That is hilarious! (How many times have I said that on your blog?) Your parenthetical comments on breast shields, nipple protectors and cabbage leaves are fantabulously funny -- and accurate. I never could figure out what the heck I was supposed to do with any of those things! Your title is quite punny, too!

Both my kids were straight bottle fed and they are perfectly healthy and normal.
My daughter lasted about 4 weeks with my Grandson and 2 weeks later, he was all formula. And she had swore she was gonna breast feed at least for 3 months. And he's growing like a fat little piggy!

Oh, I'm not knocking bottle-feeding, Annie! Every woman has the right to choose how to feed her child, and I wouldn't criticize anyone who uses formula. Hope you didn't think I was getting on a soap box about it.

Ouch! This post brings back painful memories! Well actually I remember the pain but mostly I remember the bonding. Its too special to describe. There is nothing like it. I did it with Madelynn and I wished I had done it with Mark.

Allow me to use one of my special skills--stirring the pot.

So, who really benefits from the wonderful "bonding experience" of breast-feeding? (Is it "breast-feeding" or "breastfeeding," by the way?) I understand the health benefits for the baby--no question there. It seems to me, though, that it is the mother who really appreciates the bonding that takes place while breast-feeding. Hence, mothers who cannot--or who choose not--to breast-feed sometimes get defensive when the subject is raised. (See Annie's comment in The Dialogue.) Is that because they feel they missed out on something--some special bonding experience? Are mothers who do not breast-feed somehow less bonded to their children?

I think I suckled the breast; for how long I do not know. As I think about the relationship I have with my mother, I do not mark my time at her colostrum fountains as the event that formed our relationship. In fact, as an adult, it is a little gross to think that I...never mind. (You know you are thinking the same thing now that I've mentioned it.) Anyway, my point is that I think breast-feeding mothers get more out of the deal from an emotional standpoint. I think el nino--in this case, Luke--could care less if he is draining his mother's bosoms or a bottle. The only thing going through his brain is the same thing that went through Audrey II's mind: "Feed me!"

Allow me to use one of my special skills--stirring the pot.

So, who really benefits from the wonderful "bonding experience" of breast-feeding? (Is it "breast-feeding" or "breastfeeding," by the way?) I understand the health benefits for the baby--no question there. It seems to me, though, that it is the mother who really appreciates the bonding that takes place while breast-feeding. Hence, mothers who cannot--or who choose not--to breast-feed sometimes get defensive when the subject is raised. (See Annie's comment in The Dialogue.) Is that because they feel they missed out on something--some special bonding experience? Are mothers who do not breast-feed somehow less bonded to their children?

I think I suckled the breast; for how long I do not know. As I think about the relationship I have with my mother, I do not mark my time at her colostrum fountains as the event that formed our relationship. In fact, as an adult, it is a little gross to think that I...never mind. (You know you are thinking the same thing now that I've mentioned it.) Anyway, my point is that I think breast-feeding mothers get more out of the deal from an emotional standpoint. I think el nino--in this case, Luke--could care less if he is draining his mother's bosoms or a bottle. The only thing going through his brain is the same thing that went through Audrey II's mind: "Feed me!"

Joey, that was hilarious!!!! But you are probably right, its more important to the mother. Madelynn could have cared less as long as the milk kept a coming!

It's my opinion, that a baby enjoys breastfeeding because it's like Liquid Mama. There's no question about the fact that babies know their mothers by scent, they prefer them over other caregivers almost immedietely. Babies also know their mothers heartbeat, which they've heard in utero for nine months. So being laid to the breast, they are enveloped in that scent and sound that is distinctly home. Each woman's milk has its own unique taste and scent-- another way baby can distinguish Mama from everybody else, and know that this person is special to them. I think it is emotionally satisfying to them, not just a physical satiating.

Yes, mama reaps more emotional attachment, because babies aren't operating on that developmental level yet. They depend on physical sensations to interpret their world... and I would say that you can't get more physical sensation than breastfeeding.

Of course, this is all just my opinion... and I'm not saying bottlefed babies don't love their mamas or develop fulfilling relationships later on. (hey, I was a bottle baby and I luv my mom!) But, I'll tell you, there is something special about the nursing relationship, for mama and baby, and I don't think I should have to defend that belief because it makes other people feel better about their own choices and circumstances. (not referring to you by the way, Annie)

I hope this doesn't start a whole big shabang... Joey, you really are a troublemaker. You don't know just how defensive women can be about this on BOTH sides. You always startin' stuff.

You know how I likes to do it!

Oh no, I didn't think that. I admire women who can breastfeed. And Doctor's used to say the same thing, "it's up to what the mother feels most comfortable with".
But my daughter's Doctor really tried to discourage bottle feeding and she was upset. I talked her into doing what SHE wanted, don't listen to that damn Doctor, he is not walking around with a baby latched to his breast! And then she was happy with deciding to go to the bottle. She really tried the breast feeding and did well for a month or so, but then it got old to her. I told her the baby would know she was not happy.
Us mothers ARE good for something.

boy I know EXACTLY how you feel.

I agree wholeheartedly that as long as the parents are feeding the baby, then they are meeting the biblical principle of nourishing the child - whether it is the bottle or the breast.

However, I am convinced that the way God made women to be able to nourish a babe upon the breast teaches the babe to trust in God. For example, “But You are He who took Me out of the womb; You made Me trust while on My mother's breasts. I was cast upon You from birth. From My mother's womb You have been My God” (Psalm 22:9-10). And “Surely I have calmed and quieted my soul, Like a weaned child with his mother; Like a weaned child is my soul within me” (Psalm 131:2). Charles Spurgeon in The Treasury of David has a great exposition of this verse wherein he points out that in weaning, “the child is denied his comfort . . . It is facing its first great sorrow, and it is in sore distress.” But after the weaning is accomplished and he is content to get his nourishment at the table, “He is no longer angry with his mother, but buries his head in that very bosom after which he pined so grievously: he is weaned on his mother rather than from her.” Further, “To the weaned child his mother is his comfort though she has denied him comfort. It is a blessed mark of growth out of spiritual infancy when we can forego the joys which once appeared to be essential, and can find our solace in him who denies them to us: then we behave manfully, and every childish complaint is hushed. If the Lord removes our dearest delight we bow to his will without a murmuring thought; in fact, we find delight in giving up our delight.”

Simply, I am persuaded that breastfeeding is sanctifying/spiritually efficacious to the child, and is neither merely nourishment to the child nor primarily beneficial to the mom.

Sorry if I contributed to starting/continuing “a whole big shebang!” :)