Time Magazine Cover Shows Mom Breastfeeding 4-Year-Old Son: Did They Go Too Far?

She's on a damn magazine doing it,so why wouldn't she do it in public.We are not mammals we are human beings,you keep comparing humans to other animals.We are civilized and animals are wild,so stop comparing them to human beings! Yes,I close my case,are you seeking attention?

Just because she posed for a picture doesn't mean she'll let the kid eat while sitting in a mall, or something. You can't be certain, and neither can I.

We aren't mammals? You're kidding, right? And we're not animals? Really? Then tell me, dear, what kingdom are we in? If we're not animal, are we plant? Fungus? Archea? Bacteria? And if we're not mammalia, then what taxonomic class are we in? Saurospida? Chordata? Rotifera? Maybe Porifera?

You must be the type of person who believes that humans are somehow magically, spiritually SO removed from the other creations on this planet. We're aliens, I get it!

You got to be kidding me? If you were comprehending what I'm saying you would have understood what I said. We are civilized and can speak,we are all animals to a certain extent. Yes,I'am very spiriual and if your not from this planet,you are an alien.Enough of you now, go on and get with your crowd! You are very argumentative or are you seeking some attention? I'm not your caretaker or babysitter so go and find someone who can provide you in what your looking for! See Ya! Please do not respond back!

Very argumentative, I don't abide people who try to act like we're not animals, with natural drives.

You might as well give up arguing with her since she won't listen to reason. She also appears to have the same superiority complex where just because humans are "civilized" everything that is natural is all the sudden. "bad"

Probably. *sigh* You know me, can't back down, particularly when I'm right. lol

<3s

I'm glad you didn't back down, as you made valid points and upon reading them and a few others in favor of extended breast feeding I have to say that from a purely biological point there are reasons for it. I might argue though that evolution plays a part, as long ago there was not sufficient food or water for a higher portion of the population, as we still see in many countries today.

However, there may also be reasons to stop before the age of 3 or 4 too that are valid, such as the child does not need to suckle for comfort and it may have diminishing returns socially with increasing age, like one who has a bottle or sucks a pacifier at 5 or 6. I'd say once the child starts to see the breast as a private part of the body, most of us will be mindful of it. It is as much a part of who we are as nursing is biologically for a human. I say this because apparently we are as much biologically inclined to create social constructs and follow them, as we are to act on pure instinct alone.

I agree with you that human beings are animals, though. Even aliens technically would be animals. It's just that we think of ourselves as being in a higher order; that may be instinctual as well, but also up for debate as to whether we are just like all of the animals in terms of intellect and reason.

I agree. It bothers me when people say that extended breastfeeding is "gross" or "harmful" or "wrong." There are pros and cons for both sides, and I say as long as you're raising a strong, happy child, you're doing a good job.

Out of consideration, though, the mothers who do extended breastfeeding should probably keep it inside. Since the kids' have been introduced to solid foods.

I don't think we really agree, but I do see that the point you made and see it as an option now as a result, where I didn't before. I still would probably not think it so great if I saw a woman breast feeding her child past 4, from a social perspective, but especially in the company of other children or strangers, for example. But I don't necessarily think it's wrong for all people; in fact, I see that it isn't. It's just not something I would do, unless I really had no other means of feeding my child.

I noticed you said 6 months breast feeding should be done exclusively, but this isn't true for most babies. After 2 or 3 months, most will take a little bit of baby cereal and formula or breast milk and in some cases they really need it. My first child was very big, 10 lbs, 13 oz, and my second 10 lbs, 2 oz......I held out as long as I could, but I introduced formula, then cereal, then fruit, then veggies before 6 months, and then meats sometime thereafter.

Well, those are very large babies. Were you producing well, they probably could have gotten enough nutrition from breast milk, but I can certainly see why you couldn't. It is just highly recommended that babies are breastfed exclusively for the first six months. It doesn't mean that there is a lack of exceptions, and I can certainly understand that there would be.

I understand why it would be highly recommended, but the realities just don't bear it out for most babies, my case excluded for obvious reasons. There is a risk in offering solids too soon, as well as water after the baby is born; it should all be done gradually and recommended by the pediatrician. But there has been pressure on women (or they have felt pressure) to exclusively breast feed and a few of them have caused more harm than good when the child is screaming for more. Humans are meant to eat food and drink water also and there is nothing wrong with introducing them earlier so long as it's not done in a harmful way it is as much a part of weaning as it is nursing.

I will always disagree that formula is superior, particularly since there are a number of networks out there, now, that deal in breast milk, or help mothers find others. I can understand when it may supplement, but there are things that formula just can't reproduce.

I should clarify. If the woman cannot produce enough milk despite her best efforts, formula is superior to a hungry child. As soon as you start supplementing your breast milk decreases as the suckling gives your body the sign to produce more. But if you're doing everything you can and it isn't happening, feed the child.

Almost anything is superior to a hungry child. I agree that women should be educated on the matter, and make informed choices.

There are benefits to this world we live in, now, though. Wetnursing is "back" so to speak, and some women do it as a job, others sell their excess milk, or donate it. So, even women who may not produce much may be able to still give their children breast milk.

Yeah, I really should have clarified what I meant by saying formula is superior. Unless my child was premature and there was no way I could give them my milk at birth, I wouldn't use a milk bank. I'm sure I wouldn't use a wet nurse either if I had to work or was otherwise too busy with my other children to do it. I'd probably want to though if I physically was unable to nurse in the first few months. But not after that. First, I think the formula would be cheaper and second, I'd be concerned about some disease that the woman might acquire or have and then passing it on to my child.

But I will say nursing has come back into vogue for good reason. It's the upper and middle classes turning the tide, as it was the same when formula became popular. I think nursing is better for the baby, but I'm not at all convinced that it's absolutely necessary to have a healthy and well adapted child.

Fair enough. Supposedly, smoking during pregnancy lowers birth weight, and intelligence. My mother has commented that she'd be scared how intelligent and large I would have been if she hadn't smoked (almost 23" long, and 9 lbs. something)... and she's only 5'2".

You made fair points about extended breast feeding that I hadn't considered before; in fact, I'd be less likely to judge it the same way I did before. I've known a long time what they say about it effecting IQ (could be something to it, but there are a lot of other factors to consider that might change that). I think the body has an amazing ability, as well as the brain, to compensate. I smoked during the last third to half of my pregnancies (I could not smoke when I had the morning sickness at all), not a lot, but I did. I'm not sure if they would have come out any bigger than they did if I hadn't, but I'm sure glad they didn't. I even smoked here and there when I nursed (and the doctor advised me to continue with it anyway) rather than switch to formula. I still feel guilty about it though to this day. I also still smoke, in spite of the fact that it's killing me. I won't have anyone else to blame but myself when I can't breath anymore as a result of it. I have COPD and beginning emphysema. Anyway, even though my two children are very healthy, it's not something I would recommend to anyone.

I agree with you that formula cannot give a child the immunities or all the nutritional benefits, especially the colostrum at birth. Women should be educated on it to make an informed choice.

In fact, formula is superior to nursing if the mother cannot produce enough milk and it is used often as a first food before cereal and with.

I am only giving you my perspective as an individual. I know my babies would have been starving if I didn't give them something else besides my breast milk after 3 months. But then my children were big, I was sick afterwards and didn't produce as much milk. Just that it also came doctor recommended as to how I went about it.

No one said that there was something wrong with breastfeeding,it's how it done.Your missing the point,the cover of the magazine is disgusting and that boy is to old to be breastfeeding him.If he can stand up in a chair,he can be using a cup or glass. I close my case!

I agree.What does the kid do write her a note when he's hungry?.Ridiculous !

It's not just now. Public breastfeeding has BEEN around. Children disrespect their mothers because the fools let them. There's nothing immoral about breastfeeding, but this cover was over the top.

I totally agree!

This is a really ignorant comment. I'm seriously not even going to bother to argue with you.

No one never said anything to you from the beginning,silence kills ignorance!!

Kid is way too old for that. Pretty creepy.

To each their own. I think it's weird, but who's to say I'm not weird? The cover simply shows what lots of people do; another style of life. Def not for me though....

Shame on Time magazine, their idea of Caucasian moms of this generation pushing this cover to sell magazines. Probably a small percentage of dysfunctional moms. Why should the majority have to be exposed to this, the cover is a double sword. Selling us disrespect while desensitizing us, again pushing sexual images, and now using children. No wonder other counties think we are trash and have no morals. This should have been in the inside of the magazine if anywhere or not at all! Boycott Time Magazine!

Sexual images? Only two types of people would see this as sexualised..

Perverts and liberal progressives.

No, perverts and ignorant idiots.

That is what I said...perverts and liberal progressives.

lol

Time will do anything to sell their liberal rag...

So breastfeeding is now considered a 'liberal thing' to do. Honestly..

Don't be stupid...show me where I said that? Trolling tonight are you?

No.

I didn't think you could...you are just a troll.