Am I the only one who finds this product appalling??

*Lisa* - posted on 08/14/2010

What a funny thread! I didn't know that pacifiers could spark such a debate. I am interested though as to whether the mums who are soo anti-pacifier are also anti-extended breastfeeding? As someone mentioned before, my son also uses me as a pacifier (breastfeeding) sometimes to soothe and I fail to see the difference between that and a pacifier.

Chatty - posted on 08/13/2010

Haha! I forgot about RAWR....I didn't get THAT frustrated....not yet anyhow. ;)

Jaime - posted on 08/13/2010

No, I don't think the wording has changed Kati...so it's just you. lol

Rosie - posted on 08/13/2010

RAWR!!!!!!!!! had to throw that one in there as well for ya dana, hehe!!!!

did the wording in the OP change or is it just me?

Chatty - posted on 08/13/2010

ACK! is right Sara....thanks! You're SO cute! I don't know about you guys but I'm sick of banging my head off the wall. I'm gonna need a helmet soon. OR a pacifier......lmao.



You wanna know what I think is RIDICULOUS?

Jaime - posted on 08/13/2010

I'm throwing my GAH! in too...for eff sakes already!

Forgive me because I am obviously a bit of an idiot if I am not able to realize that my son's pacifier is also his babysitter. I'll have to be sure to ask what it charges for overnights the next time I need some 'me' time! Pacifiers don't prevent children from making noise...this is a myth--I effing promise!

Toni - posted on 08/13/2010

The words

...brick
...wall
...head

come to mind


ACK!

Good Day! - posted on 08/12/2010

Dana, I'll do it for you.

GAH! ACK!!

Chatty - posted on 08/12/2010

Nikki - WTF? Who are you talking to? lmao.

Nikki - posted on 08/12/2010

I don't have a problem with it, Johanna, I had no idea what AshleyMadison was, whoa... what has the world come too... I may just have to delete my browser history now in case hubby stumbles back on it!!

Charlene - posted on 08/12/2010

Oh and btw, thanks for the positive and kind words Toni! ♥

Charlene - posted on 08/12/2010

If I say they are marketing an unnecessary item, you wll go back to the "need" statements again. Not sure how to proceed.

*facepalm*

Sally... unnecessary basically means needless.
So you are claiming that it is an needless product, but we are giving you examples of a NEED for it. THAT'S why it keeps going back to the whole 'need' aspect of it. There are obviously situations of need for this product, but you are just blatantly dismissing that just so you can go on about how 'disgusting' they are. You don't like them, fine. Get over it.
They are unnecessary for YOU and YOUR family, but they are necessary for others.

I still don't see why people care SO FREAKIN' MUCH about what other people's kids use to self soothe.

Yes, I get that paci's, just like a lot of other products, get abused and misused, but who are we to decide when it's being overused??

Oh, and for the record, Gracie doesn't use one. She only took to one for about three weeks when she was about 5/6 months and that was it. Sometimes I am glad she didn't take to it and other times, I wish she still would take one. Instead she uses me as a pacifier and boy, do my nipples get sore sometimes. lmao

Chatty - posted on 08/12/2010

ACK! And round and round and round and round we go....I'm dizzy, how bout you?

~Jennifer - posted on 08/12/2010

....why you would be reading a parenting magazine when you obviously already know everything is beyond me.



;)

Sally - posted on 08/12/2010

You just dismiss all my evidence to the contrary and because YOU don't think there's a need to provide them, "legit ones" .....LMAO! You're just as responsible for providing a credible argument as the next person. I've asked you many times....WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE?

Back at you Dana. Now you have dismissed me. You kept saying I provided nothing to back up my claim, so I did. And now you have dismissed it.
I guess in some weird COM way we are even? Maybe??
To address your point of the marketing debate. How to debate that? If I say they are marketing an unnecessary item, you wll go back to the "need" statements again. Not sure how to proceed.
I think this product is a classic case of marketers trying to convince parents a child needs something that it clearly does not. Not far from Disney claiming Baby Einstien will make babies smarter. Or V-Tech. Or convincing kids that Apples with Mickey Mouse on the package will taste better. (real study. kids fell for it) Parents are surrounded on all side from marketers telling them their child "needs" this to get ahead, to thrive. Rarely is that true. I truely dislike "fear" marketing and I hate marketing to kids. And to read an article in a so called parenting magazine pushing a pacifier that in their words encourages "hoarding, and jumping for joy". I am appalled. At all aspects of it. The product and the pushing of it. Yuck.

LaCi - posted on 08/12/2010

I don't think it matters. People who are willing to buy a toddler pacifier would have been giving their toddler a normal pacifier anyway.

Jonie - posted on 08/12/2010

Nope not appalled at all. My daughter had a paci untill almost 3-So that being said I dont have a problem with it... I

Chatty - posted on 08/12/2010

But Jaime, I don't think she actually wants to debate the marketing aspect of it?! I think it was just her attempt at what she thought was a creative way to start another "EVIL PACIFIER" thread. Sally, I hope, if you don't take anything else away from this, that you at the very least realize that not everyone hates pacifiers or thinks there evil and obviously many of us are sick and tired of people like you who are narrow-minded and condescending and completely unwilling to budge. Before this conversation even really got going, we were off to the wrong start.

From your original post....

"I found this just gross. Who in their right mind would buy this?"

IF you actually wanted a true debate then maybe you should have worded it a lil' differently. You can't honestly be shocked by the "venom" we're spewing. To criticize a wide audience before we even get started? Maybe you could approach things differently next time, unless you were just looking to purposefully stirr the pot?

This conversation is just going around and around in circles and I'm not sure why I've been trying to help you understand the other side. Hope you have a great rest of your day.

Jaime - posted on 08/12/2010

I can certainly agree that as a child gets older, the initial need for the pacifier disappears, but for my son it has become a comfort object. I have decided that when he hits his 18-months mark, we will start to wean from the soother very gradually. I had decided this a long time ago...but I'm in no rush to be rid of it. If it takes us until he's 3 years old--so be it. My reasons for weaning him are the fact that he has the soother in his mouth only until he falls asleep and then it falls out and onto the floor (he's usually asleep within 5 minutes of being put to bed). He has just recently started to snuggle with his teddy bear that has always been in his crib, so I am confident that he will be able to transition comfortably from a soother to the teddy bear. Having said that, these are my thoughts...putting them into action might be a completely different story.



As Dana said, as long as parents are using pacifiers properly then there's nothing wrong with a child deciding when they are done using them. Some parents will over-use but I just don't think it's the case for everyone.



As for the marketing aspect. As I stated in several posts above...there is already a strong market for soothers. Hospitals even carry their own soothers. The different soother companies are not competing for product power, they are competing for brand power...the same way cell phone companies compete. Gerber, Nuk, Avent...three of the most prominent baby companies running.

Chatty - posted on 08/12/2010

***"Although adverse dental effects MAY occur after 24 months of pacifier use, the effects are more significant after 48 months. Therefore, pacifier use should be discouraged after four years of age"***

There "they" go with the MAY again. "THEREFORE, PACIFIER USE SHOULD BE DISCOURAGED AFTER 48 MONTHS" - right out of YOUR link.

***"the risks begin to outweigh the benefits around six to 10 months of age and appear to increase after two years of age."***

I'll decide for my daughter and our family WHEN the risks outweigh the benefits! I'm not just talking about physical risks....doctors and dentists alike, recognize and respect that there are emotional needs as well. We can't just focus on the physical needs.

Sally, I'm not denying that using a pacifier is not ideal but I just want you to recognize that it happens and for good reason in most cases. I don't just encourage Roxanne to have her soother for shits 'n giggles but when I feel her emotional needs are greater than the risks that MAY occur, I don't think I should be crucified. I understand that pacifier use isn't for everyone but you need to respect that I (not the doctors or dentists) will make the best decision for MY family.

Are we ever going to talk about the marketing aspect of it?

Jodi - posted on 08/11/2010

Sally, it was simply a way of demonstrating how we all differ in our parenting, due to varying circumstances (and also individual personalities of our children). I wasn't making any judgement :) I was just being a smart arse ;P

Anyway, I agree that if the demand wasn't there, they wouldn't make it, but personally, I would not have gone out of my way to purchase toddler pacifiers for my kids, and they were both 3 when they gave them up.

Sally - posted on 08/11/2010

And the bathtub comment from JodiA- Not necessary. But I would have jumped on that type of comment too.
We have a small home. My husband was reading about 10 steps away from her. And my daughter loves the water. Her baths can go on forever. Her record is 1 hour 40 minutes. She talks non stop so we can hear her and she knows how to swim. Besides every 5 minutes she wants "to show you something." So while it may have sounded like I was ignoring her to play on COM, just not the case. Daddy was in charge, she just likes me to wash her hair and dry her off.

Sally - posted on 08/11/2010

http://www.aafp.org/afp/2009/0415/p681.h...


Main point worth reading, as follows-
**Pacifier use should no longer be actively discouraged and may be especially beneficial in the first six months of life. However, the risks begin to outweigh the benefits around six to 10 months of age and appear to increase after two years of age. Because research suggests that limiting pacifier use does not significantly affect crying or fussing, physicians should be prepared to counsel parents about soothing alternatives and pacifier weaning. Physicians should be mindful that after six months of age, pacifiers transform from a means of nonnutritive sucking to objects of affection that give the child a sense of security.3 Removing the pacifier can be a great source of anxiety for children and parents. Key alternatives to pacifier use in younger infants include swaddling, rocking, soft music, singing, and infant massage.46 Older infants or toddlers may be distracted from pacifiers with activities, toys, or other objects of affection.

I think it is a fairly concise article from a very reputable source.

Chatty - posted on 08/11/2010

Thank YOU, Jane.....FINALLY back to the actual question that was asked a zillion years ago. Sally obviously didn't wanna debate about the marketing aspect of it.

Jane - posted on 08/11/2010

I have yet to figure out why people get all up in arms about kids over 1 (or whatever age) having a pacifier. If it's not your kid, why do you care? I'm not asking anyone specifically but the pacifier conversation happens so much on COM and it's the same old story.

If it's your kid...take them off whatever you want, whenever you want but why worry about someone else's child when it comes to things like a pacifier or the bottle.

To answer the question...yep, it's marketed to toddlers because there is a market for it. Who would buy it? Obviously enough people for them to make one. I don't find it gross and I'm not appalled! Believe me, they did their homework...marketing folks look for the "market". If they're making it, it's selling!

Jodi - posted on 08/11/2010

Well, both of my kids had pacifiers as toddlers, and neither of them has teeth or speech problems. Just saying.....



But then, I never left a 3 year old in the tub while I was on the computer, so I guess we are all different in our parenting.....



As to whether there needs to be toddler sized pacifiers, specifically designed for them, I think that is probably going a little too far.

Chatty - posted on 08/11/2010

No, you're right Sally. Jaime, sorry to correct you but it was Rachel who implied that her AND Sally weren't here for debate but Sally clearly stated very early on that she wants to debate.

Anyhow, Sally, you claim that you've provided "evidence" but I've yet to see these studies that you claim to have to many of to list? We can't debate them if you don't let us see them??

"So far I have found several studies(legit ones) linking pacifier use to ear infections and speech delay and dental issues. Too many link to post. No studies to prove a need"

Where are YOUR links that tell me that my child WILL have speech problems, teeth/jaw development issues, ear infections etc? No studies, no amount of studies can say for certain that using a pacifier will absolutely cause these problems.....as a matter of fact they say that while pacifiers might not be ideal, there IS definitely a need for them in some cases and they just advise to use them properly.

I just want to be clear about one thing and maybe this will help us come to some sort of common ground. I don't think, and I've never said pacifiers are IDEAL....of course they're not ideal and if we could all have paci free children I'm sure we would but I think you need to realize that even despite the doctors and dentists advice, there CAN be and often is a need for them. Can we at least agree on that?

Jaime - posted on 08/11/2010

My bad, I thought you were the one to say that you weren't looking for a debate...it was Rachel that said it, so I stand corrected.

Sally - posted on 08/11/2010

I don't think I ever said I wasn't looking for a debate. Did I?? Oh well, maybe more later as I just got paged by a 3 year old who wants out of the tub.

Jaime - posted on 08/11/2010

Thanks for having our back Toni! ♥

Jaime - posted on 08/11/2010

Rachel, we didn't start out on the defensive. We offered a counter argument to the assertion made by Sally that there isn't a need for a toddler pacifier. You keep saying you could care less, and yet you continue to post and insist that you're not interested in arguing...a bit contradictory from where I'm sitting.

Jaime - posted on 08/11/2010

Dear Sally;
If you truly aren't looking to debate and argue the topic at hand, then perhaps next time you'll choose your wording more carefully:

"Are you kidding me? It is specifically marketed to toddlers. Who prefer a bigger pacifier. The article title "Giganti-Paci. I found this just gross. Who in their right mind would buy this??"

So, all us parents that buy our kids a jumbo pacifier are not in our right minds according to you...and somehow because you didn't specifically single any ONE of us out, it's not an attack on our parenting choices? Call me crazy I guess, because THIS statement does little to suggest that you aren't looking for a debate. Plus there's the fact that you posted your question in a debate community...but whatever.

Jennifer - posted on 08/11/2010

Lol I've missed quite a bit!!! The thing about dummys being associated with ear infections cracks me up...it's also said that formula fed babies are more likely to get ear infections. My son has a dummy and has been formula fed since 6 days old because I couldn't breastfeed him due to my milk not coming in...has he had an ear infection to this date (he's 8 1/2 months old), no he hasn't. Most studies show a "correlation" but that does not mean the direct cause is from using a dummy. I'm kinda getting bored of this topic...some children use dummys over the age of 1 or 2...get over it!

And Rachel I too am a young mam but there's no need to be so "proud" and brag about what you do. There is such thing as being modest...

Toni - posted on 08/11/2010

I do not generally like pacifiers (mainly because I like to see babies faces) BUT some children NEED them. I have experience of parents who allow misuse of the paci (one now needs speech therapy and another has jaw issues due to misuse, and others who have have had no bad effects), but I also know many people who use them responsibly. The reason this product is on the market is because there is a DEMAND for it - as Loureen says if a child is using a paci I would rather them have an appropriatly sized one for safety issues.

Sally - why are you so disgusted about the use of paci's in toddlers? Just because your child does not need a paci does not mean others do not - COMFORT IS A NEED!

Also Sally the finger sucking is advised for mums who are trying to BF because paci's are not recommended as they affect latching - my son sucked on my/ hubby's finger up to about a month old, so this is not saying that paci use is wrong just that to maintain a latch to the nipple fingers are best.

Rachel - this is a debating community and so the hot topics are for debating - really it is best to read the previous posts because they help to give you understanding about the topic and others perspectives. Dana, Jaime, and Charlene are VERY open minded and strive to learn and understand others viewpoints - they responded to what came across as a judgemental post claiming that what they were doing was wrong whether you intended it to or not!

Meghan my son crawls around with a sock in his chops and he is really selective he can have a choice of things other than socks bt he ALWAYS chooses socks be it mine, daddy's or his - clean or dirty (I hasten to add that I swap the dirty socks he picks up for clean ones) - this is one of the ways I know he is teething :-)

Chatty - posted on 08/11/2010

Yet you're STILL here Rachel? If you don't want to argue, then don't argue. MOVE ON!



Sally, while I don't dispute that any of those CAN be true, I think I've already made my point? None of the points you've mentioned apply to my situation AND if they don't apply to my situation then what do you want to bet that they don't apply to others situations. I don't tell anyone they SHOULD use a pacifier and I've already even agreed that if they're not used properly they CAN be detrimental BUT they're not always detrimental and my personal experience is evidence of that. I originally commented on this debate because I thought it was about the advertisment and whether or not there's a need for the product?



My personal experience and all the other personal experiences that people have shared on this thread are EVIDENCE that there's a NEED for these types of products and THEREFORE there's going to obviously be advertising. How is that not apparent to you?



I want to touch specifically on some of the points you mentioned in your most recent comment.



" Artificial pacifiers should be in addition to, not a substitute for, parental nurturing." - can you honestly tell me that you think the majority of people who use pacifiers are using them as a substitute for parental nurturing? C'mon! I've already explained that my daughter seldomly uses hers. My problem with all of these arguments is that they're generalizing and broad. You're stereotyping. I know a pacifier isn't ideal FOR YOU but it works for us.



About breastfeeding and pacifiers....I breastfed until 6 months and Roxanne never took a pacifier until she weaned from the breast.



She doesn't have any cavities, tooth/jaw developmental problems, speech deveopment issues, never had an ear ache etc.



I think you're taking the information a little to literally. From what I've read and understand doctors and dentists aren't completely against them, even for extended use, as long as you're using them properly.



I would still like to hear what you have to say about all the situations and experiences that people have presented for you as evidence that there obviously CAN be a need for them? This need we're talking about is why there's products and advertising.

Sally - posted on 08/11/2010

".....back them up with fact and personal experience."

I think I did back it with facts. You are correct though, I did not use personal experience. So here it goes...
My now 3 and 1/2 year old never had a pacifier. Not one time. Never has had an ear infection. Spoke her first word at 6 months. Has perfect teeth. Do I think not having a pacifier has something to do with all that? Yes, I do. Do I know that I am in the minority when it comes to not ever using a pacifier? Yep, I know that. I also know that my personal experience is ancedotal. As is all personal experiences.
It is my belief that if my child needs soothing, then that is my job/duty. It is my belief that a babys cries mean something. I believe that a cry is the only voice a baby has. And I believe that voice is important. I want to hear that voice/cry. I want to soothe, not just stop the cry/fuss/whatever. That is my personal experience.

Rachel - posted on 08/11/2010

Thank you Sally that was very informative and helpful. I agree that parent nurturing is VERY important!!
-There is that better! Did I offend you? I sure hope not.

Rachel - posted on 08/11/2010

Right so point of the story, sorry that I don't get off trying to tell someone else how to parent. Keeping in mind that I informed you previously that I don't "disagree" with your opinions, isn't that what you keep bringing up? And it may be a debate for people who want it to be one, but its also a topic, for people who choose. And I do believe that calling my thinking, "immature" and saying that I deserve a "blue ribbon like a 3rd grader," is a personal attack. No I do NOT want to debate; yes I do want to meet other mom's who share the same opinions. No I dont want to ARGUE about the "TOPIC". Yes I will stand up for myself against close minded people, who CONTINUE to argue, and think that their way is the ONLY WAY. Let's remember that 1-I didnt read the other opinions before I posted. I just became a member YESTERDAY, and am not familiar with how all this stuff works. 2-I never said FLAT OUT that I dont agree with having PACIFIERS for older children!!! My main point of the WHOLE POST that I made, was that you as the parent, have the choice to give your children these pacifiers initally, or control concerning if they keep using them, my daughter was fine with out one. That was the main point. You people are so defensive when someone disagrees, (not even knowing that they were,) and want to argue that they are fine for your children. Whatever!! Seriously, make sure you reference the point of someone's post, not just pieces that offend you, and that you OVER ANALYZE!!

Sally - posted on 08/11/2010

Ok, below are the main talking points from the Dr. Sears article that I read as not being supportive of prolonged pacifier use.
*In the early weeks, only the real nipple belongs in a baby's mouth. If you have a baby who really needs a pacifier, then use it, don't abuse it, and quickly try to lose it. * Key words "try to lose it early."
*When pacifier overuse is harming the teeth. Between two and three years of age, toddlers can cause their upper front teeth to protrude by sucking intensely on a pacifier, especially at night
*Our advice: Avoid pacifiers until your newborn learns to latch on properly and you have a good milk supply. If your own nipples are wearing out, or at least the mom they are attached to is, use your finger (or, better yet, get dad or someone else to give you a break). The skin-to-skin element is still there, and your index finger (or dad's little finger) can be placed more properly in baby's mouth to stimulate sucking at the breast. Many of our babies have been soothed by the touch of my well-scrubbed pinkie.* His own advice is to use a real body part.*
* As habitual substitutes for nurturing. Ideally, pacifiers are for the comfort of babies, not the convenience of parents (but I have yet to meet the ideal parent or the ideal baby and, believe it or not, you probably won't meet any on this site.) To insert the plug and leave baby in the plastic infant seat every time he cries is unhealthy reliance on an artificial comforter. This baby needs picking up and holding. Always relying on an alternative peacemaker lessens the buildup of baby's trust in the parents and denies the parents a chance to develop baby-comforting skills. Pacifiers are meant to satisfy intense sucking needs, not to delay or replace nurturing. A person should always be at the other end of a comforting tool.* Again, a real person should be doing the comforting.
*One study correlated pacifier use with frequency of ear infections.
*Prolonged pacifier use can lead to crooked teeth.
*We would vote for the thumb.
*Remember, pacifier means "peacemaker." Artificial pacifiers should be in addition to, not a substitute for, parental nurturing. A person should always be at the other end of a comforting tool. You are your baby's pacifier in falling asleep; the other pacifiers are an extra help

I read this article as being a negitive on pacifier use. It The continued theme of the article is a person is a better choice for soothing. A person (parent) shoudl always be on the other end of a comforting item.

I concede Dr. Sears did not come and say "don't use a pacifier." But neither did he jump up and down for their use. He very much encouraged personal soothing. With parental invovlement. Not something normally seen with pacifier use.

Chatty - posted on 08/11/2010

Rachel - "Focus your excitement on the people in your life who do matter, because I don't really care to argue with you. You all who are arguing obviously have nothing better to do then to try to put down someone who has a different view than you, how do you justify that?"



You don't really care to argue with me, yet here you are!



I justify that because this is a DEBATE! I'm not TRYING to put you down. This IS NOT a personal attack. I'm not putting down your opposing opinion....I'm TRYING to get you to understand that this is a debate and the whole point of a debate is to argue opposing opinions.....back them up with fact and personal experience.

Chatty - posted on 08/11/2010

Are you kidding me? The premise of this community is to debate.

"Maybe I had more to say, but I didn't point any one person out, so argue with someone who cares what you have to say and/or what your opinion is."

LMAO! Just because my name doesn't preceed your response doesn't mean you're not arguing with me, and others....it's obvious! If you're not here to debate or argue and you truly don't care then why are you bothering to respond? You're being Captain Defensive and instead of actually trying to understand our stance or learn something new/gain perspective etc. you're just getting your back up and completely missing our point.

Perhaps you misunderstand the point of these DEBATES? Even Sally refers to it as a debate.....don't make me go back and find it so I can quote her!

Rachel - posted on 08/11/2010

I didn't get on here to debate. I got on here to share my opinons and values with people who valued and shared my opinion. Thats why it's not only called "parenting debates" but also "Hot topics." So if you don't like what I have to say or disagree then deal with it, because I didn't get on here to debate. And I obviously cared what the topic was or I wouldn't have voiced my opinion to SALLY. And who cares if I had more to say then just "Sally, I agree with you, I have the opinion that not using one past a certain age has worked for me and my daughter, and I am confident in that. ♥" Im sure there would of been a smartass response to that too.

Maybe I had more to say, but I didn't point any one person out, so argue with someone who cares what you have to say and/or what your opinion is. It's called "circle of mom's" for a reason. To create a "circle" with mom's that have similar parenting styles as you. And I do take pride in my mothering. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with that. Obviously all of you do too, or it wouldn't bother you that someone opposes your opinion. . . . Focus your excitement on the people in your life who do matter, because I don't really care to argue with you. You all who are arguing obviously have nothing better to do then to try to put down someone who has a different view than you, how do you justify that?

Charlene - posted on 08/11/2010

Hehehehe. I'm not saying a word. :X

Chatty - posted on 08/11/2010

What other kind of blue ribbon is there? *giggles*

Charlene - posted on 08/11/2010

LMAO.. that's not what I thought of when you said blue ribbon Dana....

Chatty - posted on 08/11/2010

I was thinking more like a blue ribbon? .....you know, like the ones they give out for first place on sports day in GRADE 3!

Charlie - posted on 08/11/2010

Rachel wow congrats you are a mighty supreme mother , gold star for you ..........

Jaime - posted on 08/11/2010

Rachel, if you could care less, then why not just state this:

"Sally, I agree with you, I have the opinion that not using one past a certain age has worked for me and my daughter, and I am confident in that. ♥"

?

"Simply because I didn't wave it in her face to shut her up."

"This is like when children become obese, (keeping in mind that yes, some children have health issues and can't entirely help it,) but other times parents feed their children all the junky foods because they are easy and fast, which in turn can make them overweight.
Also I would like to note that my daughter doesn't have a "comfort item." I am her comfort, and the other people that love her."

We didn't assume that you thought our methods are wrong, you clearly implied it.

Chatty - posted on 08/11/2010

" I have the opinion that not using one past a certain age has worked for me and my daughter, and I am confident in that"

Rachel - THAT is not what YOU or the original post (Sally) was stating. Your annoyance is obvious. We understand that you don't like it when you see a toddler with a soother BUT this is a DEBATE and we're trying to offer an opposing argument to the original post. YOU and SALLY aren't counter arguing....you obviously don't understand what a debate is if you're just going to offer your opinion once or without reading the entire thread. WHY bother with a debate then?

Rachel - posted on 08/11/2010

I find it kind of funny that all of you get worked up about this. I am not saying any of your ways are wrong. That was the assumption made by you. I am simply adding my input in reply to the post. I could care less really. In fact I didn't even read the other posts before I posted my reply to the topic. So no I didn't read up on it, but I don't have to because I wasn't pointing fingers saying that people who use them are for their children are wrong, I was simply stating that I agreed with the topic and that not using one has worked for me and my daughter. So, I would suggest before you get all huffy puffy, and literal about what I have to say, NOTE, that I didnt point anyone out. You obviously took it personal, I didn't. I don't "boast" about my daughter, I brag just like any other proud mom would do. And from everyone that knows me and the way I raise my daughter, they note that I am doing a DAMN fine job. So, argue all you want. . . Sally, I agree with you, I have the opinion that not using one past a certain age has worked for me and my daughter, and I am confident in that. ♥