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: 06-02-2006
Sun, 08-20-2006 - 7:53am

No, there isnt a bug difference. You seem to think that you can make a broad generalization about adoptive mother's feed their children. I'm saking you for your qualifications to do so. If you have none than you are making a generalization and nothing more.

I don't think that stating the benfits of BM is playing a martyr role. BF is not hard, nothing martyrous about it.

Sorry for the confusion about your BF, but for some reason you think that by responding to a direct question about the benfits of BM, I am attacking a Ffer. Not true. Just stating the facts.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-02-2006
Sun, 08-20-2006 - 7:55am
That "gal" kelly has pages full of resources below each claim. Did you bother to click on those links?
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-02-2006
Sun, 08-20-2006 - 7:55am
No, just that studies prove BF is better.
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-02-2006
Sun, 08-20-2006 - 8:31am

So you, mbanc17, from iviallge think you can dispute the indisputable evidence the medical and science industries have put forth regarding the benefits of BM? Ok...

btw...Are you a doctor or scientist? Can you prove that the studies completed are faulty? Did you even read the research pages explaining the studies?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Sun, 08-20-2006 - 8:37am
The human race also would have died out if infant humans were able to survive ONLY on breastmilk. We have the luxury today to debate and choose between multiple shades of 'very good'.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Sun, 08-20-2006 - 8:45am
This is another area where common sense should prevail. Yes, mothers have been able to nourish thei babies on low=calorie, nutrient-depleated diets for decades. But today, we are faced with different nutritional questions. The quality of our food supply and the presence of chemicals, pesticides, hormones, etc are new issues. We know that pharmaceuticals cross into breastmilk as do ratios of fats (transfats, etc) and chemicals such as DDT, other pesticides, and mercury. Of particular concern will be chemicals and other substances that are stored in fat. As the percentage of overweight and obese mothers continues to rise, the exposure of breastfed babies to fat-soluble chemcials/hormones/etc will increase. What the exact effect of these things is is certainly debatable and remains to be answered. But assuming and asserting with no qualification that diet has no impact on the superiority of breastmilk is foolish, IMO. Just like the decision to continue a prescription medication while nursing needs to be weighed with the pros and cons in mind, so too do nutritional decisions and potential environmental exposures. It is possible to *over* advocate even for something that is very good.
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-26-2006
Sun, 08-20-2006 - 9:50am

<<>>

Again you are really overstating what I said. Like I said ***I can bet you that the vast majority of mothers that adopt aren't nursing.*** I didn't say mothers that adopt wouldn't nurse or would nurse. I said I BET the vast majority don't nurse. If you don't see the difference there I can't help you anymore. However if you think that statement is incorrect please feel free to prove me wrong. I am sure the kelly chick or LLL has some sort of article about it.

<<>>

It is articles like I posted a few threads back. About the non nursing mothers with screaming children and the nursing mothers sitting quietly. YUCK! You are right about one thing nothing maryrous about nursing. It is just feeding a baby.

<<>>

I don't think you are attacking anyone. However like pebbles said sometimes BM isn't better than formula.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-26-2006
Sun, 08-20-2006 - 9:51am
Do the studies show BFing is better OR BM is better?
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-26-2006
Sun, 08-20-2006 - 9:53am
Indisputable? Really? Again how can you possibly measure IQ points? How would you possibly know a child's IQ is higher? You can't BF a baby then measure IQ points then hit rewind and FF that baby and measure IQ points. You also can't compare two totally different children. NONSENSE.
Avatar for kerry88
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-22-2003
Sun, 08-20-2006 - 10:08am

WRT Diabetes:

http://www.breastfeeding.asn.au/media/111103.doc

Studies show that early exposure to cereals and infant formula/cows' milk - once thought to be safe infant foods - is associated with a higher risk of insulin dependent diabetes mellitus (type 1 diabetes).

Kerry with Campbell Elizabeth 11.03.06 and Benjamin Brady 12.10.03

Pages