| |
misc.kids.breastfeeding |
> Stephanie > In article <00e3495a.19696...@usw-ex0103-024.remarq.com>, > > But if you do it every day and never eat a balanced diet, the
> What you say is certainly true. I got a little annoyed with the
> extemism of a particular poster.
> 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.
> > 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.
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.