LACTNET Archives

Lactation Information and Discussion

LACTNET@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Glenn Evans <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Lactation Information and Discussion <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 21 Oct 1997 21:17:28 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (23 lines)
Rachael says:
" In reality, the Army was asking her to expose her baby to significant health risks.  I suggest that you look at some of the medical journal citations . . . which outline the risks of using formula instead of human milk."

I have to disagree.  The Army has not said that mom cannot pump her milk, that it might be offered to her baby in an alternative container.
It has asked that mom honor her obligation, an obligation that she took on before she chose to have a child.

I can imagine how wrenching it would be if I had been told I had to  chose between my baby and my job.  But at least, as a civilian, I am given that choice.  Ms. Cuevas gave up the right to that choice when she joined the military -- that was part of the contract she signed.  She did not have the baby accidently -- and not having babies deliberately is an implicit part of the contract, I think, for most women in the military, (especially those whose jobs might be compromised by the existence of an infant).  (For instance, I don't think anyone would argue that a secretary within the military couldn't have a baby or breast feed one.)  One commits to doing the job for which she was trained for the tenure of her enlistment.  She signs away most of her civilian rights, and she cannot say "I don't like this game any more." and pick up her marbles and go home.  

This is part of taking responsibility for one's own actions.  It is unfair to blame the military because Ms. Cuevas decided her own interests/needs  (to have a baby) were greater than her obligation, given freely, to her country (or branch of service, or whatever).

                     ***   ***   ***

Regarding constitutional rights:

First of all, when one enters the military, it is my understanding, she gives up many, if not all, of her constitutional rights, for the period of her enlistment.  And the baby is in the military by virtue of mom's enrollment. 

If we want to guarantee an infant's right to breastfeed, we must also guarantee that no infant will be born to a mother who doesn't want to breastfeed, if physically possible,  or who at least will provide (her own or other's) breastmilk for her baby.  And until we can guarantee the rights of infants in the civilian world, to be breast fed, there is no way we will be able to guarantee the rights of those infants who are born to the military life.

To introduce a bit of levity, into an otherwise serious subject, let me add, that I hardly can seen the military caring about what food one's baby eats, since they are notorious for the kind of food they expect
their general enrollment to eat.

Sincerely,  Chanita, San Francisco

ATOM RSS1 RSS2