Woman who breast fed her lesbian partner's baby wins landmark High Court ruling

Grab All Association

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2621560/Woman-breast-fed-lesbian-partners-baby-wins-landmark-High-Court-ruling-little-girls-psychological-parent.html

Check out some of the 1950s comments all thumbed up.

So this doesn't happen in heterosexual relationships?

Genegirl83

In fairness.... And I'm obviously irritated by this response,

What do you expect from the Daily Mail? It's openly anti-marriage equality and in my opinion occasionally revels in fear mongering about the gays, foreigners, Muslims, The EU, teenagers etc. and in some of the scientific pieces I've seen there have countless innacuracies that ultimately amount to poor research and journalism. It's headlines are sensationalist to the point they're occasionally incorrect and they sexualise most stories even if they appear completely innocuous.

In summary, what would you like to bet the majority of it's reader base are rational and liberal? If I saw this in the Guardian I'd be quite bothered actually. I'm almost happy the Daily Mail disapproves of my preferences. I must be doing something right...

Genegirl83

Genegirl83 wrote: »

In fairness.... And I'm obviously irritated by this response,

What do you expect from the Daily Mail? It's openly anti-marriage equality and in my opinion occasionally revels in fear mongering about the gays, foreigners, Muslims, The EU, teenagers etc. and in some of the scientific pieces I've seen there are countless innacuracies that ultimately amount to poor research and journalism. It's headlines are sensationalist to the point they're occasionally incorrect and they sexualise most stories even if they appear completely innocuous.

In summary, what would you like to bet the majority of it's reader base are rational and liberal? If I saw this in the Guardian I'd be quite bothered actually. I'm almost happy the Daily Mail disapproves of my preferences. I must be doing something right...

Oh and I forgot this gem from The Daily Mail -

"On 16 July 1993 the Mail ran the headline "Abortion hope after 'gay genes' finding";[62] this headline has been widely criticised in subsequent years, for example as "perhaps the most infamous and disturbing headline of all" (of headlines from tabloid newspapers commenting on the Xq28 gene).[63]" ~ Wikipedia

LegacyUser

Please can the daily mail get their fact correct L only was dclared The cright to family life for 12 weeks L leacked this story to the press as c was a victom of domistic violence and the is now land mark case awarding L as the psycologacal parent as usaual tablods carrying their own story no self respecting newpaper would print untruths

J_E

Daily Mail isn't worth riling yourself up over.

Genegirl83

Cydoniac wrote: »

Daily Mail isn't worth riling yourself up over.

It's Britain's second most popular paper. You can't say that isn't pretty influential. Even on the premise of "Cast enough nets". I agree with you, it's rubbish. But clearly A LOT of people aren't so like minded.

I think it's atrocious.

J_E

Genegirl83 wrote: »

It's Britain's second most popular paper. You can't say that isn't pretty influential. Even on the premise of "Cast enough nets". I agree with you, it's rubbish. But clearly A LOT of people aren't so like minded.

I think it's atrocious.

There have been papers like that since the dawn of society and they thrive off hearsay and paranoia. I honestly don't think they make a massive impact in the long run.

LegacyUser

I agree the daily mail needs to get their fact right the judgement was only that L had family life for 11 weeks the jydge dissmissed her as the pscological mother no other papers have pubished this story only the gutter snipe press

Genegirl83

Cydoniac wrote: »

There have been papers like that since the dawn of society and they thrive off hearsay and paranoia. I honestly don't think they make a massive impact in the long run.

I think "massive impact" can be a very relative concept. Just because it's opinions don't influence the vast majority of people (I'd hope) and cause national racism/homophobia doesn't mean it won't reach one nut who thinks he's justified in harming a gay person, a Muslim etc. because of reading horrid comments or sensationalised stories in the Daily Mail. The impact on families and communities can be... Massive. I'm not saying it's the cause per se, just that it certainly perpetuates poor ideals. It's the media, of course it influences! Having them since the dawn of time doesn't make it right either. I'll be surprised if there isn't an increase in islamophobia in the UK partially due to the way the Daily Mail has sensationalised this Trojan Horse scandal.

drunkmonkey

Isn't one of the main points of breast feeding that the mother passes on antibodies to their child that they've built up. As this woman is not the biological mother she can't pass on the good stuff like her birth mother can?

Genegirl83

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Isn't one of the main points of breast feeding that the mother passes on antibodies to their child that they've built up. As this woman is not the biological mother she can't pass on the good stuff like her birth mother can?

A wet nurse is basically a woman breast feeding a child who she did not give birth to. It's basis is a concept called induced lactation where milk is produced without an actual pregnancy etc. and even milk produced this way has all the normal components in all the same quantities (more or less) as a woman who has actually been pregnant. It's useful women can do this as not everyone can breast feed. It's highly adaptive really. So yep. Same antibodies, colostrum and all the proteins...