Breastfeeding suppressing ovulation

[SMHW]

I think this discussion is getting sidetracked by the fact that there are multiple definitions of “good”. They are related but not entirely equivalent.

There is “natural good” that deals with how God designed creation. And there is a more specific “moral good” that refers to our proper use of free will to choose “good” over “evil” or to choose between multiple “good” possibilities.

Breastfeeding is a natural good. We know it is the ideal for both baby and mother. The decision to undertake a course of action in order to prevent/delay ovulation (as opposed to taking that same or a different action for other reasons) gets into the moral area.

 

[thewanderer]

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.

Science also claims that masturbating confers health benefits. Are we then supposed to draw the conclusion that masturbation is moral and good? The fact that certain health benefitss exist doesn’t change the morality of an action. Breastfeeding is perfectly moral, but I cannot see how breastfeeding for the sake of suppressing ovulation is moral. The intention of the action makes all the difference in this case because of the principle of double effect. I have tried to explain my position by quoting from HV and by explaining how the principle of double-effect applies. If you wish to try and convince me that breastfeeding with the intention of suppressing ovulation is actually moral you will have to address those points.

**[ETA: I find it pretty funny that you are calling me a puritan… I’ve been called various things in the past, but Puritan really isn’t one of them. ]

 

[Em_in_FL]

For the sake of argument - breastfeeding isn’t really the issue whatsoever.

ANY “natural” method (NFP of any sort) *could *be used with a contraceptive mentality. Of course it would be challenging (I agree!), but the fact that it’s spelled out so distinctly in the catechism implies that it’s there for a reason.

 

[KellyPalmer]

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.

I agree, way too much work for me. I wouldn’t wake a sleeping baby that was healthy, maybe under some kind of extenuating circumstances. I’ve been heavily involved in the breastfeeding community for 10 years and I’ve never heard of someone doing that. Partially because most babies seem to wake up during that time on their own! All of mine sure did! But I don’t doubt the scenario you are sharing. I just think that’s probably very rare.

And yes, many NFP families I know do consider suppression of ovulation to be one of the reasons they breastfeed. I see nothing wrong with that. But I also think that breastfeeding is a signficant part of a baby’s sustenance for the duration, regardless of how long they nurse. I see nothing wrong with allowing frequent nursing at any age.

 

[KellyPalmer]

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?

I’m actually not interpreting the statements in the Catechism the same way that you are and I’m not sure they are speaking to breastfeeding suppressing ovulation specifically. As for it being for the greater good – it lowers health problems in mothers and babies. It lowers the burden on families who would otherwise have children very close together. This is particularly hard when a mother or child have health issues on top of back to back children. It puts a strain on the entire community if we are to act as charitable Christians.

 

[zawny]

I agree, way too much work for me. I wouldn’t wake a sleeping baby that was healthy, maybe under some kind of extenuating circumstances. I’ve been heavily involved in the breastfeeding community for 10 years and I’ve never heard of someone doing that. Partially because most babies seem to wake up during that time on their own! All of mine sure did! But I don’t doubt the scenario you are sharing. I just think that’s probably very rare.

And yes, many NFP families I know do consider suppression of ovulation to be one of the reasons they breastfeed. I see nothing wrong with that. But I also think that breastfeeding is a signficant part of a baby’s sustenance for the duration, regardless of how long they nurse. I see nothing wrong with allowing frequent nursing at any age.

Yeah I was really surprised when this friend told me she wakes her baby up to eat. I’m sure it’s rare.

 

[KellyPalmer]

For the sake of argument - breastfeeding isn’t really the issue whatsoever.

ANY “natural” method (NFP of any sort) *could *be used with a contraceptive mentality. Of course it would be challenging (I agree!), but the fact that it’s spelled out so distinctly in the catechism implies that it’s there for a reason.

See, I disagree. While I understand people call breastfeeding part of “NFP”, I don’t really think that it is. It’s not something that parents create – it’s something that God created. Following God’s plan is not necessarily the same thing as parent created NFP.

 

[thewanderer]

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.

I’m sorry for not being more careful in the way that I use my terms. When I said it was just a side effect I was referring to the idea that it is not an intended effect.

As to the “bad effect” language, I admit I hesitated before writing that because I realized it could be confusing, but because that is the language usually used when discussing the principle of double-effect I used it anyway. The way that this is a “bad effect” is through the fact that what infertility is is a lack of a healthy bodily function. I don’t mean bad as in immoral, obviously it is not immoral for a woman to be infertile. I hope this helps clear things up a little, and if not feel free to ask for more clarifications.

 

[zawny]

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.

I wonder if an argument could be made for suppressing ovulation through the use of prolactin (not sure if this is scientifically possible) for women who don’t experience suppressed ovulation through breastfeeding naturally. Could you use prolactin to provide this to her (like nature normally does)?

 

[Em_in_FL]

I wonder if an argument could be made for suppressing ovulation through the use of prolactin (not sure if this is scientifically possible) for women who don’t experience suppressed ovulation through breastfeeding naturally. Could you use prolactin to provide this to her (like nature normally does)?

This would be using it as contraception.

 

[mommamaree]

I apologize if this question has already been asked.

I had this thought while I was feeding my son today. I’ve breastfed him since he was born, and so far, have not ovulated. Breastfeeding literally suppresses ovulation. Now this side-effect of breastfeeding is certainly not the only reason I breastfeed, but it is a very welcome side effect, and has kept me from trying to cut down on nursing.

So what I don’t get is why is this OK? Is it because breastfeeding is a natural process? What if a woman is only breastfeeding in order to not get pregnant? Then is it wrong? And if breastfeeding suppressing ovulation is OK because it’s natural, are other natural ways of suppressing ovulation OK? An intense exercise regime can suppress ovulation, so is that acceptable (I didn’t have periods for up to a year at a time in high school due to cross country and swimming)? What about saunas? What lengths are we allowed to go in trying to lessen fertility?

I am really confused on this. Why is it OK to allow the hormones of breastfeeding to suppress ovulation but not artificial hormones?

God designed your body this way, so that you may adequately nourish one baby, before your milk dries up in your next pregnancy. I breastfed my oldest until 18 months, my second until 9 months, and my third until 23 months. My delayed return of fertility was about a year or longer with each child. Those were wonderful months, where I got to enjoy each baby, and let that baby be the “baby”, and not have to worry about another pregnancy bringing about an end to the nursing relationship or babyhood before either baby or mommy was ready.

God wants us to enjoy the respite he has built into the design of our bodies. Do not feel guilty about it. Even if postponing pregnancy a while longer is your primary reason for extended breastfeeding, that is still not sinful. In essence, you are giving of yourself in one way to one precious little baby, and just want a while longer before you are giving of yourself in another way to another precious little baby. It is not sinful to hope for or enjoy the phase of motherhood that you are in to continue a while longer, or even for as long as possible or prudent.

 

[thewanderer]

I see nothing wrong with allowing frequent nursing at any age.

I just want to emphasize the fact that I agree entirely with this statement!! I am not at all saying that breastfeeding, frequent breastfeeding, or even ecological breastfeeding are immoral and I just want to be very, very clear about that. I think they are all great things that are very beneficial. I just think that people should be careful about their motivations in following them. (Just as we all must be careful about our motivations for everything we do)

 

[thewanderer]

This would be using it as contraception.

Yup, that is most definitely immoral. Let me repost the statement from HV where the immoral methods of spacing births are mentioned.

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. (16)

 

[mommamaree]

BF is food for baby and God’s design for spacing out births. You are way overthinking this.

If this is giving you some kind of moral dilemma, you should take this to your priest.

This. ^^^^

In cultures around the world, BFing until the child self-weans between 2 and 5 years old is the NORM. Only in a Western country, where formula feeding became the norm for a period of time would this question even arise.

OP, you are fine. There is NO problem at all with your intent.

 

[thewanderer]

I wonder if an argument could be made for suppressing ovulation through the use of prolactin (not sure if this is scientifically possible) for women who don’t experience suppressed ovulation through breastfeeding naturally. Could you use prolactin to provide this to her (like nature normally does)?

I would just like to point out that this is actually pretty much exactly what the pill does. The pill takes a hormone which naturally causes infertility in women at certain times and uses it to cause temporary infertility.

 

[Em_in_FL]

See, I disagree. While I understand people call breastfeeding part of “NFP”, I don’t really think that it is. It’s not something that parents create – it’s something that God created. Following God’s plan is not necessarily the same thing as parent created NFP.

Breastfeeding is amoral… there are perfectly moral reasons that many women may have to use formula. Breastfeeding is indeed a gift from God, but it’s not a requirement for moral living.

Also, God created the natural cycling of a woman’s fertility (including the effect that BF’ing has on it)… observing that and choosing when/if to have sexual relations around that is where morality comes into play - we have to prayerfully discern if that is being driven by selfishness.

 

[thewanderer]

This. ^^^^

In cultures around the world, BFing until the child self-weans between 2 and 5 years old is the NORM. Only in a Western country, where formula feeding became the norm for a period of time would this question even arise.

OP, you are fine. There is NO problem at all with your intent.

Again, I just want to point out I have absolutely nothing wrong with any form of brestfeeding, whether frequent, partial, ecological or extended!! I am all for extended and frequent breastfeeding. That is not at all what this current discussion is about.

 

[KellyPalmer]

I just want to emphasize the fact that I agree entirely with this statement!! I am not at all saying that breastfeeding, frequent breastfeeding, or even ecological breastfeeding are immoral and I just want to be very, very clear about that. I think they are all great things that are very beneficial. I just think that people should be careful about their motivations in following them. (Just as we all must be careful about our motivations for everything we do)

I agree that it’s always wise to be careful about our motivations. Where I think we are having either a disagreement or a misunderstanding is on the issue of motivations – I think it’s ok to be motivated by God’s design. In the case of breastfeeding, I don’t think it’s some neutral accident that breastfeeding tends to suppress ovulation. I believe this is part of God’s design and how could it be wrong to be motivated by God’s design? It’s God given. When we try to avoid pregnancy through our own plan, we have to be much more careful about what is motivating us. But when we follow God’s plan, we an rejoice in His motivations and His reasons can be our reasons without any fear of wrong intent. I agree with what mommamaree states about what God wants for us.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I wonder if an argument could be made for suppressing ovulation through the use of prolactin (not sure if this is scientifically possible) for women who don’t experience suppressed ovulation through breastfeeding naturally. Could you use prolactin to provide this to her (like nature normally does)?

Hmm interesting question. I feel if baby is benefitting by the frequent nursings, lack of cycles will always be secondary

I understand the goal of breastfeeding is to feed baby and have a good milk supply to provide baby with nutrients and milk. Secondarily, the cycles stop.

Mrs. A for example wants to nurse her baby. She nurses frequently and gets no cycles because she’s making a lot of prolactin,

Her good friend Mrs. B is pregnant. She thinks “Wow, no cycles! I’m going to breastfeed so I get no cycles as well!”

Even though she might be motivated by being without cycles, the only way to do it is to feed her baby frequently. The sterility is due to her nursing. So she still has to give milk to her baby. The sterility is a seconadary effect

If a woman is lacking in prolactin, and not producing enough milk, ethically she may take it (if scientifically possible) But if she takes it to just have no cycles, and not feed her baby the milk, then it would not be ethical. And it would be painful.

Baby needs to cooperate, by eating.

I think perhaps an extreme idea would be, mom does not nurse her baby, but pumps hourly, throws the milk out so she can be sterile.

.

 

[mommamaree]

Much as I know people are going to hate me for saying it, I honestly think it is wrong ( how wrong I don’t know, probably not very serious at all in the vast majority of cases) to have contraception as one of the intended ends of breastfeeding. Its one thing if you are just aware that that is a result of breastfeeding and even happy about it, but its another thing if it becomes one of the reasons you are breastfeeding. And obviously I think it is very important to space births out after a pregnancy, I am not saying women are wrong to want that, I just can’t see how intending to use breastfeeding as a means of suppressing ovulation would be perfectly moral, given what I know of church teaching. And yes, I know that many of you will think I am being too harsh or don’t know what I’m talking about, but I honestly can’t see it any other way, and while I have never yet had to breastfeed, I have in the past thought about using it as a form of birth control and have looked forward to that, until I thought about it more deeply and realized that I couldn’t see a reason to justify intending to use it as a form of birth control, and trust me, that realization came as a huge and very unwanted shock to me, so I understand that this is a “hard saying” if you will that is very disagreeable. It would be great if I am wrong about this, but I just can’t see my way around it and felt that I should put my :twocents: in.

Wanderer,
Happily I can tell you that you are wrong about this. You will find out if/when you go through with nursing your first child. And then, you will be happy to discover you were wrong. Nursing is no easy task. It is a great sacrifice where the body of the mother is literally “broken down” to feed her baby. It is a beautiful and rewarding sacrifice, one that tends to become so special that it grieves a mom when the baby weans itself someday. Intending to breastfeed longer than the Western norm is good for the baby and the mommy. Suppressing ovulative due to prolonged breastfeeding, or due to another pregnancy reduces the risk of ovarian cancer. Prolonged breastfeeding reduces risk of breast cancer. Not to mention how toddlers can thrive from continued BFing. Also, postponing another pregnancy allows the mother and baby more time to enjoy babyhood and nursing. It is built into the design of the woman’s body. God wants it that way. We should be so happy for that. I know that I am, since I have had only a few months here and there where I had my fertility return before I reached the stage where our family and my body could handle another baby!