Many people in this section are very opposed to adoptive breastfeeding, and have described it as bothersome, upsetting, emotionally confusing to the child, or even abusive.
(Please note that this is not a direct response to the other question. The subject gets asked about a lot, and I wonder about this every time.)
In many parts of the world, particularly developing countries, it is totally culturally acceptable for women to nurse the babies of other mothers. Sometimes because the mothers have died, but sometimes just while babysitting. Without the Western taboos of the sexualized breast, it is seen as normal and natural.
So... are you bothered by that too? Do you consider it abusive? Or only in the West? Or only if the child is adopted (as opposed to short term care or guardianship)?
Does it matter if that the woman breastfeeding another woman's child in the developing world does so without chemicals to induce lactation? Does it matter if an adoptive mother in the United States does so with or without chemical induction?
Does it matter if the goal is nutrition instead of bonding? Does that matter in poorer countries? Does it matter in wealthy countries?
Should it only happen when formula is not available? If so, does that mean that practices in richer countries and/or Western culture are superior, and are what poorer countries should strive and wish for? (Since the reason it would be acceptable is that they are a "have not.")
If you see the practice of breastfeeding a child you didn't birth as emotionally abusive, do you believe children would be better off in a culture where they would receive formula, since abuse is one reason most of us agree that children need to be removed from their homes?
I'm just interested in how far the condemnation extends, for those who adamantly oppose the practice.
Sunny2009-10-19T07:24:11Z
Favorite Answer
But adopted children actually have biological mothers, don't they?
It's not done because the AP can't afford formula, and she isn't "wet" all the time as these other women in developing countries are, is she? The amother must take hormones (to be fed into a child with a developing brain) to *pretend* that she is the natural mother to this child. She isn't.
I don't believe that adoptive breastfeeding is for the child's benefit AT ALL. It's done to soothe the AP's need to feel "bonded" to a child that another woman bore. I believe that the only response an adopted child could *feel* is utter dependence and fear. We mustn't forget that this is a child who has just lost his mother...
So, no, I don't have that "Western" thinking (hate Western medicine and the Western invention of modern adoption) that it is a sexualized custom. It's just a profoundly selfish desire of a woman who's need to pretend supersedes the emotional and physical health of a child unlucky enough to land in her lap.
It is not natural by any means. A newborn can tell the difference between his mother's milk and a stranger's milk. I am less against it if the Amom can induce lactation without chemicals. At the same time though, many women who must induce lactation don't have a full supply and have to formula feed anyway. In cases of adoption, the baby will need formula regardless so it should be the only nutrition given as it is less manipulative to the baby's psyche.
If the APs are so concerned about the baby being breastfed, the right thing to do is ask the biological mother to pump breastmilk; if she refuses they should formula feed.
Let me clear up a misconception here: a woman does NOT need to "pump her body full of chemicals and hormones" to produce breast milk. Regular pumping with a breast pump will stimulate the glands and the body will start naturally producing milk. This is why women who have weaned children are able to begin again, even after they dry up.
Baby formula fed to infants by women capable of breastfeeding them is abusive. Only in America will you find WOMEN grossed out by a normal female bodily function and nurturing behavior. Please.
Those who condemn adoptive breastfeeding are just plain ignorant.
I'm not bothered by another woman (other than the biological mother) breast feeding another woman's child for the sake of survival. Historically its been an accepted practice because there's never been a guarantee that a mother will automatically produce milk if she gives birth. This why they called a woman who still had breast milk a wet nurse, often women who had more than they could supply their own baby would offer to feed another who needed it in a village or town.
(And they didn't have formula until recent times. Before that, babies had boiled cows milk if their mother couldn't produce breast milk. My DH was fed on cow's milk because his mother couldn't breast feed, it was all she had, and he's okay, very smart man with a high IQ and emotionally stable person.))
The only thing that I don't like is the introduction of drugs to bring on the breast milk. That does bother me, and it not about whether an adoptive mother or a mother who gives birth takes them so she can breastfeed. Its about the chemically induced milk a baby them drinks from the mother. I feel we don't know enough about the effects of the hormones that are bound to end up in the breast milk on a growing baby. Who knows whats going to show up in 20yrs time.
Western culture and ways of doing things doesn't hold the answers to everything. We get a bit full of ourselves when it comes to things at times in West, like we know best in everything.
In that area the only thing I see as real abuse is allowing a baby to go hungry and starve because of attitudes.
In other parts of the world, women use wet nurses so their child can live, because they may not have a clean water source for mixing formula, and may have limited access to pre-mixed formula.
I am "one of those" breastfeeding mothers. I nursed my children until they were almost 2 years old. I was also a LLL lactation consultant in my area.
The primary incentive for breastfeeding is nutrition. A woman's body makes milk SPECIFICALLY for HER newborn child. When a wet nurse is employed (as in some other countries) it is out of necessity.
Again- a non-child bearing woman CAN produce milk without hormones, by stimulation, but it would never be enough to keep a child alive, nor would it have the mother's "first milk", or colostrum. AND, an adoptive mother's milk would not be the "perfect food" for her adoptive child, because that child is not genetically related to her. Breastfeeding an adoptive child is only for the mother's self gratification. She has someone else's child- you would think that would be enough for her. ;)
I do believe it should only happen when a child's life is in danger (no formula/access to clean water)
You wrote, "If you see the practice of breastfeeding a child you didn't birth as emotionally abusive, do you believe children would be better off in a culture where they would receive formula, since abuse is one reason most of us agree that children need to be removed from their homes?"
Huh? Im not sure what you are implying, but I do feel it is abusive to nurse an adoptive child. Emotionally, and physically. I think I feel so strongly about this BECAUSE I breast fed, and worked with other nursing Moms and babies.
I believe it should be against the law for an adoptive Mother to breastfeed her adoptive child, so yes- I think adoptive Mothers should only be permitted to bottle feed.
Plus, it's just plain disgusting to me, from a MENTAL stand-point. I adore my A Mom. But she did NOT give birth to me. I am so thankful she never pretended to be my natural Mother. And yes, she DID breast feed my sister, her bio child.