Ecological breastfeeding: Abortificant?

[AshleyBelle]

On another forum, there was a discussion involving the abortificant effects of the birth control pill. Posters were suggesting that the pill does not have the potential to abort an already fertilized egg. There were great responses showing the scientiffic evidence of the effects of the pill, altering the lining of a woman’s uterus such that it is inhospitable for implantation. And the debate went on…

But there is one post I’m not sure how to respond to, and nobody else has taken up the challenge so far. The protestant who wrote this defending the BCP insists that it is no more abortificant than women who ecologically breast feed to prevent or delay the return of fertility. Her reply sounds very “off” to me, but I’m just not sure what to say. To be honest I’m not that familiar with the scientiffic aspect of any of this, and she claims that she is in the medical field. If anybody can offer a website, a study, or just information on the “mechanics” of EBF to help me refute this claim it would be much appreciated!

Here is her response that I’m looking for help with.

I have put her text in purple, and my text in black.

Thanks again for any help, and may God bless you!

I am not telling you anything, biology and science is telling you. Why do you think there are women purposely waking and feeding their babies every 4-5 hours as a method of birth control? Is it because they are attempting to stop ovulation and/or altering the lining of the uterus. The “chemicals” you refer to are hormones, the same hormones produced when a woman breastfeeds. Using a baby’s feeding schedule, denying the babies other foods (God has given babies teeth at certain ages for a reason) and forcing feedings of breast milk only for up to a year or more is not a “natural miscarriage.”

Oh, and more important, even minus the endometrium thinning, (which happens only if there has not been a fertilization) is the fact, that a baby will IMPLANT anywhere, even on a thinned fallopian tube. A thickened uterus is not necessary for implantation and a thin endometrium will not remain, once an egg is fertilized. Do some biology homework, basic anatomy, physiology to learn that should a fertilization happen, if the ovulation should occur, the act of fertilization of the egg causes the body then to release hormones that will prepare and thicken the uterus for 7 days to receive the implantation…

Breast feeding does not “alter” the lining of a woman’s uterus, especially not in the same manner as the BCP.

…Really? Well scientists disagree with you…The BCP does thin the lining but remains thin, ONLY if fertilization does not occur.

Let’s also not get into the benefits of breastfeeding in regards to fertility and post partum recovery. It helps the uterus contract after delivery, aiding in the post partum process. I can’t think of a single disadvantage or health concern regarding breast feeding. But should I perhaps start citing the countless lists of complications that have been found in correlation to the BCP???

I would agree to the many advantages of breast feeding as long as it is not used by women as a birth control method in denying the baby a normal growth and development in feeding in order to USE the child for birth control. No one is suggesting women should use BCP’s, but the facts are, they do not cause abortions…PERIOD…

 

[yellowbicycle]

I don’t understand what this person is saying about birth control pills not causing abortions. It says so right on the package of pills that they do!
Any quick google search will tell you that one of the ways in which birth control pills prevents pregnancy is by not allowing a fertilized egg to implant - that’s an abortion. Mayeb this person doesn’t think preventing a fertilized egg from implanting is an abortion? That’s all I can guess.
Here’s some basic websites which explain:
womenshealth.about.com/od/thepill/f/howpillworks.htm
webmd.com/sex/birth-control/birth-control-pill
Both of these very unbiased websites are very clear that one of the ways the BCP works is by not allowing implantation of a fertilized egg.
What happens with breastfeeding is that it prevents an egg from being released, which is different than preventing a fertilized egg from implanting.

 

[AshleyBelle]

I don’t understand what this person is saying about birth control pills not causing abortions. It says so right on the package of pills that they do!
Any quick google search will tell you that one of the ways in which birth control pills prevents pregnancy is by not allowing a fertilized egg to implant - that’s an abortion. Mayeb this person doesn’t think preventing a fertilized egg from implanting is an abortion? That’s all I can guess.
Here’s some basic websites which explain:
womenshealth.about.com/od/thepill/f/howpillworks.htm
webmd.com/sex/birth-control/birth-control-pill
Both of these very unbiased websites are very clear that one of the ways the BCP works is by not allowing implantation of a fertilized egg.
What happens with breastfeeding is that it prevents an egg from being released, which is different than preventing a fertilized egg from implanting.

Thank you for the websites. And I agree, I don’t completely understand what the poster was saying about birth control pills not causing abortions either… But isn’t it true that the “intent” of the pill is to prevent ovulation as well?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Thanks again for any help, and may God bless you!

I am not telling you anything, biology and science is telling you. Why do you think there are women purposely waking and feeding their babies every 4-5 hours as a method of birth control? Is it because they are attempting to stop ovulation and/or altering the lining of the uterus. The “chemicals” you refer to are hormones, the same hormones produced when a woman breastfeeds. Using a baby’s feeding schedule, denying the babies other foods (God has given babies teeth at certain ages for a reason) and forcing feedings of breast milk only for up to a

OR]

Well, the pill doesn’t have the same hormones found in a lactating mom.

The pill contains synthetic progestin and estradiol.

A lactating woman produces prolactin. which suppresses the production of estrogen and progesterone. It puts the woman in a quasi menopause. If the lactating woman were to produce enough hormones to ovulate, her uterus will act normally and not prevent implantation.

 

[AshleyBelle]

Well, the pill doesn’t have the same hormones found in a lactating mom.

The pill contains synthetic progestin and estradiol.

A lactating woman produces prolactin. which suppresses the production of estrogen and progesterone. It puts the woman in a quasi menopause. If the lactating woman were to produce enough hormones to ovulate, her uterus will act normally and not prevent implantation.

Thank you for the reply!

This has been my understanding of what happens during lactation as well, but I did not know exactly the hormonal effects of the BCP. Any idea where this poster might have gotten the idea that the BCP does the “same thing” as lactation more or less?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Thank you for the reply!

This has been my understanding of what happens during lactation as well, but I did not know exactly the hormonal effects of the BCP. Any idea where this poster might have gotten the idea that the BCP does the “same thing” as lactation more or less?

I don’t know why she would think that. The info on the hormones in the pill is in the package insert information. Try googling “ortho-tricyclen”, to find the package insert. it will give you the level of hormones in each different color pill. A lactating woman just doesn’t produce those hormones.

When you lactate, your body is actually lacking hormones. When the periods start, they are actual periods, not the pretend ones on the pill.

 

[yellowbicycle]

Thank you for the websites. And I agree, I don’t completely understand what the poster was saying about birth control pills not causing abortions either… But isn’t it true that the “intent” of the pill is to prevent ovulation as well?

Yes, the ‘intent’ of the pill is to prevent ovulation. So, perhaps before we fully understood the pill and how it worked, one could claim that they didn’t know it was an abortifacent, but since it’s written right on the package nowadays…
I’m sure most women just throw out the insert that comes with the pill. Most probably don’t even know it’s an abortifacent.

 

[TheresaLS]

I never thought the act of breastfeeding as ecological…I gave many prayers to God for his masterful thinking and allowing me this gift!

 

[1ke]

I never thought the act of breastfeeding as ecological…I gave many prayers to God for his masterful thinking and allowing me this gift!

In this context, the term “ecological” is being used in a specific way to contrast it with “cultural” breastfeeding.

Ecological breastfeeding is a particular *type *of breastfeeding. The mother feeds on demand, practices “baby-wearing” which means keeping the baby close at all times, does not feed supplemental foods such as bottles, solids, etc, and also does not use a pacifier. This type of breastfeeding results in a delayed return of fertility.

In cultural breastfeeding a mother may breast feed, but not on-demand. She uses supplemental foods, might pump & bottle feed, use a pacifier, and/or be away from her baby extended periods of time. This type of breastfeeding does notresult in a delayed return of fertility.

To the OP: I would ignore this person. She is clearly emotional and anti-ecological breastfeeding.

 

[Kay_Cee]

You don’t even need to get into whether or not the pill is an abortificant.

Here’s the point: God designed our biology. Using the pill is telling God He made a mistake, that His design is not good enough. We will alter our biology to one we like better. It’s telling God we’re wiser than He is.

Using breastfeeding to delay menstruation is working within the biology God designed. He’s the One who made it that way, not us.

Either you accept God’s design or you don’t. Those who use contraceptions, regardless of what kind, don’t.

 

[AshleyBelle]

Thanks so much for the replies everyone

I think she finally dropped the charge that women who ecologically breastfeed are somehow doing the same thing the pill does. However, she is very convinced that there is no possibility of the pill itself being abortifacient. I found a great study online, as well as the links some of you provided and she insists that “solid research” has not conclusively proven this idea yet.

I thought I’d peek at the planned parenthood website just to see if even they might include this information about the pill, but on their website they say flat out there is no support for any claim the pill may be abortifacient.

That was pretty much what I expected. But if her argument is that the companies who make the BCP want to suggest that the lining of the uterus is made hostile as a “back up” so that a fertilized egg cannot implant… to give women peace of mind that in every situation, their pill will “work.” But if that’s the case, why would the main proponent of birth control and abortion (planned parenthood) say there is no support for this claim?

At this point I’m ready to end dialogue with her, as much as this subject is dearly important to me. She is in the medical field, and naturally anything I have to say is discredited because I am not:shrug:

 

[AshleyBelle]

She has returned once again to the argument that the effects of the BCP are similar to the effects of a breastfeeding mother.

Here is the article she referenced:

“”…Dr. Rudd disputed this. “The scientific evidence is that emergency contraception is more likely to have a post-fertility effect than the routine birth control,” he told me. But Dr. James Trussell, director of the Office of Population Research at Princeton University and one of the world’s leading experts on contraception, said: “That is completely wrong. The evidence is about the same for all hormonal methods of contraception. We can’t rule out a post-fertility effect for Plan B, and the same is true for the birth control pill.”

What’s more, Dr. Trussell added: “There is evidence that there is a contraceptive effect of breast feeding after fertilization. While a woman is breast feeding, the first ovulation is characterized by a short luteal phase, or second half of the cycle. It’s thought that because of that, implantation does not occur.” In other words, if the emergency contraception pill causes abortions by blocking implantation, then by the same definition breast feeding may as well. Besides that, the intrauterine device, or IUD, can alter the lining of the uterus and, in theory, prevent implantation.

"NY times “Contra Contraception”

The world’s leading expert on contraception is telling you the facts…it is not my “suggestion”…

Now read it…breast feeding and bcp’s act the same…women using breast feeding as a contraception method are no different then those using a bcp for contraception. If you are going to accuse one, then accuse the other.

 

[budgie2]

As for the contraceptive pill, the hormones used are different to those that the body produces whilst breastfeeding. The contraceptive pill contains synthetic steroids, many combined oral contraceptives contain ethinyl-estradiol which is a synthetic estrogen and ethynyl-testosterone also called Norethisterone or Norethindrone in certain contraceptive pills labelled as a progestagen. When a woman breastfeeds her body naturally produces prolactin which prevents the pituitary gland from producing FSH and LH which cause the egg to mature and ovulate. Breastfeeding is a natural process within the woman’s body whilst a woman who is on the contraceptive pill is taking a synthetic steroidal drug. I think it is wrong to label women who breastfeed as having abortions. No woman is forced to take the contraceptive pill as a form of birth control and non-spermicidal condoms are far more ethically acceptable aswell as NFP and FAM methods.

 

[AshleyBelle]

As for the contraceptive pill, the hormones used are different to those that the body produces whilst breastfeeding. The contraceptive pill contains synthetic steroids, many combined oral contraceptives contain ethinyl-estradiol which is a synthetic estrogen and ethynyl-testosterone also called Norethisterone or Norethindrone in certain contraceptive pills labelled as a progestagen. When a woman breastfeeds her body naturally produces prolactin which prevents the pituitary gland from producing FSH and LH which cause the egg to mature and ovulate. Breastfeeding is a natural process within the woman’s body whilst a woman who is on the contraceptive pill is taking a synthetic steroidal drug. I think it is wrong to label women who breastfeed as having abortions. No woman is forced to take the contraceptive pill as a form of birth control and non-spermicidal condoms are far more ethically acceptable aswell as NFP and FAM methods.

Thank you for this reply May I use it in response to her?

 

[budgie2]

Yes you can. Just to add that a lot of women that breastfeed over here are encouraged to use the Progesterone only pill instead of the combined oral contraceptive, the first used to be called the mini-pill and is a more abortifacient form of birth control. Ecological breastfeeding may benefit certain couples and I do not accept that it is an abortifacient in any shape or form however it should only be done when it is in the best interest of the child that is born. Some mothers may not produce enough milk to ecologically breastfeed (me) and breastfeeding is not encouraged for mothers who have HIV or a serious virus as certain viruses can be passed on by breastmilk.

 

[TheresaLS]

I never thought the act of breastfeeding as ecological…I gave many prayers to God for his masterful thinking and allowing me this gift!

When I posted that I met what I said and I knew what I said…I cannot believe that breastfeeding can be made once again to be used as political issue. I do hope that God has a sense of humor. The act of breastfeeding is a gift given to nourish…a time that bonds mother to child. Moments that can never be replaced…moments I cherished. Now it has been reduced to yet another knife delivered to a person who is pro-life. Maybe someone should enlighten God, since He was the One that CHOOSE to create woman in the manner in which He did.

I just finished watching the news and it only added to my anger. What is wrong with society? Every good thing is turned into an issue that is used to prove something…right or wrong. No wonder humanity is in jeopardy. We are losing ourselves and God, Our Father, is watching. I am angry…I am saddened. If I have offended anyone… I am sorry…NOT!

 

[AshleyBelle]

When I posted that I met what I said and I knew what I said…I cannot believe that breastfeeding can be made once again to be used as political issue. I do hope that God has a sense of humor. The act of breastfeeding is a gift given to nourish…a time that bonds mother to child. Moments that can never be replaced…moments I cherished. Now it has been reduced to yet another knife delivered to a person who is pro-life. Maybe someone should enlighten God, since He was the One that CHOOSE to create woman in the manner in which He did.

I just finished watching the news and it only added to my anger. What is wrong with society? Every good thing is turned into an issue that is used to prove something…right or wrong. No wonder humanity is in jeopardy. We are losing ourselves and God, Our Father, is watching. I am angry…I am saddened. If I have offended anyone… I am sorry…NOT!

Hi Theresa

I think I only partly understand your post here. I agree that it’s sad to see something as beautiful as breastfeeding used as a political agenda… and in defense of something as evil as the birth control pill at that! But this is why I have been putting so much effort into refuting this woman’s claims.

I don’t think the term “ecological breastfeeding” is offensive or political… It’s just meant to explain a particular method a woman may choose to nourish her child. “Exclusive breastfeeding” makes more sense to me than using the word “ecological” but I understand the usage.

But I know what you mean with your last paragraph… It is TERRIBLE to see something created so beautifully by God used to “prove” a point about the birth control pill. How anyone who claims to be “pro life” could even fathom suggesting that the two do “basically the same thing” is just beyond me.

God bless!

 

[TamM]

In this context, the term “ecological” is being used in a specific way to contrast it with “cultural” breastfeeding.

Ecological breastfeeding is a particular *type *of breastfeeding. The mother feeds on demand, practices “baby-wearing” which means keeping the baby close at all times, does not feed supplemental foods such as bottles, solids, etc, and also does not use a pacifier. This type of breastfeeding results in a delayed return of fertility.

In cultural breastfeeding a mother may breast feed, but not on-demand. She uses supplemental foods, might pump & bottle feed, use a pacifier, and/or be away from her baby extended periods of time. This type of breastfeeding does notresult in a delayed return of fertility.

To the OP: I would ignore this person. She is clearly emotional and anti-ecological breastfeeding.

I had no idea about all this…and I guess I’ve “ecologically” breast fed both my kids, I let them wean themselves. Both let go on their own right before their first birthdays. I can’t believe breastfeeding is being used in this kind of debate…first of all because I know a handful of children that were conceived by breast feeding mommies and nowhere have I ever seen it promoted as a bc method, it’s definitely not reliable. Where I live it’s actively promoted everywhere that exclusive breastmilk until six months of age is BEST for baby, and to continue bf until baby is at least 1 year old. But at the same time, no-one here will tell you not to worry about pregnancy or that it works just as well as the bcp to prevent pregnancy…the hormones are not the same. If they were women on bc should lactate shouldn’t they?

 

[AshleyBelle]

I had no idea about all this…and I guess I’ve “ecologically” breast fed both my kids, I let them wean themselves. Both let go on their own right before their first birthdays. I can’t believe breastfeeding is being used in this kind of debate…first of all because I know a handful of children that were conceived by breast feeding mommies and nowhere have I ever seen it promoted as a bc method, it’s definitely not reliable. Where I live it’s actively promoted everywhere that exclusive breastmilk until six months of age is BEST for baby, and to continue bf until baby is at least 1 year old. But at the same time, no-one here will tell you not to worry about pregnancy or that it works just as well as the bcp to prevent pregnancy…the hormones are not the same.** If they were women on bc should lactate shouldn’t they**?

THANK YOU! What a very obvious, and yet important point! (bolded)

As for breastfeeding being “contraceptive” I am still just amazed that the woman I am debating with (an "educated woman at that!) is honestly trying to convince people it is the same as the BCP.
Additionally, even if there are women who want to use breastfeeding as a means of preventing pregnancy (it does naturally supress ovulation...) I remember reading that it would only be about 56% effective! That is why most families who have decided to avoid pregnancy while ecoogically breastfeeding would also practice NFP alongside it.

 

[1ke]

Now read it…breast feeding and bcp’s act the same…women using breast feeding as a contraception method are no different then those using a bcp for contraception. If you are going to accuse one, then accuse the other.

This is fallacious reasoning.

The mistake she makes is that she presumes that two means which achieve the same end are morally equivalent. Clearly that is not the case.

Robbery and getting a job are both means of obtaining money. One is morally unacceptable while the other is morally upright.

Contraception is morally unacceptable because it fails to maintain the unitive and procreative elements of sexual intercourse between spouses. Breastfeeding is morally acceptable because it maintains the procreative and unitive elements of intercourse.

As to any abortifacient action of breastfeeding, it is a natural mechanism of the body not something created intentionally by the act of taking a pill to induce the conditions.

Therefore, *even if *(which is not being conceded) they work in similar ways they, again, have no moral equivalence.

The action of *intentionally *altering the uterus to prevent implantation is morally unacceptable. The act of feeding your baby via breastmilk is morally acceptable even though it may have a secondary and unintended effect of an early miscarriage.