One Parent's Opinion: Extended Nursing

I was at church working in the infant childcare room when the staff lady, a wonderfully warm grandmother, nodded over to a 2-year-old boy. "He was cranky last week when his mother came to pick him up, and I couldn't believe it - she started to nurse him. He should be weaned by now. Isn't that weird?"

"I don't think so," I smiled, "but then, my children all weaned between three and four years old."

The lady looked dumbstruck. I, however, had heard it all before. I'd read the arguments, seen the nasty posts on parenting message boards, and ignored my own mother and friends who were uncomfortable with my choice to continue nursing my three children well into toddlerhood. I'm very familiar with the objections, yet remain an avid advocate for extended nursing.

One of the main objections brought up is that bottle fed children are supposed to be weaned from the bottle by the time they are a year old, or as soon as they are able to hold a sippy cup. For some reason, people seem to think that this rule of thumb for bottle feeding should apply to breast-feeding children as well. However, other than it being a means of nourishment for a baby, there is little comparable between bottles and the breast.

For one thing, becoming attached to a bottle can promote orthodontic problems and tooth decay, while breast-feeding does not (except in extremely rare cases- but few mothers keep a child at their breast for the hours at a time it would require for these problems to arise). Another issue is that formula, a derivative of cow's milk or soy products, is expensive and unnecessary after the first year. It does not change as a baby grows from an infant to a toddler. Breast milk, however, continues to alter in order to provide growing babies with the right amount of nutrients, antibodies, and immunities that they need well past the first, and second, year. Children who are breast-fed are less likely to be sick, develop allergies, or be overweight.

Extended nursing is not only beneficial for the child, but for the mother. While nursing is not 100% guaranteed method of birth control, it does delay fertility. Nursing helps a woman get back to her pre-pregnancy weight quicker. More importantly, continuing to nurse will help reduce the risk for common diseases, such as breast, ovarian, uterine and endometrial cancer, osteoporosis, and rheumatoid arthritis.

If one looks to history, weaning children by the end of their first year is fairly a recent concept that arose expressly from bottle feeding and the invention of formula. In the past, children were typically weaned much later. Even now, the world-wide average for weaning children is approximately 3.5 years, while the average for Americans alone is 6 months. Whether this was because of our Puritanical roots, our discomfort with the female breast, or our recent preference in the last century of technology over natural means, it seems clear that our society deciding when breast feeding should stop has little to do with what nature had intended and what mothers have been doing naturally for millennia. Basically, people's discomfort with the natural act of breast feeding are imposed on us by modern social trends and thought, rather than any reliable evidence.

Perhaps the most important reason that extended nursing should not be criticized is that the nursing relationship between the mother and child offers a special act of bonding that pleases both of them. It remains a healthy and convenient way for mothers to nourish, calm, comfort and reassure their baby or toddler. While women should not be forced to nurse longer than they find convenient or comfortable, they should certainly not be forced to stop at some arbitrary age. If the nursing couple continues to be happy, and the act offers health benefits to both of them, for what possible reasons are there- other than ill-conceived hang-ups about women's breasts- for anyone object to extended nursing?

The answer is simple: none. It's just one boob judging another.