Breastfeeding vs Formula Essay Example for Free

Breastfeeding vs Formula Essay Deciding whether to breastfeed or provide formula milk is a major decision amongst new mothers. As simple as it may seem, the decision to breastfeed versus formula feed babies can be difficult and one of the most important decisions a mother can make. While there is nothing wrong with giving babies formula milk, breastfeeding should be the number one choice for mothers. As breast milk provides more nutrients, is naturally produced by mothers and is less expensive, breastfeeding is more beneficial than formula milk. When examining the benefits of breastfeeding as opposed to formula milk, breast milk tops the list with the nutrients and antibodies it provides. As breast milk contains antibodies that formula milk does not, this provides extra protection for babies against diseases and viruses. The first milk a baby receives while breastfeeding is colostrum. Colostrum is rich in nutrients and the mother’s own disease-preventing antibodies which may protect the baby from certain viruses (Kutner, 2012). Thus, breastfeeding babies contribute to building babies’ immune systems. As the breast milk matures, â€Å"the cells, hormones, and antibodies [in breast milk]†¦protect babies from illness† (Womenshealth. gov, 2011). This combination is unique to breast milk and is not contained in formula milk. On the other hand, some formula milk does contain more vitamin D than breast milk, which is essential in building strong bones. In addition, formula milk also contains fluoride which is important for healthy teeth. However, both nutrients can be provided to babies as a supplement if they are needed. Formula milk does not contain the antibodies that breast milk has which contributes to a healthier, less sick baby. Breast milk is produced naturally by mothers and is designed especially for babies whereas formula milk is manufactured. Since breast milk is unique to each mother and child, there is no worry about the baby having an allergic reaction to the milk or not able to consume it. Unlike manufactured formula milk, breast milk also decreases allergies some babies develop from being exposed to allergens from other milk products. â€Å"By postponing the introduction of allergens into the child’s body until they are more mature, the risk of them developing an allergy is significantly reduced† Netdoctor pg. ( 30-04- 2010). In addition, breast milk is also easier for babies to digest than formula milk. As the mother’s milk matures, it contains a natural balance of fat, sugar, water and protein to help [babies] continue to grow (U. S. Department of Health and Human Services Office on Women’s Health, 2011). Because breast milk is easier for babies to digest, breastfed ba bies are less likely to experience constipation and other gastric irritations as opposed to babies that are fed formula milk. On the other hand, since it takes longer for formula milk to digest, babies could go a little longer between feedings. However, mothers face a bigger risk of having a fussy baby because of gas and constipation as a result of the difficulties babies may have digesting the formula milk as opposed to the easier digested breast milk. Since breast milk is produced by mothers, there is a less likely chance of contamination than formula milk. Formula milk is manufactured, which leaves room for the formula milk to get contaminated by different bacteria that can be very harmful to a baby. Bacteria such as Salmonella can unintentionally get in manufactured milk and cause serious health issues for babies. In addition, there is no real way of knowing what products are used to make formula milk. Pat Thomas (2006) states, â€Å"Formula may also contain unintentional contaminants introduced during the manufacturing process. Some may contain traces of genetically engineered soya and corn. † Even though the package may list the main ingredients, there are other things used that may be unknown. By breast feeding, mothers have a greater control of what enters their babies’ body. As breast milk is produced naturally by mothers, breastfeeding is less expensive and more convenient for mothers than formula milk. Since the breast milk is produced by mothers, it is a free source of milk as opposed to the cost associated with buying formula milk. The cost of formula averages between $1,000 and $1,500 for the first year of a baby’s life. Schoenstad pg. 1 (31-07- 2009) Since a mother is breastfeeding, the need for bottles and nipples is not as high as opposed to the requirement of having bottles and nipples in order to feed babies formula milk. In addition, since breast milk contains antibodies that promote healthier babies, medical bills are lower. Breastfeeding is also more convenient for mothers as opposed to feeding babies formula milk. Unlike formula milk, mothers do not have to worry about measuring, mixing and warming the milk before feeding their babies. The breast milk is right at hand when it’s needed. Even for working mothers, they are able to pump the breast milk and store for a later time. Since the milk is already prepared, there is less worry that others may not mix the baby’s milk correctly. Breastfeeding also provides time for mother and baby to bond while allowing the mother to relax. On the other hand, feeding babies formula milk, allows others the opportunity to feed the baby while taking the pressure off of mom. Lawrence Kutner (2012) states, â€Å"One of the advantages of [formula]-feeding is that it allows fathers to spend more time caring for their baby†. However, mothers can pump and store breast milk to allow fathers and other relatives feeding time with the baby. Thus, by breast feeding as opposed to providing formula milk, mothers are able to save money while also saving time. In conclusion, as breast milk provides more nutrients and antibodies, is naturally designed for babies, cost less and saves times, the benefits of breastfeeding outweighs formula milk. The nutrients and antibodies produced in breast milk contribute greatly to a healthier baby. Because breast milk is produced naturally, it is designed especially to meet the baby’s needs and is readily available. Mothers do not have to worry about the high cost of formula milk and spend less time measuring and mix milk. As mothers breastfeed their infants, a bond is developed that outweighs any advantages formula milk provides. ? Breastfeeding vs Formula. (2016, Oct 21).

Should the government be neutral in matters of conscience by jerry Essay

Should the government be neutral in matters of conscience by jerry mills - Essay Example The importance and relevance of neutral government The main idea of the article lies in the fact that there should be strict separation between the church and secular laws in order to eliminate unjustified oppression on people’s conscience and provide all the conditions for personal liberty and human natural rights realization. Law making and church should act in accordance with each other to help people understand what is right and what is wrong in our world (Mills). If the church imposes definite things and the laws does not even try to disprove them, such situation prevents people from good understanding what is good and evil and can’t help form right principles with the youth. Jerry Mills presents several arguments to support his point of view, which are mainly based on previous works by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson (Mills). According to Madison, neutral government should strive for establishing common morality. At the same time the social system is supposed t o provide such human rights as individualism, opportunity and stability (Mills). In his draft ‘Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments’, Madison provided quite well-reasoned explanation for the necessity of division between state and church power: religious liberty is considered to be a part and parcel of human natural rights and it should be completely free of civil legislature; religions are not in need for any civil support: there are a lot of historical examples when religion arised in response to certain opposition, not support of legal laws (Mills). In order to demonstrate horrible consequences, which church and state relationship caused, Thomas Jefferson described Virginian law about Quakers, which stated that in case Quakers refused to take an oath of adherence to the Crown, they were exiled from the state, imprisoned or even sentenced to execution (Mills). The author’s ultimate goal is to create a civil system, which would allow for moral pluralism without domination of leading factions. There are two ways how governments could deal with factions: the first method suggests that government removes the reasons, which evoked the fraction existence by making people believe in one thing; the second method is associated with neutral government, which is supposed to control the effects of factions’ activities (Mills). Such social regime implies government tolerance of citizens’ adverse interests and views. According to Mills, the main task of ‘sufficiently neutral’ government is supposed to be the promotion of democracy, control and restriction of dominating factions’ invasion into other communities (Mills). Conclusions The main question of the article is about the role and influence of government in human life. Even in our modern democratic world, there is no common consent about the extent to which government could or should intervene in social activities without putting any restrictions on human freethinking. We assume the Mills’ arguments against church and state consolidation are relevant and support his point of view about importance of establishing ‘sufficiently neutral’ government, which would interfere into social and personal life of citizens to acceptable extent and

Political science Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Political science - Research Paper Example an Glover persuasively argues that the propensity of people in the West to attempt to explain the genocide in Rwanda by harking back to tribal divisions and historic tribal animosities is an oversimplification which does not do justice to the conflict. Accordingly, by focusing on the inevitability of such tribal animosity Western scholars have ignored important preconditions to the outbreak of genocide in Rwanda in 1994. As the poorest country in data set #9, the world-wide movement to atone for the historical injustices faced by the Tutsi people is alive and well in post-genocide Rwanda (CIA, 2009). Genocide in Rwanda did not â€Å"just happen†. The Belgian colonial experience shaped the artificial â€Å"ethnic† divisions in Rwanda which shaped politics for years to come, culminating in the genocide of 1994. Accordingly, the conflict in Rwanda was more than a civil war or short-term conflict. While estimates vary, up to one million people – largely Tutsis and moderate Hutus were killed in an incredibly short period of time. The Rwandan genocide was not a standard civil war and was an orchestrated full-scale genocide perpetuated against the Tutsi minority but extremists within the Hutu camp. A hate campaign against Tutsis and moderate Hutus was conducted through a variety of means by gà ©nocidaires intent on eradicating the Tutsi presence in Rwanda. Fearing a Tutsi-led invasion in the aftermath of Habyrimana’s death, the genocide planned by â€Å"people wanting to keep power† (Glover, 121) and a variety of means were used to coerce the Rwandan population to engage in the genocide. Instead of a mere tribal hostility, Glover argues for individual agency in attempting to account for the emergence of the genocide and argues that key players within the Hutu extremist establishment were responsible for the events that transpired after Habyrimana’s plane crashed. Instrumentalism is a theoretical paradigm which argues that things â€Å"don’t just happen†, events