Today we have another (literally) sickening installment in the cult of woman-worship. Personal convenience on the part of the mother is given precedence over the life of the child. Feminism has gone too far, again.
In an opinion piece from New York Daily News, the understandably anonymous writer suggests, "Feeding formula to a hungry baby is medically necessary whenever a mother wants it." Nevermind the counsel of actual MDs. Pediatricians say mothers should breast-feed exclusively for the first six months, except for medical reasons.
But consider the source. This article comes from the Big rotten Apple, whose crowded conditions are no object for those seeking personal gain. And child-rearing is only another impediment to corporate success.
Rather than acknowledging this metropolitan mindset, however, the writer couches his/her arguments in the familiar language of feminism. There is the suggestion that doctors are "guilt-tripping a woman as she recovers." Recovers from a car-wreck? ...a bout with pneumonia? No, a terrible ordeal that some mothers call the miracle of childbirth.
Perhaps it is not mothers we are talking about. A female who "gets" pregnant is not necessarily the same thing. Notwithstanding a host of hormones and archaic expectations that urge the adult to care for someone besides itself, we yeild to the sacred right to "choose" death, or at least disease.
"Babies who are breast-fed are less likely to suffer respiratory infections, earaches, diarrhea and asthma, and mothers who breast-feed decrease chances of developing ovarian or breast cancer." A stunning admition, from this Op-Ed. (Emphasis added.)
We return to the over-all tenor: "to fully respect the wishes of mothers — and to apply the rules without lectures or arm-twisting." Is a twisted arm worse than a malignant womb? Is the sophisticated debutante opposed to education? We suppose that lectures are only for scolding children, and no one wants to be put in that position. Childhood is risky business.
In an opinion piece from New York Daily News, the understandably anonymous writer suggests, "Feeding formula to a hungry baby is medically necessary whenever a mother wants it." Nevermind the counsel of actual MDs. Pediatricians say mothers should breast-feed exclusively for the first six months, except for medical reasons.
But consider the source. This article comes from the Big rotten Apple, whose crowded conditions are no object for those seeking personal gain. And child-rearing is only another impediment to corporate success.
Rather than acknowledging this metropolitan mindset, however, the writer couches his/her arguments in the familiar language of feminism. There is the suggestion that doctors are "guilt-tripping a woman as she recovers." Recovers from a car-wreck? ...a bout with pneumonia? No, a terrible ordeal that some mothers call the miracle of childbirth.
Perhaps it is not mothers we are talking about. A female who "gets" pregnant is not necessarily the same thing. Notwithstanding a host of hormones and archaic expectations that urge the adult to care for someone besides itself, we yeild to the sacred right to "choose" death, or at least disease.
"Babies who are breast-fed are less likely to suffer respiratory infections, earaches, diarrhea and asthma, and mothers who breast-feed decrease chances of developing ovarian or breast cancer." A stunning admition, from this Op-Ed. (Emphasis added.)
We return to the over-all tenor: "to fully respect the wishes of mothers — and to apply the rules without lectures or arm-twisting." Is a twisted arm worse than a malignant womb? Is the sophisticated debutante opposed to education? We suppose that lectures are only for scolding children, and no one wants to be put in that position. Childhood is risky business.
