lisa, i find myself getting hot and bothered as i read about promoting breast feeding and the language we use surrounding the issue. first let me say, i am a big beleiver in breast feeding. i breast fed the girls for about 4months, and now joseph who is a year old. i DO think it out weighs formula and SHOULD be promoted. however, making analogies to smokers vs non- smokers seems a bit much to me. the la leche league feels socialistic in how they appraoch things. their views are black and white and hard to swallow in my opinion. few things in life are black and white. i know breast IS truly BEST. but if your child has formula or god forbid is given formula for the full 12 months, they are not going to be retarded and have chronic health problems. i actually know babies who have been breast fed that are more prone to illness than ones that have been formula fed. i was formula fed and i am doing okay- how bout you? i guess what i am trying to say is that, yes, breast feeding is ideal and should be stressed and encouraged and supported more than it is now. BUT, i don't think if you use formula your child is going to be "inferior" . there is SO much more that makes up a child/person than that! love, :) anne
I absolutely agree that making a comparison to smoking versus non-smoking mothers is unfair. But, I still think the author makes some important points. I particularly liked what she said about how the advantages/disadvantages of feeding choices is described in most literature. I was diagnosed with a health issue in December that will be with me for the rest of my life (happy to share privately). Statistics show that this might have been prevented had I been breastfed. This is definitely a controversial article. I put it out there as food for thought...
well.. i think the key word here is MIGHT have been prevented. again, i think breast is optimal, but there are SO many other factors that go into making up the total health and well being of a person. it definitely was food for thought! :)
Thank you for posting this. I have so much to say about this that I'm afraid I'll rant here at the computer all morning and since I haven't had my coffee yet it might be a little crazy sounding. I may go blog about it later.I will say, that I agree with everything the author says. Breast is not best, it's just normal. Artificial baby milk is abnormal.
Why is comparing not breastfeeding to smoking a straw man, or an unfair comparison?Both have some health ramifications that should be taken seriously. I cannot draw meaningful conclusions based on anecdotes (e.g., my kids who were breasfed were sickly and the one I bottlefed is healthy.) I think it is a right on comparison. Nursing isn't better than formula; formula, while it isn't rat poison, is seriously inferior. No one is claiming that mothers who didn't nurse don't love their children; or that bottle fed CHILDREN are inferior to breastfed children. THAT is a straw man. I too was tanked up on formula as an infant and am "ok." So to speak. If you don't count the countless allergies, the ear infections that were a ubiquitous part of my childhood, and my 33.3% increased risk of breast cancer.FWIW, LLL was simply reprinting this... it isn't some breastfeeding sentimentalism. It came from the JHL.
I really like the article and the only issue that I have with it is on the use of the words "breast feeding" vs "nursing." While it MAY be true that those who say they are BFing may be too focused on the nutritional aspects rather than the relationship, I DO say that I "breast feed" my three-year-old rather than "nurse" him. Why? Because (back when we started breast feeding) it seemed that calling it "nursing" was in some way acting ashamed of the fact that I was using my breasts. In the end I feel that either term is fine and that the author would have done better to cut the article short and not make such an opinionated claim.
Post a Comment