This is sparked by Katherine's conclusion to the "x-rated" chain, "If babies
can get AIDS from their mother's breast milk (still debatable)
then porno patrons can too, one would assume."

I receive a little news-mag that has health tips, etc. in it. To avoid
copyright problems, I'm just going to give a snippet of two entrys that, to
me show how the same journal can give both negative and positive info on bf.

One article was a quiz about AIDS. One question asked how a mother can
transmit HIV to her child. One of the three ways was "through breast
feeding" - (no references given, but the quiz referred the reader to the
National AIDS hotline for further info.) The other two ways had to do with
pregnancy and birthing. The answer section says all of the above and advised
postponing pregnancy till tested. Even through it's still debatable, as
Katherine points out, maybe it' better to be an the conservative side. I'm
having mixed feelings about this one. Any thoughts?

The second clip was on whether your baby is eating enough. One of the
symptoms was "nurses" fewer than six times a day. Given the long chain of
what to call bf, I liked the neutral reference. In my part of the world
"nursing" is generally bf. The source was a national magazine.

The third clip, by a pediatrician. was about when baby was ready for solid
food specifically said "bf on demand" but was also in tandem with a
reference to formula. Better than no reference at all, right? Still, since
bf was mentioned second, it shows--to me--our cultural bias.

Interestingly enough, sprinkled throughout the mag were references--positive
ones--about lactation in many of the clips relating to pregnancy.
Richard G."Dick" Copeland
[log in to unmask]