Posting photos of nursing babies online
Find a Conversation
Posting photos of nursing babies online
| Wed, 09-05-2007 - 10:52am |
On another board, a poster has a long siggy that includes a slideshow of nursing babies from her playgroup. Another poster took offense at it and there has been quite the debate over the appropriateness of the siggy. I posted a message inviting people here to discuss that issue, and I hope that one of the posters from that particular playgroup comes here, at least so we can see what the siggy looks like. I'm having a hard time forming coherent thoughts today, LOL! So don't worry if I don't come back to debate the issue with you, I'm trying to get out of the office so I can go home & sleep.
As "Linda Richmond" (aka Mike Myers) from SNL would say, "talk amongst yourselves."
Mary
Mom to Kevin 11/04/2003
CL, Breast vs. Bottle Debate

Pages
Thanks, Debbie, for answering that one.
I have never supplemented Celia or Austin with iron and neither of them have ever been found lacking in it.
Very unpopular on a very biased board. There is precious little common sense to be found here, although one of the newest debators has common sense in spades. ;)
Its just interesting to me that you consider the board 'biased' simply because you're in the minority opinion. If more people agreed with your perspective would you then think the board was unbiased? I don't see how you are any less 'biased' towards your opinion than I am of mine. Telling me I am biased and have no common sense because I disagree with you is, IMO, a way of avoiding any merrit in the arguments against your perspective.
As an aside, I think it might be useful to take a step back and consider why people can be so passionate about an argument.
>
"I think this has come up before without resolve. Where, in your opinion, would one find "unbiased" information about BF/FF?"
The fact that this board sports numerous Bfers and less than 5 FFers would seem very biased indeed. Perhaps if more FFers would become involved, the bias would be less noticable. Other than that finding unbiased info about this very controversial subject is nigh on impossible. The "experts" on Bfing are full of bunk, and the formula companies spout their fair share of it too. Mom to mom discussions are impeded by one side trying to support their own agenda and superiority complexes.
<>
The board *is* biased. No doubt about it. But that fact can't stop those "5 FFers" from posting information to back up their claims.
<>
Hmm, I wonder if that is perhaps because no information exists that would place formula on par with breastsmilk. Don't blame the facts. You're welcome to bring information forward that proves your points. Just be prepared for a challenge. Really, formula *can't* win. It's impossible. But feel free to try to prove me wrong!
<>
The AAP and WHO are "full of bunk"? If that were truely the case, we'd be in trouble. In reality, it's just unfortunate for your pro-formula position that no major medical organization supports the use of formula over breastmilk.
<>
LOL, isn't the point of debate to support one's own agenda? As for the "superiority complexes" I find it interesting you would still be clinging to that notion in spite of a seperate thread with 80+ replies addressing it. I think this proves just how selective you are in the information you process. Common sense dictates that engaging in debate means being receptive to the message of the other side.
I still am not convinced that cow based formula is in fact harmful. I do not debate the fact that breastmilk is best but to proceed in the assumption that (cow based) formula is actually harmful imo isnt fair.
<<>>
ITA that the board is "biased". But for that matter, medical science must be too, since the experts would prefer to see more mothers BF their babies. The board's "bias" might be changed if some of these FF'ers you mention would provide some info to support the claims they make.
<<>>
This seems like circular logic: if more FF'ers were to get involved, and be successful in the debate, then the debate would seem less biased. But there is very little information out there to help them make their argument in favor of FF, so they can't make their argument. Doesn't this tell you anything about the nature of the substances, when placed side by side, and which one is going to trump the other just about every time?
<<>>
ITA that the formula companies are full of "bunk". But the "experts" on BF include *every* major health advocacy organization in the WORLD, and I think you'll be hard-pressed to prove this statement. Can you give it a shot anyway?
<<>>
Or *inferiority* "complexes", which is what we see a lot around here too. Statements like "are you saying I'm a bad mom?", and "are you telling me I don't love my child?", etc., end up being what gets debated around here, and it detracts from the real debate. ITA that each side wants to support it's own "agenda", but obviously, one is doing a lot more toward that end than the other one is. Is it only because there aren't enough FF moms in the debate, or is it part of a larger discrepancy between the substances themselves?
"The "experts" on Bfing are full of bunk,"
Please post info that supports this statement. A link, a study, any reference at all would be helpful.
Debbie
There's a cio blinkie!? There's a reason I don't read those things....
CIO and happy generally aren't compatible emotions. Crying usually means unhappy.
Debbie
Pages