Lobbyist Know No Bounds: Even Infants are Fair Game

"Let's not forget that some governments often promoted bottle feeding in the 60's and other decades. Would you have listened to them then? I prefer a society where people think for themselves and don't have authority dictating the "better" way to live."

You always twist the argument like this. There is no implied "mandate" to force anyone to breast feed.

It's about awareness. I'm glad the few people you "know" seemed to be aware, but that's not a very scientific analysis, is it? We KNOW that breastfeeding is better for kids, and can help stave off a variety of immunities & ailments. It's not the gov't deciding which is "better."

You're such a fool....
 
TheDanold said:
I want to have healthier kids and my wife breastfed all of them. That being said I know women who didn't, even though they were aware of the health benefits.
Not everyone lives their life by safety/health being their priority.
As an example, you are a career woman and you'll probably have kids. Once born, how long will you stay with them at home? There is no question at all that they are safest with you there at home both healthwise and security wise (I've seen daycares). So will you choose to do that? You may wish to return to work sooner than you think and you would do so weighing the benefits to you versus your child.
Breastfeeding certainly does have some health benefits, but it also brings fatigue and it of course interferes with your personal freedom and career.

Let's not forget that some governments often promoted bottle feeding in the 60's and other decades. Would you have listened to them then? I prefer a society where people think for themselves and don't have authority dictating the "better" way to live.

I respect your PERSONAL decision (which is the same as mine), but you should respect others too and not have government promote either method.
There are a huge whopping load of women's magazines because most women do read this stuff, sure you may not know everything but you'll find out a lot more once you became pregnant I would imagine.
Click to expand...
There are tons of studies that show breast feeding is better than formula feeding at least in the early stages of the baby's life. The fact that the administration buckled because the formula lobby put pressure on them is insane. Our government is not supposed to be for sale. A government is supposed to look at all aspects of an issue and then formulate policies that in the best interest of the governed and not just limited group. He is president of the United States not of the Blue States or the Red States
 
LadyT said:
Not everyone is aware of the various risks associated with foregoing breastfeeding. If we have a trend of women opting out when they could just as well do it, we should inform them of the dangers. You argument is your typical non-sequitor. With your regard to the misapprehension of the argument at hand ....respecting someone's personal decision is NOT the issue. The issue revolves around informing the public of the advantage to breast feedind. Not whether or not you respect someone's decision to do so.
Click to expand...
And what about informing them of the disadvantages? Government is not like the information you garner from magazines and people, it has authority behind it and it rarely just informs, it usually presses on with more (ie: anti-smoking laws).

In this age with the internet, the huge volume of magazines, we need far less government than ever for distributing info. People have way more resources and they don't need to be forced to pay for another.
 
Socrtease said:
There are tons of studies that show breast feeding is better than formula feeding at least in the early stages of the baby's life. The fact that the administration buckled because the formula lobby put pressure on them is insane. Our government is not supposed to be for sale. A government is supposed to look at all aspects of an issue and then formulate policies that in the best interest of the governed and not just limited group. He is president of the United States not of the Blue States or the Red States
Click to expand...

If I tell government to do something that helps me, then yes you could make an argument that it is for sale.
But this is an example of them lobbying government NOT to do something, I don't really care what their motives are, the ends are the same. Government should not be in the business of promoting anything.
 
TheDanold said:
And what about informing them of the disadvantages? Government is not like the information you garner from magazines and people, it has authority behind it and it rarely just informs, it usually presses on with more (ie: anti-smoking laws).

In this age with the internet, the huge volume of magazines, we need far less government than ever for distributing info. People have way more resources and they don't need to be forced to pay for another.
Click to expand...

Correct lets just let our kiddos get educated over the net.

And yes our govt should not promote wars.
 
The fact is, the government DOES promote ideas that are beneficial for good health, which yields incalcuable returns. A healthy populace is an economically productive populace, and also doesn't tie up our overburdened, over-priced healthcare system.

Still, even if you would choose to go the pennywise/pound foolish route, and have more people unaware that breastfeeding has these benefits, the story STILL represents something pretty despicable. The formula industry was not interested in "limiting government," or in the health of infants. They saw the awareness campaign as something that would actually cause more people to choose the healthier alternative to their product, and wanted it stopped. They spent money, and it caused our government to make a decision that put cash above the health of newborns.

And Dano is defending that....
 
Onceler said:
The fact is, the government DOES promote ideas that are beneficial for good health, which yields incalcuable returns. A healthy populace is an economically productive populace, and also doesn't tie up our overburdened, over-priced healthcare system.
Click to expand...
Government promoted bottle feeding decades ago. Again let people think for themselves, not rely on government for what is "right".
There is far more information out there then ever, with the internet and way more books and studies, the argument to reduce government in that area has never been stronger. :)
It's a waste of money when you realize that health sources on the internet are free.

Onceler said:
Still, even if you would choose to go the pennywise/pound foolish route, and have more people unaware that breastfeeding has these benefits, the story STILL represents something pretty despicable. The formula industry was not interested in "limiting government," or in the health of infants. They saw the awareness campaign as something that would actually cause more people to choose the healthier alternative to their product, and wanted it stopped. They spent money, and it caused our government to make a decision that put cash above the health of newborns.
And Dano is defending that....
Click to expand...
I am not you disgusting liar, I already said I didn't care about helping them, but I do care about not hurting them. You are advocating taking their money in taxes and using it to fund government education info, like it or not that is wrong.

You're such a wimp Lorax, honestly if government was ran by people like you, it would be the ultimate nanny state with nothing but dire warnings and lectures about what's best for you all over the place. I'd rather forgo that and let people think for themselves as they seem far more capable than ever of doing especially with newer technologies like the internet.

"In all that the people can individually do as well for themselves, government ought not to interfere." - Abraham Lincoln
 
uscitizen said:
Umm access to the net is not free though Dano.
Click to expand...
It's very cheap, anyway there are far more people who know nowadays who can spread by word of mouth, there are books, magazines and non-profit entities. We don't need government to get into this kind of thing.
 
TheDanold said:
And what about informing them of the disadvantages? Government is not like the information you garner from magazines and people, it has authority behind it and it rarely just informs, it usually presses on with more (ie: anti-smoking laws).

In this age with the internet, the huge volume of magazines, we need far less government than ever for distributing info. People have way more resources and they don't need to be forced to pay for another.
Click to expand...

Other than HIV mothers passing along the virus to children, what are the health disadvantages that you know of?
 
I'm starting to think that Dano is merely a program that some genius in liberal circles created to turn people off from being conservative.
 
Fewer kids get leukemia when their mothers breast feed them.

How "wimpy" to let mothers know that. Especially when a nonprofit donates $30 million in media time to do it.
 
Yeah DDT for a delousing agent
Many mistakes our govt has made, but were seeming to get a little bit better.
But lately too much dereg and such and seem to be slipping back.
 
Onceler said:
Damo, that is LAME. I know you like to do the devil's advocate thing, and sometimes that is needed, but this is a stupid comparison...
Click to expand...
I'm not "comparing" other than the idea that the government should promote whatever the current medical fad is. Let your doctor promote it, especially if we wind up with some sort of government medical insurance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top