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
>>America's "let them cry" attitude toward children may lead to more fears and tears among adults, according to two Harvard Medical School researchers.<<
http://www.naturalchild.org/research/harvard_attention.html
Curiously according to this article, babies who are left to CIO end out less resilient in adulthood.
Great post. I'm an AP child, but from when it wasn't "earthy" or really even named, but something my mom naturally felt inclined to do. I'm very close with all my family, but we also have a healthy dose of independance too. I was 18 when I left the major university and the security of my parent's money to take off and do it on my own. It was a whole hellofa lot harder, but I have a deeper sense of pride to say "I graduated with honors while working 60 hours a week" than I think I would of had I not gone my own way.
And as good AP parents they supported my choice and told me to do what I needed to do to make myself happy and feel fullfilled. I wouldn't change my extended bf'ing AP mother for a million cio mom's, even if she is a little bit nuts. Okay, a lot nuts. LOL!
Elissa
Powered by CGISpy.com Thank you Li
"AP can't continue forever, the child has to learn to be self sufficent. 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."
See, this is where placing labels on "parenting styles" becomes difficult. I would not call what you described to be AP at all. And I prefer to say I used the Ferber Method, rather than CIO - there's much more to it than simply crying....
To me, preparing a child to be ready for school does not involve any abrupt immersion as part of that; whether it's leaving them work it out in the crib, or at the preschool door. It makes more sense to me to guide them as they grow, working with them at THEIR pace.
I think it's better to forget all the methods and styles and really examine what makes sense and what doesn't. Anything can "work".
Cathie
.emily.
<<>>
Breastmilk does not really "reduce" risk, it gives a NORMAL level of risk. Carseats are the law because the government has decided that this is the MINIMUM level of safety that all children should have. Notice that it's not the "BEST" protection, you can still buy safer cars with curtain airbags and other special safety features, be an ultra-safe driver, choose to live in a low traffic area, or do other things that would further reduce a child's risk level, but EVERY child is expected to be in some kind of carseat, period. Not putting them in a carseat is exposing them to an abnormally high level of risk. Even if they never get in an accident, you are still increasing their potential for harm.
Formula increases a child's potential for harm. Even if they are never exposed to a serious illness or infection, you are still leaving them OPEN and EXPOSED to these things as compared to a child who receives normal infant nutrition. You deprive them of a normal amount of antibodies, hormones, white blood cells and other substances that their bodies expect to receive. Does "exposure" equate to "harm"? If you send a child outside on a cold day without a coat, is it the lack of a coat or the actual cold and wind that causes the "harm"? After all, some kids go out with no coat and are "just fine", right? Just because your kid got sick because he was outside playing in the snow with no coat doesn't mean that not wearing the coat was the CAUSE, does it? (or does it?)
Exposing a child to a higher level of risk is opening them up to potential harm. That means that SOME children will experience harm when they otherwise would not have. They get sick when they would not have if they had been given a normal level of protection. How is that NOT causing harm by exposure to risk?
If you do not put your child in a seatbelt and a policeman gives you a ticket for it, can you argue that it's your "choice" because according to your personal experience no one you know has ever been harmed by not being in a carseat? That you do not believe the studies that show that not wearing a carseat actually puts your child at a higher risk? Or will they tell you that you are guilty of child endangerment by not giving your child adequate protection while in your vehicle?
Formula use exposes a child to unnecessary risks, opening them up to the potential for harm, and in some cases that results in a child being harmed who would otherwise have been protected. So ALLOWING harm to occur when it otherwise would not have has the same end result as CAUSING harm to occur. That's like saying "I didn't cause that car to crash, I just didn't tell them that the bridge was out".
Why put a child at risk when you do not have to?
<<"Nutrition for Healthy Term Infants"...>>
FYI - - As a Public Health Nurse, I have worked with this document.
<>
I am a nurse - - I do not approve of infant formula
I also want to make this next point loud and clear.
"So you would agree that the more someone hears/sees something the more socially acceptable it becomes?
"No I argued that showing those images to adult women won't sway them one way or another. I actually argued also that if I created a tag supporting something YOU found disgusting, it wouldnt change your mind at all. "
I don't think the tag is really about "changing your mind". It's not about you at all, really, not to convert you into a breastfeeder. From what I can tell, it's about supporting each other and maybe changing people's perception of what's normal.
I remember back on one of my PG, before there were siggies, someone posting tentatively at the 1yr mark, "Is anyone else STILL nursing" basically thinking that they were the only one, and when they had I few posts like "whew, I thought I was the only one too" there seemed to be relief at knowing that there were others "still nursing". Then at the 2yr mark, someone posted the same thing, and this time, although there were fewer yes replies, there were also the "I think nursing at 2yrs is disgusting" replies.
I think there would have been fewer "disgusting" sentiments if those posters had reaslized all along that there were those among them "still" nursing. It was ok at 1yr, it was not ok at 2yr. Exposure daily to the FACT that someone is "still" nursing makes it less unusual to everyone. 2yr is just another day. And sure there would be some who would feel it's not OK regardless, but I think the average person, if exposed to the idea enough will shed their old prejudices and think for themselves.
Cathie
Did you even read your own link? It illustrates exactly what Pattie stated.
Go back through the archives to see what TPTB say about the use of the term on this board (or anywhere on IV for that matter). It's derrogatory, inflamatory and offensive. Using *** in place of letters doesn't change it's use.
Cathie
Pages