still keep breastfeeding, even
> if the baby has to bottlefeed while away from the mother. So that is just
> another excuse to not BF in my eyes.
Though, if she has to go back early, and can't pump at all while at work,
her milk supply is likely to disappear due to going 8-10 hours at a
stretch without nursing/pumping.
Naomi
Naomi Lynne Pardue
In misc.kids.breastfeeding hamilton <hami...@dnvln.com> wrote:
> I am stunned to think that anyone would imagine that a 15 minutes break
> was adequate for pumping milk for a baby. Let's see -- Mom is on the
> factory floor or office floor, she has to get up and go to a private place
> [perhaps a crowded bathroom where other women are lined up to use the
> toilet]; she herself needs to go to the bathroom; she then needs to wash
> her hands, attach pump, pump, clean up; store the milk in a refrigerator
> and get back to her post. It would be a rare woman who could pump enough
> milk to feed her baby under those conditions.
Don't need to put the milk in the fridge. Fresh breastmilk keeps at room
temp for quite a few hours.(Or she could use ice packs.)
And in any case, even if, during 2 breaks and a lunch break she can't
manage to pump enough to totally meet baby's needs, she can pump enough to
provide SOME milk. And, at least as important, enoughto keep her milk
supply going so that she can continue to nurse while at home. (Even a
single pumping session at lunch would help immensely in this regard.)
Naomi
Deborah
due to your income being reduced. But many people have children in the full
knowledge (before conception) that they cannot afford to provide the bare
necessities for them, & I don't understand this. I love my children & want
the best for them (I'm not talking material goods here). I would love to
have a dozen children! But I can't afford that many, so I won't.
All I'm saying is that when deciding to have a child, one of the things you
should take into consideration is whether you can provide the necessities of
life for that child. Of course in some parts of the world women don't have a
great deal of choice, but in the US, UK & other developed countries we do
have that choice.
I agree completely that there is a lot of completely unnecessary 'foo-fa'
(good description btw) available for babies & children. We also do without
most of it. The only things you really need are a way to nourish your baby,
a way to keep your baby warm, & a way to hold your baby. Beyond that, the
rest is frills.
--
Deborah
just me <thede...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:f6gR4.37234$g4.9...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
: We had our child when we were a] actually able to conceive and carry to
: >
: >
: >
: >
:
:
Deborah
like:
A human infant has very few needs: only the need for warmth, the need for
human contact & the need for food. Being in his mother's arms to breastfeed
supplies all of these.
--
Deborah
Charlotte Millington <ye...@vtn1.victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message
news:3915...@news.victoria.tc.ca...
:
: For a little while, that was definitely my situation. However, thanks to
Deborah
few material necessities they need. I completely agree that most of the
so-called necessities is, at best, unnecessary, & at worst, harmful.
--
Deborah
Robert Davidson <s03...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:39158E72...@student.uq.edu.au...
: Deborah wrote:
:
: > I favour the use of contraceptive methods for those who cannot afford to
: > raise a child at that point in their lives. Which is why I delayed
having
: > children until I could afford them.
:
: How much money do you think one needs to raise a child?
:
: As far as I can tell, all you need is enough healthy food, shelter and
: clothing (for kids and parents). All the rest is peripheral. Many of the
: most expensive things people buy for a kid, in my humble opinion, are
: actually detrimental to good, normal parenting (things like cots (cribs),
: nursery rooms, playpens, prams, strollers).
:
: Robert Davidson
:
hamilton
<s03...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> My wife has pumped many litres in my presence, with different sorts of
pumps. The
> hand pump's fine, she loves it. You certainly don't need to spend hundreds of
> dollars to keep a kid in ebm for many years.
>
> Robert Davidson
YOU didn't. Someone else may. Has it ever occured to you that a sample of
one is not that useful? I was totally unable to express enough milk with
a hand pump to provide relief bottles when I worked. My kid got similac
for lunch and was BF the rest of the time. Perhaps one of the expensive
pumps available now would have made it possible for me. Because it was
easy for your wife, doesn't make it a universal fact.
>
> Naomi Lynne Pardue wrote:
>
> > In misc.kids.breastfeeding Robert Davidson <s03...@student.uq.edu.au>
wrote:
hamilton
<npa...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
yes -- it is probably necessary to express at lunch to keep the supply
going -- but the idea that two brief breaks and a short lunch break is
adequate to supply a baby is a bit looney. Mom after all has to take
those breaks to eat her own lunch and go to the bathroom as well.
Deborah
: Deborah wrote:
:
: > I'm defining the ability to afford children as the ability to give them
the
: > few material necessities they need.
: Surely this is something almost every person can do, even homeless people.
:
Of course it is. But we live in a society which says 'you must have
this...and that...and this too', & unfortunately a lot of people believe it.
I don't. You obviously don't either.
Deborah
just me
"Elfanie" <elfani...@soderblom.net> wrote in message
news:39189313....@co.news.verio.net...
> On Mon, 08 May 2000 00:59:56 +1000, Robert Davidson
> <s03...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>
> >How about that giving up a job is much more expensive than buying
formula? That
> >is usually the biggest cost of parenthood.
> >
> >Robert Davidson
> >
>
> at a full time job than it is to stay at home. Unless you are a
> single parent or in a high paying white-collar professional
> job....financially speaking, it's usually more financially sound for
> one of the parents to stay home.
>
Actually, you are making an assumption that going to work incurs child care
costs. This is incorrect. There are many parents around who are working
opposite hours/days so that one parent is always home with the child. There
are many other families where another relative is providing care at low or
no cost. Working does not inherently result in increased costs to the
family for child care, although car-related costs may increase, although
that suggests that the stay at home parent will not use a car to go anywhere
regularly. This is an unlikely assumption in first world areas where many
SAHM's are out several days weekly trying to involve little ones in
playgroups, etc.
-Aula
ang...@netins.net
pumps, but really nice ones, imo) because I keep burning up the motors
(I'm a cow when it comes to breast milk). I also have to buy nursing pads
and nursing bras and bottles to put the frozen milk in. ANYWAY--this is
still WAY cheaper than formula--formula runs something like $35 a week if
they are strictly drinking bottles. SO--imo--the cost is one of the major
reasons to breast feed.
--
kendra
mom to cody, 6; josie, 2; and patrick, not even a year!
ang...@netins.net
breastfed all of them. I take my pump and the little diaper bags with ice
packs with me to work and to all work-related activities. I have packed a
sack lunch and eaten that lunch at my desk while I pumped on days when
there was no other free times. As I am a teacher and coach, I have called
schools that we were travling to and told them I was coming and that I
would need a pump room. I have had some odd silence at the other end
sometimes, but a room was always provided. I have pumped in my car while
attending classes and softball games, have pumped in the bathroom of a
charter bus while journeying to a speech contest with 60 kids, and have
pumped while my assistant coach drove down the road and I rode in the
passenger seat. It is not always easy--but I would think it would be
possible if you tried hard enough in 99% of all jobs. You just have to be
assertive and say "time to pump" and be willing to sacrifice all that
pesky water cooler gossip time you had before.
In article <0s4R4.36339$g4.9...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "just
me" <thede...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "shmily" <shm...@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:ePqn2j8t$GA.235@cpmsnbbsa03...
> >
> >
> > No, sounds like a big bunch of excuses to me. The law provides for 15
> > minute breaks every 2-3 hours. Lawsuits have been won over firings from
> > pumping so that is unlawful now to fire someone for that reason. And
> even
> > if a good pump costs $200 that is nowhere near the cost of nottles,
> formula,
> > etc. never mind time involved in preparing formula. Formula fed babies
> > get sick much more often so there is extra doctor bills, time off from
> work
> > to take baby to doctor, and to stay home with sick baby, etc. If you
> > think formula is cheaper you are seriously deluded.
>
> Please share your experiences of working, pumping and successfully
> breastfeeding your children until they weaned themselves. From what you
> write it sounds like you have not experienced the working world while a
> breastfeeding mother and also that you feel that $200 is not expensive. For
> many people that is a very very sizeable amount of money and is beyond their
> means. But, the purchase of formula is not, on a weekly basis, as
> expensive, bottles are given to you by your friends and relatives as they
> are done with them, etc. Many mothers feel that they are put in a corner
> where they have to do what they do, and they will certainly not appreciate
> people coming to them and loudly judging in the manner which you are using
> what they felt was the best decision that they could make at the time, .
>
> I repeat myself, if you wish to teach, you provide the information without
> beating people over the head with it. You also provide the source
> information so that they can check it out themselves. While I do not doubt
> that WHO feels that x number of children die annually due to being formula
> fed, I would like to see your data, not your interpretation of it.
> Personally, I doubt that we will agree to disagree on this one and be able
> to be friendly about it because you are very very certain that you are right
> and no one else might have some credible information or opinion as well.
> Perhaps you need to come down out of your lofty tower and truly examine what
> it is that so many of the rest of us claim to be our experiences before you
> continue to judge us out of hand.
>
> -Aula
Naomi Lynne Pardue
In misc.kids.breastfeeding Robert Davidson <s03...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> My wife has pumped many litres in my presence, with different sorts of pumps. The
> hand pump's fine, she loves it. You certainly don't need to spend hundreds of
> dollars to keep a kid in ebm for many years.
For some women the hand pump works fine. I never had a pump at all, and
was able to express EBM by hand the few times I needed it. FOr an
employed mother, however, who needs to pump fairly large amounts of milk
in limited time, an electric pump is USUALLY preferred.
Naomi
Naomi Lynne Pardue
>> No-one SHOULD have a right to have children who will simply starve because
>> their parents cannot feed them.
> You're talking about the poorest of homeless people. Anyone else can afford to
> bring up a child in good health if they want to, especially in countries with
> good public health.
But IF you are claiming that reproducting is a basic human right, then
surely it would also apply to the poorest of the poor. If Mrs. Jones on
welfare in the U.S. has the 'right' to have 10 kids who will grow up in a
roach-infested apartment being fed with MY tax dollars, than surely Mrs.
Smith in the slums of Nairobi has the same right, even if HER children
will go on to starve to death one after another.
People do not have, in a moral sense, the 'right' to have children who
have no fighting chance of having a healthy life.
Naomi
Naomi Lynne Pardue
>> I favour the use of contraceptive methods for those who cannot afford to
>> raise a child at that point in their lives. Which is why I delayed having
>> children until I could afford them.
> How much money do you think one needs to raise a child?
> As far as I can tell, all you need is enough healthy food, shelter and
> clothing (for kids and parents). All the rest is peripheral.
Health care. Education. Security. The ability to look forward to the
future with at least the hope that things will be as good, if not better,
than they are today. Those too take money.
Many of the
> most expensive things people buy for a kid, in my humble opinion, are
> actually detrimental to good, normal parenting (things like cots (cribs),
> nursery rooms, playpens, prams, strollers).
Yes, those things are not necessary. (Though often very conveneint and
pleasurable for parents and child). However, if you'll recall this
discussion started with the idea that some women can't pump at work, and
therefore have to formula feed instead, because they can't scrape together
the cash for a breast pump. And THAT would fall under your list of basic
needs ... FOOD.
Naomi
Enid Karr
a bottle (so I could have surgery... she hunger struck anyway, so the
effort was wasted). I couldn't get more than 1/2 ounce in a half hour with
a manual pump (about as much as I could get by collecting from the
off side while nursing, and with much less pain). A cheapo electric pump
was only marginally better. Just 'cause your wife pumps easily does not
mean 1) all women can or 2) your wife is morally superior to women
whose attempts to pump are unsuccessful or 3) you are morally superior
to women whose attempts to pump are unsuccessful.
Maybe it's sour grapes; my daughters were slow growers; but I get very
cheesed off by women who think they are better mothers than me because
they produced more milk; as this was some sign of God's Grace or their
own superiority.... and as for men who have this attitude....
Enid
Robert Davidson wrote:
> My wife has pumped many litres in my presence, with different sorts of pumps. The
> hand pump's fine, she loves it. You certainly don't need to spend hundreds of
> dollars to keep a kid in ebm for many years.
>
> Robert Davidson
>
> Naomi Lynne Pardue wrote:
>
> > In misc.kids.breastfeeding Robert Davidson <s03...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
just me
"Naomi Lynne Pardue" <npa...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:8f4672$11c$6...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu...
>
> Yes, those things are not necessary. (Though often very conveneint and
> pleasurable for parents and child). However, if you'll recall this
> discussion started with the idea that some women can't pump at work, and
> therefore have to formula feed instead, because they can't scrape together
> the cash for a breast pump. And THAT would fall under your list of basic
> needs ... FOOD.
>
are working are presented with certain challenges to breastfeeding. *One*
problem, which has gotten a great deal of air time now, is the cost of a
$200 pump, which I said was exorbitant. Other problems also raised included
difficulty in obtaining the time to pump [an excellent point was raised
about 15 minute breaks being too short for many women to conduct their
business, including pumping], and having a decent place to pump. The cost
of a breast pump becomes pale in light of those other considerations.
-Aula
just me
And, we are supposing that she *gets* two breaks and a lunch break.
Professional women get a break when they can, salaried women are in the same
shoes. There are many other service oriented jobs where the break can and
is interrupted in order to bring more staff back into the customer service
area immediately [I.e.: Grocery store cashiers]. Those who drive as part
of their job may get a break, but may not be able to locate a decent place
to pump. People who are working in residential facilities almost never get
a break.
I also wonder where you get the two 15 minute breaks from? Someone working
up to six hours gets one 15 minute break. If the shift lasts longer than 6
hours than they get a meal break of 1/2 hour and one 15 minute break. I
have never heard of two fifteen minute breaks in an 8 hour or less shift.
-Aula
Angela
> My wife has pumped many litres in my presence, with different sorts of
pumps. The
hundreds of
> dollars to keep a kid in ebm for many years.
Sorry, dude.
I pump exclusively for one of my twins. I have tried several hand pumps,
including the Avent Isis ($40) and the Ameda/Egnell one-hand pump ($25), as
well as several electric pumps including the Pump In Style ($75 used), the
giant non-portable Medela gospital-grade (used at the hospital), the Gerber
electric ($2 in a thrift store, just for an experiment) and the Medela
Lactina, which would be nearly $1000 if I had to buy it, but costs us
$32.50/month to rent. Results?
The Gerber is a piece of crap.
The Isis and Ameda/Egnell work for a single session, but I end up with
injured/swollen nipple tissue, and even hand-expression won't get milk out
for the next 24 hours or so. Since I produce enough milk for 3 kids right
now (I estimate more than 1/2 gallon/day), that is something I cannot risk.
The PIS likewise works great, but I end up with injured nipple tissue after
a single session at lowest suction.
The hospital Medela pump makes me so sore I can hardly stand it.
*Only* the Lactina works for me. I don't know what the difference is, but I
even though I pump exclusively for the one baby, and must get more than 35
oz/day for her, I *cannot* use just any old cheap $10 pump. I'm glad that
your wife can use those pumps, but you have to understand that not every
woman can.
--angela
just me
<ang...@netins.net> wrote in message
news:angelb-0705...@lhgh-02-124.dialup.netins.net...
> I have 3 children and work full-time (40-60 hours a week) and have
> breastfed all of them. I take my pump and the little diaper bags with ice
> packs with me to work and to all work-related activities. I have packed a
> sack lunch and eaten that lunch at my desk while I pumped on days when
> there was no other free times. As I am a teacher and coach, I have called
> schools that we were travling to and told them I was coming and that I
> would need a pump room. I have had some odd silence at the other end
> sometimes, but a room was always provided. I have pumped in my car while
> attending classes and softball games, have pumped in the bathroom of a
> charter bus while journeying to a speech contest with 60 kids, and have
> pumped while my assistant coach drove down the road and I rode in the
> passenger seat. It is not always easy--but I would think it would be
> possible if you tried hard enough in 99% of all jobs. You just have to be
> assertive and say "time to pump" and be willing to sacrifice all that
> pesky water cooler gossip time you had before.
>
>
>
nursed and provided pumped milk for my son until he self weaned at 11
months. I found that I could not get more than one ounce per pumping event,
even when extremely uncomfortable from the amount available to pump, unless
he was nursing the other side. I have spoken with a number of women who
have had the same experience. I dealt with this by having him come to me
for his noon feeding daily, and pumping at all other feedings so that there
was enough on hand at home at all times. This is related to remind us all
that willingness is not always ability. I was lucky that he was 10 minutes
away and hubby could bring him to work for lunch for two months and that I
could go home for another month or two after hubby was injured and unable to
bring him to me. Not all women work so close to where their child is nor
have someone willing to assist. We must walk that mile in their shoes
before proclaiming that they really could do thus and so if_______.
- Aula
Jill Drake
Robert Davidson wrote in message <39158744...@student.uq.edu.au>...
>This is really dodgy stuff you're spouting. The human right to have kids
>should not be kept from those you consider poor. Man, in my year in India
I
>saw some poor kids, but they were happy and loved.
But were they well fed? Did they have adequate shelter, clothing and access
to medical care?
I'm not talking about little snotleigh cruising around in mommy's range
rover, I'm talking about making sure you can feed, clothe (in hand me downs)
and shelter your kid(s). If you can't even save $200 over the course of
your pregnancy to buy a breast pump what kind of financial chaos are a
couple of illnesses going to put you in?
If anything, I think we give way too much stuff to our kids and I'm not
advocating only the rich should have them. I am saying you've got to be
able to afford the basics as defined by me above. As I understand from my
Indian friends who have come to live in the US, many over there don't have.
>
>What's considered necessary in the West for bringing up a kid is really a
>waste of money - cots, prams, video cameras, beds, electric breast pumps,
>expensive toys, tvs, "organic" food - -- you really don't need to spend
very
>much at all to bring up a very healthy, happy kid. It's a consumerist
Western
>myth.
>
>Robert Davidson
>
>Karrde wrote:
>
>> Jill Drake wrote in message ...
>> >Gotta agree here. As a troll (snowjob3) put it in response to another
>> >thread "Don't you people think, Why have a kid if you can't afford one?"
>> >Obnoxiously put, but rather accurate.
>> >
>>
>> Sometimes life isn't fair and reality is harsh. I'm sorry if that
offends
>> some, but it's just not fair to the children to bring them into a life of
>> poverty and hunger and starvation and suffering. I consider myself very
>> lucky to be in a position to be able to have children and feel badly for
>> those who are not, but I can't pretend to feel it is okay for them to
feed
>> the cycle of poverty.
>>
>> --Jerry
>
Jill Drake
Robert Davidson wrote in message <39158744...@student.uq.edu.au>...
>This is really dodgy stuff you're spouting. The human right to have kids
>should not be kept from those you consider poor. Man, in my year in India
I
>saw some poor kids, but they were happy and loved.
But were they well fed? Did they have adequate shelter, clothing and access
to medical care?
I'm not talking about little snotleigh cruising around in mommy's range
rover, I'm talking about making sure you can feed, clothe (in hand me downs)
and shelter your kid(s). If you can't even save $200 over the course of
your pregnancy to buy a breast pump what kind of financial chaos are a
couple of illnesses going to put you in?
If anything, I think we give way too much stuff to our kids and I'm not
advocating only the rich should have them. I am saying you've got to be
able to afford the basics as I defined above. As I understand from my
Indian friends who have come to live in the US, many over there don't have
these, and are far from happy.
just me wrote in message ...
Deborah
circumstances. I just think it's a wise choice on the part of someone who
can't afford the necessities to postpone having kids. That's what I did, & I
would *like* it if everybody else did it too, since having children when you
need government subsidy to raise them means that everybody else pays,
including my family.
But I have never said that anyone doesn't have the right to have kids. Nor
have I ever said anything about keeping up with the Joneses.
Unless you're saying that you think people should go ahead & have kids
regardless of their ability to raise them, I don't think we're in
disagreement here.
--
Deborah
Robert Davidson <s03...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:391597F6...@student.uq.edu.au...
: Deborah wrote:
:
: > Of course it is. But we live in a society which says 'you must have
: > this...and that...and this too', & unfortunately a lot of people believe
it.
: > I don't. You obviously don't either.
:
: So can you agree that to suggest people don't have the right to have kids
if
: they can't keep up with the Joneses is a bit fascistic (and fashistic
too)?
:
: Robert Davidson
:
Naomi Lynne Pardue
In misc.kids.breastfeeding just me <thede...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Naomi Lynne Pardue" <npa...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
> news:8f4672$11c$6...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu...
> problem, which has gotten a great deal of air time now, is the cost of a
> $200 pump, which I said was exorbitant. Other problems also raised included
> difficulty in obtaining the time to pump [an excellent point was raised
> about 15 minute breaks being too short for many women to conduct their
> business, including pumping], and having a decent place to pump. The cost
> of a breast pump becomes pale in light of those other considerations.
And I believe I agreed that a small percentage of working mothers (meaning
a VERY small percentage of total mothers, since only about 50% (maybe
less, since I don't recall the exact percentages) of mothers work for
money at ALL when their babies are under a year old, are in work settings
where pumping is not practical or (rarely) even possible. But many women
work in settings where pumping is feasible, and many women have employers
who are willing to make adjustments in their schedules so they can pump
(i.e., giving them 30 minute breaks and letting them work an extra half
hour ... or giving them 30 minute breaks and only a half hour rather than
a full hour for lunch.) But how many women dont' even try? I had a
co-worker back before my child was born who nursed for a month, then
weaned to go back to work after her 6 weeks off. And yes, she could EASILY
have pumped. She was the head of the department. She had her own office,
with a door. Except for the odd meeting she planned her own work schedule.
But she didn't pump because she didn't want to. And she is MUCH more
typical of employed mothers as a whole. Only a VERY small percentage of
employed mothers make any attempt to bf. (Can't find the stats, but that
"Pediatrics" article I mentioned in another post found that, I think, only
about 5% of employed mothers were giving their babies any breastmilk at
all at 6 months.(Compared to 20% of mothers as a whole.) Are you REALLY
suggesting that 95% of employed mothers cannot possibly manage to pump
even enough milk to keep their supply going so they can breastfeed while
at home?
Naomi
Naomi Lynne Pardue
>> Of course it is. But we live in a society which says 'you must have
>> this...and that...and this too', & unfortunately a lot of people believe it.
>> I don't. You obviously don't either.
> So can you agree that to suggest people don't have the right to have kids if
> they can't keep up with the Joneses is a bit fascistic (and fashistic too)?
And I don't think ANYONE on this thread has suggested that this is the
case.
Naomi
Naomi Lynne Pardue
Please don't put words in our mouths. NOBODY has said that only the rich
can have kids. Unless of course you are dividing the world into only two
catagories; the extremely poor and the rich.
(BTW, I note that you live in Australia. Perhaps Australia is one of
those countries that provides cash payments for parents who have children?
In the U.S., aside from a very small difference in taxes, familise with
kids have to raise their children on exactly the same income (or often
less, if mom doesn't work or switches to part time work) that had
previously supported husband and wife alone.)
Naomi
Naomi Lynne Pardue
In misc.kids.breastfeeding just me <thede...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> And, we are supposing that she *gets* two breaks and a lunch break.
> Professional women get a break when they can,
Depending on the profession, professional women often have far more
control over their hours than other classes of workers. (Or, often, they
can pump WHILE working -- shut the office door, hook up the pump, and
answer e-mails, read correspondence, whatever needs to be done.)
salaried women are in the same
> shoes. There are many other service oriented jobs where the break can and
> is interrupted in order to bring more staff back into the customer service
> area immediately [I.e.: Grocery store cashiers].
You mean you'd be hauled off the toilet and made to go back to the counter
if you were taking care of those such personal needs?
Those who drive as part
> of their job may get a break, but may not be able to locate a decent place
> to pump.
Why not pump in the car?
> I also wonder where you get the two 15 minute breaks from? Someone working
> up to six hours gets one 15 minute break. If the shift lasts longer than 6
> hours than they get a meal break of 1/2 hour and one 15 minute break. I
> have never heard of two fifteen minute breaks in an 8 hour or less shift.
It's standard where I have always worked. In an 8 hour shift, you get a
break morning and afternoon and a lunch break. (Half and hour or an hour,
depending on the job and, sometimes, personal preference.)
Naomi
Naomi Lynne Pardue
>> I'm defining the ability to afford children as the ability to give them the
>> few material necessities they need.
> Surely this is something almost every person can do, even homeless people.
Given that I believe even YOU said that shelter was a basic necessity, a
homeless person, by definition, cannot provide that.
Naomi
*Mary*
> of formula, roughly, will pay for a pump.
WIC...Actually you can make up to $31,000 a year for a 4 person family and
get WIC. Until my kids got older and were drinking more formula, I found
that I never had to buy formula till they were about 8 months old, and by
then I didn't have to buy but a few cans, and I definitly spent less then I
would have on a pump.
>
> I also do not, unfortunately, have the specific cite to hand for the
> increased deaths due to ff. But it doesn't take a huge leap of faith to
> see the logic in it. FF babies are much more likely to get sick. They are
> especially more likely to get serious illnesses. SOME babies who get
> seriously ill die. So if a larger percentage of FF babies get sick, a
> larger percentage of them will die.
Both of my kids were formula feed..and neither of them have been sick...I
mean, yeah, your basic colds, but nothing that they needed to go to the ER
for. Or extra doctor appointments. Places say that they have the same kind
of "stats" for parents who smoke ad kids who get ear infections. I think
it's a lot of bull$hit. My husband and I have smoked for over 2 years and
neither of our kids have had ear infections, respitory problems or anything
of the like. Actually my oldest son had one mild ear infection, and at the
time we DIDN'T even smoke. But now that we do smoke they are not sick.
Mary
JoAnne Clark
>No, sounds like a big bunch of excuses to me. The law provides for 15
>minute breaks every 2-3 hours. Lawsuits have been won over firings from
>pumping so that is unlawful now to fire someone for that reason. And even
>if a good pump costs $200 that is nowhere near the cost of nottles, formula,
>etc. never mind time involved in preparing formula. Formula fed babies
>get sick much more often so there is extra doctor bills, time off from work
>to take baby to doctor, and to stay home with sick baby, etc. If you
>think formula is cheaper you are seriously deluded.
Norma, I think everyone knows your passion on this topic, but it
really isn't as simple as you make it out to be. I am not for one
second going to argue that formula feeding is cheaper than
breastfeeding, but there are all kinds of "expenses" besides purely
financial ones. Now that I'm back at work, a big chunk of my "free"
time is spent pumping and doing all the attendant duties, like washing
the pump afterwards, etc. And pumping doesn't free one from having to
buy bottles.
Formula feeding is no guarantee of a sickly child, either. I know
that personal anecdotes don't really mean anything and that,
statistically, BF babies are healthier, but my son only nursed for 10
weeks and he's had only 3 colds in his entire life and never once had
to see the doctor for anything other than a well-baby checkup.
I heartily agree that we (most specifically the U.S.) as a society
need to encourage breastfeeding so that it becomes the norm rather
than the exception, but militism tends to put people off.
JoAnne
Mommy to:
Gabriel 5-23-98
Laura 3-1-00
-------------------------------------------------------
"Nothing so needs reforming as other people's habits."
-Mark Twain
Cheryl Nakao
too. A family of 4 can make up up $31,543 yearly and still be eligible
for WIC. It's designed for low and middle income families. The no-pay
medicare in my state has a much lower eligibility for a family of 4 than
WIC does. If it tells you anything, my dad (age 51) works a full time
job that pays $12 an hour and it offers a very good benefits package. A
low paying job doesn't mean that there is no medical insurance.
Cheryl
just me wrote:
>
> "Karrde" <Kar...@smugglers.alliance.org> wrote in message
> news:QD8R4.52188$fV.32...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > Naomi Lynne Pardue wrote in message
> > <8f2lnm$rok$2...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>...
> > >$200 all at once is exactly the same money as $200 spread over 10 weeks.
> > >And, as hard as it is to accept, if you can't afford to pay for the basic
> > >necessities of baby care, perhaps you should think twice about having
> > >children, because, in the greater scheme os things, $200 is chicken feed.
> > >(And if your child gets one or two extra illnesses due to being formula
> > >fed, the doctor bills and antibiotics could well equal $200.
> >
> >
> > Also, if you are relying on WIC, chances are you don't have health
> insurance
> > at your job. One or two illnesses can be financially devistating in that
> > case.
>
> If you are relying on WIC then the baby probably has Medicaid, which is a
> health insurance. I personally would rather that my taxes be used as little
> as possible to support folks who can work, but I must recognize that there
> are those who need these resources, at least for a while. If we want as few
> people as possible to be using tax dollars to support themselves and their
> families, then we'd better get real used to seeing parents of small children
> working, leaving them at day care, having them go to day care after school,
> and being fed as best the parent can. You cannot have your cake and eat it,
> too. Either the moms work because they are able bodied individuals or they
> stay at home and raise the kids there and are probably benefiting from some
> tax supported programs.
>
> And, let's be really real folks, there are a lot of jobs out there that do
> not carry benefits with them, including health insurance. Then, there are
> the health insurance plans with the ridiculously high deductibles, which
> essentially means that you are paying for everything except the catastrophic
> illnesses that come up once every ten years, maybe. There are many
> situations and basing judgments on what is sounding increasingly like middle
> and upper middle class life styles are wrong.
--
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Click for a cure
http://www.eactivism.com/clickcure.asp
http://www.freedonation.com/cancer
Visit these sites once a day and a donation
will be made to the American Cancer Society
at no cost to you.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Cheryl Nakao
>
> Only the rich can have kids. Great. Glad you're not running the world.
>
> as well anyway. Go to a church fete or a second hand shop.
>
>
Ditto that sentiment here... heck, in a pinch you don't need a pump...
you could always hand-express.
Cheryl
*Mary*
be on food stamps and Medicaid. Well, this past Monday I got a job...so now
we will be getting off food stamps..I love that, I am glad for that..I hate
being on them. Our income went up more then double a month and we will be
making about $20K a year.It's enough for us to live comfortably now. But we
still qualify in our state for medicaid for the boys..of course I am going
to stay on it. (the state max for medicaid is something like $25K) The
insurance where I work would cost 1/4 of my monthly income and I would still
have to pay for half of all medical bills. My boys only go for regular check
ups, but god forbid that they even had to go to the hospital for any reason
I wouldn't be able to pay for it, so for right now we are staying on the
medicaid. Maybe if I make more money in the future and can better afford
insurance then we will get our own and not go through the state. Our boys
have everything they need..I mean, clothes, food, a roof over their heads, a
bed to sleep in at night and some toys, health care and love. That's what is
most important.
Mary
just me <thede...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3scR4.35085$x4.11...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
just me
situations which do not appear to fit into the options which you and others
have espoused herein. An hour lunch! Wow! I've never had one, and I'm
considered professional staff and have worked in a number of different
settings over the 20+ years since I graduated from college. Most people in
non-degree requiring positions get 1/2 hour for lunch, some of us get a full
45 minutes. Many folks find time so dear that errands are run on lunch
breaks so that they have more time with the family. Just an example of
other things tugging at people that might be a reason why pumping comes out
lower on the priority list. More time with family, no pumping. I could see
it happening in some families. I refuse to call those moms bad and uncaring
for making such a choice, even though I probably would not make the same
choice.
Yes, the dedicated individual usually can find a way around *most* of the
barriers [not necessarily all]. Most posts have been quite sweeping,
categorical and judgmental in content, strongly suggesting [and stating
clearly in others] that mothers who do not breastfeed until the child
self-weans are uncaring, selfish, uneducated, spineless people who should
not be allowed to parent. Perhaps if all posters can acknowledge that there
is a whole lot of middle ground then maybe most of the posters could find
some common ground from which to build an understanding where we can work
together to benefit the other parents out there.
-Aula
just me
> > Only the rich can have kids. Great. Glad you're not running the world.
>
> can have kids. Unless of course you are dividing the world into only two
> catagories; the extremely poor and the rich.
Please read back, it has been clearly stated that only those who do not live
pay check to pay check should have children. I reiterate, a lot of people
live pay check to pay check, even those with relatively high incomes.
-Aula
just me
> > is interrupted in order to bring more staff back into the customer
service
> > area immediately [I.e.: Grocery store cashiers].
>
> You mean you'd be hauled off the toilet and made to go back to the counter
> if you were taking care of those such personal needs?
Exactly. I've had it happen to me more than once when I worked in that type
of job.
-Aula
just me
"Naomi Lynne Pardue" <npa...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:8f4av2$1cp$5...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu...
>
> In misc.kids.breastfeeding just me <thede...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > I also wonder where you get the two 15 minute breaks from? Someone
working
> > up to six hours gets one 15 minute break. If the shift lasts longer
than 6
> > hours than they get a meal break of 1/2 hour and one 15 minute break. I
> > have never heard of two fifteen minute breaks in an 8 hour or less
shift.
>
> It's standard where I have always worked. In an 8 hour shift, you get a
> break morning and afternoon and a lunch break. (Half and hour or an hour,
> depending on the job and, sometimes, personal preference.)
>
What type of work do you do?!?!???? I will switch professions pronto!
-Aula
hamilton
<mommy...@home.com> wrote:
> Robert Davidson wrote:
> >
> > Only the rich can have kids. Great. Glad you're not running the world.
> >
> > You don't need a $200 pump anyway. Just get a $10 hand pump - they
work just
> > as well anyway. Go to a church fete or a second hand shop.
> >
> > Robert Davidson
> >
>
> Ditto that sentiment here... heck, in a pinch you don't need a pump...
> you could always hand-express.
>
> Cheryl'
speak for yourself -- I could never get more than an ounce that way --
although I successfully breastfed two kids for a year or two each.
Erin & Will Swartz
Have you ever worked full time and pumped to feed your baby? I have and am
doing it again now. Now I have a pretty good situation: I can pump in my
own office while doing some work and I have a very supportive (or at least
apathetic) coworkers and managers. Basically, I tell them what I plan to do
and make sure my office mate (a guy) doesn't mind being shut out of our
office every so often (we do most work in another room). Even in this
situation, it can be stressful at times making sure you get enough milk for
the next day.
But regardless of the law, I think you have to have a fairly relaxed
environment for it to work well. I could never pump well at work when I was
stressed out or had to use a different spot other than my desk. And on days
with a lot of meetings, it can be really hard to break away to pump. Yes, I
can understand why someone would use formula for economic reasons when they
go back to work. And $200 is a lot in one chunk, while formula is a weekly,
recurring cost. Even if the law provides for pumping on the job, it doesn't
mean that everyone can do that and do the job well that their employer is
paying them to do.
I agree with Aula, let's work on being providers of information and support.
Regardless of what you may think, many Moms ARE put off by folks that are,
shall we say, aggressive in their support of breastfeeding. I recommend to
friends that they give it a try with no particular timelines or weaning
goals in mind.
Erin
just me wrote in message
<0s4R4.36339$g4.9...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
"shmily" <shm...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:ePqn2j8t$GA.235@cpmsnbbsa03...
>
>
> No, sounds like a big bunch of excuses to me. The law provides for 15
> minute breaks every 2-3 hours. Lawsuits have been won over firings from
> pumping so that is unlawful now to fire someone for that reason. And
even
> if a good pump costs $200 that is nowhere near the cost of nottles,
formula,
> etc. never mind time involved in preparing formula. Formula fed babies
> get sick much more often so there is extra doctor bills, time off from
work
> to take baby to doctor, and to stay home with sick baby, etc. If you
> think formula is cheaper you are seriously deluded.
Please share your experiences of working, pumping and successfully
breastfeeding your children until they weaned themselves. From what you
write it sounds like you have not experienced the working world while a
breastfeeding mother and also that you feel that $200 is not expensive. For
many people that is a very very sizeable amount of money and is beyond their
means. But, the purchase of formula is not, on a weekly basis, as
expensive, bottles are given to you by your friends and relatives as they
are done with them, etc. Many mothers feel that they are put in a corner
where they have to do what they do, and they will certainly not appreciate
people coming to them and loudly judging in the manner which you are using
what they felt was the best decision that they could make at the time, .
I repeat myself, if you wish to teach, you provide the information without
beating people over the head with it. You also provide the source
information so that they can check it out themselves. While I do not doubt
that WHO feels that x number of children die annually due to being formula
fed, I would like to see your data, not your interpretation of it.
Personally, I doubt that we will agree to disagree on this one and be able
to be friendly about it because you are very very certain that you are right
and no one else might have some credible information or opinion as well.
Perhaps you need to come down out of your lofty tower and truly examine what
it is that so many of the rest of us claim to be our experiences before you
continue to judge us out of hand.
-Aula
Naomi Lynne Pardue
In misc.kids.breastfeeding just me <thede...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Naomi Lynne Pardue" <npa...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
> What I am saying is that there are number of women who encounter different
> situations which do not appear to fit into the options which you and others
> have espoused herein. An hour lunch! Wow! I've never had one, and I'm
> considered professional staff and have worked in a number of different
> settings over the 20+ years since I graduated from college.
Hmmm... where I worked before havinga baby, the department was open from
8 a.m. until midnight. Most of the staff worked from 8 to 5, with an hour
for lunch. I worked from 8:15-4:45 and took half an hour. When I was
taking classes, I often went to class mid-day, at lunch at my desk, and
worked a couple of evenings. The department I'm in now is open only from
8-5, and most full-time staff takes an hour lunch.
Most people in
> non-degree requiring positions get 1/2 hour for lunch, some of us get a full
> 45 minutes. Many folks find time so dear that errands are run on lunch
> breaks so that they have more time with the family. Just an example of
> other things tugging at people that might be a reason why pumping comes out
> lower on the priority list. More time with family, no pumping. I could see
> it happening in some families. I refuse to call those moms bad and uncaring
> for making such a choice, even though I probably would not make the same
> choice.
And I don't recall the words 'bad' or 'uncaring' passing my fingers
either.
> Yes, the dedicated individual usually can find a way around *most* of the
> barriers [not necessarily all]. Most posts have been quite sweeping,
> categorical and judgmental in content, strongly suggesting [and stating
> clearly in others] that mothers who do not breastfeed until the child
> self-weans are uncaring, selfish, uneducated, spineless people who should
> not be allowed to parent.
Not mine certainly, and, in fact, I dont' recall the issue of weaning age
coming into the discussion at all.
Naomi
Naomi Lynne Pardue
In misc.kids.breastfeeding *Mary* <maryg...@teal.net> wrote:
> WIC...Actually you can make up to $31,000 a year for a 4 person family and
> get WIC. Until my kids got older and were drinking more formula, I found
> that I never had to buy formula till they were about 8 months old, and by
> then I didn't have to buy but a few cans, and I definitly spent less then I
> would have on a pump.
While I understand that WIC is helpful, I do NOT believe that families
should make the CHOICE to have children based on the assumption that WIC
will pay for their baby's formula, and so it doesn't matter if they can
afford it or not.
>> seriously ill die. So if a larger percentage of FF babies get sick, a
>> larger percentage of them will die.
> Both of my kids were formula feed..and neither of them have been sick...I
> mean, yeah, your basic colds, but nothing that they needed to go to the ER
> for. Or extra doctor appointments. Places say that they have the same kind
> of "stats" for parents who smoke ad kids who get ear infections. I think
> it's a lot of bull$hit. My husband and I have smoked for over 2 years and
> neither of our kids have had ear infections, respitory problems or anything
> of the like. Actually my oldest son had one mild ear infection, and at the
> time we DIDN'T even smoke. But now that we do smoke they are not sick.
Ah yes... which proves of course that maternal smoking actually PREVENTS
ear infections and so all good mothers should start smoking as soon as
their children are born.
The statistics do NOT say (and nobody has claimed that they say) that
EVERY child fed formula will be sick all the time or end up in the
emergency room. Nor do the statistics say that EVERY child of a smoking
parent will have freuqent ear infections/URIs, etc. The statistics DO say
that such children are MORE LIKELY to have those health problems and so,
the way to REDUCE THE RISK of such problems in individuals, and to
decrease the total number over populations, is for babies to be breastfed,
and for parents to not smoke around their children. (And, with what we
know about formula/breastmilk and what we know about secondhand smoke,
there is good reason to conclude that the differences in morbidity between
these populations is not coincidental, but that there is causation
involved.
Naomi
linda-renee
> You are very much mistaken. Reproduction is a basic human right. You are
> advocating the sorts of things Hitler and Mao were fond of.
I'm invoking Godwin's Law. Thread's dead.
Naomi Lynne Pardue
In misc.kids.breastfeeding just me <thede...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Naomi Lynne Pardue" <npa...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
>> > I also wonder where you get the two 15 minute breaks from? Someone
> working
>> > up to six hours gets one 15 minute break. If the shift lasts longer
> than 6
>> > hours than they get a meal break of 1/2 hour and one 15 minute break. I
>> > have never heard of two fifteen minute breaks in an 8 hour or less
> shift.
>>
>> It's standard where I have always worked. In an 8 hour shift, you get a
>> break morning and afternoon and a lunch break. (Half and hour or an hour,
>> depending on the job and, sometimes, personal preference.)
>>
> What type of work do you do?!?!???? I will switch professions pronto!
I'm a librarian. (Though I currently work in a setting where schedules are
more flexible anyway, and people rarely time their breaks to the minute.)
And I work part time, which again is different.
However, at other times in my life I've worked in office/secretarial
settings and in factories, and the 2-breaks-plus-lunch has been the rule
in every full-time job I've ever had, or my DH has ever had. (He's in a
skilled trade.)
Naomi
linda-renee
> You are very much mistaken. Reproduction is a basic human right.
Feel free to provide the lifetime financial support for the impoverished who
choose to exercise their "rights," again and again and again.......
linda-renee
> It's standard where I have always worked. In an 8 hour shift, you get a
> break morning and afternoon and a lunch break. (Half and hour or an hour,
> depending on the job and, sometimes, personal preference.)
You read sci.med.nursing and don't know that nurses often work 12 hour
shifts without so much as time to go to the bathroom???
Suzanne Dallapè
Marie wrote in message ...
>With WIC formula is free. So all you'd have to pay for is bottles.
I thought WIC only provided about a third to two thirds of a baby's total
needs, and the rest has to be purchased.
--S.
JDal...@att.net
Suzanne Dallapè
just me wrote in message ...
>Laying out a large sum at one time can often be much harder to do [harder
to
>have the money available] than having it go out in dribs and drabs. For
>many many folks that $200 is the electricity, phone and water bill for the
>month, if paid out at once.
Many hospitals rent pumps; a woman could do that and only pay a monthly fee,
which would be about equal to that of formula. As for getting a pump of her
own, a person could either work out a payment plan at a store, or could put
a pump purchase on a credit card. Either way, she would only have to pay a
nominal amount each month (for most cards it is about $20), and the pump
would soon be paid off, unlike formula which would still be an expense for a
long time.
--S.
JDal...@att.net
Suzanne Dallapè
term
>{miracle baby, only one to live out of five pregnancies}, b] thought that
we
>had enough income to support our family. Then, six months later we lost
>half our income due to hubby being injured and disabled permanently.
Now, would you advocate that our
>child be removed from our custody [permanently?] when our income present
and
>future was significantly reduced?
If I am not mistaken, Karrde's exact words were, "I am not talking about
those situations where someone has a child and then gets into a bad
financial situation..."
--S.
JDal...@att.net
Suzanne Dallapè
>But what exactly is the solution? Encourage poor people to have kids who
>will either starve or be supported by the rest of us?
It seems like it would boil down to common sense and respect. I wouldn't
advocate implanting all "not-fit-according-to-whomever" people with birth
control implants, but everyone has to take a realistic look at what s/he can
do for a child at any given time in his/her life. Common sense is to not
have kids until you are ready for them--financially, emotionally,
physically--making whatever sacrifices you need to in order to come to these
conditions. Respect is to not bring a child into the world knowing that
you cannot care for it properly. So no, there is no real solution, other
than each individual making the right choice from him/herself at the right
time.
>Reproduction isn't a *right*, merely a biological capability.
Damn right, that statement!
--S.
JDal...@att.net
Charlotte Millington
: This reminds me of something from, I think, a LLL publication, something
: like:
: A human infant has very few needs: only the need for warmth, the need for
: human contact & the need for food. Being in his mother's arms to breastfeed
: supplies all of these.
YOU GOT IT!
Charlotte
: --
: Deborah
: Charlotte Millington <ye...@vtn1.victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message
: news:3915...@news.victoria.tc.ca...
: :
: : For a little while, that was definitely my situation. However, thanks to
: : mother nature, I was always able to give my infant basic child care.
: : Shortly after Brigitte was born, I got free milk samples arrive in two
: : convenient packages that required no sterilising or refridgeration.
: :
: : Everyone can afford to give their child basic care, not everyone realises
: : it or wants to.
: :
: : Charlotte
: : --
: : A birth counsellor is someone who watches everybody else when a new baby
: : enters a room!
: : Visit http://www.birth.bc.ca!
--
A birth counsellor is someone who watches everybody else when a new baby
enters a room!
Visit http://www.birth.bc.ca!
Charlotte Millington
: It seems like it would boil down to common sense and respect. I wouldn't
: advocate implanting all "not-fit-according-to-whomever" people with birth
: control implants, but everyone has to take a realistic look at what s/he can
: do for a child at any given time in his/her life. Common sense is to not
: have kids until you are ready for them--financially, emotionally,
: physically--making whatever sacrifices you need to in order to come to these
In my experience and professional opinion, people have babies because they
get pregnant. While this brilliance may not be dazzling, let me explain
it further:
Poor women, teens, and other rather unfortunate situations get pregnant
because they had sex. Maybe they couldn't afford birth control (spare me
about how they shouldn't have been having sex, they did, they do, that's
that), maybe they didn't link their immediate actions to having a baby.
Maybe their birth control failed.
There are many, many reasons why women have unexpected pregnancies and
while it would be nice to say that we should all plan our pregnancies a
lot more carefully, pregnancies happen all the time in some of the most
questionable situations. (I believe I've told and re-told my pwn
pregnancy experience in alt.support.breastfeeding.) So, women get
pregnant. And many of them, us, get pregnant not really knowing what to
do next. On occasion, one of these babies shows up in a dumpster.
Sometimes these babies get adopted into good homes. Sometimes, we keep
our babies and we raise them. In my place, I kept my baby despite
tremendous pressue to give her up for adoption. The words I got on one
occasion went like this: "OH spare me. You're pregnant. Like the world
needs more single mothers." Another person said: "Frankly, I don't
support babies being raised without a father."
I got pregnant in the worst of financial circumstances. My monthly income
at the time was less than my weekly income now. I was in crummy shape and
I didn't need more "youregonnabeacrummymother'causeyourepoor" statements.
I needed help figuring out what I was going to do next.
I never got that help. This world is so busy being moral, it forgets that
humans are not perfect. I am not perfect and I was in hot water. Instead
of help, I got morals shoved down my throat.
Spare me the details on how we *should* plan. I had a plan and it didn't
go at all the way I thought it would. You mean to tell me your plans
never take unexpected routes?
Common sense, common shmense. The only sacrifice I could have made once I
got the positive test was an abortion. I didn't want one. I wanted my
baby.
Years later, I am in a much better financial situation, but I am not a
better mother for it. Now I can buy little designer dresses and teeny
deck furniture. If dressing better makes her happier, then I guess my
better economic status means parenting is easier. But, the beach is still
free, still our favourite place, and still accessible. For richer or for
poorer, I would not trade Brigitte for a thousand planned pregnancies.
: conditions. Respect is to not bring a child into the world knowing that
: you cannot care for it properly. So no, there is no real solution, other
: than each individual making the right choice from him/herself at the right
: time.
: >Reproduction isn't a *right*, merely a biological capability.
: Damn right, that statement!
I thought I had you pegged differently. That statement is a lot more
intolerant than I believed you to be.
Marie
Marie
Suzanne Dallapč wrote in message ...
Charlotte Millington
: But IF you are claiming that reproducting is a basic human right, then
: surely it would also apply to the poorest of the poor. If Mrs. Jones on
: welfare in the U.S. has the 'right' to have 10 kids who will grow up in a
: roach-infested apartment being fed with MY tax dollars, than surely Mrs.
: Smith in the slums of Nairobi has the same right, even if HER children
: will go on to starve to death one after another.
Yes. Like it or not, Mrs. Jones has the same rights as Mrs. Smith, when
it comes to childbearing. More importantly, they also have the same
rights as you have: to be treated with dignity and respect and not have
the moral majority peering down their noses into stereotypes.
Frankly, anyone who *wants* to have ten kids can have 'em. Anyone who
does not have access to safe abortion or birth control should not be
treated like freaks when they have ten kids.
Lee
>The only things you really need are a way to
> nourish your baby, a way to keep your baby
> warm, & a way to hold your baby. Beyond
> that, the rest is frills.
All of which is readily available and provided by the mother's body...so
therefore, if everything else is frills, then there is absolutey no
reason you cannot have ten kids if you want, is there? And if there is,
then what? Those pesky frills, huh? Much as we like to say that those
three things you listed are all that's necessary to have a healthy happy
child, we don't really believe that, do we? No, baby 'needs' a crib or
his own room or a car seat (before you argue that a carseat is a
necessity remember that a car is a frill and baby will certainly be
healthy and happy without one) So let's not fool ourselves by saying
that we really believe that all a baby needs is food and warmth and a
way to be held..because we really don't believe that. Do you? Yes?
Then have ten babies and be happy about it knowing you gave them
everything they needed.
Lee
(Mommy to Genevieve Caroline 6-2-00, Mercedes Raeanne 2-9-96, Amber
Denise 4-4-93 and step-mommy to D'Wayne Allen 6-30-89)
Personal quotes:
" Nothing is fool-proof for a talented fool. "
" Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines."
Come and read my pregnancy journal, new entries every week! Click the
link below!
http://community.webtv.net/louisal/main
See some pictures of me and my family, click below!
http://community.webtv.net/louisal/TheFamily
just me
insurance premiums once you add anyone beyond the employee are astronomical!
I loose nearly $350/month in premiums for a so-so HMO to cover my family.
And, I make a bit more than your dad.
-Aula
"Cheryl Nakao" <mommy...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3915B4F1...@home.com...
> Actually getting WIC doesn't always mean that you're recieving medicaid
> too. A family of 4 can make up up $31,543 yearly and still be eligible
> for WIC. It's designed for low and middle income families. The no-pay
> medicare in my state has a much lower eligibility for a family of 4 than
> WIC does. If it tells you anything, my dad (age 51) works a full time
> job that pays $12 an hour and it offers a very good benefits package. A
> low paying job doesn't mean that there is no medical insurance.
>
> Cheryl
>
> just me wrote:
> >
> > "Karrde" <Kar...@smugglers.alliance.org> wrote in message
> > news:QD8R4.52188$fV.32...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > >
> > > Naomi Lynne Pardue wrote in message
> > > <8f2lnm$rok$2...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>...
> > > >$200 all at once is exactly the same money as $200 spread over 10
weeks.
> > > >And, as hard as it is to accept, if you can't afford to pay for the
basic
> > > >necessities of baby care, perhaps you should think twice about having
> > > >children, because, in the greater scheme os things, $200 is chicken
feed.
> > > >(And if your child gets one or two extra illnesses due to being
formula
> > > >fed, the doctor bills and antibiotics could well equal $200.
> > >
> > >
> > > Also, if you are relying on WIC, chances are you don't have health
> > insurance
> > > at your job. One or two illnesses can be financially devistating in
that
> > > case.
> >
> > If you are relying on WIC then the baby probably has Medicaid, which is
a
> > health insurance. I personally would rather that my taxes be used as
little
Cheryl Nakao
Dad lives in Southern California... He and Mom combined make about
35,000 yearly before taxes and what he pays for benefits gets taken out.
In the area they live in they're considering working class (lower middle
class). The cost of living is pretty high out here in California...
where they are it's a bit less than here in the SF area, but it's
ridiculous.
Cheryl
Naomi Lynne Pardue
In misc.kids.breastfeeding just me <thede...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Naomi Lynne Pardue" <npa...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
>> Please don't put words in our mouths. NOBODY has said that only the rich
>> can have kids. Unless of course you are dividing the world into only two
>> catagories; the extremely poor and the rich.
> Please read back, it has been clearly stated that only those who do not live
> pay check to pay check should have children. I reiterate, a lot of people
> live pay check to pay check, even those with relatively high incomes.
Very true. And if a family can't support 2 people and have anything left
for a rainy day, one wonders how they hope to support 3.
Naomi