Whoa! Time Magazine Cover Features Mom Breastfeeding Her 3-Year Old [POLL]

Time Magazine is making headlines today after they revealed the cover of their upcoming issue. Feast your eyes on what will be staring you down while you wait in line at the grocery store...

Allow me introduce 26-year-old Jamie Lynne Grumet of Los Angeles, a lactation consultant, breastfeeding advocate, and mother of two, and her nearly 4-year old son (???) Aram. The photo is in relation to the cover story about "attachment parenting". Which apparently is a form of parenting that encourages long-term breast feeding and essentially involves the mother being "ever present" with her child in the early stages of life. Whether that is realistic or not can be discussed later, if you want more info on attached parenting you can find it here.

What I'm more interested in discussing here is whether or not the cover is in good taste or totally inappropriate. Is it provactive? Absolutley. Was it's intention to get people talking about it? What do you think we're doing right now? Time's managing editor Rick Stengel pretty much admitted that fact during an appearance onMSNBC's Morning Joe today when he said, "The cover is meant to get your attention. It gets your attention. I think this is a legitimate debate. It's a debate lots and lots of women are having."

If I may be perfectly honest with you, I don't have a problem with this (the picture, not breastfeeding until your kids are freaking 4-years old). My wife breastfed both our children. It's a natural thing. While they may not know how babies are made just yet, my  7 and 5-year old know what breastfeeding is. If they happen to see it while we're standing in line at the store, I'll have no problem answering any questions they may have. It's not like the picture is of some random woman just letting it all hangout. It's not Playboy. It's Time Magazine. Now if they decide to do a story about where babies come from and decide to run a picture of a woman laid out spread-eagle, that's a different story. But it's not. It's a photo meant to represent a different opinion of a social norm. What do you think?