> > That is what mothering is all > >about: nurturing and nursing your baby, anything else is a total fake job, > >especially on your baby with his bottle of sludge propped up in a stroller. > >shmily
> now this isn't fair. I know plenty of GREAT moms who chose to bottle feed. I > know one lady who SO wanted to breast feed, and her milk NEVER came in ...
About 1-2% of the mothers cannot biologically breastfeed. The others are just making excuses. It's like feeding a two year old fast food.
> OTOH, not every woman is comfortable with that choice,
If a mom cannot "choose" to feed the best food on earth to her baby, even though she *can*, then why does she have children? If she loves then so much why doesn't she care enough to feed them the best food on earth. 98-99% of mothers can breastfeed, yet much lees do, and much less than that even stop after a few weeks. It's selfishness that has no place when caring for an infant.
According to the WHO, if every baby in the US were breastfed, 20,000 infant deaths a year would be avoided.
-- Deborah
Dorothy wrote:
: your business and it won't *harm* her baby. Any deaths from formula : that have occurred have been in third world countries and for : reasons that do not have much to do with those in the US or other : high tech societies where bottle feeding is safe, nutritious and not : something you should be browbeating mothers about.
THANK YOU DEBORAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Folks, attitudes like Karen's and Mary's are what keep alot of women from even trying breastfeeding, or even breastfeeding for more than a few weeks or months, or even trying to overcome small nursing problems like positioning. It's these kind of attitudes that contribute to 20,000 deaths per year.
> According to the WHO, if every baby in the US were breastfed, 20,000 infant > deaths a year would be avoided.
> -- > Deborah
> Dorothy wrote:
> : your business and it won't *harm* her baby. Any deaths from formula > : that have occurred have been in third world countries and for > : reasons that do not have much to do with those in the US or other > : high tech societies where bottle feeding is safe, nutritious and not > : something you should be browbeating mothers about.
> On Sun, 07 May 2000 09:11:31 +1000, Robert Davidson > <s036...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> >toto wrote:
> >> Any deaths from formula > >> that have occurred have been in third world countries and for > >> reasons that do not have much to do with those in the US or other > >> high tech societies where bottle feeding is safe, nutritious and not > >> something you should be browbeating mothers about.
> >Since when did this discussion become restricted to "the US or other high tech > >societies"? Man, I'm sick of the yank-dominated attitude of usenet.
> >Robert Davidson
> All I was talking about here was the attitude of Norma towards women > who choose bottle feeding. It's none of her business if they do and > no one has a right to guilt trip them about it.
Yet according to WHO 20,000 babies would not die every year if breastfed. That makes it every person's business, because it is a serious health threat!
> > -- > > x-no-archive:yes > > toto <tot...@my-deja.com> wrote in message > > news:e2a9hs8g9sd6kciockns50cbdb2h31mp3j@4ax.com... > > > On Sun, 07 May 2000 09:11:31 +1000, Robert Davidson > > > <s036...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> > > >toto wrote:
> > > >> Any deaths from formula > > > >> that have occurred have been in third world countries and for > > > >> reasons that do not have much to do with those in the US or other > > > >> high tech societies where bottle feeding is safe, nutritious and not > > > >> something you should be browbeating mothers about.
> > > >Since when did this discussion become restricted to "the US or other > high > > tech > > > >societies"? Man, I'm sick of the yank-dominated attitude of usenet.
> > > >Robert Davidson
> > > All I was talking about here was the attitude of Norma towards women > > > who choose bottle feeding. It's none of her business if they do and > > > no one has a right to guilt trip them about it.
> > Yet according to WHO 20,000 babies would not die every year if breastfed. > > That makes it every person's business, because it is a serious health > > threat!
> Yes, and lots of folks would not die annually if they took the flu shot, and > a bunch more would not die if they didn't have unprotected sex. Are you > proposing some legislation, world-wide or otherwise to force all parents to > provide breast milk for all children? Be careful, you are walking out onto > some very thin ice when you start discussing legislating mores and norms.
What I *mean* is that if people did like Mary and Karen did not *frown* on nursing in public, and if it were more positively *accepted*, more mothers would breastfeed and it would save *lives*. It is *less* destructive to give Coca Cola to a toddler for a refreshment! Laws are not needed, people need to stop *validating* snotty attitudes like nursing in public is somehow wrong! And you *know* it! ~fume~ !!!!!
/me applauds Aula!! If certain people in this group had your attitude, more mothers would be willing to breastfeed, imo. It's the militants that scare so many away. ~Nancy~
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
> It's the militants that > scare so many away. > ~Nancy~
No, from the posts we have seen on the breastfeeding newsgroups in the past, it is unsupportive doctors and friends and family that scare so many away, and that is the truth Nancy.
Haven't we just had the smoker's rights vs. breastfeeding rights debate recently? Am I thinking of someplace else?
just me (thedewi...@earthlink.net) wrote: : "shmily" <shm...@msn.com> wrote in message
: news:OEotMo8t$GA.206@cpmsnbbsa03... : > : > : > -- : > x-no-archive:yes : > just me <thedewi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message : > news:Ba4R4.34249$x4.1084846@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net... : > > > Yes, and lots of folks would not die annually if they took the flu : shot, : > and : > > a bunch more would not die if they didn't have unprotected sex. Are you : > > proposing some legislation, world-wide or otherwise to force all parents : > to : > > provide breast milk for all children? Be careful, you are walking out : > onto : > > some very thin ice when you start discussing legislating mores and : norms. : > : > : > : > What I *mean* is that if people did like Mary and Karen did not *frown* on : > nursing in public, and if it were more positively *accepted*, more mothers : > would breastfeed and it would save *lives*. It is *less* destructive : to : > give Coca Cola to a toddler for a refreshment! Laws are not needed, : > people need to stop *validating* snotty attitudes like nursing in public : is : > somehow wrong! And you *know* it! ~fume~ !!!!! : >
: Certainly, if we could fully educate every person in the world that a : certain thing was the proven, most beneficial way of doing something, more : people would do that thing. But, not all of them would. And, then the : educators and those who passionately believed in their cause would find : themselves in the position of either forcing the remaining individuals to : comply or acknowledging that there is such a thing as free will and let them : live their lives as they see fit. The best available example right now is : smoking. When I smoked I was still able to smoke where-ever I pleased: : there was no legislation about that at all. But, even then, the Surgeon : General's warning was on every single pack of US made cigarettes I smoked. : I knew what it said by heart. But, I chose to smoke. Now the studies are : seemingly even more conclusive that smoking can cause conditions that lead : to death [as well as horribly yucky lingering illnesses], and it is much : harder to find a place to smoke and people treat smokers [generalizing here] : as social misfits, to put things mildly. But, there are still lots of : people who make the decision to smoke.
: So, feel free to educate the world about the benefits of breastfeeding : children. I support that concept whole-heartedly and have done everything : that I could to support breastfeeding women working for me. But, remember : that not everyone will agree with you, or agreeing, will feel that they : still must do what they have chosen that is contrary to what you are : teaching. There is an old proverb that just might fit in here: Judge not : that you be not judged. Inform, support, teach, but do not condemn. When : you condemn you do not support. Start where the person is at and you are : much more likely to bring them along with you when you try to help them into : a "better" place.
: -Aula
-- A birth counsellor is someone who watches everybody else when a new baby enters a room! Visit http://www.birth.bc.ca!
: > The only person who has any business caring about a decision to breast or : > bottle feed is the particular child's parents.
: I must take exception to this:
: Parents - and their children - don't live in a vacuum. It's a mistake to : think that a person's decisions don't impact anyone else and therefore. If : a child who is formula-fed is sicker than he would have been if breastfed, : clearly it impacts that child very personally, not to mention any children : who become sick through contact with that sick child ...and those childrens' : families, and so on.
Catherine Young, the editor of The Compleat Mother was diagnosed last year with breast cancer. The surgery took a quarter of her breast. Now, she has found out she has spinal cancer. Her doctor has given her two to eight years to live. She is one of the leading breastfeeding activists in Canada. She breastfed her children for years. (Breastfeeding is supposed to reduce your chances of getting cancer.)
Recently, she wrote in her editorial for The Compleat Mother that she was sitting with a few other women with cancer (four women I believe). All but one had breastfed. All of the women had been fed carnation milk and corn syrup as babies. Evidence written up in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute says: "We have long known breastfeeding protects children from infection; now evidence suggests its immune-stimulating effects provide protection against cancer."
While cancer is not a contagious disease, it certainly affects more than just the child. It also affects the child's children, and the child's loved ones. For those of us who have seen what cancer does, not only to the person suffering with cancer, but to the family cancer leaves behind, any extra prtection is worth it.
Charlotte
: I would say it certainly is my place to care if my child is unnecessarily : sick because of someone else's "choices".
: --angela
-- A birth counsellor is someone who watches everybody else when a new baby enters a room! Visit http://www.birth.bc.ca!
> In alt.parenting.solutions shmily <shm...@msn.com> wrote: > : > : If a mom cannot "choose" to feed the best food on earth to her baby, even > : though she *can*, then why does she have children? > :
> Maybe she should just commit suicide if her milk doesn't come in and > let one of you earthmother's raise the kid.
> In alt.parenting.solutions shmily <shm...@msn.com> wrote: > : THANK YOU DEBORAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > : > : Folks, attitudes like Karen's and Mary's are what keep alot of women from > : even trying breastfeeding, or even breastfeeding for more than a few weeks > : or months, or even trying to overcome small nursing problems like > : positioning. It's these kind of attitudes that contribute to 20,000 > : deaths per year. > : > : Norma
> Who said I was anti-breastfeeding? I am anti-people-who-don't-have- > the-sense-to-plan-20-minutes-ahead.
> Karen
I will feed my baby whenever he is hungry wherever I happen to be, and so will millions of other moms. Deal with it.
> In alt.parenting.solutions shmily <shm...@msn.com> wrote: > : > : What I *mean* is that if people did like Mary and Karen did not *frown* on > : nursing in public, and if it were more positively *accepted*, more mothers > : would breastfeed and it would save *lives*. It is *less* destructive to > : give Coca Cola to a toddler for a refreshment! Laws are not needed, > : people need to stop *validating* snotty attitudes like nursing in public is > : somehow wrong! And you *know* it! ~fume~ !!!!!
> Wrong again. How quickly you hallucinate. There's nothing wrong > with breastfeeding, overall it's the way to go. But just because > a woman is breast feeding doesn't mean she and her kid are the only > people suddenly on the planet where rules of courtesy no longer apply.
> Karen
There is NOTHING discourteous with nursing in public, but there is rudeness in looking/saying something negative to a nip mother. You don't like nip? Change the laws. The people have spoken, and they have passed laws insinuating it is not discourteous or rude and that we have a right to nip ANYWHERE. Deal with it, it's the law.
toto wrote: > Any deaths from formula > that have occurred have been in third world countries and for > reasons that do not have much to do with those in the US or other > high tech societies where bottle feeding is safe, nutritious and not > something you should be browbeating mothers about.
Since when did this discussion become restricted to "the US or other high tech societies"? Man, I'm sick of the yank-dominated attitude of usenet.
: And we were talking about breastfeeding in public in the US, since : that it the society where Karen frowns upon it. As far as I know, no : one in the third world countries or even in Europe is so hung up : about the fact that women breastfeed and do it when and where : the infant needs it done.
Sitting here in Europe, begging to differ! Believe me, there are plenty of places in Europe where breastfeeding is frowned upon, never mind doing it in public!
Deborah (in Northern Ireland, which has one of the lowest breastfeeding rates in the world)
> -- > x-no-archive:yes > toto <tot...@my-deja.com> wrote in message > news:e2a9hs8g9sd6kciockns50cbdb2h31mp3j@4ax.com... > > On Sun, 07 May 2000 09:11:31 +1000, Robert Davidson > > <s036...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> > >toto wrote:
> > >> Any deaths from formula > > >> that have occurred have been in third world countries and for > > >> reasons that do not have much to do with those in the US or other > > >> high tech societies where bottle feeding is safe, nutritious and not > > >> something you should be browbeating mothers about.
> > >Since when did this discussion become restricted to "the US or other high > tech > > >societies"? Man, I'm sick of the yank-dominated attitude of usenet.
> > >Robert Davidson
> > All I was talking about here was the attitude of Norma towards women > > who choose bottle feeding. It's none of her business if they do and > > no one has a right to guilt trip them about it.
> Yet according to WHO 20,000 babies would not die every year if breastfed. > That makes it every person's business, because it is a serious health > threat!
Yes, and lots of folks would not die annually if they took the flu shot, and a bunch more would not die if they didn't have unprotected sex. Are you proposing some legislation, world-wide or otherwise to force all parents to provide breast milk for all children? Be careful, you are walking out onto some very thin ice when you start discussing legislating mores and norms.
The only person who has any business caring about a decision to breast or bottle feed is the particular child's parents. The parents are the only ones who have the inherent right to decide how to best care for their child. Unless someone decides that failure to provide breast milk to all infants is child abuse and starts prosecuting for that, while removing the children into foster situations where they would also be unable to obtain breast milk, then it is only the parent's business and not yours. Oh, well, yes, it *is* yours in that you should help to educate people. But, effective education does not bash people for making decisions that they felt were well thought out. It provides information and lets others make the decisions.
> > -- > > x-no-archive:yes > > toto <tot...@my-deja.com> wrote in message > > news:e2a9hs8g9sd6kciockns50cbdb2h31mp3j@4ax.com... > > > On Sun, 07 May 2000 09:11:31 +1000, Robert Davidson > > > <s036...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> > > >toto wrote:
> > > >> Any deaths from formula > > > >> that have occurred have been in third world countries and for > > > >> reasons that do not have much to do with those in the US or other > > > >> high tech societies where bottle feeding is safe, nutritious and not > > > >> something you should be browbeating mothers about.
> > > >Since when did this discussion become restricted to "the US or other > high > > tech > > > >societies"? Man, I'm sick of the yank-dominated attitude of usenet.
> > > >Robert Davidson
> > > All I was talking about here was the attitude of Norma towards women > > > who choose bottle feeding. It's none of her business if they do and > > > no one has a right to guilt trip them about it.
> > Yet according to WHO 20,000 babies would not die every year if breastfed. > > That makes it every person's business, because it is a serious health > > threat!
> Yes, and lots of folks would not die annually if they took the flu shot, and > a bunch more would not die if they didn't have unprotected sex. Are you > proposing some legislation, world-wide or otherwise to force all parents to > provide breast milk for all children? Be careful, you are walking out onto > some very thin ice when you start discussing legislating mores and norms.
> The only person who has any business caring about a decision to breast or > bottle feed is the particular child's parents. The parents are the only > ones who have the inherent right to decide how to best care for their child. > Unless someone decides that failure to provide breast milk to all infants is > child abuse and starts prosecuting for that, while removing the children > into foster situations where they would also be unable to obtain breast > milk, then it is only the parent's business and not yours. Oh, well, yes, > it *is* yours in that you should help to educate people. But, effective > education does not bash people for making decisions that they felt were well > thought out. It provides information and lets others make the decisions.
> -- > x-no-archive:yes > just me <thedewi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:Ba4R4.34249$x4.1084846@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > > > Yes, and lots of folks would not die annually if they took the flu shot, > and > > a bunch more would not die if they didn't have unprotected sex. Are you > > proposing some legislation, world-wide or otherwise to force all parents > to > > provide breast milk for all children? Be careful, you are walking out > onto > > some very thin ice when you start discussing legislating mores and norms.
> What I *mean* is that if people did like Mary and Karen did not *frown* on > nursing in public, and if it were more positively *accepted*, more mothers > would breastfeed and it would save *lives*. It is *less* destructive to > give Coca Cola to a toddler for a refreshment! Laws are not needed, > people need to stop *validating* snotty attitudes like nursing in public is > somehow wrong! And you *know* it! ~fume~ !!!!!
Certainly, if we could fully educate every person in the world that a certain thing was the proven, most beneficial way of doing something, more people would do that thing. But, not all of them would. And, then the educators and those who passionately believed in their cause would find themselves in the position of either forcing the remaining individuals to comply or acknowledging that there is such a thing as free will and let them live their lives as they see fit. The best available example right now is smoking. When I smoked I was still able to smoke where-ever I pleased: there was no legislation about that at all. But, even then, the Surgeon General's warning was on every single pack of US made cigarettes I smoked. I knew what it said by heart. But, I chose to smoke. Now the studies are seemingly even more conclusive that smoking can cause conditions that lead to death [as well as horribly yucky lingering illnesses], and it is much harder to find a place to smoke and people treat smokers [generalizing here] as social misfits, to put things mildly. But, there are still lots of people who make the decision to smoke.
So, feel free to educate the world about the benefits of breastfeeding children. I support that concept whole-heartedly and have done everything that I could to support breastfeeding women working for me. But, remember that not everyone will agree with you, or agreeing, will feel that they still must do what they have chosen that is contrary to what you are teaching. There is an old proverb that just might fit in here: Judge not that you be not judged. Inform, support, teach, but do not condemn. When you condemn you do not support. Start where the person is at and you are much more likely to bring them along with you when you try to help them into a "better" place.
In alt.parenting.solutions shmily <shm...@msn.com> wrote: : : If a mom cannot "choose" to feed the best food on earth to her baby, even : though she *can*, then why does she have children? :
Maybe she should just commit suicide if her milk doesn't come in and let one of you earthmother's raise the kid.
In alt.parenting.solutions shmily <shm...@msn.com> wrote: : THANK YOU DEBORAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! : : Folks, attitudes like Karen's and Mary's are what keep alot of women from : even trying breastfeeding, or even breastfeeding for more than a few weeks : or months, or even trying to overcome small nursing problems like : positioning. It's these kind of attitudes that contribute to 20,000 : deaths per year. : : Norma
Who said I was anti-breastfeeding? I am anti-people-who-don't-have- the-sense-to-plan-20-minutes-ahead.
: news:wv1R4.8901$OO6.979822@nnrp4.clara.net... :> According to the WHO, if every baby in the US were breastfed, 20,000 : infant :> deaths a year would be avoided. :> :> -- :> Deborah :>
:> Dorothy wrote:
:> :> : your business and it won't *harm* her baby. Any deaths from formula :> : that have occurred have been in third world countries and for :> : reasons that do not have much to do with those in the US or other :> : high tech societies where bottle feeding is safe, nutritious and not :> : something you should be browbeating mothers about. :> :> :> : :
In alt.parenting.solutions shmily <shm...@msn.com> wrote: : : What I *mean* is that if people did like Mary and Karen did not *frown* on : nursing in public, and if it were more positively *accepted*, more mothers : would breastfeed and it would save *lives*. It is *less* destructive to : give Coca Cola to a toddler for a refreshment! Laws are not needed, : people need to stop *validating* snotty attitudes like nursing in public is : somehow wrong! And you *know* it! ~fume~ !!!!!
Wrong again. How quickly you hallucinate. There's nothing wrong with breastfeeding, overall it's the way to go. But just because a woman is breast feeding doesn't mean she and her kid are the only people suddenly on the planet where rules of courtesy no longer apply.
> The only person who has any business caring about a decision to breast or > bottle feed is the particular child's parents.
I must take exception to this:
Parents - and their children - don't live in a vacuum. It's a mistake to think that a person's decisions don't impact anyone else and therefore. If a child who is formula-fed is sicker than he would have been if breastfed, clearly it impacts that child very personally, not to mention any children who become sick through contact with that sick child ...and those childrens' families, and so on.
I would say it certainly is my place to care if my child is unnecessarily sick because of someone else's "choices".
Karen Horn wrote in message <8f2to1$iqi...@thoth.cts.com>... >In alt.parenting.solutions shmily <shm...@msn.com> wrote: >Who said I was anti-breastfeeding? I am anti-people-who-don't-have- >the-sense-to-plan-20-minutes-ahead.
Meaning what exactly? That people who would choose to feed their children crap should plan ahead and use a condom? If that's what you're saying, then I wholeheartedly agree.
Karen Horn wrote in message <8f2tlk$iq...@thoth.cts.com>... >In alt.parenting.solutions shmily <shm...@msn.com> wrote: >: >: If a mom cannot "choose" to feed the best food on earth to her baby, even >: though she *can*, then why does she have children? >:
>Maybe she should just commit suicide if her milk doesn't come in and >let one of you earthmother's raise the kid.
If her milk doesn't come in, then she falls into the 2% of the population who can't bf. Norma wasn't speaking of them. I know it must be hard, but try to keep up.
KatNipper wrote in message <09ba7aca.a724e...@usw-ex0101-007.remarq.com>... >/me applauds Aula!! >If certain people in this group had your attitude, more mothers >would be willing to breastfeed, imo. It's the militants that >scare so many away. >~Nancy~
If someone can scare you away from doing what you know is best for your child, then you are too weak-willed to have children. That is the lamest of all excuses to not bf.
Angela wrote in message <8f2ujn$qd...@216.39.147.153>... >I would say it certainly is my place to care if my child is unnecessarily >sick because of someone else's "choices".
Not to mention incresed health care premiums because of all the added illnesses. Now that I think of it, bottlefeeders are costing me big money.
|
