Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (81160)	8/31/2008 4:21:10 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 542147

Well, biology has fitted women with breasts, and nursing, imo, is a critical part of the growth of an infant. Firstly, breast milks is best- study after study shows this. But mom could pump, you say. True enough- if that was all there was to it. But taking milk from the breast is not just about getting the milk- there is secondly the close bond that forms between baby and mother as the baby nurses. Hormones rush through the mom's body, generating feelings of strong maternal love for her infant- feelings you REALLY need when said infant wakes you night after night at 1 am. The time spent nursing is considerable- and biologically we humans have adapted in more ways than we know, to this special way of feeding our young. We are MAMMALS. We are much more animal than many people realize, and when you disrupt the biological circuits, I believe you do so at your peril. I wouldn't forbid women from having kids they don't choose to raise, or even forbid them from being parents if they won't nurse- even though I think it's close to neglect not to give a newborn breast milk, but men cannot nurse- so they will never be as adequate as moms who do, but they are probably the equal of moms who don't. Again, that is the biological imperative- I do not wish to legislate it, but it colors the judgments I make about who can be an optimal parent, and who can't.