Baby Unwise

I've really been enjoying Three Moms and a Podcast, a podcast where my friend Kaysie and two of her buds dish about different mothering issues.  A few weeks ago they talked about the-book-that-shall-not-be-named (aka, Babywise), and I've had a lot of thoughts rolling around in my head regarding GKGW and programs of its kind.

I've mentioned it before, but when Nate was born, I thought this book was gold.  We followed it like it was child-rearing manna from Heaven.  Sure enough, he slept through the night by 8 wks, even though he was 4 wks early.  But at a very high price - his early sleeping habits, coupled with scheduled feedings during the day and a full-time night shift work schedule, cost me my milk supply.  By 5 months it had disappeared. 

We used the program again with Susannah.  And by 6 months I was struggling again.  I managed to make it to 9 months, supplementing heavily with formula, when I became pregnant with Abigail.  I tried nursing her while pregnant but she was no longer interested. 

Abigail's time at the breast started roughly.  She was born 7 wks early and was only 4 lb 7 oz when we brought her home from the NICU.  She never latched well and by 12 wks she'd weaned completely.

With Luke I was determined to do something different.  I knew that God had made me to nurse.  I had sweet toothless babies and breasts to feed them, but for some reason "God's way" wasn't cutting it.  I was drying up far before it was time for weaning.  So I went to a breastfeeding support group as soon as Luke arrived.  At first I was skeptical.  All these hippie ladies sitting in a room with nursing toddlers kind of scared me.  And when I mentioned how I didn't know how to boost my supply while doing Babywise, a hush fell across the room.

"You know," the lactation consultant (now my dear friend, Mellanie) said, "your baby didn't come with those instructions imprinted on him.  He just knows he's hungry."  I immediately went on alert.  I knew about those no-schedule, family-bed marsupial parents.  I'd been warned about them in my GKGW class.

But I kept coming back.  And I saw that these ladies really loved their kids too.  And many of them loved Jesus as well.  And that GKGW wasn't God's way.  It was a way that some Christians raise their children.  And while it wasn't wrong in and of itself, neither was it right or holy or somehow perfect. 

And I threw out the book.  I still kept the basic routine of eat-play-sleep, but I let Luke set his own schedule.  And he nursed past a year, almost all the way through my pregnancy with Gabriel.   Gabriel, too, nursed for over a year and my supply was plentiful.  Leah Claire is 8 months old.  She still wakes a couple times a night, but she's exclusively breastfed and happy.  My supply is abundant and since we cosleep it's not a big deal to drowsily nurse her in the night.  (Frankly, with the noise and craziness of our daytimes, it's a special time for the two of us).

My point is not that Babywise is one hundred percent wrong, though I do have serious caveats about a book that undermines natural milk production and made me numb my soul to my maternal instinct to comfort my child.  My point is that it is not God's way.  Neither is Sears', or Pantley's, or anyone else.

When we were born again, God filled us with the Holy Spirit.  As we became mothers, that same Holy Spirit empowered us to mother our children.  We must listen to the still, small Voice of the Father and ask Him how we should mother, not some silly book.  We should rely on the natural instincts that our Creator gave us to care for our little ones.  And we should pray, often and earnestly, that He would fill us to overflowing with knowledge and wisdom to raise our children in the way that they should be raised (this may come as a shock to you, but not all kids are the same - my kids might have different needs than yours.  That's why an omniscient God gave them to me!).

So let's give each other grace.  I won't call my way perfect or anoint it with the "God's way" moniker if you will do likewise.  Let's pray and support and encourage each other to seek the Father about raising all our kids to follow Him all the days of their lives.

Stay tuned - tomorrow I'll tackle No Greater Joy.  

(PS, thank you to my sisters for not punching me out, in Christian love, when I repeatedly gave them copies of the book.  You know, back when I thought it was God's way.)

(PPS, now I'M the hippie, co-sleeping marsupial mom)

I guess they really are listening...

My daughters were playing with their My Little Ponies on the floor. Anna's baby pony was nursing from her mama and Anna says, "No biting, Little Man, or it will be no boob for you!" (Imagine this in a Soup Nazi tone of voice). I just about fell out of my chair laughing.

Birth control revisited.

My wonderful dh and I have had a long running discussion about the practice of birth control in the modern church. We agree that the devil, the enemy of our souls, hates children and wants us to avoid having and raising up families who love the Lord. We know that our culture values prosperity and personal hedonism more than children. So it should not come as a surprise to us that this attitude has crept into the Church. Many of my church friends assume that having children is an area of absolute personal liberty, no more significant to the Lord that what color car you drive. Simply an area of personal preference. They see no problems with artificially limiting the size of your family in order to maintain a certain standard of living or keep you from being "stressed out."

On the other side of the equation we have the Quiverfull movement. These Christians believe that any limiting of family size is sin. That we should eagerly desire and embrace as many pregnancies as possible during our childbearing years, trusting that God will open and close the womb as He sees fit. God bless the QF for planting a flag and causing families to reconsider God's design. I am grateful that they stand up and proclaim the truth that children are blessings and a gift from the Lord. But some of the more radical elements of this camp say that there is no reason a woman should ever use any kind of birth control (even Natural Family Planning) - even if her health is poor or God has a special task for her family for a season. The problem with this camp is that is smacks of legalism and judgment.

I don't believe a loving husband would push his wife to have another baby at a time when her health was in danger. I don't think God would have a sick mom kill her unborn child through abortion, but there is a wisdom in allowing a sick mother to heal for a season before seeking pregnancy again. I know a couple who practices non-abortificant birth control because they believe God has called them to minister right now in a very dangerous area of the world. Their access to medical care is limited and a pregnancy at this point would mean that they could not continue their ministry. They do say that at some point they will move to a different area (and have children) when God tells them it is time, but for this season they believe they are in obedience to the Lord by not having children.

What I propose is a middle road. A place where each couple actively seeks to know what God's will is for their family. The world tells us that we should avoid "too many" children and the QF movement tells us that we should have as many children as physically possible. I think we should each listen to the Holy Spirit and stop trying to be the voice of God to each other. Let us encourage one another to ask "how many children do YOU want me have, Lord?" God bless those who have chosen to abandon their wombs to the Lord and eschew all birth control. And God bless those who use birth control for a season. And may the Holy Spirit convict any of us of our sins. Whether that be judging someone else for their use of birth control, or refusing to seek the Lord about His will for our family size.

So many of us want to bind each other with our own consciences. We forget that "man looks at the outward appearance, but God looks on the heart" (I Samuel 16:7). Maybe we should be quiet and let the Holy Spirit work on folks Himself.

Great little article

I was reading recently about religious views on breastfeeding and came across an fantastic Catholic article: http://www.theologyofthebody.com/03-16-07.asp

Funny how "modern" societies reject the natural in favor of man's way. Brings to mind the Biblical warnings against being "wise in your own eyes."

Selfish, selfish parents

Recently a friend sent an article to me from MSNBC about breastfeeding (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16773617/). Being stupid, I looked at some of the comments people had to make about women who nurse in public. I was appalled. Many folks were up in arms over the idea of a child EATING in public. I mean, how dare an infant enjoy the rights of all other human beings? To eat! With others present! How foul! Many comments were rude and compared nursing mothers to pooping daddies, suggesting that both should do their business in the bathroom. While some of the breastfeeding squeamishness can be attributed to the adolescent views of breasts that some people are cursed with, I believe that the heart of the issue is the deep-rooted selfishness of our society.

We have come to the point in our culture where the needs and wants of adults always outweigh the needs of children. Babies shouldn't have breastmilk in public lest some adult be offended. Parents shouldn't stay married just for the sake of the kids. Moms shouldn't stay home and mother their children because they might feel "unfulfilled". Parents should pawn their children off on babysitters and let them watch television all day so they can "do their own thing".

It's sad. And until we, as a nation, start recognizing that it is healthy and normal to sacrifice for your children we will continue to decline. We must realize that our children and grandchildren are worth the momentary sacrifices and do what it takes to put them first.

The lies of drug companies: how they get women's money coming and going

Up until the 19th century virtually all women breastfed their children. Then, in 1867, Henri Nestle founded the first formula company and concocted the first infant formula. While his original intentions were good (to provide nutrition for orphans and infants of mothers who truly could not produce milk), the formula industry has blossomed into a multibillion dollar a year cash cow and our breastfeeding rates in the US are dismally low. In the US 62.5 percent of women start out exclusively nursing in the hospital, but by six months only 14.2 percent are still exclusively nursing. A sad number, considering that both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the World Health Organization recommend exclusively breastfeeding for 6 months (at which point you may add solids to the diet, but should continue to give breastmilk as the main source of nutrition until a child is at least a year old.) Additionally, the World Health Organization recommends 2 years of breastfeeding as the bare minimum!

Breastfeeding is infinitely superior to formula. It is silly that we humans think we can try to copy God's design. Every time the drug companies isolate a new component in breastmilk and add it to the new formulas (like Enfamil Lipil with DHA/ARA) it just reaffirms the awesomeness of God's design. He made breastmilk to be the perfect food for our little ones and we will never be able to replicate it.

The formula companies put on a fine charade of being pro-breastfeeding, even giving out "breastfeeding success bags" at the hospital. These clever little bags contain a little booklet of tips for breastfeeding, and a large can of formula "just in case". Studies show that moms who start out breastfeeding and stop are more likely to continue to feed their child formula the entire first year, while many moms who start out on formula will switch to cow's milk well before the first birthday. So there is big money to be made by encouraging nursing moms to switch to formula. And even a few bottles of formula in the first few weeks can have drastic ramifications on a woman's milk supply, so making that easy bottle of formula readily available is an insidious trick.

What are the risks of feeding our children formula vs breastmilk?
Ear Infection- 3-5 times more likely with formula
Respiratory Infection - 2-5 times more likely with formula
SIDS - 3-5 times more likely with formula
Necrotizing Entercolitis - 20 times more likely with formula
Type I (Juvenile) Diabetes - 2-7 times more likely with formula
Diarrhea/Gastroenteritis - 6 times more likely with formula
Risks of Rheumatiod Arthritis, Urinary Tract Infections, Inflammatory Bowel Disease, Allergies, Asthma, Obesity, Lymphoma and Hodgkin's Disease are all increased as well when formula is chosen over breastmilk. Additionally, children who are fed formula have IQ's that are 7-10 points lower than children who are breastfed, with the IQ increasing the longer a child is breastfed.

So, first, the formula/drug companies make money by selling formula. Then, they make money when we take our sick, formula fed infants and children for treatment of diseases caused by the formula. Are you getting nauseated yet? We haven't even looked at the risks to mom if she chooses not to nurse.

Moms who are gestational diabetics have twice the risk of developing Type II Diabetes if they do not nurse. They have 1.6 times the risk of developing ovarian cancer and twice the risk of premenopausal breast cancer. They also have increased risk of endometrial cancer, osteoporosis, post-partum hemmorhage and post-partum depression.

So the drug and formula companies really have an excellent business plan: Push the formula so we spend big bucks feeding our children an inferior product. Then make even bigger money treating the illnesses caused by the inferior products (both in the children and the mothers.) And many of the formula companies are owned by drug companies!

This baloney makes me sick. But I have seen the strangest phenomena when I present these facts to patients and coworkers. They get all defensive of the formula and drug companies. This makes no sense to me. I think I'd be hopping mad if I found out I'd been lied to and put my babies' and my own health at risk. But I guess the risk of feeling foolish or uneducated trumps the importance of examining the facts and calling for change.

(sources for this article include www.kellymom.com and www.mamadearest.ca/en/info/risk_and_costs.htm).

I'm a mammal

Mammal: (n) any vertebrate of the class Mammalia, having the body more or less covered with hair, nourishing the young with milk from the mammary glands, and, with the exception of the egg-laying monotremes, giving birth to live young.

So, recently I had a conversation with some family members about nursing in public (NIP). The family members said that women should cover up with a blanket to avoid damaging any onlookers’ tender sensibilities. This, of course, did not sit well with me. And the more I ruminated upon the subject, the more upset I became. I think there is a major problem in society today. We view breasts as entirely sexual, when in fact, they are not. God designed them for nourishing our young. A nursing child is a child who is eating. Nothing more, nothing less. Breastfeeding is not a sexual act and it is not a bodily function akin to defecating or urinating. It does not need to be done in seclusion and it does not require a baby to be covered with a blanket unless the mother chooses to do so for her own comfort or the baby’s needs (some babies need a blanket to keep them from becoming distracted). We do not eat with blankets on our heads as adults. If it is inoffensive for adults to eat in public, why is it so terrible for infants? Flashes of mommy flesh? I would submit that you see more breast displayed on the covers of mainstream magazines at any supermarket checkout counter. Heck, you see more flesh exposed on teenage girls at the mall. Do most moms go about breastfeeding in order to become exhibitionists? Of course not, we are simply feeding our children in the way God intended. The indecency argument is flawed and hypocritical. Our schizophrenic society declares that breastfeeding moms are indecent but celebrates half naked lingerie models prancing on TV as freedom of expression.

Why is this, you may ask? Because at the core of our Western society, we hate children. What? You protest, of course. We love kids. We love babies. Really? When we were pregnant with our fourth child we began to hear the whisperings. "When are you getting fixed?" we were asked, ( as if something were broken.) "You do know how that happens, don’t you?" strangers would inquire in the grocery store (as if it were their business.) Even Christian friends began to counsel us about birth control - all in the name of "prudence" and "stewardship" of course. We happen to believe the Bible is true. That children are a blessing (Psalm 127:3). That we should eagerly desire and embrace new life. But our society does not see it this way. Children are a hinderance, a necessary evil that should be planned and only allowed when convenient. Strange, but while many Christians were up in arms over the Plan B emergency contraceptive pill they use the regular birth control pill without a second thought. It is estimated that 5-15% of the time the birth control pill does not prevent ovulation, allowing the egg to be fertilized, but preventing implantation. The exact way the Plan B pill works. Even Christians who eschew hormonal methods have embraced barrier methods of contraception and limit their family size to 1 or 2 kids. Why do we do this? Has God changed? Are children no longer a blessing? No, we have simply swallowed the devil’s line. We have decided that it is prudent to limit our family size so that our kids may have all the advantages and so we won’t be stressed out. Is is possible that God has a grander design for the family? Is it possible that having many siblings teaches children things that all the music lessons and summer camps in the world never could? Is it possible that when Paul said women would be saved in childbearing (I Timothy 2:15) he meant that we would be sanctified and grow in holiness by mothering our little flock of blessings?

The devil is a crafty fellow. He delights in twisting what God has made. He convinces Christians that it is God’s will to decline the blessings of the womb by calling it stewardship. He convinces Christians that breastfeeding is something to be hidden away. That the breasts He gave women to nurture and suckle their babies are completely sexual and perverse. Funny, in the Middle Ages it was common for religious art to show Mary breastfeeding the infant Jesus with a fully exposed breast. I believe it is not a godly thing to say that breastfeeding must be fully hidden, but rather a "religious" thing.

With our first two children (and to some extent with our third) we embraced the Ezzo method of babycare (known as Babywise or Growing Kids God’s Way). I found it extremely difficult to keep my milk supply up with the strictly scheduled feedings it prescribed. And it made my heart ache to hear my babies cry in their cribs when they needed me. It seemed like the advice I received went directly against the instincts God had put in my heart. I was advised to only offer the breast for nourishment, never for comfort. Later I found this is not even a Biblical approach. The Bible says that God comforts us just like a mother comforts her child at her breast (Isaiah 66:12-13). In Old Testament times children nursed for at least 3 years before weaning. Hannah took Samuel to the temple to serve when he was weaned. Ishmael teased Isaac at his weaning celebration (would you tease an infant?) With Luke, our littlest. I have nursed on demand. He is a happy, healthy, easy baby. I feel more confident and less stressed in my mothering. I feel like instead of making him a bother to be fit into my schedule I am embracing and enjoying him. There are some great things about the GKGW teachings and we still use many of them with our older children, but for feeding little Luke, I'm letting him call the shots.