Breastfeeding...an Obligation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdmealey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mdmealey

Guest
I wanted to know if anyone has any citations for a discussion about our obligation to do what is good versus what is best?

I’m specifically thinking about breastfeeding. Obviously, BFing is “best” for a baby, but we are not obligated to do what is “best,” only what is good. Feeding our children so that they grow and are healthy is “good.”

Can anyone give me a reason why we would be obligated to do the “best” in this case? (assuming you don’t have health issues but for other reasons don’t want to BF)

Thanks!
 
I don’t know how much weight this has, but…

It was part of the Isrealite/Jewish law that every infant had to be nursed for at least 3 years, so that’s what our Blessed Mother did with Jesus.

Personally, I don’t know how anyone could make a choice otherwise, unless it’s a medical reason (like the mother’s milk does not come in- happened to a friend of mine, but it’s very rare!). That’s just me, though!
 
40.png
mdmealey:
Can anyone give me a reason why we would be obligated to do the “best” in this case? (assuming you don’t have health issues but for other reasons don’t want to BF)

Thanks!
Click to expand...
I would think it would be* less* an issue of obligation and more about motivation.

I don’t think not breastfeeding in and of itself is wrong or sinful…there are many reasons a mom may not breastfeed. The reasons why need to be looked at honestly though…

Not wanting to breastfeed for a self-serving, selfish reason would be wrong, in my opinion anyway.

As for the good vs best issue, I ask you why would you not want what you acknowledge to be the best?

Malia
 
I don’t think that law has the moral weight of an obligation, because Jesus came to free us from legalism that says we “must” do something. Our actions today are supposed to be motivated out of love, not pure duty.

Do you have a citation for the Jewish law thing? I’d be really interested in that!
 
When you look at all the evidence, it’s probably hard to say that homeschooling is not “best” for children. But there is no moral obligation to homeschool.

I think “best for the child” doesn’t always translate into “best for the marriage” or even “best for the family.” Acknowleding that something may be superior to all other choices doesn’t necessarily require us to choose that thing, as long as the other choices are “good.” I keep thinking of “The best is often the enemy of the good.”

Someone I was e-mailing stated the moral obligation thing today, so I thought I’d see what folks here think. I agree with the point about motivation. I just tend to think that many women who are staunch BFing supporters may attribute the motive of selfishness too quickly (and often unjustly) to women who don’t BF.
 
40.png
mdmealey:
When you look at all the evidence, it’s probably hard to say that homeschooling is not “best” for children. But there is no moral obligation to homeschool.

I wonder about that…you make interesting points…

Let’s assume that homeschooling is “best” for children (I’m not convinced that it is).

If you take a family where the children would benefit from homeschooling and the parent(s) have no reason not to, then why wouldn’t it become a moral obligation? Aren’t we morally obligated to do the best for our children when possible?

I think “best for the child” doesn’t always translate into “best for the marriage” or even “best for the family.” Acknowleding that something may be superior to all other choices doesn’t necessarily require us to choose that thing, as long as the other choices are “good.” I keep thinking of “The best is often the enemy of the good.”

I’m not sure I follow the reasoning. I would enjoy learning more about this from you.

I am having trouble thinking of an example that would be best for the child that would not be, in turn, best for the family and/or marriage…

I guess it would be a problem if the parents don’t agree. But then it’s not the choice of “best” that is the problem…

Someone I was e-mailing stated the moral obligation thing today, so I thought I’d see what folks here think. I agree with the point about motivation. I just tend to think that many women who are staunch BFing supporters may attribute the motive of selfishness too quickly (and often unjustly) to women who don’t BF.

I am not a mother, although I do hope to be in the future. I will breastfeed if I am able to. But I do not automatically judge women who don’t. I have no idea why they don’t. But I have no doubt that there are plenty of BF advocates who wouldn’t hesitate to judge…you can find those types of people everywhere.

I can’t think of a situation (please help me out) where a mother is able to breastfeed but would choose not to (for unselfish reasons).

There are more than just 2 options by the way. It is not just a matter of breastfeed or not. There are breast pumps so that you need not be physically breastfeeding, but baby would still benefit from mommy milk.

Malia
Click to expand...
 
I c
an’t think of a situation (please help me out) where a mother is able to breastfeed but would choose not to (for unselfish reasons).
Click to expand...
There are women who financially have to work full time and don’t have offices or private areas or breaks every two or three hours to pump. I breast fed all three of my children, all for a year and one for much longer. I was able to do that because I worked part time, had a private office, was not clocking in and out and wasn’t restricted by workplace rules as to how frequently I could take breaks or how long they could be. Pumping always took longer than nursing, so it would take me 20 to 30 minutes each session and I would have to pump every two and a half to three hours.

I’m a huge advocate of breastfeeding, but women need to realize that some women actually live in a world where they’re not supported totally by their husbands, they’re obligated to work (many would love to be SAHM) and their employers are not supportive of breastfeeding.

I get very upset at the sometimes superior and smug attitude of some SAHM breast feeding advocates who so self righteously talk about women being selfish for working, assuming it’s for non-essentials, or assume any woman who doesn’t breastfeed is selfish as well. They should just be grateful for the opportunities provided them and not say things which make women with fewer choices feel guilty as if they’re not doing right by their children. After all, pride is just as great a sin as selfishness.

As for breastmilk being best – sure, but there are also hundreds of thousands of people (me included) who were given only formula and turned out extremely healthy and high functioning, with very good immune systems, etc and close bonds with their mothers. So while it may be best, formulas, especially the more modern ones, are quite adequate.
 
Off topic.
40.png
mdmealey:
When you look at all the evidence, it’s probably hard to say that homeschooling is not “best” for children. But there is no moral obligation to homeschool.
Click to expand...
It’s not hard for me to say. I am not convinced that homeschooling is generally superior to out of the home schooling.
 
40.png
dwc:
There are women who financially have to work full time and don’t have offices or private areas or breaks every two or three hours to pump.

I’m a huge advocate of breastfeeding, but women need to realize that some women actually live in a world where they’re not supported totally by their husbands, they’re obligated to work (many would love to be SAHM) and their employers are not supportive of breastfeeding.

I get very upset at the sometimes superior and smug attitude of some SAHM breast feeding advocates who so self righteously talk about women being selfish for working, assuming it’s for non-essentials, or assume any woman who doesn’t breastfeed is selfish as well. They should just be grateful for the opportunities provided them and not say things which make women with fewer choices feel guilty as if they’re not doing right by their children…
Click to expand...
I really hope your comments/opinions weren’t directed at me. I completely understand the scenario you are presenting. The statement you quoted by me
** “I can’t think of a situation (please help me out) where a mother is able to breastfeed but would choose not to (for unselfish reasons).”]**
I would assume that by saying “able to breastfeed” I ruled out moms who **have **to work and aren’t able to pump or breastfeed.

I still can’t think of a situation where a mom is ABLE to breastfeed but chooses not to (again, for UNSELFISH reasons). That is what I was hoping the original poster could shed some light on.

Malia
 
👍 selfish doesn’t = immoral

Sure if a woman can breastfeed but for whatever reason she chooses not to, you may have the opinion and I say opinion since it is your opinion that it is selfish but that by no means makes it immoral.

I think if it was immoral, we would be hearing it from the Pope himself, from the pulpit, etc.

If you really want an anwer, ask this question to an apologist, it will save much time and arguing, as this can only lead to arguing,
a mother who has or will breast feed will have one opinion and a mother who has or will bottle feed will have another opinion.

Another thing, try this question at EWTN question and answer forum.
 
kamz said:
👍 selfish doesn’t = immoral

You are absolutely right:yup:

Sure if a woman can breastfeed but for whatever reason she chooses not to, you may have the opinion and I say opinion since it is your opinion that it is selfish but that by no means makes it immoral.

I wasn’t making the judgement/opinion that the reasons were selfish. My point was that the person making the choice would know if it was a selfish reason.

For example, if a woman doesn’t want to breastfeed because she fears her breasts getting saggy, openly admits that it is a selfish reason (to some women this may be a valid reason, so I am not making a judgement) but then chooses her own desires over what she acknowledges to be best for baby.

If you really want an anwer, ask this question to an apologist, it will save much time and arguing, as this can only lead to arguing,
a mother who has or will breast feed will have one opinion and a mother who has or will bottle feed will have another opinion.

I for one am interested in hearing from both sides (charitably of course) as I am not a mom but hope to be one someday. I would like to learn as much as possible from all of you.
Click to expand...
 
Pope John Paul II on Marriage
Responsible Parenthood

General Audience of August 1, 1984

Ruled by Conscience

…[T]he Council teaches that married couples “shall fulfill their role with a sense of human and Christian responsibility and the formation of correct judgments through docile respect for God” (GS 50). This involves “common reflection and effort; it also involves a consideration of their own good and the good of their children already born or yet to come, an ability to read the signs of the times and of their own situation on the material and spiritual level, and finally, an estimation of the good of the family, of society and of the Church” (GS 50).
At this point there follow words of particular importance to determine with greater precision the moral character of “responsible parenthood.” We read: “It is the married couple themselves who must in the last analysis arrive at these judgments before God” (GS 50).
 
I think every mother should try to breastfeed for at least a year for the sake of her helpless child. Yes, I think she should make this sacrific. All women should feel obligated. It’s selfish not to. Because children not breastfed aren’t as healthy, so it’s definately a more selfish decision to bottlefeed, and being selfish is a sin.
 
Okay - don’t attack me . . .

I am in agreement with Feanaro’s Wife. I do not judge another person to be wrong, sinful, or even immoral for not choosing to breastfeed your child. To each their own.

However, I must say that I do think there is a level of selfishness if a woman chooses not to breastfeed if she is ABLE. Ability - being defined in many different scenarios.

To me, God made our bodies able to provide food for our babies in the most natural way imaginable. It is better healthwise - I do not know of babies having allergic reactions to mommy’s milk like they can with formula. It is economical and free!! And you will bond with your child more than you can with a bottle. Now - I do think that you can bond with your baby if you feed them w/ a bottle - but there is that certain special something that only comes from giving life and sustenance from your own body.

So this is all my opinion. It is not meant to offend anyone, but I am sharing how I feel. And no I do not have a child yet. But I was breastfed as were my sisters and my sisters have with all of their children. God willing, If I am blessed with a baby - I will breastfeed. It will be one of the most important gifts of love I can give.
 
Babies who are not breastfed do not end up any worse for the wear than ones who are. It’s a personal choice for the mother. Personally I do not plan to marry or have children, but in the event that I do, my children will be bottle fed.
 
I think brestfeeding doesn’t make it or break it as far as children go. There are about a gazzillion things more important for your child such as: Do his parents love each other & treat each other with respect? Is there lots of laughter & love in the home? Is he taken to church - taught to love Jesus? Is he taught to marvel at the wonders of this world? Is he taught to share & get along with others?

Breastfeeding? Yeah… it’s great… it’s easy & it’s free & it’s good for the baby. I’ve spent 8 years of my life hooked up to my children. But I don’t think it was anything magical - I’m pretty sure that formula would have been just as good.
 
I heard a radio talk show host say it best. He told a woman on the air that there are many formulas that are just fine, and there is no reason for her to feel guilty if she does not breast feed. He received many hate calls in return telling him he was an idiot, that he didn’t know what he was talking about (even though his 3 children were bottle-fed), and literally yell at him.

Finally, he sighed, and said, “A society that stigmatizes bottle-feeding, but not illegitimacy and abortion, is in trouble.”

His name escapes me. Even though I can’t cite him, I agree with the main point.
 
medically I wasn’t able to breastfeed, I have sever depression that I must take meds for and I also have migraines and have to take heavy duty pain killers when one gets very bad but even if I didn’t have these problems, I still would have chosen to bottle feed.

My sister has nothing wrong with her but chose to bottle feed all her kids and they are the healthiest children I’ve ever seen and very intellegent.

My kids are very healthy and smart and have actually had fewer illnesses than my friends kids who were breat fed each for a year, so it is totally pointless to get into this issue, it is a no win situation.
I did post to ask an apologist if it is an moral obligation to breast feed and I hope I get an answer.

I have given my children my everything, I would lay down and die for them and if there was no such thing as formula, I would have breast fed them but there is and I feel no guilt or selfishness in having given my kids a bottle.

I don’t know a selfish mother on this board, we are all givng of ourselves so much, please, lets not start finger pointing or even make a statement that this is selfish etc. Let us leave that up to God, he will tell us in heaven if this or that was a right choice or not, who are we to start playing God and handing down judgement?? I don’t want to start acting like that, I’ll let the master tell me someday and then I will know.

Peace!
 
It’s not an obligation. What is best for 1 child may be harsh for another. I bf-ed for over a year with some of my dc, not at all for 1, and everything beyond or between with the other babies.

Sometimes the bottle was best because of work or health issues that made bf-ing difficult or impossible. Sometimes the bottle was a horrible experience and bf-ing was best. My 2nd ds refused even table food until age 15 months, no way he wanted a bottle - drove me crazy some back then.:o Then there’s my 1st ds who did and does eat anything from anywhere anytime. I’ve got all the various degrees between them in the other children.
Even in old testament days, babies did get “bottles” (in the times required fashion of course!). Mothers died, wet nurses couldn’t be found, etc… and goat or cows milk was given instead.
What is “best” to do is what is best for that parent to do with that child at that time.
I can’t imagine not wanting to at least try to bf any of my children. (Frankly, I just think bf-ing is easier in the convienence and money areas.) But I’ve also got enough time in the mommy trenches to know not to judge another mother trying to do her best for each of her children.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top