Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Wednesday August 24 2016, @03:12PM   Printer-friendly
from the mmmmmmmm-lunch! dept.

In 2013, 81.1 percent of U.S. mothers said they started out breast-feeding their baby. That's up from 75 percent in 2008, and 70 percent in 2000, according to the CDC.

[...] 52 percent of U.S. mothers said they were still breast-feeding their infants when the babies were 6 months old, and 30 percent said they were still breast-feeding when the babies reached 1 year.

How should society handle breastfeeding in public and the workplace? Should there be any restrictions on the age of the child?

Breastfeeding has obvious benefits for a child's development, but breast milk is also a fluid of the body that can carry disease.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mum-still-breastfeeds-daughter-aged-4881835

http://www.livescience.com/55846-breast-feeding-mothers-united-states.html


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Zinho on Wednesday August 24 2016, @04:07PM

    by Zinho (759) on Wednesday August 24 2016, @04:07PM (#392630)

    How should society handle breastfeeding in public and the workplace?

    If you see a nipple, you're looking too hard. [boumerie.com] Show the woman and child some respect, let the child eat in peace.

    Should there be any restrictions on the age of the child?

    Rephrased, that's "does society have a moral responsibility to use the threat of stat-sanctioned violence to alter women's behavior in regards to breastfeeding?" No more so than it does regarding any other intimately personal choice. Unless there is a compelling, imminent risk to public safety or clear indications of abuse/neglect to the child, the state and the brute-force methods available to it (i.e. police intervention, fines, jail) have a moral responsibility to stay out of it entirely. Each mother should be free to nurse or not as she thinks is best for her and her children.

    The counter-arguments listed in the Mirror article boil down to, "there's no need to do it, and I think it's odd". Well, that doesn't mean it's bad, and if the mother/child find a benefit to it perhaps we should look into those benefits rather than shying away because it's "odd". If we're doing it wrong, then doing it right would be "odd", and "not normal". The last thing we should do is codify bad practices into law simply because they're our societal norm.

    For the curious, here's a link from the other end of the spectrum; in Mongolia it's typical to nurse up to age 6, [drmomma.org] and many go longer. Relevant quote:

    In North America, we so value independence that it comes through in everything we do. All the talk is about what your baby's eating now, and how many breastfeedings he's down to. Even if you're not the one asking these questions, it's hard to escape their impact. And there are now so many things for sale that are designed to help your child amuse herself and need you less that the message is clear. But in Mongolia, breastfeeding isn't equated with dependence, and weaning isn't a finish line. They know their kids will grow up - in fact, the average Mongolian five-year-old is far more independent than her western counterpart, breastfed or not. There's no rush to wean.

    --
    "Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4