When does extended breastfeeding become weird....

meher

HariboJunkie wrote: »

Formula is a very close second to breast milk these days so it's not comparable with stuffing a baby with rubbish but it is NOT as good as breast milk. Particularly in the early days. However there is no way a woman who tries and decides it's not for her is being a bad mother and none should be made to feel that way. A mentally happy mother is more important than the difference between breast and formula. Assuming the mother can't be happy while breastfeeding.

A case of cognitive dissonance if there has to be one ^ Also it is becoming increasingly difficult to appreciate this categorisation of people as good and bad, specially based on personal values. Why would anyone assume that their perception of being virtuous is the ultimate? It isn't a mother who is good or bad, but the dynamics between the mother and child, or dynamics between people etc that is often not ideal or that goes wrong. My point is that it might be best to externalise problems wherever possible instead of calling or implying someone is bad.

Back on off-topic I look at this uncompromising messages in promotions of breastfeeding as an issue of illiberalism, in it's cruel form, and yes, cajoling women, making them subject to moral opprobrium, to force them into making wrong decisions for illegitimate reasons is tantamount to assault on their rights and emotional wellbeing that scars her and may be, just may be, that's what poet has implied in her post whilst mentioning abortion and rape, as an off the cuff harmless comment. The way I read it is that she's just checking if you make any distinctions to violation of integrity. To make it the highlight of the discussion and suggest otherwise, is just a perverted interpretation to spoil the spirit of a debate when they feel their swingeingly illiberal view is losing monopoly over discussion. Really, there's no need to feel so insecure - it is ok to be the average female who holds the mother-centric view and lead a battalion of likeminds and parade the "natural mom""good motherhood" monikers if you must - the rest of us are quite magnanimous to make room for folks who feel the need for constant reassurance. But what is not ok is to impose moral statements and dictating our lifestyles.

Most parents would prefer to get on with their lives, enjoy their newborns, feed and look after the baby as they feel is best for the baby and a comforting environment that enhances bonding. About time the breastfeeding lifestylers actually realise that breastfeeding is just that - a lifestyle, no more, no less, and let others choose and define their own natural way of feeding, whatever that's supposed to mean; only thing that matters should be that baby is fed, safe and comfy with equally comfy parent(s).

kafkathecat

Breastfeeding should not be a lifestyle choice; it is what nature intended for mother and baby. This is what I was trying to explain earlier. As a society we have decided that it is an equivalent choice and people are making their decisions in this social context. It is society which is wrong though not individual mothers. If we were not at this point where sometimes two generations may not have breastfed we would find bottle feeding crazy. It is not illiberal to advocate doing what is best for babies. Mothers now rarely drink or smoke whilst pregnant but they did when I was young and, that too, was a choice. I do not judge anyone for the choices they make with the information available to them but to argue that breastfeeding is just a lifestyle choice may lead many women down a path they later regret. If you try to breastfeed and it doesn't work the bottle is always there. If you do it the other way around your milk will dry up and there is no going back.

meher

kafkathecat wrote: »

It is not illiberal to advocate doing what is best for babies.

Whilst breastmilk is good for babies, we don't know what's detrimental about formula feeding to compare, contrast and establish that breastfeeding is best. Therefore to impose what's best for someone elses baby is not only illiberal but also gross abuse.

kafkathecat

meher wrote: »

Whilst breastmilk is good for babies, we don't know what's detrimental about formula feeding to compare, contrast and establish that breastfeeding is best. Therefore to impose what's best for someone elses baby is not only illiberal but also gross abuse.

'We' didn't know smoking was bad for us either. I will leave you to wait for the evidence in blissful ignorance. No one is imposing anything on anyone. As this discussion has become a bit extreme for my liking I'm out.

FatVonD

blabberwort wrote: »

So because something is perfectly natural it's okay for all and sundry to see? The human body itself is natural doesnt mean we all want to see naked bodies walking down the street in the summer though does it?
Sex is perfectly natural, again... doesnt mean we all want a public display of it does it?

A naked body would be perfectly acceptable on a nudist beach.

There are clubs where it is appropriate for people have sex openly.

People eat in cafes, why not babies? If you don't want to see it then that is your problem, not theirs.

blabberwort wrote: »

On a natural point to get back to children... it is natural for a baby to make use of it's nappy (putting it politely lol) but that doesnt make it acceptable to change a baby on a table in a cafe does it? So you tell me where people are supposed to draw the line with this whole "natural" argument. It's a cop out answer in my opinion.

And it is perfectly appropriate to !!!! in the toilets, You are surely not trying to say that feeding a baby is on a par with changing a nappy?

blabberwort wrote: »

I will also point out again that "supposedly" the whole thing about bf is for the childs benefit, inconvenience shouldnt come into it.

Says who? BF is way more convenient than bottle feeding, why should BFing mothers inconvenience themselves for your benefit?

FatVonD

I wonder what happened to the OP :eek:

RichGold

FatVonD wrote: »

A naked body would be perfectly acceptable on a nudist beach.

There are clubs where it is appropriate for people have sex openly.

Gingham_R

poet123 wrote: »

How is forcing a woman to breastfeed by removing her choice any different from any other forced act against a woman's body? I'll grant you it is emotive, that doesn't make it incorrect. Duress is never acceptable however it is presented.

You can't remove the choice. That's a ridiculous and offensive notion.

Again, I didn't imply that I wanted that.

Gingham_R

meher wrote: »

Whilst breastmilk is good for babies, we don't know what's detrimental about formula feeding to compare, contrast and establish that breastfeeding is best. Therefore to impose what's best for someone elses baby is not only illiberal but also gross abuse.

I agree. :beer:

poet123

Gingham_R wrote: »

You can't remove the choice. That's a ridiculous and offensive notion.

Again, I didn't imply that I wanted that.

No, you didnt in any way imply that Person One did, in fact she openly stated it, which is why I used the rape analogy.