Thanks, Gloria, and Diane and all who have shared first-hand
experience with this topic. My husband was in the military for six
years. The bottom line is that when you join the military, you are
pledging that you are willing to leave your family and all other
things that you love, to fight, and possibly die, for your country.
This is true for men and women, regardless of what part of the service
they end up in - infantry or medical or even in an orchestra - you are
still a soldier (or whatever depending on the branch) and if they tell
you it is time to fight, that is what you are bound to do. There are
many enlistees that don't really get this as they are recruited and
told that they will earn all kinds of money, college tuition,
retirement, etc. But once you sign that paper and take the oath, you
belong to Uncle Sam. Perhaps from the start, recruiters need to be
more honest and more blunt about what you are signing on for when you
join the military and that it is not like the civilian world where you
can just walk away if you really want to or go to your union to grieve
a decision. You are literally pledging your life to your country, no
matter where that leads you.

One of the things that keeps people going in the military when times
are really tough is knowing that your comrades are with you, no matter
what, that you can depend on them to do their jobs which makes it
possible for you to do yours which makes it possible, in some
circumstances, for all of you to stay alive and complete your mission
(which may involve keeping many other people alive.)

While I do believe that there is a lot of room for improvement in how
mothers and babies can exist in the military environment, one also
needs to consider the bottom line of what military service means.
Women (and gays - not the same thing, but some of the same arguements
against them have been made) have fought hard to prove that they can
serve equally and effectively. At what point is that jeopardized when
we ask for special privileges based on our sex? As Gloria has pointed
out, children suffer when their fathers are gone as well. Families
break up all the time under the strain of military life. It is not
just about mothers and it is not just about breastfeeding. If you
think it is a human rights issue for children, then you really have to
consider that the military, in general, is not conducive to happy, or
even healthy, childhoods, for many kids. So then, what? The
alternative is no military which means that eventually you won't have
to worry about any of this stuff, because you won't be around to worry
about it, nor will your children - if you believe that the military is
that last barrier to having your country being taken over by those not
so concerned about your well-being. If you are against the military in
general, then that is a whole different discussion.

Is it possible to make the military more "humane" for all involved and
still maintain an effective fighting force? I don't know, but I
certainly suspect so. That is a big topic. But I would just ask those
who are quick to condemn the military to look at the big picture. I do
think that it is wonderful that women are given so many opportunities
now that were not open to them before. But like everything else in
life, there are trade-offs. My belief is that you can have it all,
just not all at the same time. Some professions are amenable to having
babies with mothers on the job. Others are not - my laboratory is not
a place for babies or children under any circumstances. We can,
however, provide on-site daycare and pumping rooms and be generous in
giving new moms (or dads) time to spend with their babies. We could as
a society decide that new mothers (and fathers?) should be allowed to
take very extended leaves of absence from their jobs when a new baby
arrives.  The trade-off there can be productivity and earnings
potential for the company, depending again, on the particular
situation. It is a complicated topic.

I think that we start treading on very unstable ground when we start
pitting the rights of babies against the rights of their mothers to
raise them as they see fit. There are many things I see happening to
children that appall me, but I do not see that the state or anyone
else has a right to step in unless they are in immediate danger of
death or injury. You may argue that separation poses an immediate
threat, but it is not the same as a mother beating a child to death.
That is the same type of argument that the state uses right now to
separate babies from mothers who breastfeed them for "too" long or
sleep with them or whatever that particular judge finds offensive. It
is a slippery slope. Be careful what you ask for........

So this is getting a little too long. We do best when we endeavor to
see all sides of a situation and try to assume good intent whenever
possible. It is a rare situation that is black and while. Most are
varying shades of gray. That is why reaching true consensus on various
issues is often so difficult in both our professional and personal
lives.

Peace to all on this Memorial Day weekend,
Sharon in NY, USA

             ***********************************************

Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]
Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask]
COMMANDS:
1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an email: set lactnet nomail
2. To start it again: set lactnet mail
3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome