To not want to breast feed?

[LouBlue1507]

I'm currently 31 weeks pregnant and have decided I'm going to bottle feed my baby.

I know breast is best but the thought of breast feeding really grosses me out and makes me feel sick. It's not something I will feel comfortable doing either.

Not only that but I don't want my baby stuck on my chest all the time.

Before I get flamed, I have nothing against women who choose to breastfeed, I have no problem seeing it, Just the thought of me doing it myself grosses me out.

Are there any other mums to be that feel the same or similar? x

Where are these people?? Has anyone actually met anyone where there life was dictated by how they were fed? I'm being serious!

I don't personally know anyone who has developed lung cancer as a consequence of smoking. That doesn't lead me to conclude that studies showing tobacco is carcinogenic are wrong.

I know someone who hasn't been vaccinated against tetanus and yet has never contracted it. That doesn't lead me to conclude that the evidence that vaccination can prevent tetanus infection is wrong.

Again, do you reject all scientific studies in favour of personal experience, or is it only research about BF that you apply this standard to?

How many women do you know who feed till aged 7 in the UK? The numbers will be miniscule if any at all. It's not a sensible position to be arguing from.

As with most parenting decisions, it's about risk and opportunity. Formula comes with additional risks that breastmilk doesn't, and lacks the opportunity to access any of the benefits for the baby that are associated with breastfeeding.

Is there a reason you suppose the findings of research carried out over a number of years in industrialised countries wouldn't hold true for the UK in 2016?

Yes. You posted the reasons yourself. They're in the bullet points on the link you posted

So as I said, "I haven't read a single thing that proves one child is healthier than another because they were BF or FF in the UK in 2016"

There are far too many other factors mixed in.

Sorry but I do feel YABU for using that as a reason not to breastfeed. It is better to breastfeed. That is a fact.

Many people cannot and that is just fine.

But choosing not to because it's "gross"? A very silly and immature reason to deny your baby the benefits.

YANBU, it's your decision afterall.

I'm not sure what the purpose of posting it in aibu was though. Seems like a sure fire way to start a bun fight so YABU for that.

Speak are you not familiar with Natural Term Weaning?

Neither was I until I joined a FB groups for BF support. I can assure you nearer to 7 is very common.

And again, given that 1 in 3 children in the UK are overweight and 1 in 5 are obese, and 64% of adults in the UK are overweight or obese...which is constantly blamed on poverty and 'post war mentality' WRT to parents/grandparent's making children clear their plates etc etc etc...

How can anyone possibly know that the things on your earlier list...

• gastro-intestinal infection
• respiratory infection
• necrotising enterocolitis and late onset sepsis in preterm babies
• urinary tract infections
• ear infections
• allergic disease (eczema, asthma and wheezing)
• Type 1 and type 2 diabetes
• Obesity
• Childhood leukaemia
• SIDS

Are caused purely by formula feeding?

As I said, there are far too many environmental factors at play for anyone to be able to take a clear cut answer.

Yabu to not give it a whirl, even if it's just the first feed. For me it is such a precious thing. Worth trying at least surely and then if it wasn't for you, you'll really know that it wasn't. It wouldn't just be perception.

Of course I am aware of what natural term weaning is. But the statistics in the UK show that it is only a tiny fraction of children who are still being breastfed past even 12 months, let alone 2 years or older. It is not going to be a common occurrence across the UK population.

Eh? Nobody is saying those illnesses are "caused purely by formula feeding". The evidence is that the incidence of those illnesses is higher in artificially fed babies than breastfed babies. The likelihood is that BF offers a degree of protection against these illnesses, not that they are caused by FF.

Likelihood and degree are two wishy washing words that shouldn't be associated with FACTS about BF.

Speak how do we actually know! Who collects all this BF data? Know one has ever asked me about feeding my DS.

I have reported punkrockergirl's post, it is beneath contempt to use a suicide attempt of a vulnerable girl to score points on a thread

There have been Infant Feeding Surveys every 5 years since 1975, the last one being 2010. There should have been one in 2015 but it was cancelled by the govt which for me was a great shame as its a useful and interesting survey. If you had a baby in the timeframe for the 2010 survey, then you could have been asked to complete the survey.

http://www.hscic.gov.uk/catalogue/PUB08694/Infant-Feeding-Survey-2010-Consolidated-Report.pdf

Section 1.4 explains how they selected participants and gathered data.

Thanks for answering question!

The evidence is that the incidence of those illnesses is higher in artificially fed babies than breastfed babies. The likelihood is that BF offers a degree of protection against these illnesses, not that they are caused by FF.

But the 'evidence' is hugely skewed.

It's skewed by many things including maternal obesity during pregnancy (over half of women of child bearing age in the UK are overweight or obese), it's skewed by environmental factors such as poverty and genetics too.

Remember, middle class women are more likely to BF than working class, so statistically those babies are less likely to be born to obese women who live in poverty.

Again I haven't read a single thing that proves one child is healthier than another because they were BF or FF in the UK in 2016.

worra don't any of these studies try and account for these confounding factors when analysing their data? It would seem fairly obvious that you'd need to try and allow for these factors when looking at the data.

Op, I get what you are saying, but keep an open mind, you might actually enjoy it. I really like the closeness of breastfeeding, not that you don't get that with formula feeding though!

No one can control how you feel, as long as you don't come up to me while I'm feeding and say 'ugh thats gross!' I don't mind

worra and uni, just to clarify, is your contention that for babies born in the UK in 2016, there are absolutely no health benefits associated with BF compared to FF?

And if so, do you think that there's some kind of conspiracy leading organisations like the WHO, UNICEF, NHS, etc to claim that BF does offer health benefits for babies and mums?

No, no conspiracy at all.

Just no clear cut concrete evidence that BF alone is more beneficial than FF in the UK in 2016.

The reason being that people/families/lives/environments/finance/genetics/education etc, all play too much of an important centre stage role in those babies lives, for any scientific study to conclude that milk alone is the most important factor.

We could of course take 2 extremely similar genetic cohorts, put them on separate islands and only BF/FF them, whilst giving them exactly the same chances and environments in life to get a totally unskewed result.

But that would be extremely difficult to say the least.

So why does the NHS bother to mention it at all? And waste money and resources on supporting it when some can just be told to swap to formula if they experience any issues? I don't get it.

*women not some

Errm 'the NHS' or more realistically midwives and doctors do often tell people to swap to formula if they experience issues.

Are you suggesting they should be told only to 'soldier on' regardless of very real and awful issues??

Advising women to feed their babies as nature intended and coming up with undeniable concrete evidence that proves it's always the very best thing for every baby, are completely different things.

There is (and never has been to date) any 100% concrete evidence that BF alone, is more beneficial to babies than FF, without taking genetics and environmental factors into account.

I'm sorry if I sound like a broken record but there you go.

As I said way back at the start of the thread, these discussions often lead to people on both sides of the debate, just getting worn out and bored of repeating themselves.

I've completely reached that point so I'm out

Yet another goady FF v BF thread that has succeeded in changing no-one's POV at all.

Why is it so taboo to say that some people find breastfeeding "gross" or other words describing it negatively? Maybe gross is the wrong word but I totally get it.

It's not immature actually, it's so patronising to be told to get over it/that's what breasts are actually for.
I can't stand my breasts being touched in any way - baby or by my husband. I remember silently crying when the baby would try to latch on in the first few weeks and the midwife would manually squeeze to get milk out. Not everyone finds it an amazing experience - I was willing to put up with the excruciating pain for a few months but alas, no milk came out for me anyway.

If I'm lucky enough to have another child, third time round I am actually taking bottles and formula in the hospital with me. I've cried enough tears over how I can't breastfeed!! Do what you think is best OP!! Good luck!!

No, of course they shouldn't be told to soldier on if they encounter issues - that isn't what I said at all. But if formula is exactly the same as breastfeeding then it would be cost effective to simply suggest and promote that they move to formula feeding at that point. It would save money on breastfeeding counsellors, infant feeding specialists, tongue tie cutting, etc etc. Also it would save money not to have breastfeeding workshops and so on, they could just say, "well, try breastfeeding if you want, but if you have any issues with it at all then move straightaway to formula, that's the best thing for you and your baby at that point. And, also, if you want to formula feed from day 1, then that would be very helpful too as any potential issues can be completely avoided and it will make absolutely no difference to your baby's health or your own".

I'm sure a small number of women would want to continue to breastfeed anyway, so the NHS would have to support them, but the numbers could be cut significantly if they would promote formula as being the choice in that situation. Wouldn't that be the most cost effective solution for the NHS?