What are you really saying, here?

Here’s an odd debate beginning to swirl in Kuala Lumpur… On the face of it, the authorities are worried about the health risks posed to a woman her and adopted child if hormones are taken to stimulate milk production. I don’t know… Kate over at Babylune or Angela at Breastfeeding 1-2-3 would know more than I do about the effects of such hormone therapy (though I have to interject, is anyone descrying the effects of estrogen on a woman’s health loud enough to make taking the Pill or estrogen replacement therapies a bit scary in the average woman’s mind??)

If I were to read between the lines, this article’s summary would be something like:

Single mothers threaten the patriarchal structure of our way of life and must be stopped! Taking hormones to stimulate lactation is a step too far in women’s independence! Single women adopting children and nursing them is immoral! Want to know how I get that message from this article? I’ll start with this quote:

“If a woman is lactating naturally because she recently gave birth, and wants to adopt, then there is no problem.” 

How does a woman in that society come by nursing naturally? She is married. Because pregnancy out of wedlock under Islam* is the ultimate taboo. It just ‘doesn’t happen’. Sure, we can dress it up in the fancy clothes of concern for the dyad’s health, but what it comes down to is a cultural clash of the old ways versus the new. All I’m really weighing here is this…

Single women are adopting babies and nutruing them. A good mother is a good mother. Nuff said.

*for the record, the version of Islam I learned when with my women friends in the UAE? Beautiful. I’ll draw great distinctions between worship and religion as a man-made institution.