Miss D.C. to have breasts removed after Miss America pageant.

[merithyn]

Wait, I don't give two shits about other people breastfeeding their kids or not, but what is this I'm hearing about "not able to breast feed this particular child?" What would have happened 500 years ago in such a situation? Child starving to death? Was this a deficiency of the mother (not producing enough milk?) or the child not taking to the breast? If the former I'd guess we had wet nurses for a reason and even outside of "professional" wet nurses just about every woman who wasn't too old had a good chance of being pregnant or nursing at some point 500 years ago so someone would be able to feed the kid, but if it was the latter cause--the kid not taking to the breast, if that's really a thing I'd think history would have a lot of cases of babies dying from such a psychosis.

There were. Think cleft palate and weak/premature babies. Of course, baby bottles have been around since the time of the Phoenicians, so there were options, but usually only for the well-heeled.

[crazy canuck]

Otto hasnt had a regular bowl movement in a while it seems.

[Fate]

2) most women don't breast feed all that long anyway once they leave the hospital even if they have two breasts...

Another odd US norm?

I don't know what your norm is. For 2012 in the US nationally (per the CDC)...

Exclusively breast feeding at 3 months: 36.0%
Exclusively breast feeding at 6 months: 16.3%

In some states that second number is as low as 7.6% (Mississippi). It tends to be the poorest states where the rates of breast feeding are the lowest.

[Scipio]

2) most women don't breast feed all that long anyway once they leave the hospital even if they have two breasts...

Another odd US norm?

I don't know what your norm is. For 2012 in the US nationally (per the CDC)...

Exclusively breast feeding at 3 months: 36.0%
Exclusively breast feeding at 6 months: 16.3%

In some states that second number is as low as 7.6% (Mississippi). It tends to be the poorest states where the rates of breast feeding are the lowest.

We're also the most obese state, the number 2 state for incarceration, and the number one state for bad theology.  Clearly, evangelical Baptists are to blame for obese teenage moms in Mississippi's prisons.

[Neil]

Isn't all theology, by definition, bad?

[crazy canuck]

2) most women don't breast feed all that long anyway once they leave the hospital even if they have two breasts...

Another odd US norm?

I don't know what your norm is. For 2012 in the US nationally (per the CDC)...

Exclusively breast feeding at 3 months: 36.0%
Exclusively breast feeding at 6 months: 16.3%

In some states that second number is as low as 7.6% (Mississippi). It tends to be the poorest states where the rates of breast feeding are the lowest.

Not sure what exclusive breast feading has to do with that point you were trying to make.  I am actually surprised that exclusive breast feeding is that high. 

The percentage in Mississippi just proves that literacy rates are important.

[Caliga]

I like how often I am mentioned in this thread.


"You like me, you really like me!"

[crazy canuck]

I like how often I am mentioned in this thread.


"You like me, you really like me!"

I am trying to defend your interests.  The mob seems to be against me.  Very unseemly for Languish to have gone over to the anti-breast lobby.

[garbon]

I like how often I am mentioned in this thread.

Meh, you make/get a meme you get mentioned. I get trotted out all the time for homosexuality.

[dps]

Ah see I thought that was where you were coming from, but wasn't sure.

Yeah, sort of like BB's post in this thread, it had some of the characteristics of a joke, but lacked some of the important ones, such as actually being funny.

[Scipio]

2) most women don't breast feed all that long anyway once they leave the hospital even if they have two breasts...

Another odd US norm?

I don't know what your norm is. For 2012 in the US nationally (per the CDC)...

Exclusively breast feeding at 3 months: 36.0%
Exclusively breast feeding at 6 months: 16.3%

In some states that second number is as low as 7.6% (Mississippi). It tends to be the poorest states where the rates of breast feeding are the lowest.

Not sure what exclusive breast feading has to do with that point you were trying to make.  I am actually surprised that exclusive breast feeding is that high. 

The percentage in Mississippi just proves that literacy rates are important.

I'm just trying to remind everyone that correlation is not causation.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Wait, I don't give two shits about other people breastfeeding their kids or not, but what is this I'm hearing about "not able to breast feed this particular child?" What would have happened 500 years ago in such a situation? Child starving to death? Was this a deficiency of the mother (not producing enough milk?) or the child not taking to the breast? If the former I'd guess we had wet nurses for a reason and even outside of "professional" wet nurses just about every woman who wasn't too old had a good chance of being pregnant or nursing at some point 500 years ago so someone would be able to feed the kid, but if it was the latter cause--the kid not taking to the breast, if that's really a thing I'd think history would have a lot of cases of babies dying from such a psychosis.

There were. Think cleft palate and weak/premature babies. Of course, baby bottles have been around since the time of the Phoenicians, so there were options, but usually only for the well-heeled.

I did a little research on this. It appears by and large most babies that have some problem that would prevent them from being able to normally breastfeed are not generally healthy babies, and only live to adulthood through modern medicine. Like a premature baby historically would probably have been abandoned or smothered, people didn't generally try to save unfit children in the past.

[merithyn]

Wait, I don't give two shits about other people breastfeeding their kids or not, but what is this I'm hearing about "not able to breast feed this particular child?" What would have happened 500 years ago in such a situation? Child starving to death? Was this a deficiency of the mother (not producing enough milk?) or the child not taking to the breast? If the former I'd guess we had wet nurses for a reason and even outside of "professional" wet nurses just about every woman who wasn't too old had a good chance of being pregnant or nursing at some point 500 years ago so someone would be able to feed the kid, but if it was the latter cause--the kid not taking to the breast, if that's really a thing I'd think history would have a lot of cases of babies dying from such a psychosis.

There were. Think cleft palate and weak/premature babies. Of course, baby bottles have been around since the time of the Phoenicians, so there were options, but usually only for the well-heeled.

I did a little research on this. It appears by and large most babies that have some problem that would prevent them from being able to normally breastfeed are not generally healthy babies, and only live to adulthood through modern medicine. Like a premature baby historically would probably have been abandoned or smothered, people didn't generally try to save unfit children in the past.

How does that negate what I said?

[OttoVonBismarck]

Everything I say to you must negate something you said? 

[merithyn]

Everything I say to you must negate something you said? 

No, I just expect it from you.