Breastfeeding suppressing ovulation

[KellyPalmer]

In that case, what about mothers who do not experience suppressed ovulation through breastfeeding? Should they be allowed to suppress it through other means (to correct nature so to speak)?

No, because nature needs no correction. In many cases, it’s the Mother who has not followed her baby and her body by breastfeeding on demand which has caused a return to fertility. This is not to be blamed on nature. In some cases, a mother has followed her body and her baby and still her fertility returns. This happened to me with my first. According to science, this is the minority. We should not assume that this needs “correction” because this is but one aspect of our body and our fertility. In my case, I have recently learned that I have a genetic metabolic disorder that causes me to overload on iron. The treatment? Blood letting. When my body does not experience cycles, I overload on iron because I am not bleeding each month. It would be quite arrogant for me to have thought I needed to “correct” God and take artificial hormones to suppress my cycles. Turns out they were beneficial to me all along. I am the exception to the rule. Others are as well for a variety of reasons (not just iron overload). This does not remove the risks that go along with a lack of reasonable child spacing. We are not to play God IMO. Working with his design is good but working against it can never be good.

 

[KellyPalmer]

I disagree. Science shows that it is a positive thing.

What’s the difference? Science and the church never contradict.

 

[KellyPalmer]

I’m speaking morally.

What’s the difference? Science and the church never contradict.

 

[thewanderer]

I disagree. Science shows that it is a positive thing.

What science shows is that both spacing children and breastfeeding children are good things. It does not show that using bf to suppress ovulation is a good thing.

 

[Em_in_FL]

What’s the difference? Science and the church never contradict.

The church has never given guidance on the morality of spacing children.

The catechism says:

2368 A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood.

Spouses **MAY **wish to space the births… not they **SHOULD **space the births.

And furthermore… that desire to space the births MUST be just and must not be motivated by selfishness.

 

[KellyPalmer]

What science shows is that both spacing children and breastfeeding children are good things. It does not show that using bf to suppress ovulation is a good thing.

It shows that breastfeeding both suppresses ovulation and leads to lower health risks. Other forms of suppressing ovulation such as hormonal birth control are shown to have significant health risks of their own. How else does one achieve this good thing?

 

[KellyPalmer]

The church has never given guidance on the morality of spacing children.

The catechism says:

Spouses **MAY **wish to space the births… not they **SHOULD **space the births.

And furthermore… that desire to space the births MUST be just and must not be motivated by selfishness.

Science shows that it’s a good thing. The church has said that science must never contradict the church. I’m just not following what you are saying here. You stated one thing but now state that you were talking about morality. So child spacing is a moral side effect of breastfeeding?

 

[Em_in_FL]

Science shows that it’s a good thing. The church has said that science must never contradict the church. I’m just not following what you are saying here. You stated one thing but now state that you were talking about morality. So child spacing is a moral side effect of breastfeeding?

The entire thread has been about the *morality *of *purposefully *suppressing ovulation.
Or am I confused?

 

[thewanderer]

It shows that breastfeeding both suppresses ovulation and leads to lower health risks. Other forms of suppressing ovulation such as hormonal birth control are shown to have significant health risks of their own. How else does one achieve this good thing?

The whole point is that suppressing ovulation is not what Science shows to be a good thing. Scinece show that spacing children is a good thing and this is possible through either complete or periodic abstinance. If one knows that they currently happen to be infertile then they can safely have relations, if they know they are currently fertile then they will have to abstain. Most women are infertile while breastfeeding, so, using periodic abstinance, they have no reason to need to abstain while infertile.

Nobody is saying that bf is wrong or that you have to make your cycles come back even while breastfeeding, what is being said is that you shouldn’t use bf as a tool for making yourself infertile. Yes, it will probably make you infertile, and that is totally fine, nothing wrong with that, just don’t go around planning on using it for the sake of making yourself infertile. This is a subtle distinction.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Nobody is saying that bf is wrong or that you have to make your cycles come back even while breastfeeding, what is being said is that you shouldn’t use bf as a tool for making yourself infertile. Yes, it will probably make you infertile, and that is totally fine, nothing wrong with that, just don’t go around planning on using it for the sake of making yourself infertile. This is a subtle distinction.

Correct!! Yes it is a subtle distinction.

 

[KellyPalmer]

The entire thread has been about the *morality *of *purposefully *suppressing ovulation.
Or am I confused?

Yeah, I haven’t asked what the entire thread has been about. My question – how is suppressed ovulation a moral side effect of breastfeeding?

 

[Em_in_FL]

Yeah, I haven’t asked what the entire thread has been about. My question – how is suppressed ovulation a moral side effect of breastfeeding?

I don’t understand your question?

It’s not a *moral *or *immoral *side effect (it’s amoral)… it just *happens *(sometimes, to whatever extent each unique woman experiences it).

 

[KellyPalmer]

The whole point is that suppressing ovulation is not what Science shows to be a good thing. Scinece show that spacing children is a good thing and this is possible through either complete or periodic abstinance. If one knows that they currently happen to be infertile then they can safely have relations, if they know they are currently fertile then they will have to abstain. Most women are infertile while breastfeeding, so, using periodic abstinance, they have no reason to need to abstain while infertile.

Nobody is saying that bf is wrong or that you have to make your cycles come back even while breastfeeding, what is being said is that you shouldn’t use bf as a tool for making yourself infertile. Yes, it will probably make you infertile, and that is totally fine, nothing wrong with that, just don’t go around planning on using it for the sake of making yourself infertile. This is a subtle distinction.

Actually, that’s not true. It’s specifically the suppressing of ovulation that confers health benefits – or as a more accurate statement – the lack of suppressing ovulation has health risks.

I understand that nobody is saying that BFing is wrong. No confusion there. I simply disagree that there is anything wrong with having the suppression of ovulation as one of the reasons for breastfeeding.

The whole idea strikes me as very Puritan. We shouldn’t throw something out completely just because others have twisted it. I say to women, embrace the fact that God gave us this gift of sometimes suppressing our ovulation during breastfeeding. I see nothing wrong with choosing God’s design and the reasons behind them.

 

[thewanderer]

Yeah, I haven’t asked what the entire thread has been about. My question – how is suppressed ovulation a moral side effect of breastfeeding?

I brought this up earlier inthe thread, the principle of double effect.

Whenever an action will lead to multiple different results, some good and some bad, it is still possible to morally perform said action provided that the following conditions are met.

1. The bad effect is in no way a means to acheiving the good effect
2. The bad effect is not intended
3. The good effect is at least proportionate to the unintended bad effect.

Breastfeeding for the sake of feeding your child fits all of these criteria and so is perfectly moral and licit.

 

[zawny]

Wow, lots of good feedback!

Honestly, most Catholic NFP couples my husband and I know do in fact use breastfeeding to suppress ovulation. Of course this is not the only motivation, but it is part of the motivation, particularly in extended breastfeeding, and allowing frequent feeding even when the child is no longer dependent on breast milk for sustenance. One friend of mine even wakes he baby in the middle of the night (between 2 and 6 I think, since that is supposedly when breastfeeding is most effective in suppressing ovulation) to make sure her baby eats and ovulation is kept at bay (sounds like way too much work to me, my sleep is interrupted enough ).

And I’m not sure many women would use the 7 standard rules of ecological breastfeeding without the intent to suppress ovulation, cause those rules are pretty intense.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Actually, that’s not true. It’s specifically the suppressing of ovulation that confers health benefits – or as a more accurate statement – the lack of suppressing ovulation has health risks.

I understand that nobody is saying that BFing is wrong. No confusion there. **I simply disagree that there is anything wrong with having the suppression of ovulation as one of the reasons for breastfeeding. **

The whole idea strikes me as very Puritan. We shouldn’t throw something out completely just because others have twisted it. I say to women, embrace the fact that God gave us this gift of sometimes suppressing our ovulation during breastfeeding. I see nothing wrong with choosing God’s design and the reasons behind them.

Subtle distinction.
“One of the reasons” is not the same as “sole purpose”.

I agree - as “one of the reasons”… it *can *be a good thing - IF it is JUST and not motivated by selfishness.

 

[KellyPalmer]

I brought this up earlier inthe thread, the principle of double effect.

Whenever an action will lead to multiple different results, some good and some bad, it is still possible to morally perform said action provided that the following conditions are met.

1. The bad effect is in no way a means to acheiving the good effect
2. The bad effect is not intended
3. The good effect is at least proportionate to the unintended bad effect.

Breastfeeding for the sake of feeding your child fits all of these criteria and so is perfectly moral and licit.

This is not an answer to my question. This is all about good and bad. You said that it wasn’t good or bad just a “side effect”. I’m more confused on your stance than ever because this contradicts the quote that I am currently questioning from you.

Additionally, I disagree that suppression of ovulation while breastfeeding is a “bad effect”. I believe it’s a good effect and an intended effect. Denial of that seems very Puritan to me.

 

[KellyPalmer]

Subtle distinction.
“One of the reasons” is not the same as “sole purpose”.

I agree - as “one of the reasons”… it *can *be a good thing - IF it is JUST and not motivated by selfishness.

I don’t think it’s possible for it to be a sole reason. I also don’t think it could be considered selfishness when ovulation suppression after childbirth by way of breastfeeding is for the greater good.

 

[Em_in_FL]

I don’t think it’s possible for it to be a sole reason. I also don’t think it could be considered selfishness when ovulation suppression after childbirth by way of breastfeeding is for the greater good.

I agree it would be challenging to understand that mentality… but the distinction is intentional and is spelled out in detail in the catechism, so it’s there for a reason.

I’m not sure how ovulation suppression is “for the greater good”, though?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

In that case, what about mothers who do not experience suppressed ovulation through breastfeeding? Should they be allowed to suppress it through other means (to correct nature so to speak)?

Let me see if I can explain the science why ovulation is surpressed.

Mom has baby, she produces prolactin to make milk for baby.

Baby suckles signaling body to make more prolactin, to make more milk. Prolactin becomes the dominant hormone and suppresses both estrogen and progesterone. Mom does not cycle, because she is producing lots of prolactin.

Some moms this does not work. My last baby was a preemie, and irrespective of nursing him, we were separated for so I did not produce much prolactin.

Correcting nature could be possible ethically I guess by providing more prolactin to a mom not making enough of this hormone. (I don’t know if this is possible scientifically) The goal would be to provide more milk, and the secondary side effect is no cycles.

I tend to think the sterility following child birth is a secondary effect, following the primary goal of providing milk.

I think for ecological breastfeeding, the we should should think of the relationshipbetween mother and baby. If she is sterile because she is providing baby with milk, the sterility (really the lack of cycles) is just something that happens.

It’s hard to do this solely with the goal of being sterile being the primary goal. Baby needs to cooperate. I can’t be the only mom whose baby slept longer stretches and then right after that cycles started again.

On a final note, it is actually a different type of sterility during lactation then when on the pill. It’s very similar to being post menopausal. It has health benefits for both the breasts and the reproductive organs.