Michelle Duggar is expecting # 18

[TracyR]

She sure is the luckiest woman in the world that's for sure . I wish I could have another child :<(

[unsinkable]

You know what prevents pregnancy even better than nursing?

 

ABSTINENCE.

[nancypants]

" Originally Posted by 3littlekeets View Post

I mean this in all sincerity: Am I the only one who doesn't see her as a "mother" to all the children? It seems like she births them, then hands them off to the other children to raise. I'm not sure that counts as parenting."

 

Oh dear Lord... They are delegating some of the care needs of their children to older responsible siblings. What does your statement say about all of those people who hand their children off to perfect strangers from 7 a.m. until 6 p.m. every day? They are still parents. While they are doing it differently than you and I, and likely have different values than we do (as do the Duggars) they are still parenting.

 

These kinds of remarks are what I'm talking about. It's presumptive and judgemental. And this is coming from someone (me) who does *not* agree with their philosophy of birth control, their family style (or hair styles :tongue_smilie:), etc...

 

What is wrong with just saying, "It's not how I want to raise my family." And leave it at that? There are plenty of people who really aren't doing their job as parents in the world right now... (Go look at the jam packed foster care system) and their kids are living proof. In the days before birth control (which in the scheme of history, was not very long ago) large families were the norm and not usually for theological reasons. Also the norm was older children doing things for the younger children that are not generally expected much of them these days... taking responsibility and doing (sometimes hard) work for the good of the family as a whole. I think it's quite silly to knock such behavior.

[TracyR]

Kind of went back and read. I totally agree with Quiver . Its not for everyone . Just as homeschooling isn't for everyone , homebirths aren't for everyone and so on . I grew up in a big family and have a wonderful relationship with my brothers and sisters. I can't imagine my life without them. Ever . We are still very close and since my mother passed away when I was 18 ( 13yrs ago today .:<( we are our own family .

My husband on the other hand is has one other sibling . He moved away . Lives in his own little world and could care less about us all . My husband sees the close bond that I have with my sisters and brothers and so wishes he had the same relationship .

 

Not saying that other small families will experience this . But having a family is just that , a family . Wether you have one or eighteen .

Like Quiver said the choice is between you , your husband and God . What you chose to do with your life doesn't mean that your children will chose the same . Life it WAY too short and I think that each of us should spend it on what makes us each happy .

Not sure but I've met many big families and haven't met anyone scarred from having many children , and if they are then it was from their own choosing and not having to do with the QF movement .

[unsinkable]

I think 3littlekeets brings up a valid question about motherhood. And it's a timely question...Mother's Day Eve and the same day M. Duggar's pregnancy story hit some papers.

 

I don't want to get all Oprah...but being a mother is more than giving birth.

[Storm Bay]

Oh dear Lord... They are delegating some of the care needs of their children to older responsible siblings. What does your statement say about all of those people who hand their children off to perfect strangers from 7 a.m. until 6 p.m. every day? They are still parents. While they are doing it differently than you and I, and likely have different values than we do (as do the Duggars) they are still parenting.

 

These kinds of remarks are what I'm talking about. It's presumptive and judgemental. And this is coming from someone (me) who does *not* agree with their philosophy of birth control, their family style (or hair styles :tongue_smilie:), etc...

 

What is wrong with just saying, "It's not how I want to raise my family." And leave it at that? There are plenty of people who really aren't doing their job as parents in the world right now... (Go look at the jam packed foster care system) and their kids are living proof. In the days before birth control (which in the scheme of history, was not very long ago) large families were the norm and not usually for theological reasons. Also the norm was older children doing things for the younger children that are not generally expected much of them these days... taking responsibility and doing (sometimes hard) work for the good of the family as a whole. I think it's quite silly to knock such behavior.

 

:iagree: However, if it's true that they do ritualized beating, I would not agree with that. However, the way they live under the spotlight, wouldn't that have come to light? So far, it's just hearsay, unless they've actually said they practise that type of childraising.

[Kelli in TN]

.

Not sure but I've met many big families and haven't met anyone scarred from having many children , .

 

 

Well, I am scarred from having one of mine! That big ol' 10+ pounder left me with a big scar!!!:lol:

 

But I think you mean that the kids are not scarred from being in a large family. I agree with you, and I think it depends on the kid. My 19 year old is "scarred" from going up in a family of six. Of course she is also scarred from having a mom with a weight problem. And she is scarred from having a dad with bad table manners. And she is scarred from having grandparents that are very, very southern. And she is scarred from growing up in a middle class home where money got tight sometimes.

 

Or maybe she is just self-centered.:D

 

I think, barring abuse or true neglect, that one grows up as scarred as one wants. Rise above or don't. Nobody leaves the planet unscathed.

[*anj*]

I'm just jumping in to say that the quote listed in Amy's post referenced below is not mine. I wasn't the one who made the cancer analogy.

Just for clarification... :)

 

Well, when I was QF-considering I was taught basically that "cancer is bad. Babies are good." :) We can try to fix cancer because it's not what God wants. We shouldn't stop having babies because babies are good and He wants them. The more babies, the more blessings you're getting. If you're having more babies, God's rewarding you more. "Children are a reward." (I can't remember where that's located, but that's basically the crux of QF, I believe).

[nancypants]

:iagree: However, if it's true that they do ritualized beating, I would not agree with that. However, the way they live under the spotlight, wouldn't that have come to light? So far, it's just hearsay, unless they've actually said they practise that type of childraising.

 

I think it's safe to say that no one here would approve of ritualized beatings. Of course I know that some might call any kind of spanking a beating, which I would not agree with either.

 

I guess that's what bothers me most. I do not agree with their mindset or philosophies. We are done with four! But most of the harsher criticisms throughout this post have seemed to be based purely on speculation and hearsay. I've heard nothing of substance that suggests that the Duggars are actually bad parents. Now if it's ever revealed that they line their children up and whip them all soundly before bed, well, I'll rescind all of my supportive commentary about them... but I sort of doubt that TLC would have taken on such a risk if they had checked the family out quite thoroughly in the first place.

 

If the worst thing that someone can come up with is that the older children take responsibility and play a vital role in the lives of their younger siblings, well, I'm sorry but I have to laugh, because history is chalk full of large, loving, productive families that shared the burdens of life and survival. It's funny to me that at the same time people want kids to not have prolonged childhoods and yet when they are asked and expected by their parents to participate fully in family responsibilities people have a problem with it. :confused:

 

Ben Franklin was one of 19 or 20 (including half-siblings) children. JFK was one of 9. Celine Dion is one of 14. Between his two wives J.S. Bach fathered 20 children, though many did not survive childhood. Jonathan Edwards and his wife had 11. There are so many great people throughout history who came from or had their own large families. And last but not least, my own Grandmother was the 11th out of 12 children... I'm quite glad her parents had a large family and I know that not only did the older kids help care for the younger but they also helped run the family raisin-grape farm! :D

[nancypants]

 

I think, barring abuse or true neglect, that one grows up as scarred as one wants. Rise above or don't. Nobody leaves the planet unscathed.

 

LOL! I love this! I'm going to use this quote somewhere, sometime! :D

[OnTheBrink]

I thought they followed ATI/Bill Gothard stuff. Does Gothard align with the Pearls?

[gardenschooler]

I'm not very familiar with the QF, but I have noticed that in one of the first TLC shows about the Duggars, there was a segment where the parents were asked to clarify their beliefs in regard to family size. The husband clearly said, "As long as she wants to keep having them...."

(and then later) "I've always said, it's up to her."

 

From what I'm reading in this thread about QF, it seems the ideal is to not limit family size in any way. So are there degrees of QF? Because the Duggar dad made it sound like he'd be fine with not having more (and I guess, obviously doing something to prevent that) if she didn't want to.

 

I have to say I do admire her organizational skills. It seems like a pretty well-run machine, which is no small feat in itself.

[Peek a Boo]

anj --excellent posts.

 

a few scattered thoughts.... :)

 

weaning: ya know, i feel pretty darn persecuted by the Nursing Nazis if i decide to wean early. It's like nursing is a religion in and of itself. Most babies are just fine w/ nursing a year or less. Or even w/ just bottles.......And unlike the speculation to wean to get pregnant [which at least sounds constructive to me], I wean by a year just cuz I'm selfish and want my body back. I think there are WAY too many variables in studies about nursing to make any conclusion about the effects of longer nursing periods on a person's life. mother's Diet. genetics. environment. etc. etc.

 

QF stuff: kids vs cancer :) .... i prefer to use the kids vs marriage analogy. Marriage is great, right??!! But even Christ hints that celibacy is a very rare GIFT. Children are obviously a blessing, but not all blessings are to be actively sought. We are encouraged to marry, but we are advised to choose a spouse carefully, not trust God "so completely" that we marry any old person that walks into our life. i do believe that some families are called to birth a lot of babies, and others are called to focus on one, a few, or even none. God convicts us all differently.

 

parenting: gotta agree w/ nancypants there. there's several people who define a role by the time spent. If you aren't teaching your kids YOURSELF, that's not really educating them. SOS and dvd's are just cop-outs. Co-ops make it even worse ;) Parenting: who HERE has mentioned the joy of having a parent that practically ignored them and ended up creating a very independent adult? not necessarily my kind of parenting, but there's plenty of opposing views [you're CODDLING your child!! give them more space!! don't DO so much for them-- let them discover stuff!]

 

health: I'm betting her docs are watching her uterus fairly closely. Even if they aren't, everyone's body reacts differently. Some uteruses can't handle one birth, while others go strong thru twenty.

 

their house: dude, I'd LOVE to have a fountain drink dispenser!!! tater tot casserole is nasty stuff tho.

 

gardenschooler -- I would expect degrees of QF mentality just like there are degrees of Christianity and homeschooling :)

[Guest Amy in MS]

 

gardenschooler -- I would expect degrees of QF mentality just like there are degrees of Christianity and homeschooling :)

 

Hi Peek-A-Boo,

You know, it's so nice to see that. I've never met anyone QF who seems to hold Quivers POV. Learn something new every day.

 

Here's my last post on the topic, so I can go to sleep and enjoy Mother's Day tomorrow. :001_smile:

 

I’m very happy for folks who have lots of children and can take care of them. My husband is the 8th of 9 and has a great family, and I love being around them. If I had a better temperament and healthier pregnancies and deliveries, I’d take more children myself. However. . . .

Thanks to, to Quiverof10, for being so kind and putting up with me and my concerns. I’m not concerned for her, she seems happy and healthy, and I’m thrilled for her and her family. (I’ve got to say, you’re the first QF woman who hasn’t taught her children that BC is evil, though. The QFers I know who have stuck it out won’t “allow†their children to marry people who aren’t QF also). So, I can see you’re a woman of your own mind, and I commend you.

I just want to support women who choose another path, too, and to point out that Quiverfull’s teachings can be harmful to some practitioners’ psyches.

From my own experiences. 3 different families, 3 different churches, 3 different states.

 

• A family who believes they are being punished by the deaths of 2 of their 5 children because they “closed the womb†after 3 deaf/blind/mentally challenged children.

2. A family who left Christian missions in Europe after 3 children because they were ashamed they went back on their QF position.

3. The missionary couple who trained my husband and me. 7 pregnancies in 7 years. Of those 3 were early miscarriages. She was relieved, and the felt crushing guilt because of that relief. She told me she never felt “safe†having sex until she hit menopause (of course, if she had more trust in God, she wouldn’t have worried, right?)

A family I don’t know, but a QF leader.

4. Poor Mrs. Murch, (founder of quiverfullmissions.com) who believed she would die and go to hell because she was having a hysterectomy to remove her cancer. http://www.quiverfullmissions.com/Bev-Update.php

Now, answers to common questions about QF, from A Quiver Full Family. Sorry, I don’t have a copy right now. I’m paraphrasing, but feel free to research it.

 

• “God provides pasture for his lambs.†You should never take your financial means into consideration when thinking about your family’s growth. To limit family size because of finances is unbelief.

• “God will never give you more than you can handle.†Post-pardem depression? You can handle it. You should never try to limit your family because you don’t want or feel you can handle any more children. To limit your family size is unbelief.

• Yeah, but what about starving families around the world in poor countries? Well, in India there’s plenty of food. They have lots of cattle running around, but their false religion doesn’t allow them to eat them. If they would embrace Christ they would find that God has provided for them. (This is literally from the book A Quiver Full Familyâ€)

• But my doctor says I shouldn’t have any more babies because I might die.---Only God knows if you’ll die or not. Either you have a 0% chance of dying or 100% chance of dying because God is totally in control. (In QF Family, this section is followed by lots of stories where women are told they might die in childbirth, but no one actually does. Dumb doctors.)

• But my husband and I carry traits for a terrible disease and several of our children already have this disease. We don’t want to risk any more of our children suffering this way. ----You can’t know if you’ll have a diseased child or not. You either have a 0% chance of having a sick baby or 100% chance of having a sick baby. Trust God. These trials are a blessing for you and your children.

Maybe by seeing this, people might understand my reaction to QF. (Not to all practitioners, mind you.)

If anyone is interested in researching the stuff I’m blathering about (I know it must seem like I am very hostile, but I’m just paraphrasing the “standard works†of the QF movement) you can just read A Quiver Full Family (Rick and Jan Hess) and Be Fruitful and Multiply. (Nancy Campbell)

The only think I got from QF was that hindering conception in any way is unbelief (which is the forebear of all sin). It seems clear from reading QF material that anyone doing any of these things is trying to oppose the will of God.

I like to think I’m trusting God with my womb, I trust that He wanted me to have my tubes tied. But according to traditional QF, I’m only trusting God with my womb if I do nothing to it.

Can I ask one question, Quiver? Then, I’ll let this thread drop. I don’t want to be seen as casting aspersions or not supporting families who want large families, or small families, for that matter. That’s not my intent at all. I believe people God convicts different people to different things, and I really don’t want to criticize.

But, do you believe it is ever God’s will for a healthy, Christian woman or man to be sterilized?

Thanks all,

And good night!

Amy

[Teddi]

Why would this even be an issue?

 

It seems a petty comment to me.

 

I cannot stand her hair! :lol:

[fivetails]

I think it's safe to say that no one here would approve of ritualized beatings. Of course I know that some might call any kind of spanking a beating, which I would not agree with either.

 

I guess that's what bothers me most. I do not agree with their mindset or philosophies. We are done with four! But most of the harsher criticisms throughout this post have seemed to be based purely on speculation and hearsay. I've heard nothing of substance that suggests that the Duggars are actually bad parents. Now if it's ever revealed that they line their children up and whip them all soundly before bed, well, I'll rescind all of my supportive commentary about them... but I sort of doubt that TLC would have taken on such a risk if they had checked the family out quite thoroughly in the first place.

 

If the worst thing that someone can come up with is that the older children take responsibility and play a vital role in the lives of their younger siblings, well, I'm sorry but I have to laugh, because history is chalk full of large, loving, productive families that shared the burdens of life and survival. It's funny to me that at the same time people want kids to not have prolonged childhoods and yet when they are asked and expected by their parents to participate fully in family responsibilities people have a problem with it. :confused:

 

Ben Franklin was one of 19 or 20 (including half-siblings) children. JFK was one of 9. Celine Dion is one of 14. Between his two wives J.S. Bach fathered 20 children, though many did not survive childhood. Jonathan Edwards and his wife had 11. There are so many great people throughout history who came from or had their own large families. And last but not least, my own Grandmother was the 11th out of 12 children... I'm quite glad her parents had a large family and I know that not only did the older kids help care for the younger but they also helped run the family raisin-grape farm! :D

 

Quoting so that I can say AWESOME POST. :D

[Teddi]

I am not QF, but I am sympathetic to and respectful of the lifestyle because I have several dear friends who are QF.

 

My QF friends are not as materialistic as most middle-class Americans. They do not believe that every child is entitled to his/her own bedroom, television, Ipod, Wii, a bulging closet of clothes/shoes in the latest fashions, etc. as well as dance, music, and gymnastics lessons ad nauseam.

 

Thus, they find that the Lord does indeed provide, just not in the manner that many Americans expect/demand.

 

 

I am obviously a QFer :) We have chosen to allow the Lord to choose our family size. Yes, a huge part of being QF is trusting Him to give you a baby, but to also provide for that child too. Keep in mind that not everyone who is QF has a dozen kids.

 

[bluecalmsea]

anj --excellent posts.

 

weaning: ya know, i feel pretty darn persecuted by the Nursing Nazis if i decide to wean early. It's like nursing is a religion in and of itself. Most babies are just fine w/ nursing a year or less. Or even w/ just bottles.......And unlike the speculation to wean to get pregnant [which at least sounds constructive to me], I wean by a year just cuz I'm selfish and want my body back. I think there are WAY too many variables in studies about nursing to make any conclusion about the effects of longer nursing periods on a person's life. mother's Diet. genetics. environment. etc. etc.

<

I really wish people would stop throwing the term nazi around when they are offended by those who support breastfeeding. I'm not aware of any lactivists who gas and kill formula users :glare:

 

bluecalmsea

[Susan in TX]

I mean this in all sincerity: Am I the only one who doesn't see her as a "mother" to all the children? It seems like she births them, then hands them off to the other children to raise. I'm not sure that counts as parenting. I tuck each of my kids in each night, wake them up in the morning, and value (as do they) our private time together. For me, mothering is about bonding, not about populating.

 

This really isn't fair. The vast majority of mothers in the US hand their kids off for someone else to raise. Many return to work when their babies are 6 weeks old and leave them in a stranger's care for 8-12 hours a day. Most parents send their kids off to school when they are five. No one would say that a working mother who sends her kid to daycare or public school isn't really a "mother" even if she only sees her kid for a few hours a day and on week-ends. And what makes you think Michelle Dugger doesn't also tuck each of her kids in each night (although the teenagers might not want to be tucked in!), wake them up in the morning, and value their private time together? Just because you can't conceive how it can be possible to "mother" that many children doesn't mean that it can't be done.

 

Susan in TX

[Kelli in TN]

[i really wish people would stop throwing the term nazi around when they are offended by those who support breastfeeding. I'm not aware of any lactivists who gas and kill formula users :glare:

 

bluecalmsea

 

 

:iagree:

[unsinkable]

This really isn't fair. The vast majority of mothers in the US hand their kids off for someone else to raise. Many return to work when their babies are 6 weeks old and leave them in a stranger's care for 8-12 hours a day. Most parents send their kids off to school when they are five. No one would say that a working mother who sends her kid to daycare or public school isn't really a "mother" even if she only sees her kid for a few hours a day and on week-ends. And what makes you think Michelle Dugger doesn't also tuck each of her kids in each night (although the teenagers might not want to be tucked in!), wake them up in the morning, and value their private time together? Just because you can't conceive how it can be possible to "mother" that many children doesn't mean that it can't be done.

 

Susan in TX

 

Define vast majority.

[pmegan]

This really isn't fair. The vast majority of mothers in the US hand their kids off for someone else to raise. Many return to work when their babies are 6 weeks old and leave them in a stranger's care for 8-12 hours a day. Most parents send their kids off to school when they are five. No one would say that a working mother who sends her kid to daycare or public school isn't really a "mother" even if she only sees her kid for a few hours a day and on week-ends. And what makes you think Michelle Dugger doesn't also tuck each of her kids in each night (although the teenagers might not want to be tucked in!), wake them up in the morning, and value their private time together? Just because you can't conceive how it can be possible to "mother" that many children doesn't mean that it can't be done.

 

Susan in TX

 

I think that people who level this charge against them mean that it's one thing to hire someone who makes a choice to take care of children, and it's another thing to use your older children as free full-time labor.

 

I can see both sides of this argument, honestly. While I think that children should be expected to help around the house, my understanding is also that the elder Duggar girls are expected to do a very large share of the housekeeping, child rearing, and cooking. I can see how people think that it's unfair that these girls are worked so hard, when they don't have any choice in the matter.

 

And before anyone brings up "the olden days," I know that this was very common back then. Which is one of the reasons my grandmother (the eldest of 9) only had 2! Just because something used to happen doesn't mean that people liked it then or that it's a great idea now ;)

[Susan in TX]

While I think that children should be expected to help around the house, my understanding is also that the elder Duggar girls are expected to do a very large share of the housekeeping, child rearing, and cooking.

 

That may be, but it is not unique to families with 18 kids. Many children in single parent households with one or two kids also are expected to do a large share of housekeeping, child rearing, and cooking. And I think it is also common in homeschooling families, no matter the size.

 

Susan in TX

[Reya]

IIRC she weans early to regain fertility sooner than she would otherwise.

 

And THIS I have a HUGE problem with. God opens and closes the womb? Sure. God also gave you breasts to feed your children with at LEAST through the first year. Messing with God's design by weaning early isn't any "better" than messing with it by taking contraceptives, if you believe there's a design that shouldn't be interfered with. In fact, it's worse--one endangers your children, and the other doesn't.

 

This means BREAST FEEDING ONLY until at least 5 months, BTW. There is a less than 1 in 50 chance of getting your fertility back before 6 months with exclusive breastfeeding. The natural spacing for children when breastfeeding is used--dare I say--as designed is 2 to 2.5 years, on average. So there is almost no chance of having babies a year apart. Having babies closer together than about 2 years repeatedly is bad for the mother and the babies, both.

[Peek a Boo]

<

I really wish people would stop throwing the term nazi around when they are offended by those who support breastfeeding. I'm not aware of any lactivists who gas and kill formula users :glare:

 

bluecalmsea

 

not all Nazis killed people.

 

I really wish more people would understand that "Nazi" doesn't mean murderer.

 

I am not offended by those who support breastfeeding.

 

I am offended when those who don't wish to nurse exclusively or for an extended period are told they must not care enough for their children, or are ignorant, or are berated w/ holier than thou attitudes WRT nursing.

 

I have witnessed lactation consultants reduce moms to tears because of the Severe way in which they promote "nurse at all costs". They kill the spirits of these moms. That's bad enough for me, and THAT's what prompts me to use the term Nursing Nazi. I don't use the term lightly, but again, don't assume that "Nazi" means one who murders and gasses others.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi

[Peek a Boo]

And THIS I have a HUGE problem with. God opens and closes the womb? Sure. God also gave you breasts to feed your children with at LEAST through the first year. Messing with God's design by weaning early isn't any "better" than messing with it by taking contraceptives, if you believe there's a design that shouldn't be interfered with. In fact, it's worse--one endangers your children, and the other doesn't.

 

um, God also gave children the ability to digest table food [WITHOUT endangering them. ;)] well before the first year is up too. the fact that you have working breasts [or wombs] doesn't mean you are required to use them beyond what might be suitable for you and your family.

 

This means BREAST FEEDING ONLY until at least 5 months, BTW. There is a less than 1 in 50 chance of getting your fertility back before 6 months with exclusive breastfeeding. The natural spacing for children when breastfeeding is used--dare I say--as designed is 2 to 2.5 years, on average. So there is almost no chance of having babies a year apart. Having babies closer together than about 2 years repeatedly is bad for the mother and the babies, both.

 

so out of HOW MANY thousand women we have in America alone, even if "only 1 out of 50 women" breastfed exclusively, there is still quite a significant number that will regain a cycle pretty quickly. I'd have to take issue w/ your version of "natural spacing" and whether babies are born closer as being "bad for motrher and baby" as a purely subjective comment that is obviously not applicable to everyone.

[Peek a Boo]

Reya, i should give you the opportunity to clarify --can you share your opinions of moms who choose to NOT breastfeed, or not breastfeed exclusively? You sounded a bit like you were "lawing down the law" in your last post......

[Reya]

People have this funny idea that contraception is "new" and that in the past people wanted as many babies as they could possibly bear.

 

Um. No. Not really. Instead of contraception, infanticide was common in MOST societies for a large portion of the history of the world. Why? Well, most people suffered from poverty that we simply cannot understand here. They wanted children, sure--a couple of strong sons to take care of their parents in old age. But too many children, especially daughters, were a liability. The entire family could starve. So instead, they killed the babies.

 

The Christian West was the exception to this near-universal practice, but the West had its own ways of limiting family size before the babies were even born as well as the usual population limiting pressures.

 

Way #1: Late marriage. Before the Industrial Revolution, common people didn't marry until very late compared to the rest of the world. They didn't marry until they had a secure source of income, which led to an average age of marriage for women between 22-24 and for men between 26-28. This chopped off 6-9 childbearing years from the outset.

 

Way #2: Birth control. People weren't stupid. If they couldn't afford another baby, they made sure they didn't have them. Before the condom and the Pill, this was less than ideal (and often not so effective...), but it could cut way down on fertility, too. It's all well and good to simper "God will provide" when you live in a country where people don't starve to death, but the ugly reality was that many families who had two extra children would actually, you know, DIE five hundred years ago, no matter how much they believed in God.

 

Way #3: High rates of unmarried people. The third and fourth children of commoners often never married. All the aristocrats and middle class people who DID marry early and who DID pop out as many children as possible in order to ensure an heir tossed all those extra, inconvenient children into monasteries and convents. The poor simply didn't marry, living with relatives through old age as extra laborers.

 

Way #4: Widows were discouraged, socially and institutionally, from remarriage. Women who had many childbearing years left generally chose not to remarry. For one thing, it was looked down upon--and for another, they'd lose the property rights and business interests that they gained from their dead husbands.

 

Way #5: High infant mortality. Depending on the age, between 25% and 60% of children died before adulthood--and that's without a major plague. This, too, is a sort of natural population control.

 

The result was a very stable population in the West when compared to other areas of the world with relatively low population density but many fewer deaths from starvation than was commonplace in other areas. This changed with Protestantism and the Industrial Revolution, and not always in good ways. (And no, I'm not Catholic.) The ONLY time in which people "welcomed all the babies they could get" was among CERTAIN segments of frontier societies, particularly in America, where labor was extremely scarce and land was cheap. This was a period of very limited time and place and was the exception rather than the rule in human history. To espouse a universal embracing of the idea of having as many children as one can would be beyond disastrous for those families in any modern country whatsoever--including the US.

 

I have no problem with those who can afford it to have as many babies as they want--or, OTOH, as few. But to idealize maximizing fertility as the model of society that God intended is not only theologically spurious but shows a reckless disregard for the welfare of God's children. And to equate holiness with the number of children! Remember, God only gave Elizabeth, Sarah, and Hannah one each--and Rachel only got two, and this when they were of a level of wealth at which children of either sex were welcomed. If God can make a nation out of Sarah's single child, I find arguments that we must have as many children as we can out of some idea that it helps God along more than sightly ridiculous. I have the deepest contempt for those who choose to recklessly have children they cannot afford to bring up and so must rely upon friends and relatives for assistance just because they want to prove how holy they are. There is no place in the Bible for families like that. The ones who are supported are supposed to be the "widows indeed"--not healthy, active adults who make bad choices out of muddled theology.

 

God gave us a uterus. He also gave us brains. We should use both.

[Kimber]

Does anyone know the scriptures or biblical references that the Quiver full movement are based upon? I have my own thoughts on the subject, but I'd really like to understand the basis for it.

 

Personally, I have 4 dc and I'd love another. However, my dh just hosted his first garage sale and sold as much baby stuff as he could. :) I think he's serious that he's too tired for more children.

 

Thanks for the info,

 

Kimberly

[pmegan]

:iagree: with everything Reya said (too long to repost it all... but it's all very well said)

[Reya]

Of course it happens! I nursed on demand with all of mine, and never introduced any food before 6 months, or formula, yet I always got my cycle back when nursing full time, as early as 4 months postpartum. It was a blessing, though, for it made certain things much more enjoyable again. And I conceived my last when I was nursing. I have a friend who didn't even know she was pregnant with her second until she could feel her second kicking because she was nursing and didn't gain weight early.

 

Having a cycle isn't the same as being fertile. Most women while nursing get their cycles back long before they regain fertility--they start out anovulatory. Those who do "extended" nursing--longer than a year--WILL generally conceive in the second year while still nursing. But rarely, rarely in the first.

[Peek a Boo]

Having a cycle isn't the same as being fertile. Most women while nursing get their cycles back long before they regain fertility--they start out anovulatory. Those who do "extended" nursing--longer than a year--WILL generally conceive in the second year while still nursing. But rarely, rarely in the first.

 

yup. That's why many gals have shared that they conceived while nursing exclusively. It happens quite a bit, just not "all the time." It doesn't seem as "rare" as many make it out to be. We also don't have accurate counts of how many women conceived and miscarried [for any number of reasons] before knowing they were pregnant.

[Peek a Boo]

Kimber--

I tend to be more w/ Reya in refusing to assign a theological position to how many children one should have [per my first post in this thread].

 

but you asked for the QF verses about lots of children? here ya go:

 

Psa 127:3 Lo, children [are] an heritage of the LORD: [and] the fruit of the womb [is his] reward.

 

Psa 127:4 As arrows [are] in the hand of a mighty man; so [are] children of the youth.

 

Psa 127:5 Happy [is] the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate.

[Kimber]

Thanks for the quote. I missed that. I was familiar with the idea, but not where it came from. At one point my dh and I were entertaining the idea of being QF. I personally disagree with it because I don't understand how people who follow this line of reasoning don't also follow the Levitical laws.

 

Husbands and wives are to abstain from intimacy until about the time women are most fertile. But if this is practiced strictly, I believe that fewer QF people would have so many children. I only base this on my own body. But it seems that as fertility decreases, the window of opportunity would be missed more. So I personally think that being QF without following the laws are not really consistent, especially since the supporting scripture is based on the Old Testament. I might understand it differently if doctrine was based on the new testament and also claimed to be under grace and not the law thereby removing the restrictions of the Levitical law.

 

But I must say that I am not a bible scholar. This is only how I have come to understand what I believe to be God's stand on having children.

[Reya]

um, God also gave children the ability to digest table food [WITHOUT endangering them. ;)] well before the first year is up too. the fact that you have working breasts [or wombs] doesn't mean you are required to use them beyond what might be suitable for you and your family.

 

This means BREAST FEEDING ONLY until at least 5 months, BTW. There is a less than 1 in 50 chance of getting your fertility back before 6 months with exclusive breastfeeding. The natural spacing for children when breastfeeding is used--dare I say--as designed is 2 to 2.5 years, on average. So there is almost no chance of having babies a year apart. Having babies closer together than about 2 years repeatedly is bad for the mother and the babies, both.

 

so out of HOW MANY thousand women we have in America alone, even if "only 1 out of 50 women" breastfed exclusively, there is still quite a significant number that will regain a cycle pretty quickly. I'd have to take issue w/ your version of "natural spacing" and whether babies are born closer as being "bad for motrher and baby" as a purely subjective comment that is obviously not applicable to everyone.

 

Feeding solids early causes intestinal bleeding. In developing countries, it leads to diarrhea-associated childhood diseases, which are the worldwide leading cause of death of babies. In the US, it just makes babies sick more often--and makes them permanently stupider because of the nutritional deficiencies that result. It is not suitable for any baby under 5 months to eat table food under any circumstances. If you choose formula, then yes, that's not at good as breast milk, but table food is on a whole different scale--that is borderline abuse.

 

Solids should be introduced no earlier than five months to avoid damage to a baby. Six months is better. This goes for ALL mothers from ALL backgrounds and ALL philosophies.

 

My point, though, was that the QF movement is all about following "God's design," and if you claim this as your motto, that would mean following God's design for feeing your child and for preventing dangerous pregnancies, as well. If you're going to claim that God closes the womb, then you'd better be following God's plan to keep that womb closed for an appropriate amount of time between children so that you and your babies enjoy the health that God intended. I'm pointing out hypocrisy here, not saying that EVERYONE MUST breastfeed at least a year--though, of course, that would be best.

 

You have a 1 out of 50 chance of regaining fertility before six months for any individual pregnancy. It's not that 1 out of 50 women will always regain fertility soon. Those who have a tendency to regain it early might regain it 1 out of 10 times rather than 1 out of 50. So someone who continues to have babies a year to a year and a half apart is very, very unlikely to be following God's design for caring for infants.

 

To put it another way, breastfeeding, as used in real life, is more effective of a contraception than condoms, as used in real life, for the first six months after a baby's birth. It decreases after that point, of course, until it's totally ineffective a couple of years later. But that means that very, very few people who breastfeed naturally will have children a year apart.

 

A lot of women are confused about the connection between fertility and having periods. They aren't the same. Anovulatory periods typically precede fertility by quite a bit of time. MOST women get their periods back before 8 months, but their chances of being fertile, if they don't supplement with formula, are very low (yes, with children eating solids, of course). If they continued breastfeeding over the course of the second year, they'd most likely get pregnant again when their child was between 15 and 21 months.

[Peek a Boo]

At one point my dh and I were entertaining the idea of being QF. I personally disagree with it because I don't understand how people who follow this line of reasoning don't also follow the Levitical laws.

 

----

I might understand it differently if doctrine was based on the new testament and also claimed to be under grace and not the law thereby removing the restrictions of the Levitical law.

 

I do believe that some people can be convicted of a specific course based on ANY verse in Scripture [head coverings? no jewelry? clothing choices?]. Personal convictions aren't limited to an "all or nothing" type of approach, so I can see how one can follow one thing yet not feel obligated to take on something else.

 

 

I wouldn't mind having a passel of kids. My dad was one of 12, and they are a blast. My dh, however, is almost overwhelmed w/ our 'unplanned' 5 :)

But it lets me show off my catwoman costume more, lol.

[at the beach]

Feeding solids early causes intestinal bleeding. In developing countries, it leads to diarrhea-associated childhood diseases, which are the worldwide leading cause of death of babies. In the US, it just makes babies sick more often--and makes them permanently stupider because of the nutritional deficiencies that result. It is not suitable for any baby under 5 months to eat table food under any circumstances. If you choose formula, then yes, that's not at good as breast milk, but table food is on a whole different scale--that is borderline abuse.

 

Solids should be introduced no earlier than five months to avoid damage to a baby. Six months is better. This goes for ALL mothers from ALL backgrounds and ALL philosophies.

 

My point, though, was that the QF movement is all about following "God's design," and if you claim this as your motto, that would mean following God's design for feeing your child and for preventing dangerous pregnancies, as well. If you're going to claim that God closes the womb, then you'd better be following God's plan to keep that womb closed for an appropriate amount of time between children so that you and your babies enjoy the health that God intended. I'm pointing out hypocrisy here, not saying that EVERYONE MUST breastfeed at least a year--though, of course, that would be best.

 

You have a 1 out of 50 chance of regaining fertility before six months for any individual pregnancy. It's not that 1 out of 50 women will always regain fertility soon. Those who have a tendency to regain it early might regain it 1 out of 10 times rather than 1 out of 50. So someone who continues to have babies a year to a year and a half apart is very, very unlikely to be following God's design for caring for infants.

 

To put it another way, breastfeeding, as used in real life, is more effective of a contraception than condoms, as used in real life, for the first six months after a baby's birth. It decreases after that point, of course, until it's totally ineffective a couple of years later. But that means that very, very few people who breastfeed naturally will have children a year apart.

 

A lot of women are confused about the connection between fertility and having periods. They aren't the same. Anovulatory periods typically precede fertility by quite a bit of time. MOST women get their periods back before 8 months, but their chances of being fertile, if they don't supplement with formula, are very low (yes, with children eating solids, of course). If they continued breastfeeding over the course of the second year, they'd most likely get pregnant again when their child was between 15 and 21 months.

 

:iagree:

 

Anita

[nmoira]

 

Feeding solids early causes intestinal bleeding. In developing countries, it leads to diarrhea-associated childhood diseases, which are the worldwide leading cause of death of babies.

Stomach pH doesn't change until about 1 year of age (which is why you shouldn't give raw honey to a child under 12 months). Because of this, digestion is not efficient from approximately 6-12 months, and solid foods introduced during that period should not be expected to be a significant source of nutrients. You need look no farther than the diapers to notice a, ahem, change between the output of a younger baby and an older one to see that how much is digested changes.

[Kimber]

I do believe that some people can be convicted of a specific course based on ANY verse in Scripture [head coverings? no jewelry? clothing choices?]. Personal convictions aren't limited to an "all or nothing" type of approach, so I can see how one can follow one thing yet not feel obligated to take on something else.

 

But that doesn't make sense to me. As I understand it, all of God's word is useful for instruction and training, and it isn't contradictory.

 

And since I'm under His grace, I am free from the law. But being free means being entirely free, not free to part and parcel.

 

Now I am a Christian that is under Grace but I don't eat pork because of the Levitical laws. But I don't think it impacts my relationship with Christ, my salvation, or my holiness. I think I'm just reaping the health benefits that God had in mind when He said don't eat pork. But my spirituality is not tied to it.

 

But it seems that the leaders of the QF movement, are making a law out of a few scriptures. Which says they believe in following the law. But they are ignoring the scriptures that are spelled out as a law by the bible itself. I just don't get the reasoning. It confuses me.

 

I hope I wasn't offensive to anyone that practices this doctrine. I truly didn't mean to be. This is how I've personally come to grips with the stress of understanding whether or not my family should be QF. My dh has come to the same conclusion as me, but via a whole different set of reasoning--abstinence had nothing to do with it for him.

[Reya]

Reya, i should give you the opportunity to clarify --can you share your opinions of moms who choose to NOT breastfeed, or not breastfeed exclusively? You sounded a bit like you were "lawing down the law" in your last post......

 

Breastfeeding is the best choice for every baby, when it is possible. The first six months are especially crucial. I think that *most* women should breast feed for at least a year and ideally for a year and a half. I think that convenience and being "icked out" by breastfeeding are very poor reasons to not breastfeed. I also think that handing one's kids off to a daycare provider at a very young age is a poor choice, not only developmentally but because the LAST place a 6-week-old with an undeveloped immune system needs to be is in a hothouse of germs. So, yes, I do question the wisdom of people who choose to have children who start out with "ew, I could NEVER breastfeed" in the same way that I question those who go "I can't wait until I get rid of my kids at the end of summer" or "I can't wait until someone else is taking care of them instead of me"--Do you want kids, or not?

 

There are valid reasons for some people to choose formula. There are valid reasons for people to choose to wean early from breast to bottle. A very, very few mothers won't produce enough milk. Some mothers need to be on medications that preclude breastfeeding. Some work and can't pump sufficiently. Some mothers have health crises that make it difficult to impossible to manage themselves and a baby, both. Some babies are born too premature and their mothers can't produce milk. Some babies have health crises that land them in the hospital where they can't nurse and pumping becomes insufficient. Some babies, after having to start on a bottle, can't be switched to the nipple, and the inefficiency of pumping causes the mother's milk supply to dry up. Other babies have low muscle tone or mouth deformities that makes breastfeeding nearly impossible and often agonizing. These are very good reasons for using formula.

 

Additionally, at some point, most mothers say, "enough is enough!" if the kid doesn't self-wean. I'm fine with this, too, if the child is older than a year. (I am not one of those who thinks that kids should still nurse at five if that's what they want. The natural cutoff should probably be around ages 1.5 to 2.5.) But no, I don't think that not breastfeeding because it's inconvenient or "icky" is a valid reason--just like I think those who schedule C-sections for non-medical reasons are very questionable. Having children is inconvenient and, yes, icky. If you can't be inconvenienced by breastfeeding, I have serious doubts about your abilities to handle the rest of motherhood.

 

(And, yes, my breasts swelled horribly, my nipples cracked and bled, and breastfeeding was agony for more than a week and downright unpleasant for the first three months for me because I am one of those cursed with acutely sensitive nipples. I also got clogged ducts and had to fight off mastitis. My first DS also nursed HOURLY for the first week. HOURLY. He wasn't down to a three-hour spacing until he was three months old. I had to take him EVERYWHERE--because of how far we were to the grocery store, I couldn't even leave him home for the time it took me to go shopping. I never felt the glow of joy or whatever that some people talk about when breastfeeding. Oh, and I positively cheered when he self-weaned at 13 months. Don't think for a second that those who breastfeed love it and "just don't understand" what those who don't go through. Yes, he would have eaten a lot less often if I'd given him a bottle, and I could have handed him off and slept more. But I wanted a baby, which means that I'll take everything that goes along with caring for that baby as best as we know how. Everything. Car seats are inconvenient, too, but I used/use them, as well!)

 

OTOH, I have FAR fewer problems with a mother choosing to bottle feed or bottle supplement if that mother doesn't also embrace the idea that her fertility is God's will. If you're going to claim to be following God's plan for your body, you're being a horrible hypocrite if you reject His design for preventing unhealthily close pregnancies. The truth is, in those cases, that you don't really care what God would have naturally happen--you want to have as many babies as your body will carry, period, forget about anything else. At least most mothers who choose to bottle feed out of convenience are honest enough to admit it's selfishness that makes them make those choices. They aren't pretending that they're following a divine plan that rules that their bodies shall not be milk factories or whatever.

[Reya]

You need look no farther than the diapers to notice a, ahem, change between the output of a younger baby and an older one to see that how much is digested changes.

 

Raisins are scary. Kids can't digest those until they're nearly two!

[Joanne]

I wish you her a healthy pregnancy and that her family continues to live intentionally, with integrity and with their passion for family and God.

 

That said, I don't revere her as a Mom over the moms of a few or one here and other places.

 

On their site (at least originally) and in the first documentaries, I spied some lingo and homeschooling materials that made me wonder (and conclude) that they embrace a theology and living culture that I wholeheartely disagree with.

 

I find aspects of the quiver full movement concerning, inconsistent, legalistic and cultish. (That's ok; I find the same of the AP movement and I was a part of that).

 

As far as fertility, breastfeeding, etc. that IS one of the areas I find disconcerting from some qf families. I've observed a competitiveness, a rush and acceleration from MAN to have more babies. God's design is to space babies. However, many legalistic natural types never acknowledge that we live in a complex, fallen world and God's design for spacing is compromise not only by scheduled feeding and early solids, but also by maternal fat, hormones in food, and artificial lighting.

[Kelli in TN]

Reya,

I wish I could have known you back in my babymaking days!!!

 

I was so hardcore with the last two that they NEVER had a bottle or even a pacifer in their mouth. They did not have a sippy cup until about 6 months. Solids were introduced well after 6 mo. and then only after nursing sessions.

 

People thought I had lost my mind.

[Kimber]

I also got clogged ducts and had to fight off mastitis.

 

I had to post this. I had plugged ducts that made my cry. I called around until I found a woman who was doing her thesis on lecithin and breastfeeding. 1200 mg ( at least once per day) solved this problem for me. It acts as an emulsifier for keeping the fat in solution.

 

I started taking it during my 9th month with the last 3 children. It changed my life!

 

Kimberly

[Joanne]

I am not one of those who thinks that kids should still nurse at five if that's what they want. The natural cutoff should probably be around ages 1.5 to 2.5.

 

This seems arbitrary and not backed up by cultural studies, biology or anthropology. "Natural cut off"??

[Peek a Boo]

Feeding solids early causes intestinal bleeding. In developing countries, it leads to diarrhea-associated childhood diseases, which are the worldwide leading cause of death of babies. In the US, it just makes babies sick more often--and makes them permanently stupider because of the nutritional deficiencies that result. It is not suitable for any baby under 5 months to eat table food under any circumstances. If you choose formula, then yes, that's not at good as breast milk, but table food is on a whole different scale--that is borderline abuse.

 

Solids should be introduced no earlier than five months to avoid damage to a baby. Six months is better. This goes for ALL mothers from ALL backgrounds and ALL philosophies.

 

My point, though, was that the QF movement is all about following "God's design," and if you claim this as your motto, that would mean following God's design for feeing your child and for preventing dangerous pregnancies, as well. If you're going to claim that God closes the womb, then you'd better be following God's plan to keep that womb closed for an appropriate amount of time between children so that you and your babies enjoy the health that God intended. I'm pointing out hypocrisy here, not saying that EVERYONE MUST breastfeed at least a year--though, of course, that would be best.

 

You have a 1 out of 50 chance of regaining fertility before six months for any individual pregnancy. It's not that 1 out of 50 women will always regain fertility soon. Those who have a tendency to regain it early might regain it 1 out of 10 times rather than 1 out of 50. So someone who continues to have babies a year to a year and a half apart is very, very unlikely to be following God's design for caring for infants.

 

To put it another way, breastfeeding, as used in real life, is more effective of a contraception than condoms, as used in real life, for the first six months after a baby's birth. It decreases after that point, of course, until it's totally ineffective a couple of years later. But that means that very, very few people who breastfeed naturally will have children a year apart.

 

A lot of women are confused about the connection between fertility and having periods. They aren't the same. Anovulatory periods typically precede fertility by quite a bit of time. MOST women get their periods back before 8 months, but their chances of being fertile, if they don't supplement with formula, are very low (yes, with children eating solids, of course). If they continued breastfeeding over the course of the second year, they'd most likely get pregnant again when their child was between 15 and 21 months.

 

 

I do agree that breastfeeding is the best choice for every baby.

 

Feeding solids early causes intestinal bleeding? on every case, in every child, no matter the genetics or environment or mother's diet?

 

Doctors don't seem to agree with you, generally speaking. Solid foods are ok'd between 4-6 months of age, and some doctors will recommend them earlier for specific cases.

 

lots of stuff can cause intestinal bleeding, including exclusive breastfeeding. Their little digestive tracts are still developing and growing.

Basic functioning can cause bleeding:

http://www.kellymom.com/babyconcerns/bloodystool.html

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12972203?dopt=Abstract

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7143166?dopt=Abstract

 

 

Borderline abuse?

 

That's like wanting to report a mom whose toddler has bruises all the time cuz he's bumping into things --"well if she was REALLY watching him he wouldn't get hurt!!" Kids go through all kinds of things growing up. That's not "borderline abuse."

 

Makes them permanently stupider?

yeah... we all know that IQ tests at 18 months old are the definitive example of intelligence.

 

I'm guessing you have taken into account every little variable out there for observing a family that feeds solids to infants?? I doubt that.

 

Makes them sicker?? Hm. Mine are ridiculously healthy. i've seen quite a few exclusively breastfed babies that seem sick a lot too.

 

Of COURSE a baby's diaper changes when the food changes!! there are quite a few foods that safely offer nutrition to an infant under a year.

 

"If you're going to claim that God closes the womb, then you'd better be following God's plan to keep that womb closed for an appropriate amount of time between children so that you and your babies enjoy the health that God intended."

 

There are a LOT of women that have children close and the family is happy and healthy.

 

"you're being a horrible hypocrite if you reject His design for preventing unhealthily close pregnancies."

 

You are throwing around quite a few statements about "God's Design" for spacing children and feeding them. That sounds like pretty spurious theology too. But I see a stark contrast between Levitical Law and "God's Design", theologically speaking. History is replete w/ people who were convinced they had the best say on what God expects.

 

serious question here:

Do you REALLY mean "borderline abuse"? So you would be ready to accuse and REPORT a mom who feeds table food to an infant under 5 months of ABUSE?? Even if that infant is suffering no repercussions??? To have CPS come in and remove that child from a family? That sounds a bit extreme. harshly domineering. dictatorial. intolerant.

 

I'm sure your concerns about women who won't breastfeed for convenience sake is ecchoed by those w/ larger families who shake their heads at families who limit the number of children "for convenience sake." There are a lot of families that make excellent parents but simply dislike babyhood. Or young kids. I would be very cautious about judging their worthiness as parents over how they feel about certain stages of human development. I dare say that everyone here has some area of selfishness or hypocritical behavior that drives another batty :)

 

I am very glad that those of us who decide to use our own brains and feed our children according to our own standards are not held hostage to your personal beliefs.

[Peek a Boo]

But that doesn't make sense to me. As I understand it, all of God's word is useful for instruction and training, and it isn't contradictory.

 

And since I'm under His grace, I am free from the law. But being free means being entirely free, not free to part and parcel.

 

Now I am a Christian that is under Grace but I don't eat pork because of the Levitical laws. But I don't think it impacts my relationship with Christ, my salvation, or my holiness. I think I'm just reaping the health benefits that God had in mind when He said don't eat pork. But my spirituality is not tied to it.

 

But it seems that the leaders of the QF movement, are making a law out of a few scriptures. Which says they believe in following the law. But they are ignoring the scriptures that are spelled out as a law by the bible itself. I just don't get the reasoning. It confuses me.

 

I hope I wasn't offensive to anyone that practices this doctrine. I truly didn't mean to be. This is how I've personally come to grips with the stress of understanding whether or not my family should be QF. My dh has come to the same conclusion as me, but via a whole different set of reasoning--abstinence had nothing to do with it for him.

 

I do agree that many people who follow a particular doctrine very heavily fall into a legalistic trap.

 

If you recognize the health benefits of not eating pork, what about teh health benefits of not eating meat, period?? What about the rest of God's suggestions for healthy eating? before or after the fall? Where do you draw the line on taking His suggestions?

 

All of God's Word is useful. And some parts are going to "hit home" a bit harder than others, depending on each person's personal walk. That's not necessarily "picking and choosing", altho many do that also. There's nothing contradictory about being convicted to do a specific thing, yet leaving another thing for someone else. God calls us each to different roles, abilities, burdens, and gifts.

 

Some people are convicted to be a missionary oversees instead of raising a family in the country. Others are called to pastor in a military field, while others are called to avoid the military altogether. Are those callings contradictory to God? I don't think so. But they are very different.

 

i would be very hesitant about calling someone's convictions "hypocritical" just because they don't embrace another's idea of what "God's Design" should be.

[Peek a Boo]

This seems arbitrary and not backed up by cultural studies, biology or anthropology. "Natural cut off"??

 

I'm still trying to figure out what "God's Design" for "natural spacing" is supposed to be as a Christian....... there seems to be quite a bit of arbitrary suggestions being put forth as indisputable God-breathed fact.

[Mrs Mungo]

I'm still trying to figure out what "God's Design" for "natural spacing" is supposed to be as a Christian....... there seems to be quite a bit of arbitrary suggestions being put forth as indisputable God-breathed fact.

 

To preface: I served as a breastfeeding couselor for several years. I have been torn apart on breastfeeding support lists for suggesting to women that if breastfeeding is making them hate their baby (or is keeping them off meds that they need to remain stable) they need to make the decision best for them, even if that means weaning. I think breastfeeding is best. I didn't give my kids solids until around 9 months. I nursed them around 2 1/2 years each. However, I don't agree with nursing at all costs. I believe sometimes you have to evaluate what is best for the mother/baby relationship.

 

That said-if you are weaning to formula when baby is 6 months old because you want to get pregnant again and you don't get pregnant without weaning then I don't think you can claim to be following God's plan. I think that's the point the other ladies are trying to make and I have to agree.

[Kimber]

Some people are convicted to be a missionary oversees instead of raising a family in the country. Others are called to pastor in a military field, while others are called to avoid the military altogether. Are those callings contradictory to God? I don't think so. But they are very different.

 

I totally agree with you on this. Except that this point is not applicable to what I was saying. The reason is that the QF movement is stating that this is God's way, at least as far as I understand it, for everyone. There are preachers preaching that this is God's intent for us all.

 

I have personal issues when church leaders try to interpret scripture for everyone. True, truth is truth. But truth isn't open for interpretation it just is. And when a bunch of men start teaching that their interpretation is truth but conveniently opt to leave out parts that are inconvenient for them, it bothers me.

 

Now do I know for sure that this is the case, no. And I'm sure there are men and women who feel this is their calling. That's great, I love babies too! I think having 15 children may be the calling of many families. But it's not the church's business as I see it. And I say this as one who received much input that 4 is too many. THere are actually people in the church that think exactly the opposite of the QF people.

 

I cried at some of the criticism I received from my church members about having more children. They thought it was their business and I was too hormonal to be objective. But truthfully, it's no one's business but the mother and father, and that's why I dislike the QF as a movement.

 

It might be a calling, but that is between God and those for whom He has called, not a body of men who vote on the idea.