Kathleen A. wrote:
>If we change our language to the baby's NEED for closeness, food,
>comforting, etc, might we get through to them a bit easier?

I see your point, but I still like the word "right", simply because
needs can be met even if rights aren't.  For example, an ABM-fed baby
who is cuddled and co-sleeps is receiving all that you mentioned:
closeness, food, & comforting.  However, her right to the BEST
possible food is being circumvented.

I would also think that "right" would appeal to the strong sense of
the rights of the individual that is prevalent in the US.  What do
you Americans think?

Jennifer Landels, BA, CE
Vancouver BC