| 1 year ago :: May 11, 2012 - 12:42PM #1 | |
|
My feelings about this are that the human animal has a natural time period where the baby *should* be breast feeding. Baby formula is probably not the best idea in the long run because it is not the same as mother's milk. As with other animals, about the time the baby gets enough teeth, and is running around able to find food, is about the time the baby should stop breast feeding.
www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-news-blog/20... |
|
|
Quick Reply
|
|
| 1 year ago :: May 11, 2012 - 1:00PM #2 | |
|
OMG, a boob! Everybody run in circles and scream! Ahem... Anyway, I agree, it's ludicrous to still be breastfeeding at that age. |
|
|
Quick Reply
|
|
| 1 year ago :: May 11, 2012 - 1:38PM #3 | |
|
My personal thoughts on this, would be until the child is about 2 years old. Honestly after this. I don't see any additional benefit. It is not like you can not still cuddle close with your child after breast feeding has stopped. One cuddles during bedtime stories and on the couch watching cartoons. So the emotional and security aspect, benefits and bonding for both the child and the mother can still be met. Perhaps if food were limited and this was the most efficient way to nourish the child I would be for nursing longer. But presently we are fortunate in the country where these women were photographed, and a child can be placed on solid more adult like foods and still be properly nourished. Just my opinion. Every case would be individual and every child different. I just wonder if it is more for the mother then the child. I don't know. Remember if one wants their child still on breast milk for nutritional reasons (which is reasonable), there are breast pumps, and bottles and sippy cups available.
A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side. Aristotle
Never discourage anyone...who continually makes progress, no matter how slow. Plato.. "A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives" Jackie Robinson |
|
|
Quick Reply
|
|
| 1 year ago :: May 11, 2012 - 2:28PM #4 | |
|
Saw this on the Guardian's site. I'll agree that for a kid still to be breat-feeding at that age is more than a little weird but I don't think the magazine cover is anything to get upset about. That said, remember that one of our national newspapers (tabloid, really) here still has topless women on full display on page 3 every day so maybe I'm just immunised to it.
He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God. ~ Proverbs 14:31
Fiat justitia, ruat caelum
|
|
|
Quick Reply
|
|
| 1 year ago :: May 11, 2012 - 4:57PM #5 | |
|
As an anthropologist, breast feeding a child at this age really offers me no shock content whatsoever. Within many tribes, breastfeeding a child even to the age of 10 is not that unusual, although the child obviously eats other things as well. Secondly, what difference is it to you or I how long a specific woman may choose to breast feed? It's not like she's robbing a bank or something. Thirdly, in many places in Europe and also in Israel, openly breast feeding a child is simply no big deal, although I do admit I haven't seen it done in public with a child that old. Finally, I have long tended to feel that Americans have more hangups than a large closet. |
|
|
Quick Reply
|
|
| 1 year ago :: May 11, 2012 - 5:26PM #6 | |
|
The REAL Question for both the Mother and her Child is "Separation" and "Individuation," normal Developmental Tasks, that may well be DELAYED for the Child if (s)he continues "Breast-Feeding" into his/her Adolescence ... |
|
|
Quick Reply
|
|
| 1 year ago :: May 11, 2012 - 5:42PM #7 | |
First, I agree with you that Americans are way too uptight. Personally, I think we need to have a "National Naked Day" every year. However, I would also argue that the reasons for not breast-feeding past a certain age are biological, not purely social. And because some small cultural groups might go against that, does not change the underlying facts. |
|
|
Quick Reply
|
|
| 1 year ago :: May 11, 2012 - 6:05PM #8 | |
As far as the last part, I don't know of any scientific evidence that prolonged use of mother's milk, when given along with other food is damaging, especially since the milk tends to become a more minor part of the diet as the child ages. Matter of fact, since the milk carries the mother's antibodies, any disease she's had in the past will not likely affect the child even though the child will begin to produce their own antibodies as well when they're several months old. And if my memory is correct, mothers' milk has a fairly low fat content. Have a good weekend to you and to all as I have to leave, and Happy Mother's Day to any mothers who might read this. |
|
|
Quick Reply
|
|
| 1 year ago :: May 11, 2012 - 7:42PM #9 | |
A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side. Aristotle
Never discourage anyone...who continually makes progress, no matter how slow. Plato.. "A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives" Jackie Robinson |
|
|
Quick Reply
|
|
| 1 year ago :: May 11, 2012 - 8:46PM #10 | |
|
Or ... Could save it up and make Cheese, I suppose ... or Ice Cream ... or Butter ...
|
|
|
Quick Reply
|
|