Some readers may think this is a silly question; they may not realize that breastfeeding really can delay the return of fertility when it is done according to the norm of nature. Other readers may thing this is a purely speculative question or even a cruel one since it could lead to scrupulosity among sensitive mothers. But the question has been raised as a practical matter in past years and as a speculation in the past month, so it deserves a reasoned response, and that requires a consideration of the facts involved. The reason for the question is that one form of breastfeeding, ecological breastfeeding, is known to postpone the return of postpartum fertility for well over a year, on the average, so this is a real question.
Relevant facts
1. We need to define “ecological breastfeeding” because it is different from breastfeeding patterns that are common in Western culture and have little or no effect on the return of fertility. Ecology is concerned with the relationships between two organisms and how each affects the other. Ecological breastfeeding is the form of nursing in which the mother fulfills her baby’s needs for frequent suckling and her full-time presence and in which the child’s frequent suckling postpones the return of the mother’s fertility.
2. It is the baby’s suckling that provides the hormonal stimulation that postpones the return of fertility. Mothers cannot force babies to nurse. All they can do is to provide the opportunity.
3. Mothers who do ecological breastfeeding with the hope of extended breastfeeding infertility need to follow the Seven Standards of Ecological Breastfeeding. These are simple behavioral standards that help to ensure mother-baby togetherness and frequent suckling. See the Seven Standards summary.
4. Research has shown that American mothers who follow the Seven Standards experience, on the average, their first period between 14 and 15 months postpartum. There’s a range around the average, and our research found that over 70 percent of first periods occurred between 9 and 20 months.
5. Breastfeeding infertility is part of God’s plan for mother and baby. It is an extension of the infertility a woman has during pregnancy.
6. Extended breastfeeding provides benefits to both baby and mother. National and international health organizations encourage mothers to breastfeed at least two years, and Pope John Paul II made these recommendations his own.
7. The road to extended breastfeeding is ecological breastfeeding. Few mothers who are not doing ecological breastfeeding or something very close to it will maintain a milk supply for a full year and more.
8. Ecological breastfeeding is both rewarding and demanding. Experience shows that mothers who do ecological breastfeeding continue to nurse after the return of fertility. They would not do so if their only reason for doing this form of child care was to postpone the return of fertility.
The Question
Let us assume that a mother chooses to do ecological breastfeeding for the sole purpose of postponing the return of fertility. I’m not sure if this case ever exists in real life, but we have to start with a hypothetical case.
Would the mother who breastfeeds solely for the purpose of postponing fertility be engaging in a contraceptive behavior? “Absolutely not” is the short answer. Contraceptive behaviors violate God’s order of Creation. They seek to take apart by man’s actions what God has put together in the marriage act—“making love” and “making babies.” In both forms of natural family planning—ecological breastfeeding and systematic NFP—there is respect for the order of God’s creation. With regard to ecological breastfeeding, God made woman in such a way that the frequent suckling of her baby inhibits her fertility. The fact that we know this does not make it any less natural. Nor is it wrong to hope for the effect of breastfeeding infertility. After all, as Dr. Dominic Pedulla said about this issue in a recent e-list discussion, “If God Himself has built the good effect into the act, even as a secondary effect, it is never wrong directly to will it.”
Would the mother who breastfeeds solely for the natural effect of baby-spacing be acting with a “contraceptive mentality?” No. We need to be careful how we use the terms “contraception” and “contraceptive mentality.” Action follows being. (In Latin, agere sequitur esse.) A person or couple with a contraceptive mentality will engage in contraceptive behaviors. Such behaviors need to be distinguished from behaviors that flow from a fearful mentality, a selfish mentality, and so on. Couples can use systematic NFP fearfully, selfishly, etc. That’s why sections 10 and 16 of Humanae Vitae teach that couples need sufficiently serious reasons to use [systematic] NFP to avoid pregnancy. (Couples don’t need any of the serious reasons mentioned in Humanae Vitae to do ecological breastfeeding. In fact the risks of not breastfeeding are sufficiently serious that spouses need sufficiently serious reasons not to breastfeed, but pursuing that is beyond our current question.)
Let’s look at this in terms of a standard analysis of a human act.
There are three factors that constitute the morality of a human act.
1) the thing done,
2) the circumstances, and
3) the intention of the person who acts.
1) In this case, the thing done is a basic human good. It is the form of baby care that gives the baby the best nutrition and nurturing.
2) The circumstances are such that they do not affect the morality of the action. The mother is able to nurse, and the baby is able to suckle.
3) The intention is the key issue here. What the hypothetical mother intends is the accomplishment of the natural effect built into the nursing mother-baby ecology. That is the normal effect that God himself has built into the nursing mother-baby ecology. Therefore, what she desires is a God-given good.
Therefore I have to conclude that our hypothetical mother who chooses to breastfeed solely for its baby spacing effects would be doing a good thing, since the action is good and her intention is simply to pursue a God-created effect of breastfeeding. Her intention is narrow, and that is what makes the question so hypothetical.
Next week: Would a mother who chose to breastfeed solely for its baby-spacing effects be “using” her baby in a pejorative sense?
John F. Kippley
Sex and the Marriage Covenant: A Basis for Morality (Ignatius)
Natural Family Planning: The Question-Answer Book, a short, easy-to-read, free, downloadable e-book available at
www.NFPandmore.org