Gmail Calendar Documents Reader Web more »
Recently Visited Groups | Help | Sign in
Google Groups Home
Message from discussion Breast is best, was Re: Internet survey - should mothers breastfeed in public?
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Naomi Lynne Pardue  
View profile  
 More options May 24 2000, 5:00 pm
Newsgroups: alt.parenting.solutions, alt.support.breastfeeding, misc.kids.breastfeeding
From: Naomi Lynne Pardue <npar...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu>
Date: 2000/05/24
Subject: Re: Breast is best, was Re: Internet survey - should mothers breastfeed in public?

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."?

Naomi


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.

Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2009 Google