Forum Rules


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 25th, 2013, 15:50 PM   31
tinytabby
Pregnant (Expecting)
Chat Happy BnB Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Scotland
Posts: 2,298
Well said Patch.



 
Status: Offline
 
Old May 25th, 2013, 17:11 PM   32
NoodleSnack
Trying to conceive (TTC)
Chat Happy BnB Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,379
Quote:
Originally Posted by MommyJogger View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by flamingpanda View Post
People shouldn't have to go through hardships to earn the right to use formula. For some people it just works better for their family. People should be free to make a choice, not have one rammed down their throats - from either side!
I'm about to become super unpopular, but I really hate any arguments about the "right" to choose formula. When does the baby get a say in the decision that usually affects them more than anyone else? Infants shouldn't have to go through hardships (increased risk of SIDS, constipation, higher risk of obesity, stomach upset, etc) just because some parents perceive it as being more convenient. I can understand debate about rights during pregnancy, but I will never understand how it could ever be argued that a mother's rights will trump her baby's after the birth. Formula should not be a right. When used, it should be a medical necessity.
For most babies, if they have no medical conditions, being fed formula or breast milk makes no difference to them, what you're describing doesn't affect every baby, a higher risk doesn't mean every baby will get it, it could go from 1/1000 to 2/1000 and that's a higher risk. And mothers are people too, if their babies are happy on formula, I don't see why their needs and wants always have to come second for just that extra bit of benefits from bm. There's two people in the mother-baby relationship, there needs to be balance for it to be a healthy relationship, that goes for everything, not just feeding.

I imagine it's much worse for a baby to have a mother who resent feeding her baby at the breast and has to do it a few times a day because she has no right to choose what she wants to do. It's enough that there's a section of women who feels guilty about feeding their LO with formula, there's no need to make even more people miserable over feeding choices. Really you need to step back and consider what the costs and benefits are to either feeding method.



 
Status: Offline
 
Old May 25th, 2013, 17:21 PM   33
NoodleSnack
Trying to conceive (TTC)
Chat Happy BnB Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,379
Quote:
Originally Posted by summer rain View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoodleSnack View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sproglet View Post
No one is saying formula is bad. We're saying the companies are clever and sneaky in how they advertise.

By the way, the anti bf part is where it says you can be confident your baby's getting everything she needs (because EBF babies aren't?) and focus on the joy of each and every moment (because breastfeeding means you can't?)
I read that as formula can provide all she needs as breast milk would, and don't beat yourself up about not ebf, just enjoy the moments. This is an ad aiming at supplementing so they understand the guilt some women have about not ebf and how some women think very lowly of formula, I think they're acknowledging that and using that as a sales point.
This formula costs quite a bit more than a normal formula as well. So it is really cynical xx
They are a business, of course they are cynical and out to make money. They exploit people's beliefs and wants to make sales, that's how it works. I'm just saying what I read from that ad. It's a clever sales pitch from people who understand how women who want to bf but for whatever reasons end up supplementing feel.



 
Status: Offline
 
Old May 25th, 2013, 17:30 PM   34
NoodleSnack
Trying to conceive (TTC)
Chat Happy BnB Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,379
Quote:
Originally Posted by MommyJogger View Post
"chain mothers up and force them to breastfeed"?? wtf? I think at least the majority of pregnancies are planned. No one chained anyone up and forced them to have children. Breastfeeding is part of having a child-- it's how you feed them. No one would ever stand up for a woman's "right" to leave a child in a 2x4 play yard all day; why can't that be construed as "chaining a mother up and forcing her to take care of her child"? New mothers need access to cold, hard facts. Not placations about how formula is "fine".
As for babies and choosing, the difference between the scenarios is that in the milk scenario, you're forcing the poorer choice onto your child when they would choose the healthier choice. In the sleep scenario, you're making the better choice for your child. No one would support forcing a child to eat McDonald's and a coke if they'd instead eat the veggie stew and a water that are also available.
I don't think you support baby's choice as such, if a baby prefers bottle and the mother can't get any milk from a pump, would you tell her to feed him formula in a bottle because that's his preference? It's more that you think women shouldn't have a choice to feed their babies what you deem to be inferior, that's a bit of a god-complex.



 
Status: Offline
 
Old May 25th, 2013, 17:46 PM   35
MommyJogger
Mum (Mom)
Chat Happy BnB Member
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoodleSnack View Post

For most babies, if they have no medical conditions, being fed formula or breast milk makes no difference to them, what you're describing doesn't affect every baby, a higher risk doesn't mean every baby will get it, it could go from 1/1000 to 2/1000 and that's a higher risk. And mothers are people too, if their babies are happy on formula, I don't see why their needs and wants always have to come second for just that extra bit of benefits from bm. There's two people in the mother-baby relationship, there needs to be balance for it to be a healthy relationship, that goes for everything, not just feeding.

I imagine it's much worse for a baby to have a mother who resent feeding her baby at the breast and has to do it a few times a day because she has no right to choose what she wants to do. It's enough that there's a section of women who feels guilty about feeding their LO with formula, there's no need to make even more people miserable over feeding choices. Really you need to step back and consider what the costs and benefits are to either feeding method.
Just because individual risks are low doesn't mean that the choice isn't impactful. If it could save hundreds of babies a year, I think it's worth putting mom's convenience second. If it's something like a hormonal imbalance and she sincerely has a nursing aversion or she's had some kind of abuse and that makes it emotionally traumatizing for her to bf or pump, then I would see that as a medical necessity. Those mothers can't bf while remaining healthy themselves and they have to feed the baby somehow. But in most cases, it's a matter of mom wanting baby to sleep longer or wanting to go out to the bar and have a few drinks with friends. I think maybe "medical necessity" was a bad word choice on my part, because I can see a lot of things you're bringing up as being under the "medical necessity" umbrella. But not trying to bf because she "doesn't want her boobs to sag" is not a legitimate reason, and I don't care how many people would give me the stink eye for saying so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoodleSnack View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by MommyJogger View Post
"chain mothers up and force them to breastfeed"?? wtf? I think at least the majority of pregnancies are planned. No one chained anyone up and forced them to have children. Breastfeeding is part of having a child-- it's how you feed them. No one would ever stand up for a woman's "right" to leave a child in a 2x4 play yard all day; why can't that be construed as "chaining a mother up and forcing her to take care of her child"? New mothers need access to cold, hard facts. Not placations about how formula is "fine".
As for babies and choosing, the difference between the scenarios is that in the milk scenario, you're forcing the poorer choice onto your child when they would choose the healthier choice. In the sleep scenario, you're making the better choice for your child. No one would support forcing a child to eat McDonald's and a coke if they'd instead eat the veggie stew and a water that are also available.
I don't think you support baby's choice as such, if a baby prefers bottle and the mother can't get any milk from a pump, would you tell her to feed him formula in a bottle because that's his preference? It's more that you think women shouldn't have a choice to feed their babies what you deem to be inferior, that's a bit of a god-complex.
It's not that I deem it inferior-- it actually is extraordinarily inferior. That's not a complex. That's fact. I also think you didn't read the post-- I support not forcing kids into poorer health choices than they would make themselves. Not just letting them have whatever they want.



 
Status: Offline
 
Old May 25th, 2013, 17:49 PM   36
MommyJogger
Mum (Mom)
Chat Happy BnB Member
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,425
Also- most studies looking at links between infant feeding method, childhood mortality and other health conditions are not specifically looking at compromised populations. It doesn't just double the risk of sids in unhealthy babies- it doubles every baby's risk.



 
Status: Offline
 
Old May 25th, 2013, 17:51 PM   37
patch2006uk
Mum (Mom)
BnB Addict
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: West Mids, UK
Posts: 6,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoodleSnack View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by MommyJogger View Post
"chain mothers up and force them to breastfeed"?? wtf? I think at least the majority of pregnancies are planned. No one chained anyone up and forced them to have children. Breastfeeding is part of having a child-- it's how you feed them. No one would ever stand up for a woman's "right" to leave a child in a 2x4 play yard all day; why can't that be construed as "chaining a mother up and forcing her to take care of her child"? New mothers need access to cold, hard facts. Not placations about how formula is "fine".
As for babies and choosing, the difference between the scenarios is that in the milk scenario, you're forcing the poorer choice onto your child when they would choose the healthier choice. In the sleep scenario, you're making the better choice for your child. No one would support forcing a child to eat McDonald's and a coke if they'd instead eat the veggie stew and a water that are also available.
I don't think you support baby's choice as such, if a baby prefers bottle and the mother can't get any milk from a pump, would you tell her to feed him formula in a bottle because that's his preference? It's more that you think women shouldn't have a choice to feed their babies what you deem to be inferior, that's a bit of a god-complex.
Babies often prefer to sleep on their fronts, which is also proven dangerous. Of course it's not about giving a baby a choice. It's that, as human beings and mammals, our bodies expect breastmilk. Just like they expect to drink water, not coke. They work at their optimum level with the intended inputs.



 
Status: Offline
 
Old May 25th, 2013, 20:42 PM   38
NoodleSnack
Trying to conceive (TTC)
Chat Happy BnB Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,379
Quote:
Originally Posted by MommyJogger View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoodleSnack View Post

For most babies, if they have no medical conditions, being fed formula or breast milk makes no difference to them, what you're describing doesn't affect every baby, a higher risk doesn't mean every baby will get it, it could go from 1/1000 to 2/1000 and that's a higher risk. And mothers are people too, if their babies are happy on formula, I don't see why their needs and wants always have to come second for just that extra bit of benefits from bm. There's two people in the mother-baby relationship, there needs to be balance for it to be a healthy relationship, that goes for everything, not just feeding.

I imagine it's much worse for a baby to have a mother who resent feeding her baby at the breast and has to do it a few times a day because she has no right to choose what she wants to do. It's enough that there's a section of women who feels guilty about feeding their LO with formula, there's no need to make even more people miserable over feeding choices. Really you need to step back and consider what the costs and benefits are to either feeding method.
Just because individual risks are low doesn't mean that the choice isn't impactful. If it could save hundreds of babies a year, I think it's worth putting mom's convenience second.
If there's no difference in outcomes, then it's not "impactful", it's only "impactful" for the cases where the out comes indicate a difference due to the feeding method.

And I don't think you've thought very deeply about what you're pushing here. There are many things that hurt hundreds of babies a year, sometimes baby wearing incorrectly can cause hip dyspepsia, should we ban baby wearing as prevention? The list can go on, where does it end? Or really, it's not about preventing harms to baby pre se, but about BF?



Quote:
If it's something like a hormonal imbalance and she sincerely has a nursing aversion or she's had some kind of abuse and that makes it emotionally traumatizing for her to bf or pump, then I would see that as a medical necessity. Those mothers can't bf while remaining healthy themselves and they have to feed the baby somehow. But in most cases, it's a matter of mom wanting baby to sleep longer or wanting to go out to the bar and have a few drinks with friends. I think maybe "medical necessity" was a bad word choice on my part, because I can see a lot of things you're bringing up as being under the "medical necessity" umbrella. But not trying to bf because she "doesn't want her boobs to sag" is not a legitimate reason, and I don't care how many people would give me the stink eye for saying so.
You make it sound like most women who supplement or don't breastfeed without a "medical reason" are very superficial. Maybe where you're from that's the case, but where I'm from the most common "non-medical" reasons I've heard are that the mother is exhausted or in pain and needs a break or she has to go back to work, it's not because she want to go to a bar or "doesn't want her boobs to sag".

But in any case, I don't see why you should be the judge for what legitimate for each person, you don't know their circumstances - that's the god-complex I'm talking about.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoodleSnack View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by MommyJogger View Post
"chain mothers up and force them to breastfeed"?? wtf? I think at least the majority of pregnancies are planned. No one chained anyone up and forced them to have children. Breastfeeding is part of having a child-- it's how you feed them. No one would ever stand up for a woman's "right" to leave a child in a 2x4 play yard all day; why can't that be construed as "chaining a mother up and forcing her to take care of her child"? New mothers need access to cold, hard facts. Not placations about how formula is "fine".
As for babies and choosing, the difference between the scenarios is that in the milk scenario, you're forcing the poorer choice onto your child when they would choose the healthier choice. In the sleep scenario, you're making the better choice for your child. No one would support forcing a child to eat McDonald's and a coke if they'd instead eat the veggie stew and a water that are also available.
I don't think you support baby's choice as such, if a baby prefers bottle and the mother can't get any milk from a pump, would you tell her to feed him formula in a bottle because that's his preference? It's more that you think women shouldn't have a choice to feed their babies what you deem to be inferior, that's a bit of a god-complex.
It's not that I deem it inferior-- it actually is extraordinarily inferior. That's not a complex. That's fact. I also think you didn't read the post-- I support not forcing kids into poorer health choices than they would make themselves. Not just letting them have whatever they want.
How do you define "extraordinarily inferior"? There are many considerations that go into raising a child, how do you know that BF or FF is the better option for each person without knowing their circumstances? Who are you to judge?

I've read your post, on the one hand you talked about the baby's choice, falsely assuming that the baby would choose "the healthier choice", in another breathe you think the baby should be given what's deemed better for him/her, but who's to judge what's better? It seems you think your judgement is valid for other people's cases. There are times when we need to look at averages and there are times when we look at individual circumstances, take your veggie stew VS McDonald example, in my family, our idea of a stew is pork belly or pork hog stewed until the fat just melt in our mouth, with some vegetable thrown in, my granddad's fried noodle with vegetable is so salty it makes McDonald's fries seems tasteless, so McDonald would be a healthier choice. Make judgement for your own circumstances, unless you're god and privy to the lives of others, you're not the best person to judge what's best for them or their baby.



 
Status: Offline
 
Old May 25th, 2013, 20:49 PM   39
NoodleSnack
Trying to conceive (TTC)
Chat Happy BnB Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,379
Quote:
Originally Posted by MommyJogger View Post
Also- most studies looking at links between infant feeding method, childhood mortality and other health conditions are not specifically looking at compromised populations. It doesn't just double the risk of sids in unhealthy babies- it doubles every baby's risk.
The medical conditions I referred to are things like CMPI/A that makes formula more difficult for them. Most studies would look at the general population, I don't know if the studies account for them or not, if they haven't, then accounting for them would make the risks for things like reflux and eczema that are symptoms of these conditions appear lower among FF infants.

Again, "doubling the risk" sounds scary, but it's still a very small risk.



 
Status: Offline
 
Old May 25th, 2013, 22:32 PM   40
fieryphoenix
Mum (Mom)
Chat Happy BnB Member
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: minnesota, usa
Posts: 1,366
Very smart! That ad totally preys on natural insecurities of new breastfeeding moms. They should be ashamed of themselves for stooping to that level



 
Status: Offline
 
Closed Thread



Bookmarks

Tags
clever

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



SEO by vBSEO