please tell me BFing my newborn is more than enough birth control - Page 3

[AngelBee]

Hang in there. Keep us posted if you find anything out.

[Mulvah]

I was fertile fairly early on and would never dream of using EBFing as a form of birth control.

Originally Posted by elisheva

I'm one of the 2% for whom ANY amount of bfding is not enough birth control....

I don't necessarily agree with that statistic, but I agree, if you're fertile, you're fertile and no amount of BFing is enough in that situation.

Originally Posted by Youngfrankenstein

...When I read the thread title, I starting screaming "Nooooooo".

If I truly didn't want any chance of pregnancy (other than practicing abstinence) I would not risk having un-protected sex....

to all of the above.

[lach]

This has been such an interesting thread to read! I really feel like I've learned a ton.

But I think the answer to OP's question is pretty basic. NO, it is not enough birth control, let alone "more than enough"

[JMJ]

Originally Posted by lach

But I think the answer to OP's question is pretty basic. NO, it is not enough birth control, let alone "more than enough"

It's more complicated than that. Most people define "enough" birth control as whatever it takes to keep them from getting pregnant. EBFing a newborn does keep many women from getting pregnant and is therefore "enough" birth control for them. On the other hand, abstinence is the only form of birth control that is "enough" to keep every woman from getting pregnant. For the rest, it is a matter of probability, both for getting pregnant and avoiding pregnancy.

The probabilities required to be "enough" for one couple may or may not be "enough" for another couple. One couple may be trying to figure out if they should have another kid now or not, and a reasonably high probability of pregnancy may be acceptable. Another woman may be undergoing treatment for cancer and may need a pretty much nil chance of pregnancy. The effectiveness of LAM in postponing pregnancy may be debatable, but it does have a certain probability of effectiveness, and whether or not it is "enough" for the OP is really a subjective question.

It's really a myth in our society that you do xyz and you are "covered." It is "enough." You "shouldn't" get pregnant. That's not the way it works. If you choose a method of birth control that is 99% effective, that means you have a 1% chance of getting pregnant this year. If you use it for 10 years, you'll have almost a 10% chance of getting pregnant. That means that about 1 out of 10 women who use it for 10 years will end up pregnant. Those are reasonably high odds that for long term use, most of the commonly used methods of birth control will allow you to have at least one unplanned pregnancy. You should know this every time you choose to have sex. You can stack the odds in your favor, but if you choose to have sex, you choose to face whatever probability that you could become pregnant.

[candycat]

My kids were born 10 months apart. Do the math. =P

[Youngfrankenstein]

Originally Posted by JMJ

If you choose a method of birth control that is 99% effective, that means you have a 1% chance of getting pregnant this year.

<snip>

but if you choose to have sex, you choose to face whatever probability that you could become pregnant.

I know what you are saying. I'm just offering the opinion that I would not be as comfortable with the odds of the breastfeeding "birth control" as I would be with "raincoats"

To each her own!

[Miss Chris]

nevermind....

[MyFullHouse]

My EBF dds are 13 months apart. It was always fun to watch the reaction when I was asked (a million times) what my LMP was.

[pinky]

I think it's worth throwing out there that LAM (and it's guidelines) were developed to promote child spacing in parts of the world where there are no other forms of birth control readily available.

[GoBecGo]

Originally Posted by pinky

I think it's worth throwing out there that LAM (and it's guidelines) were developed to promote child spacing in parts of the world where there are no other forms of birth control readily available.

In fact many many non-industrialised/nomadic people still manage to have a kid about every 4 years, despite a total lack of contraception available, and not all of them abstain during lactation. But if you look at the average tanzanian nomadic woman, she doesn't feed her kid a big feed every 2 or 3 hours, she is more likely to feed a wee bit every 15-20mins, which surely would keep the prolactin levels much higher? in "natural" or rather historically/evolutionarily normal conditions i think lactation probably does offer fair contraceptive cover, but the second you change to an agricultural set-up, where there is enough food around that feeding is taking place every x hours rather than every x minutes, the system is going to be way less reliable.

[THBVsMommy]

I must be one of the women it's working for I would consider myself fertile, as both of my kids were conceived in our first month trying. I am nearly 10 months post pardum and AF still has not returned yet, and we have yet to use any protection since my DD was born.

[hildare]

well it is for me. i apparently won't be able to get preggers again till she is off the boob.

[stellamia]

Originally Posted by THBVsMommy

I must be one of the women it's working for I would consider myself fertile, as both of my kids were conceived in our first month trying. I am nearly 10 months post pardum and AF still has not returned yet, and we have yet to use any protection since my DD was born.

Originally Posted by hildare

well it is for me. i apparently won't be able to get preggers again till she is off the boob.

Same here! And I also know I'm quite fertile. My beautiful DS1 was conceived (surprise!!) two weeks after my Dr. told me I had PCOS, wasn't ovulating and would very likely need fertility treatments in the future if I wanted kids. My DS2 was conceived my first cycle after going off BC and my DD was conceived my first full cycle PP (my previous cycles had had too short a luteal phase to sustain a pregnancy). However, when I'm BFing, my body "shuts down the shop" so to speak. I didn't have a real period until DS1 was two years old and going a full night without nursing. With my second I wanted to get pregnant but wasn't ready to wean him. I learned SO much from the TTC thread here and by night weaning and using herbs I got my cycle back when he was 18 months. I'm now tandem nursing and I'm darn sure that my body isn't going to be ovulating soon. BUT! I know nothing is totally reliable and *if* I were to get pregnant earlier than expected, then I consider that the baby was meant to come into our family at that time and we'll welcome it!

So, LAM works for me any many others, but I also doubt that it's effectiveness is as high as 98%.