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: 06-09-2006
Sat, 08-19-2006 - 11:58am
So, pro-FF is propaganda to you. Get off your high horse, please.
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-11-2005
Sat, 08-19-2006 - 12:14pm
A claim that formula is medically superior to bm is propoganda, yes.
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-11-2005
Sat, 08-19-2006 - 12:16pm

When compared to pepsi, formula is not substandard. But when compared to what the human body is designed to be fed (breast milk), formula is substandard.

In a discussion of bm versus ff, is it really necessary to go through that statment in every post, though?

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-09-2006
Sat, 08-19-2006 - 12:26pm
Not all BM is superior to formula.
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-02-2006
Sat, 08-19-2006 - 12:35pm

No FF itself is not propaganda. However, FF backers that try to debunk the proven research showing BF is superior are. Their are certainly situations that FF would benefit a particular family moreso than BF. But by and large, BF beats FF hands down. There is nothing to debate in that regard.

FTR, I dont consider myself superior for choosing to BF.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-26-2006
Sat, 08-19-2006 - 2:17pm
Huh?
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-26-2006
Sat, 08-19-2006 - 2:19pm
I agree. I will also say that in the majority of cases BM is superior to formula. However, that doesn't mean that not BFing, is inferior. While I think BM is the better option I don't think nursing is superior to using a bottle.
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-02-2006
Sat, 08-19-2006 - 2:31pm

BM that has not been altered via absorption of a controlled substance (ie: prescrption drugs or herbs) or illicit drugs is chemically superior to F. In fact even formula research scientists acknowledge that F does not and is not likely to ever come close to duplicating the chemical makeup of BM.

"While greater knowledge about human milk has helped scientists improve infant formula, it has become "increasingly apparent that infant formula can never duplicate human milk," wrote John D. Benson, Ph.D, and Mark L. Masor, Ph.D., in the March 1994 issue of Endocrine Regulations. "Human milk contains living cells, hormones, active enzymes, immunoglobulins and compounds with unique structures that cannot be replicated in infant formula."

Benson and Masor, both of whom are pediatric nutrition researchers at infant formula manufacturer Abbott Laboratories, believe creating formula that duplicates human milk is impossible. "A better goal is to match the performance of the breastfed infant," they wrote. Performance is measured by the infant's growth, absorption of nutrients, gastrointestinal tolerance, and reactions in blood."

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/reprints/breastfed.html

Besides, citing illegal drug use as a reason to FF doesnt much futher the debate. An illegal drug user shouldnt even have custody of their own children much less BF them.

So that brings your debate down to mothers who are on the few prescrption drugs that could potentially harm their child through BM. Here is some info on that.

"Actually, there are very few drugs that are not safe to take while breastfeeding"
"Women with chronic health problems such as diabetes, lupus, arthritis, epilepsy, or thyroid disease may need to take medication during the entire time they are nursing their babies. It is almost always possible to find medications that are compatible with breastfeeding"

http://www.lalecheleague.org/NB/NBMarApr00p55.html

Since there are few drugs that aren't safe during lactation, and for most women, there are safe altenatives to the few that are harmful, this doesnt add much to the debate either.


iVillage Member
Registered: 06-02-2006
Sat, 08-19-2006 - 2:34pm
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-26-2006
Sat, 08-19-2006 - 5:34pm
Not to be rude but those LLL people are extreme militants. I can bet you that the vast majority of mothers that adopt aren't nursing. Yes I have seen that tubing thing that makes a baby think it is nursing from a mother but I just don't understand that either. Why this need to nurse? I just don't get it. Nothing wrong with a nice bottle.

Pages