"Proud Formula Feeder"?
Find a Conversation
| Thu, 12-14-2006 - 8:27pm |
In my playgroup, I've noticed some members have a blinkie I haven't seen before: "Proud Formula Feeder". In the past, I've seen the "Formula Feeding Mom" and "It's formula, not rat poison", but this new one struck me as odd. I can understand simply stating that you formula feed or saying that formula isn't rat poison (because it isn't), but I've been trying to figure out just why someone would be "proud" to FF.
While I don't think that women should necessarily feel guilty about not BF, I don't get what about FF there is to be proud about. Most (or maybe even all) of the women with said blinkie acknowledge that breastmilk is better, so why would they be proud to feed their babies something they know is substandard, even if they couldn't BF and FF was their only choice? What do you ladies think? Is/should there be such a thing as FF pride?



Pages
"Personally, I don't think it matters whose "fault" it is. I just think it needs to change. This applies to both the birth issues AND feeding issues...IMHO. :)"
Just wanted to say I think that's an excellent answer :)
<<< I personally try and stay away from other debates in general on a forum where they are not the principle discussion subject...JMHO.>>>
Yeah. But since this is over 700 posts and is by far the most activity we've seen here in a loooooooong time it's been kind of fun to explore other arguments not directly dealing with this board's topic.
-jeanine
"It's all about degress of risk. On one hand the baby is exposed to chemicals for a few hours, maybe a day. The chemicals clear the body and it over. Ffing on the other hand is the wrong proteins, the wrong fats, the wrong balance of nutrients and the missing hundreds of ingredients during the period of time when only one food is the majority of the diet on top of it being the fastest period of growth in the lifespan. Whew!
That's why."
Degrees of risk. Okay, yeah, assuming the child in question suffers no ill effects from the meds at the time, we know of no far reaching effects from meds during childbirth (or at least, *I* know of no far-reaching effects). We have studies done that show ffed people have higher risks of various problems later in life, but that's where it gets tricky for me. See, more people are ffed than bfed, we can all agree on that. So wouldn't it stand to reason that more ffed people suffer various problems? And sure, maybe they account for the difference in sample size, but how do they account for heredity? I know in my own case I was fed evap milk and Karo syrup - a combo I am told is actually *worse* than formula - and grew up in a house full of smokers. If anyone was a good candidate for asthma or other respiratory problems, it would be me. But I've never had any problems with my lungs, even though I smoked for 15 years myself. How do we determine the degree of risk? What is an acceptable degree of risk when it comes to a baby? Why are we so quick to pat women on the head and say it's okay to get the epidural if she can't deal with childbirth, but if she can't deal with bfing she's taking risks with her child and we flame her for it? I still don't fully inderstand the double-standard, and probably never will.
I'm kind of hoping this thread reaches 1000. =)
RPS
**I'm kind of hoping this thread reaches 1000. =)**
that would be fun...I'm here to do my part.
Pages