“Do you plan to breastfeed?” It’s the first question a pregnant woman usually hears after her condition is announced or becomes obvious, and it’s as likely to come from a complete stranger (or a boss!) as it is a close friend or family member. The debate over breast vs. bottle is emotionally charged, and most of the heated debate comes from mothers themselves. Instead of banding together and telling the world to mind their own business, moms often turn on each other by criticizing a choice that’s different from their own. When people on opposite sides of this particular mommy war disparage each other’s choices, it feels like their commitment to their child is being questioned. And nothing brings out the big guns faster than that.

My way is the right way

My pal Jami is unapologetically pro-breastfeeding—she nursed both of her children for nearly four years—and takes every opportunity to tell non-nursers that they aren’t doing the best they can for their children. “Anytime after the six-month mark, people would make comments like ‘Are you still breastfeeding?’ she remembers. “I always said, ‘Yes, because I care about my child.’ In my opinion, there’s no excuse for not breast feeding babies until they’re at least a year old. Why have kids if you’re not going to take care of them properly?

Her view may seem over the top, but many women share it—and many more feel just as strongly about formula feeding. Susanna, a mother of three, knew immediately that she would never breastfeed. “I’m sorry, but it’s just gross,” she maintains. “And most women who breastfeed are so superior about it; I swear it seems like they take every opportunity to nurse in public. No one wants to see their breast! With formula, you don’t have to expose yourself to feed your child in public. And the worst thing about breastfeeding is that it’s so selfish. Women do it because it makes them feel good, but what about their husbands? My husband was able to share in every aspect of caring for our children—including feeding them, which is such a special time.”

While not every mother feels as strongly as Jami and Susanna, many on both sides of the feeding wars will tell you that they feel judged by other mothers—whether it’s disapproving looks for breastfeeding in public or a condescending attitude from breastfeeding women. But could insecurity be lurking behind these battle lines?

If self-flagellation were an Olympic sport, every mother would qualify

The flip side of this defensive, in-your-face posturing is intense self-doubt, which few mothers escape. My friend Stephanie, a high-powered executive who’s intensely committed to her job, breastfed her daughter for four months before turning to formula. She didn’t feel guilty at all; in fact, she had come to the decision that continuing to pump breast milk at work was unethical because it took too much time away from her job. But when her daughter came down with pneumonia almost immediately, Stephanie was devastated. “My head knows the timing is probably just a coincidence, but my heart is just sick at the thought that I may have prevented my little girl’s illness if I had kept breast feeding her,” she groans.

Stephanie’s story isn’t unusual. When it comes to the health and safety of our children, moms are hard-wired to deliver the best—or at least what we believe to be the best. Margie, a 34-year-old mother of three, was so adamant about breastfeeding that she nearly caused her youngest child permanent harm. “I breastfed my twin boys for over a year, spending up to six hours a day feeding them and then pumping more milk for them. So when my daughter was born three years later, I thought it would be a breeze to nurse just one child. But for some reason I never seemed to have enough milk for Kate, and none of the lactation consultants could help me. The problem was that I was so adamant about giving Kate the same ‘benefits’ that the boys had received that she was borderline malnourished by the time her pediatrician stepped in and forced me to switch to formula.”

The bottom line is that breast milk and formula are both perfectly healthy foods for babies, and the vast majority of pediatricians advise their patients to choose whatever feeding method makes Mom happy. Because when moms feel good about their choice, they’re less stressed and more content, creating similar feelings in their babies.

Healthy, happy babies—now that’s something that all mothers can get behind.

Before your child even sprouts that first, long-awaited tooth, your doctor is likely to start threatening you with all the ways you can damage it. Of these many ways (sleeping with a bottle, excessive sugar, not brushing regularly), one of the biggest hot topics in parenting circles today is water fluoridation. Like many of the issues that divide parents into two distinct categories, this one walks the line between posing a real health risk and falling prey to an over-hyped media frenzy.

Those in favor of fluoride in the water claim that the benefit to the dental health of both kids and adults outweigh any possible side effects. Those against it maintain that the potential for long-term harm and shortage of comprehensive studies makes municipal water fluoridation nothing short of government-sanctioned poisoning.

Fluoride and Oral Health

Technically speaking, fluoride isn’t a poison, and it takes quite a bit of it all at once (think bottles of pills) before you need to start thinking about a phone call to the poison control center or a trip to the emergency room. It’s actually the thirteenth most common element in the crust of the earth, and it has been used for decades as a way to prevent tooth decay and reduce cavities.

Fluoride works in two ways: a) it protects tooth enamel by working against the harmful acids caused by bacteria in the mouth; and b) it strengthens teeth from the inside out, because any fluoride ingested into the body is incorporated into the structure of developing teeth. The second reason is why many individuals consider it a top priority for children to get access to fluoride. Stronger teeth now means stronger teeth later, and that’s good news for any parent who’s had to go through the costs and trials of dragging a child to the dentist to get cavities filled.

Overall, water fluoridation really does work in the way it’s meant to. The Center for Disease Control estimates that national levels of tooth decay are reduced by 20 to 40 percent thanks to both the current levels of water fluoridation available in communities and the use of  fluoride drops, tablets, or vitamins pills prescribed by doctors and dentists. As a preventative medical practice, this means using fluoride translates into millions of dollars per year in health care savings to the American public.

There’s some pretty big names behind water fluoridation, as well. It is endorsed and embraced by everything from the American Dental Association and the World Health Organization to the Center for Disease Control and the United States Public Health Service. It has been a practice in many communities for over 60 years, and almost all dentists support its use in some form or another.

Fluoride in Water: The Controversy

Still, not everyone is on board the fluoride bandwagon. A quick visit to http://www.nofluoride.com/ will let any parent know exactly how against water fluoridation some concerned individuals and medical professionals really are. Most of this concern stems from a lack of concrete studies or FDA approval that guarantee the safety of long-term fluoride use.

For example, in recent years, studies have been conducting demonstrating the link between fluoridated water and osteoporosis. Logically, it would make sense that any material that makes teeth stronger would make the rest of the body’s bones stronger, right? Not necessarily. Many researchers have discovered a link between fluoride and weaker bone structure overall, eventually leading up to broken hip bones and other old-age infirmities.

But broken bones aren’t enough to cause wide-spread panic, even among the most concerned parent among us. It’s cancer that provides the real fodder for anti-water-fluoridation campaigns. Preliminary studies have indicated that fluoride might actually be a carcinogen. The belief is that along with the myriad other chemicals and toxic substances that make up the average American lifestyle, fluoride might just be adding to our already over-burdened systems to shorten the average lifespan.

Fluoride Allergies

The interesting thing about the controversy over fluoride in the water is that no one disagrees that too much fluoride really is harmful. Like any vitamin or pill, you don’t want to take too much. In fact, for most children under the age of eight, overexposure to fluoride can lead to tooth discoloration or even, in cases of extreme consumption, stomach and digestive problems that require hospital care.

Of course, there are additional health issues for those who have a hypersensitivity or “allergy” to fluoride – an estimated 1 percent of the U.S. population. And while 1 percent doesn’t sound like much in the grand scheme of things, that’s actually over 3 million people, many of whom live in communities where the water coming out of their tap is fluoridated whether they like it or not. For these individuals, side effects can include a number of uncomfortable symptoms, including:

• Skin problems
• Oral lesions
• Stomach and digestive problems
• Headache
• Joint pain
• Weakness and lethargy
• Visual problems

To Fluoridate or Not To Fluoridate?

Like most health and safety issues related to our kids, water fluoridation really comes down to parental preference. There are no indications that the government is going to stop fluoridating water any time soon. It is almost universally agreed by government leaders and dental experts that water fluoridation – when offered in the “safety zone” of 0.7 to 1.2 ppm – is more beneficial than harmful, and dentists continue to prescribe fluoride in communities where the water is not fluoridated.

However, if you would like to avoid the possible long-term health effects or suspect that your child has a fluoride allergy, it is certainly your right to keep a fluoride-free home. If you live in a fluorinated community, you can opt for bottled water for cooking and drinking. If you don’t, you can make sure you purchase toothpastes and other oral health products that don’t contain any fluoride.

Against: I refuse to vaccinate my kids. There have been proven links to autism and too many toxins in the vaccines for me to endanger my children.

For: The studies aren’t conclusive and it’s not fair for you to put others at risk.  Citizens have a social responsibility to keep everyone safe.  Newborns, pregnant women and the elderly are all vulnerable.

Against: Vaccines are not a guarantee for immunity.  There are lapses all the time.  Just because you’re vaccinated doesn’t mean you’re not going to get the disease.  It’s never 100%. 

For: Usually it’s a small percentage of people who get the disease but lately the numbers are growing. Look at Measles, according to the CDC, in 2006 there were 50+ cases in the US, in 2007 60+ cases, in 2008 there is already 131 cases that have been reported in the first half of the year!  Many of the cases were school age children whose parents decided not to have them vaccinated for philosophical reasons.

Against: There were no fatalities and some of those cases actually were vaccinated!  What about the toxins that you are injecting into your children?  Like formaldehyde, aluminum and anti-freeze.

For: There is some aluminum in most vaccines, but it is needed to boost the effectiveness. The dose makes the poison.  There are only trace amounts of these chemicals.  You’ll find a lot more formaldehyde in latex paint and fingernail polish. And for the record, just because Jenny McCarthy says there is anti-freeze in there, doesn’t make it true.

Against: It doesn’t matter.  Tell that to my sister and her husband who watched their son slowly disappear into autism after getting his MMR vaccination.  There are too many examples to ignore.

For:  I’m sorry for your nephew but he might have become autistic regardless.  Who’s to say it wouldn’t have happened anyway? 

Against:  Who’s to say that it would have?  Thiomersal (which contains Mercury) would still be in vaccines if the autism community had not spoken out!  Medicine is filled with examples of mistakes that took years to prove…

For:  Until it is proven, the only evidence is of eradicating disease.  It is very important that we all continue to vaccinate.

Against:  Well I don’t plan on taking any chances with my own children.  Good luck to you.

For: My daughter is up to date with all of her vaccinations and she seems perfectly healthy.  No offense, but since I’m pregnant, and you’re not vaccinating, I’m glad you don’t live in my neighborhood.

Agreeing to Disagree About Vaccinations was discussed by Heather W. (for) and Lisa G. (against).

Do you have a topic that you’d like to debate with someone of the opposite opinion?  Now’s your chance to be heard!  Email us at: agreeingtodisagree@honestbaby.com