What If There Was No Formula?

[lovie]

I think that there are lots of factors in adult health that are much more influential than ff or bf.. so rather than feeling so anti ff maybe that energy should be put into feeling anti smoking or anti fast food or anti alcohol or anti driving... all of which im sure cost the nhs or national health care more money in the long run.

sending kids to daycare with ff or bf babies makes them more ill (i live in sweden where the bf rates are one of the best in the world and kids still get ill... because they are kids) surely using that logic giving your kids the best start in life is not sending them to day care (i dont think this is the case i will be sending my baby to day care from 18 months)? there are so many lifestyle choices and choices that are not really choices they have to happen due to finacial/emotional/physical/social/cultural reasons, it would be lovely if we all could make those decisions and not judge one another on them.

arnt we lucky to live in an age where we have so many decisions to make, we are educated, free women who have the good luck to be born into a society where there is not one but 2 ways to feed our babies. so long as no ones baby is hungry im happy

 

[TigerLady]

surely so long as everyone can feed their baby how they want to then everyone is happy? I cant see why if someone chooses (for whatever reason) to formula feed their baby it has any effect on a breast fed baby (and vica versa) its not like the formula is going to jump into your babies mouth or like a breast feeding mum is going to come and try to feed your baby.

But see, this is where it starts to get very complicated.

Not BF a child that could be BF can, arguably, have a negative effect on my child. Similar to the way a parent who chooses to not vaccinate their child has a negative effect on my child.

FF babies are more likely to be sick. Sick bugs spread. The more FF babies there are, the more sick bugs there are to spread around and the more likely my baby will come in contact with one.

FF babies are more likely to suffer health complications later in life (obesity, diabetes, even cancer.) Taxpayers foot the bill for many of those expensive illnesses (in the US taxpayers AND healthy people foot the bill in a more complicated system.) So, my children will someday being paying for the illnesses of those FF babies who have grown up to have health conditions that might have been prevented or diminished if they had been BF.

Of course, these are very hard arguments to quantify. But that doesn't mean they don't exist. The same way the vaccination argument exists. Vaccinations don't prevent disease 100%, usually at about 98%. My kids are vaccinated, but diseases are on the increase due to so many not getting vaccinated. So, now my kids are more likely to get sick, even though they are vaccinated. Same with BF. BF helps minimize sickness, but not prevent it. Sending my kids to a daycare full of FF babies has exposed them to more illness than I can even quantify -- and they have gotten sick much more often because of it.

So, there is an argument to be made that increasing BF rates in general would benefit EVERYONE -- the society as a whole.

These are the reasons that I get a bit more frustrated when parents choose to FF out of convienence or lack of education or some similar reason. They may believe they have made things easier on themselves, but they've made things harder on both their kids and mine.

I do agree that increased BF rates would benefit society as a whole and I do think that maybe 'frustrated with' is a better term than 'lose respect for'. Like I said, in an ideal world, everyone would breastfeed, but I just don't believe it's for anyone to say what another woman should do with her body or judge that woman for her choices regarding feeding her baby, particularly as we often don't know the reasons or events that caused that woman to come to that decision.

I agree. Which is why I go back to not regulating the use of formula, but to normalizing BF. In an ideal world, it would be assumed, by EVERYONE, that every baby would be BF. Thus, every pregnant woman would assume she was going to BF unless she knew ahead of time (adoption, cancer, etc.) that she couldn't.

FF babies would be few and far between and society would simply understand there was probably a medical necessity for FF when they saw a FF baby. There would be no shame or judgement in that. Just as there is no shame or judgement if you put your baby on a life saving medication from birth.

Women wouldn't see BF as a choice they could make based on feelings, emotion, convienence, etc. Or something that only "hippie Mamas or Overachievers" did. They would grow up assuming all babies were BF and that they would BF their own until proven they couldn't. To me, THAT scenerio would be a good one.

 

[midori1999]

I dont see how a mum can choose to give their baby formula without even trying Breastfeeding first though?
Everyone knows its best and has numerous benefits for both child and mother...if you want the best for your baby then why wouldn't you at least try to provide them with all these benefits?

I appear to be the only breastfeeder here.
It's funny how people are allowed to put people for for doing something as simple as feeding in public yet as soon as someone says anything negative about formula it's the end of the world.

Another point I've been thinking about...what would all the formula feeding mums do in the case of a major natural disaster?
I think Breastfeeding is safer all around. Less sickness, better immunity and a source of nutrition no matter what.
I'm also a big 'Eco warrior' and prefer Breastfeeding as it doesn't require fuel burning factories and transit to reach us.

As I have said before I feel like I'm been made out to be the bad one here but to be honest that doesn't really bother me anymore. All I ever see on bnb is Breastfeeding mums made out this way by others. Jealousy is a nasty thing...I'm SO proud to BF my daughter and feel very strongly about spreading the word. Breastfeeding is a dying talent and it scares me that my daughter will grow up in a world where it is becoming more and more rare

Well as you said, you can't understand how anyone does not give bf a go. Well if you have never been in that position you will never will understand.
And tbh I don't care if people don't have respect for me because I didn't give it a go. All that matters is that the people I'm close to respect me for a great mum.

I'm sorry I dint understand what you're getting at. I haven't been in that position? I am a mother so I have been in the position to choose.
What are your reasons for not attempting to BF just out of interest? No one ever seems to give any.

Well if you must know I was sexually assaulted as a teenager and as an adult I suffer vaginismus where I suffer from painful sex and have bad issue with my breast. I've had therapy and counselling so how on earth you say you lack respect for me yet you haven't physically walked in my heels is ridiculous. Many people think that women who ff from the start usually do it for vanity but after speaking to a few, I've come to the conclusion that many people have underlying issues.

I don't mean to sound harsh or anything but I support anyone that wants to breastfeed but in this day and age I'm glad women have a choice. Bloody hell we fought for the right to vote, surely a mother is entitled to feed her baby which ever way it suits them best.

in very sorry to hear you had to go through that. I can completely understand why that could cause you to choose against BF. I think you have misunderstood my point though...I said I lack respect (not that I have non) for women who vhoose to formula feed for NO reason. Not those that choose not to for perfectly understandable reasons such as your own.

But surely this is the point. You deem that to be a good reason. Someone else might deem not wanting saggy breasts (not that BF gives you saggy breasts!) as a good reason. That is for them to decide, not anyone else.

Everyone has a reason, whether it is complicated or simple and whether they even know what the reason is or not.

Please don't think I am 'having a go'. I'm not trying to, but I am trying to explain why it's not OK to judge other women or anything else, for how they choose to feed their baby. Giving formula is not child abuse, after all!

Daffy breasts and vanity could never be a good enough reason not to breastfeed. I think we all know that.
Any mother that chooses self image over her child having the best start is extremely selfish. A mother should put her child above her self and all others no matter what.

Really? To you. Obviously not to all women.

Is it selfish and vanity for someone to choose how they look above their child, or is a sign of our society and what it holds as important and probably therefore actually that woman's insecurity as opposed to vanity or selfishness.

Plus, I don't necessarily agree that a mother should put her child above herself and all others no matter what. Surely that would mean never leaving your child with another person? Never having a night out?

What about if I want to go out and get drunk and therefore don't breastfeed my baby that night or all of the next day? Selfish? Of course it is, but I am an individual as well as a Mother and sometimes I just have to come first. As long as my baby doesn't suffer because of that, then I don't see the problem?

Yes, it would be great if everyone chose to breastfeed. However, what seems like a silly or selfish reason to one person might seem like a huge issue. Women can and do suffer phsycological issues because of how their breasts look, it is one of the reasons 'cosmetic' breast surgery is available on the NHS and why the same surgery is a multi million pound industry.

Perhaps they should have dealt with their insecurities before they fell pregnant and it affected another persons life then?
The same stands for you wanting to go out and get drunk. If that's the life style you like and your child gets in the way of that you should have never become a mother...it's not fair. Your child should always always always be first!!Lots of things are available on the NHS because we live in a society where people have been allowed to abuse these systems by stating that things affect them so much they cant go on blah blah.

My child(ren) don't get in the way of my lifestyle thanks. They have two parents, the other of whom can take care of them and can actually do just as good a job of it as me. I've been a mother for almost 17 years and seeing as the proof is in the pudding and my children have turned out remarkably well so far and have given/are giving me something to be extremely proud of, I don't think my odd episode of selfishness has done them any harm.

As for everyone dealing with their insecurities before they even get pregnant, does that apply to the poster above too who suffered sexual abuse? (sorry to whoever that was, I can't remember your username) If not, why not? Surely it's the same thing?

I hope your not too comfy up there on your high horse...

 

[midori1999]

surely so long as everyone can feed their baby how they want to then everyone is happy? I cant see why if someone chooses (for whatever reason) to formula feed their baby it has any effect on a breast fed baby (and vica versa) its not like the formula is going to jump into your babies mouth or like a breast feeding mum is going to come and try to feed your baby.

But see, this is where it starts to get very complicated.

Not BF a child that could be BF can, arguably, have a negative effect on my child. Similar to the way a parent who chooses to not vaccinate their child has a negative effect on my child.

FF babies are more likely to be sick. Sick bugs spread. The more FF babies there are, the more sick bugs there are to spread around and the more likely my baby will come in contact with one.

FF babies are more likely to suffer health complications later in life (obesity, diabetes, even cancer.) Taxpayers foot the bill for many of those expensive illnesses (in the US taxpayers AND healthy people foot the bill in a more complicated system.) So, my children will someday being paying for the illnesses of those FF babies who have grown up to have health conditions that might have been prevented or diminished if they had been BF.

Of course, these are very hard arguments to quantify. But that doesn't mean they don't exist. The same way the vaccination argument exists. Vaccinations don't prevent disease 100%, usually at about 98%. My kids are vaccinated, but diseases are on the increase due to so many not getting vaccinated. So, now my kids are more likely to get sick, even though they are vaccinated. Same with BF. BF helps minimize sickness, but not prevent it. Sending my kids to a daycare full of FF babies has exposed them to more illness than I can even quantify -- and they have gotten sick much more often because of it.

So, there is an argument to be made that increasing BF rates in general would benefit EVERYONE -- the society as a whole.

These are the reasons that I get a bit more frustrated when parents choose to FF out of convienence or lack of education or some similar reason. They may believe they have made things easier on themselves, but they've made things harder on both their kids and mine.

I do agree that increased BF rates would benefit society as a whole and I do think that maybe 'frustrated with' is a better term than 'lose respect for'. Like I said, in an ideal world, everyone would breastfeed, but I just don't believe it's for anyone to say what another woman should do with her body or judge that woman for her choices regarding feeding her baby, particularly as we often don't know the reasons or events that caused that woman to come to that decision.

I agree. Which is why I go back to not regulating the use of formula, but to normalizing BF. In an ideal world, it would be assumed, by EVERYONE, that every baby would be BF. Thus, every pregnant woman would assume she was going to BF unless she knew ahead of time (adoption, cancer, etc.) that she couldn't.

FF babies would be few and far between and society would simply understand there was probably a medical necessity for FF when they saw a FF baby. There would be no shame or judgement in that. Just as there is no shame or judgement if you put your baby on a life saving medication from birth.

Women wouldn't see BF as a choice they could make based on feelings, emotion, convienence, etc. Or something that only "hippie Mamas or Overachievers" did. They would grow up assuming all babies were BF and that they would BF their own until proven they couldn't. To me, THAT scenerio would be a good one.

I absolutely agree.

 

[Missy86]

Limited exposure to disease vectors is a natural part of life. However, a child's immune system is not biologically ready to handle those exposures at full force until sometime around the age of 4-8 when the immune system is fully developed. Until that time, a child's immune system relies heavily on the natural antibodies found in breastmilk.

And if you really believe it is "good" for a baby to expose them to disease vectors, may I suggest you take yours to a sick ward? Next time you know someone with measles, whooping cough, pneumonia, etc. simply ask them to please cough on your baby.

See, that makes no sense does it? You'd never do that. You'd actively work to keep your baby from being exposed to those things.

Thus, my argument stands.

Really that was my view was there any need for that

Since you seem to think so little of my view I will add that I think yours is total bollocks

 

[TigerLady]

I think that there are lots of factors in adult health that are much more influential than ff or bf.. so rather than feeling so anti ff maybe that energy should be put into feeling anti smoking or anti fast food or anti alcohol or anti driving... all of which im sure cost the nhs or national health care more money in the long run.

This is true to some degree. But it is also a very sensitive issue to me in general as I don't live someplace with any form of NHS. If I detailed my health care expenses to you, you'd be shocked. I pay over $500 PER MONTH to insure my family. WITH insurance, it cost me over $6000 to have each kid. It cost over $2000 for my son to have life saving surgery at 3 weeks old. It cost over $600 to take my son to the ER because he had a high fever, he was given Motrin and discharged -- and the bill was $1500 (I had to pay $600). One year alone my medical costs, out of pocket, totaled over $14,000 and that was without anything major happening. My mother is recovering from cancer, her medical bills have reached well over $500,000.

Because I live in a place where health care is a mess and hugely expesive for a lot of reasons. One of the biggest reasons is because those that pay for insurance carry the financial burden for everyone else. It is in my interest, and the interest of my children, to find ANY way to make society healthier -- anti-smoking, anti-drinking, pro-BF... or anything else. BF just happens to be closest to my heart.

sending kids to daycare with ff or bf babies makes them more ill (i live in sweden where the bf rates are one of the best in the world and kids still get ill... because they are kids) surely using that logic giving your kids the best start in life is not sending them to day care (i dont think this is the case i will be sending my baby to day care from 18 months)?

Agreed! But I also live in an area where maternity leave is unpaid and only 12 weeks. Not long enough for ANY mother to build the immune system of a BF child. And in a society were a 2 person income is pretty necessary. Increasing BF rates seems like one way to start to combat some of these problems. Not a be all, end all, solution, but a start.

so long as no ones baby is hungry im happy

I do agree there are much more serious issues in child care than BF vs. FF. There are babies out there who are neglected and abused. FF is not a crime by any means.

I simply believe, strongly, it would benefit everyone if BF was more common. And I feel the only way to do that in a civilized manner is to increase education and support and by normalizing it.

 

[TigerLady]

Limited exposure to disease vectors is a natural part of life. However, a child's immune system is not biologically ready to handle those exposures at full force until sometime around the age of 4-8 when the immune system is fully developed. Until that time, a child's immune system relies heavily on the natural antibodies found in breastmilk.

And if you really believe it is "good" for a baby to expose them to disease vectors, may I suggest you take yours to a sick ward? Next time you know someone with measles, whooping cough, pneumonia, etc. simply ask them to please cough on your baby.

See, that makes no sense does it? You'd never do that. You'd actively work to keep your baby from being exposed to those things.

Thus, my argument stands.

Really that was my view was there any need for that

Since you seem to think so little of my option I will add that I think yours is total bollocks

No need for what? I was simply making a point. I was pointing out the absurdity of the argument that exposing babies to disease vectors makes sense or is even something that parents actively do.

You pointed out why you felt my argument wasn't valid and I pointed out, with a reasoned reponse, why I felt your argument wasn't valid.

I don't think your view is "bollocks" I just don't think it makes sense from a biological or practical standpoint.

And coming back with "your view is totall bollocks" isn't much of a valid argument either and not likely to persuade me to question my stance.

I harbor no ill feelings to you or your views. I simply made the argument in an attempt to educate.... and I go back again... normalizing and educating! That is the key.

 

[lovie]

I think that there are lots of factors in adult health that are much more influential than ff or bf.. so rather than feeling so anti ff maybe that energy should be put into feeling anti smoking or anti fast food or anti alcohol or anti driving... all of which im sure cost the nhs or national health care more money in the long run.

This is true to some degree. But it is also a very sensitive issue to me in general as I don't live someplace with any form of NHS. If I detailed my health care expenses to you, you'd be shocked. I pay over $500 PER MONTH to insure my family. WITH insurance, it cost me over $6000 to have each kid. It cost over $2000 for my son to have life saving surgery at 3 weeks old. It cost over $600 to take my son to the ER because he had a high fever, he was given Motrin and discharged -- and the bill was $1500 (I had to pay $600). One year alone my medical costs, out of pocket, totaled over $14,000 and that was without anything major happening. My mother is recovering from cancer, her medical bills have reached well over $500,000.

Because I live in a place where health care is a mess and hugely expesive for a lot of reasons. One of the biggest reasons is because those that pay for insurance carry the financial burden for everyone else. It is in my interest, and the interest of my children, to find ANY way to make society healthier -- anti-smoking, anti-drinking, pro-BF... or anything else. BF just happens to be closest to my heart.

sending kids to daycare with ff or bf babies makes them more ill (i live in sweden where the bf rates are one of the best in the world and kids still get ill... because they are kids) surely using that logic giving your kids the best start in life is not sending them to day care (i dont think this is the case i will be sending my baby to day care from 18 months)?

Agreed! But I also live in an area where maternity leave is unpaid and only 12 weeks. Not long enough for ANY mother to build the immune system of a BF child. And in a society were a 2 person income is pretty necessary. Increasing BF rates seems like one way to start to combat some of these problems. Not a be all, end all, solution, but a start.

so long as no ones baby is hungry im happy

I do agree there are much more serious issues in child care than BF vs. FF. There are babies out there who are neglected and abused. FF is not a crime by any means.

I simply believe, strongly, it would benefit everyone if BF was more common. And I feel the only way to do that in a civilized manner is to increase education and support and by normalizing it.

I think thats so sad that you only get 12 weeks, i can see it would be such a hard decision if you had to get a baby to day care and back of to work it would be so much harder to bf.

i think it would be great if society went towards bf being normalised and expected, it is here, i have never seen a woman ff in public but i see nipples every day on the train or in a cafe. i think because of this ff isnt stigmatised, if a woman ff it is respected that that is her decision or that she needed the formula.

also we get 13 months paid maternity leave and then 5 months with an alowence.

im sorry health care has cost your family so much

 

[TigerLady]

[
i think it would be great if society went towards bf being normalised and expected, it is here, i have never seen a woman ff in public but i see nipples every day on the train or in a cafe. i think because of this ff isnt stigmatised, if a woman ff it is respected that that is her decision or that she needed the formula.

I think this is fantastic! And the direction I would like to see society in general go to. It is the exact opposite here. I see babies in carseats with bottles of formula propped up in their mouths EVERYday. Not long ago I saw a 3 day old baby being fed in that manner -- not even held while being FF.

On the other hand, people here still believe it is shameful to BF in public and it should be hidden.

I'd like to see where I live become more like where you live.

 

[lovie]

it sounds dangerous to bottle feed a baby like that!

I hope things change and eventually no one will feel judged by how they feed their baby (so long as its being held!!)

 

[Missy86]

Limited exposure to disease vectors is a natural part of life. However, a child's immune system is not biologically ready to handle those exposures at full force until sometime around the age of 4-8 when the immune system is fully developed. Until that time, a child's immune system relies heavily on the natural antibodies found in breastmilk.

And if you really believe it is "good" for a baby to expose them to disease vectors, may I suggest you take yours to a sick ward? Next time you know someone with measles, whooping cough, pneumonia, etc. simply ask them to please cough on your baby.

See, that makes no sense does it? You'd never do that. You'd actively work to keep your baby from being exposed to those things.

You don't think that telling me to take my babies to a sick ward to expose them to measles and whooping cough is harsh

I agree with Lovies point

 

[Missy86]

Sorry I am on the iPad and I can't type properly on this thing

 

[TigerLady]

Limited exposure to disease vectors is a natural part of life. However, a child's immune system is not biologically ready to handle those exposures at full force until sometime around the age of 4-8 when the immune system is fully developed. Until that time, a child's immune system relies heavily on the natural antibodies found in breastmilk.

And if you really believe it is "good" for a baby to expose them to disease vectors, may I suggest you take yours to a sick ward? Next time you know someone with measles, whooping cough, pneumonia, etc. simply ask them to please cough on your baby.

See, that makes no sense does it? You'd never do that. You'd actively work to keep your baby from being exposed to those things.

You don't think that telling me to take my babies to a sick ward to expose them to measles and whooping cough is harsh

I agree with Lovies point

It wasn't intended to be harsh as I never, ever for a second, meant for you to actually do it. Which is why it is followed by the line "See, that makes no sense... You'd never do that." Clearly, I never thought you would actually do something so awful. Which was the point.

You said exposing them to bugs was good because it built their immunity and made them strong. I could go into the biological details of why this isn't true, but that would be complicated and take a long time.

It's easier to point out that you DON'T do that and, actually, do the opposite. Naturally and instinctually.

It makes a more solid point when I express it in an extreme manner. It points out the absurdity. The intent was for someone to read it and say "Of course, I'd never do such a thing!!!! " and, thus, understand why it makes sense to limit disease as much as possible as opposed to viewing disease as something that "makes you stronger."

 

[Quackquack99]

I dont see how a mum can choose to give their baby formula without even trying Breastfeeding first though?
Everyone knows its best and has numerous benefits for both child and mother...if you want the best for your baby then why wouldn't you at least try to provide them with all these benefits?

I appear to be the only breastfeeder here.
It's funny how people are allowed to put people for for doing something as simple as feeding in public yet as soon as someone says anything negative about formula it's the end of the world.

Another point I've been thinking about...what would all the formula feeding mums do in the case of a major natural disaster?
I think Breastfeeding is safer all around. Less sickness, better immunity and a source of nutrition no matter what.
I'm also a big 'Eco warrior' and prefer Breastfeeding as it doesn't require fuel burning factories and transit to reach us.

As I have said before I feel like I'm been made out to be the bad one here but to be honest that doesn't really bother me anymore. All I ever see on bnb is Breastfeeding mums made out this way by others. Jealousy is a nasty thing...I'm SO proud to BF my daughter and feel very strongly about spreading the word. Breastfeeding is a dying talent and it scares me that my daughter will grow up in a world where it is becoming more and more rare

Well as you said, you can't understand how anyone does not give bf a go. Well if you have never been in that position you will never will understand.
And tbh I don't care if people don't have respect for me because I didn't give it a go. All that matters is that the people I'm close to respect me for a great mum.

I'm sorry I dint understand what you're getting at. I haven't been in that position? I am a mother so I have been in the position to choose.
What are your reasons for not attempting to BF just out of interest? No one ever seems to give any.

Well if you must know I was sexually assaulted as a teenager and as an adult I suffer vaginismus where I suffer from painful sex and have bad issue with my breast. I've had therapy and counselling so how on earth you say you lack respect for me yet you haven't physically walked in my heels is ridiculous. Many people think that women who ff from the start usually do it for vanity but after speaking to a few, I've come to the conclusion that many people have underlying issues.

I don't mean to sound harsh or anything but I support anyone that wants to breastfeed but in this day and age I'm glad women have a choice. Bloody hell we fought for the right to vote, surely a mother is entitled to feed her baby which ever way it suits them best.

in very sorry to hear you had to go through that. I can completely understand why that could cause you to choose against BF. I think you have misunderstood my point though...I said I lack respect (not that I have non) for women who vhoose to formula feed for NO reason. Not those that choose not to for perfectly understandable reasons such as your own.

I understand that, but honestly if a mother chooses not to breastfeed there is a reason behind it.

 

[TigerLady]

I understand that, but honestly if a mother chooses not to breastfeed there is a reason behind it.

There is a reason behind every decision. I think what she's getting at when she says NO reason is not a lack of reason, but a reason that centers around lack of desire or willingness to BF. That is what she considers NO reason. Whereas reasons that are centered around a physical or psychological inability are more valid reasons in her opinion.

I have truly heard the reason for not BF given as "It's just not something I wanted to do. I didn't want to be the only one that could feed her. I didn't want to not be able to drop her off. I didn't want to make her clingy to me. I didn't want to bother with pumping at work. I wanted my life back. I wanted to be able to drink." Those are the kind of NO reasons she's getting at.

 

[Quackquack99]

I understand that, but honestly if a mother chooses not to breastfeed there is a reason behind it.

There is a reason behind every decision. I think what she's getting at when she says NO reason is not a lack of reason, but a reason that centers around lack of desire or willingness to BF. That is what she considers NO reason. Whereas reasons that are centered around a physical or psychological inability are more valid reasons in her opinion.

I have truly heard the reason for not BF given as "It's just not something I wanted to do. I didn't want to be the only one that could feed her. I didn't want to not be able to drop her off. I didn't want to make her clingy to me. I didn't want to bother with pumping at work. I wanted my life back. I wanted to be able to drink." Those are the kind of NO reasons she's getting at.

None of those reasons apply to me but then again who am I to judge someone for it? it might not be valid for one person but it could be for the other.

 

[readytotry]

I understand that, but honestly if a mother chooses not to breastfeed there is a reason behind it.

There is a reason behind every decision. I think what she's getting at when she says NO reason is not a lack of reason, but a reason that centers around lack of desire or willingness to BF. That is what she considers NO reason. Whereas reasons that are centered around a physical or psychological inability are more valid reasons in her opinion.

I have truly heard the reason for not BF given as "It's just not something I wanted to do. I didn't want to be the only one that could feed her. I didn't want to not be able to drop her off. I didn't want to make her clingy to me. I didn't want to bother with pumping at work. I wanted my life back. I wanted to be able to drink." Those are the kind of NO reasons she's getting at.

But who should be the judge of what is a GOOD reason and what is NO reason. It seems very subjective to me.

 

[TigerLady]

:sigh:

Back to the base of my stance.

That is why formula should not be regulated or controlled. Instead, BF should be promoted, normalized and better edcuation and support should be provided.

Ultimately, the VAST majority of women want what is best for themselves and their babies. If women truly understood how much better it was for their health, their baby's well being, and society as a whole to BF their baby, more would want to BF. Fewer would say "Well, everyone in my family was FF so that's what I did with my baby." If women had more and better post-natal BF support, they wouldn't fall into so many booby traps. They could happily continue BF past when many give up now. BF rates would increase and FF rates would decrease. That's better for everyone.

 

[indy and lara]

This is a bit of an aside but anyway.... it isn't as if there haven't been any tangents already.

I Bf for 14 months. At the time I would have said their were no negatives. However, when I stopped BF my daughter almost immediately became much more cuddly with her daddy, something she had not been previously. He was and still is, as exceptionally hands on dad but she would not cuddle with him/ try to get comfort that way. It seems that she got enough all the cuddles she wanted with me as I fed on demand. When I saw this and thought it through, I did feel sad that my husband had missed out on this. I am not saying they did not bond etc but BF clearly did impact on the course of their early relationship. I am not sure how I would address this in future but I would have to consider it if we were ever to have another baby.

 

[TigerLady]

This is a bit of an aside but anyway.... it isn't as if there haven't been any tangents already.

I Bf for 14 months. At the time I would have said their were no negatives. However, when I stopped BF my daughter almost immediately became much more cuddly with her daddy, something she had not been previously. He was and still is, as exceptionally hands on dad but she would not cuddle with him/ try to get comfort that way. It seems that she got enough all the cuddles she wanted with me as I fed on demand. When I saw this and thought it through, I did feel sad that my husband had missed out on this. I am not saying they did not bond etc but BF clearly did impact on the course of their early relationship. I am not sure how I would address this in future but I would have to consider it if we were ever to have another baby.

If you talk to most parents they will say that a child's "favorite" parent waxes and wanes throughout their life. Mom is favorite for a while, than Dad for a while, and back again. They are closer to different parents at different stages depending on what their current needs are and which parent fits those needs better. I think that's natural and not a problem.