Is adoptive breastfeeding so wrong?
Find a Conversation
|Mon, 03-07-2011 - 11:28am|
I ran across a question from a women on Yahoo! answers asking about whether she can BF an adoptive child but what caught my sttention most was the answers she recieved. The question read:
Adopt can I still breastfeed?
I have three children. My husband and I decided to have him get a vasectomy. We just brought our little girl home from the hospital couple months ago and shes been in there for 4 months since birth (she had lots of complications) and we don't want any surprises (another baby) just yet. We both talked about adopting after hearing that it is hard to reverse it. But the only thing that has me down is I would like to be able to breastfeed. This is one of the most things I enjoyed about having a baby bonding with it also being able to feel the baby move inside. Anyways my question is " Is there anyway I can naturally get my body to be able to breastfeed with a adopted baby?"
A fairly basic question, to which the correct answer is generally yes. Unfortunately many people were either weirded out by the thought adoptive BF or had severe misconnection about the safety and healthiness of adopted BF'ing. Here are the negative response she recieved:
This subject has been on this board before and on many others. Scientifically and medically it is not a good idea. The woman's body gets pumped full of unnecessary hormones and the baby does not get the antibodies from the mother's colostrum and milk produced especially for her baby. Nature knows the difference. I agree that this is something a woman would want in order to simulate what she cannot do..have a natural, biological connection with an adopted child.
Was there no way that you could have found another way to prevent conception other than a vasectomy? It seems that you make unusual decisions based on present circumstances which can always change. You have natural children. Be grateful and leave breast-feeding AND their babies to the natural mothers.
The idea of a stranger/adopter placing her alien breast in my natural child's mouth makes me sick.
Science and research
It sounds like child abuse to me. You are not doing it for the sake of the child, to feed them chemically-induced breastmilk of questionable value.
You are doing it for your own self-gratification.
Adoption is FAR different from having a child of your own. Don't kid yourself, you will be raising another woman's child. THAT woman will be lactating naturally for her child, who was once a part of her body. I think that breastfeeding an adopted child is sick.
Can you, I'm sure. Stimuli to the breast and nipple can/will eventually produce milk, that's what they're for. I however would highly advise against it. That baby's biological mother has a genetic link to her baby and the milk was made JUST for that baby. Your milk was not made FOR your adopted child. If you want the baby to be given a steady diet of breast milk I'd advise asking the natural mother to pump it for the baby, which would be easiest in an open adoption.... which I also advocate.
ugh! Yuck! Im so glad that my adoptive mother had more sense than to feed me artificially stimulated, hormone laden breast milk.......its such a revolting idea. No you cant naturally get your body to produce breast milk for a baby that you didnt give birth to. Fact is, youre not even pretending to do this for the babys sake, but for your own. Adopting a child isnt the same as having one yourself, there is no point pretending otherwise, thousands and thousands of babies have been sucessfully reared on formula with no ill effect.
I think if you look at your answers close enough you will see the honest truth...even the people that say go for it...look at their wording.
"It's NATURAL" natural. Breastfeeding your child is natural.
But breastfeeding another woman's baby, or chemically inducing breast milk is NOT natural. In fact it goes against nature and the designed plan. In a time where formula is so readily available there is no need to go to such lengths (in situations where its breastfeed another woman's child or let the child starve to death then that is another story)
"Naturally" - probably not. Most who breastfeed adopted babies have to take hormones. So they are forcing feeding their babies hormone-laced milk. Yuk. Anyone who does that has no regard for the health of the child and is only thinking of her selfish wants. I feel sorry for a poor little babe who has such a horrible start in life.
The thought of some woman breastfeeding my infant makes me sick. Creepy is what it is.
I am going to try to be really nice about this! You do not, I repeat, You do not breast feed a child you didn't give birth to! That is disgusting and just wrong! You don't live in a remote village deep in the jungle, There is no reason good enough for you to do this ! If you think you need to do this in order to bond with the child, Then you do not need to be considering adoption.....
Adoptees have enough issues as it is, The last thing they need is to know that their adopted mom stuck her boob in their mouth! I was getting ready to eat breakfast, But after reading your question I had to throw it in the garbage....
How about you people with the idiotic answers HUSH. Breastfeeding your OWN BIOLOGICAL child is the correct & natural thing to do. Taking home someone else's infant and trying to 'induce lactation' <----(which should happen after you give birth which is why infants are meant to STAY with thier mothers) its not natural. Its NOT what is best for the baby. Almost all Induced Lactation requires chemicals.
As an adoptee, I would be absolutely disgusted to think My Mom (adoptive) forced herself to unnaturally make milk just so we could 'bond'. Thank god she didn't.
Having a Wet Nurse is a different thing. If someone had a baby, wasn't producing enough milk, and someone else who was NATURALLY lactating wanted to step in and feed the starving baby (seeing as how we live in a world where perfectly suitable formula doesn't exsist. You know post-apocolyptic) then more power to them.
I think that breastfeeding an adopted child is NOT about what is best for the child, but, what the mother wants to do. The milk a mother produces is best for her child. It isn't the milk that does the most, it is the colostrum that is produced before the milk flows and that cannot be induced.
I agree with Cleopatra, and if anyone thinks that there is not a sexual component, they have never breastfed. Of course there is! That is the way that Nature created it, and the way that it should be. To deny it is absurd and one would have to be lying to themselves.
Mothers are not interchangeable parts. We cannot be moved around like peas in a shell game. The milk that is best for an adopted child is the milk that comes from that babies natural mother. Any milk that has to be chemically induced, or manipulated is not natural, not healthy and not best for the child.
ETA: 7 years in La Leche, and I breast fed 3 children, each for over a year, and they had nothing but breast milk for the first 6 months. I know what I am talking about. Just because something is "natural" doesn't mean that there are no feelings attached. Sex is natural, and the feelings from breast feeding are natural, too. Childbirth is natural, too, and there are sexual feelings attached to that, too.
" Is there anyway I can naturally get my body to be able to breastfeed with a adopted baby?"
You'd have to take medication in order to lactate. That means you'd be filling that baby with chemicals for YOUR selfish reasons. Milk that wasn't produced specifically for a certain baby isn't all that great for him/her anyway. There will be no colostrum in your chemically-induced milk, so what's the point of breastfeeding? You don't need to breastfeed in order to attach to your child...or for him/her to attach to you. I adopted a 2-1/2 year old boy from foster care and we are attached just fine, thanks. No boob or milk necessary.
If YOU want to induce lactation so that YOU can breastfeed, it's all about YOU. The baby doesn't want or need it.
And to the poster who mentioned milk donation: no, I don't have a problem with that. You know why? Because the women who donate their milk aren't forcing chemicals into themselves in order to lactate and they're not forcing their nipples into infants' mouths to make them eat! How can you even compare the two things? You're seriously demented.
As an adoptive parent, there are 2 major things I've changed my mind on through lots of education about adoption, experience, talking to adoptees, first parents, and other adoptive parents: one is name changing, and the other is adoptive breastfeeding.
I believe that adoptive breastfeeding is really, really more about YOUR wants and not so much about what is best for an adoptive child.. "wet nursing", milk donation, etc., yes those have existed out of necessity. But, it isn't necessary, nor is it the best thing for your adoptive child to breast feed. Nutritionally, you can't meet your child's needs fully that way (you won't produce enough). And, I really would certainly not go nearly as far as calling it rape, but I think it IS disturbing to a newly adopted baby. I know when I adopted my daughter, she would have been freaked out if I put her face up to my breast. (She was 9 months old). Attaching to a baby to whom you are a stranger is a dance of careful observing of your child's reactions and needs. There are lots of other things to facilitate attachment without breastfeeding. Bottle feeding was very enjoyable for my daughter and me. She would look in my eyes, I would stroke her cheek, she would grasp onto my finger. It was something that definitely facilitated feeling close to each other, and I was providing a comforting, nurturing thing for her and meeting a need. Have the experience of bottle feeding if you adopt.
What's with all the negative responses? Why are some people so put off by the thought of adoptive BF'ing?