Why do women have the right to breastfeed?

[Momily]

I often see language (in the Ontario law that was quoted here, in many other places) that talk about a woman's right to breastfeed wherever she has the right to be.

Why isn't it about the baby's right? It seems like the majority of the benefits that are conferred by breastfeeding are for the child, so why isn't it the child who has the right to breastfeed?

Why is this a sex-discrimination issue and not an age discrimination issue?

[2xy]

Children have the right to sustenance, but since other forms of sustenance are readily available in Western civilization, breastfeeding is not seen as a necessity.

I used to work for a doctor who was Middle Eastern and close to 70 years old. He was well-respected, the head of OB at the local hospital, etc. Refused to circumcise babies, but thought that BFing was overrated and didn't urge new mothers to do so. He viewed BFing as something that poor people did since they had no choice.

[lovesdaffodils]

Because the issue isn't about a baby eating but about a woman's breast being involved.

[AwakenedMama]

I like your point, though. Babies have a right to eat the most nourishing food in the world, their birth-given milk, and they should be able to do so in a comfortable way (no blankets over their heads).

In some ways, I think this wording would be more favorable because it would get people to focus on the baby and not on the mother. It's harder to be mean to a baby than a mom And it reminds people that it's really a matter of nourishing a child here, not what a mom wants.

Of course, the new law would have to protect moms: "All children have the right to breastfeed on demand, whenever and wherever they would like. They may not be harrassed with requests to cover their heads in blankets, nurse in bathrooms, or make other changes that an adult would find absurd while they were trying to eat. Similarly, no child shall be chastised for failing to completely cover its mother's breast while nursing, or for detaching from the breast to switch without first ensuring that mom's breast will be covered."

[laralee16]

Originally Posted by lovesdaffodils

Because the issue isn't about a baby eating but about a woman's breast being involved.

This. Breast are sexual (ha) so we need a law to protect us against prudes.


(Sorry, all this stuff makes me so angry. and sad)

[tuffykenwell]

Also though, a woman's breast needs to be emptied on a regular basis (especially in the early months) and to not do so would put her milk supply at risk and also open her up to plugged ducts and mastitis. So even if we agree with the assumption that all babies can (and will) take milk from a bottle when out of the home the fact is that a woman still requires regular emptying of the breast for her own health and wellbeing (and separate from the health and wellbeing of the baby).

Steph

[SpiderMum]

Originally Posted by tuffykenwell

Also though, a woman's breast needs to be emptied on a regular basis (especially in the early months) and to not do so would put her milk supply at risk and also open her up to plugged ducts and mastitis. So even if we agree with the assumption that all babies can (and will) take milk from a bottle when out of the home the fact is that a woman still requires regular emptying of the breast for her own health and wellbeing (and separate from the health and wellbeing of the baby).

Steph

This.

When I first had DD I would get so annoyed when people would give me a hard time for waking the baby up to eat every few hours. Breastfeeding takes teamwork between mother and child. She needs me for food...but I needed her to keep me from being painfully engorged. Of course my instincts were spot on...turns out she was sleeping too much and not gaining weight! So I need her to nurse just as much as she needs me for milk.

[1littlebit]

my pediatrician told me to wake ds up every 3-4 hrs if he didn't wake up on his own (he was also jaundiced so was very sleepy)

and i think both things are important. i always wonder why it has to be a 'right'. why it is even an issue? people should be far to ashamed of themselves to ever say anything to a nursing mother.. and yet so many have the gall to do that and more. people are so .. argh!! i don't even know.

[1littlebit]

great now i need to go do some deep breathing or something lol. i think i just raised my blood pressure a few points.

[AwakenedMama]

Originally Posted by tuffykenwell

So even if we agree with the assumption that all babies can (and will) take milk from a bottle when out of the home ...

Even still, it's a baby's right to get milk from the breast over the bottle. There are so many, many more benefits to milk from the breast that shouldn't be denied the baby just because the family is going to interact with society.

[Belle]

Babies don't have the right to breastfeed because if they started defining babies' rights to breastfeed then mothers could possibly be punished because they chose to formula feed or couldn't breastfeed.

I'm all for babies getting the best nutrition but when you start wording that way people get all bent out of shape. Remember the hullabuloo that happened with the ad council's campaign to get women to breastfeed by showing the dangers of formula feeding? Same deal here.

[G8P4]

Well, according to the Innocenti Declaration, babies do have the right to the highest attainable standard of health, which is the universally recognized right of every child. The Innocenti further calls upon all parties to highlight the risks of artificial feeding and the implications for health and development throughout the life course. Their wording, not mine.

[Ruthla]

But the concept of breastfeeding in general/not formula feeding is separate from nursing in public. Yes, they're connected, but if you only focused on "avoiding artificial feeding" you're missing the whole "no need to cover up or be embarrassed to see a lactating breast" issue.

The law needs to read "the women's right to breastfeed in public" because it's the women, not the babies, who decide to NIP, who choose to use a cover or not, who choose to go into a restroom to nurse or not.

[cjuniverse]

Because a woman's body and rights are involved here. Period. There need to be more laws on the books protecting the rights (and needs, and wants if you ask me) of women, not less.

[ameliabedelia]

I think another factor that is that most public places where you hear of breastfeeding being an *issue* (stores, restaurants, libraries, churches)....these are places that the mother goes for *her* benefit, not for the benefit of the baby. So, if breastfeeding was the right of the *baby as opposed to the mother* then one could make the argument that mothers with breastfeeding babies should stay home...or that the baby isn't bothered by having to feed in a dressing room or special nursing room or in the car, etc. In situations like that, it is mostly the mother who is inconvenienced as she has to get up and move. If a mother is dining in a restaurant and told to go to the restroom or car, then *she* suffers in that her food might get cold, she might miss enjoyable conversation with her dinner companions...doesn't really matter so much to the baby.

Of course, babies do benefit from having happy mothers (that are able to enjoy being in public places) and many babies do enjoy seeing other people and the "busyness" of a public place, but when a mother goes to a restaurant or a store, most of the time it is for *her* and not the baby.

[tanyam926]

It seems to me that the wording should be more like, "A breastfeeding mother and child shall have the right...."

Maybe that would put the focus on the BF relationship, the needs of both.

I do agree that if it were worded that the child has a right to BF then it would pose a problem for women who choose or need to use formula.

I also agree that it is a women's rights issue, one that no one wants to address.

Isn't it just ridiculous that we are ridiculed, by the media, our drs, our relatives, even strangers for doing what science has shown and our hearts know to be the best for our babies? How backwards is that?