attachment parenting

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-19-2004
attachment parenting
1781
Mon, 08-14-2006 - 3:17pm

A woman I know (I used to work with her dh) practices "attachment parenting". Here is a definition (for those who don't know what it is):

"Attachment Parenting includes respecting your child's needs, feeding on demand, and answering your baby's cries. Other parts of Attachment Parenting include co-sleeping, nursing on demand, sling or other baby carrier wearing, and cloth diapering. Not all Attachment Parents practice all of the above, but never the less love the idea of Attachment Parenting and comforting their children.

Attachment parenting uses mild discipline methods and avoids all physical or emotional punishment, such as inflicting shame on a child for inappropriate behavior. Children are encouraged and allowed to sleep with their parents, and you treat your bed as the family bed. Meeting your child's needs according to the child's time frame during the early years of development is an essential part of attachment parenting. Children will be allowed to grow and learn at their own pace and not according to standard time frames."

What do you all think of attachment parenting?

I don't see attachment parenting as something a WOH parent could do, or could they? What do u think?

I am also curious to see if SAHPs vs/ WOHPs will have different opionions on this topic.

If anyone here practices attachment parenting - was your decision to do so closely linked with your decision to be a SAHP?

josee

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-30-2006
Mon, 08-28-2006 - 11:17am
In the Lutheranism I was brought up in, the future is fully described in Scripture, not the when so much but definitely the what.

Sabina

Oh, life is a glorious cycle of song,

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-09-2006
Mon, 08-28-2006 - 11:28am

Why would I be able to use your help? My sister is a lawyer, if I need legal advice. Plus, I have access to PBA lawyers.

???

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-09-2006
Mon, 08-28-2006 - 11:31am

"Is THAT the question you wanted me to answer? Or were you just at a loss for what else to say"

Yes, that was one question. Funny, you dodged it.

Also, what is the relevance of me having black friends?

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-04-1997
Mon, 08-28-2006 - 12:10pm
The future in Scripture is fully described? I know we have some prophesies, but they aren't all that clear to me, and lots of people read Revelations as metaphorical rather than literal. There are a lot of places in Scripture where God changes his mind, or is said to change his mind because of the actions or words of humanity. You can read those passages a number of ways -- but in their most straightforward sense, they represent a partially open future....for instance, God tells Jonah he intends to destroy the city of Ninevah UNLESS Jonah goes over there and gets the people to change their ways. Jonah eventually gets over there, the people repent, God spares the city. Or there's the time time God tells King Hezekiah he is about to die and to prepare himeself, and Hezekiah begs for more time to finish the job he's doing, and God allows him the extra time. In each case, you have at least a partially open future. It's the future Charles Dickens envisions in "A Christmas Carol," when Scrooge's treatement of his servant, Bob Cratchit, can change whether Tiny Tim lives or dies. I believe the line the Ghost of Christmas Future gives Scrooge, when he asks whether Tiny Tim will live, is something like "if the shadows fall where the outlines indicate today, he will not." The future is partially laid out, predicable, but man *can* act to effect the future in that scenario. This view is called "Open Theism."
Avatar for kerry88
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-22-2003
Mon, 08-28-2006 - 12:23pm
Apparently, so has your employer.
Kerry with Campbell Elizabeth 11.03.06 and Benjamin Brady 12.10.03
Avatar for kerry88
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-22-2003
Mon, 08-28-2006 - 12:24pm

Motive doesn't matter when the outcome is the same:

Paid time off. Period.

Kerry with Campbell Elizabeth 11.03.06 and Benjamin Brady 12.10.03
Avatar for kerry88
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-22-2003
Mon, 08-28-2006 - 12:26pm

Many things:

Baby is born premature and Mom and or Dad cannot work for 6 months - they would lose their job.

Baby is born and Mom needs a long recovery time - Mom loses her job

Baby is born and Mom dies in childbirth, Dad needs to be home - Dad loses his job.

There are HUNDREDS of scenerios. The jobs are protected.

Kerry with Campbell Elizabeth 11.03.06 and Benjamin Brady 12.10.03
Avatar for taylormomma
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Mon, 08-28-2006 - 1:36pm

<>

Of course it is. It's your opinion that the nature of God necessitates that bad things like disease weren't created by Him.

<>

But that's not the question here. In your last post, you talked about things God might not have been able to foresee. That is about the nature of God, not the future. Whether God chooses to intervene or not has nothing to do with how disease got here in the first place.




Edited 8/28/2006 1:38 pm ET by taylormomma
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-04-1997
Mon, 08-28-2006 - 1:43pm

The idea I am defending is that at the time of creation, God created a perfect world, and he didn't even intend for people to die. It was only when mankind rejected God's plans for him that God allowed people to go their own way, and that death, disease, etc, are all processes that were not part of God's original plan for mankind. Many diseases, if not most, are caused by environmental and genetic factors that have developed over time as a result of actions caused by man's free will. God, for whatever reason, usually does not interfere with mankind's exercise of free will.

I am not arguing that God didn't create ANY diseases or ways of death. He may have at some point -- only that there is a valid religious/philosophical position that says that these things aren't Gods first choice for his creation.

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-11-2005
Mon, 08-28-2006 - 1:50pm

If god created man, created man's nature, and didn't intend for things to have turned out as they have, why create a man who would reject God's plans.

If God is truely all powerful, he could have created a mankind that would not have rejected God no?

Pages