Babies are still gestating 9 months after birth

[deleted account]

Why don't people like to CIO? If you don't like it why would you still do it? There's a reason that it makes you uncomfortable. It goes against our natural instincts to respond to our infants.

Kate CP - posted on 04/17/2011

It's actually better for babies to wake frequently during the night if they are under 6 months of age. It decreases their risk of SIDS.

Minnie - posted on 04/15/2011

I wonder about a million years of human evolution and the biological expectations that infants are programmed with. No other primate leaves its infant to sleep by itself. They cling to their mothers and are carried all day long. Seems more like CIO is a cultural development of western expectations and that we are a bit removed from what is biologically appropriate for our species.

Minnie - posted on 04/21/2011

The point of using the word 'gestation' is that human infants are so underdeveloped that the biological expectation of human infants is to remain in similar conditions that they had in the womb. Yes, it is not -exactly- like the womb- but near constant bodily contact and nursing on-cue support those needs of the human infant.

Gorilla babies are born about nine months ahead, developmentally-wise than humans. We are born underdeveloped because of our bipedal nature- the infant's brain can only grow so big, and we make very big babies respective to our body size.

Charlie - posted on 04/20/2011

It makes total sense gestation means to carry until fruition , the article states : According to Montagu's extensive research and knowledge of anatomy, physiology and anthropology, he says the human newborn is around "half-done", delivered only out of physiological need to still be able to fit out of their mom.

meaning an infant below 9 months needs to be in regular physical contact to ensure proper development until independence is developmentally appropriate , mentally they do not view theselves as a seperate entity to their mother which is CIO would be developmentally innapropiate .

Merry - posted on 09/01/2011

Kellie, just set your thread style to 'most recent' that way the recent posts are right on top :)

Sherri - posted on 09/01/2011

Mine were equally as well adjusted never baby wore, were sleeping 100% in their own rooms, in their own cribs by 12wks and 1 never breastfed, 2nd only breastfed to 12wks, 3rd only breastfed for 4wks. Let them CIO when they were just fussy, not hungry, freshly changed and holding them did not comfort them but were just fighting sleep.

So although doing opposite of what I did is great. I don't believe any baby is any worse off, less secure, feels less loved or anything else for those who don't.

Kellie - posted on 08/31/2011

i see the glitch is back, posting to see.

Tanya - posted on 08/31/2011

I absolutely believe this. For me, I let this stage go on longer than 9 months, so that they can develop and separate on their own time. My almost 16-month-old is still nursing on demand (when I'm home), sleeps near or with me (when I'm home), and is carried a lot of the time when we are out. He is happy and well-adjusted, which is necessary when I'm working 12-hour shifts full-time!

Merry - posted on 08/31/2011

In saw a show about a herd of elephants and the baby had een speared by a local and he needed help medically so the vets found the herd and shot the baby elephant with a tranquilizer gun and he got woozy, he started stumbling weakly and a few elephants came around him and lifted him up onto his feet with their tusks and trunks! But he was affected by the tranquilizer and he wouldn't stand up. So they circled around him and wouldn't let the humans near. They shot their guns into the air to scare the herd off so they could help the baby and they all ran- except his mom. She charged the humans five times and ran off after the shot the gun five times. Finally she left her baby. But she stayed close. When they had gotten the spear out and cleaned it up the baby got up and he found his mom quickly :)
Off topic I know but jennifers post reminded me of it and it was such a sweet representation of how 'human' elephants are. :)

Jennifer - posted on 08/31/2011

Development at birth depends on the species. Kangaroos and Koalas are born at a very low development, and if they don't make it to mom's pouch they're gonners. Not even zoos can save them. Most reptiles are born(wether live birth or through eggs) fully functioning, mini adults, but birds are hatched out of eggs helpless as they can be! Frogs are "born" at a low fetal development stage, tadpoles look just like our fetus at a young age, but they function on their own after birth, even though as adults the bones structure is still strikingly simialiar to our own. Horses and elephants have some of the most developed new borns, walking and running just hours after birth, but they never leave their babies. Dogs and cats, both wild and domestic, on the other hand, give birth to helpless infants, that can't even see or hear, but leave their infants frequently, usually for an hour or longer very shortly after birth. Animals(all of us) deliver their babies at a gestational age that is right for the adult's survivial. Nature, if pressed, prefers the adult to live, not the infant, cold hard fact. Species that are big enough will defend their young, but most adult animals will run instead of protecting their babies. Bears and elephants protect, wolves and deer run. I know alot of thought was put into this article, but not alot of animal knowledge was used. As to whether it proves a point, I didn't think so.....

Kellie - posted on 08/30/2011

How fascinating! This

"Let them separate and mature as they're ready, and accept that it can take a lot of time. They're born totally helpless, and independence is developed, not taught. They'll separate when they're biologically designed to."

describes how I feel about it pretty perfectly.

Sally - posted on 08/30/2011

Shouldn't reply here but what the heck. I hate CIO. Its is mean. A babies only way to communicate is to cry. What if you used all your words, all your pleading, all the verbal power you had and noone came to your aid? How would you feel? Lost, alone, abandoned? Yes it makes a case against CIO. But then anyone with any common sense can make a case against cry it out. CIO goes against everything we know about a babies brain development. Boggles my mind that the CIO debate keeps chugging along.

Janice - posted on 08/28/2011

I'm just now coming across this. What an interesting article. I think this article could be used as an argument against women returning to work early too. I thought it was very interesting that humans are considered to have lowered materal instinct. Before my daughter was born I said I would try breastfeeding but if it didn't work out no biggie. From the moment she was born this wave of instincts came over and I felt that breastfeeding was the only way, formula wouldn't due. At 10 months I did sleep train my daughter but I stayed with her while she cried in her crib and soothed her with my voice. It completely baffles me how we have trained our society to think that newborn needs can be pushed aside. Considering that all babies develop skills at different rates I'm skepitical that 9 mo. is the magic age but I do think that the expectations some people have of their babies is unacceptable.

Kate CP - posted on 04/21/2011

Cynthia: Yes! Thank you. :D

Merry - posted on 04/21/2011

Heehee Eric walked at 9 months! Like a newborn horse or something I guess :)

Cynthia - posted on 04/20/2011

now thinking more about it i guess it would be less then when they can walk. and 9 months is about when they can understand that they are in charge of their actions. i guess it would be until they can make simple decisions. ...ikd

Cynthia - posted on 04/20/2011

ok i read the damn articale. I agree that babies may be out of the womb but they are not developed enough to be away from their mom. i agree that CIO approach is expecting them to do something they are not developmentally able to do. i dont think it means that their is a 18 month gestation period. only because i dont think you can but an age on development. i actually think in this sence it would be until the baby can walk if the word didnt mean in the womb... just saying... That better Kate? this was a fun debate anyway:)

Kate CP - posted on 04/20/2011

Thank you. :)

Cynthia - posted on 04/20/2011

@kate...LOL ok u win, i will read the damn articale:) but i'm already right about the word. i get that its not the point. i'm going to actually read the artical even though by title it is oxymoron...

Kate CP - posted on 04/20/2011

READ THE DAMN ARTICLE!!!!!

Cynthia - posted on 04/20/2011

that makes the statement that 10 month old babies dont need regular physical contact true. which in my opinion is not ture. is it true that a 3 year old doent need physical contact? or even a 27 year old dont they need physical contact too. after and b4 birth dont we all need physical contact? i dont understand why some moms would let a 0-9 month old cry with out physical contact but it cant be true that it is damaging to human gestational development because that part of life is already past. to say that a baby is half done seems the same as to say a 11 year old is half grown. so if his definition of gestation means until fruition, why 9 months? why not 10 months or 10 years or 18 years would be about right, well for some it would be more like 21 or 25 years... gestation means in the womb.

Kate CP - posted on 04/20/2011

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionar...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionar...

So, yes, the common definition of gestation or gestate is "to carry in the uterus", but it also means the development of an idea.

So, honestly, if you had read the article I think you would have a better understanding of what we are talking about.

Cynthia - posted on 04/20/2011

OMG I wish they slept 8 hours a night. Im just confused about the question and how they relate.

Yes our babies need us after birth. and if we want to let them cry they will still need us after birth. If we help them grow and develop by holding them when they cry or if we let them learn and grow and develop alone they will still need us for many things. this is still not gestation. by definition that means in the womb. and eaither way it doesnt really matter when you add up the 18 years that they are going to need us. if u let them cry or not, does it even matter when you look at the big picture?

[deleted account]

They actually do think babies cry in the womb. I have read several articles about viewing what looks like crying on ultrasounds. If they do actually cry in the womb they are soothed by our sounds, movements, smell, touch (being snuggled tight in the uterus). This article is talking about how even after they're born they still need all of these things from us (smell, touch, to hear our voice). The reason I asked about CIO is because our society seems to think that babies must be sleeping 8+ hours a night by a very young age or if we hold our babies or respond to their needs all the time they will become "spoiled".

Cynthia - posted on 04/20/2011

Seriously, the "Human Gestation" period is 9 months. Children do not gestate outside the womb, they grow, age, develope. Gestation occurs inside the womb. Period. What that has to do with Crying it out is unclear to me, but im pretty sure cio has nothing to do with the gestation period either, beacuse babies cant cry in the womb.

Tinker1987 - posted on 04/19/2011

and for the record i dont co sleep with my child. i get up with him and try and figure out the problem or rock him and put him back down he doesnt sleep in my bed and i dont sleep in his room.

Merry - posted on 04/19/2011

I too tried CIO, I'm not speaking from ignorance. I waited all of two minutes two separate nights. There, that was my attempt to be a 'good mommy' as I was told and to 'teach ' my baby to sleep.

In those two minutes both times I decided that it's not what I should be doing. It felt wrong. He wasn't even crying, he was whining and whimpering etc. But I heard his voice, and in his noises he was saying he needed me. Or wanted me. I don't care which. Point is he was communicating to me he wasn't ok being in his crib alone. And I believed that there was no reason he should be ignored. I created him, I should do as he needs. And I believe emotions are needs. If he is simply lonely in his crib then it's my job to be there.

If all he wants is to hear my heartbeat then that's my job to be there.

He always slept a total of at least 10 hours, so even if I was awake 2 hours broken up in the night I was still getting a full 8 hour nights sleep!

No sleep deprivation for me. And he was in a crib in the next room! So every time he woke I'd get out of bed and breastfeed him back to sleep, put him in his crib and return to bed myself. Did that for the last two years and low and behold he is now sleeping most nights all the way without needing me. He learned to sleep without me!

And how did he learn this? By trusting that IF he needs me I will always be there. So now he is able to recognize if he needs me or not. Sometimes I hear him wake, roll over, suck his thumb, and fall back. He knows if he called out id be there, but now at 2 years he often doesn't feel the need to get me.

No baby needs to be taught how to sleep, they only need to be guided to sleep until they are capable of doing it on their own. There's no 35 year olds out there who still breastfeed to sleep and bed share with their moms. And there's a heck of alot of moms who never let their baby cry to sleep.

Btw, I'm going to be bed sharing with my daughter when she is born, it's a heck of alot easier then getting up and going to another room to bf baby back to sleep. So this time I'll get even more sleep!

Minnie - posted on 04/19/2011

The point of this thread isn't to villify parents who choose to sleep train, nor is it to call them 'wrong' or 'bad' for doing so- the point is to show that human infants are born with certain expectations, abilities and limitations due to their developmental biology. Yes- parents choose to use CIO as a matter of course because it is their right to raise their children how they see fit. Parents choose to not carry their infants in slings or breastfeed because it is their right not to.



However- as mammals who birth extremely underdeveloped young the natural expectation of those young is near-constant contact with the source of protection, warmth and nourishment- mother- through carrying, contact while sleeping, and breastfeeding. Those are the biological normalities.



This really is a pretty cut-and-dry thread. It's not a moral thread. It's not CIO-bad-cosleep-good, it's simply discussing the physiologies of our infants.

[deleted account]

When placed into a crib from mums (or someones arms) many babies wake up within 15 minutes because there is a loss of warmth, they cannot hear/ feel the rhythm of our heartbeat, they cannot smell us etc, just because a baby is asleep doesn't mean their senses are not still being used. A baby waking is not necessarily because they have a sleep association.

Charlie - posted on 04/19/2011

I dont think anyone claims to be superior ... we are debating this topic , I know what sleep association is the point is infants arent meant to be "independent " they are usually not naturally developed enough to be independant , the point of this whole thread being developmentally infants are not ready to be thrust into independence , it isnt biologically natural .

They dont just respond to the sight of us when they speak of object permanence but also to our smell , breathing patterns , warmth and touch ......they grow out of this but in the early stages it is still a biological need one that (western) society is keen to push out as soon as possible

Like I said earlier though sometimes when things like severe sleep dep happen it puts you in a situation where you have to make a choice between sleep " training" and sanity , the argument being that it isnt so much a need to form independence as it is often said but a need to find equal grounds for happiness in the family home , I dont question your relationship with your children .and it is never my intention to make you feel that you need to explain yourself .

[deleted account]

I knew this would degenerate into a personal attack. I am not stupid, confused, or lazy. It's a shame that some of you feel the need to vilify me for my personal beliefs (which come from an educated and thoughtful perspective, by the way).

Loureen, sleep association is when someone thinks they cannot do something without the aid of an external tool. Every time I placed my baby in her crib, she would wake and cry. It had nothing to do with waking and not finding me there.

Sleep training works extremely well, and plenty of parents use it effectively without harming their children. I sleep trained my children, and we have very close, healthy, and happy relationships.

If you choose to co-sleep, CONGRATULATIONS! But that doesn't make you a superior parent. I'd venture to say you'll end up making some other choice in your parenting journey that could be debated ad nausem.

Tinker1987 - posted on 04/18/2011

Some of these comments udderly disgust me! Babies dont be trained to sleep that is just stupid. as a adult,if you are in discomfort and have to wake up do you relieve yourself ,like go to the bathroom,or if you have a sore muscle get up and pop a pill or do you train yourself to stay asleep 8-12 hours, why should it be any different for babies and kids,if they are waking up during the night it is obvious they are in discomfort and are looking for comfort for from someone who is supose to be their mother,not a lazy ass who just cares about getting a full nights sleep and ignore their baby all night.SIDS risk doesnt decrease until after a year so i think you need educate yourself schmoopy! i dont care if im a walking zombie ill always comfort my child if he wakes up in the night. ive never done CIO and my baby sleeps 10-12 hours a night sometimes 14 accept for the one time he had what seemed to be a nightmare.and even then i ran to his side.

Charlie - posted on 04/18/2011

You are confusing sleep association with object permanence When something or someone is out of sight, it is out of mind. Most babies less than a year old do not have the ability to think of mother as existing somewhere else. When babies awaken alone in a crib, they become frightened and are often unable to resettle back into deep sleep. Mom is missing, and she may be gone forever. Because of this separation anxiety, repeated night after night, they learn that sleep is a fearful state to remain in , this is also true of when the warmth of your body leaves theirs , they know you are now no longer there .

For some babies this isnt a problem but for many it is .

Dr. James J. McKenna, Professor of Anthropology and the Director of the Center for Behavioral Studies of Mother-Infant is the worlds leading expert on infant sleep and SIDS not only encourages co sleeping he RECOMMENDS it .

" Judging from the infant's biology and evolutionary history, proximity to parental sounds, smells, gases, heat, and movement during the night is precisely what the human infant's developing system "expects," since these stimuli were reliably present throughout the evolution of the infant's sleep physiology. The human infant is born with only 25 percent of its adult brain volume, is the least neurologically mature primate at birth, develops the most slowly, and while at birth is prepared to adapt, is not yet adapted. In our enthusiasm to push for infant independence (a recent cultural value), I sometimes think we forget that the infant's biology cannot change quite so quickly as can cultural child care patterns."

"An infant sleeping for long periods in social isolation from parents constitutes an extremely recent cultural experiment, the biological and psychological consequences of which have never been evaluated. Most Americans assume that solitary sleep is "normal," the healthiest and safest form of infant sleep. Psychologists as well as parents assume that this practice promotes infantile physiological and social autonomy. Recent studies challenge the validity of these assumptions and provide many reasons for postulating potential benefits to infants sleeping in close proximity to their parents – benefits which would not seem likely with solitary sleeping. Current clinical models of the development of "normal" infant sleep are based exclusively on studies of solitary sleeping infants. Since infant-parent co-sleeping represents a species-wide pattern, and is practiced by the vast majority of contemporary peoples, the accepted clinical model of the "ontogeny" of infant sleep is probably not accurate, but rather reflects only how infants sleep under solitary conditions. I wonder whether our cultural preferences as to how we want infants to sleep push some infants beyond their adaptive limits."

"McKenna suggests that there are several factors that maintain this cultural norm. Foremost is the American value of self-sufficiency. Independence is an important characteristic for a successful person in our society. We take great pride in watching our babies pick themselves up by their own bootie straps. But the assumption that co-sleeping inhibits independence is pure cultural mythology. In fact, the opposite it true.

Children who share sleep with their parents are actually more independent than their peers. They perform better in school, have higher self esteem, and fewer health problems. After all, who is more likely to be well-adjusted, the child who learns that his needs will be met, or the one who is left alone for long periods of time? McKenna suggests that it is confusing for a baby to receive cuddles during the day while also being taught that the same behavior is inappropriate at night."

I think there is a lot to be said for the worlds leading expert on infant to sleep to promote co sleeping and it's Biological Imperatives.

Harvard psychiatrist Michael Commons and his colleagues recently presented the American Association for the Advancement of Science with research that suggests that babies who sleep alone are more susceptible to stress disorders .

[deleted account]

If baby's need to be taught how to sleep then why would a child who isn't sleep trained sleep? Wouldn't they wake up all night long forever?

[deleted account]

Loureen, it's not a fallacy. I experienced it firsthand. My daughter would wake EVERY TIME I'd put her down. And she'd fall asleep immediately when I picked her up again. If that's not a sleep association, then I don't know what is.

Mary Renee - posted on 04/18/2011

I agree with this article. I have heard of the "fourth trimester" but I understood it to only really be the first 3 months.



That said, I co-sleep and breastfeed on demand (still) and my daughter is already 11 months old! I don't actually recommend co-sleep to other people, and I get SO much crap about it from my family, but for me it's been wonderful. I've been able to breastfeed her through out the night with out really having to wake up, just slight adjustment and switching sides.



I wish that the United States would take heed of some of these ideas and mandate a more reasonable duration for maternity leave!



Also, I don't believe in crying-it-out at all! It goes against every thing that comes natural to us. I remember the newborn stage, it was not that far away, I remember the exhaustion. This is where I think the "It takes a village to raise a child" saying comes in. Ask for help, take a nap when the baby naps, do what you can do but it always helped me to keep in mind that they are not infants forever! In fact 9 months goes by so so fast, spend this time loving them, attending to them, and putting them first because before you know it they'll be teenagers and won't want you around, haha.

Minnie - posted on 04/18/2011

It definitely is a fallacy- my second has never been sleep trained. She's been nursed on-cue and she's 2 1/2 now. And she's gradually cut down on the number of times she requests to nurse during the night. Recently she's sat up and asked for some water a couple of times. She's learned that we sleep at night because we use the bed for sleep and keep the lights off. Everyone else in the house is sleeping as well. Same way she learned to use a fork, spoon and knife. We set the utensils before her at every meal and simply by observing and manipulating them she learned by herself. A child who isn't sleep trained isn't going to grow up into an adult that needs to be nursed to sleep.



I know what is 'natural' based on biology. Waking to nurse is 'natural' because of the composition of our milk and the physiology of an infant's nervous system. Needing to be close to mother is 'natural' because we are mammals who produce low-protein milk necessitating frequent nursing and extremely underdeveloped young.



I am surmising that it is societal and cultural expectations that has created this sleep deprivation. Loureen is right- sometimes that desperation leads to a mother thinking she has no choice. I'm sure that a working mother feels she has no other way out if her baby is in the crib and she's up and down all night long.



I personally am not sleep deprived and never experienced it with my youngest, even during her newborn period. I can't claim that everyone should feel like I did, but I managed easily because I brought her into bed with me and nursed her while I was sleeping. I got a full night's rest every night with her, despite her waking frequently to nurse. During the day her needs were tended to quickly by keeping her in a mei tai. I was sleep deprived with my first because I was told that I shouldn't sleep with her and shouldn't nurse her at night past a certain age. Cultural expectations.

Charlie - posted on 04/18/2011

Slings mimic the womb and is often also worn by the mother only hagning it while working unlike a crib ( I have no problem with cribs I use one but there is a clear difference )



"When an infant develops a "sleep association" with a parent or a pacifier, they become unable to fall asleep independently, and they DO need to be taught how to sleep. "



Sorry that is a fallacy CIO advocates cling to , you use CIO for your own sleep deprivation ? fine but please stop spreading this notion that children who co sleep or bed share become little molluscs , Not I nor many other parents who have used it have ever had a problem with ourchildrens independence in fact it has only served to build their confidence .



You can't argue aganist science and biology , you can fight it though , society has had unrealistic expectations of infants for quiet a long time now , only now that technology and long term studies are coming to fruition are we able to clearly understand the effect we have on our children through our actions .



Believe me I understand sleep deprivation , I sympathise with it , sometimes you gotta do what you have gotta do as long as it isnt abusive ( And I dont believe a child who fusses in their crib is being abused ) I do think when you are pushed to that point that you DO have to go against your instincts to find some sanity .



I do not believe baby's need to be sleep trained , I know some children just arent snugglers , I know mummies some times need relief though , I think sometimes we should look at the real reasons for CIO and not balme it on this idea that it must be done to create independent children .

[deleted account]

Sara D., I couldn't disagree more with your statement that babies do not need to be taught to sleep. When an infant develops a "sleep association" with a parent or a pacifier, they become unable to fall asleep independently, and they DO need to be taught how to sleep.



Lisa, How do you know what's the "natural thing to do"? There are plenty of cultures around the world that do not center around sleeping with your baby or baby-wearing. Mothers in some cultures hang their babies in a sling on a nearby tree while they work all day, and the baby is (by all accounts) content all day.



Also, no other mammal can think or feel the way humans can either. But we don't think of ourselves as being unnatural in that way. Maybe BECAUSE we think and feel, we're able to solve problems (like sleep-related ones) in ways other than what a common mammal is instinctively programmed to do.



I will say that if YOU are ok with all the sleep deprivation and enjoy co-sleeping, more power to ya! But I generally find an undertone (or sometimes an outright attitude) of judgment when people speak out in favor of CIO.

Minnie - posted on 04/18/2011

I'm against it because it is biologically appropriate for an infant to wake during the night. I also nurse on-cue. I don't believe in teaching my children to sleep any more than I need to teach them to sit-up, walk, feed themselves or talk. We're firm believers in bedsharing.



I understand the feeling of desperation due to lack of sleep- I had that with my first and turned to her doctor. He told me "you have to let her cry herself to sleep. She's not going to learn to sleep otherwise." So we did CIO.



If I instead had heard "yeah that IS tiring- it's OK to keep your daughter in bed with you and nurse her during the night. Pop her on and go back to sleep while she nurses." I would have gotten sleep, she would have gotten sleep, and she wouldn't have had to cry herself to sleep alone in a crib. But she did, because someone told me she had to, placed western expectations upon her and my family.



No one is saying that parents who practice CIO don't love their children. The subject of the thread is on human infant development and biological expectations. It simply isn't, by logic, a natural thing to do- to allow an infant to cry to sleep. No other mammal does it, and no other primate certainly considers forcing schedules and separate sleep on their infants. Humans do because we bring societal and cultural expectations into our infant care. But our physiology hasn't changed.

[deleted account]

Sleeping doesn't need to be taught. Babies do it when they're ready. Everyone told us that we HAD to let our daughter CIO. Yeah I tried several versions of it, but I didn't like it. I even tried the Sleep Lady who says to stay in the room. Didn't like that either. It went against every instinct that I had as a mother (I'm this is how *I* felt). My daughter is almost 2 and sleeps well unless she's sick and she did it all on her own.





Also, at 6 months their risk for SIDS decreases, but it's still a concern. It's not until 2 years that there's pretty much no risk for SIDS.

Sherri - posted on 04/18/2011

My feeling is sometimes after the age of 6mo's they are just cranky and no amt. of holding will change their crying. Sometimes when you know they truly need nothing, they are not hungry, wet, sick and holding them is not soothing them either, it is time to just lay them down because what they need most is some sleep. So I let them cry themselves to sleep. Usually they were asleep within 5-10mins.

[deleted account]

Lisa, why are you 100% against it? BTW, I don't expect any baby to sleep through the night by a certain age. That's not why I resorted to CIO.



Sara D, yes, hearing a baby cry makes me uncomfortable. But long-term sleep deprivation makes me uncomfortable, too. Plus it makes me a less patient and understanding mother. Doesn't that count for anything?

Minnie - posted on 04/18/2011

Did you read my last response, Schmoopy? I DID use CIO with my first. And I am 100% against it now. I've got experience on both sides of the fence.

[deleted account]

All the anti-CIO comments make it obvious to me that none of you has ever tried it. And until you do, you won't understand it at all. You'll just see it as an extreme measure that borders on abusive, when that's not at all what it is.

It's hard to hear your baby cry. But when you employ CIO (which is not incessant, ignored crying, BTW), you do it knowing that you're teaching your baby a crucial life skill: how to sleep. And CIO isn't recommended until a baby is at least 6 months old, which is out of the SIDS danger zone, FYI.

If you want to have a debate on the subject, at least educate yourself on what you're debating.

[deleted account]

As a mum who used CIO and will use it with my next child if they need it, I don't feel that it was against nature, or that t has harmed my child, myself or our bond. Although the more I read about CIO on here the more I realise we probably didn't do what many of you guys consider CIO, we NEVER left our son crying, we only ever ignored his fussing because we found that when he was ready for bed he didn't want us to fuss, he wanted to be left alone to go to sleep. He used to moan to himself for a few minutes before bed, now he chats to himself but it is what he needs. In the night if he wakes we gauge his 'cry' - if he is crying we instantly go to him, if he is whimpering we leave him as he will go back to sleep. I want to shake these moms who think that to get baby to sleep they have leave them alone for hours even if they are crying and are in distress!

Merry - posted on 04/17/2011

You are totally right Lisa, it's the idea that -if your baby isn't sleeping through at x age then your baby is abnormal,and requires 'fixing'

I remember at my sons well baby check up at 6,9,12,&18 months each time his dr asked me if he was sleeping through the night. I'd always say, yeah he sleeps 10-12 hours a night, and breastfeeds x amount of times in the middle. She would ask, are you ok with that? I'd say yes I am! And she always says that's wonderful, he benefits from your comfort and from the milk any time of the day or night.

I feel bad she had to ask if I was ok with it, to me it just felt normal, but it seems many moms think it's a crisis if their baby needs a night time feed past a certain age. I always assumed, if he doesn't need me, he won't wake up! If he wakes up, then obviously something isn't ideal, be it hunger thirst or simply being cold, lonely, scared, or whatever! It just felt right to go to hum if he cries, even now, at two he sleeps most nights through but if I hear him call out mom I feel it's just my job to be there for him.

Minnie - posted on 04/17/2011

On behalf of parents who use CIO I know that they don't think it is 'wrong' but simply what they have to do. As a parent that did use CIO for my first child and did spank as well, I believed that there just are some unpleasant things you have to do in order to raise your children the right way. I didn't think it was the wrong thing to do. I know better now.



I DO think that our culture has done parents and babies a serious wrong creating these expectations of infants sleeping through the night- and not providing the community that mothers of infants need for support and help. Other cultures have no expectations of infants sleeping through the night by a particular age and no one gets desperate over the biologically normal behavior of infants waking frequently or having 'funny' sleep cycles. It's the industrial revolution that created this expectation of being awake all day long to work and sleeping straight through all night long. It's not how our species evolved.

Merry - posted on 04/17/2011

I agree, why would I do something that feels wrong? I mean if I have to have a bodyguard to keep me from my baby, how is this what the baby needs?
I just feel like the only one benefitting from CIO is the mom, baby doesn't benefit at all. And honestly mom doesn't benefit much either because after forcing yourself to ignore your baby when it's needing you couldn't be healthy for the mother baby bond and trust.
Losing your sensitivity to your baby's emotions can't be a positive thing!

[deleted account]

I guess I'll have to be the lone CIO advocate. All I want to say on the subject is that NO parent who uses CIO likes it!!! (Same as being Pro-Life - no pro-lifer "likes" abortion!) CIO is a tool that most parents don't use unless they're desperate! That said, it's a tool that works for many, many people. These are people who love their babies just as much as all of you. And most of their babies turn out to be just as wonderful as yours. Just remember that.

Merry - posted on 04/15/2011

Sounds very accurite! Babies should be with mom alot, why would we expect a newborn to be ok with being apart from the woman who they were inside of 24/7 just days before? I mean that's just illogical. Humans need touch, they need comfort. And babies need alot of it! I think babies for sure benefit from being carried most of the day, and sleeping in moms arms all night. Why else would this be our instinct?
I assume Fierna will be in the moby wrap all day, breastfeed a few times an hour, and sleep in my arms at night, still breast-feeding a few times an hour.
I just think this is the most logical and instinctual way to care for a baby. (two weeks til I'm due! Yay!)

Juliana - posted on 04/15/2011

I didnt use the CIO until my kids were over 1 yr old. My daughter had a hard time falling asleep and having a routine. I would never use the CIO with my 6 month old, when he needs Mommy then I come. I dont think it should be used until they can understand the word NO.

Sherri - posted on 04/14/2011

Eh I don't know if I go for this. If I knew once my babies were about 6mo's old and they were just cranky I certainly let them CIO. They were never allowed to sleep with us ever. From day one they slept in a bassinet near me for the first few weeks then straight to their cribs in their own rooms. I was fine giving my oldest a bottle from birth, 2nd by 12wks and youngest breast milk in a bottle after a few days. They got plenty of snuggles and holding all day long and especially during feedings but just don't think it has to be an all the time thing. I was never a baby wearer, wasn't for me or any of my children. They were much happier being set down and able to explore with me just being nearby.

Tinker1987 - posted on 04/14/2011

loved that this article came up! now i hope all the tough love mothers out there read this. I will never do CIO. until its age appropriate.but even then that will be the absoloute last resort!