"I can't see how an aching, sleep deprived mother can possibly be an asset to her newborn. "
"what's best for mother is usually best for baby"
Isn't that the mumsnet mantra? 'good for me/good for my baby'. Because in essence there's a lot of truth in it: it's hard to parent well when you have no personal resources to draw on.
But sadly it's not all 'sewn up'. Sometimes our needs DO conflict with the needs of our children and when that happens you can only arrive at a balanced decision by trying to see it from everyone's perspective and take everyone's needs and special circumstances into account.
And that's what I don't see much of on this thread: thinking about the experience of being newly born. There's a dismissive view of the idea that babies have any sort of special emotional attachment at birth to their mother, or that they need anything other than the sort of care you'd provide to a small (fully grown) mammal: drink, food, a warm place to sleep. Note, I say 'fully grown' because those of you who've cared for puppies or kittens know that if they're separated from their mothers at birth, you often try special things to recreate the sense of having their mother close: a hot waterbottle to simulate the warmth of her body; a clock to simulate the sound of her heart. Why do we think about these things with newly born puppies, but not with a newly born human?
"I can't see how an aching, sleep deprived mother can possibly be an asset to her newborn".
Stretch yourself.
Most mums are 'aching and sleep deprived'. That's part of the normal experience of birth. They still manage to care for their babies well, don't come home with raging pnd, and also manage to give their babies what they want: close and prolonged contact.
Seriously - women haven't always made brilliant choices for their babies. Sometimes out of ignorance, sometimes they're pushed towards it by the prevailing culture. Think back to the days when there were women (surprisingly large numbers actually) who ff their babies out of choice, in the days when formula feeding was profoundly unsafe. Or the aristocratic women who passed their newborn babies over to wet nurses living in the country, and didn't see them for months at a time. Or the 'Truby King' mothers who ignored their crying babies for hours at a time because they believed that cuddling a distressed child ruined its character.
There have always been suboptimal childcare practices. The lucky thing now is that we know more about babies, and about how they thrive best, emotionally and physically. The vast majority of comments on this thread have no interest in what we know about newborn responses or physiology - their focus is completely on adult needs and feelings. I'm not going to argue that adult feelings are irrelevant or unimportant but - some balance PLEASE! Surely in a modern and humane society we can find a way to provide optimal care for a mum AND a baby?