To think you should be able to sue your mum if you weren't breastfed

[Richocet]

and have suffered health consequences that could have been prevented by breastfeeding?

original I am not doing the training yet...I was just on the phone about it and to be honest after reading this thread I am wondering if there is any point.

Boob saggage has been listed on MN many times as a reason people havent initiated breast feeding. It is given as a reason quite often around where I live. I suppose people might be making it up but who knows. Seems an easy one to fix if it is a big cause as it simply isn't true....

entropygirl
For me, it's not as black and white as you paint it. I repeat a previous post of mine:

"I don't think formula is as good as breastmilk. I chose it with the full knowledge that it's not as good as breastmilk. Others had no choice but to FF. So this terrible marketing by Formula companies (that Formula is the same as bm) you talk about clearly hasn't had an effect has it?
Some of us believe that, weighed against many other factors, Formula is good enough. Not harmful in the way you wish to suggest, weighed against many other factors which influence the health and well-being of babies and their mothers"

still ohhh I was at my biggest at around 20 weeks and have been on the wane ever since...not that our personal experiences count in any sense whatsoever....

Xpost. I suspect boob saggage is a reason cited by some. Others might use it as an excuse because they feel they have to justify their wish not to bf in some way or another, and they may feel "I just don't want to" doesn't cut the mustard.

I think it's a shame if people are genuinely not educated about certain things.

OJ Oh I couldnt agree more!

There are risks to formula feeding (including the hated SIDS data) but there are also risks for breast feeding, particularly in cases where the boobs in question are against it, the babies mouths in question are against it or anyone's brain is against it.

But I don't think that the mitigating factors or antagonistic risks mean that the risks of formula should be shouted down as they so often are.

People should have the whole picture....

entropy

The trouble is, this thread was not started in order to educate, and from there on in, it all goes downhill. As I mentioned earlier, I have read some great threads by breastfeeding advocates. This wasn't one

sorry another x-post...

entropy -

nah, you're OK. I liked what you said in your last post

oh yes....the OP in this thread is totally U.

I just find it difficult to read BF=FF and not challenge it....which one is better depends on individual circumstance but they certainly arent the same...

Oh Ffs, here we go again.

Ff/SIDS - correlation does not equal causation.

Alpine so what? The same could be said about any number of known risks...

in this case failure to arouse has been shown to lead to SIDS and FF leads to failure to arouse....it seems likely that there is a causative relationship.....

I think you should be able to sue if your parents have had pieces of you lopped of for non medical reasons.

second that tiggy!

Or pieces of metal stuck through you....

Or tattooed.

No sweetie, that's not what it means.

Or are you actually claiming that ff babies are so satisfied they never feel hungry? In which case, that's as ludicrous as your previous argument. Are you able to clarify your thought process for the cheap seats?

it is pregnancy that makes the skin on boobs saggy, and tummies.

They stretch during pregnancy, once the skin is stretched then the damage is done. Unless your boobs don't increase several cup sizes in early pregnancy? By the time I realised that my boobs had increased several sizes I'd been slapping oil on my tummy for weeks and hadn't noticed massive stretch marks underneath my boobs so the damage had been done within the first few weeks of my first pregnancy. 3yrs breastfeeding 3 babies has done nothing to change that.