I can remember when I was pg reading something about C sections or pethidine or something to do with birth that affected bf - made it less likely that people would be able to bf - it was one of the listed side effects, somethig like that. I remember clearly thinking how irrelevant and over the top it was to include the effect on bfing, as if it really mattered - how fussy and perfectionist.
Even though I was planning to bf my new baby, my subconscious view was that bf was very much a 'luxury extra' - not anything like a basic right for the baby or the mum to have working. Reading about 'less bf' as a downside of something like a section made no more sense to me than, say, reading about 'less organic food' being a downside of giving birth in hospital would do.
Clearly, bf was nice and the right thing to try to do and a Good Thing but it wasn't something to make a fuss about working unless you were a Mad Hippy Earth Mother who would probably insist on organic sheets on her hospital bed or something like that!
Over the years my views have changed a lot and I don't see bf as a 'lifestyle choice' that doesn't matter that much, any more, but as something much more like a basic human right. If a mother is willing to bf her baby then every bit of the healthcare system and society should help to make that happen, because the physiological effects of not bf are real and the stats about illness and so on are overwhelming. And if something like pethidine makes bf less likely, I would now want to know, because now I really think it matters. (I might still have it though, but I'd want to know about all the effects first!)
Earlier on I would have said that bf was best and of course bf mattered - but I don't think I really did think it mattered, in the same way I do now.
So I do sympathise with people who think this is all just a bit over the top and fussy and fgs it's only a bottle etc. etc., because a few years ago I think that would have been my view too. I can understand it, even though I no longer share it.