Bonding With Baby

[*crikey*mate*]

Back in the days when Moses was born, mothers gave birth and then the newborn was taken to the nursery to stay. (in most cases). Family and partners etc got to peek through a glass window when they came to visit. I'm not sure though if the mum got to be with the baby 24/7 or not, but it is my understanding they only saw the baby at feeding and changing time. (happy to be corrected if I am wrong)

Now fast forward to now, where it is deemed absolutely imperative that a mother "bond" with her newborn in the first few days/weeks following birth. In most cases,  Mum and baby stay in the same room 24/7 kind of thing.

So now I'm wondering of this new generation of babies who have had the benefit of this bonding are any better emotionally than those from a bygone era? Are they more stable as adults than previous generations? Were kids from "back then" loved any less than their modern counterparts?

How exactly do the different generations compare considering the different ideologies in their birth and "bonding" experiences in those first few weeks of life?

[kennedia_nigricans]

the bonding thingy is deemed very important and actually the first minutes/seconds are VERY important. that is why the baby nowadays is given IMMEDIATELY to the mother after birth (or should be if possible).

[jean2579]

When my Son was born in 1972, he went to the nursery and I only saw him for certain times for feeding and learning to bathe him. But on the other hand there was a lot more help, Mothers stayed in hospital for about 10 days to be sure that you could handle the newborn. I also wonder if the nursery restriction on visitors was a lot safer for baby with only the parents able to handle the baby.

[kennedia_nigricans]

hhmmm you forget about the other factors like being dumped in front of the TV (for hours) in early childhood....

[*elizabeths-mum*]

Along with breast feeding, bonding at birth is so important that if you can't do it, you might as well toss that baby away and try again until you get it right. (sarcastic undertones may be present here)
Honestly, there is more to raising stable healthy secure children to adulthood than that, thank goodness.

[freakiness]

Didn't Moses get floated away because he was a boy?

I don't think it had much to do with bonding.

We were taught the westerners went to maternity hospitals and Asian women went back to work in the rice fields, taking their baby along in a sling.

[azureline**]

Only my first was in a nursery, the neonatal special nursery, the rest were in with me except when visitors came and at rest hour.

I was a nursery baby but my parents were born at home.

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@kennedia_nigricans wrote:

the bonding thingy is deemed very important and actually the first minutes/seconds are VERY important. that is why the baby nowadays is given IMMEDIATELY to the mother after birth (or should be if possible).

---

so a baby who is born under general anaesthetic c - section, and thus not given that immediate bonding, is somehow disadvantaged?

Long term?

How?

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@my*mum wrote:

So now I'm wondering of this new generation of babies who have had the benefit of this bonding are any better emotionally than those from a bygone era? Are they more stable as adults than previous generations? Were kids from "back then" loved any less than their modern counterparts?

How exactly do the different generations compare considering the different ideologies in their birth and "bonding" experiences in those first few weeks of life?

---

[i-need-a-martini]

I'm not sure of the science.

But certainly in the animal kingdom , it doesn't take much for a mother to reject a baby unless they bond at birth. So logically I suppose this must be so for humans as well.

However, I would be never say that an adoptive parent doesn' bond with their baby.

Perhaps it isn't so much about physical contact but more a psychological connection?