The slate article is certainly interesting.

However, the writer give no evidence to support the idea that breastfeeding is overrated. He simply states that comparing breastfed babies to formula fed babies is too simple an equation, and that a host of other factors, including the health and education of the mother, play a role. I'd like to see some data that correct for socio-economic differences. Twin studies, perhaps? (Though I'm trying to picture a mom who would nurse twin A and not twin B ...) I seem to remember much literature on Jack Newman's site (an MD with over 40 years experience in studying lactation, perhaps th most expert doc on lactation) that quotes studies that *do* adjust for these types of differences, and breastfed babies *still* have lower incidence of disease and disorders.

I found the information on cholostrum and antibodies from milk in the digestive tract fascinating, The human body is an incredible system, isn't it? And yet, even though the antibodies stay in the gut, and don't go directly into the blood stream as many think, those antibodies still give very real, very powerful protection against disease that formula does not.

And I also notice that the slate article references a 2005 UNICEF study, which claims 6 million lives are saved each year by breast feeding. 6 million is hardly a pittance, is it?

Lastly, what I think is perhaps mot interesting in the slate article, goes back to the whole antibodies in milk stay in the gut, but don't cross into the bloodstream issue. What does that mean for estrogens and phytoestrogens and other contaminents? Are these molecules "contained" in the gut, or can they cross the cell walls? And what does that say about breast feeding and early-onset puberty?

Did some posts get deleted? I'm not sure I understand what you are upset about.

While you may feel that I was picking on you, I think if you reread my posts, I stick to the subject. I disagree with your assertions, and I provide evidence to support my position. But I never attack you, call you names, or otherwise disrespect you. (And I stated quite clearly that I do not look down on mothers who formula feed).

As for the whole bit about nursing 5 yos in public and needing to respect grandparents? I'm not even sure why you bring that up. That's not what we're discussing. You can look at my (and others') posts on the subject in the Broadsheet archives for a robust conversation on nursing in public. And you can see how rude and vicious some posters can be.

But, I'm glad (if you weren't being sarcastic) that you think you have been changed by the discussion. Isn't that what these forums are for? to exchange ideas and sway opinions?

I'm thinking about the Ed Sullivan Show.

Elvis and his hip gyrating.

Jim Morrisson and his lyrics ("girl we couldn't get much higher").

Elvis was told to stand still. He didn't. The camera refused to show Elvis from below the waist. Morrisson was told to change "higher" to "better." He didn't, and was banned from the show.

In Morrisson's case, he was asked to compromise his art by changing the meaning of his words. Elvis maintained that his hip swiveling helped him feel the music he was playing. Changing the performance to suit Ed Sullivan' scruples would, theartists maintained, destroy the integrity of their work.

So, I gotta ask, would Beyonce still be Beyonce without her navel being on view? Is that what she's really saying? That her navel is part of her art? If yes, then good for her (but, how sad for her "art"). If no, why not do the damned concert and be an artist, even with a covered navel?

really, really tired.

Could we please have some government now?

"And it has ZERO side effects, unlike the pill, which causes weight gain, depression, high blood pressure, nausea, and the list goes on."

Er, *can* cause those side effects in *some* users. Not all side effects for all users.

Just like natural planning *can* have the side effect of unintended pregnancy.

an American Court considers a woman's rape an infringement on a husband's or father's "interest" in her sexuality? Well, thank goodness women aren't considered property, or "goods" that can be "damaged." Also good to know that if my dauhter is gang raped, it's only the first rape that "counts."

Sheesh.