Posting photos of nursing babies online

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-08-2001
Posting photos of nursing babies online
1029
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

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-05-2007
Sat, 09-08-2007 - 7:58pm
To be inflammatory... as stated in the previous sentence.
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-10-2003
Sat, 09-08-2007 - 8:25pm

We eat a lot of things we can't digest, all of us, every day


This may be true but I see two major

Photobucket

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Sat, 09-08-2007 - 9:10pm

<<>>

Then please disprove her statement by showing us facts that state formula *does not* cause harm. Every major health advocacy organization in the world has evidence that it *can*, and very often *does* cause harm.

<<>>

Breastmilk doesn't "decrease risk", per se. Breastmilk is the standard for infant nutrition, therefore it needs to be treated as a baseline. Babies who are EBF *from the breast itself* are the best-off in terms of benefits received. The risks begin to build immediately below EBF on the scale of hierarchy, beginning with babies fed expressed BM. Formula does *increase* risk, but breastmilk is not meant to *prevent* anything.

*Formula* is the substance most often used in this argument because it is the substance *most* parents today will choose if BM is not available either by circumstance or by choice. Formula may not contain as much potential harm as say, evaporated milk and corn syrup concoctions, which are no longer widely used; formula is being used MORE than any other non-BM substance, and therefore we usually discuss the risks associated with its use more than with the use of any other BM substitute.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Lilypie 2nd Birthday Ticker








Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-29-2005
Sat, 09-08-2007 - 9:14pm

"I think you missed my point, or misunderstood it. I totally agree that breastfeeding reduces risk. I think that saying that formula causes harm is not accurate. Breastmilk decreases risk, but feeding your child anything besides breastmilk would be the converse, not formula alone."


Well, ok, anything besides breast milk would be the converse, i.e. wouldn't reduce risk, i.e. increases risk compared to breastfeeding.....but who out there is using *another* alternative to breastfeeding, besides formula?


*spencer*

 


Powered by
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-19-2006
Sat, 09-08-2007 - 9:18pm

"So it's all the media's fault? It has nothing to do with a surge in seperate sleeping, ff'ing cio parenting styles pushed on two generations of children?"


It is not all the media's fault, not by a long shot....that is just a

 

Photobucket

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-05-2007
Sat, 09-08-2007 - 9:26pm

--We make the choice of what to feed ourselves, but infants can't. We choose for them. So while I can look at that yummy but bad for me food and weigh my options and decide "What the heck, I eat healthfully most of the time, I'm gonna go for it", and I understand that my actions have consequences and I may regret my choice, I've only made that choice for myself and I am harming no on but myself. --

Does this mean you are equally vigilant for your toddler/preschooler/gradeschooler? Because they are equally unable to weigh their options and choose what is good for them.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Sat, 09-08-2007 - 9:39pm

I'm not sure your understanding of Attachment Parenting is very clear or accurate from the statements you are making.

<<<>>

Many AP'ers choose to homeschool their children. In fact, homeschooling as a social movement is gaining ground quite quickly, especially in populations who subscribe to such parenting philosophies as Attachment Parenting. Many parents who begin an AP approach with their children in infancy will look for ways to continue that parenting style well into childhood. This may mean homeschooling or sending children to private school programs, such as Montessori, that align with their beliefs and practices.

Here is a wonderful article that describes in better detail how this might be accomplished:

http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art8394.asp

<<>>

AP can most certainly "last forever", and it does. I know many adults whose relationships with their own parents are still rooted in AP ideals, including my own DH. AP has nothing to do with keeping a child dependant, or stunting his "self-sufficiency". It is an approach that actual helps to build a child's independance and self-esteem, through gentler approaches than some parents might use. AP does not cause a child to be "overly attached to one person" at all; both parents, or any caregivers, can perform AP-style care methods. Children raised in the AP style are often very well-prepared for life in the "real world" because of the way they have been reared.

I think you might benefit from doing some reading on the true purposed and tenets of AP. Dr. Sears' site and naturalfamilyonline.com are good places to start if you are interested. Here's a link from the Sears site:

http://www.askdrsears.com/html/10/t130300.asp

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Lilypie 2nd Birthday Ticker








Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Sat, 09-08-2007 - 9:46pm

<<>>

I'm not Carolyn, but I'll offer my take on this one anyway, LOL.

The difference here is that when a child is young enough that a milk-only diet is recommended (as per the AAP for example, before the age of 6 months), the milk he or she receives is the ONLY food he or she takes in during that time period. Whether its BM or formula, the milk he or she gets has to meet ALL nutritional needs. Babies who are FF are getting *nothing but* formula in their diet, all day long and for many months on end.

Again, FF *does* contain inherent risk, as well as potentially harmful substances, and does not contain all of the beneficial ones BM contains. A toddler/preschool/gradeschooler is not likely to be enjoying a diet of *solely* potentially-harmful foods. They may take in *some* foods that are not good for them, and they probably will, especially if they are in school or daycare where parents can't make *every* food choice for them. But they aren't subsisting on, say, an all-Twinkie diet *every day*, at *every meal*, for months at a time.

Do you see the difference? It's not that BF parents will go on to be able to police every morsel that enters a child's mouth later on; the difference is that an early diet of nothing but potentially-harmful food lays a foundation that may invite risk moreso than the one BF lays for them.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Lilypie 2nd Birthday Ticker








Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-08-2007
Sat, 09-08-2007 - 9:52pm

First thank you for answering me. I was starting to get a complex about being ignored. *laughs* Totally just kidding.

"But to say that murderers, rapists, molesters and the like are that way because they weren't cuddled as babies is extremely simplistic. Look at societies where AP is the "norm" either in a modern or historical context. Wars were still fought, violent atrocities committed, people died in horrific ways."

I never said violent people are the way they are because they weren't cuddled, but many criminals become that way due to bad parenting choices. Nature vs nurture isn't an arguement because there's no base to it. As for other societies, please do look at them carefully. We (US) have a rediculously high crime rate for our status as a country, and I'm sorry that I honestly think it has to do with how we raise our children and what we allow to happen.

"But I do think that activites should be curtailed if the only option a mother feels open to her is baring her breast to feed a child at the cost of the comfort of the people around her."

So my freedom of movement and my right to feed my child as I see fit should be restricted to keep a few random strangers happy? I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but honestly, they need to get over it. Walk away, look away, don't stand right on top of me and try to get a peek at what little skin is exposed and there won't be an issue.

"esp in the event of spit up, lol."

What's spit up? LOL

"CIO lets a child know that there are limits, that his/her needs aren't all encompassing to the exclusion of all others, and it teaches independance, self soothing and self reliance."

Are limits to what, the number of times a parent is willing to answer their cry? For the first 8-10 months of a child's life they cry because they need us, not to manipulate us into doing their bidding like tiny little dictators. They hurt, are hungry, scared, lonely. Did you know children under 9 months of age do not understand object permanence? Out of sight, out of existance, not out of mind.

"I think it is better start readying children for the real world at birth, and not raising them in the formulative years to be overly attached to one person in particular, and then sending them to daycare/pre school/kindergarten where that attachement is cruelly severed, and the child left foundering."

Do you honestly think that right at birth a child has the mental capacity to understand that concept? Seriously, with their small immature brains and nervous systems, you think they understand "This is your alone time, now don't worry, I'm right around the corner and everything is just fine. Now lay down and relax, stare at the mobile and I'll be back in an hour to fetch you." I can't fathom it. By the time a child is ready for outside activities (for most AP families, since a family member, usually a parent, takes care of the child leaving day care unnecessary) away from their primary care givers they have been taught that mommy and daddy are permanent fixtures and a little time away is a good, healthy thing. The casual aquintence you mentioned did not prepare her child for a new sibling and instead of adding the sibling, replaced her first child. That isn't right no matter what parenting philosophy you employ.

Elissa

Edit: I can't spell LOL




Edited 9/8/2007 10:02 pm ET by elissanbella

Powered by CGISpy.com Thank you Li
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Sat, 09-08-2007 - 10:07pm

"I think you missed my point, or misunderstood it. I totally agree that breastfeeding reduces risk. I think that saying that formula causes harm is not accurate. Breastmilk decreases risk, but feeding your child anything besides breastmilk would be the converse, not formula alone."

There are a few concepts here that maybe should be separated out.

1. Breastfeeding "reduces" risk. Semantics I know, but since breastmilk is what babies are born expecting, it should be the baseline. Breastfeeding gives you normal risk, and anything else you feed baby either increases it or decreases it. There is no known "formula" that will decrease it in most cases. You are right, it doewsn't matter what ELSE you feed besides breastmilk, if it's not breastmilk, you increase the risk. That's not exclusive to formula. That's an attribute to "not breastfeeding".

2. Commercial Formula contains alot of manufactured and artificial ingredients in proportions that aren't properly absorbed. There is evidence that these "harm" specific babies in the form of bacterial infection, protein intolerance, etc. Also, with certain diseases, that a child might have regardless of being fed, the formula can aggrevate the condition. That could definately be classified as "harm". One of our formula moms on this board used low-iron formula with her baby because the high amounts of iron can cause harm in some babies. So, in that sense, yes, formula does harm. Maybe not every baby is visibly "harmed" or maybe you can't prove it in every baby.

BUT, consider the fact that formula has never been proven to NOT cause harm. There is a higher incidence and severity of just about every disease or condition among babies fed formula than babies those breastfed. And while some of those have been explained by science, and some of those might be attributed to confounding factors, the fact is - it's not been proven that ingredient XYZ isn't, in fact, causing the differences in the rates of illness.

So to say that "they haven't proven that formula causes harm" is meaningless really. It has, in specific babies, and It hasn't been proven not to overall.

Cathie

Pages