PropertyNightmare Sun 25-Nov-12 20:00:08
"Anyone who knows anything about breastfeeding understands that there are very, very few women unable to bf. I always take the statement 'oh, I tried to bf but I didn't produce enough milk' with a large pinch of salt. You hear it countless times. To me, bf is the fourth trimester. "
Ah, so you'd take it with a big pinch of salt then if somebody told you their baby had been born prem? 
I still don't get the logic of this: "It has been shown that problems occur very rarely, therefore we should not believe anyone who says they did have problems."
Where else in life do we apply this kind of logic?
A. -My baby was born at 26 weeks of gestation.
B.- No, no, I'd take that with a big pinch of salt, because statistics show that most babies are born between 36 and 42 weeks of gestation. I think you're making excuses.
A. -My aunt died from Reyes syndrome.
B. - This has got to be a myth, because over 99% of the population do not develop Reyes syndrome.
A. -My 3yo can't walk.
B. - Don't try to make us sorry for you: the vast majority of babies learn to walk before they are 2 if you just keep trying hard enough.
The problem with the bf promoters on this thread is that they are talking about two different questions without seeming to realise it:
a) should we assume that the vast majority of any given population of women would be able to breastfeed if given adequate support (yes, we bloody well should!)
b) should we assume that any one individual has got to be lying if she claims to be unable to breastfeed (no, that's a different issue).
In the same way, playschools, schools, towns are laid out on the assumption that the vast majority of 3yo's will have learnt to walk. And very right and proper too. But I think we could all agree that it would be cruel and counterproductive to assume that any one mother whose child doesn't fit in, is lying (and rather ignorant to assume that doctors would always be able to diagnose the reason straight away).