Now They Are Going After Breastfeeding...

[Mountain Man]

I heard that some don't like that breastfeeding supposedly means that only the mom can feed the baby. Have they never heard of breast pumps? They make it so anyone can feed the baby a bottle of breastmilk.

Breast pumping is rather uncomfortable for the woman (and in some cases downright painful), and there's absolutely nothing wrong with a baby forming a close bond with its mother that comes from breastfeeding. This is the way God intended it, or if you're a dirty heathen, the way nature intended it.

[seer]

The boys in lab coats are still the little wimps we pushed around in high school.

LOL, things haven't changed!

[Starlight]

If breastfeeding doesn't fit the definition of natural then what does?

It's not so much the definition of natural that is relevant here, as is the question of potential misuses of natural as a marketing term. It is generally a bad idea to instill in the general public a sense that "natural" is good when it comes to health and "artificial" is bad, because this leads to people trying to use dubious and harmful "natural" alternative health remedies rather than "artificial" scientific medical ones that have been proven to work.

Science has no opinion on social/moral issues.

Science provides us facts about the world. Insofar as your views on social/moral issues are based on reality rather than your imagination, science is highly relevant. For me, morality is about maximizing human freedom and well-being, so any scientific discoveries or observations that speak to how happy people are in different situations and what consequences political policies have on them, are directly relevant to morality. In a way I would say that science should completely informs opinion on social/moral issues, and anyone who attempts to speak on such issues aside from using science (such as you seer) is talking nonsense.

[Starlight]

hey scientist. Breastfeeding is evolutionarilly designed to be healthy for the infant.

Sure, and there's plenty of reason to encourage it as a result. I am unaware of any medical organisation who discourages breast feeding, and the writers of the article cited in the OP would also encourage it I assume.

Evolution designed it to be the way infants get their nourishment and their immune system.

Sure, and 'natural' birth is better than cesarean for similar reasons, because exposure to germs in the birth canal kickstarts the baby's immune system.

to argue that it may not be healthy so we should not use the word 'natural' is stoopid.

Nobody's arguing that. The point is that it's dangerous to encourage people to think of the word 'natural' as good because it indirectly promotes all sorts of kooky alternative medicines which masquerade as 'natural'.

[Starlight]

LOL, things haven't changed!

Been a bully your whole life have you?

[rogue06]

Breast pumping is rather uncomfortable for the woman (and in some cases downright painful)

The same can be said about breast feeding especially when the baby starts getting teeth.

[Starlight]

I've seen people use the term 'natural' to excuse all kinds of progressive behavior.
For example: Having multiple sexual partners is seen all throughout the animal kingdom. It is natural.

Well the example you cite seems like a factually accurate statement. And I won't go into the details on this 'family-friendly' site but the way that the human sex organs are shaped and act, shows that for a significant part of human evolutionary history a single woman having sex with multiple males in quick succession was the norm. And the presence and sensitivity of the prostate gland within the male rear, suggests an evolutionary adaptation towards encouragement of male-male anal sex, presumably for social peer-bonding purposes (and we see similar practices in other animal species, particularly giraffes and goats). So those variations of human behavior are 'natural' in the sense that they were common enough in our species' evolutionary history that there appear to have been evolutionary adaptations to favor them.

But I don't think "natural" is a particularly good marketing tool. Genocide of the opposition tribes appears to have also been a common practice in human history. It's 'natural' in that sense. Most fetuses self-terminate, so abortion is 'natural' in that sense. Humans wearing clothes and living in houses and flying in airplanes is 'unnatural', but it doesn't make those things bad. So I don't think the label of 'natural' or 'unnatural' is generally a very useful one.

Can we expect that in the future you won't be using the term natural to market your behavior?

Have I done so much in the past?

That aside, I think if you believe that evolution has given advantages to breast feeding that the term natural really is a solid selling point.
Why not say, "Hey idiot, nature provided this really excellent way to ensure health for your kid. How about you do that?"

Because a hospital telling a mum "we are the medical experts, we say breast-feeding is the best way to do it, so do it" works just as well. Here in NZ it is actually quite hard to not breast-feed a baby. The hospitals give out brochures and instructions about breast feeding and give the parents zero information about bottle feeding, and if the parents explicitly ask about bottle feeding they are told "no, don't do that, breast-feed the child." My sister-in-law had problems with the breastfeeding though and managed to persuade the medical professionals that she absolutely had to bottle feed, at which point they helped her with that.

Then do society a huge favor and OWN the terminology.

Okay. I declare that I own it. I will send you the bill for using the words that I own.

Don't let nitwit feminists color the term natural with their baggage.

Generally I just ignore extremist feminists. I suggest you do the same. They're the Westbro Baptist Church of progressivism.

Stop letting idiots change the meaning of words.

Dude words change all the time. It's the 'natural' evolution of language. If you went back 600 years you'd struggle to understand the English being spoken. Dictionaries update their definitions of words every year or decade to reflect the changes in the language. Language is just a social consensus, like fashion, and it changes over time just like fashion.

[seer]

It's not so much the definition of natural that is relevant here, as is the question of potential misuses of natural as a marketing term. It is generally a bad idea to instill in the general public a sense that "natural" is good when it comes to health and "artificial" is bad, because this leads to people trying to use dubious and harmful "natural" alternative health remedies rather than "artificial" scientific medical ones that have been proven to work.

Well no the upshot in the link was PC drivel:

“Coupling nature with motherhood… can inadvertently support biologically deterministic arguments about the roles of men and women in the family (for example, that women should be the primary caretaker}

It’s “ethically inappropriate” for government and medical organizations to describe breastfeeding as “natural” because the term enforces rigid notions about gender roles.

Science provides us facts about the world. Insofar as your views on social/moral issues are based on reality rather than your imagination, science is highly relevant. For me, morality is about maximizing human freedom and well-being...

Does science tell you that maximizing human freedom and well-being is a good thing? Or that even survival of our species is a good thing? Does science define well-being? What I consider well-being for myself may be much different than how you define it for yourself.

So any scientific discoveries or observations that speak to how happy people are in different situations and what consequences political policies have on them, are directly relevant to morality.

Except those studies rely on personal reporting, in other words, subjective. And I would not consider social sciences, actual science.

In a way I would say that science should completely informs opinion on social/moral issues, and anyone who attempts to speak on such issues aside from using science (such as you seer) is talking nonsense.

But science does not tell you that maximizing human freedom and well-being is a good thing. So in your basic premise you are not using science.

[Starlight]

Does science tell you that maximizing human freedom and well-being is a good thing?

You can scientifically survey peoples around the world and do rigorous statistical analyses of what they consider to be good things. You can look at how happy people in different countries are based on a large variety of measures. So yes, science can give you a list of things that people consider to be good things, and analyze how to maximize those things.

Does science define well-being?

Yes, there are several models currently in use for that. But it is a fairly new field and t's are still being crossed and i's dotted.

What I consider well-being for myself may be much different than how you define it for yourself.

That wouldn't surprise me since you are insane. But in general there's fairly minimal variation among people and people-groups on the subject. As one anthropologist put it:

I believe that the majority of the planet's population would agree with the following assertions:

Life is better than death.
Health is better than sickness.
Liberty is better than slavery.
Prosperity is better than poverty.
Education is better than ignorance.
Justice is better than injustice.

[Sparko]

I'm enjoying watching science collapse before the throne of political correctness.
The boys in lab coats are still the little wimps we pushed around in high school.

worse. they are the PC snowflakes themselves.

[Meh Gerbil]

Generally I just ignore extremist feminists. I suggest you do the same. They're the Westbro Baptist Church of progressivism.

Given this view of these sorts of extreme positions why not just preserve the term 'natural'?
Why not just agree that breast feeding is natural and natural is a good way to market it?

I think for many of these issues people (on both sides) feel like admitting the other side has a solid point somehow diminishes their side.
I don't think a member of the LGBTQ community asserting that breast feeding is the best and is natural should do anything to diminish their cause.
Side with the science, tell the snowflake to grow up, and move on.

I don't know why there is so much hesitancy to do that.

[Sparko]

Sure, and there's plenty of reason to encourage it as a result. I am unaware of any medical organisation who discourages breast feeding, and the writers of the article cited in the OP would also encourage it I assume.

Sure, and 'natural' birth is better than cesarean for similar reasons, because exposure to germs in the birth canal kickstarts the baby's immune system.

Nobody's arguing that. The point is that it's dangerous to encourage people to think of the word 'natural' as good because it indirectly promotes all sorts of kooky alternative medicines which masquerade as 'natural'.

then argue against using "natural" in areas where it is misused, rather than in areas where it actual does make sense, eh? You can't ostracize an entire term because people misuse it in certain situations or areas.

besides THAT is not what this study is saying. It is saying:

===
Coupling nature with motherhood… can inadvertently support biologically deterministic arguments about the roles of men and women in the family (for example, that women should be the primary caretaker,” the study says.

The study notes that in recent years, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the World Health Organization, and several state departments of health have all promoted breastfeeding over bottle-feeding, using the term “natural.”

“Referencing the ‘natural’ in breastfeeding promotion… may inadvertently endorse a set of values about family life and gender roles, which would be ethically inappropriate,” the study says.
===

they are upset because it reinforces gender roles.

[Meh Gerbil]

I can understand using rational thought and science as the benchmark for our behavior.
Living in a society that worships that idol is tolerable.

However, as someone accustomed to that lifestyle I find the ease with which that standard is discarded in the presence of a few tears to be very, very alarming.

Maybe YEC adherents needed to cry more.

[Mountain Man]

The same can be said about breast feeding especially when the baby starts getting teeth.

It depends. Babies actually learn to not bite their mothers because it causes the milk to stop when mama tenses up.

Among my wife's friends, however, breast pumping was regraded as something to be avoided unless it was absolutely necessary, such as when the child couldn't latch-on to the mother's breast for whatever reason.

At any rate, if the only reason someone is against breastfeeding is because they're jealous of the bond that forms between the mother and child then they need to get over themselves.

[Mountain Man]

Given this view of these sorts of extreme positions why not just preserve the term 'natural'?
Why not just agree that breast feeding is natural and natural is a good way to market it?

I think for many of these issues people (on both sides) feel like admitting the other side has a solid point somehow diminishes their side.
I don't think a member of the LGBTQ community asserting that breast feeding is the best and is natural should do anything to diminish their cause.
Side with the science, tell the snowflake to grow up, and move on.

I don't know why there is so much hesitancy to do that.

Liberals are rabidly pro-science... until it conflicts with their dogma, and then they're happy to kick science to the curb. I explored this in another thread where I commented on liberals who are afraid to openly admit that a fetus is a human life because it could undermine their stance in favor of abortion. My final post in the thread asked "why is 'settled science' supposedly good enough for deciding environmental policy, or for dictating what should be taught in the classroom, but not good enough when it comes to deciding the fate of the unborn?" I never did receive an answer.