KIMBERLY writes:

I think the discussions about breastfeeding and so on are good, but the focus on the “ideal” mother, who can use NFP without a problem, who can breastfeed and do just fine, put a lot of pressure on mothers, especially those with less than ideal health or circumstances. There are many women who are not in perfect health, who are hesitant or unable to have another child for medical reasons, or who cannot breastfeed. There are some who worry with good cause they will not be able to feed or care for another due to money problems. If motherhood is put on a pedestal, or made to seem as though it is only for those fit enough to have a child whenever God gives them one, it discourages others. Who can blame single women for not wanting ONE child, when the bar is set so high? It must seem intimidating, especially to a modern woman who was likely encouraged to do anything but have a baby most of her life. 

Who can blame the mother who has poorly controlled high blood pressure, a history of cancer, a heart defect, a serious autoimmune disease or a bleeding disorder for using contraception? In a perfect world, we would not need contraception. But there are cases, and mine was one of them, where doctors tell mothers flat-out they will lose their lives or risk a severely damaged baby if they do not use contraception. In my case, the doctor was still cutting me open for my second c-section when she told me to “never do this again”. I was already going against medical recommendations to have that baby, and I knew she was right when I was placed in intensive care after the surgery, after my oxygen levels plummeted dangerously low. That delivery was easy compared to my first baby, who suffered an unpredictable, life-threatening complication at the last minute of the last stage of the type of perfect drug-free delivery some mothers like to brag about. 

Regardless of how anyone feels about the contraceptive issue, it should be treated with the understanding that things are not always black and white. It can be easy to judge, but some women face very complex life-threatening decisions. It isn’t always about selfishness, or a trip to Paris. To reduce the discussion to such a simple level leaves many important questions unanswered for too many women, especially Catholics who want to do the right thing, but would also like to be around to raise the children they were able to have.

Laura writes:

I am offended that you think that I or other commenters reduced the issue of contraception to the simple question of whether childbearing should be delayed for a trip to Paris. I also take offense at your point that we have displayed insensitivity toward women who face life-threatening complications.

The previous posts were a conversation. A reader brought up the idea of the couple who wanted to save to go to Paris and readers responded. This conversation was not an exhaustive look at the issue of contraception and was never intended to be. Nor did I or anyone else speak as a Church authority on the issue.

A woman who faced possible death or serious injury due to bearing a child would indeed be right in considering artificial contraception. However, the number of such women is very, very small, so small they should not be a major consideration in a general conversation of the topic.

You say, “There are many women who are not in perfect health, who are hesitant or unable to have another child for medical reasons, or who cannot breastfeed.” [emphasis added]

This is not true if you mean that the number of women who face life-threatening complications or serious debilitation from childbirth or breastfeeding is considerable in relation to the many who do not. Again, their numbers are small, however serious and worthy of compassion their circumstances may be.

No ethical issue is black and white. Let me repeat that. No ethical issue is black and white. Human behavior and circumstances are too complex. Nevertheless, we can still arrive at general principles of right and wrong. The person who says, “No, you can’t speak of what is best for the ordinary person because I am not an ordinary person,” is the one who is speaking out of insensitivity to others.

The woman who will become seriously ill and possibly deprive her children of a mother if she becomes pregnant or breastfeeds should be confident that she is doing the best within the limitations of her circumstances if she does what she can to avoid these things. It is not the fault of those trying to establish working principles if she faces insecurity.

Also, it should go without saying, as in all ethical discussions, that not one of us is perfect. Not one of us is without sin. I strongly disagree with your point that high ideals for motherhood are wrong and discouraging. The flipside of that is the view that none of it is very consequential. For every woman who might suffer insecurity because she cannot breastfeed or have children due to serious illness, there are many, many more who have never given birth and never breastfed because they have been groomed to be female eunuchs and live by the lowest standards.

Robin writes:

Kimberly writes:

“Pacifying your baby at the breast is one of the “Seven Standards” of Ecological Breastfeeding. I run a very small meeting at my Church to promote Ecological Breastfeeding. Recently a new mother came. She had never heard of Ecological Breastfeeding, but she had instinctively done all Seven Standards and is at this time still infertile and nursing her two-year-old daughter.”

 As a culture, we women have become too speedy for our own good: running to and fro, lacking any ability to listen either to our instincts, or to the voice of God to our spirits. The Ecological Breastfeeding “Seven Standards” are all completely natural. I, too, had no idea whatsoever when our first daughter was born that there was something called Ecological Breastfeeding. I only knew that it “felt” right to be home with her and to snuggle her next to my body most of the day and night, and to nurse her whenever she wanted, allowing her to drift off into dreams upon my breast. My husband even “knew” these things were right: he never doubted my immediate dismissal of my previous, part-time employment away from home(even prior to our daughter’s birth); he thought “pumping” breast milk was the silliest thing he’d ever seen and told me if it hurt (which it did) that I ought not do it again! He instinctively spoke the words, “Well, having a baby and doing it naturally means that naturally, you will be with the baby everywhere you go for at least the first year, doesn’t it?” We declined plenty of social engagements because babies were not welcome. 

We have endured massive criticism (and still do) because of our choices to parent this way. My husband proudly defends our choices to his male friends, relatives and strangers alike, educating them as he speaks about our lifestyle. He tells them there IS another way, and without preaching to them about birth control, he teaches them about Ecological Breastfeeding. Our daughter was twenty months old when we conceived our second child, a daughter, who was just born recently! They will be wonderful gifts to each other as siblings with this degree of closeness in age, yet they are far enough apart so that I can parent them well individually. 

Although I gave birth in a Catholic hospital (I am Protestant), I was still asked by my health care provider what type of birth control I was interested in prior to my discharge from the hospital. This same hospital will not perform tubal ligations, but apparently other forms of contraception are permissible! 

God knows what He is doing. We really ought to get out of the way. If we were still and quiet before Him long enough, we might realize this.

Please follow and like us: