Time Magazine...

What makes this cover a little suspect is the age of the kid. A cover with a baby would not have raised any attention. A cover with an 18 year old son would not be considered journalism, but something else. So the trick is to push the boundary without crossing it if the goal is to "make" news.

 

I guess this women is going to be interviewed on Dateline or some such... I got to thinking; I wonder what will happen if it is snack time during the interview?

 

Really. The start of teething and the end of breastfeeding tend to happen about the same time, for good reason.

Well, between the internet and TV, pretty much everything is covered. Or not.

 

I bet if Chevy put one of those in a Volt, they might sell more Volts!

 

Bra...

I DISAGREE!!!

There are enough nipples on cars now goldernit...

Just saying.

 

What about 3 year olds?

 

Can someone please provide an objective* argument for an age at which it is no longer acceptable to breastfeed a child? When is it obligatory to use cross-species lactation rather than same species lactation. I can't figure it out myself. Thanks.

* - No references to god or societal norms allowed.

 

Well scientifically, there are many merits for children feeding off their mother's milk. Nutritional requirments are going to be most in line for an infant that isn't digesting solids yet. The other advantage of babies feeding off human milk is that they get antibodies: which reduces the risk of disease and helps develop their immune system. It could be argued that children don't really need mothers milk when they are able to digest solid food. However, milk is considered a good source of minerals and vitamins: which may be better/easier to get from cow milk vs vegetables.

 

When they are old enough to ask for it, they are too old.

 

There are two answers to this question. One is of pure species biology and the other is purely pragmatic.

The pure biology part is after about one-two years when the child is able to be weened. This allows the mother's body to get ready for the next child. Today this is of little meaning, but when our species was struggling for survival, it was a critical need. Note that Chimpanzees require about 5 years per child, so that was a big difference from previous biology.

The pragmatic part is when the breast feeding is done entirely for "culture" rather than proper nutrition. One valid exception is the mother may continue breast feeding to prevent as many future children as possible to improve the survival of her family. In that case it might be more understandable.

(Of course some female responses to your question are needed.)

 

I remember the exact moment I lost all respect for Time Magazine. They had a notorious cover story about Internet Porn:



This story became the biggest fuel for The Communications Decency Act (CDA) which then-President Clinton signed but was quickly declared null and void when it was determined it was unconstitutional (that darn First Amendment!)

Shortly thereafter, it was discovered that Time based the entire story off of one college kid's paper (see [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Rimm]Martin Rimm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]) and that he got the data from the time-honored college paper tradition of "making everything up."

 

You Should see the Front Pages of The New York Post Everyday.
But that will sell newspapers.

 

But I never had respect for the New York Post, so I never had any respect for it to lose.