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)
 
Old 03-24-2013, 09:40 PM
 
1,851 posts, read 2,987,837 times
Reputation: 2365

Advertisements

Re; "we all have mammary glands" - Nah, men don't produce milk nor do they posses the necessary organs to become pregnant; and if they do, something is definitely wrong.

I believe the assumption that an adoptive mother would be forcing her newly adopted infant to breastfeed is a fallacy based on fear of the infant attaching and bonding with it's adoptive mother in the absence of his biological mother - in this very intimate way. As if to say "how dare she!" Or, "that's not her baby!"

Why? Because most mothers struggle with breastfeeding. The "forced feeding" is done more often than not by biological mothers - if done at all. And it's done out of love and frustration, not to harm the baby. TiffJoy has shared her story (and no, she did not force feed) and from what I've been told by friends and family and from what I've read, she is absolutely right about it being difficult and not always successful. This reality is very painful for all mothers. I'm sure it is even more painful for biological mothers who wanted to nurse and thought it would be a "natural" and easy thing to accomplish yet were met with frustration and sadness when it did not occur so naturally and easily. Which is why some turn to medicine for help. It is also why for some mothers, cross-breastfeeding or wet nurses are okay with them. They just want the best milk for their babies.

Placing guilt or passing judgment on an adoptive mother for wanting to breastfeed her child whom she didn't give birth to (often because she is infertile) ignores and challenges her role as a mother and, IMO, only serves those who are against the adoption in the first place.

So, I suspect all this talk about naturally producing milk and the dangers of medicine in inducing lactation is a smokescreen that has nothing to do with breastfeeding one's baby.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-24-2013, 10:55 PM
 
1,097 posts, read 1,734,380 times
Reputation: 1591
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaded View Post
R

So, I suspect all this talk about naturally producing milk and the dangers of medicine in inducing lactation is a smokescreen that has nothing to do with breastfeeding one's baby.
Why would that be? a smokescreen for what? It is a controversial subject in general, not just related to adoption. People feel strongly about drugs and lactation,and overuse of drugs in general.

We could have the same conversation about vaccinations, another subject which is controversial in the non-adoptive world as well as in adoption. It also involves drugs and some who firmly believe that children are over vaccinated. Birth parents [those who have a choice in the matter when stating a preference for one family or another]will often ask the PAP's stance on vaccination. It too could be a tipping point.

Medically induced lactation is controversial outside of adoption as well. There is not a lot of science published on inducing lactation on those who have never been pregnant. Only 1 study has been published on adoptive breastfeeding which involved 240 mothers [Auerbach KG, Avery JL. Induced lactation, a study of adoptive nursing by 240 women. Am J Dis Child 1981]. It showed that few produced sufficient milk, but that most of the mothers felt that 'bonding' was the most important element. If I remember correctly producing enough milk was number 5 or 6 on the list of reasons they felt important.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2013, 11:30 PM
 
1,879 posts, read 1,863,745 times
Reputation: 1462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaded View Post
Re; "we all have mammary glands" - Nah, men don't produce milk nor do they posses the necessary organs to become pregnant; and if they do, something is definitely wrong.
Men have rudimentary mammary glands and they can produce milk though obviously very few can do so naturally (with exceptions as posted on your link).
Quote:

I believe the assumption that an adoptive mother would be forcing her newly adopted infant to breastfeed is a fallacy based on fear of the infant attaching and bonding with it's adoptive mother in the absence of his biological mother - in this very intimate way. As if to say "how dare she!" Or, "that's not her baby!"

Why? Because most mothers struggle with breastfeeding. The "forced feeding" is done more often than not by biological mothers - if done at all.
I didn't say anything about adoptive mothers forcing newborns to breastfeed. What I actually was talking about was forcing the actual act of lactation itself - something that, as you point out, many parents struggle with. If you read my posts right through, you will also note that I did not differentiate between biological and adoptive parents - I made it quite clear that I was talking about forcing breastfeeding in general - whether the parent is the biological or adoptive one.

Quote:
And it's done out of love and frustration, not to harm the baby. TiffJoy has shared her story (and no, she did not force feed) and from what I've been told by friends and family and from what I've read, she is absolutely right about it being difficult and not always successful. This reality is very painful for all mothers. I'm sure it is even more painful for biological mothers who wanted to nurse and thought it would be a "natural" and easy thing to accomplish yet were met with frustration and sadness when it did not occur so naturally and easily. Which is why some turn to medicine for help. It is also why for some mothers, cross-breastfeeding or wet nurses are okay with them. They just want the best milk for their babies.
I note with Tiff that she did the same for her adoptive child as her bio child. She was prepared to go to certain lengths for both. She didn't differentiate.

I note that Sheena pointed out a contraption which involved a pump and milk from another source, a contraption that seemed more about the act of breastfeeding rather than any nutritional value. I think many parents, AP or biological, would consider that contraption going a bit too far.

Quote:
Placing guilt or passing judgment on an adoptive mother for wanting to breastfeed her child whom she didn't give birth to (often because she is infertile) ignores and challenges her role as a mother and, IMO, only serves those who are against the adoption in the first place.
What's infertility got to do with anything? My post actually doesn't differentiate between adoptive or biological breastfeeding - I am talking about forcing lactation, whether one is the biological or adoptive parent.

Quote:
So, I suspect all this talk about naturally producing milk and the dangers of medicine in inducing lactation is a smokescreen that has nothing to do with breastfeeding one's baby.
[/quote]

Perhaps you might like to elucidate, Jaded?

What is wrong with discussing the dangers of medicine in inducing lactation? I've read articles where the dangers of medicine in inducing lactation are discussed and no-one is talking about bio or adoptive just about the topic in hand etc. It is a subject that many people are interested in.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2013, 06:32 AM
 
1,014 posts, read 987,358 times
Reputation: 834
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaded View Post
In reality, any adoption requires that parental rights be terminated. In legal terms, this means that what the birth mother wishes are just that, her wishes. She is choosing not to parent. If she has an open adoption and the adoptive parents want to continue considering what she wishes for the life of the child, that is between them. Nothing wrong with it. These are personal choices and have no bearing on whether or not adoptive breastfeeding is right or wrong. It is a parental choice. Just like biological moms, some breastfeed, some do not. There should be no judgement against an adoptive mother who chooses to breastfeed or chooses not to.
Of course APs do not have to respect the wishes of their child's other parents -- as in no one is going to literally force them to do so. However, that doesn't mean they shouldn't & one might consider how it could possibly impact their child to one day find they did not.

Going against the wishes of the biological parents can feel like a betrayal of trust for the adoptee. If it is important to you as a parent that your child does not feel that way, it should be avoided.

Let's say the APs agree not to breastfeed as a condition to adopt someone's child, yet do so anyway because, "Well, her rights were terminated & it was my personal choice."

How do you think that sort of attitude might impact their child?

Quote:
FWIW, in your view, all adoptive parents would fail because no one can predict how they are going to parent for life. Situations happen, life happens, decisions need to be made at a moments notice and even in open adoptions, adoptive parents cannot always obtain approvals or inquire with the birth mother/parents as to how they feel about a certain decision or ask what they would do. This is very unrealistic and quite unfair. If a birthmother is that concerned about what prospective adoptive parents will do, then honestly she should just parent her child.
If PAPs do not think they can parent a child according to the conditions requested, they should be honest & move on or find a better match However many would agree to anything just for the chance to parent the first healthy newborn/infant that comes along. When they have no intention to follow through with things they agreed to, this is deceitful & it is wrong.

Most mothers who relinquish choose APs based on certain conditions. We're talking about the decision to breast-feed vs bottlefeed, NOT crisis management or intervention. No one is saying APs should obtain approval for every single decision, but for decisions that have been discussed & agreed upon.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2013, 06:49 AM
 
1,014 posts, read 987,358 times
Reputation: 834
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaded View Post
Where is this research? This would be nearly all of the population of the world!
Anyone can do a quick google on the impact of separating newborns from their mothers:

Putting baby in cot after birth causes stress levels to double - Telegraph

http://www.childbirthinternational.c...Separation.pdf

Quote:
“This paper highlights the profound impact of maternal separation on the infant. “We knew that this was stressful, but the current study suggests that this is a major physiologic stressor for the infant.”

They are still studying the long-term impact on newborns, but it is inaccurate to say there is any research to back up that there is no significant impact on a newborn/infant who has been permanently separated from their mother.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2013, 06:59 AM
 
1,097 posts, read 1,734,380 times
Reputation: 1591
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaded View Post
ignores and challenges her role as a mother
This I find problematical in discussions of breastfeeding in general. Though biologically, lactating goes in tandem with birthing a child, it does not make anyone less or more of a 'mother' except in biologic terms. It is not essential to anyones 'role' as a mother. No one should feel less of a mother because they can't, or more of one because it is possible. This association with the emotional aspects of motherhood and the ability to breastfeed does more damage to all mothers than is necessary.

Studies remain unclear on some of these emotional aspects - they are unable to truly determine if all the emotional benefits of nursing are from the nursing itself or if the personality of people who chose to nurse are such that they would devote the same behaviors [physical closeness, close attention to needs, increased physical contact, time spent with the infant] even if they couldn't breastfeed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2013, 09:51 AM
 
1,851 posts, read 2,987,837 times
Reputation: 2365
Quote:
Originally Posted by thethreefoldme View Post
Anyone can do a quick google on the impact of separating newborns from their mothers:

Putting baby in cot after birth causes stress levels to double - Telegraph

http://www.childbirthinternational.c...Separation.pdf
Quote:
“Skin-to-skin contact with the mother removes this contradiction, and our results are a first step towards understanding exactly why babies do better when nursed in skin-to-skin contact with mother, compared to incubator care.”
This is taken from the study. Not a new finding at all. The writers are using "mother" very generically here. Any woman/person holding or maintaining contact with the infant will suffice. This is a fact that has been proven by child development studies. A news article is not going to be concerned with using the correct terms, this is why in scholarly journals, the words "most likely...birthmother" and "primary caregiver" are used to indicate it doesn't have to be the birth mother.

The bolded part: Just proves that breastfeeding will be the best option for my child.

Also, from your article:

Quote:
“At the same time, separation of human newborns is common practice, particularly when specialised medical care is required, such as incubator care."
So, as I've stated, the studies may suggests or study stress levels, but they fail to follow-up with adults whom this has happened to in life to study long-term effects. Long-term damage is done by continued and consistent neglect. As I've stated, making blanket statements like "separating a baby from her mother" damages babies is incorrect, an exaggeration of the facts, and misleading. If this were the case, the majority of the WORLD population would be seriously and negatively affected. Babies are separated all the time...it's what continues to occur in their lives after birth that truly affects them long-term.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thethreefoldme View Post
They are still studying the long-term impact on newborns, but it is inaccurate to say there is any research to back up that there is no significant impact on a newborn/infant who has been permanently separated from their mother.
It isn't inaccurate to state that newborns who are not raised by their birth mother suffer long-term effects. They don't. The only effects they suffer are those endured throughout their childhood by what their environments were/are, and how they were/are parented, etc. This is why research on infant adoption states it is the most successful compared to older and/or abused child adoptions. Bonding and attachment with infant adoptions is almost always automatic with adoptive parents who meet the baby's needs and continue to do so throughout his/her life. Those who feel it does not have a hidden agenda, namely, they don't like adoption and prefer biological families remain in tact. But this isn't always viable, hence, adoption. The research is very clear on this: babies are not permanently damaged when they are not raised by their birthmothers.

Find an actual scholarly journal that states babies are permanently damaged for life if their birthmothers don't raise them. And no, the "Primal Wound" book does not qualify.

Last edited by Jaded; 03-25-2013 at 09:53 AM.. Reason: added info
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2013, 10:09 AM
 
1,851 posts, read 2,987,837 times
Reputation: 2365
Quote:
Originally Posted by nj185 View Post
Why would that be? a smokescreen for what? It is a controversial subject in general, not just related to adoption. People feel strongly about drugs and lactation,and overuse of drugs in general.
Only those using the smokescreen can answer this. Breastfeeding is controversial but really only when people are discussing the length of time a woman breastfeeds and cross-breastfeeding, wet nurses, breastfeeding in public. Not sure how that matters here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by susankate View Post
Men have rudimentary mammary glands and they can produce milk though obviously very few can do so naturally (with exceptions as posted on your link).

What's infertility got to do with anything?

Perhaps you might like to elucidate, Jaded?

What is wrong with discussing the dangers of medicine in inducing lactation? I've read articles where the dangers of medicine in inducing lactation are discussed and no-one is talking about bio or adoptive just about the topic in hand etc. It is a subject that many people are interested in.
Susankate, I was only addressing your comment about all humans having mammary glands. Men don't usually produce milk unless there is a medical problem. This is generally understood by medical science. The one-off stories you may find are just that, one-offs.

Infertility came into the discussion because women who induce lactation usually fall into two categories: they are not pregnant due to infertility; or, they're milk has dried up from a previous pregnancy and they wish to breastfeed again with an adopted child.

Elucidate what? Thought my statement was pretty clear. If you read through all of the posts here, you can decipher what smokescreens are being used.

Nothing wrong with discussing medication with lactation. What TiffJoy and I are saying is that to use it as a reason against induced lactation or adoptive breastfeeding falls flat and doesn't really work, as biological mothers have used medication for years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2013, 10:33 AM
 
1,851 posts, read 2,987,837 times
Reputation: 2365
Quote:
Originally Posted by thethreefoldme View Post
Of course APs do not have to respect the wishes of their child's other parents -- as in no one is going to literally force them to do so. However, that doesn't mean they shouldn't & one might consider how it could possibly impact their child to one day find they did not.

Going against the wishes of the biological parents can feel like a betrayal of trust for the adoptee. If it is important to you as a parent that your child does not feel that way, it should be avoided.

Let's say the APs agree not to breastfeed as a condition to adopt someone's child, yet do so anyway because, "Well, her rights were terminated & it was my personal choice."

How do you think that sort of attitude might impact their child?

If PAPs do not think they can parent a child according to the conditions requested, they should be honest & move on or find a better match However many would agree to anything just for the chance to parent the first healthy newborn/infant that comes along. When they have no intention to follow through with things they agreed to, this is deceitful & it is wrong.

Most mothers who relinquish choose APs based on certain conditions. We're talking about the decision to breast-feed vs bottlefeed, NOT crisis management or intervention. No one is saying APs should obtain approval for every single decision, but for decisions that have been discussed & agreed upon.
I respect your opinion and disagree. I will restate, I highly, and sincerely, doubt my adoptive baby will grow up and dislike me, not trust me, feel betrayed by me, and seek to find out if I "respected" the wishes of the birth parents due to the fact that I breastfed him/her or tried to (if not successful).

I believe by the time he/she is an adult the evidence will be overwhelmingly clear that I would not have been "odd" for wanting to provide breast milk as a superior alternative to formula (mine or donor) and that it was in his/her best interest. Yes, there is bonding and attachment, and these can occur without breastfeeding, but as a mother it really is a personal choice to make. From this article

Quote:
The baby's sucking action alone brings on milk production.

It took just three days, Jane Anne Wilder told Today.com, to start producing milk this way when she adopted 17 years ago.
If adoptive breastfeeding was so unnatural I doubt the body would naturally produce milk by an infant latching to a woman's breast - with no medication.

Now, one is free to disagree with this, but using the arguments that it is wrong due to medicine being necessary, that it's not natural, or is morally wrong, seems to fall flat and are not well supported by studies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2013, 10:43 AM
 
1,014 posts, read 987,358 times
Reputation: 834
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaded View Post
This is taken from the study. Not a new finding at all. The writers are using "mother" very generically here. Any woman/person holding or maintaining contact with the infant will suffice. This is a fact that has been proven by child development studies. A news article is not going to be concerned with using the correct terms, this is why in scholarly journals, the words "most likely...birthmother" and "primary caregiver" are used to indicate it doesn't have to be the birth mother.
Can you provide research that backs up your claims that newborns/infants who are permanently separated from their biological mothers are not impacted by the separation?

Quote:
So, as I've stated, the studies may suggests or study stress levels, but they fail to follow-up with adults whom this has happened to in life to study long-term effects. Long-term damage is done by continued and consistent neglect. As I've stated, making blanket statements like "separating a baby from her mother" damages babies is incorrect, an exaggeration of the facts, and misleading. If this were the case, the majority of the WORLD population would be seriously and negatively affected. Babies are separated all the time...it's what continues to occur in their lives after birth that truly affects them long-term.
I never made such blanket statements. Again, it appears you are misreading posts. If an infant is impacted by being placed in a cot beside their biological mother, not permanently separated from them, how can you possibly infer that long-term or permanent separation will not impact them?

Yes, babies are separated from their mothers all the time. That does not mean there is no long-term impact.

Quote:
It isn't inaccurate to state that newborns who are not raised by their birth mother suffer long-term effects. They don't. The only effects they suffer are those endured throughout their childhood by what their environments were/are, and how they were/are parented, etc.
& where is the research to back up your claims here? The current studies have shown there is a major impact when newborns/infants are separated from their biological mothers -- to my knowledge there have been NO comprehensive studies to show there is no long-term impact of separation on adoptees as you claim. Such things are currently still being researched as we speak. You cannot just say that means infants do not suffer long-term effects.

Question for you -- How many studies have you reviewed that included reports from adult adoptees as opposed to comparing something like school grades or reports from adoptive parents?

Last edited by thethreefoldme; 03-25-2013 at 11:07 AM..
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