Category: Parent Talk
I wrote this in response to part of a thread that got started on the food board, and I'm cross posting it here, as a board topic, because I feel this is really important. It's pasted below.
I want to clarify something. I am against the huge commercial push to get women who are perfectly capable of breastfeeding to use formula that is not as healthy, safe or benificial for babies as breast milk. I do not however fault mothers for using formula who honestly can't breastfeed. Some women who take extremely strong medications that could harm their babies in breast milk, that the mother can not discontinue the use of or risk losing their own lives, are a great example of this. Mothers who have had mastechtomies due to breast cancer are another good example, along with single fathers of babies whose mothers who have abandoned them or died in child birth or who are incarserated, also babies in the foster care system. When I do hear a woman say "Well, I can't breastfeed." I always ask gentle questions to make sure I understand her meaning, because some times she is right and some times, through the misinformation of others, she is actually wrong. For instance many idiotic doctors told women and some still tell women, that their breasts are too small to breastfeed. The size of one's breasts has nothing to do with their capability to produce adiquate amounts of breast milk. It is just fatty tissue surrounding the milk ducts and glands that actually produce the milk, which are pretty standard in women all over the world whether they have A cup or F cup breasts. Some, but certainly not all medications can be substituted safely for alternatives so that breastfeeding can be possible. Other medications if you work with a knowledgable doctor, can be worked around. For instance, some women can take a medication, like a heavy duty pain killer, or an as needed seizure medication, and simply pump and dump their effected breastmilk when the medication is in their system and nurse their babies the rest of the time. For instance, I nursed my son for 2 and a quarter years, and if I had a truly terrible migraine and needed to take vicadin, I would just pump and dump milk effected by that drug until that medication would be clear of my system, then continue nursing. Same if I wanted to have more than 1 glass of wwine with dinner, I'd consult a doctor about how long it would take for that to clear my system, then resume nursing. Another thing to think about is, and this is directed as a question in general for women to think about, nnot meant to belittle or put on the spot, the poster above, so the general plural "you" is meant here, but "If you need a medication so dangerous that you can't risk breastfeeding while taking it, and if this medication is needed to keep you alive, then perhaps you should not even have a child that is biologically yours? Because if this medication is so very dangerous, then you shouldn't be allowing it to pass to your unborn baby as it's major organs and brain develop in your body. If it's that bad that you'd have to use formula, then perhaps it is that bad that it could cause serious harm to a fetus including miscarriage, still birth, severe mental retardation, physical deformaties and genetic mutation resulting in severe disabilities? Now, there are cases where a medication can be passed into the breast milk, similarly to how it is sweated out through the skin, passed in urine or fecies, etc, but that does not cross the plecental barrier, thereby allowing a woman to safely carry a pregnancy while taking the medication but not to breastfeed, and this is the potential mother's responsibility to fully explore, research and understand before making the decision to even have a baby, let alone whether to breastfeed or to use formula." So, I do hope that the poster above will consider this and that any other potential moms out there will think about it. I know of moms who chose to adopt because their life saving medications would have posed serious risks to their babies, and so they did the responsible thing. i also know of mothers taking similar medications who went ahead anyway: 1 has a baby with an IQ of about 50 and some gross motor and many fine motor difficulties plus facial deformaties, 1 who had a still birth and 1 whose baby has some heart and neuro abnormalities that the doctors believe result from the mother's taking of such medications. I also personally know a mom who takes a medication that is very dangerous in breastmilk, but that fortunately was not capable of crossing the plecental barrier, so she had a healthy baby, who she fed with a combination of home made and commercial formula. So I really urge all women to challenge everything, ask as many questions as possible and understand their personal circomstances and their own bodies well enough to make the best possible informed health care decisions for themselves and for any future children they might have. I know this goes off of the topic, but this is important. I might cross post this response on the parenting board as well. Thanks for reading.
Well, I'm about to make an enemy here, for sure. Ok, I understand where you're coming from here but this post just pissed me off in a major way. I'm going to speak up for the moms who truly can't. How dare you suggest that a mother who has to take medication not have a child. I'm assuming you have a medical degree? How dare you suggest that if a mother chooses to formula feed that she is inadiquate in some way or doesn't want the absolute best for her child. I doubt you meant to come across that way but guess what, anyone insinuating that a mother's choice of formula over the breast is somehow because she failed to try hard enough does exactly that.
As one who wanted to breast feed but who's body did not produce any milk, the guilt I felt afterward was crushing.
It didn't help that everybody and their sister was coming at me with opinions and attitudes like yours. I respect your opinions but really resent your attempts to get women to second guess themselves and their decisions for your agenda.
Personally, I did every thing I could to attempt to breast feed. It came to a critical time where my child needed nurishment though and for whatever reason, my breasts failed both of us. Even though my son and I both almost died during his delivory, the time I spent in the hospital with the breastfeeding people was the worst part of the whole experience. After balling like a baby in my OB's arms, we made the decision to formula feed and guess what. My child is one of the healthiest kids I know. He has never, and yes, I do mean never, had an ear infection. I can count the times he's been on antibiotics on one hand and he's 9 years old. He has no disabilities, and has been tested as having a very high IQ. He is ridiculously physically fit and tallented.
My friends who were breast feeding were constantly dealing with sick kids, kids with learning disabilities, etc. I'm not saying that either is a result of the breast. I am saying though that the crap about breast fed kids being healthier is exactly that, an absolute load of crap.
So, for the moms who've made the choice to formula feed, whether by necessity or preference, don't by in to the guilt. Don't let the breast-is-best bullies make you second guess yourself or feel like less of a mother for one single second.
Again, I'm not trying to shoot down breast feeding. If a mother wants to do it, and if she is able, that's awesome, I'm sure. Normally I stay away from this topic because it is a very emotional one for me, and yes, even after 9 years, still very painful. I guess that's why I had to say something, because the moms who can't need a voice too.
DomesticGoddess is absolutely right.
To be honest, there may have been an ideology against the breastfeeding at one time, but all the La Leche league and others have done is use the same tired tactics that were used against them.
My wife did the breastfeeding, sometimes to the point she was feeding the baby and I feeding her -- I figured if you're dishing out all your nutrients, someone's gotta make sure you're getting more of 'em coming in lol
Anyway, they said never use a bottle because of "nipple confusion". The baby was having trouble latching on right, because she was born a bit early. Not technically a preemee but still early. So, I fed her using a bottle of the breastmilk. And you know what? Those so-called breast positive people tried to make the wife feel guilty over that.
If they had not been chicks, your Zone's Uncle Leo would have had a fist and boot party with some of 'em. Who in their right mind is gonna tear down on some poor vulnerable post-pregnancy postpardem chick? Damn, that's rough, people. Really, really, rough. And you are telling us all about the postpardems and everything else and how much consideration they need? And that makes sense. But then turn around and treat her in a way no misogynist could have ever dreamed of? All because of your ideology. We had people blow up the twin towers with thinking like that.
I suck at medical stuff and I suck at biology, so I don't remember what it was called, but the wife was left crying when the milk would not properly come down and her boobs looked like they were gonna pop. La leche didn't care about any of that, the zealots didn't care much for any of that. But her doctor, a medical doctor with nature pathic something added on to it, told me how to help her. Don't listen to those people, moms and dads. Maybe your grandfather's generation was anti-boob or something, I dono. But normal people now are accepting of the breastfeeding, and so stay away from the zealots. Men I'm talkin to you on this one: Those chicks from the La Leche places? They are not empathetic: they are zealots and for the sake of an ideology would try and make your chick who is at the time vulnerable with the postpardem and everything else, feel even worse. I'm sure there's some in that group that are fine. The problem is not they breast feed, or that they are into nature. It's the same problem you would have with any group of religious fundamentalists: they are dead set on their ideology, and will use whoever and whatever to prove a point.
To me, to be a supporter of the breastfeeding meant put a blanket on her when she starts to get cold, make her food, and take the baby outa her hands so she can get some rest. I dono how you manage with the pump business, the contraptions always looked painful to me, but anyway there is no nipple confusion. You can heat the bottle up under hot water and feed the baby that while your Chick sleeps.
The Zealots will never suggest this, or do this, they are too married to their fundamentalism. Zealots would rather blow up towers, do crazy shit, and pick on vulnerable chicks.
leo and domestic goddess are right. thanks, guys, for talking sense.
Yeah, I'd say those zealot people are in the same category as someone who would punch a pregnant chick in the stomach.
I'm almost on the fence about this one. While I understand where the first poster is coming from, I can certainly identify with the second and third poster's story.
Before the birth of my son, I was dead set on breastfeeding exclusively; I was going to do it if it killed me. My baby was going to get breast milk and only that, and only directly from the breast and...
I ended up developing preeclampsia at the very end of my pregnancy which caused me to have to be induced early. My baby had actually lost weight inutero according to my doctors, in the last week or so of my pregnancy, which was a significant complication and one which I couldn't control. I was also deadset on the natural birth plan; I wanted to give birth without any drugs and the possibility of a CSection was like the devil itself. .
Well guess what? I had to deal with the early induction as I said, something I didnt' plan on consenting to either, and it failed miserably. My contractions were just a few minutes apart, yet I failed to dialate more than five centimeters despite the efforts taken for me to be able to do so. Onto the CSection we go.
My CSection went smoothly, without any unforeseen complications and my healthy baby boy was born. He scored a nine on the Abgar scale, his skin was smooth and the healthiest color you could expect on a new born, yet he weighed only a slight four pounds 13 ounces. He was considered underweight according to traditional standards, despite the fact that I took excellent care of myself and my nutrition during the pregnancy.
Although his birth was considered to be full term at thirty-eight weeks and he was very well developed in all other respects, he couldnt' grasp the idea of latching on. Add a stressed out, post-op brand new mother to the mix and you've got yourself a breast feeding problem.
I started using the pump immediately. I tried breastfeeding with a nipple shield because the baby could somewhat latch on to that, at least a little better than he did when latching to bare skin. Still, the colostrum came very slowly and all the while my baby was losing weight rapidly. He was down to two pounds and six ounces on the fourth day of his life when we were scared into making the painful decision to supplement with the evil, dreaded formula.
I kept at breastfeeding for nine months. I pumped regularly, tried to nurse as much as possible, I bottle fed him the expressed milk--But guess what? I never could produce enough milk to not have to supplement with formula. I pumped for an hour and all I'd end up with was about six ounces of milk. I worked with lactation consultants, the la lech league, doctors, I drank cups upon cups of the Mother's Milk Tea, I supplemented with herbs... Yet my baby prefered the bottle, so much so that he would actually cry unconsoleably out of frustration after five minutes of breastfeeding because of his troubles to latch on and my low milk supply.
The realization that he was completely self-weaning at seven months was painful. I struggled with not being an adequate breast feeder for a long time. In fact, I still find it to be a painful issue to talk about. But despite those troubles, I have a healthy, bright, sweet little eleven month old. He caught up regarding weight and his doctor is impressed with his overall progress. He can speak two wordsentences pretty fluently, had started walking at eight months old, and has passed every developmental milestone with flying colors.
So in the end, I have to wonder whether it's worth holding on desperately to my perceived ideology or whether it's more important that I have a healthy, happy baby boy whose parents are doing a great job in raising him, if I should say so myself.
Some people are lucky enough to have been able to follow through with their prebirth plans do to a smooth, complication-free journey. And that's wonderful. But that doesn't mean that they should look down their noses at those who may have had a rougher ride and have chosen to put their child before their original obsession with an ideology that just plain didn't work in their favor. Being supermom is great; You get the satisfaction of feeling good about yourself and about your child-rearing skills which clearly exceed those of all other parental methods...NOT. But guess what guys? Being supermom to your own kid specifically, whether that means you've given them formula, had a CSection, etc. means that much more because your baby has unconditional love for you, not because you breast fed, wrapped his butt in organic, green-aproved diapers and wore him in a snuggle twenty-four seven, but because you've loved him enough to go with your gut, to surpass your original ideology and do what you felt was best for him at the time. If that's not the maximum reward, I dont' know what is. It matters that you try like hell to do your best by your child. A happy and healthy baby, no matter how you've come to raise one, is what matters most.
Well as a father of a now 18-year-old, all I can say is, try and not let the breastfeeding issue get you down. Parenting is hard enough. Trying to do the right thing all the time is hard enough. And as your little guy gets bigger, he's not gonna notice one way or the other about the breastfeeding or green things. He'll just be following you around until he's in school, and then being a teenager when that time comes. All that I posted here about the breastfeeding experience the wife had? The daughter knows nothing of it. She's 18 and thinking mainly of how she is going to get her first apartment with friends, what her work schedule is looking like, what community college she wants, things like that. Those ideology things are about the ideology holder. The beneficiary isn't the child. Probably to some extent it is: I mean, I followed the wife's lead about the foods and just cut up foods rather than use the stuff in the jars, things like that, but I don't see that as anything for brownie points: it was probably a better situation, but in the end of all things, here she is at 18, and not worrying about how long she got breastfed and whether we stopped using the cloth diapers at the time. And when she was a baby things were a lot less intense than they are now, it seems, regarding the strict rules some people have about everything they say is ok as parents. Sound like a religion to me.
Yes. However, when it comes to raising a child, you have to focus mainly on the present, especially when they are younger. In the end, though, Leo is right. It won't be anything that the child will remember. There have been instances that I have seen where the parents of a child don't interfeer and break the child's babyish habbits such as sucking on their thumb, drinking out of a bottle, etc. and they let them continue even after they are six or seven years old.
There are a lot of things I don't understand about pregnancies. Now, I'm not a woman, nor am I dating a pregnant woman or going to be a father in the near future, so I admit my experience is lacking. But please refrain from giving me anything about how I just don't understand cuz I've never been there.
The first thing I don't understand is water births and natural births. Why would you refuse drugs designed to help you not be in agonizing pain? What possible reason could their be for that? The only argument I've ever heard is that its the traditional way. Well the traditional way of getting from place to place is walking or on a horse, and the traditional way of solving colds and flu was to bleed you so your humors even out. The traditional way of amputating a leg was to hack it off with a saw as fast as possible while as many men as could be found held you down so the doctor might not lose a finger, which often happened anyway. Why is this one thing the only thing we want to be natural about?
I once asked someone who wanted a natural, water home birth what she would do in the entirely likely event the cord was wrapped around the baby's neck. she had no answer. I don't understand why, when a woman is carrying a baby, suddenly she's willing to go through excruciating pain and risk her life and the babies life just for the sake of tradition. Maybe there's another reason?
The second thing I don't get is this avertion to formula. Yes, I understand that formula does not have all the nutriants that babies are said to need, but neither does breast milk. Yes, breast milk is natural, but unless every one of those chemicals is in your body, the baby ain't gettin' it. With the food science we have today, the chance of you getting every single little vitamin you absolutely need is almost nill. I bet none of you, an none of the people who claim that breast feeding should be the only way, could even name the chemicals that breast milk is said to have and ormula doesn't. I'm willing to bet money that you read it in a study somewhere and thought it made sense. If anyone on here can prove me wrong, go for it.
Either way though, I don't understand why peple make such a big deal out of a mother choosing to use formula. I think its a totally logical response, and its one I support. I support it first because I would have to do it if I had a child and didn't have a woman there to provide breast milk, and because its not my kid, and the kid isn't being harmed. Its none of your, and by your I mean the people who look down on formula using mother's, business what other mothers put intot the mouthes of their children. Unless they're putting crack or penises in the kid's mouth, mind your own business.
Cody, the drugs that can be had to ease labor pains can seriously harm the baby. You can also become perilized from taking an epidural. More commonly than not, women experience lasting back pain after having an epidural for years and years afte the birth. Additionally--and please don't try to understand this because you honestly couldn't even if you wanted to, but a woman feels a certain sense of accomplishment if she is able to give birth without using drug. It's a sort of right of passage for some, you know? Kind of like it is a right of passage for a sixteen year old to learn how to drive or a guy to lose his virginity...You do make some good points and arguments in most cases, but here's one of these times where you should probably not try to fathom what this is all about, because unless you've been there, you truly don't know. Yes, you'll surely chastize me for this comment, but it seriously is the truth. I knwo because I had absolutely no clue before I had my kid.
About the breast feeding, it really is healthier to give your baby natural milk versus synthetic milk. It's not just about the vitamins the formulas pack, which are plenty, but they're acquired and processed unnaturally. Also, formula has tons of iron in it, and a newborn doesn't need any iron in his milk for the first three or four months of his life because he is born with a storage of iron already in his body. An excess of iron gives him stomach aches and causes him difficulties when trying to deficate. You say that not everyone can possibly injest all the vitamins the baby needs, but here's teh thing: Each woman's breast milk is, for lack of better phrasing, customized to her baby's needs. It's a syncranicity that develops inutero. if you like, look it up and see what I mean because I'm not going to go into the detail of it--I'm not feeling well at the moment and so I'm not interested in typing forever, but basically, your child gets what he or she needs, assuming that you produce enough of the stuff of course. Besides that, it's a very unique bonding experience for the mom and baby--One which can't be replicated by any other type of bonding experience. For those who enjoy the prospect of breastfeeding, it can be seriously beneficial. Having been given the choice between exclusively feeding my kid breast milk or formula, I'd have chosen breast milk in a heart beat.
something I'll add to write away's previous post, is that there's a school of thought that promotes natural, drug free birth as an empowering experience, rather than an extremely painful, tiring one. while contractions themselves are, and can be so, according to women who think this way, the mind can be trained to relax as much as possible while a woman is giving birth. so, no, Cody, having a drug free birth isn't far fetched; it's just different than what people are used to, and something there's a lot of misunderstanding about.
I'm going to be an ass here for a second, actually probably several seconds. I do not find pregnancy impressive. I'm not one of these people that think pregnant women are sacrificing so much, and that they just glow with motherly love ETC. ETC. ETC. I personally think pregnant women in our culture are usually extremely smug and I want to smack a good ninety percent of them.
Thus, I do not find it impressive that you did a birth without medication. First of all,its something that literally billions of people have done before. In fact its what your body is designed to do. It would be like me being proud that I peed standing up. I have a penis, I can do that without any difficulty, not impressive. You have a womb, a vagina, and a baby that has to come out of the former and go through the latter, just like every other normally equipped woman. I'm really not impressed by the fact that you can do exactly what your body was designed to do. The fact that its painful doesn't really factor in for me.
You want a natural birth, go give birth by yourself in the woods with the risk of your baby being eaten by a wolf, or dying because of a complication. Nature has no doctors, no midwives, no prenatal care and no post natal trama unit. Naturally, the chances of you surviving pregnancy aren't really all that good. The chances of your baby surviving pregnancy, or the first few days of life, still not all that good. Nature, if you want to get right down to it, is a bitch. That's why we made technology so we don't have to deal with it anymore.
So here's how I see it. First, you're an idiot for thinking that its actually a natural birth. Its not, its just a slightly less technologicaly advanced birth which is termed natural to make you feel good about yourself. Second, you're a hypocrit because the person helping you with this so--called natural birth is a doctor who has years of medical training, or a midwife with slightly less medical training than that. Neither one of those is going to agree to letting you give birth to your baby in the mud, while dry leaves stick to you and you pray to the sun god that no bear comes along while you're lying there bleeding and helpless with pain and decides that you make a tasty snack. You're going to have disinfectant and advanced medical treatments. If the cord is around the babies neck its going to be fixed. If the baby is premature its going to be cared for until it's able to survive on its own. Any number of medical steps are going to be taken to insure that your baby survives, and you're going to be fine with that because you want your baby to survive. This makes the idea that your birth-giving is totally natural complete and utter crap.
Then, after you give birth, suddenly natural goes right out the window. Its only important while you're shoving something the size of a watermelon through something the size of a lemon. Then after that, its all vaccines and diapers and cars with safety belts and baby monitors and antibiotics. If your baby gets a cold, you give it medicine. If it gets strep throat, you give it antibiotics. If you were actually concerned about living naturally, you'd allow nature to kill your baby. But you're not going to do that because you realize that we have technology which can easily stop that from happening and you're not a psychopath. So you subconsciously say "fuck nature" and give the baby the antibiotics.
So, in light of all of that, forgive me if I call bullshit on your claiming to be empowered by anything. Is a psychofantic load of crap which you swallow wholeheartedly because you're being overwhelmed by information from all sides during pregnancy. That and the fact that for some reason in our society pregnant women are treated like the sun shines out of their ass for no discernable reason. So you fucked and got pregnant, big whoop.
If you want to have a natural birth, do it, but don't have a birth which is about as natural as births were in the 1940's and claim that you're being empowered by some mystical training of the brain. You're not training your brain, you're tapping in to what was already there. The body is built to deal with pregnancy. All women can do that. You're not special.
There, now feel free to scream about how I'm an ass and I don't understand because I have a penis, as if women are the only people who have difficulties to deal with in their life and can understand basic anatomy and biochemistry.
um... just wow dude. if things are supposed to be so natural maybe some of the stuff you take for granted shouldn't exist as well. all the vitimins and stuff, ca't have those as they aren't all nice and packaged up in nature for example. I've seen what drogs can do, so not using them is more natural than other means, and you're basially comparing humans to the run of the mill animal which we haven't been in many many centuries.
That's just stupid and overly drastic.
that was my point. Its not natural at all. Its just called natural because natural sounds spiritual and gets you in touch with some inner soul that makes you stronger or whatever. Its a crock and we should stop doing it. Being natural is a bad thing, that's why we stopped doing it.
I garrantee you that if an elephant could have painkillers while giving birth, they would jump at that shit faster than you could say risks. Same with mothers in the 19th century when they first came out with painkillers. They used them so much they got addicted to them. Only in modern times, when honestly we don't have a clue what hard work or pain really is, myself included, because we've never had to do any of it, can we look back at a time like that and say that it was quaint, and fool ourselves into thinking we need to return to it to give birth. Its stupid.
Cody, Ryan wasn't saying miine and write away's view was stupid; he was saying what you said was. and, no one here is saying women have it harder than anyone, so I'm not sure where you pulled that from.
Cody, let me just say one thing. Regarding this, you have absolutely no idea what the hell you're talking about. None. Whatsoever. You're approaching this from a purely technical standpoint, a purely steril standpoint, and so perhaps this makes perfect sense to you in your own, highly skeptical assinine sort of way, but truly, you can't even begin to understand what factors into being pregnant. Perhaps there's nothing special about being pregnant in itself, if you approach it from your standpoint, but you try contending with nausea every single hour of every single day for about six months or more. Then try gaining about three times as much wait in eight months as you would in about five years, assuming you're not a total gluttonous pig. Then try going through labor pains. I can't possibly describe to you what that's like because there's nothing you can possibly compare it to. I don't care if a body is designed to do something or other. If you've never been through it before in your life, you're not prepared for it, no matter what feats your body can achieve. Every such experience is relative to the individual. I promise you. No one birth is like another. It differs across the board regarding everything, from the woman's pain tolerance to the size of her birth canal to the proportion of the baby...And that's just in terms of a normal birth during which no unusual complications arise. Throw in the plethora of incidents and accidents that can take place and you have a totally unique experience.
With all do respect, sit there on your high horse of righteousness and spew your logical bullshit, but you'll never actuallly experience this particular experience in your entire life., you can say what you want, but until you're in those sturrups and your huffing and puffing through contractions that are three minutes apart, or if you're forgetting to breathe while you go through the experience of being cut open by a total stranger when you're completely awake, you should stay the hell out of this one. lol. Nothing irks me more than when someone imposes their supposedly well thought out take on something they have no friggin idea about. I don't mind when people have their say when they have at least a slice of an idea about the matter. They've been through it, experienced it indirectly in some way, might have the chance to experience it...But seriously, keep your oppinions to yourself when you have no clue about the issue beyond your outsider's viewpoint.
Come back to this topic in ten years when you've sat by some girl's side as she gives birth to your kid after you knock her up. By the way, my condolences to your future baby's mother. She's really going to have fun dealing with a supportive presence such as yourself. I think you might be the poster boy for every mom-to-be's biggest nightmare.
Yep, that's pretty much exactly what I figured the response would be. You can't understand it because you've never been there and its hard. Never mind that in order to make that argument you have to know what I've been through, and contrary to your narrow minded belief there actually is worse pain than pregnancy. Try having bone marrow taken when you can't be put under because it would interfere with the medication and probably kill you. But I'm not going to sit here and compare pains for you. I'm not going to pretend like pregnancy doesn't hurt, I admit that it hurts, of course it hurts. But you can't in one breath say, "god this is the most painful thing I've ever been through you just can't imagine how much this hurt god pregnancy sucks", and then in the next breath go, "But I dont want pain killers because this is just a natural experience and its so beautiful, I feel so empowered right now as my body is being ripped apart".
If you want to bitch about how much it hurts, get painkillers if they are available to you. Sometimes they're not, and those women have my sympathies. But the risks are minimal at best, and the studies which claim the after effects are scanty at best. Even national pregnancy agencies say that painkillers in delivery are a viable option for most women.
So, you either deal with the painkillers, or you take the pain,but don't then bitch about how much it hurt when you have the ability to remove yourself from that situation and you din't take it. That's like the guy drilling the hole in his head complaining about the killer headache he's got.
Lastly, how dare you make quips about my future wife. Did I make any quips about your child? No I didn't, and I easily could have, but I didn't. Personal attacks are the calling cards of people who can't defend their argument. Your only defense is, "Well you've never done it so you can't talk". If that were true, you should never complain about politics, cuz you've never been a congresswoman.
When I get married and have children, my wife will have all the support she needs because I know what she's going through. I know that chemicals are ravaging her body, and I'll be sympathetic. She'll also have my encouragement to get painkillers because she's in pain and I don't want to see her go through that. I also, perhaps naively, hope that I won't marry someone so stupid as to think that denying herself available medication for a purely psychological reason that has absolutely no benefit other than to make her happy is a good idea. I also hope my future wife will not be such a moron as to think that denying herself one medical break through is natural, while availing herself of all the other enumerable medical breakthroughs that have been made and will have been made by the time I am in that situation.
So, you want to tell me to shut up, do it with reasons, not hypocritical and moronic arguments about how I've never been there so I can't possibly understand.
By the way, I forgot to mention something. A natural birth means you aren't using any invasive methods of medical intervention. Meaning you dont' choose to take medicine, you don't consent to an epidural, the use of forseps, the use of a vacuum, you don't consent to a CSection..that is natural. And your long-winded argument that people shouldn't label it a natural birth unless it takes place in the woods where the woman squats in the patch of dirt is just a case of you fervently grasping at straws because you have no good point. Natural means without the use of invasive drugs. It doesn't mean a death wish for yourself and your baby. Just in case you didnt' know, unless circumstances prevented it, most women do, and did have assistance giving birth, whether it was from a doctor, a healer or the elderly babushka from across the village who had given birth to a dozen of her own kids. Of course you'll want someone who's had some experience with the birth of a child around you when you're pushing a ten pounder out of your previously intact vaj. Come on. a little Common sense, please. But that doesn't make it unnatural.
And while I chose to have my baby at a hospital and I gave birth via CSection, I can translate to you the reason why someone would want a home water birth. First of all, giving birth in warm water relaxes your abdominal and uterine muscles which eases the pain of the contractions. There's your answer for why you'd choose water. And I can attest to this, because having been someone who as a young girl had excruciating menstrual pains, I'd hang out in a warm bath for a while and I'd be ok. And in case you didn't know this, cody, menstrual cramps are a very slight version of labor pains, with menstrual cramps being anywhere from 1 to 6 on the scale of pain and labor pains being a ten. Not that you'll ever have to experience either or have a clue what kind of sensation that is.
My point is, had I not been hooked up to an IV and a few other monitors due to my pre-birth complications, I'd have opted to give birth in the hospital's water birth labor ward for the sake of soothing comfort. My hospital had one of those, A room where you could give birth in a warm bath. So there you go, a scientific reason for why people would prefer a water birth. It makes the pain more barable and the mom more comfortable.
As for the At-home thing, some people hate hospitals, and their logic is that they're not sick so they don't' want to be at a hospital. They'd rather be at home. Just because I wouldn't choose that for myself doesn't mean I shoudl begrudge the opportunity for someone else if it's there preerence. Just as I am streight, but I can't say taht everyone else has to have that preference as well.
Cody, some women can be in labor for over fourty eight hours. If you were to wait that long in discomfort and pain for two days plus, wouldn't yu rather be at home? Oh. and before you say you'd rather be stocked up on pain meds at a hospital where they could make you comfortable, no cigar. You can't take an epidural, for instance, until a certain amount of time before you're ready to push the baby through. Until your survix has dialated to a certain degree. So... Like I said. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Here's a statement you might be able to relate to though. You said that every woman's designed to facilitate a pregnancy and birtht.. first of all, that's not true. Som women's pelvic structure is perfectly accomodating to giving birth while others just don't have that body type. What about women who are born prematurely and who have an underdeveloped pelvic structure? Some of them can barely have sex without crying their eyes out let alone cary and give birth to a baby. Just because you have a vagina doesn't mean you can successfully give birth. Just like you may have a penis, but you cant' fuck someone with it if you have E D. Right. And even so, just because you may have a body that's designed to facilitate a certain action or event doesn't mean it wont' be difficult, grueling and painful. I mean, after all, your anal sphincter is technically designed to help your body relieve itself of it's waste. But that doesn't mean it won't hurt like hell when you pass a huge piece of shit, right? Maybe that example is in poor taste, but it's on a relatable level.
I really do feel sorry for any chick that has to deal with you while pregnant though. Better go get a vacectomy now, or else brace yourself for a few hormonal kicks in the groin.
You're right. I have no idea what it's like to have bone marrow drawn from my body. But I still have more of a chance at experiencing that than you do labor. Yet, I wouldn't venture to claim that I know how that feels and to impose my oppinion on someone who's been through it when I haven't myself. My point exactly.
And, you may be right that your future wife has your support. I hope she will. But that's assuming you'll grow up by the time you're married, and you'll avail yourself of the obsessive need to argue every point someone else might make, even in situations where you are devoid of the minimal prerequisites to do so. Besides, why are you so incensed by my comments, labeling them a personal attack when you've made comments which were more harsh, more condescending, much more personal than what I said. I only implied that you'd be a disaster to get along with for a pregnant woman. I've drawn that conclusion based on my observations of you. You put your oppinion out here and, as per your previous arguments made in other instances, I have a right to do just that since you make yourself available to that sort of scrutiny. I find it a curious notion that you'd be put off by my "personal attack against you" when in fact it was basically a good-natured jibe at your naive comments, a meer implication of your lack of compassion. I don't find my argument to be either hypocritical or poorly constructed. It's interesting to see you get so frazzled by something so slight when you've called people out to be idiots, monsters, unworthy of children, morons, etc. etc. etc.
Smirks.
. It's just further evidence that you cant' stand to lose an argument.
*sits in his comfy chair and takes notes.*
I found it personal because its all you've got. The only evidence you've given is "I've been there and you haven't". That is annicdotal evidence, which is not evidence at all. It doesn't prove anything at all except the fact that you can tell a story, and I already knew that.
But fine, you think I can't have an opinion because I haven't been here. How about going to the sceptic OBGYN website, who agrees with me about NCB, and is a woman, and a doctor, and has more accredidations than you do, has been there more times than you have because she has three kids whereas you only have one, has done natural births wheras you haven't, and knows how to present actual evidence for her claim whereas you have demonstrated a complete lack of that ability in this instance. You argue with your emotions, and that leads you to make arguments based on emotional response. The evidence says your wrong, and you having been there doesn't mean anything to dispute that. Add to that the fact that you haven't actually been there, because you gave birth in a hospital and didn't actually have a natural birth at all, and your argument is shrinking to nothing very quickly.
To answer your question though, yes I would rather be in a hospital if I was in any life threatening situation for fourty-eight hours. You're asking that question because you're looking back and saying, "Fourty-eight hours, that's a long ass time, that would suck". But at two hours, or one hour, or fifteen minutes, where you have no idea that the next fourty-eight hours are even going to exist for you, damn straight I'd want to be in a hospital. The probem is that you didn't put yourself in the right mindset before you asked that scenario. Again, you're working from emotion. Until you stop that, you're not going to be able to prove your argument. Now, try again and come back when you have some evidence. I'll be waiting.
If you take anything on here personal, that's your problem.
write away brought up a great point. it isn't just women who are in life threatening situations that don't wanna give birth in hospitals, but women, such as myself, who have had countless surgeries, and therefore, are unable to relax in that kind of environment. not to mention, another problem, as we're seeing, is people spouting things they're absolutely clueless about.
Cody, if you're ever so fortunate to have a kid, I sure as hell hope you grow up before then. cause, at this point, I completely echo what was previously said. I feel sorry for the woman you choose to have a kid with.
Cody, I have no more time to waste on an argument with you regarding this. You can't argue with a five year old about abortion, gun control, or pretty much anything simply because they have no clue about any of it. You can present any book, web site, theory on this you may want, but the simple fact is that you've found someone else's viewpoint to back up your own scewed version. Normally, I wold say that so-called anecdotal evidence isn't enough, but in this case, that's about the only thing that will make anyone listen to anything you have to say. Experience is what matters in this case, regardless of what you may say. Dismiss it, dispute it, I dont' care.
The difference is, I may respect the OBGYN's oppinion without feeling she's right. I can neither respect nor justify your argument because you have no tact and your position lacks clout. I'm not really interested in arguing for the sake of argument. It's a waste of my time and drains my energy for no good reason.
The truth of the matter is, you dont' know what your future wife may or may not want during the process of giving birth. And I doubt you'll marry her on the single principal that she decides she will not want a natural birth when it's her turn. but I know for a fact that if you try to dispute anything she might want at the time, which seems to be your nature, you'll get one swift boot up the ass and you'll be out of their like nobody's business. Because there's no telling a laboring woman what she should and shouldn't feel or think. You know why? Because giving birth is as much emotional as it is physical. I can't expect you to understand that. But you cant' dispute it either. This is why your argument is flawed and unworthy. Of course my argument was an emotional one. In this instance, if it wasn't, it would be unnatural.
Now I've got better things to do than to explain to you what you can never possibly understand, much less respect. Get ready, because this time I'm warning you of a real personal attack, steeped in my observation of you. You really are a shallow person with the insatiable need to argue and you have a lot of growing up to do in many respects. When you grow up a bit and stop acting like you know a whole lot about something you have no clue about, we can have a sensible debate. But for now, I dont' think so.
Besides. This was a topic about breastfeeding till you stuck your all-knowing mighty nose into it and made yourself the center of attention.
Go to your room and think about what you did. And be a good boy; Don't try to chime into the conversations of grown ups when you have no idea what's being said. You have to earn the right to do that.
Now. .. Hows that for a personal attack?
I love that you still keep hitting the same drum over and over again and think that you're getting anywhere.
There is no evidence that says formula is demonstrably less healthy than breast milk. There are plenty of instances where babies who have never tasted a drop of breast milk are perfectly healthy, and the same is true in the opposite direction. So to look down on one or the other is a gross miscarriage of the facts.
If you are pregnant, rather than listen to a group of people who, though they may have had babies in the past, don't have knowledge of the biochemistry or the anatomy or the science in general which goes into it. You should listen to the people who actually go to school for a decade to learn this stuff, not people who for some strange reason think they know better.
The funny thing is, even peple in this argument have said that no pregnancy is the same, yet they will be quick to tell you that their pregnancy is evidence for how yours will turn out. That is a contradictory idea, and should be seen for what it is, a faulty premiss. The facts don't lie. When it comes to natural births, home birthing causes drastically greater numbers of infant death, infant illness, labor complications and even death and illness of the mother. The rates of infant death in the country which has the highest rate of home birth, which is the netherlands for anyone who actually wishes to know what they're actually talking about in this debate, also has the highest rate of infant mortality between birth and twenty-eight days. That span is considered by the people who have actual medical degrees, not cute stories about how they popped out puppies to be the time in which any death is directly related to labor and giving birth.
So if you want to go with actual evidence, which you always should, you would be best having your baby in a hospital, where they have people who are actually trained to do it, and high tech equipment which those people are trained to use. You shouldn't go with some sudo-spiritual quackery, and you shouldn't listen to people who are better off raising there own babies and not passing on their practices of bad parenting to others. The same is true for breast feeding, talk to your doctor and figure out what is best for you. If its breast feeding, then fine, breast feed. But if it isn't, and someone talks down to you for it, beat them in the face with a medical book, because whatever facts they're trying to shove on you are complete poppycock.
Oh, and just as a little final note that I find incredibly humorous. Anyone know who came up with the idea of home birthing and natural child birthing as an actual ideal? It wasn't feminists, they wanted drugs,and fought to allow them to be imported from Europe. Nope, it was an old racist white guy who wanted white women to have the same blessings as black women who, according to him, didn't feel painduring child birth. Apparently white women weren't popping out enough babies, so he made this quackery which supposedly allowed white women to pop out babies more quickly. So when you're claiming thatnatural birthing is a good thing, you're latching on to the ideas of a racist old white guy. And you say guys don't know what's going on, apparently you only think nonracist young white guys don't know what's going on. Sorry I wasn't racist enough in my ideals. I'll be sure to bash a few blacks while my future wife is pregnant, would that be a better ideal for you?
Oh, I forgot to include this. For anyone who wants an easy to read breakdown of the lies these NCB proponents are spouting, check this out. Its written by an OB, who is a woman, so she isn't under that sexist restriction of opinion. http://www.skepticalob.com/
How long ago did you research all that, yesterday?
Cody. Go back a few posts to the beginning of this board and look at what I said as my original response to this board. that's all I have to say. I argued with your points not because I thought they were necessarily wrong but because you presented them in a rude and arrogant way. Hense my reason for arguing with emotion. If you recall, you began by asking why the other side thought the way they did; You asked for someone to explain it to you. So I did. But you completely lost track or didnt' pay attention enough to what was said on this board before you chimed in.
Wow... some people on here really suffer from what I'd termed as technically anal retentive, and you, Cody, are one of those! Keeping this fact in mind, I will put the facts at a level where even you could grasp... When we talk of natural birth my dear little boy, we're not talking about taking unnecessary risks that could/would cause harm to the mother nor her baby. We are talking about drugs induced birth verses drug free birth and homebirth verses giving birth at the hospital.
Drug induced birth, which you vindicated, is void of any medical knowledge, and thereby, you are talking out of your arsehole, is not without long and short term complications.
Here is some of the information taken from:
http://www.epidural.net/prosandcons.htm
Mild to very severe, incapacitating headaches (postural in nature) caused by puncture of the dura. About 1%. Read "Epidural Headache (with a late onset)". If this does not resolve naturally in a few days, or fixed with a blood patch, can lead to other problems as outlined in the link above.
Uncontrollable shivering.
Often causes a drop in blood pressure (sometimes quite dramatic).
Increase in likelihood of instrumental birth i.e., forceps/vacuum suction.
Increase in likelihood of cesarian section.
May increase length of labor.
Being confined to bed with an epidural inhibits an active birth.
Can cause fetal heart-rate changes.
May cause long term backache.
May cause nerve damage, Arachnoiditis, Cauda Equina Syndrome.
Very rarely, but importantly, has been known to cause respiratory distress, epidural abcess, paralysis and death.
Now, a drug free birth would ensure that both mommy and baby are free from potential sides affects mentioned above, as well as taking yet more chemicals into the body.
In case you haven't notice little one, I'm keeping this purely technical as you are incapable of compassion, and thereby can not fathom the psychological and emotional well being of a drug free birth.
As far as water/home birth verses hospital birth go, A home birth equates to having the comfort of being in a familiar surrounding, which reduces stress level for the woman. And, if the woman did her homework well in finding a coach or a midwife with medical background, as well as tuns of experiences in this domain, would contribute to her feeling more comfortable, and the birth experience will be more positive.
With the water birth, on top of what has already been mentioned by Bernadetta and Chelsea, the transition for the baby from the womb where it is warm, into the warm water is less traumatic and less of a shock. -
I will be back later as I'm not finish.
Ok, first of all, to poster 2. I never, ever, ever said that we should bash women who genuinely can't breastfeed. Such things do happen, and women who struggle with them deserve all of our support and help, logistically and emotionally. I simply said that many medical professionals in the past, and some still today will convince women perfectly capable of breastfeeding that they can't, and this is reprehensible. I simply pointed out to women, that they should be informed about their bodies and their medical choices, so that it is they who are making their medical choices not either doctors with adgendas or biases or the media or peer pressure. As for breastfed babies being healthier, it is most certainly not crap, it is scientifically proven, by many many studies. Now, this does not mean that there aren't breastfed babies who get sick, or that all formula fed babies are unhealthy. It just means that on average, those babies who are breastfed are healthier, as a group than those babies who are formula fed. Breastfeeding is one of many factors that can help ensure a baby's health. There are many other factors as well. A mother who smoked, drank alcohol and took all sorts of illegal drugs during pregnancy, who smokes in the house around her baby, drinks while breastfeeding, and eats nothing but junk food and fast food, who breastfeeds is obviously going to have a far less healthy baby than a mother who took care of herself during pregnancy, uses formula but in all other ways controls the home environment to make it as healthy as possible. As to saying that some women on extremely strong medications shouldn't have children, I stand by that. I don't mean that any woman who needs to take 1 or more medications shouldn't have children. That's ridiculous. What I mean is that there are women out there who take extremely strong medications in very high doses, multiple times a day, who are told by many doctors that this is going to harm the developing fetus, but they go ahead anyway and wind up with terribly sick, injured, suffering children and it was totally avoidable. I posted this with the primary aim of encouraging moms who take "medications that are not recommended while breastfeeding" to look into alternatives when possible, and to examine why a medication is indicated against for breastfeeding mothers. Everything says "consult your physician if you are breastfeeding." even multivitamins designed for pregnant and lactating women carry this warning for crying out loud. And, further, many women take this to mean "don't under any circomstances take this if you are breastfeeding." which isn't at all what that means in many cases. I wanted women to be aware of the pump and dump option and how that can help some mothers who must take some volitle medications to breastfeed despite taking some medications that aren't great for their baby. I also pointed out how, scientifically, some medications can be safe during pregnancy, but not for breastfeeding, because of how the plecental barrier effects some medications, because this is something that a lot of women have asked me, their doctors, their La Leche League leaders and on forums on the internet, and it's important to understand. I think perhaps that too many boob nazis have made you feel like crap for something entirely beyond your control, which is disgusting of them, but I also think that this has predisposed you to find offensive something that didn't in anyway critisize you or women in your situation, and that even stated both sides of many issues, such as, the importance of formula in some situations. I've seen LLL groups filled with nasty, close-minded women who are petty and catty and who would shame and intentionally seek to hurt moms who use formula, regardless of whether they have a good reason or not for doing so. These women are no better than and no different from those women who blindly accept that formula is best because it was "scientifically created" just as one-dementional women accept that breastfeeding is best just because some magazine article with a celebrety mom breastfeeding told them it was so. I have also known LLL groups with well-informed, women with balanced perspectives, who do believe that breastfeeding is generally best, but who are open to the fact that there are some exceptions to that general rule, who are supportive of women having trouble breastfeeding and who don't fault them if something totally beyond their control prevents them from breastfeeding. For instance, one important reaching out effort is to help make mothers who have had trouble breastfeeding in the past aware of new advancements in breastfeeding support technology and techniques, and to keep them open to the idea of breastfeeding subsiquint children. One woman who came to our meeting didn't really produce milk at all for her first baby, and her midwife wisely told her to research a high quality formula should she experience the same problem again, but also to attend some LLL meetings in case her body does produce enough milk this time around, and to look into how formula supplementation might be used to help her to breastfeed, if not breastfeed exclusively. She was able as it turns out to breastfeed her second child with limited, but some formula supplementation, and everyone was kind and supportive of her, without being judgemental. To the third poster, no LLL does not say never to use a bottle. They teach that avoiding a bottle for the first 2 or 4 weeks is best if possible, and that if it's not avoidable, you can use slow flow nipples to minimize the problem of nipple confusion. It is extremely judgemental of you to label LLL members or even most LLL members as zellits. Ask any one from my LLL group and they'd tell you that if early complications lead to a baby who prefers drinking from a bottle to nursing at the breast, that it's best to do what they are comfortable with, to avoid stress on the infant, and that if a bottle with expressed breastmilk works, it's still preferable to formula, and that if formula supplementation is needed, that the breastmilk still has tremendous value, even if it's not exclusive. Basically, here is the ideal situation, here are some things that can prevent the ideal situation, here are some stratagies to deal with those problems, and as long as you do the best you can, listen to your baby and your body, then that is just fine. What we absolutely do not need in this day and age is people telling men to stay away from LLL, as dads are a super important part of their baby's lives even if the mother exclusively breastfeeds, and any good LLL leader will make this very clear. I am very sorry if you also have had the misfortune to encounter boob nazis out there, but good LLL leaders know that while breastfeeding is an ideal and has ideal ways of being carried out, as many things in life, there are all sorts of problems that can crop up, and that everyone's experience is different, and that addressing potential problems and supporting those who experience them is far more kind and productive then denying that problems are possible and blaming those who experience problems as if it were their fault, which of course it is not. Just because there are crazies in PETA does not mean that animal rights aren't important. Just because some environmental nuts blow up buildings doesn't mean that protecting the environment isn't important. That is just as closeminded as the zellits themselves are. Just because you had a bad experience, do not damn all members of the organization you had a bad experience with. Why don't you try looking at some of the current LLL literature and see how they seek to support rather than to shame those who struggle.
To put it simply, in a topic such as this one, it does not matter how many facts you bring to the table. What is more important is morals, personal and common sense. I still don't understand what the point of over exaggerating doing things the natural way.
I like the OP's most recent post. If you put it that way, I completely agree with you. La Leche Leagues can definitely be helpful; It all depends on what kind of people a particular group consists of. I did state in my first post here that I was able to breastfeed for nine months, and I have to add that that's in great thanks to my lactation consultant and the LLL group I attended. Also, I had to supplement with formula like I said, but any breast milk that my baby had received was extremely important to his health. I am a proponent of breastfeeding and I will definitely shoot for exclusively breastfeeding any subsequent children I will have. I just don't think that it's ok for anyone to get in a woman's face if she decides, with her doctor's consultation and some well-informed reflection that she is going to feed with formula. I accept that breast milk is not the only food for babies; After all, if formula was evil or completely unhealthy, people wouldn't be using it. But just like with everything else, quality matters, and I happen to be of the school of belief that the best quality of nutrients for a baby is breast milk.
My fiance's aunt came to visit us when our baby was first born, and she outright stated that she didnt' breastfeed because she didnt' feel like it. She went streight to formula because she didnt' feel comfortable "being a cow" as she put it. That was unsettling to me and it certainly pissed me off. But I new better than to debate her on that beyond saying that I thought the best thing for my baby is to breastfeed and that it's an enjoyable and extremely unique way of bonding. I know she wont' have any more children; She's way passed her expiration date to have any kids of her own. I just hope she wont' tell her daughter that she should not even contemplate breastfeeding when she has kids of her own because she'll be perceived as a cow....Rediculous!!
While we're on the topic of informing people of ways to feed their babies breast milk even though they're having difficulties with breastfeeding, I'd like to point out that there are resources, both on the web and otherwise where women can obtain donated breast milk for their babies. There are women who produce milk in excess and they either donate or sell it to a bank. Of course, the donors are tested in most cases and they're not ones who scarf down happy meals from MCDonalds or snort cocaine. They're healthy people who have stored their milk properly and are willing to help someone else out.
I personally didnt' end up going down that avenue, but the resource is out there for anyone who really can't breastfeed at all but would like to give their baby the benefit of breast milk.
I meant to say personal preference and situation.
To Silver Lightning. I'm sorry that your friend who wanted the water birth/home birth was an ignorant moron putting her baby in danger. There are absolutely procedures a licenced nurse midwife can use if the chord gets wrapped around the baby's neck during a home birth. They have equipment right there to help a baby in distress. A lot of people want to do something, cloth diaper, babywear, breastfeed, cosleep, natural birth, homemade baby food, etc but don't do any research and those idiots put their kids in danger. All of those things I just mentioned are wonderful things to do for your baby, but if you don't take the time to be an intelligent human being, an informed consumer, etc, then these things can be downright dangerous or at the least, ineffective. For instance, your friend should have been able to list off at least 2 or 3 good reasons to have a home birth, and at least 2 or 3 benifits of water birth, and should have been able to answer your question about the chord cutting off the baby's airway. In addition, your friend should have been able to give you at least 2 cons of home birth and water birth. If one makes a decision on something without identifying the cons and seeing how they can be addressed and seeing how they balance out with the pros, then they have no business doing whatever it is they have not thought through. There are many reasons to do a natural birth without drugs or to minimize the amount of drugs used, and any woman who actually bothers to do her research can tell you those. For instance, it avoids putting the drugs into the unborn baby's system, drugs that can lead to complications such as effecting their respiration and heart rate, leading to a baby who is drousy and disoriented after birth who as trouble nursing or even sucking on a bottle, who has trouble with maintaining their body temperature and many other negative effects of those drugs. Also, if a mother is disoriented by pain killers then she can't always make as informed decisions about her healthcare and that of her baby. Anyone with half a brain will tell you that having a baby risk a few effects from drugs is preferable to not administering life saving drugs if they can help reverse a chrisus during labor and delivery, but those are not pain killers, but are drugs to help when the mother or baby experiences medical distress. If someone uses cloth diapers only for the benifit of the environment but can't explain to you the benifits to their baby, then shame on them, this actually reflects bad parenting, because, for all the information they have, they are putting the environment over the wellbeeing of their baby. If a breastfeeding mother doesn't know what nutriants she needs to take in or what things to avoid taking in, then maybe she should be using formula, because she could be eating crap and not providing proper nutriants for her baby. To answer your what does breastmilk have that formula doesn't? question, I can answer that and any responsible mom can answer that, at least to some degree. For 1 thing breastmilk has antibodies produced by the mother that protect the baby from diseases, that formula of course does not contain. Formula has artificial flavors, colors and preservatives which are not good for anyone, especially a newborn. The artificially created vitamins and minerals in formula are also not as bioavailable as those contained in breastmilk. Bioavailable means once they're in the body, how able is the body to actually break down and utalize those vitamins? For instance, synthetic forms or natural forms that have been seriously altered of many vitamins are chemically different from those naturally found in foods and breastmilk, and they are either useless or at least less effective than more natural forms. The proteins in formula are also structurally different from those in breastmilk. For instance many formulas use soy protein, which causes estrogenic effects and to which some people have an alergy and many have a sensativity. I could break down individual nutriants or go through a formula label with you if you genuinely want to understand, but trust me there are tons of scientific studies and textbooks proving and explaining the proof that in many many ways breastmilk from a healthy mother is better for babies than formula. Also, it should be mentioned that homemade formula can if done correctly be not as good as breastmilk, but way better than processed formula. Oh, and I forgot cow's milk which they make formula out of in most cases contains proteins that humans can't break down or use, whereas those made by the human body and found in breastmilk are digestable and usable. Most people who are alergic to cow's milk and who would be put on milk free soy based formula are actually perfectly able to digest human breastmilk as infants, if that is made available. Also, child birth hurts, I'd be a hipicrit if I said that it didn't, but it is not as bad as having your leg sawn off, and if it is possible to deliver with no or only limited use of drugs, this does have true and measurable benifits for the mother and the baby. And now, I'm going to address your arguement about natural vs technologically advanced. Here's the thing. Extremes are not healthy. Living a life so totally natural that one never uses any technology of any kind is idiotic, and living a life where one uses every possible technology regardless of the risks or negatives is equally retarded. A natural birth means a more natural birth. Anyone who has passed beyond early adolescence recognizes that the best way to live in this world as to consider each new situation and look at the available technology and modern advancements, and at the natural options and traditional methods, then decide which poses the lowest risk, or would be most applicable to the given situation. And not all natural birth advocates go right out and put disposable diapers on their kids, utalize antibiotics or nasty chemical filled medescines for a cold. BTW, a cold can not be treated with antibiotics, because it is a virus. The intelligent person avoids antibiotics whenever possible, but recognizes that once in a while they are indicated, and also knows how to midigate the negative effects of antibiotics when necessary by giving probiotics after. The wisest woman hopes and plans for the most natural birth possible, within reason, but educates her self on the options should her birth plan need to be changed due to complications. This is what intelligent, open-minded, logical adults do. This, obviously is something you do not do, can not handle, because picking an opinion in the grey area is just too much effort than just grabbing onto one extreme black or white end of the spectrum and clinging there for all you're worth. Also, I don't care what biggited old white guy started the most recent home birth trend, his involvement does not negate the positives of home birth. Another FYI, the infant mortality rate for the Netherlands is 4.42, and the US is 6.81 deaths per 1000 live births. So for God sake learn how to look at statistics, the projected figures for 2012, as they are still being tabulated is 3.73 for the Netherlands and 6.00 for the US. If anyone actually wants to talk about breastfeeding, and options open to some women, that they might not be aware of, and the importance of women staying informed about their choices and options for breastfeeding or seeking support for breastfeeding issues, we could ignore this troll and get back to a more adult discussion where people can disagree with one another respectfully and ask for and give clarification to best understand what one another are actually saying, that would be nice. My time is valuable, ladies, your time is valuable, and this unteachable, ignorant shit head has already wasted enough of our time.
Oh, good, it looks like this topic is already recovering. I am a blood doaner and I think that I will look into donating breast milk when I have my next baby if my production is up to it. I think some of you who origionally saw my post as attacking, before we had an adult clarification will really appreciate this story. I once had someone come up to me and critisize me for feeding formula. I was feeding my son some expressed breastmilk to use it up before it went to waste. I just dribbled a little on their shoes, to which they didn't really react, accept to keep lecturing me. So, once I told them it was expressed breast milk they shreeked and started ineffectually scuffing their feet on the ground and freaking out. I also had the privelage to witness this, because it was freaken awesome. Some boob nazis were hastling a woman at my midwives' office who was feeding formula. She reached into her bra, took out her prosthetic breast and smacked one of the women over the head with it. She was a 6 year survivor of breast cancer and had to have a double mastechtomy. That's why when I approach a woman and ask her about breastfeeding I do so carefully and respectfully, what was the word I used up there, erm, gently? I think that was it, because I know that there are deffinitly women out there who have good reasons for not breastfeeding, and I also know that there are some who don't have a good reason, but they think they do, not because they are mean or stupid, but because they got bad information along the way, and it is for these cases that I do ask, on the off chance that I might be able to give them some helpful information. And I can think of two cases off the top of my head where the women genuinely didn't know that there were work arounds for medications, and 1 of them for sure is now successfully breastfeeding. I still see her occasionally.
Thank you; You've successfully carried out the kind of argument I didnt' have the patience to bring to the table. This is exactly what I was trying to say.
I love the last two anecdotes by the way; Especially the one about the prosthetic breast smack. That's freaking amazing. I'd pay to witness that one.
You bring up a good point about educating women about breast feeding. There's something that slipped my mind earlier. Some people actually believe that if you're a blind woman you couldn't, or shouldn't breastfeed. Hard to believe, I know, but I've encountered such uninformed entities. There was actually a lactation consultant that visited my room right after my son was born. I had requested a visit from one because I wanted some early tips on breastfeeding. I had attended breastfeeding classes, but I figured I could use some initial hands on tips now that I had an actual baby, especially when it came to using a pump and hand-expression. Anyway, the lady came in, asked me a few questions, figured out I'm blind and all of a sudden started acting like she was the sorriest person on earth. She actualy said, "Oh, I feel so bad. You won't be able to breastfeed, unfortunately. Blind people can't breastfeed because they're in danger of covering their babies nostrils when they bring the child into position." I was incredulous. I was somewhat out of it due to the magnesium I had in my system for preeclampsia as well as the post-op drugs and the epidural that I was given prior to the CSection. So I told her that she was wrong and asked her not to visit again. But had I been in a sharper state of mind, I'd have come up with a clever comeback and a few sentences of informative contradiction; That's for sure.
That kind of person is the reason for why so many people are misinformed. The La Leche League has literature for both consultants and breastfeeding moms regarding breastfeeding when blind.
See, My having been chock full of drugs post birth is a prime example of why anyone would want to try for a natural birth. I was dizzy, overcome with fatigue, disoriented and incapable of the best possible judgement because of the drugs in my system. Given the chance to do it over again, I would have planned to have a natural birth as I did before, just so that I could enjoy the first few moments of my son's life while not in a drug-induced haze and so that I could make more conscious choices for myself and my son following the birth. My fiance was there the entire time and he made choices for us to the best of his ability, but I still would have liked to have more of a say and I still would have liked to have felt more confident during the immediate aftermath of my baby's birth. There is something so unsettling and disempowering about being semi sedated during one of the most important times of one's life. I seriously had to be reminded to breathe during the CSection because I was on the verge of sleep and I would forget to take a breath at times. I wonder if any of the extreme critics here know exactly how dangerous that is. Labor is painful; I had been in labor without pain killers for thirty-eight hours before the docs decided on an emergency CSection because I wasnt' dialated and my baby's heartbeat was slowing down slightly. I imagine that giving birth would have actually been much more painful. But I'd have rather felt the pain and been coherent when my baby was born than to have been in a hazy state of sedation like I had been. Because giving birth is a natural process, most women who give birth successfully recover quickly, unlike those who give birth via CSection. You can't walk around with yrou baby a few hours after birth when you've had a CSection. You can do so more easily if you've done it the way your body was designed to do it in the first place. Now, notice, I recognized that both my baby's and my life would have been in danger if I decided to forego the CSection and try to muddle through childbirth at that point. One of us probably wouldn't have made it out of that room alive. But like the previous poster wrote, it takes wisdom to recognize that no extreme is good. You can be a proponent of something or another, but be a well-read proponent of it. Recognize the risks you incur and the benefits that are to your advantage with any situation. And most importantly, have the wisdom and the grace to accept that your way isnt' always the right way given your particular circumstances. Be able to shift your stance for the sake of your safety and that of those you love. With that said, there's nothing wrong with striving to get through something like child birth according to your standards as long as it's in the best interest of yourself and your baby.
Well I also should stand corrected to a point here: I hardly have a right to be on this topic, as my daughter was a baby 18 years ago. But a lot of things have changed in almost 2 decades. Acceptance of, rather than resentment against fathers is more prevalent now. Hell, the mens' rooms even have the changing stations now. Used to use a towel and the floor, myself.
Wish I could remember what the wife came down with that made the milk not come down so easily. They said to us that women used to die of that stuff back in the 1800s.
Anyway if Sensually is right about the way things are now, great. A couple decades later and we see some improvements!
She smacked her with her prosthetic boob? OMG! I love it, well, ok, actually, I don't love that she had to go through any of that but honestly, her reaction was priceless. lol
After reading your subsequent posts, it sounds as if you are indeed more empathetic in person than Jaws doing the speaking gives you credit for. It's hard to convey empathy on line; that's for sure.
I know I came across really strongly in post 2. Probably I shouldn't post until I've had at least 2 cups of coffee but that's a whole other story. lol
Seriously though, hopefully seeing such a strong reaction will help you get a better understanding of what women on the other side of the BF issue might be dealing with and hopefully that will help you develop empathy and compassion which will lead to greater mentoring.
Speaking for myself, and myself alone, I can honestly say that if I had gotten just one ounce of compassion from the BF community when my son was born instead of the condescention and insinuation that I wasn't trying hard enough, or didn't want to badly enough, etc, I might not have such a compulsion to stick up for formula feeding moms. If just one person had bothered to think about the emotional effects of the failure of my body to do what it was supposed to naturally do, on top of having just almost died and lost my baby, being a 1st-time mom, the fears associated with social services, doctors telling me that if my baby didn't start getting nutrition of some sort that he wasn't going to make it, etc etc, etc, and have instead said, "You know, you've tried really hard and despite your best efforts, this just isn't meant to be. That doesn't make you any less of a mother, that would have really helped allot. Instead, what I got was a bunch of holier than thou people coming at me with all sorts of recriminations, "well you should have"'s, so on and so forth. Needless to say, it took me a long time to be ok with the fact that I did what I had to do to make sure my son lived. I did the best I could with what I had at the time and I'm proud of that. Sometimes in this imperfect world, that's all we've got. Anyway, all that to say that true empathy goes a very long long way. And I'm not talking about empathy followed by a "yeah, but."
I had written a much more elliquent version of this earlier but was interupted before posting so the system logged me out. ARG! This didn't do nearly as good a job of communicating what I'm trying to say but it'll have to do because it's late and I'm tired. lol
Also, Leo raised some good points in one of his posts. While these issues of infanthood are important, especially when that's the stage of parenthood one is in, whether a child is breast-fed or formula-fed, wears cloth or disposable diapers, sleeps alone or cosleeps, cries it out or is never put down, really doesn't make or break the child in the long run. Leo's daughter is starting her adult adventure. My son is about to hit puberty, God help us all, and all yall's babies will do the same. Believe you me, the issues don't get any less complicated either. lol
I think what you're doing as far as trying to educate women about breast feeding is admirable. I only hope that you will truly try to consider and understand the feelings of those who can't. Even though we might not parent the same way, it doesn't mean we love our children any less or that we don't want to give them the best we possibly can.
Ok, I think I'm starting to go in circles so I'm just going to have to leave this be for now.
I'd just like to be the odd one out here, and say that I get where leo's coming from in post three. if you're someone who's fortunate enough to be surrounded by la leche league workers who are compassionate, and don't display the overzealous attitude he's talking about, that's great. however, sadly, not everyone in the field is that way. improvements are definitely a step in the right direction, but to say that all employees are helpful, caring, ETC, is ignorant and untrue.
Especially true when what we're talking about is vulnerable, postpardem, shaking, crying, emotional, hormonal chicks. Everyone says this, everyone knows this. So no group ever has any business picking on those chicks. Especially a group who claims to be doing things in their best interest. That is as sick as a fundamentalist beating on a tyke and claiming it is all for their own good.
If the La Leche people know so much, they ought to know better than the rest of us everything these women's groups tell us: just how much, you got it, understanding, compassion, empathy, pregnant and postpardem women need. All I'm saying is, if they're better than the rest of us, they should then BE better than the rest of us. They oughta be more compassionate, more helpful, more accomodating, to these chicks than us partners could have ever been. It seemed pretty out there to me, how these same people could try and work that one both ways. Now maybe that being 2 decades ago almost, things have improved.
I wasn't going to post on here, but have been keeping up with it.
I'd simply like to say doctors, and these professionals must be taken with a grain of sense.
Many, and this is sad, give advice not because they are giving it from experience, but from emotional, or personal ideas.
Any woman that decides to actually bring a child in to the world should go as natural as possible, and I mean from day one.
If you are taking drugs you can't live without, and you know these drubs are dangerous to a growing child, buy having one you are selfish.
It is difficult enough to go through a birthing process, and a woman faces many dangers as she does it. I strongly believe any woman should be given the best foods, and care from day one she can get and made to do things like give up her smokes, or anything that might cause her or her new born issues.
I and my disability are due to these professionals advice.
Hi all. Several things. Just for the record, I never "ignorantly" claimed that every LLL member is helpful. Using every, always, never and similar terms is really dangerous, so I am mindful not to do so. To, erm, I think it was Rightaway, holy crap, that is so moronic of her, I can't believe a lactation consultant would ever say something so stupid. Oh, weight, yes I can believe it. I'm a social work student and I see where the bad social workers I've met over the years get it from, some of the idiotic professors and textbooks that give inaccurate or incomplete information. It very well may be that that particular lactation consultant got that from a published textbook or from a website with an org or an edu at the end. I see what was said about the choices we make for an infant not effecting adulthood. I think a better way of saying that is that everything we do, every single little thing we do makes a difference, but they are small differences and they are cumulative. Doing all of the "right things"n by whatever deffinition you pick could make a drastic difference, when taken all together, but if they are all done, without love and nurturing care, then their positive effects are neutralized, completely negated or even surpassed in the oposite dirrection by the other harm that is done. Little tiny things do add up, and so it is important to do them, to research them, not doing so at all is a sign of a bad parent, not to care at all, but the other end should be considered, that being so obsessed with "the book" or the advice of the masses could result in equally bad parenting if that results either in a nerotic obsessive compulsive parent or an inconsistant parent who is constantly changing the rules, the methods and the techniques. Consistancy in a less than ideal home actually makes for mentally healthier kids than those raised in homes where the standards and the way those standards are carried out fluxuate wildly from average, to a little below average to outstanding, then back down to average and so on. The only one on that list that I would say has a truly big impact is the cry it out method. They have found that significantly higher cortosol levels experienced in infancy due to being left to cry it out has similar effects in terms of how it impacts the long term neurobiology of a child as a child who has experienced trauma such as childhood sexual abuse, a natural disaster, a physically abusive parent, wittnessing violence against another or sustaining a very serious injury with protracted periods of fear and pain. These neurobiological changes are observable, quantifiable and scientifically measurable in adults. Also, not letting a child cry it out can have buffering effects against the traumas mentioned above. They have found that children not left to cry it out, in attachment parenting households in western countries and children in eastern countries where cosleeping, babywearing and similar practices are the norm, and naturally lead to no cry it out methodologies even in the general population, that these children when experiencing a natural disaster, witnessing great violence or suffering serious injury actually recouperated faster, adjusted better and their bodily response to and production of certain stress hormones and neurotransmitters actually showed the protective effects of not experiencing those raised cortisol levels during infancy while crying it out. This one particular thing has a great deal of research to support it in scientific journals, if you have no life like me and want to look them up. Altimately, all of those other smaller things factor into this as such. When a baby cries from hunger, many would argue and I happen to believe that breastfeeding them is best, but whether you choose to soothe their hunger with nursing or formula, it still eliviates the hunger, the crying and the stress reaction. I personally believe that cosleeping is best, but regardless, if you are attentive to and help your baby stop crying because they are in the same bed or same room with you or because you judiciously use a baby monitor and respond to night crying, it still has the same benificial effect. I feel that cloth diapering is more comfortable for and better for babies, but whether you use cloth or disposable, if you change your baby when uncomfortable and don't allow them to fuss and cry in discomfort, that still helps positively effect their neurobiological development. You get the picture. Also, to clarify before there is a misunderstanding, by not allowing a baby to cry it out, I don't mean that you constantly keep a bottle, pacifier or nipple in the baby's mouth, never put them down at all and freak out the minute they start whimpering. By cry it out I mean, you say "Ok, baby, it's bed time, and so now you're going in your crib and I don't care if you cry or not, because Dr. Spock says to let you cry, so yeah, see you in the morning." or you say "Ok baby, so I'm not giving you attention until you stop crying, 3 month old baby, you need to learn some self deciplin, so when you are quiet I'll come in and pay attention to you." I realize that as a single parent or a busy parent there are times when you have to nurse or feed your baby, change them, provide a few nice toys and set them down in a safe environment while you go to use the toilet, take a shower, do a nasty cleaning task, or a house hold repair that wouldn't be safe to do with a child attached to you, and that sometimes they will cry and the best you can do is toss them a different interesting toy, turn on the radeo for them, pop in a baby Einstein DVD, sing so they can still hear you from whatever room you're in, or otherwise try to make them happy while you do what needs to bbe done and they just might cry a little bit. The negative effects the studies are talking about are those of many many minutes a day spent crying without being held during the crying. The studies vary between something like the effects of 30 or more cumulative minutes of solitary crying a day and 60 or greater minutes per day. Also, they are talking about unattended or solitary crying, not collic crying. Other studies have shown that if you hold a baby or wear them while they are crying, even if it doesn't quiet them, it helps control their body's stress responce. That is why volinteers rock and walk the floors with and hold and cuddle crack babies. No matter what you do, they are going to cry and cry and cry, and they just can't stop, but having someone holding them close, comforting them does help insolate them against the negative effects of their condition and of the crying it causes. Oh, I do hope that was as clear and non judgemental as I meant it to be. And to the last poster. Yes, I generally agree with you in terms of the medication thing. There are extenuating circomstances though sometimes. For instance, if a woman who must take some seriously heavy duty meds is raped, has a profolactic break, or birth control pills fail even if taken correctly, or if the woman develops a serious health condition after becoming pregnant, then sometimes there is the case where a choice to have the baby despite being on some seriously heavy duty meds is not irrisponsible. It does depend on the situation, but I do agree generally. I read an article about a woman who has 3 serious health conditions including one that requires the use of anticonvulsants daily, plus heavy duty pain killers, an antidepresent and two or three other really big gun medications. This woman already had 2 children with negative effects from her medications taken during pregnancy and the article was detailing her fight with CPS over the children and the unborn baby once it would be born. Can you believe it, she won? That is what our country is coming to, sick.
So help me clarify something then. What we learned as the cry it out thing was to put the baby in, have some form of routine for good night not just leave them there like some make it sound, but then let her rest even if she will cry it out for awhile. it is really a tough thing to do, but they said, at least almost 2 decades ago, that it actually eased the stress that can come between parents and children to set them down in that environment, and provided you have ensured it's a safe place where they know already that it's safe, you're good to go.
But you are saying there is some sorts of after-effects? And for the record we carried her around most the time. I even got criticism from lots of people for stuffing her inside my shirt or jacket like you might have done to a pup when you were a kid, mainly because, well, it was warm in there and I knew where she was at. I never read any of those books you're talking about, and even it was a naturepathic doctor who advised us to do the cry it out thing.
It would make sense that to willfully abandon the baby to its own devices without her knowing where she is would be a bad thing. But you're saying now they claim that to have allowed them to cry it out creates extra anxiety?
If that is the case, then you may end up 2 decades later having found out all this that you are doing now, with all your heart and everything else, someone may claim it has caused negative things. Cry it out, that was tough, I'll admit. Though it did cause us to clear our own heads on a situation. Ours had cholic a lot. So she got lots of bouncing and other things to try and alleviate all of that.
But this 180 on the cry it out thing certainly casts doubt on the authenticity of what you hear. I simply hope you don't end up a couple decades later with everyone having done an about face on all you set out to do.
I agree with not letting a baby cry it out. Personally, even if I had been of the era which proposed crying it out as a viable method, I couldn't stomach it. To me, it makes sense as a mother to not let my baby scream till he sounds like he's running out of breath and not comfort him. We were lucky in that we had a baby who never went through the colic phase. We dont' coSleep but we do have his crib set up in our room, which, I think is a happy medium between cosleeping and having him in his own room. He has a nursery set up, but he's going to be sleeping there when we feel he's ready to do so. Unfortunately This, is all resonating poorly with my future mother-in-law who has a home day care business. She swears that "babies cry; You need to let them" and that "You should never let a baby fall asleep in yrou arms; No matter what you do, he shoudl be in his own room and you shouldnt' be there with him". Well, I like her and we get along really well, but I take her method of kid rearing with a grain of salt whether she likes it or not. Yesterday she called and mentioned she's bringing our boy "his own personal cake for his first birthday, and he can do as he pleases with it". And I said that's not happening. I get that she wants a picture with the kid covered in birthday cake for his first birthday, because my fiance's family does that as a kind of tradition, so I told her I'd compromise. I can let her have her cake moment, as long as I can bake the cake so I'm sure it doesnt' have nasty artificial dyes in it and is minimal in crap I don't want him to digest, and so that I can make sure it's tiny because I dont' need him getting a strong affinity for sweets at the age of one. His is probably going to end up all over his hands and head anyway, but still. At least if he decides to eat any of it, I know what went into it and I decide how much of it he gets.
Not sure she was completely satisfied with this arrangement, but I made it a conditional compromise and stated my conditions as nonnegotiable.And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how you deal with a future, or current mother in law. lol. But I digress from the topic... Sorry.
That's so sad about the crack babies, by the way. Poor little ones; Having to contend with a sucky life right from the very beginning thanks to mommy dearest's irresponsible nature. Some of them clean up and manage to raise their children, but, correct me if I'm wrong, I have a feeling this is more the exception rather than the rule.
Speaking of the baby sleeping in your arms, nobody told us you could not do that. We did it all the time. In fact, when we got home, I'd make it a challenge to pick her up in whatever position she fell asleep in, and try and carry her direct to her little blue bed, which is what she first had, or her crib later on, and put her in it. There must be varying degrees on this cry it out method, and certainly there were those who criticized my method of picking her up like that saying she should be awakened first and then "put to sleep" with the good night ritual rather than wake up scared to find she was in her own bed rather than the car seat she went to sleep in.
The cry out thing only happened a few times, I think, then she mainly got used to going to bed until she was a bit over 1 year old. But you see, there are so many criticisms for so many things. I think as long as you're trying to do your best by the little one, they'll know. Just as there are said to be stages of the attachment parenting, there seems there must have been stages of the cry it out stuff also. We never left her down just to have her "not get spoiled," like young parents now accuse parents our age of. I was that age, and I accused older parents of things too. Only whatever you mete out gets returned as a favor to you, I guess.
When your kids get older, people will criticize you if you give them a cell phone, or if you withhold a cell phone. They'll criticize you if you push them a little, push them a lot, or don't push them at all.
You know what works for your kid, at least as well as anyone could, since you live with them. But now reading from the younger parents, I have to wonder if we were fools to criticize earlier methods, when I was in my 20s. Now I know how the other half lives.
Basically, Leo, we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. lol
Just like anything else, what's popular and quote unquote the only way to do something will be completely shunned in 20 years, like you said.
As for not letting a baby fall asleep in your arms, how silly. That's some of the best cuddling right there.
Yes, you are right, there are degrees of cry it out. It sounds like what you did was minimal, and so it was probably minimally damaging, and given all the other wonderful things you did, it has certainly been negated and fully reversed and then some by all of the great things you did. The cry it out that was the "official" method was usually either A. Whenever the baby cries, for any reason, wait 1 minute for how ever many months old they are before picking them up. or B. at night put them in there and if they cry for more than 10 minutes, go in and tell them to be quiet, or some variation, then leave the room again. It sounds like what you did was no more then a few minutes. Also, back then they couldn't test things they can now, so I highly doubt that science will overturn the results regarding cortisol levels and other levels, unless some radical change takes place in the understanding of what cortisol is, which is doubtful as it's clearly a stress hormone. I have seen attachment parents take it to the extreme too. For instance, when Jeremy was a newborn I would talk to him and or nurse him every time he started to fuss at night, but when he was older, around 3 months I would try pretending to be asleep, no fake snoars, just deep, audible breething, and sometimes this worked and after a minute or two of fussing he'd go right back to sleep. If it didn't work I'd nurse him or whatever. When he was older and would have a baby monitor listening to him when I was downstairs up late studying I'd learn to listen. Sometimes he'd start fussing and if I waited, not crying, just sort of wining a bit, he'd go back to sleep, and if he did wake up and start fussing more vigerously, leading up to a cry I would go in and get him back to sleep. Another reason to interveen before crying really gets going is that it's way easier to nurse, rock, sing, whatever a fussing baby back to sleep than one whose fully aroused their stress system with crying and woken themselves all of the way up. Oh, almost forgot, you actually are cosleeping. Co sleeping means anything from baby in the bed, to baby in a bassinet or crib right up next to the bed, to baby in the same room. Having them actively in the bed is called bed sharing and it's a kind of cosleeping, but certainly not the only way to do it. Last thing, and this is especially important for teen parents, first time parents, parents with mental health conditions, but applies to all parents. It is not good to just let a baby cry, but if you feel like you're loosing it and you are afraid that you are going to shake your baby, then you put it down, somewhere safe, you go into another room, put on your headphones for a few minutes and listen to your favorite music, or go outside and walk circles around your house, or whatever. It's not ideal, but if that is what it takes not to shake your baby, then you do that, and to hell with anyone who would critisize you for letting them cry in that instance. I was never that overwhelmed, but I think that most parents do get close at least once , and I was in that close to melt down place twice, and I just walked out of the room, sat down, put on headphones and took a lot of deep breaths, or sung, as that is calming for me. So, yeah, that is super important if you're working with teen moms or at risk moms or at risk families, you should teach them about basic good parenting techniques, but never forget to mention the bit about the exceptions to the rules. A professor told me a bout a teen mom who was 14, her baby was the product of rape, and she did a damn good job for a 14 year old. She did a lot of attachment parenting things, but one day the baby just could not be comforted and she was so determined to do things right that she kept holding the baby even though she felt her self losing it. She was wearing the baby in the carrier and when she snapped and couldn't stand it anymore, she took the carrier off so quickly that she dropped her baby. This was a child trying to raise a baby and trying to do everything her parenting class had taught her and she was so afraid of losing her baby for life that she didn't take her baby to the doctor for the fall for over 2 hours while she did self harm out of guilt for what she had done to her baby and had pretty much resigned herself to never seeing her baby again by the time she brought him to the ER. He was fine, thank goodness, and they found a good residential program where she and her baby could get full time support and now she is a great mom with 3 kids, an LLL leader, a lactation consultant, and an elementary school teacher. She came in to talk to our class after the professor told us her story. So, these things are super important if you're in the social work or human services fields.
When I was on my way back from visiting my girlfriend in Texas, there was this mom on the train with her baby that kept crying and crying, and all she did was tell the baby to shut up in an aggrivated voice. I was tempted to yell at her and tell her what should have been obvious, that any mother who yelled at her baby like that didn't deserve a child. But, ironically, the baby screamed back at her a couple times after she told it to shut up.
yeah, what a load of crap that is about not allowing a baby to fall asleep in one's arms. I couldn't believe people even think that way, when I read it, and I'm not one who gets shocked easily.
Thanks for the encouraging posts all.
That's neat; I didnt' realize that co sleeping extended beyond bed sharing. You learn something new everyday, and I for one apreciate learning things as time goes on.
The story about the fourteen year old mom is fascinating; What a remarkable turnaround for her. I wish that everyone had the success rate she seems to have had.
I've never had a full blown meltdown, but when my son was teething seveerly, I couldn't stand to hear him cry at one point and I walked out of the room and asked my fiance to go in there and soothe him instead. It's great when you have a partner who's ready and willing to share parenting responsibilities equaly. I say this because so many men aren't willing to do so, from what I've seen, as far as comforting a baby goes, although it should be obvious that spouses who are parents should share responsibilities as needed and as much as possible.
Hell, the woman has to carry the baby around inside her for nine months, so why not? Lol.
Wow, holy crap, that's encredible. I mean having a heartattack over here. Ladies, you all need to go, capture Distance Runner and clone him. Erm, I'd find the cloning technology and acquire the equipment first before capturing him, so as to minimize the life disruption, and maybe you could grab him on a school break so you don't mess up his grades. Seriously, if more men, especially younger men who haven't been parents yet thought and felt like that, a lot of women would have an easier time. Jim is good with babies now, and I think for our next he will be better, but it was like an alian to him, he tried, but he was just not comfortable with our son and his supportiveness was limited by his attitudes based on watching his dad do pretty much nothing to help his mom with him and his sibblings.
I agree. Although I think that a man eventually comes in to his own. You've got to give them time to grow up; They need to be urged, not dragged into it. Otherwise, they find it stifling and are more resistant than ever. hahahahaha
No, but seriously... My baby wasn't planned, and although my partner and I have been in a serious, committed relationship for some time and we were planning on keeping it that way, he made it clear he didnt' want kids. At least not anytime in the near future. And if we were going to have a kid, he said he'd want to adopt because there are too many children in the world without a chance in hell at a stable/happy environment. Well, say what you will, ladies, but I was content with the idea. It didn't bother me, and I shared his outlook on adoption. I was on the fence about having kids, but I was under no illusion that he'd ever change his mind about it, and that was all right. I love kids, but I subscribed to the filosophy of "take 'em, love 'em, then give 'em back to mommy and daddy". lol.
We were perfectly content with our do-as-you-choose lifestyle.
Then, lowe and behold, the pill I had relied on since I was sixteen failed and--Surprise surprise!!!
But you ladies should have seen how his attitude changed after he found out we were expecting. After the initial shock and a few Oh My God's later, he wouldn't even consider the two alternatives to keeping a baby. This I was actually glad of, because I didn't think I could ever give my own baby away at that point, much less have an abortion. I mean, I guess if we had fewer resources and we seriously couldn't take care of a child, one of the two options would have probably been more appropriate. But given that we are both intelligent college grads with good career prospects, sane (at least I think so, grins), and in a stable relationship, we had only to change our lifestyle and to pull some resources together to make this happen.And so the guy who swore he never wanted kids, who says he argued with previous girlfriends about this very issue all the time, strapped himself in and came along on the ride willingly and even happily. He went from saying nonchalantly that if we would ever get pregnant, he'd be in favor of an abortion to not being able to stomach the idea of it. He started making lists of baby names, talking to my pregnant belly...And I thought maybe he had somehow caught Scarlet Fever. lol.
He was nervous, of course, and he hadn't been totally comfortable with the idea of a baby till the birth of our son, but I have to say he was supportive, tried to learn about pregnancy, read books on babies, and dealt with my horrible mood swings like a champ!!
I have to say, he did sit in my delivery room and listened to the commedy internet radio station on his IPhone some of the time, and looked like a complete goofball, involuntarily laughing at the most inappropriate times, but he was very nervous and claims he desperately needed something to relax him. lol. I forgave him for it; He redeemed himself when he was overcome with emotion while holding our boy for the first time. And ever since then, we've been equal in caring for him in every way except breastfeeding, of course...Although he's fed him expressed breast milk from a bottle. :)
I braught this all up with him some time ago out of curiosity at how he was able to do a full 360 on the baby stance, and he simply said that it was the right time, right circumstances and the right girl. Awww!! :)
Well anyway, my point is that people, whether men or women come around to things to the best of their ability when the time is right. Some people dont' possess the instinct or desire to be a good parent, a good partner or even a decent individual, which is sad and unfortunate. Look at the Casey Anthony case for example. I'd flip out if my baby was missing for days on end. And whether she killed her girl or not, something's flawed in that mind and heart of hers, and she's certainly not alone with such a flaw. Both mothers and fathers need to rise to the occasion, and those who have it in them to be decent parents do so when they encounter their chance, while those who aren't capable of it are less involved, even to the point of failure. Motherhood came to me naturally; I love being a mom. But I recognize that not everyone who is a parent shares my view on parenthood, and I have to say that's a bit unsettling.
I've read humans have no instincts, or very few. So the fatherly so-called instincts I got were caused by I dono, exposure, certainly the good education I got from the natural childbirth staff and all the time I spent holding the baby girl. Yeah Bernadetta's right, there is something that changes once you know she's pregnant. Although I will say: for as happy as I am with my own daughter, though she was not planned, I am equally happy that I personally took steps to ensure one was all I'd ever help reproduce.
Contrary to modern mythology though, most guys aren't dicks. It's not like the sit-coms you see, where all the men are doofs and all the women are geniuses. Being told that one of us is somehow the exception but as guys we're generally dicks, is one of the hardest-hitting backhanded compliments sometimes. Honestly, nobody talks about it, but boys I'm going to say it like it is: being a father, you will be judged no matter what you do, and unlike mothers, there is no sympathy for your cause in any public arena. There this may be changing, but I'll show you what I mean:
Play it low key, and you're being passive and apathetic. Step it up and try to be more direct and involved, you are invading her space and not listening, and any number of other complaints.
Now before I get called a misogynist or something, let me say I honestly don't think it's so much the chicks doing this: it's more of a corporate thing. This antagonism against us guys in general and dads in particular is more of a profitable way for the media to sell records, as it were. I mean, the drama gets old, but I guess it sells.
So for now, at least, the lot of being a father is fraught with a lot of problems. And here's another thing, guys: something I would never dared to admit when I was younger. For many of us guys, being constantly told how you do things wrong, for us, is the same feelings they describe if some poor chick is subjected to being called a fugly bitch all the time. It's really rough, and something nobody really gives a fuck about in the mainstream. Again, not blaming the chicks here, I am convinced the problem must be systemic in nature, and most probably motivated by profits for TV, books and ideological movements. We guys are just collateral. A sad state of affairs, yes, but I don't think blaming the chicks or going at it from a backlash perspective is the answer.
Leo, I think you're wrong. I think most stable women would prefer to have their male partners involved in child rearing as much as possible. I can't imagine not having my partner's input when it comes to raising our son; After all, he's the baby's father. I feel better that he has a say. We each have our strengths and weaknesses as parents, as people. And we need our partners to balance things out for us. Personally, I cherish my independence and my individuality, but I don't take for granted the fact that, as someone who is romantically linked to another person and raising a family with him, I can and should rely on him for help and support. There's a delicate balance in all things regarding parenting, relationships, friendships, etc. Good communication and mutual respect is the key, not to mention love, of course. So I don't personally feel that a man can be too involved in his child's upbringing. After all, as a parent yourself, I'm sure you'd agree that makes all the difference.
Well certainly to me it did. And the state of affairs may have started to improve for new fathers now.
But something no woman can appreciate, and I hope never really has to, is the assumed criminal element. Yuo a young guy trying to get educated? It always starts, or at least when I was a new father it started, from the assumption you needed the deadeat in you exposed and rooted out. It was very much of a fundamentalist nature, in fact. Very guilt and shame oriented, and I knew guys who started out fine but gave up because they couldn't hack the guilt and shame associated, always presumption of the criminal element of being some form of deadbeat. I did beat the odds, yes, and would like to think the daughter is better for it. But I did so no thanks to any form of real social support. You are right, though: Had I raised my daughter by myself, there is a lot she would have missed. I am convinced of this, and I mean no ill will towards single parents at all. It's just that two heads are definitely better than one. And in our case anyway, it often worked out, albeit with some conflict, for her best interest that her mom and I are often such polar opposites. We had the same goals of course for her to have a good life and be well-adjusted, and be exposed to as many opportunities as possible and be loved, but our perspectives on things are so radically different I'm firmly convinced I'd have missed a lot of things had I raised the baby by myself. So to that end I agree.
I only contend that to get more fathers into the proverbial fold and aware of how to help their babies and their partners, I think we as a society need to eschew the corporate-centric very profitable anti-dads, anti-male rhetoric which is nothing more than a fringe religion gone mainstream. It's got its shame, its ever need for "cleansing," if you will, and of course the participants are never good enough. It's as much a rigged game as any crack dealer could dream of, and moms and kids are not only no better off, but their reduced state is just collateral for those indigents wanting to profit off a bad situation. So ladies when they tell you "all men are dicks," and "Fathers just don't care anymore," what they're saying is they want you to think all men are dicks, and that all fathers have a ulterior motive, because they need for you to suffer neglect so their ideology can continue to be profitable. They're not helping you: if they were helping, they'd be helping some of these young guys learn how to do things, instead of shaming them into tucking their tails between their legs and slinking off. A generation of unashamed, competent, and yes confident, young guys not just willing, but able, and unashamed to step it up, will cause that little crack ring to go broke, and deflate their little program. Then mothers and babies won't be just collateral for some group's ideology, they'll get the actual real help they need instead.
I think it's a systematic approach to destroying the family. JMHO
Emasculate the men, butch out the women, and then control them all.
I grew up living with my mom, and I visited my father every so offten. The unfortunate thing was that my stepfather and dad both thought the other was taking over the fatherly responsibilities, so they both turned out to not be there as much as I needed them to be. I never had the talk about the birds and the bees, except for the discussions we had in health class. So while I do agree it may be better to have both parents in the child's life, I also believe people shouldn't assume that one person is doing what the other should be doing, in the case of families and stepparents. Hope that makes sense.
I read this entire topic. Leo And Bernadetta, I really love your posts. It's good to know that there are some loving, devoted parents out there. I'm sure parenting is hard enough. But you continue to do your best in a genuine loving manner. Everyone has their takes on parenting, and no one should put down the way kids are raised, unless of course the methods are harmful to the child in any fassion. Sometimes what's best for you might not work at all with someone else. I raise my glass to the great parents here! :) Oh, and one more thing. I think that just because people become parents, or reach a certain age, doesn't mean they'll grow up and be all wise and mature. That's why we have bad, poor parenting. Some people never change regardless. However it's wonderful to know that some people just get into their own and change. Sorry I just came in this, but I had a good read and felt like saying all this.
Another disagreement with Cody back there: I still am impressed by the Chick's pregnancy and giving birth. It's really difficult as a man to hear her talk about it as having been an "easy delivery." I was there, and yeah it did hurt, plus she ripped. I'll admit I was scared for her afterwards.
And now she helps teen moms and their kids.
I knew more involved dads than noninvolved. Your media doesn't want you to know this, the sit-coms you watch certainly don't display this, but that's at least what I have seen from many different walks of life. Rereading this topic has been an interesting read.
Oh and people talking about men and fathers.
I met a Lesbian recently, sold the daughter's old bike to her. She was not the one in the couple having the baby, her partner was. She had all the same concerns any new father would. They don't call it a father, but still: all the wondering about how well she would do being a coach and everything. As to what I said about men and La Leche, that was not anything to do with paternal abandonment. It had everything to do with being the one keeping the level head: we're not the ones getting hit with all the hormones changes and postpartum and everything else. Just a better place to stay zeal free. That way your head can remain clear to help out.
I know, I bought into the breast is best stuff, and could have been just as vulnerable as a young 20-something as anybody. But since I wasn't there and hadn't heard the indoctrination she had, then when the baby was not getting food, and the Chick was crying and telling me things they said, I just said, "Fuck 'em, I'm gonna feed her." Or something to that effect.
Oh and on the pregnancy thing Cody was saying? You never been in the bed with a chick who cannot sleep because no position feels ok, and then gone through the summer when she is suffering in the heat, and so many other things. Wayne is right, boys, make her food, whatever she'll have and use the cast iron skillet to boot.