> Naomi Lynne Pardue wrote in message > <8f2lnm$ro...@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 $200.
> Also, if you are relying on WIC, chances are you don't have health insurance > at your job. One or two illnesses can be financially devistating in that > case.
If you are relying on WIC then the baby probably has Medicaid, which is a health insurance. I personally would rather that my taxes be used as little as possible to support folks who can work, but I must recognize that there are those who need these resources, at least for a while. If we want as few people as possible to be using tax dollars to support themselves and their families, then we'd better get real used to seeing parents of small children working, leaving them at day care, having them go to day care after school, and being fed as best the parent can. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too. Either the moms work because they are able bodied individuals or they stay at home and raise the kids there and are probably benefiting from some tax supported programs.
And, let's be really real folks, there are a lot of jobs out there that do not carry benefits with them, including health insurance. Then, there are the health insurance plans with the ridiculously high deductibles, which essentially means that you are paying for everything except the catastrophic illnesses that come up once every ten years, maybe. There are many situations and basing judgments on what is sounding increasingly like middle and upper middle class life styles are wrong.
> just me <thedewi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:535R4.36444$g4.941883@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > : > : 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
Thanks for the citation. Just a point of order, the deaths then would not 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.
> > 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.
In article <sh9pgub0qi...@corp.supernews.com>, "Marie"
<mommydo...@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.
"Karrde" <Kar...@smugglers.alliance.org> 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.
Marie <mommydo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > 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.
just me <thedewi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message > 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.
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.
> 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
> 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.
>> 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.)
> 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.
In the UK, the figures for breastfeeding are higher among women who return 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 <s036...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:391584EC.19AF62A3@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 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? :
In misc.kids.breastfeeding just me <thedewi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Naomi Lynne Pardue" <npar...@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.
We had our child when we were a] actually able to conceive and carry to 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. 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
> 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.
Karrde (Kar...@smugglers.alliance.org) wrote: : 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!
In misc.kids.breastfeeding Robert Davidson <s036...@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.
> 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.
In misc.kids.breastfeeding Robert Davidson <s036...@student.uq.edu.au> 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.
In misc.kids.breastfeeding Robert Davidson <s036...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> Naomi Lynne Pardue wrote: >> 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.
In misc.kids.breastfeeding Marie <mommydo...@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.
In misc.kids.breastfeeding hamilton <hamil...@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.)
Of course I would not advocate that your child be removed from your custody 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 <thedewi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:f6gR4.37234$g4.988458@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net... : We had our child when we were a] actually able to conceive and carry to 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. : 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" <spam...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
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.
-- Deborah
Charlotte Millington <ye...@vtn1.victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message
news:39158e1d@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!
I'm defining the ability to afford children as the ability to give them the 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 <s036...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
: : > 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 :
In article <3915915B.3966...@student.uq.edu.au>, Robert Davidson
<s036...@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.
> > In misc.kids.breastfeeding Robert Davidson <s036...@student.uq.edu.au> 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.
|
