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.
By age 6, a child will have whatever immunities the child will have. Immunities don't get "spent" and need to be replenished. If you think otherwise, then you would be implying that adults should also be breastfeeding.
Women have no medical need to breastfeed a 6-year-old child. There is no medical benefit to a woman who does so, compared to a woman who stopped breastfeeding her child at age 2.
The child will get her mother's antibodies anytime her mother gets sick. If mom gets the flu, the child will get the antibodies via her milk which are protective. It's worth mentioning that the immune system is still developing in childhood so the benefit of that will remain as long as the child is breastfeeding. There are health benefits to breastfeeding past infancy and past toddlerhood. In addition, the mother also receives health benefits from extended nursing such as a decreased risk of breast cancer, to name one. There is nothing wrong with the six year old nursing as it still falls within the biological norm for humans.
You are correct that a mother has "no medical need" to breastfeed period, but that doesn't mean that there aren't health benefits to it.
So then, Terri, what is the age cut-off? Or do you believe no such cut-off exists? Will the mother and child continue to get health benefits if mom breastfeeds her kid when the kid is seven? Nine? Eleven? Twenty-five? At what point does a mother -cease- to benefit from breastfeeding? At what point does a child cease to benefit from breastfeeding?
Or do you think there exists no such point, that a 40-year-old man should certainly feel free to feed from his 60-year-old mother and everyone should laud the two because of the health benefits to each?
There exists such a thing as a "point of diminishing returns." In the case of breastfeeding, the cut-off point is around 2 years of age. The benefits to the mother are negligible at that point. The benefits to the child are negligible at that point. This is the point where "health benefits" cease to trump and "social and cultural norms" take over.
So then, Terri, what is the age cut-off? Or do you believe no such cut-off exists? Will the mother and child continue to get health benefits if mom breastfeeds her kid when the kid is seven? Nine? Eleven? Twenty-five? At what point does a mother -cease- to benefit from breastfeeding? At what point does a child cease to benefit from breastfeeding?
Or do you think there exists no such point, that a 40-year-old man should certainly feel free to feed from his 60-year-old mother and everyone should laud the two because of the health benefits to each?
There exists such a thing as a "point of diminishing returns." In the case of breastfeeding, the cut-off point is around 2 years of age. The benefits to the mother are negligible at that point. The benefits to the child are negligible at that point. This is the point where "health benefits" cease to trump and "social and cultural norms" take over.
The range for weaning which is in line with biological identifiers for animals and mammals is between the ages of 2.5 and 7. I already stated that a ways back.
Your cut off point of 2 years is pretty arbitrary. The mother continues to decrease her risk of breast cancer the longer she breastfeeds so it doesn't just stop at age two. The health benefits continue for the child as well. Children have different needs, I see no reason to impose arbitrary limits regarding something like breastfeeding. If the mom and child are ok with it, then who cares? The health benefits may not be huge but they certainly don't cease when the child reaches a certain age.
There's no medical benefit to breastfeeding past a year or so. There's not even any "bonding" benefit past the first few months. If a baby hasn't bonded with its mother before it's a year old, then the problem is with the mother and child, not with whether or not it was breastfeeding.
Sorry, that is incorrect. The nutritional benefits of breastmilk does not change just because a baby has a birthday. The World Health Organization recommends breastfeeding for a minimum of two years and as long after as mother or baby wants to.
I breastfed my youngest until she was 3 years old and it was a bonding experience every time; my eldest lost interest when she was only 9 months and it was devastating to me because I thought I had failed her in some way. Interestingly enough, my youngest child is almost never sick while my eldest will catch a cold or the flu a few times a year. Protection from the breast milk? Maybe. My instinct tells me that it has definitely helped my youngest and I feel that if my eldest had kept breastfeeding she may have developed an even better immune system. But that's just me. My husband's aunt breastfed her children until the age of 4 and both of her children are very, very smart and successful so it didn't hurt them.
Yeah, it's been stated that it isn't MEDICALLY necessary to breastfeed a child past a certain time but in the end, who cares? Every child and his/her mother has a different relationship and if the child isn't being hurt then what's so negative about breastfeeding? If a mother chooses to breastfeed until her child is a toddler what's so wrong about it? So many parents are beyond stupid when it comes to their children's nourishment- go to Wal-Mart on payday and witness the frozen pizzas, fruit "drink", canned crap and processed food that parents will buy to feed their kids, God forbid they give them a piece of fruit or a plate of veggies- and if a mother takes care of herself and has healthy breast milk, I don't see much wrong with continuing breastfeeding for an extended time.
An older child being breastfed....eh, that's when things start getting a little sticky (no pun intended). Kids these days seem so grownup at times so seeing a 5, 6, or 7+ year old breastfeeding WOULD appear abnormal and "wrong". I don't know, I think that every situation and every family is different...but I also don't think that extended breastfeeding is that big of a deal considering all of the other issues that children deal with these days. Of course, a family would have to keep the breastfeeding a secret because a child would be teased so mercilessly that he/she would be ostracized and bullied beyond recognition.
Hmmm well I personally think it's a little creepy. I don't have any good reason to think that I guess but it feels like a extension of babyhood that isn't necessary. I was personally breastfed until 2, I think that's fine but a first grader? Not so much.
But what do I know? My kids were adopted from a desolate orphanage where they were lucky to get watered down formula as infants let alone breast milk. Of course in 3rd and 5th grade neither one has missed a day of school since preschool for illness and they're both excellent students. But I'm sure that missing breastmilk immunity will come into play at some point.
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.
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.
