Extended breastfeeding

Unless you are buried under a rock (or have shady internet like my mom) you have most likely seen the uproar over the newest Time magazine cover.  Because I'm always opinionated (and its my blog!) I thought I'd weigh in!  So, what are my thoughts?

Well, it starts like this, 'How old IS that kid?'  'Hmmm, 3, that's not that old.'  'Holy cow he is big for 3.  Are they sure?'  'When Collin is 3 people will still think he's 1.'  Oops, off topic again!

First off, the cover was meant to be attention grabbing, that's what magazine covers do.  It definitely accomplished that.  The title of the article is also attention grabbing.  While I'm not a full-on attachment parenting (AP) mom, I do tend toward that line of thinking in most areas.  However, the title is just offensive.  Just because someone isn't AP doesn't make them less of a mom.  Each family must do what they decide is best for them.  In the big picture as long as your child is fed, clothed, and loved does the rest matter?

Most of the attention on this article, however, has nothing to do with AP, it has to do with extended breastfeeding.  For me, personally, I don't think I could breastfeed to 4.  I do, however, very much believe in breastfeeding past the age of 1 and child led weaning when possible.  Most likely I will let Collin take the lead until we get close to 2, then if he isn't ready I will gently nudge him in the direction of weaning.  The World Health Organization recommends nursing to at least age 2 and then beyond if its mutually desired.  The benefits of breastmilk most definitely don't suddenly stop when your child is 366 days old.  Again, I think each family needs to make their own decision, but that is our decision and it is very much supported by facts and evidence-based articles.

For further information on the benefits of breastfeeding past age 1 please follow the link to one of my all-time favorite breastfeeding support sites:  http://kellymom.com/ages/older-infant/ebf-benefits/