Where I gather there are different opinions on the matter, I am also one who has decided I will not breastfeed. The concept just does not strike me as appealing.
This might sound really strange, but I do not like even touching my nipples, so I am at a loss what I would feel if a baby sucked them for getting something out of them.
I have no problem with people doing it in front of me, but I would not do the same. Effectually, I would start expressing (the thought of which makes me squirm too) or I would lock myself up. Expressing would be defeating the whole 'easy' idea as well beause I would still have to get bottles and sterilise them.
I also do not see myself doing it in the middle of the night, falling asleep while baby feeds not being a very good idea (due to suffocation issues; never co-sleep), and all through the day. While I would like to spend a lot of time with baby, I would not like to stress over the fact that he/she keeps crying and that I have to keep feeding him/her. I am more than a feeding machine and I would like my hubby, if he has half of the week off, to get up in the night too as it is his child as well.
Though, at one time I was presurised by him. He even sent someone to me who had breastfed her eldest. Not the youngest as he had a cleft palat, all solved now, and could not suck in a normal manner. Still, the German midwives even tried to pressurise her into BFing him despite seeing that it could not work for the poor boy who even used to get frustrated with his bottle, poor boy. She only strengthened by views in not doing it.
I have a book somewhere which says that baby gets stressed if mum or dad is stressed. That will probably be true. As such, doing something you do not see yourself doing and which you feel you are pushed into doing (no matter whether the people pushing are trying to give advise) is a bad idea, as baby will get stressed. The best mum, is a woman who is happy, relaxed and vigilant, not stressed out and tired because she has to give baby a feed every hour of the night 
.
If anyone ever gives me those arguments, I will willingly give the baby to them and tell them to do it, because I will not. Simple.
I gather that in the UK there is a bit of a strange ambiguous approach to BF. On the one side, there is 'pressure' anten-natally in terms of no info at all on bottle feeding: how, how much, what you need etc. On the other side, they would give your baby a bottle because he/she screams too much. I can imagine with 5 babies and mothers on the ward that things do not work very well if all those babies start screaming of hunger in the middle of the night at a different time, waking one another up, but the problem can be solved with sugar water like in Belgian hospitals. Jaundice is no argument either.
From the other side, despite the sabotage in some hospitals (I suppose because of shortage of staff they don't have the time to give adequate advise), the public is still hypnotised by the 'breast is best' idea. Breast is best has been 'proven' by several studies and then disproven in others. The only 'proof' there is, is statistical. It all depends on the group that is consulted. If the study says breastfeeding reduces the amount of infections, some of that 'proof' is based on FF v BF in third world countries where the water supply is contaminated. Naturally, BF in those countries is a much better option as there is no clean water, or there is in bottles, which is much too expensive for most mothers there. Naturally, infants are more vulnerable to infection and with a contaminated water supply, it can be called dangerous to FF, but that deos not apply to Western Europe, not even Eastern Europe. So why use that 'proof' on leaflets in any countries other than third world? If a study proves that BF is better because it helps to counter obesity, it fails to inform readers that that is because a baby drinks less from the breast than from a bottle, which means he gets fewer calories. Give that baby breastmilk with a bottle, and there goes the theory, because those babies were as much at risk of obesity as the bottle fed ones. So, the breastmilk has nothing to do with obesity in that case, only with the recommended amount of milk in bottles. In the meantime there is another approach to bottle feeding (on demand, like BF) which has practically the same advantages. Mothers would have a lower risk of breastcancer if they had breastfed. As we do not know what breastcaner is caused by, we can hardly determine why breastfeeding would lessen the risk, which is already small at any rate.
Recently a study claimed that statistically, BF-babies of 6 months were at a higher risk of allergies. Whether that is true or not and why that is, cannot be said. What is then the role of breastfeeding in this? Same goes for the allegedly higher IQ... with a few points. It does not make a difference. Not even between a weakly gifted and normal child.
Essentially, it boils down to the fact that baby will not perish if mum doesn't feel like breastfeeding. He will maybe get the odd cold, ear infection, but he will get that when he is off BF anyway.
Generations and generations grew up with formula in the 60s-80s and none of us are really worse off, we are not stupid people, we are not all fat, etc. It cannot be that bad.
Follow your own ideas and stick with them, tell them to get lost.