Eco-BF

[Guest guest]

,

One sentence of your message calls for clarification. "Touting the 7 standards as a method of birth control is just as wrong as intimating that people that don't do ALL of the steps ALL of the time have a problem, or that their children will have problems or are being neglected."

I suspect that almost every NFP program has nice things to say about breastfeeding, but a problem arises when the subject of breastfeeding is brought up in a course on natural family planning. Because of this context, couples can reasonably be asking themselves if there is a connection between breastfeeding and "natural birth control," and if so, what is that connection. The purpose of teaching the Seven Standards of Eco-BF is not to enable mothers to see their little baby as an agent of "birth control" nor it is a matter of pushing it on them. Some or many mothers would like an extended time of BF amenorrhea. Teaching the Seven Standards is simply a matter of teaching them truths that have been discovered about the relationship of frequent-and-unrestricted suckling and the duration of BF amenorrhea.

Since personal experiences have played a part in this conversation, allow me to relate a couple. About the time this discussion began, we were corresponding with a woman who did not learn about Eco-BF in her NFP course some years ago and had a very early return of fertility while she was doing cultural BF. Subsequently learning about Eco-BF, she began to practice it, has experienced 19 months of amenorrhea with subsequent babies, and is currently 17 months postpartum with no signs of returning fertility. Since this woman has some special problems with childbirth, she has greatly appreciated this knowledge. Another woman wrote us recently that she had been practicing what we call Eco-BF all on her own simply because it seemed so natural. So natural that she was surprised to learn that it had a name.

To teach well, one has to make the proper distinctions. When someone attends a course on natural family planning in which breastfeeding is mentioned, it is important to teach the pattern of breastfeeding that does normally provided more than a year of BF infertility and to distinguish it from the common cultural patterns of BF that do not. It is also important to teach that an average is an average and that mothers who do Eco-BF are not living in Lake Wobegon where all the moms are above average.

Peace,

Kippley

Re: Re: vaginal dryness

There is an old saying that if you're not getting flak, you must not be over the target.

Agree 100% on no moral imperative to chart; that was precisely my point on the charting -- not to make it an absolute. But on the 7 standards, why, once again, (and isn't is so interesting that it always becomes personal when one has the gumption to push the 7 standards, even when talking in generalities and trying to leave individuals and their feelings out of it, something I thought I went to great lengths to do in my previous remarks?) must we make it personal? And did I not say there can be insuperable obstacles of a practical nature?

It simply isn't fair to the philosophical discussion which we are having, to make it all so personal, as if to pre-empt any further discussion of norms. And neither does it follow that we're "blaming the woman", as it might follow more logically from my comments that we're blaming society for not helping put her in a better position to observe the norms. Maybe I could be clearer on that point. But therefore and with all due respect to the personal trials you've had and seen, I will not back down from what I said about fulfillment, since I know it to be true and from more than merely professional experience, even if it's hard to hear a bit at times.

[Guest guest]

You are right and I totally agree. My point was the primary reason we have defined those steps is not so people can use them as a means of birth control. It is re best way for mommy and baby for both nutritional and emotional reasons and the delayed return if fertility is a benefit. Besides, the way people lea rice birth control is wrong itself. (Vs NFP).Likewise, to say the other things is wrong as well....I in no way meant to refute, minimize or downplay the "guts"of the 7 Standards. What I did not like is the implication (not yours) that women who for whatever reason can't do all of the steps to the letter are somehow "less than". Sent via DROID on Verizon Wireless Eco-BF, One sentence of your message calls for clarification. "Touting the 7 standards as a method of birth control is just as wrong as intimating that people that don't do ALL of the steps ALL of the time have a problem, or that their children will have problems or are being neglected." I suspect that almost every NFP program has nice things to say about breastfeeding, but a problem arises when the subject of breastfeeding is brought up in a course on natural family planning. Because of this context, couples can reasonably be asking themselves if there is a connection between breastfeeding and "natural birth control," and if so, what is that connection. The purpose of teaching the Seven Standards of Eco-BF is not to enable mothers to see their little baby as an agent of "birth control" nor it is a matter of pushing it on them. Some or many mothers would like an extended time of BF amenorrhea. Teaching the Seven Standards is simply a matter of teaching them truths that have been discovered about the relationship of frequent-and-unrestricted suckling and the duration of BF amenorrhea. Since personal experiences have played a part in this conversation, allow me to relate a couple. About the time this discussion began, we were corresponding with a woman who did not learn about Eco-BF in her NFP course some years ago and had a very early return of fertility while she was doing cultural BF. Subsequently learning about Eco-BF, she began to practice it, has experienced 19 months of amenorrhea with subsequent babies, and is currently 17 months postpartum with no signs of returning fertility. Since this woman has some special problems with childbirth, she has greatly appreciated this knowledge. Another woman wrote us recently that she had been practicing what we call Eco-BF all on her own simply because it seemed so natural. So natural that she was surprised to learn that it had a name. To teach well, one has to make the proper distinctions. When someone attends a course on natural family planning in which breastfeeding is mentioned, it is important to teach the pattern of breastfeeding that does normally provided more than a year of BF infertility and to distinguish it from the common cultural patterns of BF that do not. It is also important to teach that an average is an average and that mothers who do Eco-BF are not living in Lake Wobegon where all the moms are above average. Peace, Kippley Re: Re: vaginal drynessThere is an old saying that if you're not getting flak, you must not be over the target. Agree 100% on no moral imperative to chart; that was precisely my point on the charting -- not to make it an absolute. But on the 7 standards, why, once again, (and isn't is so interesting that it always becomes personal when one has the gumption to push the 7 standards, even when talking in generalities and trying to leave individuals and their feelings out of it, something I thought I went to great lengths to do in my previous remarks?) must we make it personal? And did I not say there can be insuperable obstacles of a practical nature?It simply isn't fair to the philosophical discussion which we are having, to make it all so personal, as if to pre-empt any further discussion of norms. And neither does it follow that we're "blaming the woman", as it might follow more logically from my comments that we're blaming society for not helping put her in a better position to observe the norms. Maybe I could be clearer on that point. But therefore and with all due respect to the personal trials you've had and seen, I will not back down from what I said about fulfillment, since I know it to be true and from more than merely professional experience, even if it's hard to hear a bit at times.

[Guest guest]

The only way women would be "less than" in this context is if they consciously allowed that for themselves; i.e., were aware of what God patiently calls them to through nature and the deep personalism of the mother-child bond, and consciously would allow numerous obstacles to get in the way, not all of which were 100% involuntary. And this only they can know, in the context of their individual situations. But do we tell our initially contraceptive clients they are "less than" when they haven't yet had the chance to learn about the more truthful, right, and beautiful way of NFP? Can't they simply be ill-informed? Alternatively did not in the Gospel take the "better" part? Did this make Martha "less than", she who herself is a canonized saint? Must we be so superior as to be considered completely adequate in every respect, knowing all and being unable to be taught anything?And BTW, just what does it mean in this context to say "for whatever reason"? What reasons are compelling enough to shortchange small babies?

And what kind of horrid reductionism have we come to when we reduce the breastfeeding topic to a matter of nutrition, chemistry, or to mere avoidance of pregnancy?. What about mysticism -- first "pre-learned" at the breast? What about the preparation for docile childlike faith, such that patient breastfeeding prepared the child to receive the "milk" of doctrine from her baptismal mother, the Church (to use an analogy from St. 's letters)? And what about the deep consolation the baby receives, which consolation the psalmist and the prophets so take for granted that it becomes a metaphor for one's not being forsaken by God Himself? And which also must well be the first antidote against alcoholism, obesity due to emotional eating later in life, and other addictions? What about the first experience of the truth, when the baby -- as Urs Von Balthasar says -- first learns about what must be true from what he sees in the mom's face about himself; namely, that he must be good and worthy of love if the delight he sees in his mother's face is indicative of anything worth noting. And why did Our Lord see fit to present the dreadful picture of women regarding it a blessing not to have to breastfeed (Luke 23 from Hosea prophecy) as a sign -- according to many scholars -- of both the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the world? Could it be that even among those " of faith this great gift is under-appreciated? I think clearly the answer is yes.

Sincerely yours,

Dominic M. Pedulla MD, FACC, CNFPMC, ABVM, ACPh

Interventional Cardiologist, Endovascular Diplomate, Varicose Vein Specialist, Noncontraceptive Family Planning Consultant, Family Planning Researcher

Medical Director, The Oklahoma Vein and Endovascular Center (www.noveinok.com, veininfo@...)

Executive Director, The Edith Stein Foundation (www.theedithsteinfoundation.com)

(office)

(cell)

(FAX)

pedullad@...

“Our fundamental purpose is not to go out and help the poor. For us, this has only been a means. Our purpose is to maintain the Catholic faith within us, and to allow its diffusion to others through the instrument of charity.†Blessed Frederic Ozanam, a 19th century founder of the Society of Saint De

Eco-BF

,

One sentence of your message calls for clarification. "Touting the 7 standards as a method of birth control is just as wrong as intimating that people that don't do ALL of the steps ALL of the time have a problem, or that their children will have problems or are being neglected."

I suspect that almost every NFP program has nice things to say about breastfeeding, but a problem arises when the subject of breastfeeding is brought up in a course on natural family planning. Because of this context, couples can reasonably be asking themselves if there is a connection between breastfeeding and "natural birth control," and if so, what is that connection. The purpose of teaching the Seven Standards of Eco-BF is not to enable mothers to see their little baby as an agent of "birth control" nor it is a matter of pushing it on them. Some or many mothers would like an extended time of BF amenorrhea. Teaching the Seven Standards is simply a matter of teaching them truths that have been discovered about the relationship of frequent-and-unrestricted suckling and the duration of BF amenorrhea.

Since personal experiences have played a part in this conversation, allow me to relate a couple. About the time this discussion began, we were corresponding with a woman who did not learn about Eco-BF in her NFP course some years ago and had a very early return of fertility while she was doing cultural BF. Subsequently learning about Eco-BF, she began to practice it, has experienced 19 months of amenorrhea with subsequent babies, and is currently 17 months postpartum with no signs of returning fertility. Since this woman has some special problems with childbirth, she has greatly appreciated this knowledge. Another woman wrote us recently that she had been practicing what we call Eco-BF all on her own simply because it seemed so natural. So natural that she was surprised to learn that it had a name.

To teach well, one has to make the proper distinctions. When someone attends a course on natural family planning in which breastfeeding is mentioned, it is important to teach the pattern of breastfeeding that does normally provided more than a year of BF infertility and to distinguish it from the common cultural patterns of BF that do not. It is also important to teach that an average is an average and that mothers who do Eco-BF are not living in Lake Wobegon where all the moms are above average.

Peace,

Kippley

Re: Re: vaginal dryness

There is an old saying that if you're not getting flak, you must not be over the target.

Agree 100% on no moral imperative to chart; that was precisely my point on the charting -- not to make it an absolute. But on the 7 standards, why, once again, (and isn't is so interesting that it always becomes personal when one has the gumption to push the 7 standards, even when talking in generalities and trying to leave individuals and their feelings out of it, something I thought I went to great lengths to do in my previous remarks?) must we make it personal? And did I not say there can be insuperable obstacles of a practical nature?

It simply isn't fair to the philosophical discussion which we are having, to make it all so personal, as if to pre-empt any further discussion of norms. And neither does it follow that we're "blaming the woman", as it might follow more logically from my comments that we're blaming society for not helping put her in a better position to observe the norms. Maybe I could be clearer on that point. But therefore and with all due respect to the personal trials you've had and seen, I will not back down from what I said about fulfillment, since I know it to be true and from more than merely professional experience, even if it's hard to hear a bit at times.

[Guest guest]

DominicI gave examples of reasons, and included myself in them which you objected to as then it was personalized.In all the rest, you are right and I agree!We should strive for the ideal ... and whatever is closest to the ideal as second best. My little 17 y/o mom with HELLP and a preterm baby with anomolies in NICU can be my latest example of "whatever the reason" Mom is lucky to be alive. Breastfeeding is not in the equation at this time.Sent via DROID on Verizon Wireless Eco-BF, One sentence of your message calls for clarification. "Touting the 7 standards as a method of birth control is just as wrong as intimating that people that don't do ALL of the steps ALL of the time have a problem, or that their children will have problems or are being neglected." I suspect that almost every NFP program has nice things to say about breastfeeding, but a problem arises when the subject of breastfeeding is brought up in a course on natural family planning. Because of this context, couples can reasonably be asking themselves if there is a connection between breastfeeding and "natural birth control," and if so, what is that connection. The purpose of teaching the Seven Standards of Eco-BF is not to enable mothers to see their little baby as an agent of "birth control" nor it is a matter of pushing it on them. Some or many mothers would like an extended time of BF amenorrhea. Teaching the Seven Standards is simply a matter of teaching them truths that have been discovered about the relationship of frequent-and-unrestricted suckling and the duration of BF amenorrhea. Since personal experiences have played a part in this conversation, allow me to relate a couple. About the time this discussion began, we were corresponding with a woman who did not learn about Eco-BF in her NFP course some years ago and had a very early return of fertility while she was doing cultural BF. Subsequently learning about Eco-BF, she began to practice it, has experienced 19 months of amenorrhea with subsequent babies, and is currently 17 months postpartum with no signs of returning fertility. Since this woman has some special problems with childbirth, she has greatly appreciated this knowledge. Another woman wrote us recently that she had been practicing what we call Eco-BF all on her own simply because it seemed so natural. So natural that she was surprised to learn that it had a name. To teach well, one has to make the proper distinctions. When someone attends a course on natural family planning in which breastfeeding is mentioned, it is important to teach the pattern of breastfeeding that does normally provided more than a year of BF infertility and to distinguish it from the common cultural patterns of BF that do not. It is also important to teach that an average is an average and that mothers who do Eco-BF are not living in Lake Wobegon where all the moms are above average. Peace, Kippley Re: Re: vaginal drynessThere is an old saying that if you're not getting flak, you must not be over the target. Agree 100% on no moral imperative to chart; that was precisely my point on the charting -- not to make it an absolute. But on the 7 standards, why, once again, (and isn't is so interesting that it always becomes personal when one has the gumption to push the 7 standards, even when talking in generalities and trying to leave individuals and their feelings out of it, something I thought I went to great lengths to do in my previous remarks?) must we make it personal? And did I not say there can be insuperable obstacles of a practical nature?It simply isn't fair to the philosophical discussion which we are having, to make it all so personal, as if to pre-empt any further discussion of norms. And neither does it follow that we're "blaming the woman", as it might follow more logically from my comments that we're blaming society for not helping put her in a better position to observe the norms. Maybe I could be clearer on that point. But therefore and with all due respect to the personal trials you've had and seen, I will not back down from what I said about fulfillment, since I know it to be true and from more than merely professional experience, even if it's hard to hear a bit at times.

[Guest guest]

And if anyone ever needed EBF it would be that baby!Sent from my iPhone

DominicI gave examples of reasons, and included myself in them which you objected to as then it was personalized.In all the rest, you are right and I agree!We should strive for the ideal ... and whatever is closest to the ideal as second best. My little 17 y/o mom with HELLP and a preterm baby with anomolies in NICU can be my latest example of "whatever the reason" Mom is lucky to be alive. Breastfeeding is not in the equation at this time.Sent via DROID on Verizon Wireless Eco-BF

,

One sentence of your message calls for clarification. "Touting the 7 standards as a method of birth control is just as wrong as intimating that people that don't do ALL of the steps ALL of the time have a problem, or that their children will have problems or are being neglected."

I suspect that almost every NFP program has nice things to say about breastfeeding, but a problem arises when the subject of breastfeeding is brought up in a course on natural family planning. Because of this context, couples can reasonably be asking themselves if there is a connection between breastfeeding and "natural birth control," and if so, what is that connection. The purpose of teaching the Seven Standards of Eco-BF is not to enable mothers to see their little baby as an agent of "birth control" nor it is a matter of pushing it on them. Some or many mothers would like an extended time of BF amenorrhea. Teaching the Seven Standards is simply a matter of teaching them truths that have been discovered about the relationship of frequent-and-unrestricted suckling and the duration of BF amenorrhea.

Since personal experiences have played a part in this conversation, allow me to relate a couple. About the time this discussion began, we were corresponding with a woman who did not learn about Eco-BF in her NFP course some years ago and had a very early return of fertility while she was doing cultural BF. Subsequently learning about Eco-BF, she began to practice it, has experienced 19 months of amenorrhea with subsequent babies, and is currently 17 months postpartum with no signs of returning fertility. Since this woman has some special problems with childbirth, she has greatly appreciated this knowledge. Another woman wrote us recently that she had been practicing what we call Eco-BF all on her own simply because it seemed so natural. So natural that she was surprised to learn that it had a name.

To teach well, one has to make the proper distinctions. When someone attends a course on natural family planning in which breastfeeding is mentioned, it is important to teach the pattern of breastfeeding that does normally provided more than a year of BF infertility and to distinguish it from the common cultural patterns of BF that do not. It is also important to teach that an average is an average and that mothers who do Eco-BF are not living in Lake Wobegon where all the moms are above average.

Peace,

Kippley

Re: Re: vaginal dryness

There is an old saying that if you're not getting flak, you must not be over the target.

Agree 100% on no moral imperative to chart; that was precisely my point on the charting -- not to make it an absolute. But on the 7 standards, why, once again, (and isn't is so interesting that it always becomes personal when one has the gumption to push the 7 standards, even when talking in generalities and trying to leave individuals and their feelings out of it, something I thought I went to great lengths to do in my previous remarks?) must we make it personal? And did I not say there can be insuperable obstacles of a practical nature?

It simply isn't fair to the philosophical discussion which we are having, to make it all so personal, as if to pre-empt any further discussion of norms. And neither does it follow that we're "blaming the woman", as it might follow more logically from my comments that we're blaming society for not helping put her in a better position to observe the norms. Maybe I could be clearer on that point. But therefore and with all due respect to the personal trials you've had and seen, I will not back down from what I said about fulfillment, since I know it to be true and from more than merely professional experience, even if it's hard to hear a bit at times.

[Guest guest]

Well. Prayers for the mom. She is in ICU. At this point breastfeeding is a mute point. Her baby is gone. Even if that weren't the case, many times in such severe PPH/DIC the moms are so depleted they never produce any milk, let alone enough milk for a long time, (if ever). Thank God we live in the US and have access to such good medical care though. This mom would not have made it in a third world country. Sent via DROID on Verizon Wireless Eco-BF, One sentence of your message calls for clarification. "Touting the 7 standards as a method of birth control is just as wrong as intimating that people that don't do ALL of the steps ALL of the time have a problem, or that their children will have problems or are being neglected." I suspect that almost every NFP program has nice things to say about breastfeeding, but a problem arises when the subject of breastfeeding is brought up in a course on natural family planning. Because of this context, couples can reasonably be asking themselves if there is a connection between breastfeeding and "natural birth control," and if so, what is that connection. The purpose of teaching the Seven Standards of Eco-BF is not to enable mothers to see their little baby as an agent of "birth control" nor it is a matter of pushing it on them. Some or many mothers would like an extended time of BF amenorrhea. Teaching the Seven Standards is simply a matter of teaching them truths that have been discovered about the relationship of frequent-and-unrestricted suckling and the duration of BF amenorrhea. Since personal experiences have played a part in this conversation, allow me to relate a couple. About the time this discussion began, we were corresponding with a woman who did not learn about Eco-BF in her NFP course some years ago and had a very early return of fertility while she was doing cultural BF. Subsequently learning about Eco-BF, she began to practice it, has experienced 19 months of amenorrhea with subsequent babies, and is currently 17 months postpartum with no signs of returning fertility. Since this woman has some special problems with childbirth, she has greatly appreciated this knowledge. Another woman wrote us recently that she had been practicing what we call Eco-BF all on her own simply because it seemed so natural. So natural that she was surprised to learn that it had a name. To teach well, one has to make the proper distinctions. When someone attends a course on natural family planning in which breastfeeding is mentioned, it is important to teach the pattern of breastfeeding that does normally provided more than a year of BF infertility and to distinguish it from the common cultural patterns of BF that do not. It is also important to teach that an average is an average and that mothers who do Eco-BF are not living in Lake Wobegon where all the moms are above average. Peace, Kippley Re: Re: vaginal drynessThere is an old saying that if you're not getting flak, you must not be over the target. Agree 100% on no moral imperative to chart; that was precisely my point on the charting -- not to make it an absolute. But on the 7 standards, why, once again, (and isn't is so interesting that it always becomes personal when one has the gumption to push the 7 standards, even when talking in generalities and trying to leave individuals and their feelings out of it, something I thought I went to great lengths to do in my previous remarks?) must we make it personal? And did I not say there can be insuperable obstacles of a practical nature?It simply isn't fair to the philosophical discussion which we are having, to make it all so personal, as if to pre-empt any further discussion of norms. And neither does it follow that we're "blaming the woman", as it might follow more logically from my comments that we're blaming society for not helping put her in a better position to observe the norms. Maybe I could be clearer on that point. But therefore and with all due respect to the personal trials you've had and seen, I will not back down from what I said about fulfillment, since I know it to be true and from more than merely professional experience, even if it's hard to hear a bit at times.