U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting > Adoption
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-22-2013, 09:04 PM
 
16,482 posts, read 21,080,041 times
Reputation: 16171

Advertisements

I breastfed all 3 of my biological sons and would have loved to breastfeed my daughter after we adopted her at birth. My youngest son was 10 when we adopted our daughter, and by that time I was on medications that I didn't require when my sons were babies, so I was not in a position to be able to safely breastfeed her. I think breastfeeding is wonderful no matter if it is with a bio baby or an adopted baby.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-22-2013, 09:14 PM
 
1,097 posts, read 1,733,044 times
Reputation: 1590
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiffjoy View Post
I don't think anyone is going to reach a consensus on this topic. Breastfeeding in general is highly controversial. Toss in adoption and it becomes one hot topic.
Me either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2013, 09:52 PM
 
Location: The New England part of Ohio
18,656 posts, read 23,235,665 times
Reputation: 48819
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaded View Post
While reading on various adoption topics, I've recently learned that women don't need to be pregnant or have been pregnant to produce breast milk.

Actually, there are many adoptive mothers who breast feed their newly adopted infants with self-produced milk (induced lactation). This apparently has been done in other countries for decades. I knew of wet nurses, but I was completely surprised to learn this!

Thoughts? Is this old news? I think it's fascinating and just shows how marvelous the human body is and how miraculous it seems that either by "divine design" or "evolution", a woman is able to naturally feed and nourish a baby, even when she did not give birth to him/her!

Who else finds this interesting?

Mayo Clinic: Induced Lactation Q&A
I do! There are several ways to do this. It's actually not a new concept, but when I adopted my daughter the only method that I knew of involved a device that basically delivered formula or human milk derived from another woman to the baby. Obviously, if formula is used, the infant does not obtain the valuable benefits of colostrum - the first watery, but very healthy milk produced after child birth that gives breast fed babies an immunological edge. If human milk is available, even if there is no colostrum, it is still superior to formula.

The positive aspects of this device is derived by the physical closeness between mother and child that aids in bonding and enhanced feelings of security and closeness for both the mother and child.

I'd heard about this device when I adopted my daughter. I didn't use it though because the idea of having a contraption slung over my shoulder with a tube taped to your chest and breast struck me as weird. And I had no idea of where to obtain human milk.

Lactation can be induced manually and with the aid of certain medications. The herb fenugeek (sp?) can also stimulate milk production.

I had not heard of anyone doing that or being able to do that when my daughter came home. However, about ten years ago, I did. Had I known about it, I most definitely would have explored that option.

I'm attaching a link with more information. I just skimmed it, but I notice that the author wrote that women who adopt frequently have infertility issues and this may also effect their ability to produce milk.

I was diagnosed with secondary infertility, subsequent to primary infertility - the inability to become pregnant after one year. My hormonal issues were significant.
Yet I had no difficulty nursing. So at least in my experience, that was not the case.

Breastfeeding your infant is beneficial on many levels. If I were adopting an infant today, I would absolutely explore this further.

It works for a percentage of women and their children. If supplemental feeding is needed, I wouldn't sweat it. I occasionally fed my son (bio) with a bottle and he never suffered from "nipple confusion", as some people caution.

Now my children are not children, they are young adults of 17 and 19. One was breast fed, the other was not. They are obviously not related biologically, but they are both remarkably healthy young people and they share a similar slender but athletic body build and did not suffer from ear infections as children or acne in their teens. I attribute that to the diet that they were fed. I know that this is a controversial subject, but I happen to believe that diet can effect physical appearance, musculature, fat distribution and adult height.

So, even if one is not able to breast feed their baby, your child will most likely be healthy and will thrive.

If you are able to achieve lactation, by all means give it a try! My personal preference would be to research natural methods of lactation if at all possible, for your health and the babies.

http://http://www.lact-aid.com/faq-a...abies/#methods
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2013, 09:57 PM
 
Location: The New England part of Ohio
18,656 posts, read 23,235,665 times
Reputation: 48819
P.S. I have to wonder since when and by whom is breastfeeding thought of as controversial?

And why would "adding adoption" into the mix render it freakish or bizarre?

One would need to be uncomfortable with adoption to begin with, in order to feel that way.

The idea that a mother wants to feed her child in the best way possible strikes me as normal and wholesome. Maternal, if you will.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2013, 11:07 PM
 
509 posts, read 484,157 times
Reputation: 747
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheena12 View Post
P.S. I have to wonder since when and by whom is breastfeeding thought of as controversial?

And why would "adding adoption" into the mix render it freakish or bizarre?

One would need to be uncomfortable with adoption to begin with, in order to feel that way.

The idea that a mother wants to feed her child in the best way possible strikes me as normal and wholesome. Maternal, if you will.
The most recent breastfeeding controversy that comes to mind is the TIME magazine cover on extended nursing. People are usually ok with nursing, as long as you never do it in public and don't do it past a year. Nursing in public is a huge controversy. And I have personally been told (IRL- I don't count all the online remarks) that nursing my daughter as a two year old was disgusting and perverted.

Adoptive breastfeeding is highly controversial. I've read the "it's disgusting" opinion many, many places. Many people do find it repulsive to nurse a non-bio child. Others simply don't agree with it for reasons like Artful Dodger stated.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2013, 11:17 PM
 
Location: The New England part of Ohio
18,656 posts, read 23,235,665 times
Reputation: 48819
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaded View Post
There is no difference with the exception of Colostrum which can only be produced with pregnancy; but this is only right after birth. Afterwhich, the breast milk is identical to a pregnant woman's. There are no harmful side effects, only beneficial ones. The harm would come as it would with a pregnant woman's and that has to do with the woman's diet. Here is the data: Breastfeed Your Adopted Child




Now who's going to ask an adult adoptee about how they feel about this? It isn't any of their business. No laws are being broken. If a couple has an open adoption then I can see the birth mother being informed, but that doesn't mean she has to give permission. This would be more of a decision between those parties, a consideration so to speak. No permission needs to be given. Women breast feed for the health of the child and the bonding.

Absolutely I would want my child to be cross breastfed if I couldn't. I have no problem with it. I don't view it as a "territorial" thing. I view it as in the best interest of the child. As the adoptive mother, I would make this decision to ensure the health of the baby just like a biological mother would who is parenting her child. If I couldn't breastfeed, then I would use the services of the National Milk Bank and obtain breast milk for at least three months.

But this isn't about cross breastfeeding (something different entirely). It's really about what others envision as a "right" that belongs to only a biological mother and her child. This thought is still out there, but overwhelmingly women are beginning to see the distinction of healthy feeding as opposed to something perverted. And one can always just use bottled breast milk. TiffJoy's daughter's biological mother understood this. She thought of her child.

I won't be fostering, so I don't know what foster mothers do. I wouldn't ask either. A nanny, this wouldn't bother me. It isn't permanent and I don't see it as perverted. I also don't think that I would ever be in a situation where I would need a nanny to breastfeed. The nanny that breastfed in the story did so because of the woman's work schedule. It was difficult for the mother to pump and store adequate supplies of breast milk and the nanny only breastfed in emergencies. I don't work outside of the home.

Some people may feel that since I'm not the biological mother that I shouldn't breastfeed the infant, but this is where I and many, many others disagree. I don't think biology dictates this. I will be the infant's mother. The birth mother will not be parenting or in the child's life (at least not until adulthood and only if the child wishes). So, I will be free to do as I please with regard to breastfeeding and will likely do it for the health of the infant and the bonding. If I cannot produce milk, or enough of it, I will buy pastuerized, safe breast milk and/or supplement with formula. But the development of the infant is too important to get caught up in what I have a right to do as the non-biological mother.

I HIGHLY, HIGHLY, doubt my future baby will dissapprove.

Why on EARTH would any child disapprove of their mother breast feeding them? You, and any other mother have the right to breast feed your child!

That assertion simply baffles me.

As far as children being fed by a woman other than their mother, that practice has been going on for ages. Wet nurses breast fed the children of the wealthy and oft times, tandem breast fed their child along with another.

My sister was pregnant and gave birth within months of my daughter's arrival and no one including my father, who was born in the mid 1930s thought of it as strange.

However, in the case of the OP, it would not be a wet nurse or an aunt who would be nursing the baby. It would be the infants mother!

If an individual "finds it repulsive to nurse a non bio child" , that opinion says a great deal about how they regard adoption, and an child by adoption.

I mean where does this repulsion end? Parenting an infant is an intimate experience that involves many biological functions - from changing "poopy" diapers to being spit up on.
Parents do what is needed and breast feeding has no where near the "ick" factor of many of the other tasks that the parent of an infant involve.

Last edited by sheena12; 03-22-2013 at 11:28 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2013, 05:33 AM
 
1,014 posts, read 986,669 times
Reputation: 834
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiffjoy View Post
I realize some adoptees may have an issue with this. I asked you, but you never responded. Should my daughter be upset about it someday, well, I suppose we will work through it together. I truly only ever made the best decision I could at the time, and it was made with consideration for her in mind, not myself.
Tiff, I'm sure your daughter will know you had her best interests in mind.

NJ has done a good job summing up some of the reasons I agree with in their post. Particularly the point about motivations. I would elaborate further on my personal feelings, but I don't know if I can fully express myself here anymore. Hope you understand.

I do know the benefits of breast milk & breast feeding as I already said I am very pro-breast feeding.

Last edited by thethreefoldme; 03-23-2013 at 05:53 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2013, 06:41 AM
 
393 posts, read 504,753 times
Reputation: 440
Jaded - if you are adopting through foster/adopt it is highly doubtful that you would be allowed anyway. Foster parents before TPR must have permission to even cut the child's hair. If the child is a ward of the state the liablity factor would also likely prohibit it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2013, 07:18 AM
 
1,458 posts, read 2,224,056 times
Reputation: 3108
It isn't offensive to me, and I have no opinion on what feeding choices other parents make. If I adopted, however, I would formula feed. If I somehow had the money to pay for properly screened milk bank milk, I would supplement with that.

But I derived nothing special from having my biological children suckle at my breast, and I very much doubt that they did either, emotionally speaking (I am aware of the gastro and potential respiratory protective effects of breastmilk, along with the overreported and undersupported claims regarding cancer, diabetes, IQ, etc.) So... like crib versus co-sleeping, or public school versus alternatives, these are just parental choices.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2013, 08:32 AM
 
509 posts, read 484,157 times
Reputation: 747
Quote:
Originally Posted by thethreefoldme View Post
Tiff, I'm sure your daughter will know you had her best interests in mind.

NJ has done a good job summing up some of the reasons I agree with in their post. Particularly the point about motivations. I would elaborate further on my personal feelings, but I don't know if I can fully express myself here anymore. Hope you understand.

I do know the benefits of breast milk & breast feeding as I already said I am very pro-breast feeding.
I do understand, definitely. I'm sorry it's like that, but I get it.

One thing I often struggle with is thinking about how my adopted daughter will process her adoption and our handling of the various aspects of it. It's hard to know because every person is an individual. Like you said, I just hope she knows that I had her best interests at heart and good intentions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting > Adoption
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top