Michelle Duggar is expecting # 18

[Storm Bay]

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.

 

In my family, though, it does! We're a fertile bunch--usually one try and we're pregnant, one slip when nursing, and pregnant. But we practiced bc. But you are correct, and I'd forgotten that since I was thinking about me.

[Peek a Boo]

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.

 

 

.....unless your calling from God is to birth the babies, not breastfeed them exclusively [or even raise them for that matter].

 

granted, this discussion is centered around a rumor, not substantiated fact; but as far as each person's gifts and strengths, I would leave it to the parents to decide if a child needs to continue being exclusively breastfed or whether they feel a calling to have another child.

 

again --why are we continuing to decide what "God's Plan" is, as if we were God Himself??? Why can't everyone just say "I don't think it's wise...." and leave it at that, w/o pretending that we're following a divine plan ??

 

can God have plans for a child that don't follow a "generally accepted as traditional" format in their life?

 

Hannah turned her son over to the temple --how many of us would do that or think it "wise" or "God's Plan" for a mother to be separated from her son?? I mean, we can look at numerous places where children are treated -on order from God-- in ways that seem contrary to what we would consider acceptable. We are simply NOT God and can't say what exactly God's "plan" is for each and every child --except to follow Him :)

 

 

 

and yes, Kimber, i agree that while QF is a wonderful conviction for some families, i stop at listening to it being preached as necessary from the pulpit. But a far as personal convictions go, they are usually tied to one's spiritual life. They are *personal* because they are necessary for THAT person: not as a salvation rule, but as a guide for their own spiritual well being. That varies w/ every person.

 

================

and on that note, I better get off here for a while. I'm being convicted to get off my butt and get some housework done before dh gets home ;) I'll check back later.....

[Storm Bay]

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

 

Also, children canNOT digest nut protein until the age of 3. Peanut butter is NOT good for young children. I learned that from my sister (an MD, not as crunchy as me) after her ds was diagnosed with a severe peanut allergy. They hadn't known that, either. Not that every child who eats peanut butter before 3 develops an allergy. fwiw, 3 is an age where kids are also less likely to choke on a nut. Of course, I went extreme on this based on my dad, and gave no nuts or hard candy until 5 (but did give peanut butter starting at 3.) But my dad based his ideas because of what he'd seen on the job and I was very anal about safety in my child-bearing/nursing years.

[Storm Bay]

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.

 

Me, too. I also let my babies feed themselves when they were ready, which means they ate very, very little food. My first taught me that because she refused food on a spoon. My first ate at 6 months (barely anything), my second at 8 months, and my last at 11 months.

 

But I don't go for the nursing until 4 or 5, either. I agree with Reya on the valid reasons not to br**stfeed.

[Mrs Mungo]

.....unless your calling from God is to birth the babies, not breastfeed them exclusively [or even raise them for that matter].

 

I have a hard time imagining that. But that's just me. I wasn't really talking about people's "calling." When I've watched their shows they say things like "we accept as many babies as God plans to give us" not "we feel called to birth lots of children." It seems to me they claim to be follow God's natural order and I don't think weaning a baby early to formula in order to get pregnant again is part of God's over-reaching plan for women. The Duggars don't seem to imply that it's a calling specific to them but it's His PLAN for human-kind and I have to disagree with that. I do accept that you may get a different message from what they say, I can only speak to my own take on it.

 

granted, this discussion is centered around a rumor, not substantiated fact;

 

Are you saying her weaning early is a rumor? Because their website used to say that's what they did, they've since removed it probably because a lot of people disagreed with the practice. Of course, I understand wanting to read it for yourself and not wanting to take my word for it.

[Storm Bay]

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.

.

 

I didn't quote all of this, but this is historically accurate. The mortality rate is easily confirmed in graveyards and from other sources. This is why so many families in Europe would give the same name to several sons (eg . Johann Sebsatian Bach--this wasn't just him, it was common.) And people did do the other things mentioned.

 

That said, I have no opposition to those who choose to have a large family and do so ably and healthily. But so many times God has blessed people with one or no children. God looks on the heart, not the family size, and when legalism steps into the picture, I'm out the door of any church or fellowship. I think Quiver of 10 has a great balance in her outlook.

 

But then, and I my tone of voice in my head is not dogmatic (in case I don't type it as nicely as I'm thinking it), I do not believe that God tests or tempts people, not in the way I see it used by many. I don't think He brings sickness, either, so my beliefs are quite different than those of some others. I am convinced He gave each of us free will and that if we're married we're to think things through with our spouses.

[Storm Bay]

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:

 

:D

 

I agree. While I do wonder how those children who require more privacy can get it (I spoke with a woman from a large family once for whom this was a big issue, and she never got any), and why they chose what appear to be 2 dormitory style bedrooms for all their children in a house that large, those are just my wonderings. I can't really answer them not knowing the family and the kids themselves. Perhaps the kids are all strong extroverts who thrive on this. And I don't think we can assume that Michelle Duggar doesn't take time with her children.

 

I don't have a problem with children learning to take responsibility. The 20 yo is still living at home, and could leave if he wanted to, so that says a lot to me, too.

[percytruffle]

Deleted by poster

[Joanne]

But I don't go for the nursing until 4 or 5, either.

 

I don't understand the arbitrary cut off for this. While I understand choosing to wean before these ages, I don't understand why anyone would suggest the same for other families.

 

There is a lot of evidence to suggest that nursing for years is God's/Nature's design. There is certainly no credible evidence to suggest that weaning at "X" age or by "X" age is optimal.

[Quiver0f10]

 

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.

 

I have exclusively breast fed and gotten my cycle back early and gotten pregnant while nursing. I had 8 babies in 10 years and I didn't fall apart. Matter of fact I went on to have 2 more and am in perfect health and ready for more babies, Lord willing.

[Quiver0f10]

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.

 

I am with you. I am not even going to try to touch that one.

[Guest Amy in MS]

Hi Quiver,

Can you tell me, do you think is could ever be God's will for a health woman or man to take measures to never have any more children? Just curious.

Thanks.

Amy

[Quiver0f10]

Hi Quiver,

Can you tell me, do you think is could ever be God's will for a health woman or man to take measures to never have any more children? Just curious.

Thanks.

Amy

 

Yes, I do think it can be God's will for that family. It would be between God, the DH and the woman. I cannot say what one should do nor would I judge them.

[Guest Amy in MS]

Lovely, Quiver, you've just punched a hole in my stereotype. You're a first!

:)

 

Amy

[Peek a Boo]

I have a hard time imagining that. But that's just me. I wasn't really talking about people's "calling." When I've watched their shows they say things like "we accept as many babies as God plans to give us" not "we feel called to birth lots of children." It seems to me they claim to be follow God's natural order and I don't think weaning a baby early to formula in order to get pregnant again is part of God's over-reaching plan for women. The Duggars don't seem to imply that it's a calling specific to them but it's His PLAN for human-kind and I have to disagree with that. I do accept that you may get a different message from what they say, I can only speak to my own take on it.

 

I have a hard time imagining that too --i can only make a decision/opinion based on what is actually in the bible. hey --it's FULL of all kinds of things that baffle me. But they are there.

 

they accept/ feel called..... seems kinda like semantics to me. They obviously are not trying to hinder it. *to me* it seems like they feel called to have lots [however many that ends up being] of children, and that's what's happened.

 

 

 

Are you saying her weaning early is a rumor? Because their website used to say that's what they did, they've since removed it probably because a lot of people disagreed with the practice. Of course, I understand wanting to read it for yourself and not wanting to take my word for it.

 

 

based on what was posted earlier in this thread, there seems to be a discrepancy on that. And yeah, i have NOT been following them, so I have seen nothing and heard nothing and read little 'cept on the website that was linked.

 

 

But as to my previous statement, i still believe there CAN be a non-hypocritical difference between what one decides to do WRT birthing a child vs nursing exclusively for very long. Kinda like homeschooling one child and sending another to PS --you do what works for your family regardless what others think. Their other children seem happy and healthy so whatever she's doing has worked fine for THEIR family.

 

And I can't judge what they imply, but I do agree that insisting it be a salvation issue or conviction for everyone is not scripturally accurate.

[Quiver0f10]

And I can't judge what they imply, but I do agree that insisting it be a salvation issue or conviction for everyone is not scripturally accurate.

 

I will admit when I first became a christian and became QF, I really thought that it WAS a salvation issue! I was older and had a few kids before I truely became saved and realised that salvation was only obtained through accepting Christ as my Lord and Savior.

[Mrs Mungo]

Yes, I do think it can be God's will for that family. It would be between God, the DH and the woman. I cannot say what one should do nor would I judge them.

 

I just wanted to say that I don't have any judgmental feelings toward them. However, I don't like them saying "this is the way to follow God's plan" (which I do think they are saying) when I don't believe God's plan includes weaning early so you can get pregnant again (whether or not specific people ovulate while nursing is not at issue). That bothers me not because they do it but because they are saying it is part of God's plan and *to me* (again, I could be wrong, I'm very willing to admit I'm falliable) they are implying it's His plan for everyone, not just for them. Does that make more sense?

[Quiver0f10]

I just wanted to say that I don't have any judgmental feelings toward them. However, I don't like them saying "this is the way to follow God's plan" (which I do think they are saying) when I don't believe God's plan includes weaning early so you can get pregnant again (whether or not specific people ovulate while nursing is not at issue). That bothers me not because they do it but because they are saying it is part of God's plan and *to me* (again, I could be wrong, I'm very willing to admit I'm falliable) they are implying it's His plan for everyone, not just for them. Does that make more sense?

 

It does make sense, but have no idea what the Duggars feel and believe towards others as far as living a QF life. I really haven't followed them to closely and don't personally know them, so I can't judge what they believe.

 

I know there must be people who DO wean to get pregnant, I just haven't had any experience with it and I haven't seen proof the Duggars do.

[Susan in TX]

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.

 

Well, I conceived 2 in the first year while still nursing, when baby was 9 months old. It really isn't all that rare.

 

Susan in TX

[nancypants]

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.

 

Reya, I first want to say that you've actually made some really good points in this discussion, many with which I couldn't agree more whole heartedly. As I've said a couple (or a hundred) times, I do not agree with the philosophy of QF. I merely support their decision to have as many children as they want because it is obviously what they want, and their children are well cared for. So I'm not supporting all the reasoning or methodologies behind the QF movement. I also support individuals who choose not to have children. I may not approve of the reasoning behind either party's decision but it is their decision and their decision alone and that's why I am defending the Duggar's choices.

 

Having said that, I have to heartily disagree with your assumptions about breastfeeding being a truly reliable form of birth control. It certainly works for some. I for one never got my cycle back until my babies were 10 months old on the dot. My SIL however, who by all standards would be a person that I would never ever counsel to continue having children because each pregnancy was a risk to her health and of her children were ill-cared for (social services had been called a number of times) and because of major and continual family crises -- culminating in the death of my brother -- she is one of the many proofs that breastfeeding is not a reliable method of birth control.

 

While she really was quite a lousy parent over all (thankfully I believe she is finally maturing and her mothering is improving) she did breastfeed for as long as possible with each of her babies. However after each baby she got pregnant when the baby was 6 weeks old. (Because of major kidney problems she was unable to nurse them throughout the following pregnancies, though she went as far as she could before her doctors advised her not to.) Her fourth baby was born when her oldest was not yet 5. And she actually had a miscarriage at one point as well which meant the last baby was spaced a little further out than all of the others.

 

My sister's cycle always returns by the time her babies are 2 months old as well and she nurses beyond a year.

 

One in 50 is actually a pretty large percent of the actual population when you think about it so I really don't believe it's as uncommon as you think it is.

[Mrs Mungo]

Having said that, I have to heartily disagree with your assumptions about breastfeeding being a truly reliable form of birth control. It certainly works for some.

 

There are a lot of factors that come into play with this.

 

Factors that contribute to resuming ovulation while breastfeeding:

 

Pacifier use and/or supplementing with bottles

 

Baby sleeps all night

 

You breastfeed on a schedule v. breastfeeding on demand

 

You have a higher bodyfat percentage

 

There are others but those are just a few. However, that has nothing to do with the Duggars and their statement (which, as I said was once on their website but has been taken down) that Michelle Duggar weans her babies early so she can get pregnant sooner than she otherwise would.

[nancypants]

There are a lot of factors that come into play with this.

 

Factors that contribute to resuming ovulation while breastfeeding:

 

Pacifier use and/or supplementing with bottles

 

Baby sleeps all night

 

You breastfeed on a schedule v. breastfeeding on demand

 

You have a higher bodyfat percentage

 

There are others but those are just a few. However, that has nothing to do with the Duggars and their statement (which, as I said was once on their website but has been taken down) that Michelle Duggar weans her babies early so she can get pregnant sooner than she otherwise would.

 

I'm not saying that I agree with weaning early just to conceive. Then again, as much as I don't agree with it, I don't find it as morally reprehensible as some do.

 

However, I can promise you that none of those things in your list were a factor in my SIL's case, and I presume may also not be true of many others who conceive early. Bodies are different and don't all "obey the rules." :tongue_smilie:

[Mrs Mungo]

I'm not saying that I agree with weaning early just to conceive. Then again, as much as I don't agree with it, I don't find it as morally reprehensible as some do.

 

Just to clarify :) I don't really have a moral issue with saying "we've decided to have a gajillion kids and I have to wean early to facilitate that decision." I just have a problem with calling it God's plan.

 

However, I can promise you that none of those things in your list were a factor in my SIL's case, and I presume may also not be true of many others who conceive early. Bodies are different and don't all "obey the rules." :tongue_smilie:

 

Oh, I absolutely agree that some people just resume ovulation early, I didn't mean to imply that it's never the case. My only point was I (just speaking for me, not for the others) wasn't arguing the feasibility of resuming ovulation early.

[Parrothead]

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.

:iagree:

 

Reya, I'd like to know where you obtained your information about table food and intestinal bleeding along with studies that have been done concerning table food and stupid babies/children. Thanks.

[Jenny in Atl]

I just find it hypocritical when one tries to have as many children as possible, weaning early to do so, and saying it's what God would want it.

[nancypants]

I just have a problem with calling it God's plan.

 

Ditto that for sure!

 

:)

[Guest Shanna]

Anj,

 

Sorry, I am just now responding. I have not had a chance to read all the responses so someone may have already answered you. But, you did ask me directly so I feel compelled to answer.

 

I am of the belief that God is sovereign in all things. I also do not believe in "free will". I believe every thing that happens and every decision that is made God already knew was going to be made and that all are done within His will.

 

If you cut me, will I not bleed? YES

If you tickle me, do I not laugh? I hope so!! :D

If I take part in a certain activity during my fertile time, will I not conceive? That is exactly what God intended to happen.

 

And I do believe that life is sacred and precious. But I don't think that a couple's choice to stop reproducing means that they don't welcome children that the Lord might give. See this doesn't make sense to me. If they choose to stop having children then they are not welcoming the children. Is that person not saying that another child would be a burden (financially, physically, emotionally, etc...?)

 

I think it means that they've reached a point where they feel comfortable stopping. But it is not about us. We are choosing what is best for us rather than allowing the Lord to choose what is best for us. He knows better than we do.

 

In the Psalm where it speaks of a quiver (Psalm 127) you are saying it is speaking of a hunter. This is not the case. It is actually speaking in the sense of a warrior. I would think as a warrior we would want to take as many arrows as we can into battle. And this is truly what this is...a battle for the Lord. Children who are raised to love the Lord and sharpened as arrows should be sharpened are going to be the best weapon in the battle.

 

So is it possible that one person's quiver is full with only two arrows? How about my four? Of course. If that is what the Lord has chosen to give them. I know QF families who have no children. The Lord has chosen not to give them any children. But that doesn't mean they are not QF.

 

Do we need to have a minimum of 8 to make sure it's good and full? I think we need what the Lord chooses to give us. No more and no less.

 

I don't mean to just throw all of this at one person. I dont mind.

 

 

I think it's a complicated issue, and one that isn't easily resolved. I dont think that it is complicated at all. But the Lord has to work in each of our lives in His timing not ours.

 

I just wish that people could have larger families simply because they love children and want more of them instead of having larger families because they somehow think that God is telling them how many to have. I agree that I wish more families would have more children because they love them but I also believe they should be doing it out of obedience knowing it is what the Lord wants should He choose to give them a large family.

 

I hope I was able to answer your questions. I guess I need to go read the rest of the responses.

[Guest Shanna]

I just find it hypocritical when one tries to have as many children as possible, weaning early to do so, and saying it's what God would want it.

 

I agree with this completely. I am 100% QF!!! To me that means that I should do NOTHING to prevent the Lord from opening or closing my womb. To me that means that I do not wean early in order to get pregnant. I also do not take supplements in order to get pregnant. Will I take things (vitex and progesterone) to help my body balance out the way it should be? Yes, but not as a means to get pregnant. To me that goes completely against what I believe God expects from me. To have total and complete faith in His timing to give us a child or not.

[Guest Shanna]

 

Obviously the Lord think smore of me than I do :)

 

Isn't it awesome that He trusts us with such special blessings? I am in awe of each each and every day.

[Guest Shanna]

Shanna, this is off topic in a big way, but I have to tell you that everytime I see your avatar I wish *I* could have another baby.

 

What an absolute cutie pie.

 

Okay, back to the conversation everyone!!:001_smile:

 

Kelli,

 

You are so sweet!!! Thank you!! He is our sweet doll!!!

[Guest Shanna]

I just want to add....Just so noone thinks I am all high and mighty. I have been on both sides of this fence. My husband actually had a vas 5 yrs ago. We had it reversed 3 yrs ago and have had 2 children since then. I truly know both sides of this issue. I have felt the pain of some QFers who felt we didnt trust the Lord enough. Which is true we did not. But, I also know that most QFers are not that way. Do we believe that we were sinning by closing off my womb? Yes we do and that is why we reversed it. Do I think that the Lord was going to send me to hell for it? Nope, because by His love and mercy He sent His son to pay the price for all the sins I have and will commit.

[Guest Shanna]

I have differing thoughts about the Duggars and the quiverfull movement. On the one hand I believe that the earth's population should return to about 1 billion people. On the other hand, I think that history shows when you women in an area get equal rights and access to birth control, the birth rate automatically decreases (as it is in the west).

 

Do you realize that America's birth rate is actually below replacement rate? Replacement rate is 2.1 births. The US birth rate is around 1.9. In France it is 1.5 and Italy is 1.1. We all know that only 1 child per family is allowed in China. So I have a real hard time understanding the whole over-population theory.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Do you realize that America's birth rate is actually below replacement rate? Replacement rate is 2.1 births. The US birth rate is around 1.9. In France it is 1.5 and Italy is 1.1. We all know that only 1 child per family is allowed in China. So I have a real hard time understanding the whole over-population theory.

 

Do you mean you don't understand it, or you don't believe it?

[Guest Shanna]

You know what prevents pregnancy even better than nursing?

 

ABSTINENCE.

 

But that goes completely against God's plan for marriage.

[Guest Shanna]

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

It sure is!! I completely agree!!

[Guest Shanna]

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.

 

AMEN!!!! You need to put that in your siggy!!

[*anj*]

Shanna,

Thank you so much for your thoughtful and well thought out response. I appreciate it that you took the time to answer me.

 

 

I am of the belief that God is sovereign in all things. I also do not believe in "free will". I believe every thing that happens and every decision that is made God already knew was going to be made and that all are done within His will.

I actually believe this as well. My theology is (mostly) Reformed in nature, so I understand the sovereignty of God. I don't believe in free will for some things, but I do believe that He has given us a certain amount of freedom to make our own decisions. I don't believe that God told me to have steak for dinner tonight. That was my own free choice.

 

 

 

See this doesn't make sense to me. If they choose to stop having children then they are not welcoming the children. Is that person not saying that another child would be a burden (financially, physically, emotionally, etc...?)

 

But you see, it makes perfect sense to me because God is sovereign. We cannot stop His will, but we can stop our own or the consequences of our own. Here's what I mean: We've all heard of cases where a man had a vasectomy that reversed itself and his wife conceived, or where a birth control method failed. I believe that when that happens it is because God actually stepped in and said "No, it's my will that you'll have another baby." So again, He lets nature take its course under most circumstances, but occasionally He steps in to exert His will.

 

Why does "welcoming children" have to mean "welcoming all the children I can possibly have"? Aren't the children a couple already has proof of their desire to welcome children?

We stopped having babies because I became clinically depressed during the last pregnancy and because my last three babies were born prematurely and no one could figure out why. I got pregnant 6 times in less than 7 years. I lost two and delivered four. I was on bed rest at some point during 5 of my pregnancies. When my youngest was born I looked at my doctor (whom I loved and greatly respected) and asked him if he thought we should have more and he looked at me with great tenderness and said "No, honey." Now of course we didn't make our whole decision based solely on my doctor's opinion, but he knew very well all that we'd been through and thought it would be better for us to get out of the baby making business.

 

 

 

But it is not about us. We are choosing what is best for us rather than allowing the Lord to choose what is best for us. He knows better than we do.

 

It is true that He knows best, but again, please show me from Scripture where God says that we are not to decide for ourselves how many children to have. As I said above, I think that when He wants to exert His will, He does so. Because He is sovereign He is more than able to override us should He choose to do so. I don't believe that we "allow" the Lord anything. He does what He will do. We make choices about what's best for us every single day. Scripture does not forbid us from making choices. And sometimes the desire of our heart is there because He is the one who put it there.

 

 

Again, no anger here, no malice. Just iron sharpening iron. I really do want to understand your perspective. :)

[Guest Shanna]

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.

 

Actually if you follow Levitical Law you would be intimate at a woman's most fertile time. Levitical law was you are not to be intimate during your cycle and 7 days afterwards. On average a woman cycles for 7 days. Add on 7 more from the Law that puts you at 14 days into your cycle which is the average time a women ovulates. Which is the most fertile time for a woman. God knew exactly what He was doing.

[Storm Bay]

But that goes completely against God's plan for marriage.

 

Overall I would say this is true, but, in the interest of looking at the whole Bible, I Corinthians 7 it does give permission for abstinence in certain situations if the couple agrees for a set period of time. Also, in the OT law there are times husbands were to abstain, and not just having to do with the cycle (they were to abstain for about half her cycle each month), but for set periods after childbirth, etc. By waiting a full 7 days after the bleeding ends, that does reduce conception, especially if a woman ovulates early in her cycle.

[Guest Shanna]

Do you mean you don't understand it, or you don't believe it?

 

I do not believe in the over-population theory.

[Guest Shanna]

 

PS. Quiver of 10 and Shana, and other QF ladies, I mean no disrespect, and I don't mean for any of this to disparage you, but these are simply what I have learned in my years of considering QF, reading QuiverFull, and having Quiverfull friends. If anything I have said is untrue, please feel free to point it out to me. :001_smile:

 

'I haven't found anything you have said disrespectful. I truly hope noone has found it from me either.

[pmegan]

Do you realize that America's birth rate is actually below replacement rate? Replacement rate is 2.1 births. The US birth rate is around 1.9. In France it is 1.5 and Italy is 1.1. We all know that only 1 child per family is allowed in China. So I have a real hard time understanding the whole over-population theory.

 

According to the World Factbook, the US's current replacement rate is at 2.1 and France is at 1.98. I believe they have the highest rate in Western Europe, so I didn't bother looking up other countries. The world as a whole is 2.58, and we're quickly heading to 8 billion people.

 

I am not in any way a 0 population growth supporter (I'd like to have 4 kids) but we are in the midst (and probably only at the start) of a huge food supply problem, brought on by a mixture of too many people, very unlucky weather patterns, and very poor land use. Any ideology which claims that the world doesn't have enough people in it is a little... odd to me. Unfortunately, when some proponents of the Quiver movement say that what I think they really mean is that there aren't enough white people. Which is rather a different claim. (And, for the record NOT one that I think that you or anyone on this thread has made... everyone here is using Biblical mandates to justify the ideology. It is just a subtext that I have noticed in some of the research I have done into the movement.)

[Parrothead]

But that goes completely against God's plan for marriage.

Now I'm curious. Does no abstinence mean having to do the deed daily? Weekly? Monthly? What if one half of the couple is sick?

 

These aren't meant to be questions about your personal life, but questions about your beliefs/theology.

[Guest Shanna]

Overall I would say this is true, but, in the interest of looking at the whole Bible, I Corinthians 7 it does give permission for abstinence in certain situations if the couple agrees for a set period of time. Also, in the OT law there are times husbands were to abstain, and not just having to do with the cycle (they were to abstain for about half her cycle each month), but for set periods after childbirth, etc. By waiting a full 7 days after the bleeding ends, that does reduce conception, especially if a woman ovulates early in her cycle.

 

"Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control."

 

You are correct in quoting 1 Corinthians but it is not the norm. Paul also said for a limited time and it was only to be done while devoting yourselves to prayer. How many men do you know that are going to be asking for this on a regular basis? :D

 

You are also correct in speaking of the Law. I posted about that just above your post. On average though women are fertile during the time that God allowed intimacy under the Law. I also believe it is a way that the Lord can choose to not allow a woman to become pregnant. If she ovulates before the Law allowed her to be intimate than obviously God did not want her to become pregnant that month.

[*anj*]

Now I'm curious. Does no abstinence mean having to do the deed daily? Weekly? Monthly? What if one half of the couple is sick?

 

These aren't meant to be questions about your personal life, but questions about your beliefs/theology.

 

I think I can take this one.

It just means that they are intimate on a regular basis, with a frequency that works for both parties. There is no way that anyone is saying that the Bible teaches how often people are to be intimate. Paul's point was that there should be mutual consent and that regular participation in that activity is healthy for a marriage.

[Guest Shanna]

Now I'm curious. Does no abstinence mean having to do the deed daily? Weekly? Monthly? What if one half of the couple is sick?

 

These aren't meant to be questions about your personal life, but questions about your beliefs/theology.

 

"The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does." 1 Corinthians 7:3-4

 

I also believe that there is grace in a marriage and a loving husband who loves his wife as Christ loved the church (paraphrasing there) would not ask his sick wife to be intimate.

[Guest Shanna]

anj,

 

I am going to respond to your questions but I need to think and pray over them for a bit. Just didn't want you to think I was ignoring you.

[Parrothead]

There is no way that anyone is saying that the Bible teaches how often people are to be intimate.

 

Thanks. Mutual consent. That is what I needed/wanted clarified. With all the times mentioned about when that Law says not to, I was wondering if the rest of the time one "had" to.

[Nestof3]

Is that person not saying that another child would be a burden (financially, physically, emotionally, etc...?)

 

Yes, I would be willing to say that children are a burden in all of these respects. It does take finances, physical ability and emotional stability to care for each child. I also think each of these can be depleted to the point where it would not be wise to add another child because there isn't enought left.

 

For finances, I see people saying "I trust God" but most of the time what they are trusting in is the finances of others.

 

For physical strength, I have seen women run down and ragged, barely able to keep up with things. And the same goes for emotional strength.

 

Another thing that makes no sense to me about people who claim to believe in the sovereignty of God is that they never take it all the way. For instance, I met a woman who believes each miscarriage is a sovereign act of God and each birth is a sovereign act of God, yet she insists on having each birth at a hospital. So, whether the baby lives or dies is completely God's will, so why is the doctor needed?

 

I have never met a person who is willing to carry this theology all the way.

[*anj*]

anj,

 

I am going to respond to your questions but I need to think and pray over them for a bit. Just didn't want you to think I was ignoring you.

 

I understand. Thanks!:)