Quote:
Originally Posted by dubman
so while that means there's going to be fomula feeding instead of the real thing (which isnt the best for newborns but thats their thing), he can be a parent too.
|
not necessarily. i will be working full time away from home and breastfeeding twins. it means i'll be spending quite a bit of time pumping but it is certainly a doable job. especially if she's only having to pump enough quantity to support one. breastmilk stores in the freezer for 5 months and up to 5 days in the refrigerator. even with a busy schedule she can certainly pump enough to support her child. additionally, her child is currently 4 months old, which means he will be 9-ish months by the time the inauguration will roll around. the current recommendation for breastfeeding is 1 year but 9 months is certainly sufficient and exceeds the national average for what most mothers do.
regardless, while there is quite a bit of evidence to support the arguments for breastfeeding, there is no evidence to suggest that formula feeding results in a sacrifice to health and welfare. don't forget that many moms try breastfeeding and through no fault of their own are unable to produce milk at all or in sufficient quantities and have no choice but to bottlefeed formula. still other mothers face issues where babies lack the muscular strength to suckle from a breast, which is significantly harder than suckling at a latex nipple. premature or underweight babies frequently are prohibited from breastfeeding because the effort burns more calories than the milk/colostrum contains and the exertion can result in weight loss. finally, even with hormonal stimulation adoptive mothers rarely produce significant quantities of milk and these babies formula feed as a necessity.
it's all a bit off topic, but if we're going to make the republican VP's breastfeeding options our business, we ought to be properly informed about all of the factors as well as the realistic ramifications of her options.