This dialogue is getting interesting, here is what I think. Women's biological programming includes the nurturing thing (feeding their offspring is an example of it). How so? To ensure survival of the baby who is not yet equipped to find/hunt for food on his own, the mother produces the food (home made)to feed him (with some exceptions of those who are unable to due it for XYZ reason).
Like birds pick the right type of worms to feed their chicks, humans can discern and pick the most appropriate food for their baby either by learning more about it, reading latest scientific evidence, or simply following her own "mother's instinct. Is there a moral obligation for a parent at any stage of a child's development to offer the most nutritious food? I think most of us believe the answer is a big YES!
Is it morally wrong to ignore the abundant science which shows that breast milk is best for a baby human at least the first 6 months of life in the name of "choice"? I think "choice" in this case does not imply gambling with another being's health. The freedoms women want to enjoy should not come at the expense of another human's wellbeing, especially when that mother is physically capable of offering the best food.
If you hold strongly the argument of women's choice, then every parent who buys and feeds their child junk food should be off the hook for the child's health conditions such as diabetes, obesity, malnutrition, high cholesterol, etc. Smoking during pregnancy is also a choice, should we ignore this fact when we spend millions of dollars caring from premies in the hospital due to premature births caused by smoking? Is this the price we are willing to pay in the name of SELF? Wow!
Comment Reply
This dialogue is getting interesting, here is what I think. Women's biological programming includes the nurturing thing (feeding their offspring is an example of it). How so? To ensure survival of the baby who is not yet equipped to find/hunt for food on his own, the mother produces the food (home made)to feed him (with some exceptions of those who are unable to due it for XYZ reason).
Like birds pick the right type of worms to feed their chicks, humans can discern and pick the most appropriate food for their baby either by learning more about it, reading latest scientific evidence, or simply following her own "mother's instinct. Is there a moral obligation for a parent at any stage of a child's development to offer the most nutritious food? I think most of us believe the answer is a big YES!
Is it morally wrong to ignore the abundant science which shows that breast milk is best for a baby human at least the first 6 months of life in the name of "choice"? I think "choice" in this case does not imply gambling with another being's health. The freedoms women want to enjoy should not come at the expense of another human's wellbeing, especially when that mother is physically capable of offering the best food.
If you hold strongly the argument of women's choice, then every parent who buys and feeds their child junk food should be off the hook for the child's health conditions such as diabetes, obesity, malnutrition, high cholesterol, etc. Smoking during pregnancy is also a choice, should we ignore this fact when we spend millions of dollars caring from premies in the hospital due to premature births caused by smoking? Is this the price we are willing to pay in the name of SELF? Wow!
January 3, 2009 - 7:26pmThis Comment
Reply