Starving strawmen

No one is advocating letting babies starve.

It seems rather strange that it needs saying, but apparently it does. I've read the sentiment SO many times: “I couldn't breastfeed, I suppose you'd rather I let my baby starve!'

Um...no. Obviously not.

Try these on for size:

• 'I TRIED to quit smoking, but I couldn't. I suppose you'd rather I just injected myself with heroin!'
• 'I can't afford designer jeans, so I'm wearing these supermarket own brand ones. I suppose you'd rather I was naked!'
• 'The supermarket had run out of your favourite chocolate, so I bought MY favourite brand instead. I suppose you'd rather have nothing!'

• And a topical one (A-level results came out today in the UK) 'I got a B! I know you're disappointed I didn't get the A I was predicted, so I suppose you'd rather I'd failed!' (I managed to avoid saying that to my Dad back in the early 90s – who thought criticising my B was funny – and I was an exceptionally stroppy teenager!)

It's petty, it's absurd, and it's based on misconceptions. Not only does this make the assuption that there are only three possible options, but it also assumes that expressing a preference for option A over option B means that you think option C is also better than option B. It makes no sense!

There are grey areas.

The jeans wearer has an enormous range of clothes to choose from, and the chocolate buyer has a huge variety of chocolates available. The smoker has the option of continuing to smoke as they do, quitting altogether, cutting down on the amount they smoke, changing the brand of cigarettes for a less harmful one....or a whole HOST of other things less insane than attempting to replace nicotine with heroin. 

The other common phrase is 'Formula isn't POISON, you know'. We do know. It's not poison (although it does contain some poisonous chemicals - but then so does the human body), but then nor is glass - but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to eat it. It's false logic. It's a strawman - a false representation of one's opponent's position. 

For the record, here is the hierarchy of what is the best substance to be fed to an infant. The lower down the list you go, the higher the risks.

1. breastmilk directly from the mother

2. expressed breastmilk from the mother

3. wet nursing – breastmilk directly from another human

4. donated breastmilk

5. formula

6. raw animal milk (I don't know for sure, but it seems logical that the more similar to human the animal, the more appropriate the milk would be. So a primate's milk would be better than cow's milk, which in turn would be better than cat's milk.)

7. pasteurised animal milk

8. coconut milk/almond milk/fruit juices/cola and other liquids that contain some nutrition

9. solid foods

10. allowing the baby to starve. Or poison. You know, this-is-literally-going-to-kill-you-if-you-eat-it poison. (Which formula is not. Truefact, that.)

Hope that clears that one up!

Oh, and by the way, the risk increases hugely between numbers 5 and 6 on this list. WAY more than it does between 1 and 4. To go back to the A-level analogy and use grades – numbers 1-4 are very roughly the equivalent of A+ to A-, number 5 is C+, and 6 is an E-. Everything else is a failing grade!