Macbump: "YK what, I didn't HAVE a crib or a bassinette when DD1 was a baby"
JCA "Those are basic needs for a baby. Why didn't you have them? Did you have a carseat? Or did you pull a Britney and drive around with your baby in your lap?"
Umm, cribs and bassinettes are basic needs for babies?! They don't survive without them or something terrible happens to them if they don't have a crib or bassinette? I've got nothing against either, for the record. We had both a bassinette and a crib for both kids. They loved the bassinette and hated the crib like poison (they much preferred a futon on the floor). Cribs and bassinettes are nice to have, sure. The bassinette was very useful. But need? No.
A carseat is only a need if one rides in a car. I knew plenty of people who only went by public transportation or biked. No need for a carseat in that case.
I tried so hard to keep ds on his side or back and he was miserable! He badly wanted to sleep on his tummy. I gave up on the back sleeping pretty quickly and we all got a sounder night's sleep, though I have to admit I was nervous at first. Dd was very happy on her side and back.
Umm, cribs and bassinettes are basic needs for babies?! They don't survive without them or something terrible happens to them if they don't have a crib or bassinette?
Actually, I think that BFing was part of the most important thing I did for them which was respecting what they, as young human babies, were expecting to receive. Human milk, being held/next to me, etc. We are carrying animals. Chimps carry their babies too. Babies that are supposed to be left alone for long periods of time, like wolves, have MUCH fattier milk in order to survive. The composition of our milk alone is testament to the fact that we are supposed to be NEAR our moms and nurse OFTEN/FREQUENTLY.
"And you can go off on a tear all you want. You can tell my friend who breastfeed her DD for 4 months that the reason her DD got *Type 1* juvenile diabetes at age 3 is that she didn't breastfeed long enough."
I'm not sure I'd say exactly that, but I would suggest that it is possible if she had exclusively BFed for 6 mos and introduced solids gradually, and weaned much later, and avoided cow milk, that the diabetes might not have come on as early. I suspect, if she was THAT prone that she came down with it at age 3, that nothing would have entirely stopped it. But let's say you could PROVE beyond a shadow of a doubt that BFing her for 3 years, and not introducing anything before 6 mos would have staved off the diabetes until 5. Would it not be worth it? To avoid needles, blood sugar level tests, etc. for another 2 years? Until the child is just a teeny bit older, a teeny bit more able to understand, etc.? My older daughter got glasses at age 5.5. I know people whose kids need glasses much younger. I'd do it if I needed to, but if there was a proven way I could avoid glasses until later, I would. My daughter also LOST her glasses in a gravel playing field at age 6 so we had to buy new ones. That is only one reason why I would rather avoid them if I could.
No, there is no proof that BFing would actually stave off anything. That is partly because in clear conscience, we CAN'T clone people, or take identical twins (who are in essence, 'clones' until they start having different life experiences, different exposures to bacteria etc.) and BF one and FF the other. It would be unthinkable to "experiment" on humans like that. But given all the research that indicates that BFed kids AS A WHOLE have lower rates of this, that, and yon...I am ready to believe there is a good chance that is how it would work. Not that it would prevent any single one thing in any single one person...but that in a susceptible person, it could stave off something, such as breast cancer, diabetes, ear infections...until later.
"But I'm not buying anything you've posted here. I just want to make that clear."
You don't have to "buy" anything, but I certainly do. I believe with all my heart that if I had not BFed my 2nd child, who has had numerous ear infections, that she would have started earlier (instead of 14 mos, maybe 4 mos, or earlier), that she would have had even more (instead of one every few mos, maybe once a month or more), that she would have had more severe ones perhaps. And my older one, who has only had 1 or 2 ear infections...I don't think necessarily that not BFing her would have done much. It MIGHT have made her have more, but it might not have. She obviously is NOT prone to them, so it probably wouldn't have made a huge difference. But I do believe very firmly that my one daughter who IS prone, would have had a worse time of it had she not had a) the anti-infective properties of milk helping her along and b) the different suckling action of a breast (versus a bottle) which tends to inhibit pooling of milk in eustacian (sp?) tubes. I do believe it 100%, proof or no.
" Breastfeeding is not going to prevent allergies, Crohns, lymphoma or juvenile diabetes like you posted earlier. It is just some fervent prayer too many militants hang on to. There's no science to back it up."
Actually, there is science, in terms of studies of mass populations, to back it all up. What it does not do, is prove any one thing about any one person. That depends on what you read into the studies. But like it or not, BFed kids, as a whole, in studies that are corrected for educational status, race, etc., DO show lower rates in general, of many of these things. Saying you don't believe it is as much shoving your head in the sand as saying you don't believe the studies that prove that lung cancer is associated with cigarette smoking, since *your* great aunt Bethel smoked 3 packs a day until she was 95 and died of "old age" and never got one pulmonary problem, ever. Just because it "doesn't seem to work" for one person does NOT mean there is no relationship.
There is also such a thing as a floor. Neither cribs nor bassinettes are a need. And the jury is still out on the dangers of co-sleeping when the recommendations are followed, so far as I know.
"C-section by far is the safest thing for a BABY." Do you mean under special circumstances perhaps? Do you mean as compared to vaginal birth? Do you mean as compared to the safest thing for a MOTHER?
Unless you clarify, I think you are wrong.
The risk of death to newborns delivered by voluntary Caesarean section is much higher than previously believed, according to recent study published in Birth: Issues in Perinatal Care. Researchers found the neonatal mortality rate for Caesarean delivery among low-risk women is 1.77 deaths per 1,000 live births, while the rate for vaginal delivery is 0.62 deaths per 1,000. The group study included over six million infants.
For crying out loud, every time I picked her up she was at risk of being dropped. As I said, my 2nd DD WAS dropped, from about 5 feet up once. I felt horrible, I assure you! But you know what? I think a) I have no MORE chance (perhaps even less chance) of dropping her if I am already seated and bend over to get her out of her bouncy seat and b) if I did, she'd fall from less high (2-3 feet above the ground instead of 5 like what happened to us). Also, where do you get all this urine and feces? There are germs all over the place. Urine germs (actually, urine is sterile usually, unless you have a UTI, until it gets out and allows bacteria growth in it, but that bacteria was already there since it didn't come from the urine!), and fecal bacteria. Do you honestly think you manage to wash every single germ you ever pick up off your hands? If you think that, think again. Like I said, germs are our friend. If we try to live in too clean a society, ie "bubble boy" type world, it does NOT do good things for our immune systems. I'm not saying chow down on a meal of poo (eww gross) but I am saying wake up and smell the coffee...we are surrounded by germs...like it or not.
And one thing is for sure. When I was out and about, it sure was safer for my DD to be worn in a sling when I went to the bathroom. First of all b/c if I had a stroller and ended up in a bathroom with no "wheelchair access" or family bathroom available, and had to leave my DD outside the bathroom stall, she might have been kidnapped while I was on the john. And of course I wouldn,t have put her down on the floor in a public bathroom, that IS rather gross. My home bathroom is an entirely different place, and much cleaner. Did you know, in general, the cleanest bathrooms around (in terms of germs) are library bathrooms? And guess where the dirtiest are? Hospitals and gas stations. I bet shopping malls are somewhere in between...but still dirtier than my home bathroom I am sure. So, what, pray tell, is the huge difference between wearing my baby in a sling while in a mall or restaurant bathroom (so as not to leave her in a stroller somewhere) and picking her up out of the bouncy seat on the bathroom floor (or off a clean blanket) in my own home bathroom? Oh yeah, I forgot. I might drop her. Nevermind I did that once to my 2nd DD and it was no where NEAR a bathroom.
Thanks i was wondering about that remark, iam sure c-section is the safest thing for a baby when the mother cannot deliver naturally. Other than that though, i was doubtful to that claim.
Pages
<It is not self abosorbed.
Macbump: "YK what, I didn't HAVE a crib or a bassinette when DD1 was a baby"
JCA "Those are basic needs for a baby. Why didn't you have them? Did you have a carseat? Or did you pull a Britney and drive around with your baby in your lap?"
Umm, cribs and bassinettes are basic needs for babies?! They don't survive without them or something terrible happens to them if they don't have a crib or bassinette? I've got nothing against either, for the record. We had both a bassinette and a crib for both kids. They loved the bassinette and hated the crib like poison (they much preferred a futon on the floor). Cribs and bassinettes are nice to have, sure. The bassinette was very useful. But need? No.
A carseat is only a need if one rides in a car. I knew plenty of people who only went by public transportation or biked. No need for a carseat in that case.
LOL! I hear ya a bit to much to know.
Im not sure a c-section is safest thing for all babies by far? I do agree it is not always about mom.
Umm, cribs and bassinettes are basic needs for babies?! They don't survive without them or something terrible happens to them if they don't have a crib or bassinette?
Yes, something could.
Actually, I think that BFing was part of the most important thing I did for them which was respecting what they, as young human babies, were expecting to receive. Human milk, being held/next to me, etc. We are carrying animals. Chimps carry their babies too. Babies that are supposed to be left alone for long periods of time, like wolves, have MUCH fattier milk in order to survive. The composition of our milk alone is testament to the fact that we are supposed to be NEAR our moms and nurse OFTEN/FREQUENTLY.
"And you can go off on a tear all you want. You can tell my friend who breastfeed her DD for 4 months that the reason her DD got *Type 1* juvenile diabetes at age 3 is that she didn't breastfeed long enough."
I'm not sure I'd say exactly that, but I would suggest that it is possible if she had exclusively BFed for 6 mos and introduced solids gradually, and weaned much later, and avoided cow milk, that the diabetes might not have come on as early. I suspect, if she was THAT prone that she came down with it at age 3, that nothing would have entirely stopped it. But let's say you could PROVE beyond a shadow of a doubt that BFing her for 3 years, and not introducing anything before 6 mos would have staved off the diabetes until 5. Would it not be worth it? To avoid needles, blood sugar level tests, etc. for another 2 years? Until the child is just a teeny bit older, a teeny bit more able to understand, etc.? My older daughter got glasses at age 5.5. I know people whose kids need glasses much younger. I'd do it if I needed to, but if there was a proven way I could avoid glasses until later, I would. My daughter also LOST her glasses in a gravel playing field at age 6 so we had to buy new ones. That is only one reason why I would rather avoid them if I could.
No, there is no proof that BFing would actually stave off anything. That is partly because in clear conscience, we CAN'T clone people, or take identical twins (who are in essence, 'clones' until they start having different life experiences, different exposures to bacteria etc.) and BF one and FF the other. It would be unthinkable to "experiment" on humans like that. But given all the research that indicates that BFed kids AS A WHOLE have lower rates of this, that, and yon...I am ready to believe there is a good chance that is how it would work. Not that it would prevent any single one thing in any single one person...but that in a susceptible person, it could stave off something, such as breast cancer, diabetes, ear infections...until later.
"But I'm not buying anything you've posted here. I just want to make that clear."
You don't have to "buy" anything, but I certainly do. I believe with all my heart that if I had not BFed my 2nd child, who has had numerous ear infections, that she would have started earlier (instead of 14 mos, maybe 4 mos, or earlier), that she would have had even more (instead of one every few mos, maybe once a month or more), that she would have had more severe ones perhaps. And my older one, who has only had 1 or 2 ear infections...I don't think necessarily that not BFing her would have done much. It MIGHT have made her have more, but it might not have. She obviously is NOT prone to them, so it probably wouldn't have made a huge difference. But I do believe very firmly that my one daughter who IS prone, would have had a worse time of it had she not had a) the anti-infective properties of milk helping her along and b) the different suckling action of a breast (versus a bottle) which tends to inhibit pooling of milk in eustacian (sp?) tubes. I do believe it 100%, proof or no.
" Breastfeeding is not going to prevent allergies, Crohns, lymphoma or juvenile diabetes like you posted earlier. It is just some fervent prayer too many militants hang on to. There's no science to back it up."
Actually, there is science, in terms of studies of mass populations, to back it all up. What it does not do, is prove any one thing about any one person. That depends on what you read into the studies. But like it or not, BFed kids, as a whole, in studies that are corrected for educational status, race, etc., DO show lower rates in general, of many of these things. Saying you don't believe it is as much shoving your head in the sand as saying you don't believe the studies that prove that lung cancer is associated with cigarette smoking, since *your* great aunt Bethel smoked 3 packs a day until she was 95 and died of "old age" and never got one pulmonary problem, ever. Just because it "doesn't seem to work" for one person does NOT mean there is no relationship.
Fio
"C-section by far is the safest thing for a BABY." Do you mean under special circumstances perhaps? Do you mean as compared to vaginal birth? Do you mean as compared to the safest thing for a MOTHER?
Unless you clarify, I think you are wrong.
The risk of death to newborns delivered by voluntary Caesarean section is much higher than previously believed, according to recent study published in Birth: Issues in Perinatal Care. Researchers found the neonatal mortality rate for Caesarean delivery among low-risk women is 1.77 deaths per 1,000 live births, while the rate for vaginal delivery is 0.62 deaths per 1,000. The group study included over six million infants.
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1523-536X.2006.00102.x
You'll have to explain how it is that C-section is the safest thing for a baby when clearly it isn't.
For crying out loud, every time I picked her up she was at risk of being dropped. As I said, my 2nd DD WAS dropped, from about 5 feet up once. I felt horrible, I assure you! But you know what? I think a) I have no MORE chance (perhaps even less chance) of dropping her if I am already seated and bend over to get her out of her bouncy seat and b) if I did, she'd fall from less high (2-3 feet above the ground instead of 5 like what happened to us). Also, where do you get all this urine and feces? There are germs all over the place. Urine germs (actually, urine is sterile usually, unless you have a UTI, until it gets out and allows bacteria growth in it, but that bacteria was already there since it didn't come from the urine!), and fecal bacteria. Do you honestly think you manage to wash every single germ you ever pick up off your hands? If you think that, think again. Like I said, germs are our friend. If we try to live in too clean a society, ie "bubble boy" type world, it does NOT do good things for our immune systems. I'm not saying chow down on a meal of poo (eww gross) but I am saying wake up and smell the coffee...we are surrounded by germs...like it or not.
And one thing is for sure. When I was out and about, it sure was safer for my DD to be worn in a sling when I went to the bathroom. First of all b/c if I had a stroller and ended up in a bathroom with no "wheelchair access" or family bathroom available, and had to leave my DD outside the bathroom stall, she might have been kidnapped while I was on the john. And of course I wouldn,t have put her down on the floor in a public bathroom, that IS rather gross. My home bathroom is an entirely different place, and much cleaner. Did you know, in general, the cleanest bathrooms around (in terms of germs) are library bathrooms? And guess where the dirtiest are? Hospitals and gas stations. I bet shopping malls are somewhere in between...but still dirtier than my home bathroom I am sure. So, what, pray tell, is the huge difference between wearing my baby in a sling while in a mall or restaurant bathroom (so as not to leave her in a stroller somewhere) and picking her up out of the bouncy seat on the bathroom floor (or off a clean blanket) in my own home bathroom? Oh yeah, I forgot. I might drop her. Nevermind I did that once to my 2nd DD and it was no where NEAR a bathroom.
Fio
Edited 4/19/2007 12:43 pm ET by xenozany
Pages