Breastfeeding suppressing ovulation

[zawny]

. If you breastfeed for the sake of rendering yourself infertile I cannot see how you can escape from falling into the first category of performing an action which will render yourself infertile for the sake of being infertile. So the only way that Church teaching on ABC and NFP can make any sense to me necessarily dictates that breastfeeding should never be used with the intention to render oneself infertile. Like I said before, that doesn’t mean breastfeeding, or even ecological breastfeeding is wrong, but just make sure the reasons you are doing it are not motivated from a desire to render oneself infertile.

Which in turn would mean that guides devoted to using breastfeeding to keep cycles at bay are somewhat questionable (ie. several Kippley books). Obviously people ecological breastfeed for many good reasons outside of suppressing ovulation, but that is a big reason this type of breastfeeding is promoted in NFP circles. And something like the 7 standards is aimed primarily at suppressing ovulation (from my understanding of it).

I in no way mean to speak badly of the Kippleys or extended breastfeeding (I breastfeed long past the first year!), I am trying to carry the discussion to a logical conclusion keeping consistency in Church teaching.

 

[thewanderer]

I got that, Wanderer. It is just so odd to imagine a situation where a mother could possibly continue to BF past when her child needs it so that she can remain infertile. There is no forcing a baby to nurse when he/she does not want to nurse. Babies will wean themselves slowly over time, or simply give it up cold turkey!
So, if a baby is nursing, that baby still needs it. For a mother to continue to give her child breastmilk when her baby obviously wants it, it would not matter in the slightest if her thoughts circle around the benefit of delayed return of fertility. After all, her baby NEEDS to nurse, Her breasts have the milk. This is not a contraceptive mentality, because no action is taken to render the marital act or her body sterile.

I guess the reason we are seeing things differently is because it sounds as though you think that it is only possible to have one intent per action at a given time whereas I think it is possible to have multiple different intentions at the same time.

And I am not picking on you, Wanderer. I have always liked your perspective on CAF,

Thank you, don’t worry, I’m not upset with you, it just seemed like you were misunderstanding what I was saying

and I just want to reassure you that these concerns of yours are likely to be swept away when you begin your first BF relationship.

This I really don’t see happening. I totally get how amazing bf is, I am not in any respect knocking it, and yes, I admit full well that I will be very happy with the infertility that comes with it and enjoy not needing to abstain during that period. But nothing I am saying contradicts any of that, I am really making a very specific point that can be hard to distinguiish from all the other aspects surrounding bf and I do not see how it could possibly be at all impacted by actually bf

Birth regulation itself is not immoral. BFing is neither moral nor immoral. Engaging in the marital act with one’s husband while infertile is not immoral. And not actively seeking a pregnancy is not immoral. There really is no problem here.

I agree 100%, there is no problem with any of those things

BTW, I have a secret desire to become a lactation consultant/doula/NFP teacher some day, due to my joy at discovering God’s plan for marriage and God’s design of the female body/fertility. That is why I keep responding to this thread and specifically to your posts. I just have such a love for these natural “goods” of pregnancy, birth, BFing, holy marital sexuality.

Good for you! You might be surprized to learn that I am also a huge fan and proponent of all things natural, extended breastfeeding, keeping the placenta, minimal medical intervention in childbirth etc etc. I really do understand the beauty of all of these things and am actually a huge fan of such things and have done a fair amount of research into them. I am not at all trying to knock them or make them seem as though they are less good or anything. I am making a very specific point which does not in any way shape or form affect the goodness of all these natural goods.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I see where you are coming from, I just can’t quite agree. I mean, I agree entirely that the infertility that comes with breastfeeding is a part of God’s design, just as the periodic infertility a woman experiences every month as well as that of menopause are also a part of God’s design. I get that and I agree with you. Breastfeeding, even prolonged breastfeeding, is a good thing. But the only way I can make head or tails of the distinction the Church makes between ABC and NFP is by saying that the one is immoral precisely because in it a person is taking some action that is intended to remove fertility from sexuality, whether it is by rendering the person or the act infertile. NFP, on the otherhand, does not deliberately make either a person or the act infertile. If you breastfeed for the sake of rendering yourself infertile I cannot see how you can escape from falling into the first category of performing an action which will render yourself infertile for the sake of being infertile. So the only way that Church teaching on ABC and NFP can make any sense to me necessarily dictates that breastfeeding should never be used with the intention to render oneself infertile. Like I said before, that doesn’t mean breastfeeding, or even ecological breastfeeding is wrong, but just make sure the reasons you are doing it are not motivated from a desire to render oneself infertile.

When someone ecologically breast feeds, the direct action they commit is breastfeeding. The breastfeeding then causes the secondary effect of infertility. The infertility is indirect.

It isn;t the same as performing a direct action (taking a pill or a shot or getting a tubal ligation) done only to render the act infertile.

The sterility is always secondary to the breastfeeding…if baby doesn’t nurse the sterility does not happen.

I gave the extreme example earlier of pumping and dumping and not feeding the baby in order to be sterile.

I can’t imagine any other scenario where it could be a form of contraception. I for one would have enjoyed a longer period of amenorrhea…and really my desire would not have been to render the act sterile, but to have a break from mean AF.

Also, the fact that women cycle during lactation is really new. It seems to be have been thought as a given that nursing meant no AF in generations past.

 

[thewanderer]

I’m one of those who purposely breastfeeds in order to get the infertility. When they’re an infant, my primary motivation is the health benefits to the baby, but as they get older, the extended infertility becomes most important to me. Yes, I still appreciate the health benefits, but until I can have another baby (which I really want!), I encourage my 15mo to bf because I know it is the reason my fertility has not returned. Until now, I never questioned the morality of this practice. Now I’m second guessing myself!

For those of you who think I might be using bfing inappropriately, what would you suggest I do? Now every time I wake up at 4am because DS wants to nurse and I feel pleased instead of annoyed because I know it’ll help keep me infertile, I’m going to feel guilty! Because at 4am, I am NOT thinking of the health benefits! Should I stop nursing him at 4am, because if it weren’t for the infertility I would probably be discouraging him at this point? Don’t get me wrong, I am still grateful for the health benefits and the bonding (nothing like nursing snuggles and smiles) but when my mom asked me the other day why I was still bfing, I answered, “Because it’s keeping me from getting pregnant right now.” Now I wonder if I’m, well, sinning?

Like Em said, none of us can truly tell you what to do. This isn’t something that the Church has an explicit teaching on. Me and Kelly Palmer both have different opinions on this and that is perfectly fine. Think about it, pray about it, maybe do some more research if you have the time to find out more about what others (especially people who you trust because of their faithfulness to the magisterium) and follow whatever line of reasoning seems most correct. Just make sure that whatever you decide about it you are being honest with yourself about looking for the truth, and you will be fine whatever conclusion you come to. So don’t worry about it too much. Also, I definitely agree that since there are still health benefits to your child you wouldn’t have to stop bf, even if you did end up thinking as I do, you would just want to change your reasons for doing so.

 

[thewanderer]

Which in turn would mean that guides devoted to using breastfeeding to keep cycles at bay are somewhat questionable (ie. several Kippley books). Obviously people ecological breastfeed for many good reasons outside of suppressing ovulation, but that is a big reason this type of breastfeeding is promoted in NFP circles. And something like the 7 standards is aimed primarily at suppressing ovulation (from my understanding of it).

I in no way mean to speak badly of the Kippleys or extended breastfeeding (I breastfeed long past the first year!), I am trying to carry the discussion to a logical conclusion keeping consistency in Church teaching.

Yeah, thats kind of what I feel about all of that as well. And like I said, I’m really not trying to be judgemental or anything, just consistant with my understanding of Church doctrine.

 

[mommamaree]

Good for you! You might be surprized to learn that I am also a huge fan and proponent of all things natural, extended breastfeeding, keeping the placenta, minimal medical intervention in childbirth etc etc. I really do understand the beauty of all of these things and am actually a huge fan of such things and have done a fair amount of research into them. I am not at all trying to knock them or make them seem as though they are less good or anything. I am making a very specific point which does not in any way shape or form affect the goodness of all these natural goods.

To the red bolded section,
That does not surprise me at all, actually. I could tell that from your posts.

To the other points,
I guess my main concern is that I am very afraid that a woman (OP or anyone else) might actually feel like they have to wean in order to avoid sinning because they fear their intent is wrong. All of our good actions are going to be “tainted” with a bit of self-interest. I mean, we try to be faithful Catholics so that we can enjoy an eternity in Heaven with God. I don’t think that self-interest, in accordance with either natural law or divine revelation, is selfish, actually. It is just receiving a gift that God is giving us freely, because He loves us. Just like choosing to engage in the marital act because the pleasure of it is so nice is not sinful. See what I mean? I just really don’t see how acting in self-interest, totally in accordance with natural law and faithful to the moral law that has been divinely revealed, could ever be selfish or sinful.
Perhaps I am wrong about this, but considering acting in self-interest has led me to do good works and think about my salvation and serve others, I am not sure that I am willing to examine that more deeply. I tend toward scrupulosity, which I understand a lot of newer converts do, and I would not want to lose my love for the goods and the work of my vocation due to feelings of guilt.

 

[thewanderer]

When someone ecologically breast feeds, the direct action they commit is breastfeeding. The breastfeeding then causes the secondary effect of infertility. The infertility is indirect.

It isn;t the same as performing a direct action (taking a pill or a shot or getting a tubal ligation) done only to render the act infertile.

The sterility is always secondary to the breastfeeding…if baby doesn’t nurse the sterility does not happen.

I gave the extreme example earlier of pumping and dumping and not feeding the baby in order to be sterile.

I can’t imagine any other scenario where it could be a form of contraception. I for one would have enjoyed a longer period of amenorrhea…and really my desire would not have been to render the act sterile, but to have a break from mean AF.

Also, the fact that women cycle during lactation is really new. It seems to be have been thought as a given that nursing meant no AF in generations past.

I understand and I agree with this, I am not saying that the effect of infertility which accompanies bf is wrong or to be avoided, just that I think the intention to render oneself infertile is not a good idea.

 

[mommamaree]

So don’t worry about it too much. Also, I definitely agree that since there are still health benefits to your child you wouldn’t have to stop bf, even if you did end up thinking as I do, you would just want to change your reasons for doing so.

I am sooo glad you said this, Wanderer. Thank you!
This is what I was so concerned about. Even if our intent is selfish, if the action we are doing is a good one, we only need to ask God to change our heart, we do not need to stop doing the good thing! Thank God for that! And if we persist in doing a good thing, even if we understand our feelings might be initially motivated by self-interest, God will be faithful to make our heart more like His own and to see the beauty in doing the good thing that goes far beyond whatever initial self-interest that might have led us to act. And this goes for all good actions, not just BFing.
Some women BF because it helps their womb tone up and their body drop the baby weight faster. The BFing is still a good action, and it is still beneficial and the right thing to do, even if self-interest initially motivates her! God can bring so much real good about if we just are willing to be faithful, even if self-interest motivates us.

 

[thewanderer]

I am sooo glad you said this, Wanderer. Thank you!
This is what I was so concerned about. Even if our intent is selfish, if the action we are doing is a good one, we only need to ask God to change our heart, we do not need to stop doing the good thing! Thank God for that! And if we persist in doing a good thing, even if we understand our feelings might be initially motivated by self-interest, God will be faithful to make our heart more like His own and to see the beauty in doing the good thing that goes far beyond whatever initial self-interest that might have led us to act. And this goes for all good actions, not just BFing.
Some women BF because it helps their womb tone up and their body drop the baby weight faster. The BFing is still a good action, and it is still beneficial and the right thing to do, even if self-interest initially motivates her! God can bring so much real good about if we just are willing to be faithful, even if self-interest motivates us.

I actually wrote up a reply to your last post trying to emphasize that I really don’t want to scare people into weaning their children earlier than they would otherwise. But I lost it all right before I sent it.:manvspc: Oh well, the point being that if someone starts worrying about their intentions for doing a good action, they should look first at changing their intentions rather than at stopping the action itself. And also, seeing as there is no explicit Church teaching on this, I would not want people to make decisions that can affect the health of their child just because of my understanding of Church teaching. Pray about it yourself and study about it yourself (if you have the time), don’t just change what you are doing because of my understanding, but follow your own conscience on the matter.

 

[PaulGH]

It seems to me that we are making this too complicated. Here is how I see it:

• Extended breastfeeding is not immoral even if a major reason for doing so is to suppress ovulation. The double effect analysis does not work for me here, because suppressing ovulation is not a bad effect. It is a **good **part of God’s design, to help to make sure that women get a little break between pregnancies, which is beneficial both for their health and for their childrens’ health. This is a feature, not a bug!
• The other examples, such as losing weight or exercising frequently to suppress ovulation do not sound like morally good options to me. If you truly were losing so much weight or exercising so much that ovulation was suppressed, then I assume that you would have to be taking the weight loss or the exercise to an extreme where it was detrimental to your health, which makes this not a morally good option.

 

[silicasandra]

It seems to me that we are making this too complicated. Here is how I see it:

• Extended breastfeeding is not immoral even if a major reason for doing so is to suppress ovulation. The double effect analysis does not work for me here, because suppressing ovulation is not a bad effect. It is a **good **part of God’s design, to help to make sure that women get a little break between pregnancies, which is beneficial both for their health and for their childrens’ health. This is a feature, not a bug!
• The other examples, such as losing weight or exercising frequently to suppress ovulation do not sound like morally good options to me. If you truly were losing so much weight or exercising so much that ovulation was suppressed, then I assume that you would have to be taking the weight loss or the exercise to an extreme where it was detrimental to your health, which makes this not a morally good option.

I agree. And I think what is getting lost in some of these posts is that what we call ecological breastfeeding (or even “extended” breastfeeding) is actually the norm for how breastfeeding has been practiced by most women in most times. It is not “new” - it’s reclaiming something that used to be common knowledge that was passed from mother to daughter. Is it hard to do in today’s Western culture? Yes, but I still wouldn’t call it an extreme behavior. Just a tad countercultural.

 

[KellyPalmer]

Yeah, I don’t call it extended breastfeeding anymore. I call it full-term breastfeeding.

 

[thewanderer]

I just want to point out that no-one on this thread ever claimed that ecological breastfeeding (or extended bf or whatever you want to call it) is wrong or immoral. We are all in agreement on it being moral. :aok:

 

[KellyPalmer]

I just want to point out that no-one on this thread ever claimed that ecological breastfeeding (or extended bf or whatever you want to call it) is wrong or immoral. We are all in agreement on it being moral. :aok:

A previous poster said it wasn’t moral but rather amoral. Also, others hold the view that it’s immoral if a major intent is to suppress ovulation.

 

[thewanderer]

A previous poster said it wasn’t moral but rather amoral. Also, others hold the view that it’s immoral if a major intent is to suppress ovulation.

look, I’m not trying to get into a fight, I am among those who hold that the intent to render oneself infertile is wrong, but that doesn’t mean that I think ecological breastfeeding is immoral. I haven’t seen anybody on this thread promote that point of view. Thats all I was trying to say.

 

[KellyPalmer]

look, I’m not trying to get into a fight, I am among those who hold that the intent to render oneself infertile is wrong, but that doesn’t mean that I think ecological breastfeeding is immoral. I haven’t seen anybody on this thread promote that point of view. Thats all I was trying to say.

I see. I am also not trying to get into a fight although I can see how I may have come off that way. I guess I’m just confused about why you pointed out something that no one implied. Just trying to understand or offer understanding. I’m apparently failing, lol.

 

[thewanderer]

I see. I am also not trying to get into a fight although I can see how I may have come off that way. I guess I’m just confused about why you pointed out something that no one implied. Just trying to understand or offer understanding. I’m apparently failing, lol.

Maybe I jumped the gun, but some of the most recent posts emphasis on how ecological breastfeeding is normal and good seemed as though they were implying that there were people who who thought that it was not normal or else bad. But I could’ve just been reading into things. Either way, I think there’s not really much more to say here, so I will probably unsubscribe. Have a good day and thanks for the pleasant discussion.

 

[hsmomforlife]

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.

Why is it OK to allow the hormones of breastfeeding to suppress ovulation but not artificial hormones?

I got pregnant with my third child while still nursing my second…so breastfeeding doesn’t always 'literally suppress ovulation"…I have proof to the contrary and she will be 10 on Christmas day!!

 

[RedSoxWife]

I’ve always looked at it this way: If I’m not ovulating because I’m nursing it’s because my body isn’t ready for another baby yet. It’s part of God’s plan to allow us to recover after our physical resources are depleted from the last pregnancy.

Then again, I tend to be on the other side of it, getting “baby fever” and being ready to be pregnant again before my body has decided it’s ready…

 

[Mary_Poppins]

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

I’ve been involved in NFP instruction, and also very involved in breastfeeding circles- in my case, waking the baby to “make her” eat is something that was frequently discussed and accepted as normal. It is, in fact, necessary in order to maintain the strict guidelines This seems unnatural to me. It doesn’t seem wrong to me, per se, since the side-effect of suppressing ovulation is actually a good, and so is breastfeeding itself of course.

I think it’s mistaken to say that a couple has no responsibility to discern in the matter because the principle of double effect doesn’t apply to the somewhat extreme lifestyle ecological breastfeeding entails. In fact, in order to remain infertile the baby must needs be fed, according to the official guidelines very frequently. This is why it becomes a prudential and very individual judgement. No one is saying that ecological breastfeeding is wrong- I think what some of us have a bit of a problem with is the unnaturalness of living a life-style that entails breastfeeding every couple of hours for a period of two or more years- under every and all circumstances- something which is very difficult and unnatural to maintain, and has the potential of objectifying the breastfeeding child.