For those of you not tired of the bfing debate

DaisyFull · November 2011

MegGary:
DaisyFull:
MegGary:
We can argue all day what is fact & what is theory. The FACT remains that the sign's message is offensive. Not in it's statement but it's delivery. There is a way of educating mothers and than there is a way of quilting a woman when it's completly unnecessary to do so. Especailly in a hospital setting where a woman most likely just gave birth & her hormones are raging & the last thing she friggen needs is a big sign judging her on how she feeds her child. Way to go hospital. Really nice way of being a caring facility.
I'm just a proponent of feeding babies. Formula or breast. Just do it & I don't really care.
I'm not sure I'd say the sign is offensive.
I personally think it's ignorant fear-mongering. And it's stupid. But I chose to FF, and it doesn't "offend" me because I think it's rubbish. Propaganda. If I had the time, I'd try to trace it back to the maker because I swear it's probably a welfare agency who can't afford to keep paying for formula.
Than don't say it's offensive if it doesn't offend you. I just picture it this way, you're a mom who just gave birth & are a raging hormonal mess & are having trouble BFing or cannot for any number of reason & see that sign. Yeah I might feel offended. There is a better way of going about educating & guilt driven signage is not it.
I chose to FF for my own reasons & felt guilt over it. It would have really upset me had I seen that sign at the time.

Oh, I hate the sign. It needs to go. No post-hormonal Mom (ff'ing or not) needs to see it.

I was just playing semantics to get my point across. We be on the same page.

DaisyFull · November 2011

carlab44:
CinemaGoddess:
carlab44:
CinemaGoddess:

I'm still waiting for any proof that FF causes cancer.

There are studies out there that show that children who are never breast fed have a higher risk of certains kinds of cancer than those that were breast fed for 6 months or longer. Obviously this isn't "proof" and people can continue to argue about correlation/causation. But determining causation in any kind of epidemiological study can take a long, long time. It took decades for them to do enough studies to say that smoking causes lung cancer.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9876474?dopt=Abstract

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10528028

I want to stress again that I do not agree with having a sign like that up in a hospital - or anywhere. But I also don't think people should dismiss the benefits of breastfeeding as having no merit or proof.

Nobody in this thread has done this as far as I know.

Maybe I read it the wrong way, but earlier in the thread people were using a rather dismissive tone regarding the benefits of breast feedings (lower risk of SIDS, allergies, diabetes) being theories not facts.

I don't think most people believe this particular "fact". At least, I don't.

Blankets = may cause SIDS

Sleeping face down = may cause SIDS

Bumpers = may cause SIDS

I have never read a convincing, credible article that even suggests bf'ing/ff'ing plays a role. But if you have one, I'd be willing to read it.

carlab44 · November 2011

EllaHella:

bstrangely:

see above? "no one says that formula feeding causes cancer."

i don't know why you're bringing that up. no one said it. the end.

Again. The sign said formula may cause cancer. This discussion, after all. is about the sign.

Actually it says it may increase your risk of certain cancers. Not that it causes cancer.

KRISTA555 · November 2011

AshPal61:

mocklerja:
The line. They have crossed it. Unbelievable.

They're so far past the line, they can't even see it anymore....the line is a dot to them.

(Joey Tribbiani)

I BF'd and still find that offensive. Get over yourself, Georgia.

Now, now, it's not the state of Georgia, it was just one hospital. I delivered DD in GA, and the hospital offered formula if you wanted it.. with no guilt.

CinemaGoddess · November 2011

carlab44:
EllaHella:

bstrangely:

see above? "no one says that formula feeding causes cancer."

i don't know why you're bringing that up. no one said it. the end.

Again. The sign said formula may cause cancer. This discussion, after all. is about the sign.

Actually it says it may increase your risk of certain cancers. Not that it causes cancer.

There isn't much difference between what you said and what Ella said. And the sign is still wrong and should be taken down.

RedWingsFan · November 2011

CinemaGoddess:
RedWingsFan:
DaisyFull:
RedWingsFan:

DaisyFull:
Daisy was here.

::waves frantically at Daisy::

I cried when my oxen died on Oregon Trail.

I played it on a Mac, and we played Spy Hunter on a Commodore 64.

Hi sweet thang!

We used to pick the boys that we had crushes on to be the men in our wagon. Who ever DIDN'T die of Cholera was who you were going to marry. Obvsly.

SO much more reliable than playing that "H O M E S" game on paper.

But only marginally less reliable than this game:

Best game ever.

/gavel.

CinemaGoddess · November 2011

mooshagirl:
CinemaGoddess:

mooshagirl:

Okay, so we should just withold all the information out there about the benefits of breastfeeding because there are some women who are unable to do so.

Ok.

So you're planning to tell your kid that they need to get a college education otherwise they'll end up addicted to heroin and sleeping on the street in a puddle of their own urine?

Or are you going to tell your kid that he/she could get a college education so they can get a better job?

I already said previously that I did not agree with the sign, but it seems a lot of people here are offended when they are given information about the benefits of BFing. I don't understand how information that has been shown in study after study can be offensive and we should just dumb it down to a blanket statement rather than giving people all of the information out there.

I'm going to yell this and use bold so that I'm clear:

THAT IS NOT WHAT THE SIGN SAYS.

It is NOT about the benefits of BF and it IS about the negatives of FF.

Do you understand?

bstrangely · November 2011

CinemaGoddess:
There isn't much difference between what you said and what Ella said. And the sign is still wrong and should be taken down.

yes, there is. causing is not the same as failing to prevent. eta: no one is defending the sign. would it really have been better if new moms received a pamphlet saying bfing may protect against xyz?

President Camacho · November 2011

YALL ARE REALLY BLOWING MY HIGH RIGHT NOW. TITTY, BOTTLE, WHATEVER! SHUT UP!!!

scoutkate · November 2011

DaisyFull:
Daisy was here.

Well, shiit.

That's what I get for not reading all six pages. Now I totally look like I copied Daisy with my "Scout was here" post.

<------ is an originality fail.

CinemaGoddess · November 2011

bstrangely:
CinemaGoddess:

There isn't much difference between what you said and what Ella said. And the sign is still wrong and should be taken down.

yes, there is. causing is not the same as failing to prevent.

tl;dr

DaisyFull · November 2011

scoutkate:
DaisyFull:
Daisy was here.

Well, shiit.

That's what I get for not reading all six pages. Now I totally look like I copied Daisy with my "Scout was here" post.

<------ is an originality fail.

I'll settle for "great minds think alike".

Plus, I haven't been here in like 12 years, so I'm not sure anyone would know who that Daisy chick is anyway.

RedWingsFan · November 2011

Ahem, I just did some hunting while you all were debating:

And because my attention was drawn to this debate and not my oxen:

Oh, and the sign forgot dysentery:

scoutkate · November 2011

DaisyFull:
scoutkate:

DaisyFull:
Daisy was here.

Well, shiit.

That's what I get for not reading all six pages. Now I totally look like I copied Daisy with my "Scout was here" post.

<------ is an originality fail.

I'll settle for "great minds think alike".

Plus, I haven't been here in like 12 years, so I'm not sure anyone would know who that Daisy chick is anyway.

I was thinking about you the other day ::waggles eyebrows::

How is A doing?

carlab44 · November 2011

CinemaGoddess:
carlab44:
EllaHella:

bstrangely:

see above? "no one says that formula feeding causes cancer."

i don't know why you're bringing that up. no one said it. the end.

Again. The sign said formula may cause cancer. This discussion, after all. is about the sign.

Actually it says it may increase your risk of certain cancers. Not that it causes cancer.

There isn't much difference between what you said and what Ella said. And the sign is still wrong and should be taken down.

I see there being a HUGE difference between formula causes x, y or z and formula feeding may lead to an increased risk of x, y or z. You hear it on just about every prescription drug commercial "this product may increase your risk of blood clots" (or whatever). Big difference between that and saying it causes blood clots. Or not wearing your seatbelt increases your risk of serious injury in a crash. Not that it causes serious injury.

I do agree the sign is wrong, however.

DaisyFull · November 2011

scoutkate:
DaisyFull:
scoutkate:

DaisyFull:
Daisy was here.

Well, shiit.

That's what I get for not reading all six pages. Now I totally look like I copied Daisy with my "Scout was here" post.

<------ is an originality fail.

I'll settle for "great minds think alike".

Plus, I haven't been here in like 12 years, so I'm not sure anyone would know who that Daisy chick is anyway.

I was thinking about you the other day ::waggles eyebrows::

How is A doing?

Why thank you!

I'm sending you a PM in five.four...three..

carlab44 · November 2011

EllaHella:
carlab44:
CinemaGoddess:
carlab44:
EllaHella:

bstrangely:

see above? "no one says that formula feeding causes cancer."

i don't know why you're bringing that up. no one said it. the end.

Again. The sign said formula may cause cancer. This discussion, after all. is about the sign.

Actually it says it may increase your risk of certain cancers. Not that it causes cancer.

There isn't much difference between what you said and what Ella said. And the sign is still wrong and should be taken down.

I see there being a HUGE difference between formula causes x, y or z and formula feeding may lead to an increased risk of x, y or z. You hear it on just about every prescription drug commercial "this product may increase your risk of blood clots" (or whatever). Big difference between that and saying it causes blood clots. Or not wearing your seatbelt increases your risk of serious injury in a crash. Not that it causes serious injury.

I do agree the sign is wrong, however.

Yea, I misquoted the sign. But the point was still the same. BStrange asked why we kept mentioning cancer...the sign.

bosoxgrl · November 2011

Perhaps they should also add that mothers that FF will not bond with their child. This is what I was told days after I gave birth. Real Morale Booster!!

carlab44 · November 2011

EllaHella:
carlab44:
CinemaGoddess:
carlab44:
EllaHella:

bstrangely:

see above? "no one says that formula feeding causes cancer."

i don't know why you're bringing that up. no one said it. the end.

Again. The sign said formula may cause cancer. This discussion, after all. is about the sign.

Actually it says it may increase your risk of certain cancers. Not that it causes cancer.

There isn't much difference between what you said and what Ella said. And the sign is still wrong and should be taken down.

I see there being a HUGE difference between formula causes x, y or z and formula feeding may lead to an increased risk of x, y or z. You hear it on just about every prescription drug commercial "this product may increase your risk of blood clots" (or whatever). Big difference between that and saying it causes blood clots. Or not wearing your seatbelt increases your risk of serious injury in a crash. Not that it causes serious injury.

I do agree the sign is wrong, however.

Yea, I misquoted the sign. But the point was still the same. BStrange asked why we kept mentioning cancer...the sign.

I don't want to speak for bstrangely, but I think she was trying to say that no one (including the sign) was stating that formula causes cancer.

I do think the sign could have been much more effective if they had touted the reduced risk of those things if you breast feed, rather than wording it that there is an increased risk if you formula feed. But I"m guessing whomever made the sign was trying to be offensive.

carlab44 · November 2011

EllaHella:
carlab44:
CinemaGoddess:
carlab44:
EllaHella:

bstrangely:

see above? "no one says that formula feeding causes cancer."

i don't know why you're bringing that up. no one said it. the end.

Again. The sign said formula may cause cancer. This discussion, after all. is about the sign.

Actually it says it may increase your risk of certain cancers. Not that it causes cancer.

There isn't much difference between what you said and what Ella said. And the sign is still wrong and should be taken down.

I see there being a HUGE difference between formula causes x, y or z and formula feeding may lead to an increased risk of x, y or z. You hear it on just about every prescription drug commercial "this product may increase your risk of blood clots" (or whatever). Big difference between that and saying it causes blood clots. Or not wearing your seatbelt increases your risk of serious injury in a crash. Not that it causes serious injury.

I do agree the sign is wrong, however.

Yea, I misquoted the sign. But the point was still the same. BStrange asked why we kept mentioning cancer...the sign.

Double post.

CinemaGoddess · November 2011

mooshagirl:

I KNOW THAT IS NOT WHAT THE SIGN SAYS. AND LIKE I SAID BEFORE, I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE SIGN. MY POINT WAS TO THE PP'S WHO WERE DISCOUNTING THE INFORMATION ON THE SIGN AS NOT BEING TRUE. HERE ARE SOME EXAMPLES:

Studies are not facts. They show correlation which, I will repeat, is not causation. There was a study that showed vaccines increased chances of autism - remember that one? Yeah, totally falsified.

I think the studies very much show that breastfeeding is RELATED to lower risks of many diseases. Our point is that none of the studies are showing a direct cause and effect relationship between the two so to say "Breastfeeding lowers the chance of you developing x,y,z" is misleading because that's never been proven.

So, you take a huge group of babies, study them for years, and more ff vs non ff kids ended up with diabetes. that in no way means formula CAUSED it or that bm prevented it.

UNDERSTAND?

But they aren't wrong, dude. There have been no studies to show that BFing prevents x, y, and z. There are studies that show that it lowers risk, but not that it prevents.

And how in the hell did we end up on 1st tri? FFS.

President Camacho · November 2011

EllaHella:
CinemaGoddess:

And how in the hell did we end up on 1st tri? FFS.

There is no need for swearing.

SH!TS GETTING EMOTIONAL!

mrsjengle · November 2011

zeadfly:
RedWingsFan:
Ahem, I just did some hunting while you all were debating:

And because my attention was drawn to this debate and not my oxen:

Oh, and the sign forgot dysentery:

I officially miss 3rd grade.

There's an app for that!

pleasebeonsale · November 2011

The sign is offensive because it says that formula causes those things. There is no data backing up that formula causes anything.

There is data that bm helps prevent certain things. It isn't a fact, but there is research pointing that way for sure.

Surely, you see the difference?

The only way that sign wouldn't have been offensive is it if had told the truth. "Studies have shown that breast feeding your baby can have health benefits such as..." Saying formula causes any of those conditions is 100% wrong.