Poor Silver surfer can’t get a word in edgeways even if I leave the discussion for eight days. :(

He also doesn’t read my posts properly as I am misquoted

Atticus—first of all the word ‘wean’ means when a baby is introduced to solids, not when the breastfeeding relationship is over. I said in my post that was 8-10 months (transition commences at approx 4 months is complete by 8-10 months) after that breastmilk is additional rather than the main source of nutrition.

Drawbacks of the bottle:

1. You are in complete disagreement with all the experts when you say that formula is as good as breastmilk. I think you should do a bit of research into this before you give your medical opinion. If you want your children disadvantaged so men can ‘bond’ with them from birth then you are the one that doesn’t have the welfare of the child in mind.
2. Not all women are successful at expressing milk (assuming you work out breastmilk is better than formula)
3. Bottles have a tendency to let milk out more easily than a breast which can cause the baby to refuse the breast in preference for the bottle
4. (This is the real cruncher) If the breast isn’t suckled on then the milk production stops. Nature thinks if the baby isn’t there then it better dry up the milk supply—the breast pump is not a good enough substitute for suckling as it does not give the right stimulation.

Most women take at least 3 months off before going back to work in which time they can establish breastfeeding and even if they express for the day they still get to suckle the baby in the evening. Even so they're far more likely to fail at breastfeeding than women who stay home. Having six months off is better and one year better still. The older the child the easier it is to express milk and the child can eat other foods by then.

Have you ever had children atticus? If you had you would have taken the effort to learn what was best for your baby wouldn’t you? You are extremely ignorant on the subject of breastfeeding for someone who has such strong opinions on it.

Men do a terrible disservice to the baby and the mother in their complete inability to accept that because the women carries the baby and breastfeeds it she is more important to the baby *at this stage of life*. It's nature that sets men up here--not women.

Here's one for the pro feminists of this country.
The injustices against Liam Magill are so great that the Edith Cowan University in WA-The School of Law & Justice has recently requested and was given permission by Liam Magill to use his situation as a ‘case study’ by its students in their new compulsory unit of Criminology and Justice Degree hence exposing the inadequacies of the law and the treatment of Liam Magill. That is quite a big step for a University with pro feminists views. We are now aware that most of these victims like Liam Magill have people in their lives who are also severely effected and these people are also women -wives-sisters-neieces-mothers-etc.

Cheryl King 35 Moselle Street Box Hill North Vctoria 3129 Email kingcems@alphalink.com.au Ph 0416 031145

I am currently breastfeeding my second child. So, yes, I know all about it. What I object to is women like you attacking other mothers for their choice in feeding their children. Its none of your business.The way you're throwing around 'you must be a bad mum/dad if..' makes me wonder about YOU. This is not the place to start a debate on bottle/breast.

You have consistently shown in your posts your narrow-minded and bitter attitude.

Do you read my posts at all atticus? If you do you certainly don't understand them. Since when did this have anything to do with attacking women for their choice?

I was talking about the difficulties of establishing breastfeeding if you are forced to have a 50/50 share with your ex from birth, there is NO CHOICE for the woman in that. You know marriages do break up during pregnancies and this discussion has been about the compulsory 50/50 share.

Now which week would you give your partner if you broke up during pregnancy? The first week after birth or the second? And shouldn't he have the right to choose which week too?

You are narrow-minded if you continually have to make up what the other person says so you can be angry with them (how emotional you must be when you cannot follow what others say?).

What is wrong Atticus? Was what I said not offensive enough for you so you had to make something up?

And that is very sad news Chezzie.

The Sunday Herald Sun-3 December 2006 shslettters@sundayheraldsun.com.au

Editor's EXTRA OPINION

Paternity Deceit

The Liam Magill paternity case, which famously went to the High
Court last month, can be seen as both a farce and tragedy.
It is a tragedy because the emotional security of the Magill Childrenis at stake. But it is a farce because there is unfinished business here-and neither the court nor government agencies appear interested in bringing the matter to its natural conclusion. Mr.Magill,of Melbourne rightly feels aggrieved. The High court overturned the $70,000 County Court award made to him for supporting children who it was later discovered through DNA testing, were the offspring of Derek Rowe of the Gold Coast. To add to his distress, Mr. Magill was required to pay his former wife’s legal costs. The six High Court judges said that the County Court had been wrong because the law of deceit does not apply to personal relationships. Mr. Magill believes he should be at the very least reimbursed for the $20,000 he paid in maintenance following the breakdown of the marriage. But Mr. Rowe rejects the argument that he has an obligation to compensate Mr. Magill for supporting his children, the result of an affair he had with Meredith Magill. As the Sunday Herald Sun reports today, Mr. Magill and Mr. Rowe are exchanging angry statements. Nothing will be resolved this way. It seems what is needed at this stage is a determination by a government department that Mr.Magill, the deceived party is entitled to be relieved of any further financial obligation. Further it seems that child support payments should be officially transferred to Mr. Rowe, the real father. Given the certainty of DNA testing, which removes doubt from the equation, a change to
the law of deceit as it affects paternity is overdue.