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

Avatar for myshkamouse
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 08-18-2006 - 1:37pm

Hey here's a thought...maybe the TV is helping make people fat vs the comfort food? Instead of sitting on ones deriere for a few hours a day (min) a bit of exercise would go a long way toward offsetting the results of constantly watching Oprah and the like. LOL.

MM

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-04-1997
Fri, 08-18-2006 - 1:39pm
And extended nursing in deveolping countries also helps to lower the birth rate since lactating women, particularly those with marginal nutrition, are slower to get pregnant again than their non-lactating counterparts (do not try this birth control method at home).
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-09-2006
Fri, 08-18-2006 - 1:42pm

"I'm not suggesting that you can look at a child and know they were formula fed due to some obvious difference, but I am saying that children who are formula fed are sick more often or to a greater degree than their breast fed counterparts"

I find this to be quite the opposite. My 2 children were formula fed and they've never been sick other than normal colds and those hae been on average of twice a year. My DD has been on antibiotics once and my DS never, knock on wood. Never had a problem with ear infections or strep. On the contrary it seems to me that BF babies were the ones that were always being carted off to the doctor with some malady. Maybe it's just coincidence. My 6 siblings and I were all formula fed and we were all very healthy. Never any hospitalizations. My one sister would get a few ear infections now and again, but that's it. So, I've never seen the correlation between BF=more healthy and FF=more sick.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-09-2006
Fri, 08-18-2006 - 1:49pm

"Why would a nursing mother have to watch everything she puts in her mouth? Even in countries where nutrition is inadequate, the World Health Organization recommends that mothers nurse their babies for at least two years--so the babies DO get adequate nutrition."

So, a mother who eats a diet of junk food, her milk is more healthy than formula?

"Are you going to tell women they shouldn't get pregnant because a few people are stupid enough to take drugs that risk their baby's health?"

I am not going to tell women anything. That's a ridiculous statement.

"And, not all drugs that are dangerous while pregnant (like nicotine) are dangerous to a nursing baby."

So, would you smoke while breasfeeding your infant?

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-09-2006
Fri, 08-18-2006 - 1:53pm

"Why would a nursing mother have to watch everything she puts in her mouth? Even in countries where nutrition is inadequate, the World Health Organization recommends that mothers nurse their babies for at least two years--so the babies DO get adequate nutrition."

I specifically stated "in this country". In some parts of the world, one doesn't even have access to formula.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Fri, 08-18-2006 - 1:55pm
The human body was not designed to die by age 40. If it was, it would take something beyond mere infectious disease prevention, accident prevention and abundant food for people to live beyond that, as most currently do. Our bodies do NOT naturally wear out at age 40. The human lifespan used to be that because disease prevention, safety precautions and excellent agriculture hadn't been invented yet. Now that those things are in place, people can live well beyond 40 with no intervention. If 40 was where we were "designed to die", our bodies would be worn out by then and take extensive measures to keep us alive. I'm 44. The only medical intervention I've had is vaccinations and help with childbirth. If I was designed to already be dead, I could only be alive with various artificial parts standing in for worn out ones. I have no artificial parts.
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-06-2004
Fri, 08-18-2006 - 1:57pm
If that were the case, I would weigh 500 lbs!

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-04-1997
Fri, 08-18-2006 - 2:01pm
A lot of people confuse the biological lifespan with life expectancy. Life expectancy changes because of material conditions and culture. The biological lifespan of humans has been pretty much the same throughout recorded history.
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-02-2006
Fri, 08-18-2006 - 2:03pm

"So, I've never seen the correlation between BF=more healthy and FF=more sick." That may be your experience IRL, however, it is very well documented that a typical BF baby has fewer illness than a FF baby.

"Breast-fed babies have fewer illnesses because human milk transfers to the infant a mother's antibodies to disease. About 80 percent of the cells in breast milk are macrophages, cells that kill bacteria, fungi and viruses. Breast-fed babies are protected, in varying degrees, from a number of illnesses, including pneumonia, botulism, bronchitis, staphylococcal infections, influenza, ear infections, and German measles. Furthermore, mothers produce antibodies to whatever disease is present in their environment, making their milk custom-designed to fight the diseases their babies are exposed to as well.

A breast-fed baby's digestive tract contains large amounts of Lactobacillus bifidus, beneficial bacteria that prevent the growth of harmful organisms. Human milk straight from the breast is always sterile, never contaminated by polluted water or dirty bottles, which can also lead to diarrhea in the infant.

Human milk contains at least 100 ingredients not found in formula. No babies are allergic to their mother's milk, although they may have a reaction to something the mother eats. If she eliminates it from her diet, the problem resolves itself."

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/895_brstfeed.html

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-31-2005
Fri, 08-18-2006 - 2:03pm

"So, a mother who eats a diet of junk food, her milk is more healthy than formula?"

Yes.

"So, would you smoke while breasfeeding your infant?"

No, I'm not a smoker.

Pages