>> I suspect there are simply too many about here who revel in >> the "in-your-face" approach to breastfeeding. It's a pity too, >> because there really isn't any doubt breastfeeding is superior >> for the first few months.
>Glad you are so sure of that. Presonally I believe there is certainly >is doubt that breastfeeding is "superior". I sure don't think of it >as "superior" just plain old NORMAL.
>It's NOT some magical substance it's only MILK! It's not superior it's >NORMAL - Formula is *inferior* and we need to get our heads around the >fact that our language is totally screwed up in relation to >breastfeeding. Breastmilk is normal and it the intended and >appropriate food for a child for the first YEAR and beyond (I assume >by "few" you meant "at least 12")
Superior is the counter to inferior. English lesson over. As for your other points:
1) Breastmilk is not "just" milk. It has a very complex collection of chemicals and antibodies that formula makers have not yet been able to reproduce. If it were just milk (lactose, lactase, and related the related enzymes, milkfats, and minerals), it would have no advantage over modern formula.
2) As a child develops, the benefits of breastmilk lessen. Nursing past the first year yields practically no benefit compared to weaning after the first year. Even at six months there isn't much benefit to the child from a health/nutrition standpoint.
I think I'm getting out of the discussions on breastfeeding. Nothing new has been said in quite a while.
Galen
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
> >> I suspect there are simply too many about here who revel in > >> the "in-your-face" approach to breastfeeding. It's a pity > too, > >> because there really isn't any doubt breastfeeding is superior > >> for the first few months.
> >Glad you are so sure of that. Presonally I believe there is > certainly > >is doubt that breastfeeding is "superior". I sure don't think > of it > >as "superior" just plain old NORMAL.
> >It's NOT some magical substance it's only MILK! It's not > superior it's > >NORMAL - Formula is *inferior* and we need to get our heads > around the > >fact that our language is totally screwed up in relation to > >breastfeeding. Breastmilk is normal and it the intended and > >appropriate food for a child for the first YEAR and beyond (I > assume > >by "few" you meant "at least 12")
> Superior is the counter to inferior. English lesson over. As > for your other points:
> 1) Breastmilk is not "just" milk. It has a very complex > collection of chemicals and antibodies that formula makers have > not yet been able to reproduce. If it were just milk (lactose, > lactase, and related the related enzymes, milkfats, and > minerals), it would have no advantage over modern formula.
> 2) As a child develops, the benefits of breastmilk lessen. > Nursing past the first year yields practically no benefit > compared to weaning after the first year. Even at six months > there isn't much benefit to the child from a health/nutrition > standpoint. > Galen
------------------------ That's not true, the stomach is still undeveloped at that age. B/M is the best possible and easiest food. And the mother's immunities continue to be passed to the older child as well as she develops them, which teaches his system how to make them. And it's plain fun, and we need more fun!! Steve
In misc.kids.breastfeeding atarigalen <kNOkS...@uia.net.invalid> wrote:
: 2) As a child develops, the benefits of breastmilk lessen. : Nursing past the first year yields practically no benefit : compared to weaning after the first year. Even at six months : there isn't much benefit to the child from a health/nutrition : standpoint.
There is insufficient research to support the claim that there is no benefit to breastfeeding past one year, and there is SOME research that contradicts it, showing some benefit for nursing up to two years. (I know of no studies past two years at this point.) This is obviously an area where more research is indicated, but we cannot say that there is no benefit past one year.
: In misc.kids.breastfeeding atarigalen <kNOkS...@uia.net.invalid> wrote: : : : 2) As a child develops, the benefits of breastmilk lessen. : : Nursing past the first year yields practically no benefit : : compared to weaning after the first year. Even at six months : : there isn't much benefit to the child from a health/nutrition : : standpoint. : : There is insufficient research to support the claim that there : is no benefit to breastfeeding past one year, and there is SOME : research that contradicts it, showing some benefit for nursing : up to two years. (I know of no studies past two years at this : point.) This is obviously an area where more research is : indicated, but we cannot say that there is no benefit past one : year.
And furthermore, just WHY would the benefit diminish? I mean, let's take carrots, a healthy food; if I eat carrots daily for a year, do they suddenly stop giving me vitamins and cease to be healthy because I've been eating them for a year? Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't see how the perfect food could become less beneficial, provided the child is eating a healthy companion diet as needed.
-- Emily, wife to Jason since 1997 mama to Noah Joshua (4/8/98) & "lil butterfly" (due 6/19/00) http://emily.artoo.net
~ "And I won't try to manage things, 'cause I can't think." Scarecrow, "The Wizard of Oz" ~
> In misc.kids.breastfeeding linda-renee <lindarenee*ilovekellyan...@5catsmindspring.com> wrote: > > Naomi Lynne Pardue <npar...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
> >> In misc.kids.breastfeeding linda-renee > > <lindarenee*ilovekellyan...@5catsmindspring.com> wrote:
> >> > I'm terribly curious how my having used formula was a burden on any > > taxpayer > >> > or any health provider. My best friend breast fed for years and her > > kids > >> > are sick about ten times as often as mine, no exaggeration.
> >> Is it SOOO hard to grasp the difference between individual anecdotes and > >> statistical data?
> > Of course not. Nevertheless, I'm still waiting to find out how my using > > formula burdened the tax system and/or the health care system.
> Your child has really NEVER been sick in his/her entire life? You are > certain that your child will never BE sick in his/her entire life?
> > I am confounded that you *continue* to compare the food that kept my baby > > alive and healthy to a sickening, disgusting, murderous habit like smoking. > > There is no basis for comparison whatsoever. Smoking destroys quality of > > life and kills, period. Formula is a *food* that provides nutrition to > > millions of babies. Perhaps it's not the ambrosia you think mother's milk > > is. But it's food, and kids live and thrive on it.
> Formula also destroys quality of life. Formula also kills. There are > times when it is necessary (as starvation would destroy quality of life > or kill with even more certainty), but it is still a product that kills > people.
You shouldn't have to stretch the truth! Formula does not kill! Are you actually hearing (or seeing) what you have said, it makes no sense.
> > I can't see attempting rational discussion with someone who will stretch > > reality so far.....
> And I can't see attempting rational discussion with someone who can't > understand the concept of 'analogy.'
You have to realize the smoking and formula are not "analgous". It is just stupid to consider it as such.
Discussion subject changed to "Use of the word "Nazi" WAS: Re: Breast is best, was Re: Internet survey - should mothers breastfeed in public?" by Anna Evans
> And furthermore, just WHY would the benefit diminish? I mean, let's take > carrots, a healthy food; if I eat carrots daily for a year, do they suddenly > stop giving me vitamins and cease to be healthy because I've been eating > them for a year? Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't see how the > perfect food could become less beneficial, provided the child is eating a > healthy companion diet as needed.
I am pro-breastfeeding, and I do originate in the Breastfeeding newsgroup. However, this one is always coming up, and the answer is this:
Let's say you eat carrots daily for a year, and for argument's sake, nothing else. Obviously the nutrients within the carrot are vital, because it is the sole constituent of your diet. Now let's say that after a year you start to consume a normal, healthy diet. You continue to eat the carrots, but they are less important to your diet, because you are consuming other things as well.
Same with breastmilk. It continues to be an excellent food. However MOST children WILL be eating a wide variety of solid foods by the age of 1. So although the nutritional value of breastmilk per se does not diminish, the importance of breastmilk as a provider of nutrients does, quite naturally. Some might also suggest that after the age of 1, breastmilk is NOT actually THE perfect food for your child. It is a good food, certainly, and there is no reason to wean at that point. But it lacks iron, and also if your 1 year old was surviving solely on breastmilk, you might have concerns that they were not learning the socialisation aspects that solid food brings.
> Kendra <kendr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message > news:8fcf3a$r89$1@nnrp1.deja.com... > : > : Really? Would that be the same ones who said, "It's unfortunate you > : were unable to breastfeed but that still doesn't make formula the best > : thing for your baby." ?!?!?!? > : > : Thats far from acknowledgement. That's insensitivity.
> You are, I believe, referring to one of my posts. However, despite your use > of quotation marks, this is not what I wrote.
> What I actually wrote was:
> "If you were unable to lactate, that is unfortunate, but it does not mean > that formula is a better product for it."
> First, you are using the statement out of context, as it was a response to a > specific statement. Second, I did not say anything about how appropriate the > use of formula was for any specific baby. I wrote about formula in general. > This is not the same thing at all, which some here seem to have difficulty > in understanding the difference between discussing a product in general, & > their own situations in particular.
> Formula is not made a better product through being essential in a few > circumstances. It may have been essential in those circumstances, but its > merits as a product are exactly the same regardless.
> If you are going to quote me (or anyone else) in future, I would appreciate > your quoting accurately.
> Deborah
I would appreciate a little more sensitivity from people like you but I doubt it's likely to happen.
What difference does the wording make? You are still saying the same thing and if you think I'm going to dig up the exact quote, when my paraphrase was close enough, you're nuts.
You still told a woman who could not nurse that the formula she gave her child - OUT OF NECESSITY - was inferior. It was a superior, better- than-thou attitude that she didn't deserve. Breastfeeding SHOULD BE the immediate first choice. No woman should just decide against it for the simple reason she doesn't like it. But formula has saved lives for women like her and myself when the breastmilk didn't come in. For me, formula was the ONLY thing I had available. In my case it wasn't the inferior product.
Or are you like the person who once told me I should have let my child die rather than feed him formula?
A little sensitivity goes a long way and it's not a difficult thing to show.
In misc.kids.breastfeeding image <imaginat...@spamno.com> wrote:
> "Naomi Lynne Pardue" <npar...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message > news:8f7e2o$dc0$1@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu... >> > Of course not. Nevertheless, I'm still waiting to find out how my using >> > formula burdened the tax system and/or the health care system.
>> Your child has really NEVER been sick in his/her entire life? You are >> certain that your child will never BE sick in his/her entire life?
> I am not following your bf child is never sick?
Nope. Didn't say that. Statistically, formula fed babies are sick more than breastfed babies. Statisically insurance companies spend more for the health care of formula fed babies than they do for the care of breastfed babies. So, unless a given FF baby is NEVER sick, and NEVER needs to see a doctor, you cannot be sure that that particular illness would not have occured had the baby been breastfed.
>> Formula also destroys quality of life. Formula also kills. There are >> times when it is necessary (as starvation would destroy quality of life >> or kill with even more certainty), but it is still a product that kills >> people.
> You shouldn't have to stretch the truth! > Formula does not kill! Are you actually hearing (or seeing) what you have > said, it makes no sense.
Formula RARELY kills a baby directly. But formula (or, more specifically, the lack of breastmilk) leads to more illnesses. Some of those sick babies die. Not riding in a carseat does not kill babies. Babies die when they are thrown through the windshield. So does this mean that carseats don't save lives?
>> And I can't see attempting rational discussion with someone who can't >> understand the concept of 'analogy.' > You have to realize the smoking and formula are not "analgous". It is just > stupid to consider it as such.
In misc.kids.breastfeeding toto <tot...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 May 2000 21:32:05 -0500, "chenier danielle" > <dchen...@cyberus.ca> wrote: > <snip>
>>I think the real problem is that some people are so afraid of failure, they >>don't even try!!!
> And it isn't your business to guilt trip or force any woman who is > afraid and who doesn't wish to try into it. Provide as much > education and information as you possibly can.
But when we DO provide information, we are told that THAT is making women feeling guilty, and that we are calling ff mothers bad mothers. If we say "breastmilk is healther" we get 20 anecdotes about how HER formula fed baby was never a sick a day in his life. When we say that the great majority of women CAN breastfeed, we get 20 anecdotes about how HER milk never came in... When we say that it is important to breastfeed if you can (Not 'we will force you to breastfeed against your will') we are accused of calling ff mothers bad mothers.
Saying ANYTHING short of "it doesn't matter how you feed your babies, because formula is just as good as breastmilk and all the studies that say otherwise are lies" inevitably leads to cries of "How DARE you say I'm a bad mother for giving my baby formula!"
Help doctors
> and others to be come breast-feeding friendly, then get out of the > faces of those women who make a decision you dislike for whatever > reason. IT IS THEIR CHOICE.
I don't think anyone here says that they go up to ff mothers and criticize them for their choices.
>The women on MKB are intelligent enough to >understand that formula is a life-saving product that definitely has a place >among a limited population. But this still doesn't mean that it is not >inferior to breast milk. >When your breast milk does not come in due to a >medical, hormonal, or structural difficulty, you might have to give formula, >but breast milk is still superior.
Exactly. And while I realize this is a sensitive issue, there's a real problem with refusing to accept that formula _is_ an inferior product to breastmilk, even when one truly cannot bf and so must resort to formula. I can only guess how painful it would be not to be able to bf, but I think it's a huge mistake to deal with that pain by refusing to acknowledge the problems with formula. As long as women who use formula refuse to accept that formula _is_ very inferior to breastmilk, it will stay that way. The formula companies will have no real reason to search for ways to discover just what those good things are in breastmilk, to study how to at least attempt to duplicate them and put them in formula. Already I understand that in Europe there is a formula available that has some of the fatty acids in it that make breastmilk a superior food. It is unavailable in America. Why is that, I wonder? Is it because American women are so much more concerned with making themselves feel better by defending the _product_ they were forced to use, rather than the situation that left them with only a distant second-best choice. Wouldn't it be better to expend some of the energy they use up being defensive about formula toward urging the formula companies to work harder at improving the product? Blessings,
Kanga
Beauty tip of the month: For attractive lips, speak words of kindness. - Audrey Hepburn
> "Naomi Lynne Pardue" <npar...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message > You shouldn't have to stretch the truth! > Formula does not kill! Are you actually hearing (or seeing) what you have > said, it makes no sense.
> > > I can't see attempting rational discussion with someone who will stretch > > > reality so far.....
> > And I can't see attempting rational discussion with someone who can't > > understand the concept of 'analogy.'
> You have to realize the smoking and formula are not "analgous". It is just > stupid to consider it as such.
------------------- Formula is depriving a child of proper nutrition, or, in effect, starving them, whereas smoking is actively poisoning them, the first isa crime of ommision, to whit, neglect, the latter commission, assault, but both harm children and kill some of them, statistically speaking, which is an entirely valid criticism. If more children have bronchitis and asthma from not receiving breast milk, and some die, they still die!! Steve
If I eat a well balanced meal, I am giving my body proper nutrition. If I eat a McDonald's hamburger, I am denying my body "proper" nutrition. And it is never going to kill me.
Stephanie
In article <392A09F0....@armory.com>, Steve <rste...@armory.com> wrote:
> > "Naomi Lynne Pardue" <npar...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message > > You shouldn't have to stretch the truth! > > Formula does not kill! Are you actually hearing (or seeing) what you have > > said, it makes no sense.
> > > > I can't see attempting rational discussion with someone who will stretch > > > > reality so far.....
> > > And I can't see attempting rational discussion with someone who can't > > > understand the concept of 'analogy.'
> > You have to realize the smoking and formula are not "analgous". It is just > > stupid to consider it as such. > ------------------- > Formula is depriving a child of proper nutrition, or, in effect, > starving them, whereas smoking is actively poisoning them, the first isa > crime of ommision, to whit, neglect, the latter commission, assault, but > both harm children and kill some of them, statistically speaking, which > is an entirely valid criticism. If more children have bronchitis and > asthma from not receiving breast milk, and some die, they still die!! > Steve
In article <8gej28$s8...@nnrp1.deja.com>, stephanie6217@my-
deja.com wrote: >If I eat a well balanced meal, I am giving my body proper nutrition. If >I eat a McDonald's hamburger, I am denying my body "proper" nutrition. >And it is never going to kill me.
But if you do it every day and never eat a balanced diet, the likelihood is pretty high that it *will* kill you. Oh, you won't die from the hamburgers. You'll die from heart disease, a stroke, colon cancer, or the like. But your poor eating habits will have been at least partially responsible for your disease.
Moral of the above: Don't use an analogy when the analogy proves the other person's point. -- Be well, Barbara (Julian [7/22/97] and Aurora's [7/19/99] mom)
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
> If I eat a well balanced meal, I am giving my body proper nutrition. > If I eat a McDonald's hamburger, I am denying my body "proper" > nutrition. And it is never going to kill me.
However, you, as an adult have a fully functions and mature digestive tract and immune system, and one meal does not your entire diet make.
Maybe look at it this way:
IF you had an immature gut and digestive system that does not really have any digestive enzymes but the well-balanced meal contained pre-digested enzymes and vitamins and minerals that are easily absorbed and used by the body (but not at all in the hamburgers),
AND if you immune system were very immature and not really working much at all on its own yet and the well balanced meal had hundreds of necessary immunilogical and hormonal factors that are known to stave off infections and offer significant risk reduction many chronic conditions
BUT the fast-food meal was totally void of those hundreds of live beneficial components
THEN the hamburgers could be a contributing factor to a death caused by one of the many conditions that the well-balanced meal is well-known (10's of thousands of peer-reviewed published medical studies) to lessen both the incidence and severity.
Similar to (but I think more compelling) to the idea that if you were only to eat hamburgers feach and every meal and snack, then a poor low fiber, high fat diet could be considered a contributing factor in the death caused by colon cancer or heart attack. -- Colette l n r p l x u s a t r i p c o d o t c o m ^^^^^^reduce for email^^^^^^
> If I eat a well balanced meal, I am giving my body proper nutrition. If > I eat a McDonald's hamburger, I am denying my body "proper" nutrition. > And it is never going to kill me.
"Circe" <circeNOciS...@worldnet.att.net.invalid> wrote in message > Moral of the above: Don't use an analogy when the analogy proves > the other person's point.
In misc.kids.breastfeeding stephanie6...@my-deja.com wrote: > If I eat a well balanced meal, I am giving my body proper nutrition. If > I eat a McDonald's hamburger, I am denying my body "proper" nutrition. > And it is never going to kill me.
If you ate McDonalds hamburgers at every meal, every day, for months on end, yes, it could kill you. (Not directly, but by leaving you weak enough from malnutrition that you'd be a sitting duck for infection.)
> In article <392A09F0....@armory.com>, > Steve <rste...@armory.com> wrote: >> image wrote:
>> > "Naomi Lynne Pardue" <npar...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in > message >> > You shouldn't have to stretch the truth! >> > Formula does not kill! Are you actually hearing (or seeing) what > you have >> > said, it makes no sense.
>> > > > I can't see attempting rational discussion with someone who > will stretch >> > > > reality so far.....
>> > > And I can't see attempting rational discussion with someone who > can't >> > > understand the concept of 'analogy.'
>> > You have to realize the smoking and formula are not "analgous". It > is just >> > stupid to consider it as such. >> ------------------- >> Formula is depriving a child of proper nutrition, or, in effect, >> starving them, whereas smoking is actively poisoning them, the first > isa >> crime of ommision, to whit, neglect, the latter commission, assault, > but >> both harm children and kill some of them, statistically speaking, > which >> is an entirely valid criticism. If more children have bronchitis and >> asthma from not receiving breast milk, and some die, they still die!! >> Steve
>Formula is depriving a child of proper nutrition, or, in effect, >starving them, whereas smoking is actively poisoning them, the first isa >crime of ommision, to whit, neglect, the latter commission, assault, but >both harm children and kill some of them, statistically speaking, which >is an entirely valid criticism. If more children have bronchitis and >asthma from not receiving breast milk, and some die, they still die!! >Steve
"Suzanne Dallapè" wrote: > Nobody on MKB would ever say that, and I resent the implication. You talk > about sensitivity. Why can't breastfeeding advocates get some sympathy too? > Instead of saying, "So you think my baby should have starved?" (which, of > course, nobody has said), why not say, "You are right, breast milk is the > superior food. I wish I could have produced it for my own baby." This > states your case, acknowledges the truth, and doesn't insult anyone. AND, > you will get a lot more sympathy with this tact than this bitterness that > you are displaying about breastfeeding advocates.
The point is valid, however. Even though no one has said "let your baby die before giving it formula" there have been many insensitive statements made on the ng about women who feed formula for whatever reason. And that 2 percent of people who need to use formula is quite a lot of people in a large population.
This is such an emotional issue for parents that it needs to be handled with kid gloves.
stephanie6...@my-deja.com wrote: > If I eat a well balanced meal, I am giving my body proper nutrition. If > I eat a McDonald's hamburger, I am denying my body "proper" nutrition. > And it is never going to kill me.
> In article <8gej28$s8...@nnrp1.deja.com>, stephanie6217@my- > deja.com wrote: > >If I eat a well balanced meal, I am giving my body proper > nutrition. If > >I eat a McDonald's hamburger, I am denying my body "proper" > nutrition. > >And it is never going to kill me.
> But if you do it every day and never eat a balanced diet, the > likelihood is pretty high that it *will* kill you. Oh, you won't > die from the hamburgers. You'll die from heart disease, a > stroke, colon cancer, or the like. But your poor eating habits > will have been at least partially responsible for your disease.
> Moral of the above: Don't use an analogy when the analogy proves > the other person's point. > -- > Be well, Barbara (Julian [7/22/97] and Aurora's [7/19/99] mom)
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network * > The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
In misc.kids.breastfeeding Robert Davidson <s036...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> "Suzanne Dallapè" wrote: > The point is valid, however. Even though no one has said "let your baby die > before giving it formula" there have been many insensitive statements made on > the ng about women who feed formula for whatever reason. And that 2 percent of > people who need to use formula is quite a lot of people in a large population. > This is such an emotional issue for parents that it needs to be handled with kid > gloves.
Why? Why do we have to wear kid gloves to say 'breastmilk is much better than formula, and if you CAN provide breastmilk, you really should do so."?
Analogy. Some people can't exercise. Some people have medical problems that limit their activity, or have to work two jobs so they lack the time. So do we say "Exercise is nice, but if you can't exercise, or just don't want to exercise, or try exercising and don't like it, it doesn't really matter if you exercise or not, because people who don't exercise are just as healthy as those who do?"
Some people can't afford nutrious food or have severe allergies that limit their food intake. So do we say "It is important to eat a balanced diet. But if you can't, or if you don't want to, or just don't like fruits and vegetables, it is fine to eat what you want/can afford. Diet doesn't REALLY have any effect on our overall health."?
Or how about economics? Some people find themselves in economic dire straits through no fault of their own, while others dig themselves in voluntarily. So do we end up with ... "It is important to live within your budget, avoid excessive debt, and not have more bills than you can afford to pay. But if you're a shopaholic, or you just like living well, it really doesn't matter if you get yourself into unmanagable debt. It really doesn't make any difference in the long run if you have to declare bankruptcy."?
>In misc.kids.breastfeeding stephanie6...@my-deja.com wrote: >> If I eat a well balanced meal, I am giving my body proper nutrition. If >> I eat a McDonald's hamburger, I am denying my body "proper" nutrition. >> And it is never going to kill me.
Ewww...yuck. I find it hard to believe that anyone over the age of 10 even WOULD eat anything from McDonalds!!!! Just my opinion, I won't even let my kids eat that slop!
Denise Mom to Josh (4/84) Nick (2/89) Step-mom to Wesley (10/87) Brett (10/90) New Mommy to Corey Matthew 3/7/00
news:8g9nu5$s0f$1@nnrp1.deja.com... : In article <7ZjS4.550$8e.52...@nnrp3.clara.net>, : "Deborah" <spam...@bigfoot.com> wrote: : > Kendra <kendr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message : > news:8fcf3a$r89$1@nnrp1.deja.com... : > : : > : Really? Would that be the same ones who said, "It's unfortunate you : > : were unable to breastfeed but that still doesn't make formula the : best : > : thing for your baby." ?!?!?!? : > : : > : Thats far from acknowledgement. That's insensitivity. : > : > You are, I believe, referring to one of my posts. However, despite : your use : > of quotation marks, this is not what I wrote. : > : > What I actually wrote was: : > : > "If you were unable to lactate, that is unfortunate, but it does not : mean : > that formula is a better product for it." : > : > First, you are using the statement out of context, as it was a : response to a : > specific statement. Second, I did not say anything about how : appropriate the : > use of formula was for any specific baby. I wrote about formula in : general. : > This is not the same thing at all, which some here seem to have : difficulty : > in understanding the difference between discussing a product in : general, & : > their own situations in particular. : > : > Formula is not made a better product through being essential in a few : > circumstances. It may have been essential in those circumstances, but : its : > merits as a product are exactly the same regardless. : > : > If you are going to quote me (or anyone else) in future, I would : appreciate : > your quoting accurately. : > : > Deborah : > : > : : I would appreciate a little more sensitivity from people like you but I : doubt it's likely to happen. : : What difference does the wording make? You are still saying the same : thing and if you think I'm going to dig up the exact quote, when my : paraphrase was close enough, you're nuts.
If you are going to quote, then quote. Use quotation marks & the exact words of the person you are quoting. If you are going to paraphrase, then paraphrase. In this case, quotation marks should not be used.
: : You still told a woman who could not nurse that the formula she gave : her child - OUT OF NECESSITY - was inferior. It was a superior, better- : than-thou attitude that she didn't deserve. Breastfeeding SHOULD BE : the immediate first choice. No woman should just decide against it for : the simple reason she doesn't like it. But formula has saved lives for : women like her and myself when the breastmilk didn't come in. For me, : formula was the ONLY thing I had available. In my case it wasn't the : inferior product.
At no point did I tell this woman that formula was not the best thing for *her* baby. I simply pointed out that being occasionally essential does not make a product better.
Analogy: if you live in an area experiencing famine, & the only thing available for you to eat is, say, rice, then you eat rice. It is better than nothing. The fact that nothing else is available does not change the fact that a rice-only diet is inferior to a varied diet.
: : Or are you like the person who once told me I should have let my child : die rather than feed him formula?
If you care to look back at my posts, it should be clear to you that I am not like the person you mention. I do not have a problem with mothers using formula. I have a problem with a very wealthy industry which makes its money by convincing mothers & fathers (& doctors) of this fallacy: formula is every bit as good as breastmilk. If a particular mother wishes to take my criticism of the formula industry & personalize it as if it applied to her specifically, I can't stop her. But nowhere, nowhere, have I criticized a mother for using formula.
stephanie6...@my-deja.com wrote: > What you say is certainly true. I got a little annoyed with the > extemism of a particular poster.
> Stephanie
> In article <00e3495a.19696...@usw-ex0103-024.remarq.com>, > Circe <circeNOciS...@worldnet.att.net.invalid> wrote: > > In article <8gej28$s8...@nnrp1.deja.com>, stephanie6217@my- > > deja.com wrote: > > >If I eat a well balanced meal, I am giving my body proper > > nutrition. If > > >I eat a McDonald's hamburger, I am denying my body "proper" > > nutrition. > > >And it is never going to kill me.
> > But if you do it every day and never eat a balanced diet, the > > likelihood is pretty high that it *will* kill you. Oh, you won't > > die from the hamburgers. You'll die from heart disease, a > > stroke, colon cancer, or the like. But your poor eating habits > > will have been at least partially responsible for your disease. > > Moral of the above: Don't use an analogy when the analogy proves > > the other person's point.
This is so true. The extremism and hyperbole is actually counterproductive because it turns people off so much. I get a little sick of hearing about risks of formula as opposed to benefits of breastmilk. Talking about risks instead of benefits is taking a negative approach. Breastmilk helps protect against infections which is clearly a benefit. Some people like to coach this in terms of formula producing a risk of infection because it doesn't protect like breastmilk does. That is like saying Amoxicillin is risky because it doesn't cover as many ear infection bacteria as well as Augmentin. Or a shirt is risky because it doesn't protect against bullets as well as a bullet proof vest does. The logic is somewhat convoluted because the risk is only relative to the absence of benefit provided by the alternative. Adopting this perspective just seems to me to add a judgemental quality and is negative rather than positive. Hearing about benefits is positive and adds encouragement. Putting a negative spin on formula by referring to risks is an unnecessary bummer.
|
