Breastfeeding suppressing ovulation

[silicasandra]

OK, so for those of who are saying that breastfeeding for the sake of suppressing ovulation would also say that books like the Kippley’s Breastfeeding and Natural Child Spacing and the 7 standards of ecological breastfeeding are not moral? (since it seems the focus of these books and methods are child spacing, although I realize it is also about natural parenting)

No, I don’t think people are saying that at all. I have read the books and Kippley explains WHY ecological breastfeeding postpones the return of fertility later than we expect in today’s culture. Natural child spacing is presented as one of many benefits of ecological breastfeeding, but in contemporary Western culture it’s practically unheard of (partially because our BF rates are abysmal to begin with, and even moms who BF don’t get a lot of support for doing it this way long term - i.e. over six months).

Ecological breastfeeding is a form of NFP. It works with the body as God intended it to work. There are many benefits to it besides delayed ovulation, although delayed ovulation itself has some health benefits for mom and baby.

(Also of note: eco-BF is not some kind of “extreme” breastfeeding. It’s actually breastfeeding as it’s been practiced for most of human history and still is practiced in many places. Kippley’s books merely adapt the practice to Western society today - which is really helpful since so few new moms have exposure to breastfeeding as the normal way to feed an infant.)

 

[Em_in_FL]

OK, so for those of who are saying that breastfeeding for the sake of suppressing ovulation would also say that books like the Kippley’s Breastfeeding and Natural Child Spacing and the 7 standards of ecological breastfeeding are not moral? (since it seems the focus of these books and methods are child spacing, although I realize it is also about natural parenting)

Not at all! I’m not understanding your perspective apparently…???

No, I don’t think people are saying that at all. I have read the books and Kippley explains WHY ecological breastfeeding postpones the return of fertility later than we expect in today’s culture. Natural child spacing is presented as one of many benefits of ecological breastfeeding, but in contemporary Western culture it’s practically unheard of (partially because our BF rates are abysmal to begin with, and even moms who BF don’t get a lot of support for doing it this way long term - i.e. over six months).

Ecological breastfeeding is a form of NFP. It works with the body as God intended it to work. There are many benefits to it besides delayed ovulation, although delayed ovulation itself has some health benefits for mom and baby.

(Also of note: eco-BF is not some kind of “extreme” breastfeeding. It’s actually breastfeeding as it’s been practiced for most of human history and still is practiced in many places. Kippley’s books merely adapt the practice to Western society today - which is really helpful since so few new moms have exposure to breastfeeding as the normal way to feed an infant.)

 

[PaulGH]

No, I don’t think people are saying that at all. I have read the books and Kippley explains WHY ecological breastfeeding postpones the return of fertility later than we expect in today’s culture. Natural child spacing is presented as one of many benefits of ecological breastfeeding, but in contemporary Western culture it’s practically unheard of (partially because our BF rates are abysmal to begin with, and even moms who BF don’t get a lot of support for doing it this way long term - i.e. over six months).

Ecological breastfeeding is a form of NFP. It works with the body as God intended it to work. There are many benefits to it besides delayed ovulation, although delayed ovulation itself has some health benefits for mom and baby.

(Also of note: eco-BF is not some kind of “extreme” breastfeeding. It’s actually breastfeeding as it’s been practiced for most of human history and still is practiced in many places. Kippley’s books merely adapt the practice to Western society today - which is really helpful since so few new moms have exposure to breastfeeding as the normal way to feed an infant.)

+1

I was going to type my own reply, but you said it perfectly.

 

[KellyPalmer]

OK, so for those of who are saying that breastfeeding for the sake of suppressing ovulation would also say that books like the Kippley’s Breastfeeding and Natural Child Spacing and the 7 standards of ecological breastfeeding are not moral? (since it seems the focus of these books and methods are child spacing, although I realize it is also about natural parenting)

I understand why you ask that. Some of the responses do seem to be implying such a thing. I do not agree.

 

[thewanderer]

OK, so for those of who are saying that breastfeeding for the sake of suppressing ovulation would also say that books like the Kippley’s Breastfeeding and Natural Child Spacing and the 7 standards of ecological breastfeeding are not moral? (since it seems the focus of these books and methods are child spacing, although I realize it is also about natural parenting)

Well, I haven’t read the book so I can’t say for sure. I would think that it depends on whether they are encouraging people to use breastfeeding as a way of spacing children or rather simply focussing on explaining why and under what circumstances breastfeeding suppressess ovulation. And even if it were the former, there would be nothing wrong with reading it for the sake of understanding the latter.

 

[zawny]

Just for some frame of reference, my husband and I do use NFP (when I’m cycling that is) and practice church teaching in regards to sex and marriage, so much of what I am asking is theoretical (aside from the actual breastfeeding of course). I was just struck by how convenient it is that feeding my son also allows me to not have to worry about having another baby at the moment and wondered how suppressing ovulation through breastfeeding is consistent with teachings against artificial birth control. I am looking for the logic here, not feeling scrupulous about breastfeeding my son

So it seems breastfeeding, even if partly to suppress ovulation is alright because it is natural and often considered a part of natural family planning. So in that case, can you do other things to suppress ovulation, or diminish fertility provided it’s natural? For instance, if a woman knows that maintaining a low body weight will suppress ovulation can she strive to maintain a low body weight?

 

[Em_in_FL]

Just for some frame of reference, my husband and I do use NFP (when I’m cycling that is) and practice church teaching in regards to sex and marriage, so much of what I am asking is theoretical (aside from the actual breastfeeding of course). I was just struck by how convenient it is that feeding my son also allows me to not have to worry about having another baby at the moment and wondered how suppressing ovulation through breastfeeding is consistent with teachings against artificial birth control. I am looking for the logic here, not feeling scrupulous about breastfeeding my son

So it seems breastfeeding, even if partly to suppress ovulation is alright because it is natural and often considered a part of natural family planning. So in that case, can you do other things to suppress ovulation, or diminish fertility provided it’s natural? For instance, if a woman knows that maintaining a low body weight will suppress ovulation can she strive to maintain a low body weight?

See this is where I start to raise flags… to “do other things to suppress ovulation” implies that the motivation to do so could fall under the contraceptive mentality. For example, at what point does “taking a pill to suppress ovulation” not cross into that logic? (see what I’m saying?)…

Being “natural” isn’t the only criteria…

Definitely something to take up with your priest… these issues aren’t black and white.

 

[KellyPalmer]

Just for some frame of reference, my husband and I do use NFP (when I’m cycling that is) and practice church teaching in regards to sex and marriage, so much of what I am asking is theoretical (aside from the actual breastfeeding of course). I was just struck by how convenient it is that feeding my son also allows me to not have to worry about having another baby at the moment and wondered how suppressing ovulation through breastfeeding is consistent with teachings against artificial birth control. I am looking for the logic here, not feeling scrupulous about breastfeeding my son

So it seems breastfeeding, even if partly to suppress ovulation is alright because it is natural and often considered a part of natural family planning. So in that case, can you do other things to suppress ovulation, or diminish fertility provided it’s natural? For instance, if a woman knows that maintaining a low body weight will suppress ovulation can she strive to maintain a low body weight?

Wait, how is maintaining a low body weight to the point of suppressing ovulation natural? It makes sense that God designed a woman’s body to suppress ovulation in cases of severely low body weight because it may be risky for the mother to become pregnant and thus risky for her baby as well. Intentionally putting your body into a risky state to suppress ovulation can hardly be called “natural” and it can hardly be compared to breastfeeding a baby as God intended a woman’s body to do for all of her babies.

This is exactly what I was talking about before and where I think people are getting confused because we are part of a society that generally does not recognize the full value in God’s design of woman and her ability to birth and nourish babies with her breasts. Women should never be discouraged from following God’s plan appropriately even if she has one of her motives as the reason of suppressing ovulation. That’s what God created it to do!

Breastfeeding even if partially done to suppress ovulation is not just ok because it is “natural” but because it is part of God’s design for women and babies. In no way is it part of God’s plan for women and babies for mothers to have severely low body fat.

 

[thewanderer]

Just to clear it up for those who might be wondering, the reason I think that it is wrong to have the intention to use breastfeeding as a form of birth control (even if you also have the intention of feeding your child) is that the only way that Church teaching on ABC and NFP makes any sense to me is by saying that the reason NFP is ok as opposed to ABC is that with NFP noone is purposefully messing with their fertility/disordering the act, with Breastfeeding for the sake of suppressing ovulation one would be purposefully be making oneself infertile, which is the same reason (as far as I can see) that ABC is wrong. I think that this is the reasoning that led to the OP’s original question about breastfeeding being moral, to which the answer is that at the very least, it is clearly perfectly moral and ok through double-effect if one does not intend to use it as birth control (even if one is very happy about being infertile). However, since one of the conditions of double effect is that the ill effect not be desired along with the good effect, which is why I think that the fact that one intends to feed their child would not justify their desire to suppress their own ovulation.
I also just want to point out that just because I think this way it doesn’t mean that I am judging anybody who thinks differently. I think they are wrong but that doesn’t mean I think they are sinning, if they honestly believe they are 100% correct then they are clearly not behaving sinfully in any respect by following their conscience on this matter.

 

[KellyPalmer]

Just to clear it up for those who might be wondering, the reason I think that it is wrong to have the intention to use breastfeeding as a form of birth control (even if you also have the intention of feeding your child) is that the only way that Church teaching on ABC and NFP makes any sense to me is by saying that the reason NFP is ok as opposed to ABC is that with NFP noone is purposefully messing with their fertility/disordering the act, with Breastfeeding for the sake of suppressing ovulation one would be purposefully be making oneself infertile, which is the same reason (as far as I can see) that ABC is wrong. I think that this is the reasoning that led to the OP’s original question about breastfeeding being moral, to which the answer is that at the very least, it is clearly perfectly moral and ok through double-effect if one does not intend to use it as birth control (even if one is very happy about being infertile). However, since one of the conditions of double effect is that the ill effect not be desired along with the good effect, which is why I think that the fact that one intends to feed their child would not justify their desire to suppress their own ovulation.
I also just want to point out that just because I think this way it doesn’t mean that I am judging anybody who thinks differently. I think they are wrong but that doesn’t mean I think they are sinning, if they honestly believe they are 100% correct then they are clearly not behaving sinfully in any respect by following their conscience on this matter.

^The bolded section is where you have it wrong, IMO. Ovulation suppression by way of breastfeeding is not an ill effect but a positive effect given to us by God. It’s beneficial for us and for our babies. There’s nothing wrong with desiring it. Mothers and babies are at increased health risks when a mother has a baby too close to another.

 

[zawny]

You are right KellyPalmer, the low body weight thing isn’t an analogous example.

thewanderer said it much more eloquently than I did in my original question:
"Just to clear it up for those who might be wondering, the reason I think that it is wrong to have the intention to use breastfeeding as a form of birth control (even if you also have the intention of feeding your child) is that the only way that Church teaching on ABC and NFP makes any sense to me is by saying that the reason NFP is ok as opposed to ABC is that with NFP noone is purposefully messing with their fertility/disordering the act, with Breastfeeding for the sake of suppressing ovulation one would be purposefully be making oneself infertile, which is the same reason (as far as I can see) that ABC is wrong. I think that this is the reasoning that led to the OP’s original question about breastfeeding being moral, to which the answer is that at the very least, it is clearly perfectly moral and ok through double-effect if one does not intend to use it as birth control (even if one is very happy about being infertile). However, since one of the conditions of double effect is that the ill effect not be desired along with the good effect, which is why I think that the fact that one intends to feed their child would not justify their desire to suppress their own ovulation. "

Exactly. So why is suppressing ovulation through breastfeeding just fine (even encouraged in NFP cirlces) and taking hormones to suppress ovulation not ok?

 

[zawny]

^The bolded section is where you have it wrong, IMO. Ovulation suppression by way of breastfeeding is not an ill effect but a positive effect given to us by God. It’s beneficial for us and for our babies. There’s nothing wrong with desiring it. Mothers and babies are at increased health risks when a mother has a baby too close to another.

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)?

 

[KellyPalmer]

Exactly. So why is suppressing ovulation through breastfeeding just fine (even encouraged in NFP cirlces) and taking hormones to suppress ovulation not ok?

Because God designed our bodies to suppress ovulation through breastfeeding for the good of our body/mind and the good of our children. This is a good thing. His design is good. Taking hormones to suppress ovulation is working against God’s design. It’s trying to change God’s design for life, not working with God’s design.

 

[nova147]

OK, so for those of who are saying that breastfeeding for the sake of suppressing ovulation would also say that books like the Kippley’s Breastfeeding and Natural Child Spacing and the 7 standards of ecological breastfeeding are not moral? (since it seems the focus of these books and methods are child spacing, although I realize it is also about natural parenting)

I don’t think breastfeeding done to suppress ovulation is sinful, but . . . ecological breastfeeding, as fabulous as it is, has never fit my life well. For me to do it, I would have to be convinced that doing so would result in substantially more time without ovulation than “cultural” breastfeeding. (A term I find offensive because I feed my babies on demand and rarely give bottles of anything - but pacifers, napping, etc - we don’t meet the standards.) Anyway. If I decided to do ecological breastfeeding, I think I would certainly be doing it with a contraceptive mentality. And THAT would be sinful. Which is not to say I think anyone else is doing it in a contraceptive manner. Only that I know my self.

I see a big difference between breastfeeding as natural ovulation suppression and exercise as such. Exercising to the point of ovulation suppression is rarely healthy. When it happens naturally, it is due to famine situations, which are not part of God’s design for the world.

Good thing I’m so overweight - I would have to work way too hard to get to the point that my weight would suppress ovulation. No temptation for me!

 

[Em_in_FL]

The fact that ovulation is naturally suppressed during BF’ing (for some, it does not happen to others) is NEITHER “right” or “wrong”… it’s not a positive OR negative… it just *happens * (sometimes)… it’s a side effect.

PURPOSEFULLY *altering * healthy, normal fertility is not right…

Understanding where our fertility is at any given moment (using Natural Family Planning) and avoiding sexual relations is where we are given the ability to make a PRAYERFUL choice.

 

[thewanderer]

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)?

The point is that infertility, as such, is a lack, and, as such, is technically an ill, a falling short, of the fullness of humanity. Yes, we should all be thankful to God for designing us in such a way that this lack naturally occurs both periodically and when breastfeeding as it sure makes our lives a heck of a lot easier. However, this does not change the fact that the nature of infertility is technically a lack of something human, and so, purposefully going out of one’s way to try and attain this lack is wrong because you are purposefully trying to remove something human and good from yourself. I don’t see why it would matter what you were using to achieve this lack, as long as the aim and intention of your action is to render yourself infertile it seems to fall under the condemnation in HV by Pope Paul VI

Unlawful Birth Control Methods
14. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)
Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means.

 

[KellyPalmer]

The fact that ovulation is naturally suppressed during BF’ing (for some, it does not happen to others) is NEITHER “right” or “wrong”… it’s not a positive OR negative… it just *happens * (sometimes)… it’s a side effect.

PURPOSEFULLY *altering *our fertility is not right…

Understanding where our fertility is at any given moment (using Natural Family Planning) and avoiding sexual relations is where we are given the ability to make a PRAYERFUL choice.

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

 

[Em_in_FL]

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

I’m speaking morally.

 

[thewanderer]

The fact that ovulation is naturally suppressed during BF’ing (for some, it does not happen to others) is NEITHER “right” or “wrong”… it’s not a positive OR negative… it just *happens *(sometimes)… it’s a side effect.

PURPOSEFULLY *altering *our fertility is not right…

Understanding where our fertility is at any given moment (using Natural Family Planning) and avoiding sexual relations is where we are given the ability to make a PRAYERFUL choice.

Agreed. I think what gets confusing is that there are some women who have started looking on BF as a form of Birth Control. The suppression of ovulation while breastfeeding isn’t the problem, that is just what happens. What is problematic is the intention to suppress ones ovulation.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Agreed. I think what gets confusing is that there are some women who have started looking on bf as a form of birth control. The suppression of ovulation while breastfeeding isn’t the problem, that is just what happens. What is problematic is the intention to suppress ones ovulation.

bingo!