Heart vs. Head: The work status decision
Find a Conversation
Heart vs. Head: The work status decision
| Tue, 01-17-2006 - 1:03pm |
Did you make your decision to SAH/WAH/WOH ft/pt based primarily on objective/tangible factors, or with your heart?

Pages
Jennie
I could be wrong, but I dont think she was saying a nursing infant is likely to starve to death before taking a bottle. It seems to me more like if it was just for "convenience bottles" it wasnt worth putting the baby through dehydration, extreme hunger, etc in order to succeed. Especially if they still wanted to continue BF as the main source of nutrition. If there were a reason that BF was no longer an option (ie mom's death/disability or a freak case of drying up overnight) that the baby would likely take to a bottle in order to survive after a period of hunger/dehydration.
Both of my BF'ed babies refused bottles every time when we tried, but since I never intended to give up nursing I never felt the need to push the issue to see just how far they would take their refusal. KWIM?
i do know what you mean, my son wouldnt take a bottle either, but it never entered my mind that if the occassion arose where he had to that he would never adjust.
like you i didnt intend to give up bf'ing so i didnt ever push it.
my original post on this was in response to a post that said breastfeeding was "critical" to a breastfeeding infant, and when i think of the word critical i tend to think of something being life or death, hence my response that breastfeeding was not critical - i have since been informed that apparantly it is critical to some infants, and i had just never heard of that. you learn something new everyday.
Jennie
I don't recall it- no. I'm sure I probably read by it- but sorry if I don't sit here and pore over every single character typed on this board. Not everything catches my attention.
That doesn't change the fact that you made a blanket generalization in absolute terms. Not a good debate tactic. That's the problem with generalizations- the truth is seldom so absolute.
Wytchy
So- again- you *could* raise your children- just not in the manner in which you prefer.
Wytchy
But you still fed her. I think that's the point they're trying to make. Just because she wasn't eating at the breast- she didn't starve. Bottle or cup, it's essentially the same for the purpose. It's not a breast and the child took it.
Wytchy
***Sorry, but my younger dd wouldn't, and I have several wohm friends who struggled with babies who never took a bottle. No mom I know would be willing to risk dehydrating her baby to the point where she would take it rather than starve to death, so I don't see that as a viable option.***
That's precisely why my children were switched to bottles. They were getting dehydrated and starving. The most important rule is to feed the baby. If mom has milk on tap and is able to nurse at the breast- great- good for her. If she doesn't or has to go back to work then the bottle becomes necessary. What did your WOHM friends do? Quit their jobs so they could continue breastfeeding? (Some women do and I commend them for their commitment- but for some women that isn't an option.)
***In any case, none of this changes the fact that breastfeeding is critical to nurturing a breastfed baby. If you could switch him to a bottle, he'd then be a bottlefed baby--then bottlefeeding would be critical to nurturing him.***
So basically you're saying that *feeding* is critical to nurturing a baby- and that it essentially does not matter where that food comes from or how it is delivered *for the purposes of nurturing. (We all know breastmilk offers superior *nutrition* but that has nothing to do with bonding). Is that what you're trying to say?
Wytchy
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
Pages