09 December, 2005

Breastfeeding in the Light of Nature

I have this quote on both blogs right now. This is not to be annoying, but there is a different readership for each. Calvin understood that God provides certain things through the light of nature and when a person goes against that providence it is sin.

Here he speaks of the use of the breast for the nurturing of children and how when a woman goes against that light of nature it is sinful. (Unless it is for medical purposes; which are rare circumstances.)
". . .the Lord does not in vain prepare nutriment for children in their mothers' bosoms, before they are born. But those on whom he confers the honor of mothers, he, in this way, constitutes nurses; and they who deem it a hardship to nourish their own offspring, break, as far as they are able, the sacred bond of nature. If disease, or anything of that kind, is the hindrance, they have a just excuse; but for mothers voluntarily, and for their own pleasure, to avoid the trouble of nursing, and thus to make themselves only half-mothers, is a shameful corruption."
Commentary on Genesis 21.7


Discussion Points:
-What are some other "lights of nature" that we need to be mindful of?
-Why is our culture "uncomfortable" with the way in which God has provided for infants to be nourished?
-What role does Christian modesty play in providing nourishment for a woman's children?

5 comments:

Ellie said...

Our culture has totally sexualized the female breast.People are so warped they actually believe that offering their child their breast is inappropriate?Breastmilk is the milk that GOD CREATED for the Babies he blesses us with!!Properly covering oneself during the act or when possible in private with only Dad's and siblings gazing, it's beautiful!!!

Mr. Baggins said...

I just posted this quotation on the Awareparent-Index. It's a great quote.

edwardseanist said...

My Baby girl was in the ICU for two weeks. Even still My wife used a breast pump to supply milk for our daughter grace. So she was bottle fed for two weeks. We were never able to successfully get her to breastfeed properly. I think this is because she got so lazy with the bottle. If the milk did not come out fast enough she would just fall asleep or stop eating. But my wife still pumps the breast milk, so at least she is getting the nourishment that she needs.

SO what's the point of the story? We wanted to breastfeed but could not, so this would be one of those exceptions?

Here is something interesting and disturbing. I just finished writing a paper on Sigmund Freud for my psychology class:

"The oral phase begins at birth and lasts eight months. It is characterized by the infant's concern for his mouth and gratification he feels from oral stimuli. The most obvious oral activity the child derives pleasure from is eating. Oral stimulation, however, is also produced by engaging in such activities as sucking, biting, swallowing and manipulating various parts of the mouth. Freud contended that these activities are he child's means of fulfilling his sexual urges. Hence, Eros (the life instinct) makes its appearance. But Thanatos (the death instinct) is also seen since quite frequently children destroy objects they come in contact with, often by biting them. During this phase, the child's personality is controlled by the id. He demands immediate gratification of his wants."

According to Freud, if the child is deprived of what it needs during the oral stage, then a conflict could arrise. The child or adult could have a disorder known as "fixation." This is a disorder where the person is sort of locked into or fixated in that stage of development.

A person that is fixated in the Oral stage might be more proned to smoking, thumb sucking, or excessive eating. Or the opposite could happen, the person could have an exaggerated denial of dependence.

I don't believe it. What do you think?

Nate said...

Freud was trying to explain away his own opiate addication, cigar smoking, and homosexuality.

I work in psych and even psych does not take him seriously.

I think that the reason that PSY 101 spends so much time with him (other than he helped to create the field) is the fact that he is so out of this world that it hooks people on the stuff and makes them sign up for PSY 201.

I would like to coin a bunch of Greekisms and call it science.

He was a fraud and an enemy of God.

TulipGirl said...

*L*

Yup, I picked up the quote from Mr. Baggins. . .