2000
Subj : Re: This Train Just Went Splat!
To   : alt.tv.er
From : npardue
Date : Sat Sep 24 2005 16:12:21

From Newsgroup: alt.tv.er


Dropping The Helicopter wrote:
> npardue@indiana.edu wrote:
>> >
> > I'm assuming this is a typo and you mean 'no health reasons.'
> > Breastmilk is a nutritious, healthful food for babies over the age of
> > one ... and over the age of 2.
>
> And over the age of 3.  And 6.  And 12.  And 35.  And 60.

True.  However, few 12 year olds have any interest in breastfeeding.
(Many 35 years old do, and if they happen to have a lactating
wife/partner who is interested in obliging, they do so.)


>
> >  It is easily digested and contains many
> > vitamins and minerals. Unlike cows milk, children are never allgeric to
> > it. After about 6-12 months it is no longer sufficient as a sole source
> > of nutrition for a child, but it doesn't lose its value.
> >
>
> But loses its point.  When the child can a) eat "grown-up food" and b)
> regardless of how much mother's milk he drinks it won't sustain him,
> it's time for the child to be weaned.
>

So, since most babies can eat solids from around 4 months, they should
be weaned at 4 months?  What do you know that the American Academy of
Pediatrics doesn't know?

> >  If you think that
> >> the child needs breastmilk for nutritional value, pump it and give it to
> >> them in a cup.
> >
> > Why would a mother want to go to the comparative hassle of pumping and
> > storing milk when it's so easily available straight from the source?
> > Why make more work for yourself if you don't have to?
>
> Here we can agree.  Why go to extra hassle to do something that is upon
> inspection simply wrong?

And explain again why it's 'simply wrong.'  What is it about nursing a
toddler that is so obviously 'wrong?'  Saying it is doen't make it so.

>
> > (Also, for
> > toddlers and preschoolers, a large part of the benefit of breastmilk
> > (more on this later) is the comfort aspect. They don't get that
> > drinking from a cup.
> >
>
> Yeah, neither do I.  Does that mean I should go back to breastfeeding?

If you can find a woman willing to oblige you, sure.

> >
>
> Two things that we can all unquestionably agree on:
>
> 1.  Breastfeeding an newborn infant is 100% natural and fine and anybody
> who thinks it is somehow inherently "wrong" is not thinking properly.
> (any concerns about "breastfeeding exhibitionism" not withstanding).
> 2.  Breastfeeding a 35-year-old is unnatural and wrong and anybody who
> thinks it is somehow inherently "ok" is not thinking properly.

Nope. We don't agree on #2.


>
> Now, the third thing we can agree on is that somewhere between the ages
> of 0 and 35, the child must be weaned from the mother's teat.

Not true either, unless your grammar is screwed up.  All children do
wean from their mother's breast sometime between those two ages.
However, a great many of them, given the oppurtunity, do it of their
own accord, not by being 'weaned' by the choice made by another person.
 As noted, when allowed to make the decision, MOST babies wean
somewhere around 2 or 3 ... not 6 or 35.


>
> The fourth thing we can agree on is that somewhere between 0 and 35,
> breastfeeding becomes 'definitely wrong'.

Nope. We don't. I will say that, sometime between 0 and 35 most
children lose interest in breastfeeding. (And if they don't, most
mothers will, at some point, decide that this is something THEY no
longer wish to do. It's a two-way street. The wishes of both mother and
child need to be considered.)

>
> >  The act of breastfeeding an infant is more
> >> reasonable to me because they are helpless and need constant help and
> >> attention to sustain their lives.
> >
> >
> > I guess I'm not following this argument.  Why  is it ok for helpless
> > infants, but not for older kids?
>
> As you of course know, infants have been breastfed since before humans
> even existed.  That's kinda how things were set up, at least for us
> mammals.  As we all agreed upon above, nobody in their right mind
> questions it.

And, as near as we can tell, among 'primitive societies', by and large,
children are breastfed well into toddlerhood. (i.e. well beyond the age
when they can eat solids and where they cannot be completely sustained
by human milk).

>
> "Older kids".  How old?

Until they or their mothers feel it's time to stop. Which, in most
cases, turns out to be somewhere during the toddler/preschool years.


>
> >  Many helpless infants are also
> > bottlefed. Maybe I'm misreading you, but what it SOUNDS like you are
> > saying is, essentially, "I guess it's ok to breastfeed as long as the
> > child is too young to understand what he's doing ... that it's really
> > sort of disgusting but I guess there are enough health benefits to make
> > it acceptable for a tiny baby." Please do correct me if I'm jumping to
> > conclusions here.
> >
>
> Naomi: At what age would you consider breastfeeding to be not ok?  Do
> you believe it would be totally fine for both mother and child alike if
> said child was 18 years old and still breastfeeding?

Interesting question.  If there was indeed such a situation, I would
look at why it had continued so far past the time when it is usual.  Is
it a teenagers with severe allergies who can't tolerate other foods?
Is it a teenager with severe emotional/mental issues who still seems to
need it for emotional reasons?

But the thing is,... you're setting up a strawman here. I know of NO
society where 18 year olds  are breastfed, nor am I aware of any
families in our society where this is occuring. What *I'm* saying is
that there is no magic cut-off line where you can say that "It's ok
before X months, but 'wrong' AFTER that date." All children are
different.  Some potty train early, some potty train late.  Some are
very verbal at 18-24 months, some are barely talking yet. Some are very
independent, some are clingy.  It IS rare for 6 year old's in the U.S.
to breastfeed. But that doesn't mean it's wrong. If no-one is being
harmed by it, what's the problem?


>
> >  A 2 year old can talk, play, drink out of
> >> a cup, feed themselves, eat solid foods, eat a variety of foods without
> >> getting sick, etc.
> >
> > Very true.  But they can also breastfeed, and sometimes do.
>
> I can also breastfeed, and I'm old enough to have my own breastfeeding
> child!  Should I ask my mom if I can have the teat back?  Perhaps the
> real question here is not "how old", but rather "How many generations
> should breastfeeding span?"

I rather doubt that your mother is still lactating, but if she is, and
she's willing, go for it.

>
> > (Also worth
> > noting that many people who find it 'wrong' for a toddler to breastfeed
> > see nothing wrong with a toddler drinking from a bottle or sucking on a
> > pacifier.)
> >
>
> We call it "growing up".  We also see nothing wrong with a young child
> crawling around on all fours because he can't walk.  Conversely, we
> throw 40-year-olds who choose to do so even though they're fully able to
> walk into the nearest loony bin.

*Ding ding ding!!*** You get the prize.  All children DO grow up.  And
all eventually stop breastfeeding. But I trust you haven't been around
very many 6 year olds if you believe that they are the equivilent,
emotionally, of adults, or even teenagers. MOST 6 year olds have moved
past the need/wish to breastfeed.  A few have not, and if they still
need it, it's really not a problem. They'll give it up either when they
are ready or when mom decides she's had enough.


> > And that is a VERY unusual situation.
>
> But that's what we're talking about here.
>
> > (Just as the scenario on the show
> > was.) IRL, mothers  often choose to do what is called 'child-led
> > weaning.' Meaning that,  they continue to breastfeed as long as the
> > child seems to want it.
>
> So in other words, they fob off that particular parental responsibility
> to the child.  Nice.
>
But it's not a parental responsibility.  Do parents 'teach' chi
14e0
ldren to
walk?  Do they force them to talk before they're ready?  Should a
parent take away a child's teddy bear because mom has arbitrarily
decided that "A child of X years should no longer use a teddy?" (Even
though, the day before, the child was of appopriate age?) Why is a the
parent's responsbility to make this decision?  Some parents DO make it,
and that's fine too, but it's really a morally neutral choice.


> >  The usual pattern once the child is well into
> > todderhood is 'don't offer -- don't refuse.'
>
> The military has something similar to that: "Don't ask -- don't tell."
>
> > So if the child asks to
> > nurse, you let them, but you don't necessarily offer it. (Though there
> > will certainly be times [like at bedtime or naptime] where it's assumed
> > by both parties that nursing happens.)
>
> Until what age and/or stage of development?  Or does this "child-led
> parenting" actually hinder development, so the only thing you have to go
> on is age?  In that case, I rephrase the question: Until what age?

Nope, it doesn't hinder development.  There is zero evidence that
children who are breastfed past age one suffer in any way or have their
development 'hindered.' There may be some cause and effect in place,
but it goes in the other direction -- children who choose to/need to
breastfeed longer are children who are less 'mature' for their age than
others.  But forcing them to wean won't make them more mature.

>> > Some just do it at different rates. In most 'natural' societies,
> > children breastfeed well past their first birthdays. (And I know of
> > plenty of kids that age in our own society who suck their thumbs or
> > sleep with blankies or teddies.  It's really no different in
> > principle.)
> >
>
> It is very different in principle, come on Naomi.

Explain to me why?  Saying it don't make it so. They are all comfort
measures for a young child.

>
> > And, FWIW, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends breastfeeding
> > "For a minimum of one year, and as long thereafter and mother and child
> > wish."
>
> Hopefully there's a subparagraph stating something to the effect of,
> "NOTE: If the mother continues to wish after the child gets his or her
> driver's license, consult a psychiatric professional."

Given that it's highly unlikely that the child would wish it at that
point, it's moot.

>
> > The World Health Organization recommends it "to 2 years and
> > beyond." There are no health problems connected with extended
> > breastfeeding for mother and baby (assuming that mom is eating a
> > relatively balanced diet, and baby is getting addition foods after 6-12
> > months.) And for mom there are clear health benefits. (Reduced risk of
> > breast cancer being among the most important.)
> >
>
> Oh I'm sure there are no physical health problems with it.  Well, I
> would think that once the child gets his permanent teeth that nipple
> might start getting pretty raw, but I'm not a doctor.


The teeth don't come into contact with the breast.

 But the
> psychological effects on the child can be nothing but crippling.  Of
> course, the mother already has large-bore problems anyway, so for her
> it's probably a wash.
>

Why?  Saying it don't make it so.



>
> Right, that wouldn't have been nearly as funny.  But it would have been
> extremely disturbing, so they could have called in the Social Worker Of
> The Week ("SWOTW") and made an actual subplot out of it.  Then Carter
> would come back and bone the SWOTW.
>
> >
> > FWIW, I breastfed for 14 months. At that point I chose to wean, and
> > Shaina weaned easily. If she has not, I wouldn't have pushed it at that
> > point. It's hard to say how long I would have chosen to continue if she
> > continued to resist weaning. I can say, 'from the outside looking in'
> > that I wouldn't feel comfortable breastfeeding a 4 or 5 or 6 year old
> > child. But that doesn't mean it's wrong for a different mother/child
> > pair.  And, who knows, if Shaina had been very attached to
> > breastfeeding, maybe I would have found myself still nursing or 4 or 5
> > or 6 and would have been fine with it.
> >
>
> What about 7?  8?  10?  At what point would you have not been fine with
> it?  We both know there would be a point at which you would not be fine
> with it.  What is that point?

I don't know, because that's not an issue that tends to occur.


>
> Now if you'll all excuse me, I am going to go take a massive dump in my
> jeans.  Oh don't misunderstand, I'm fully continent and have working
> indoor plumbing, it's just so much more comforting for me to load my
> pants like I used to when I was a little baby.  There's nothing "wrong"
> or "sick" about it.  I just wish my mom was still willing to change me.

Sure, if that's what you want to do, go for it.  It's a bit of a hassle
to have to wash those dirty pants, but if you pleases you to do so, be
my guest.  I do hope, however, that you won't go out in public in
soiled pants, since the odor might offends others. (If you are offended
by the sight of a mother breastfeeding, you are, of course, free to
look away. It would be hard for those around your dump filled pants to
stop breathing.)

Naomi

> 
> Game, set, and match.

.

0