Quoting Jillian Lindsey:" the paci is for infants they need the sucking and it helps reduce the risk of SIDS those are the only ... [snip!] ... fussing or after they spit it out or as soon as they make a sound i live in east TN and thats what they do to keep them quiet"
they think it's supposed to reduce the risk of SIDS because they think the baby would be in a lighter sleep...idk tho, i just use it for when my babies are fussy or keep wanting to suck even when they are full. lol to pacify them.
DS is 3 weeks and eats almost 5ozs at a time and still wants to suck when he's full. so a pacifier is needed. but DD is way too old, she doesn't have the sucking reflex like infants do any more(need to suck) KWIM? I agree with the 6 months or so.
but yeah, i hate it when people keep a pacifier in a baby's mouth 24/7 for no reason. It defeats the purpouse and they need to learn how to self soothe, very important. DD is 18 months and doesn't really know how to self soothe too well. I blame me not taking it away when she was 6 months to a year old. it needs to be gone now, but she's in bed with it in her mouth now lol.
I wont let her have it when it's not sleep time, period.
My mother is bad
about keeping a pacifier in my babies mouths 24/7. i dont let her really watch them too much. but the babies stay with me 24/7 anyways.
She thinks it's good for babies to have bottles and pacifiers until they want to give it up...probably why i didn't give it up till i was 4 and my front teeth are messed up because of it. e_e
but the nutriolist(cant speel) at WIC said the bottle is worse for their teeth than a pacifier. i still think neither can be good tho.