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: 04-05-2003
Mon, 09-10-2007 - 9:40pm

I'll bite. I do think that most people who *choose* ffing, do so b/c they believe there is little difference between bm and formula (pepsi/coke). They are not aware ffing has risks for babies that bfing does not. Artificial milk is seen as the way babies are fed and nearly everyone uses it at some point. It is handed out at the docs office and in the going home bag.

I do not think the risks of ffing are even acknowledged by the general population, much less weighed in the decision. If risks are so well known, why the outrage at factual bfing PSA's,a nd why aren't more babies bfed!?

Debbie

Photobucket

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-07-2005
Mon, 09-10-2007 - 9:44pm

Jennifer,

You did not come to mind when I even mentioned this. It is just a response to how the word makes me feel. Plus, I know what you were trying to do.

Do not worry...I love your posts!

Spud...







Lilypie




iVillage Member
Registered: 04-05-2003
Mon, 09-10-2007 - 9:45pm

Fine, it's inflammatory in your opinion. Do you think it's true? Not that formula harms a baby, but that ffing has risks that bfing does not? It is inflammatory to state facts?

Debbie

Photobucket

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-22-2004
Mon, 09-10-2007 - 9:58pm

No she kept breastfeeding and still hates her daughter (she is not a good mom), but if there wasn't the resentment from having to breastfeed there maybe the relationship could have been better, we will never know. I just think that it is better to try an alternative if it ultimately makes you a better parent for it (as an individual not speaking as a generalization). That works for many things maybe parents are so sick of co-sleeping that their marriage is falling apart...wouldn't CIO be a better solution than having a split home? (and yes this does happen...sad but it does). I don't believe in CIO but if it helps the parents be better parents in that circumstance than I am for it. That is the point that I am driving at with bfing too. If not bfing can (I know that this is an exception and not the rule) bring about a better parent/child relationship than wouldn't that trump the health benefits?

Kerri

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-05-2003
Mon, 09-10-2007 - 10:00pm

I'm going to address the comment that bfing advocacy is 'forcing one's opinion on others'. Is is forcing ones opinion to want everyone's baby to be healthier and safer? The more babies who are bfed, they healthier they will be. Pitifully few babies are bfed. The law forces many opinions on us wrt children in the name of their wellbeing, and this is along those same lines, using education and facts rather than fines and tickets.

Debbie

Photobucket

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Mon, 09-10-2007 - 10:07pm

<>

Exactly...well said.


iVillage Member
Registered: 08-30-2004
Mon, 09-10-2007 - 10:18pm

I still think it's inflammatory to say that formula feeding harms a baby.


It IS inflammatory, because of the way we treat BF in this country, because of the acceptance and power of formula, because of a lot of reasons. BUT, why is an accurate statement, even if its imflamatory, not ok?

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
>

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-22-2004
Mon, 09-10-2007 - 10:38pm

I think it is accurate to say the formula feeding harms babies...It would also be accurate to say that breastfeeding harms babies.

You see there is not a qualifier or limit to either statement, which makes it rather inflammatory. It is also easy to take a statement out of context, which has been done numerous times in this debate (or whatever it has become). Now let me qualify my statement...If women with HIV choose to breastfeed their otherwise hiv- baby then it would harm the baby, therefore breastfeeding harms babies. See the statement is accurate (could also substitute with drugs and large amounts of alcohol), however it is a blanket statement that on its own makes a horrible quote. However, the statement that formula feeding harms babies is widely accepted on this board without a qualifier or limit. I believe the statement itself is inflammatory as there is no way to tell if a child will be harmed by consuming formula and is by and large the exception and not the rule. No, I do not feel like looking up the statistics, but formula, while not the best option, is also not the equivalent of rat poison (for lack of a better poison).

Kerri

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-12-2006
Mon, 09-10-2007 - 10:58pm

#2 My understanding is that the official stance of the N-word on this board, whether it's referring to killers or fanatics, is that it is STRICTLY forbidden to allude to the possibility that anyone one the board or either side in general fits the definition. It seems to me that more than one poster is dangerously close to the line, or has crossed it. There is little if any positive connotation of the term, so it's pretty hard to direct it at anyone or either side without it being a TOS violation ie lack of respect.


Is it official policy or general consensus? Anyone else concerned?


I thought it was a forbidden word, whether said outright or sprinkled with ***


Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket>


Lilypie Breastfeeding Ticker

Photobucket - Video and Image HostingPhotobucket - Video and Image HostingPhotobucket - Video and Image Hosting
Photobucket - Video and Image HostingPhotobucket - Video and Image HostingPhotobucket - Video and Image Hosting
Photobucket - Video and Image HostingPhotobucket - Video and Image HostingPhotobucket - Video and Image Hosting
Photobucket - Video and Image HostingPhotobucket - Video and Image HostingPhotobucket - Video and Image Hosting
Photobucket - Video and Image HostingPhotobucket - Video and Image HostingPhotobucket - Video and Image Hosting
Photobucket - Video and Image HostingPhotobucket - Video and Image HostingPhotobucket - Video and Image Hosting
Photobucket - Video and Image HostingPhotobucket - Video and Image HostingPhotobucket - Video and Image Hosting
Photobucket - Video and Image HostingPhotobucket - Video and Image HostingPhoto Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

siggy
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Mon, 09-10-2007 - 11:25pm

<<>>

Are you saying that because the parent is *happier* if she FF's, then the health risks all go away? It just isn't true. The problem is that NOT BF means putting the baby at risk. There are no "benefits" to BF anyway. BF is *standard* infant nutrition, which means it allows for the *normal* level of risk. Anything fed to the baby other than breastmilk raises that *normal* level of risk. It introduces *more* risk where there wasn't as much before. It doesn't matter if the parents are happier not BF, the negative health effects of NOT BF aren't cancelled out by the peace of mind FF offers them. In addition, they may find themselves facing new challenges later on, since FF puts their children at risk for health problems.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Lilypie 2nd Birthday Ticker








Photobucket

Pages