How long do you think a mother should breastfeed?

Not Exclusively but in general how long?

I can't think of a single instance of bullying or violence that I ever saw from a kid attatched to it's momma's breast. We should note that societies with extended breastfeeding have much lower rates of murder and incarceration than ours.

With enough breastfeeding surely we could eliminate crime entirely.

Same with abortion; SAFE, LEGAL, AND NONE OF YOUR DAMNED BIDNESS.

And, BRAVO!

since I'm the dictator of my household.

And is it really that unreasonable for me to extend such patriarchal dominance into the private lives of other households?

By telling me that I can't dictate how other people raise their children, you're denying my freedom.

Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!

:hide:

before either he or I was ready. It was NOT a good thing. Really NOT.

with that too well either.

The huge benefit of our little dictator nursing until a rather late age (although it was exclusively "snuggling" at night for most of this time) was that she had the mildest case of chicken-pox I've ever seen. My wife and I are convinced this is because of antibodies in the breast milk. However, we aren't doctors nor do we play one on TV, so this theory might be unfounded.

The WORST two weeks of my life!!!! They were fine, eventually. I, on the other hand, nearly had a nervous breakdown! ;-)

he is your ex!

:rofl:

OBEY.

The OP wasn't dictating anything to anybody or offering any slanted viewpoint. He was merely curious as to how long members consider appropriate. Pretty benign question really. If the OP asked "Hey, how long did you breastfeed for?" I can see someone responding as you did. But asking it in the way he had, as a generic inquiry of overall opinion, your response is pretty undeserved by him.

My wife breastfed way beyond that, and I left it up to her to decide.

WHO says 4 years is avg worldwide BTW.

:rofl:

Just kidding. I knew you probably had some sincere and benign explanation as to why, even though some decided to throw vitriol your way as if you were some male scumbag who was poking around in women's lives or something. I hate when I see knee jerk reactions like that when the OP is innocent and genuine.

22 mos is definitely not too long. Nothing is really. It generally really does just come down to what's comfortable to both mother and child. In other countries around the world breastfeeding is far more accepted. I can see why 4 years would be the worldwide avg.

I was gonna say, "it's up to the individual," but I like your response MUCH better.

:hug: :loveya:

I'm so sick of everyone on earth thinking they have the right to butt into women's lives and tell them what they "should" do.

Every child has unique needs and some mothers have health situations where they cannot breastfeed at all or have to stop before the child is really ready. Between a mom, a child and sometimes a doctor these things work themselves out. Putting a time limit or an expectation on a mother is just wrong.

but I was going to be a bit politer.
I'm very glad you weren't tho. ;)

:evilgrin:

for the public good?

Are you being harmed, Mongo - by women feeding their babies on planes? By women deciding at what age to wean their children?


It's not an issue for people to be concerned about for the public good when there is no harm.


The matter of unrestrained selfishness - can lead some people to defending practices of slavery, torture, abuse. Those are cases where people are harmed. Even then you can have a consensus who supports the thing. It happened in the South. The Republicans had more or less of a consensus about the merits of Torture. It was defended in the Wall Street Journal and all sorts of bastions of "good capitalism".

These men in the Congo seem to have a consensus that it is OK to destroy women.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2752005&mesg_id=2752005


It's not a matter of just having a consensus. It's a matter of considering all the parties - not some men's selfish interests.


Robert Jensen, as I have posted - ( http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/%7Erjensen/articles_gender.html) has documented some pretty disgusting abuse that takes place in the pornography business. But it's in your interest - monetary and otherwise - that it continue.

But that's another thread topic.

Unless it's a matter of the first wave feminists -- then the only interest (or studies or facts) that should be considered is their's. At least to you.

But that is another thread topic.

In gov't or business or the media or hollywood - public perceptions in general. It's not like you care that women are dehumanized.



And your denial knows no bounds.

decide on its own.

(Pro-choice to me is more than just believing that nobody but the woman should decide whether or not she will carry a fetus to term.)

no body else's business

Pediatricians are there for medical advice, not to tell you how to raise your family.

so it wasn't really an issue for us.

i was lucky because she weaned herself by 13 months. i remember it well: one day i asked her if she wanted 'boo-boo' and instead of latching on like she usually did, she looked at me as if to say, 'are you NUTS?" She had been taking less and less until this day.

:rofl:

I mean this in regards to a pre-determined length of time. Some babies may naturally want to nurse longer than others.

Just for the record, I'm not a mother and I've never been pregnant.

(And I'll go ahead and apologize right now for anyone whose appetite I spoiled.)

"PUMP AND DUMP" is the safest way to go unless you are vegetarian.

Dioxin bioaccumulates...once it gets into your body, there are TWO WAYS to rid yourself of that dioxin...by having a baby which passes dioxin to the baby through the placenta, and by breastfeeding.


How To Avoid Dioxin

Do not eat beef or pork, which have some of the largest concentrations of dioxin of all food sources. Limit your intake of ocean fish; do not eat any freshwater fish. Chicken has the lowest dioxin content of all meats, but is still significant. Vegetarian meat substitutes such as tofu, beans, and rice have essentially no contamination.

If your family drinks milk, drink only skim milk, since dioxin is carried in the butterfat. Avoid all full-fat dairy products, such as butter, cheese and ice cream. Use non-fat skim-milk products or non-dairy substitutes. Do not breast-feed infants, as human milk contains more dioxin than any other food (in relation to an infants body weight), unless you have eaten a non-dairy, low-fat vegetarian diet for several years.

Men have no ways to get rid of dioxin other than letting it break down according to its chemical half-lives. Women, on the other hand, have two ways which it can exit their bodies:

It crosses the placenta... into the growing infant;

It is present in the fatty breast milk, which is also a route of exposure which doses the infant, making breast-feeding for non-vegetarian mothers quite hazardous.

http://www.zmag.org/Bulletins/pdioxin.htm

Surely you're aware of how contaminated formula has been found to be?

As far as dioxins and breastmilk, here's a paper:
http://www.ehponline.org/members/2002/110pA339-A347solomon/solomon-full.html

A key quote: "the weight of the scientific evidence to date indicates that the advantages of breast-feeding outweigh any risks from contaminants in breast milk"

but in my humble opinion, formula is a better choice than exposing infants to these harmful chemicals.

Breast milk — If breast milk from American women were bottled
and sold commercially, it would be banned by the US Food and Drug
Administration because it is contaminated with more than 100
industrial chemicals, including dioxins and pesticides.

http://ecologycenter.org/erc/petroleum/pdf/body.pdf

So it's better for an infant to consume COW'S milk based formula, y'know, cow's breastmilk - the same cows who's beef we're not supposed to eat, the same beef that's laden with dioxins? :wtf:
Not to mention the added pollution to the environment formula production/usage brings. Or the lack of immune boosters. Or the recalls because of contamination. Or the numerous man-made additives. Yeah that formula is soooo much better if you're looking to keep your baby from being exposed to chemicals. :silly:
Maybe fight a little harder against pollution, instead of trying to misinform women.

and while that's not perfect either, it think it's a heck of a lot better than contaminating my child.

There have been no studies done on the long term effects of the phytoestrogens on babies. Especially female infants.
IF you are so worried about contaminating your child -why didn't you eat organic/vegan and then breastfeed? Nope, just straight to the soy formula. :eyes:

from YOUR source, here is the FULL quote:

Breast milk — If breast milk from American women were bottled
and sold commercially, it would be banned by the US Food and Drug
Administration because it is contaminated with more than 100
industrial chemicals, including dioxins and pesticides. Despite the
presence of toxic chemicals in human milk, breast feeding is a highly
desirable practice. Breast feeding gives an infant immunity against
gastrointestinal diseases and respiratory infections; it may also offer
protection against food allergies. Furthermore, the alternatives
(prepared formulas) are even less healthy. Source: Rachel’s Hazardous
Waste News #193.

(emphasis mine)

You should read more thoroughly. It will save you from embarassment.

but personally am NOT buying it.

It's just like the argument for bombing Hiroshima...the alternative was WORSE?

I did read the entire statement, and I don't buy it.

Good Grief. Nice debating tactic.

Using only part of a source to back up your argument, while the full quotation actually makes the OPPOSITE argument, is dishonest.

Advocate vegetarianism if you want--but don't give us dishonest bullshit tactics like this.

Misleading about the value of breastfeeding to promote an anti-meat agenda - for shame!

The FIRST part of the quote is factual...

the rest is opinion.

Let's go back and read what you posted.

This is what you quoted, and the link you provided:


"Breast milk — If breast milk from American women were bottled
and sold commercially, it would be banned by the US Food and Drug
Administration because it is contaminated with more than 100
industrial chemicals, including dioxins and pesticides."

http://ecologycenter.org/erc/petroleum/pdf/body.pdf


And here is the rest of the section from that link, which you left out:

"Despite the presence of toxic chemicals in human milk, breast feeding is a highly
desirable practice. Breast feeding gives an infant immunity against
gastrointestinal diseases and respiratory infections; it may also offer
protection against food allergies. Furthermore, the alternatives
(prepared formulas) are even less healthy. Source: Rachel’s Hazardous
Waste News #193."

Now, two points:
1) LOTS of facts in that part
2) ONLY YOUR PART of the section says anything about the FDA. I never brought up anything about the FDA.

Wow. I've never heard anyone seriously try to argue that, before.

You're mistaken.

and I can tell you without any hesitation that you're full of crap.

Good for digestion! LOL.

Scandal involving unscrupulous marketing of formula in third world countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestl%C3%A9_boycott

BTW, two of the brightest, healthiest, most well-adjusted young adults I know were breastfed till ages 4 and 6.

The World Health Organization Working Group on the Assessment of Health Risks for Human Infants from Exposure to PCDDs, PCDFs and PCBs reached two important conclusions <5>:

* the incidence of obvious health problems in breast-fed children whose mothers had measurable levels of dioxin in their breast milk was generally within the normal background variation; and

* they found that the benefits of breastfeeding in terms of neurological measures remained, regardless of dioxin exposure via breast milk.

Several other researchers have reinforced this finding showing that breastfeeding will provide health benefits even if dioxin residues are present in the breast milk. Most scientists have concluded that the benefits of breastfeeding are so great as to outweigh the risks associated with dioxin exposure. Such exposure may diminish the benefits of breastfeeding, but not to the point that women should avoid breastfeeding to avoid exposure. <9>

http://www.nrdc.org/breastmilk/chem9.asp

harmful misinformation about breastfeeding?

Wow, just wow.

Bottom line is, Breastfeeding is FAR SUPERIOR to formula for infants- that's a no brainer. No matter what some random vegan activist on a listserv may have said, once, in 1997.

If our world is so toxic that women can't feed their babies naturally - it's too toxic to have them at all. That's what I think.



But it's up to each person to decide that or not. Eat a vegetarian diet. Or whatever.



All the more reason to regulate industry - toxins, meat products, pesticides and what have you. That's where it starts and stops.

Oh, that's just too much.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I gotta wipe my eyes. Oh god that was funny.

And I have heard of plenty of vegetarians who had to add some meat to their diets under doctors' orders because of gestational diabetes problems.

Seems to me that that formula, which is usually derived from cows' milk, would also have dioxin.

weaning. Otherwise, let the mother & kid decide.

Its a very personal decision.

Um.... any sort of nipple feeding - bottle or breast - is absolutely HORRID on a child's developing teeth if it's any longer than a year.

Yes, I know they fall out, but they set the precedent for the permanent teeth.

P.S. And I realize you can't just "cut it off" at a year. I have a child and am expecting another - I know. But you should really start trying at about a year because of the teeth and nothing more. As a person who struggles with her own teeth, making sure my children's teeth aren't going to turn into MINE is as important as bonding. One can still snuggle and co-sleep and all the other stuff without harming the teeth.

so far as hurting tooth developement, breast feeding doesn't hurt the developing teeth as much as bottles or pacifiers do. The fit is more natural (so to speak) and most yr olds aren't spending as much time breastfeeding as they do sucking on a more portable device.

I chose other because it is up to the mother and child. Everyone finds what works for them and each pair is unique.

If we look at other large primates, the average for people should be 3-4 years.

As far as harming the teeth, I couldn't find anything on extended nursing, but did find some articles that support that breastfeeding in general aids in correct oral development:
http://www.brianpalmerdds.com/bfeed_oralcavity.htm
http://www.jped.com.br/conteudo/03-79-01-07/ing.asp

And our teeth are much different than apes (for one thing, they're not as big and flat and we don't eat the same foods).

But, I was told it would deform the front teeth like thumb-sucking does. But the things I found online are mixed. Some say it causes tooth decay and others say it doesn't - it's dependent upon your own body's chemistry and how much sugar your personal milk has in it.

But, all that aside - a four-year-old nursing is just, well, how do you hold a four-year-old to nurse? We don't exactly live in a culture that supports even babies nursing, much less toddlers.

Not that I nursed mine that long but I had a friend whose adopted daughter nursed until she was past 4. Since the child was adopted, my friend was reluctant to push the weaning issue.

If babies are weaned from the breast too soon, they tend to become thumbsuckers or pacifier addicts, which are both worse for their teeth than a few minutes at the breast each day.

I posted this in my other reply but here it is again:

http://www.brianpalmerdds.com/bfeed_oralcavity.htm

I also think the health benefits of breastfeeding beyond 1 yr. are pretty significant, if you can do it.

Supposedly, breastfeeding doesn't cause tooth decay. Here's info about that http://www.kellymom.com/bf/older-baby/tooth-decay.html I have friends who breastfed and whose kids have dental problems, but I have friends who cut off all nipples at one year on the dot whose kids have dental problems too. My daughter breastfed till she was a bit over 2, including at night, and she so far (knock on wood) has perfect teeth - no cavities and her teeth are beautifully straight and aligned.

It might be more genetic than anything.

Also, breastfeeding helps with tooth alignment and overall development of the oral cavity

http://www.brianpalmerdds.com/bfeed_oralcavity.htm

My children ages 27 and 23 have the most beautiful and caries free teeth - amazing considering that they nursed 4 and 5 years respecively.

Breastfeeding does NOT harm teeth. Strep mutans are the cause- look it up. Meanwhile, you could be trading childhood lukemia and other harmful hazards of premature weaning for the unproven idea that you are saving your kids' teeth.

and my son nursed until the day before his third birthday. He has a variety of sensory issues and developmental delays that made nursing extra important for him.

Also, breastmilk is very different from cows milk, and mom's nipple is farther back in the mouth than a bottle nipple, so there is less contact between the milk and the child's teeth if child is breastfeeding.

As long as mother and baby are comfortable.

Isn't this pretty obvious :shrug:

Long as she wants.

As long as is mutually desired between mother and child. It's nobody else's business.

Seems like a no-brainer to me. Once the baby is taking other foods and starting to walk, or attempt to, s/he is not taking much breast milk and the mother's breasts adjust to produce less. At that point, around a year, the main reason for nursing is comfort and closeness, not nutrition, and nursing only occurs once, perhaps twice, a day. Babies will decide on their own when they're ready to quit but I think it's a good idea for the mother to stop offering the breast when she notices the baby is losing interest. For example, the mother can try putting the baby down for the night without nursing him/her; the baby will protest loudly if this is unacceptable. If allowed, the choice, most babies will nurse 12-24 months, but some will stop before 12 months or want to continue beyond 24.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who will tell mothers "You shouldn't be nursing a child that old!" once the baby's 2 months or so. They are usually the same people who earlier said "Why don't you just bottlefeed?" And I suspect many of them oppose sex education in school, too. Lots of puritanical attitudes in America!

Women who want to breastfeed can find support through La Leche League, if there's a local chapter. If not, I recommend reading their book. It'll help you deal with the Puritans.

at around age 3 months (in addition to the constant backdrop of she really needs to eat something else besides breast milk, how do you know she's getting enough to eat, etc.).

Its a real pain - especially when its the family that keeps reciting the anti-breastfeeding mantra.

I think that's up to the mom and the baby.

The World Health Organization advocates breastfeeding for two years and beyond. You know something they don't?

"Ain't nobody's business but my own......."

She breast fed her DD until the girl was FIVE. Personally, that is way, way, way too long. She had to wean the kid for kindergarten.

No lie.... the kid was seven and was still getting breastfed. To me that is a bit weird....

I didn't make it that far with either of my boys. Once those first teeth came in, and they began to teethe and would bear down on the nipple ... OUCHIE!! I very much enjoyed breast feeding my children but it didn't take very many good bites to switch them over to a sippy cup.

For CRYING OUT LOUD, what a question!!!!!!!

The answer, OF COURSE, is that a mother should breastfeed as long as SHE wants to!!!

It is NOBODY'S BUSINESS!!!!!!!!

The VERY QUESTION supposes that there is a time beyond which a mother SHOULD NOT breastfeed!!!

I am QUITE SURPRIZED TO SEE A QUESTION LIKE THIS ON A LIBERAL BOARD!!!!!!

:silly: No oftener than once every 2 hours.

often 40 minutes on each breast.

(Yes, that's another of the criticisms the nursing consultant at the hospital had - I had plenty of battles.)

20 minutes is probably a general outside for most nursing diads - but like anything else in the nursing relationship, there are no hard fast rules.

Mainly, my wife breastfed until our daughter was about 3.

Someone else (maybe more than one) on another thread was saying 22 months was too long. And the freepers talking about it were saying the woman must have mental issues to breast feed that long.

Just wanted to gauge the response among progressives.

in your op i would have understood, so sorry for that.

based on my own opinion :)

Oy gevalt.

There's a reason the body produces the milk. As long as she's making it, there's no reason the baby shouldn't drink it. It's biology.

I'm not willing to give it up.

Mother knows best.

One of my favorite links here - quiz doesn't take too long, just has one question: http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/Spa/3156/lesotho.htm

I have no reason to judge it differently.

My 4yo son self-weaned at 16-17 months.

My daughter (now 10yo) breastfed until she was 3.5yo, when I initiated weaning.

Extended bf'ing is something you can't understand unless you've been there and done that. If I had never had my daughter, only my son who weaned at 16m, then I too might see nursing a >2yo odd. But, it's not something that happens overnight. It's not like one day you're nursing a newborn, and the next day you're nursing a walking/talking toddler. Little by little, your baby grows to become a toddler and then a preschooler, and your nursing relationship changes with them as their needs change, just like any other aspect of parenting. Some children wean earlier and some wean later. Each child is an individual, with individual needs, and that's all that really matters.

I do think breast milk is better, but I don't care at all what someone else may choose to do. Who knows how I'll feel when it's my turn?? All my nieces and nephews were formula fed. They're fine. Anecdotal I know, but it doesn't matter what I think, anyway. Their mommies had their own lives to lead. I'm so proud of all of them (mommies and babies).

Then they will know.

If we were less screwed up as a society any social pressure would be in favor of continued nursing, rather than in favor of weaning and the use of inferior and dangerous pharmaceutical substitutes for human milk.

but of course it is.

When mom and child are ready is my vote.

:D

which most babies, from my personal experience and observations, will do. I nursed both of mine until about 13 months...

I also want to add a caveat: I think it depends on the culture, also, and socio-economic position. In other words, it depends on a lot of things, not what society thinks, imvho.

Jenn

and knows more intimately how the breast-feeding is going. I breastfed my child for 2 1/2 years. He let me know when it was over as he was getting his food and nourishment through self-feeding. My sister-in-law went longer. My sister only breast-fed for 6 months with one child - a year with her next. All of the kids mentioned above have few if any health issues such as colds or recurring ear aches as their bottle-fed cousins have had. Just anecdotal but interesting to note as it does support the health benefits claimed by pro-breastfeeding documentation.

My overall thoughts about this thread: we need to keep the govt and other would-be policy makers out of our homes, out of our lives. Breastfeeding doesn't harm children - all evidence points to only positive outcomes. Smaller govt. Less rules about personal issues. Less is more.

On the other hand, with what college meal plans cost today...

Sheesh.

And if a woman chooses NOT to breastfeed, that's her decision and none of our damn business either.

That's one way for unwed teenage mothers to get extra money, breastfeeding the wealthy mother's infants. That's why the good Lord in his infinite wisdom gave the poor mothers 2 tits. One for her own child and one for the wealthy mother's child. Amen.

When she finishes servicing the infant she can go down the hall to the master's bedroom and service the master.

Why does it have to be on a 'year' basis? Why can't we allow individuals to make these decisions (with advice from their pediatricians) on their own?

bottled food for babies?

It is a personal decison a Mother must make.
In some cultures, it is acceptable to breastfeed for several years.
Is this still a progressive message board?

It's a relationship. I nursed my daughter for 3.5 yrs and my son for 2.5. I nursed him for a year less because I lost my milk when I got strep throat and a high fever. He didn't want to quit then, and neither did I, but there ya go.

It's up to the mom and the baby. No one else.