That is sick ...Animal know how to wean when their babies have teeth
The only reason for breastfeeding at that age is when you are very poor and starving and living in a third world country
2006-12-27 17:44:20 · 25 answers · asked by Buda B 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Etiquette
Breast feeding at 2 is ridiculous, its for infants under 1 years old not a 2 or 3 year old that can walk and is teething. A woman must be real dumb or be poor living in a third world country to do this. Or they can be like some of the Puerto Ricans I know, they do stuff like that. They will have a big 6 or 7 year old still in a stroller and the kids feet are hitting the floor.
Do you even still have milk in your titties if you don't get pregnant again and the kid is like 3?
2006-12-27 17:57:51 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 9⤋
You would know this because you have breastfed right?
As regards to teeth....I know my husband has a full set of teeth and they never seem to interfere in his activity in the breast area. However, during breastfeeding the woman's body secretes a hormone that deadens all sexual desire and so there isn't any of that going on when feeding her child. While it is uncommon to breastfeed beyond 2 years old ; it is still medically acceptable up until 5 although, there are few and far between who do this.
Not all children make the transition to a cup when being weaned from the breast or the bottle and it is important for them to be FED nutritiously especially if they don't receive enough calories from table foods whether they have teeth or not. Your delicate sensibilities are a clear indication that you have neither a working knowledge of all that is entailed with breastfeeding to include the emotional attachments (animals don't have emotions), or children. Breastfeeding in European countries is quite common and acceptable although discretion is key for those who are delicate.
Abuse? NO. Clearly you weren't a breast fed baby.
2006-12-27 23:57:47 · answer #2 · answered by GrnApl 6 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Well,it's a strange question coming from a guy...
It's not abuse-there is emotional bonding that occurs and weaning too early is more likely to cause behavioral issues.
There is no nutritional benefit to it-the extra antibodies are only secreted in the first few days after birth and a child over 6 months needs other foods in addition to milk,so there's no economical advantage either.
Breastfeeding is NOT in any way,shape or form a means of contraception.
Animals do not wean their young when they develop teeth-kittens and puppies have teeth long before they are weaned. However, their weaning is determined by instinct, whereas as Homo sapiens,we are not ruled by that.
2006-12-27 18:55:36 · answer #3 · answered by barbara 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I nursed both of my children until they weaned themselves...around 10 months old. I would have nursed them longer in a heartbeat. I wouldn't be going to the doctor who said a child only benefits from the first six weeks of breastfeeding. It's good for the child in a host of ways. And no, it is not sick. It is the way God intended it to be. If you have a problem with it, too bad.
2006-12-27 20:01:53 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
If they're only getting breast milk with no supplements, then it could cause malnutrition, which counts as abuse. However, observation of a child's growth is a greater determining factor of whether it's right than how comfortable a stranger is. We drink cow's milk, something that isn't designed for our bodies and is more questionable in source, so why get upset about something that IS made for humans?
2006-12-27 18:19:23 · answer #5 · answered by erythisis 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Why on earth do you care how long a woman nurses her child?
The same health benefits for nursing an infant apply to nursing an older baby. It's staggering to me how our society interprets a natural act as being disgusting, especially when it's hurting no one, and NONE of your business.
2006-12-28 08:28:11 · answer #6 · answered by ez_cheez 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Some mothers claim children who are breast-fed longer are healthier. As long as the breasts still produce milk, and the mother isn't getting off on breast-feeding, it's not child abuse. To each mother her own--- she typically knows what she's doing, even if it's bizarre to us.
2006-12-27 22:13:00 · answer #7 · answered by roxusan 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
It is fine its not sick at age two you are still a baby and the longer you breastfeed the healthier the kid will be because breastmilk contains certain antibodies and vitamins that formula does not.I personally cannot blame someone for trying to keep their kid healthy it doesnt become sick until they are at least four. Babies are babies not animals and I trust that you are not a mother yourself so how could you possibly have a right to determine wether its sick or not?!
2006-12-27 17:58:33 · answer #8 · answered by USMC LCpl Wife & Mommy 2 Be! 2 · 3⤊ 4⤋
I don't think it's child abuse, however, it's not something I did.
There is far too much pressure on a woman to be the perfect mother.
I think that a child should be fully weaned by it's 3rd birthday, but that is my personal opinion.
2006-12-27 17:54:59 · answer #9 · answered by Fuzzy Wuzzy 6 · 3⤊ 4⤋
Not unusual. I've heard of kids being nursed up to 5.
2006-12-28 01:12:12 · answer #10 · answered by Think.for.your.self 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋