2000
Subj : Re: This Train Just Went Splat!
To   : alt.tv.er
From : npardue
Date : Sun Sep 25 2005 08:22:07

From Newsgroup: alt.tv.er

 > 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.



parents have to make some choices for their kids.  breastfeeding should
be
one of them.

Why?  Why 'should' it be.  It CAN be, if the parents decide that, but
explain to me why, from any viewpoint, it SHOULD be, in a general
sense? (IOW, if YOU feel that your YOUR family and YOUR child, you
chose to wean, that's 100% cool. But why 'should'  it be the same for
every family?



> But that doesn't mean it's wrong. If no-one is being
> harmed by it, what's the problem?



I think it is harmful.

Give me a reason. Why are you're personally feelings about something
proof that they are right for everyone.



> But it's not a parental responsibility.  Do parents 'teach' children to
> walk?



yes, parents do teach children to walk.

Oops, guess I fell down (no pun intended) on that one.  Shaina didn't
walk until around 15 months. Maybe if I'd 'taught her', she would have
learned earlier.
No, parents don't 'teach' a child to walk. Children learn it on their
own, when their bodies and emotions are ready for it.


>Do they force them to talk before they're ready?



though not forced, it is a skill that parents need to teach their
child.

Again, they don't 'teach them' in any active way.  Parents model
talking for their children by talking to them ... and the children
start speaking when they are ready.

and yes, some parents force their kids to talk before they are ready.
if
your child was 4 and not talking yet, would you take them to a doctor
to see
what's wrong or just assume that aren't ready yet and don't force the
issue?

Absolutely. You take them to the doctor. Becuase, in most cases, a
child who isn't talking by 4 has an actual physical or mental problem
that needs to be dealt with. There is no physical/mental issue (in most
cases) that leads a child to breastfeed past the age of 2. (Your cut
off) ... or even 6. It's an entirely normal varient. (Just as speech
is, to a large extent.  I used to work with preschoolers (age range 15
months to 5 years).  Speech (and most other attributes) varied widely.
Some 2 year olds were extremely verbal with a wide vocabulary.  Others
were barely talking at all. All normal.


>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?"



it a 12 year old needs a teddy bear everyday because they are unable to
cope
without one, yes, parents need to phase it out and give the child other

coping skills

Well, we aren't talking about 12 year olds.  We're talking about
preschool/early school-age kids.Would you take a teddy away from a 5
year old ... if you had decided, for yourself, that it's ok for a 4
year old to use a teddy, but 5's shouldn't be allowed? So on the kid's
5th birthday, you toss the teddy in the trash?  (SHaina used a teddy at
this age. She slept with it and sometimes carried in with her.  When
she started kindergarten the teacher told us that kids couldn't bring
comfort objects to school.  We explained that to her and she was ok
with it. But should we have removed it from her entirely?  Was there
any reason to refuse to let her sleep with it? She eventually did give
it up on her own. She's 13; doesn't sleep with a teddy bear.


>(Even
> though, the day before, the child was of appopriate age?) Why is a the
> parent's responsbility to make this decision?


they are the parent, its their job to raise the kids.  I read a quote
somewhere recently that makes a lot of sense "parents aren't raising
kids,
they are raising future adults"


> 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.



one of my nephews wanted to keep nursing when my sister was done (he
was
about 15 months old).  he used her as a pacifier to fall asleep.  he is
not
emotionally harmed because he was forced to give it up (though the
first
several nights he did scream and cry a lot) and he has no lasting
effects
from this experience.    i would be interested to see the proof that
breastfeeding an older child is not damaging because in my experiences,
I
seen the opposite


>> 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.



don't try telling that to my sister, she was biten several times where
blood
was drawn

Reply
             > 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.



parents have to make some choices for their kids.  breastfeeding should
be
one of them.

Why?  Why 'should' it be.  It CAN be, if the parents decide that, but
explain to me why, from any viewpoint, it SHOULD be, in a general
sense? (IOW, if YOU feel that your YOUR family and YOUR child, you
chose to wean, that's 100% cool. But why 'should'  it be the same for
every family?



> But that doesn't mean it's wrong. If no-one is being
> harmed by it, what's the problem?



I think it is harmful.

Give me a reason. Why are you're personally feelings about something
proof that they are right for everyone.



> But it's not a parental responsibility.  Do parents 'teach' children to
> walk?



yes, parents do teach children to walk.

Oops, guess I fell down (no pun intended) on that one.  Shaina didn't
walk until around 15 months. Maybe if I'd 'taught her', she would have
learned earlier.
No, parents don't 'teach' a child to walk. Children learn it on their
own, when their bodies and emotions are ready for it.


>Do they force them to talk before they're ready?



though not forced, it is a skill that parents need to teach their
child.

Again, they don't 'teach them' in any active way.  Parents model
talking for their children by talking to them ... and the children
start speaking when they are ready.

and yes, some parents force their kids to talk before they are ready.
if
your child was 4 and not talking yet, would you take them to a doctor
to see
what's wrong or just assume that aren't ready yet and don't force the
issue?

Absolutely. You take them to the doctor. Becuase, in most cases, a
child who isn't talking by 4 has an actual physical or mental problem
that needs to be dealt with. There is no physical/mental issue (in most
cases) that leads a child to breastfeed past the age of 2. (Your cut
off) ... or even 6. It's an entirely normal varient. (Just as speech
is, to a large extent.  I used to work with preschoolers (age range 15
months to 5 years).  Speech (and most other attributes) varied widely.
Some 2 year olds were extremely verbal with a wide vocabulary.  Others
were barely talking at all. All normal.


>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?"



it a 12 year old needs a teddy bear everyday because they are unable to
cope
without one, yes, parents need to phase it out and give the child other

coping skills

Well, we aren't tal
143e
king about 12 year olds.  We're talking about
preschool/early school-age kids.Would you take a teddy away from a 5
year old ... if you had decided, for yourself, that it's ok for a 4
year old to use a teddy, but 5's shouldn't be allowed? So on the kid's
5th birthday, you toss the teddy in the trash?  (SHaina used a teddy at
this age. She slept with it and sometimes carried in with her.  When
she started kindergarten the teacher told us that kids couldn't bring
comfort objects to school.  We explained that to her and she was ok
with it. But should we have removed it from her entirely?  Was there
any reason to refuse to let her sleep with it? She eventually did give
it up on her own. She's 13; doesn't sleep with a teddy bear.

>(Even
> though, the day before, the child was of appopriate age?) Why is a the
> parent's responsbility to make this decision?


they are the parent, its their job to raise the kids.  I read a quote
somewhere recently that makes a lot of sense "parents aren't raising
kids,
they are raising future adults"

Yes, of course it's a parent's job to raise the kids.  But that doesn't
mean they MUST micromanage every aspect of the child's development.
You know, it used to be believed that you had to start out a child
'right' from birth, or they would be ruined for life.  That if you
didn't start potty training at 2 weeks, the child would NEVER learn to
use the toilet.  That if you fed an infant at night he wouild NEVER
sleep through, so infants were expected, from birth, to sleep from 10
p.m. to 6 a.m. That if you didn't feed on a strict 4 hour schedule; if
you, God forbid, picked up a crying child between normal feeding times,
he would become a spoiled monster. In a somewhat earlier era it was
believed that you had to swaddle babies tightly in linen or their limbs
wouldn't grow straight, and that you had to prevent babies from
crawling or they'd develop 'animal-like' characteristics from moving
around on all 4's.

Yes, you guide children in their development.  You make decisions for
them when they are unable to decide for themselves, or when their
choices are harmful or when it's necessary for the wellbeing of the
family/society at large.  But since breastfeeding past the age of one
(where the mother is willing to continue) fits none of these
catagories, WHY is it necessary for the mother to impose a calendar
based schedule for it?



> 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.



one of my nephews wanted to keep nursing when my sister was done (he
was
about 15 months old).  he used her as a pacifier to fall asleep.  he is
not
emotionally harmed because he was forced to give it up (though the
first
several nights he did scream and cry a lot) and he has no lasting
effects
from this experience.    i would be interested to see the proof that
breastfeeding an older child is not damaging because in my experiences,
I
seen the opposite

I'm not following this story.  Your sister wanted to stop. That's fine.
Braestfeeding requires two people. (Remember the AAP guidelines "as
long thereafter and mother AND baby wish." So she weaned him. He was
fine, she was fine.  Now, please use this story to explain to me how he
would have been harmed if your sister had NOT chosen to wean him at
that age?  What damage would have been done if they had continued
another year, or two ... or however long it was until one or the other
wanted to stop? (Hint -- 'using mom 'as a pacifier' is not a problem --
unless it is for that particular mother. Breastfeeding is comforting
for young children. Not a damn thing wrong with that. [One of my
concerns when I weaned Shaina was that she had always nursed to sleep.
The day I dropped the last feeding she went to sleep on her own and
that was that. A few children (like your nephew) take a little longer
to make the transition.


>> 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.



don't try telling that to my sister, she was biten several times where
blood
was drawn

Ok. I misspoke.  When a baby is nursing correctly, the teeth do not
contact the breast.  It's not unheard of for a baby to occassionally
bite or scrape the breast, however. (But, having said that, most babies
have teeth by 6 months, and some 'bite'  even then. Unfortunately,
there ARE mothers who believe that you have to wean as soon as the
teeth come in, but it's rarely a problem and, usually just taking baby
off the breast ("dinner's over") teaches them not to bite.


Naomi






  
      





>(Even

.

0