posted March 19, 2006 12:42 PM         

The parents have to raise the baby together. Each should have equal input. If one parent is overpowering the other's input, then, IMO, that parent is way over the line.

Too many mothers use their children as bartering tools.

posted March 19, 2006 01:26 PM         

The information we have been given is blatantly one sided. Written to incite outrage and draw people to a protest, or generate complaints.

I would love to hear Dad's side of it.

Lioneye, you made a statement speculating the baby must be a boy for the father to have such keen interest in this. Please tell me you were trying to be facetious.

posted March 19, 2006 03:39 PM         

Even if the mom has been keeping the baby away from the dad, ordering her to STOP breastfeeding is horribly wrong. If she is legitimately unable to use a breast pump (see my first post) then both parents should be ORDERED to compromise and find a way for the child to spend time with both parents. If the mother can pump but the father refuses to feed the child the breastmilk then he should be ORDERED to feed the child breastmilk, even if it means having those visits supervised.
The child's health outweighs everything else, in my opinion. Both parents, and the law apparently, need to see it that way.
I don't go in for being overly PC so I'll apologize in advance if anyone is offended by the following.
The reasons to breastfeed and to support breastfeeding are countless. It is of inestimable value to the child's health and recent research shows it is beneficial to the mother as well. That men don't get a directly physical beneficial effect from his child's mother breastfeeding his child is out of anyone's hands. I've heard the same lousy complaint from different men that their wife shouldn't breastfeed so that he can "bond" with the child by feeding him formula ... or that she should pump her milk for the same reasons. That has to be the one of the most selfish sentiments I've ever heard expressed. If women were meant to pump breastmilk then we'd be born with pumps attached. And the bonding that happens between a mother and child while they are breastfeeding CANNOT be replicated by anyone with a bottle. I'm not saying you can't bond with a bottlefed baby, I'm just saying it won't be the same kind of bond. So it would be nice if men could accept that and move on. Alas, there are probably men out there inventing a "perfectly safe and natural" machine/technology/pill/whatever to allow men to breastfeed, too.
But worse than that is this commonly held notion that formula is just as good as or better than breastmilk. There is No way to duplicate breastmilk. Even the "best" formulas out there admit that they are not the same. They may be the brand "closest" to replicating it but their close is still pretty darn far from what nature intended. I know alot of parents choose formula for their babies, for whatever reasons. But that is never going to make me ashamed to say that breast is best. As far as my opinion goes (and I know it's not far but here it is anyway), every child has the naturally given right to be breastfed. Even as parents, who are we to choose to deny that child what is best for them? We do it because that child can't speak for itself, can't care for itself, can't defend itself ... because s/he is totally dependent on us. So we can do what we want, right? I don't agree but that's what a lot of parents do. If that child was not a newborn but, say 12, would you choose to feed him/her food that was inarguably less nutritious and fully synthetic because it was more convenient for you? Some people would say yes but I think, or at least hope, that most would say no. So why not show a newborn the same respect for their bodies and their health? Don't they deserve it?
Off the soapbox I come tumbling. Again, not wanting to hurt anyone's feelings just saying what I feel.

posted March 19, 2006 04:11 PM         

quote:

---

Even if the mom has been keeping the baby away from the dad, ordering her to STOP breastfeeding is horribly wrong. If she is legitimately unable to use a breast pump (see my first post) then both parents should be ORDERED to compromise and find a way for the child to spend time with both parents. If the mother can pump but the father refuses to feed the child the breast milk then he should be ORDERED to feed the child breast milk, even if it means having those visits supervised.

---

quote:

---

That men don't get a directly physical beneficial effect from his child's mother breastfeeding his child is out of anyone's hands. I've heard the same lousy complaint from different men that their wife shouldn't breastfeed so that he can "bond" with the child by feeding him formula ... or that she should pump her milk for the same reasons. That has to be the one of the most selfish sentiments I've ever heard expressed. If women were meant to pump breast milk then we'd be born with pumps attached. And the bonding that happens between a mother and child while they are breastfeeding CANNOT be replicated by anyone with a bottle.

---

Further, I think it's awful that you see the father's desire to share in the bonding experience with the child as "one of the most selfish sentiments [you've]ever heard expressed". I am frankly really shocked and appalled by that comment. I agree, though, that the father shouldn't insist on the baby being fed formula laden with hormones and other unnatural substances. I don't, on the other hand, agree that the mother shouldn't be willing to express milk to allow the father to share in that experience. The mother that refuses to allow the child's father such an experience is the selfish one, IMO.

I expressed milk so that my husband (and his mother) could feed my babies. Actually, he didn't use a bottle. He used a syringe with a small tube taped to his finger. The baby suckled on him directly. He controlled the flow of the breast milk with the plunger on the syringe.

Nothing negative came from it... Only healthy bonds with other people besides me.

posted March 19, 2006 10:24 PM         

I never said the father's desire to share in the bonding experience with the child was awful. What I said (though now more explicity) is that his insistence on making his wife change a perfectly natural and normal part of motherhood and making his child miss out on the many outstanding benefits of breastfeeding just so that he can try to experience something he can never experience in the EXACT same way is selfish. As in, I'm applying this to the particular men I've known in my life (and any others who must be out there) who think that by bottle feeding their child they are somehow doing and feeling the exact same thing as a mother nursing a child at her breast does. As if God/Nature intended them to miss out on something that was rightfully theirs. As if there is no other possible way for them to bond with their child.
I in no way said that all fathers who want to bond with their children are selfish. I in no way said that wanting to share in feeding the child with expressed breastmilk was selfish. Again, I said that a man who insists (ie, will have it no other way) that his wife not breastfeed or that she pump her milk (and I meant that regularly) for the SOLE purpose of him creating the illusion that he will somehow know what it's like to be a mother with breasts nursing her child is selfish. These men are out there. I know some of them. They think it's unfair that women can breastfeed and men can't ... that women should give up on breastfeeding because formula is just as good ... that the fact that women come equipped for breastfeeding is unimportant ... that equal means exactly the same.
Equal is not identical ... it is of the same worth.
My husband is very supportive of my breastfeeding. Yes, he has looked at me nursing our son and later told me that it would be nice to know what it felt like. But he doesn't want to bottle feed him in some delusional attempt to have breasts with milk flowing out of them. And he has given our son a bottle on occassion. So have I. It is just not the same. I'm not saying it's evil. I'm not saying there was no bonding. I'm just saying it's not the same. I don't feel milk coming out of my breasts and into his little mouth when I'm using a bottle. It's not the same. I don't see how that is an untrue statement.
My husband doesn't have breast envy. He has found many other ways to bond with our son, from playing with him and bathing him to reading him stories and just cradling him in his arms while he naps and countless other ways. He is not jealous of me and I'm not jealous of him. Neither one of us is forcing the other to alter what comes naturally to us nor are we forcing our son to alter what is best for his health and what makes him happy. We found our compromises and we're happy with them. And we're happy with our little family just the way it is. I'm sure there are many, many other families who compromise in other ways and are just as happy or perhaps even more so. I never said they aren't or that it isn't possible.

posted March 20, 2006 01:41 AM         

However, this does not mean that every self-centered, revolting loser who only cares about his children when their presence satifies his emotional needs should be able to cry "Father's Rights!" and undermine a mother who IS devoting herself to the child's best interest.

I'd like to know where the law and a lot of people in our society have gotten the idea that having two crappy parents is better than one good parent or one good grandparent for that matter.
Just because a teenage child of an absent parent cries tears of joy at "finally" meeting the absent parent and claims to be filling that "hole" that has been inside all these years? Because the Montel's and Maurey's of the world think it's good tv?
They don't show the child a year later when that hole is back.
Everyone here knows that hole is only filled with One thing.

posted March 20, 2006 09:59 AM         

The benefit of breast feeding is not in question here.

The issue of the fathers right to be with his child is not at question.

The issue is, is it detrimental to stop breastfeeding?

I began following this thread not knowing anything about breastfeeding. I am now informed.

If taking suplimental vitamins is beneficial is it detrimental to stop taking them?

NO

There is no evidence showing the cessation of breast feeding will have any detriment to a child.

Regards,

Focused Chi

posted March 20, 2006 10:58 AM         

There is no evidence to state that he is a selfish father.

There is equal evidence that the mother is a crappy parent.

Perhaps the father IS the ONE good parent the child has?

How do we know?

We have to automatically support the mother because we are women?

I don't effin' think so.

I've known enough women in my life that have been lousy mothers to be stuck in that mind set. (For instance, my mother, the worst mother I've known on this planet... and she breastfed my siblings for two years a piece.) A breastfeeding mother DOES NOT equal a GOOD mother.

At the present, I know three single fathers who have had to jump through the biased court's hoops in order to get their children... each of them having to wait for the HORRIBLE mothers to finally screw up enough that the kids can be taken.

posted March 20, 2006 12:40 PM         

quote:

---

Lioneye, you made a statement speculating the baby must be a boy for the father to have such keen interest in this. Please tell me you were trying to be facetious.

---

Focused Chi - Yeah, I guess that was pretty cynical of me. Sorry. I've just noticed, in MY circle, that dads seem to get more "up in arms" over their baby sons than they do over their baby daughters. I even know one dad who takes his son for visits (and everywhere for that matter)regularly, but rarely takes his little daughter anywhere.

posted March 20, 2006 01:29 PM         

What is the level of 'the woman screwing up enough' that the father can finally take his child? Is this based upon the father's perception or the childs?
I have a friend who has been a devoted father from day one. He paid for a paternity test to ensure the child was his.. he went to court, uncontested, and acquired custody. He is a proud and good single father of his two year old child, and the mother hasn't so much as called.

posted March 21, 2006 10:58 AM         

"What is the level of 'the woman screwing up enough' that the father can finally take his child? Is this based upon the father's perception or the childs?"

I suppose that would be the father's take, and the courts. Two of the three cases involved abusive mothers... one was sexually abusing her toddler. The court wouldn't accept a two year old's testimony... "My mommy put her fingers in my potty." The judge sent the child home with the mother. The father had to start taking the child to regular doctor appointments to get some physical proof that the child's "potty" had indeed been tampered with. Can you imagine what a horrible experience that was for this little girl?! She's now with her father full time... after he spent tens of thousands of dollars to see to it.

"The court should have ruled that it be ammended.. not suspended."

I completely agree. I just don't think the mother's right to breastfeed trumps dad's right to be with his child. Mom needs to be more clever. Mom needs to share the child with its father... regardless of any sorrow it may cause her.

I have been clouded by experience. I have seen too many cases go the mother's way simply because she is a woman.

posted March 22, 2006 12:48 AM         

If taking suplimental vitamins is beneficial is it detrimental to stop taking them?

NO

There is no evidence showing the cessation of breast feeding will have any detriment to a child."<-<

To me, the issue is not whether it is detrimental to stop breastfeeding. To me, that is a given. Doing some extensive research on that subject would bring you to the same conclusion.
The issue is whether the government has a right to tell me if and when I can breastfeed my baby. And no, they don't. Period.

To respectfully help you to see my point of view, I will use your own analogy to illustrate my point.

You said: "If taking suplimental vitamins is beneficial is it detrimental to stop taking them? NO"

If we were to use your analogy, breastfeeding would NOT be equivalent to supplemental vitamins. Breastfeeding is WHOLE FOODS and FORMULA is the supplemental vitamins. If one of your patients told you that they planned to go on a SlimFast Shake Only Diet because the shakes would add up to the RDA of vitamins and minerals, including protein and fat sources, you would ADVICE THEM AGAINST IT BECAUSE IT WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THEIR HEALTH. You would explain to them that it is necessary for them to get the bulk of their nutrients from WHOLE FOODS.
I'm sure you see where I am coming from on this. There are women out there who have real issues that make formula their only and best choice and I have no intentions of disrespecting them so I will stop the comments on which is "better" for that reason.

posted March 22, 2006 12:20 PM         

quote:

---

There is no evidence showing the cessation of breast feeding will have any detriment to a child.

---

posted March 22, 2006 12:38 PM         

But...

In the long run, though... What happens to little girls and boys that grow up without the father? They find that love (or so they thing) one way or another.

I know how growing up fatherless effected (and affected) me... and most other little girls that grew up without their daddies.

The psychological effects, in my mind, of growing up fatherless far outweigh the physical effects of going the weekend without breastmilk.

posted March 22, 2006 09:14 PM         

Thanks for sharing that site, it's is a wonderful compilation of information.
Respectfully, I failed to find anything showing the cessation of breastfeeding is detrimental.
[With the exception of the newborn who is being breastfed should not be switched for formula until the gut closes/develops in the first month or two.]

The advantages of breastfeeding is obvious. Breastfeeding lowers the risk of allergies. Removing that benefit does not Increase the risk though. Removing a benefit does not by default create detriment.

I stand behind my statement. I am open to being corrected. Or at least agreeing to disagree.

Furthermore, I want to add this is just my opinion. I am not a pediatrician and my daughter came from an orphanage at 9 months and was never breastfed.

Respectfully and more informed,

posted March 22, 2006 09:47 PM         

I don't have any formula or slimfast cans here to compare labels. : )

When I said bad man not relevant, I was thinking more along the lines of Nacissist *hole abandons his family for ditzzy model. Not sicko evil criminal bad. (I know you were not directing your statement to me but the man in this situation is not a criminal to my knowledge)

I agree with you in principal, the government should not have the right to dictate such things to you. At the same time the father should not be restricted from his child. If compromise cannot be reached the government gets involved.

I have enjoyed this thread immensely, it has sparked some great thoughts for me.
I respect all of your thoughts on this topic.

I stated before I am a divorced father, I am fortunate in that my exwife and I are friends and have no negative issues at all.

But I imagined myself in this fathers position. If some situation obstructed me from my daughter I would respond with such fierce intensity to said situation there would be no doubt of my victory. I would lay waste to all opposition with no sense of right or wrong until it could never again be a threat to me. It would be ugly.
I would sacrifice Everything I have, and Am for my daughter. Everything.

Hmm.......maybe I should have just said that in the begining and avoided all the breastfeeding stuff.

LOL

Regards,

Focused Chi

posted March 23, 2006 02:44 AM         

quote:

---

The advantages of breastfeeding is obvious. Breastfeeding lowers the risk of allergies. Removing that benefit does not Increase the risk though. Removing a benefit does not by default create detriment.

---

I dunno, maybe it's just semantics..

It seems like perhaps you are operating from the perspective of formula feeding being the default scenario whereas I am operating from the perspective that breastfeeding should always be the default. If 98% of children were breastfed for atleast two years, I don't think we'd be having this discussion. It would be obvious that forumula feeding has a detrimental effect on a child's physical and psychological well being. But because the vast majority of children are either forumula fed exclusively or weaned way too early, the detrimental effects are just seen as normal.

posted March 23, 2006 06:41 AM         

You said, "I haven't commented on the father issue because I didn't really see it as relevant."

Well... I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree here.

I think the psychological impact of the child not having contact is VERY relevant... as I said before, more relevant than missing breast milk on the weekends.

I'm not going to be convinced that the mother's desire to breast feed the baby out weighs the father's & child's rights to be together.

I'm not going to convince you that the father and child have just as much right to each other as mother and child... especially if you don't think "father issues" are relevant.

We just see it differently.

Focused Chi,

It is nice to know there are fathers out there that will do whatever necessary to have a relationship with their child(ren).