Michelle Duggar is expecting # 18

[Kimber]

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.

 

This is actually what I was referring to. :) But as I get older, I see that this law would have a drastic impact on my life. I assume it would on others, as well. What I don't understand, is how is part of the law followed but not all of it.

 

Because as you said, if the ovulation fell before cycle day 14, fertility would be greatly reduced. But I think many qf people don't practice this. I guess what I'm saying is if they're practicing fertility according to scripture then why only three scriptures and not include those that deal explicitly with the subject?

 

We're not QF, but I have had fertility issues. I've taken progesterone to maintain all 4 of my pregnancies. And I had difficulty conceiving initially. So these thoughts have been massaged in my brain quite a bit.

 

By the way, I applaud you for your convictions. While I don't understand them, I can appreciate them and your faith. My own personal desire is to be obedient to God's will for my life, whatever that entails. And you never know when you will be called upon to take in more children. My mother took in her great neice and nephew a few years ago and that was definitely not part of her plan.

[Carmen_and_Company]

Whispering to myself

 

 

 

 

Stay away that thread. Don't talk about her hair. Don't talk about the ugly soda fountain in their dining room. Don't talk about the weird commercial kitchen. Do not talk about tator tot casserole.

Do not go there. Do not go there. Just close the thread and walk away.

 

Oh, I can't help myself. I think they are odd.

 

Though I would like to have their playroom with the slide entrance. That is cool.

 

But I still think they......oh never mind.

 

 

Ducking. Running for my life.

:iagree: . . .:auto:

[[email protected]]

Thanks, everyone, for having such a civil discussion here. We appreciate that the different viewpoints are being stated, clarified and discussed in a friendly manner. :thumbup:

[Pensguys]

Well technically you aren't trying or not for anything. You are having relations with your Dh and not worrying about whether your concieve or not; you let God do the worrying.

 

That is they way one of my friends is...she and her dh just let God to the worrying. She has a friend (a woman I know here) who DOES worry. Not really worry, but she has it figured how many children she can have before she might go into menopause. A "let's see how many we can have" sort of mentality, but then she says she's QF. I see her as QF only to the point where she TRIES to conceive and gets upset if she isn't pregnant so she can have "as many as she can" before hitting menopause.

[Pensguys]

I'm not aware of any lactivists who gas and kill formula users :glare:

 

bluecalmsea

 

I know this was not meant to be comical, but I had to laugh since I'm one of those "Nursing Nazis". :lol:

[Pensguys]

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.

 

 

The family I mentioned above does the same thing and I feel it is so unfair for the two oldest girls.....they do most of the housekeeping, childrearing and cooking while Mom is having and nursing babies. Mom has had to literally sit around most of a pregnancy (or more, I'm not sure of that part, but I know FOR SURE at least one pregnancy) because she had such pain in her hip, she could hardly walk....AND she has c-sections with all of her babies so that is another 6 weeks that the older girls are taking care of the rest of the family because Mom is "out".

 

And while I'm on my soapbox, I'll add in that this family does not let the girls in their family pursue any education after homeschooling. Boys can go to college because they will have to provide for a family one day.

[Pensguys]

Nevermind.

[Peek a Boo]

I know this was not meant to be comical, but I had to laugh since I'm one of those "Nursing Nazis". :lol:

 

:-)

 

I do understand that "Nazi" has a negative connotation.

 

However, per M-W.com, a "nazi"

 

1: a member of a German fascist party controlling Germany from 1933 to 1945 under Adolf Hitler

 

{{I'm guessing very few -any?- lactation consultants fit this definition....}}

 

2often not capitalized a: one who espouses the beliefs and policies of the German Nazis : fascist

 

{{well, if a lactation consultant isn't espousing the beliefs and policies, I guess this wouldn't apply either!}}}

 

 

b: one who is likened to a German Nazi: a harshly domineering, dictatorial, or intolerant person.

 

Bingo. THIS is why I used that term. If you believe so strongly in your version of nursing that you are ready to report people to the authorities on charges of abuse, are INTOLERANT of people making different choices for their own family, and are ready to speak harshly to another mom about the topic, then you do fit the term of being "nazi-ish" in your belief.

 

One doesn't have to defend German Nazis to understand how to use a term.

 

Pensguys-- I certainly applaud one's complete conviction to an issue, but i REALLY hope you aren't as Nazi-ish in your beliefs on nursing as you lightly claim to be ;)

[Peek a Boo]

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.

 

From what I've read, I think most of it is very poor land use. And horrible political situations that keep food from getting where it needs to get. There isn't a problem w/ too little food, just the SUPPLYING of that food to the people who need it.

 

No, i don't believe we are "over populated" --just terribly mismanaged.

 

Kinda like --there aren't too many puppies, just not enough good dog owners.

 

but i guess this is really New Thread stuff, eh?

[Peek a Boo]

The family I mentioned above does the same thing and I feel it is so unfair for the two oldest girls.....they do most of the housekeeping, childrearing and cooking while Mom is having and nursing babies.

 

 

and "fair" is in the eye of the beholder :)

 

yes, the family you reference seems a bit extreme for my tastes.

 

However, I wouldn't say that seeing older girls take on much of the responsibility of a home is blatantly "unfair." It might prove to be quite a blessing to them later down the road.

[Jenny in Atl]

From what I've read, I think most of it is very poor land use. And horrible political situations that keep food from getting where it needs to get. There isn't a problem w/ too little food, just the SUPPLYING of that food to the people who need it.

 

No, i don't believe we are "over populated" --just terribly mismanaged.

 

 

 

I have to disagree. There are many, in the US for example, where there is overabundance of food, so not the only issue, who still can't meet the needs of their kids. I've had personal experience with friends who kept on having kids even though they could not provide for them, had to go on Gov't assistance for medical, food, and housing help, etc. But, they still went on having children. I found it to be selfish.

 

When you say "we" are mismanaged, who is it that needs to do better managing? The governments or the individuals themselves?

[Pensguys]

 

Pensguys-- I certainly applaud one's complete conviction to an issue, but i REALLY hope you aren't as Nazi-ish in your beliefs on nursing as you lightly claim to be ;)

 

There is nothing funny about Nazis or what happened to anyone during that time. THAT part is not what I was making light of.

 

I was just saying that I agree with Mrs. Mungo and Reya on MANY, MANY issues of breastfeeding that were brought up.

[Peek a Boo]

I have to disagree. There are many, in the US for example, where there is overabundance of food, so not the only issue, who still can't meet the needs of their kids. I've had personal experience with friends who kept on having kids even though they could not provide for them, had to go on Gov't assistance for medical, food, and housing help, etc. But, they still went on having children. I found it to be selfish.

 

When you say "we" are mismanaged, who is it that needs to do better managing? The governments or the individuals themselves?

 

I certainly don't have all the answers, but as you stated --we have an overabundance of food. The problem is not in there being too many people, but that for a variety of reasons, food is not getting where it needs to be.

 

I have a very Ayn Rand / capitalistic/ almost libertarian/ absolutely conservative view on how gvt should be doling out our money and how the community should be supporting each other, but I can see some points for "better managing" at the personal, local, federal, and global levels.

 

So i disagree that there is an "over" population of people.

I disagree that there is a food shortage.

I agree that people are suffering from lack of food.

I don't know the best answer to really solve the problem.

I do know that suggesting people stop having children is the wrong focus and merely a bandaid on the REAL problem.

[Jenny in Atl]

Oh, I don't want to tell people what to do with their bodies, family, etc. But I'm honestly sick of paying for their choices.

 

Ducking from the tomatoes!

:leaving:

[Peek a Boo]

There is nothing funny about Nazis or what happened to anyone during that time. THAT part is not what I was making light of.

 

I was just saying that I agree with Mrs. Mungo and Reya on MANY, MANY issues of breastfeeding that were brought up.

 

 

i never said that what happened during the German Nazi period was funny or even defensible. I even posted the definition and specifically clarified that. It would be nice if people would actually read some definitions and take note of context.

 

I *was* asking if you are as intolerant, domineering, or harsh in your beliefs when you are dealing w/ other people. Do you believe NOT nursing and feeding tablefood is borderline abuse? would you be ready to report a mom for abuse or have her child taken away because they weren't feeding their child as you saw fit? Reya hasn't answered that question, tho she certainly stated she believed it to be abuse. Mrs. Mungo hasn't stated that she believes it to be abuse, and she hasn't made statements as intolerant as what i have noticed elsewhere.

 

THAT is what i was talking about.

 

Feel free to clarify exactly what you believe that you would be willing to identify with the term "Nursing Nazi" per your previous post.

[Storm Bay]

"

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

 

.

 

I agree, most men aren't going to want to do this often or for long! Now, I have another question out of curiousity, because, as I've said, I feel free to choose how many children I have but respect those who want large families and because I tend to agree with Peek-a-boo about food supply, and I also think that God does provide (but not sure that everyone who says that is living that.) What happens if you have a couple where one believes in the quiverful theology and one doesn't? If the one who wants it is the woman but she obeys her husband and doesn't keep having children condemned for unbelief? I don't mean this harshly, but from what I've grasped the husband is considered the head of the home in terms of leadership in the quiverful movement, but correct me if I'm mistaken.

 

Or, on the other side of the coin, what if the husband wants it but the wife doesn't? Does he have any right to force her to have more children than she wants to? I would think not, but am wondering about this from this other perspective.

[Pensguys]

I *was* asking if you are as intolerant, domineering, or harsh in your beliefs when you are dealing w/ other people.

 

No.

 

Do you believe NOT nursing and feeding tablefood is borderline abuse?

 

No

 

would you be ready to report a mom for abuse or have her child taken away because they weren't feeding their child as you saw fit?

 

No

 

There are too many areas where I agree with both of them to quote here, but I'll try to name a few: I don't buy into the "ick" factor that many women use to not breastfeed, I think babies should be nursed for a least a year and no solid foods given until at LEAST 6 months. I did differently with my babies than even that (no foods until they could feed themselves, nursing until 2.5 yrs). And I'm very adamant about those things as well as IF the Duggars are stopping nursing early just to conceive again, then in MY OPINION they are wrong if they claim to let God plan their family, they should go the whole way.

[Pensguys]

What happens if you have a couple where one believes in the quiverful theology and one doesn't? If the one who wants it is the woman but she obeys her husband and doesn't keep having children condemned for unbelief?

 

I can only speak from my experience with this. I have some friends who are QF. One in particular does extended nursing and gets pregnant when/if she gets pregnant. At one time I was agreeing with my friends in the matter of if we trust God with our lives, finances, for provision, then we should trust him in family size. My dh disagreed. I bemoaned this to my friends often (not dissing on my dh, but telling them that I felt this way in my heart and he didn't). They would often tell my dh that they would pray for him...for his heart to be changed. While this was going on, I felt that I should obey my husband because I'm commanded to since he is the head of our household. It never stopped me from praying that in my obedience to my husband if the Lord should see fit that He would bless us with another child.

 

Eventually, my humanness (and libido) took over. We were using the Natural Family Planning method to NOT become pregnant. I felt that this was the best way to appease my dh and also to leave the door open for the Lord to give us another baby. After awhile of hearing dh say "is it safe? is it safe?", I grew weary of not being able to be intimate with him when I/we wanted to (it also killed the romance factor), so dh had a vasc. In my state the wife has to give permission for it to be done. I did so but almost went into the office to have them stop. I cried and went through a depression for many months....all the while knowing that the Lord was the one still in control, that he could have those tubes grow back if he wanted (I know a family where this has happened...the wife's tubes connected again.). Anyway...after a long time in prayer because of a growing resentment I felt toward my dh, my guilt left. *I* feel it was because I was being obedient to my dh and his wishes (he is quite a bit older than me, he has 2 grown children as well as our 2, and he is looking toward retirement, not more babies).

 

I have since come to the conclusion that the QF mindset is GREAT for those who feel called. *I* don't believe that I'm called that way any more as I once was and I'm happy as a clam with my little family.

[Reya]

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

 

I'll give it a shot--my big problem was a gross overproduction of milk. My body was preparing for breastfed quintuplets. :-) It took about a month for it to realize that I had only ONE KID--I was rarely emptied before then, which was the big problem for me.

[Reya]

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

 

Actually, it is backed up by cultural studies. Dr. Dettwyler likes to use the highest number she can find--like when permanent teeth come in!--but anthropological studies (in cultures in which bottle feeding hasn't had a huge amount of headway) support a normal weaning of sometime in the second year--and this in places where bf-ing is the difference between a living baby and a dead one. (She also likes to declare that breasts' s*xiness is merely a bit of Western culture...which isn't true. S*x differences are s*xualized just about everywhere. Men are interested in the features that make women, well, women and not men pretty much everywhere--just in different ways.) Tandem nursing isn't the norm in pre-industrial cultures in the way that some activits want to make it--one's milk supply tends to dry up when 4 or 5 months pregnant unless one has EXCELLENT nutrition, which one doesn't get in most pre-industrial societies! (There's a good reason for this--supplying nutrition for two is really hard in places where you're not getting enough really for one, never mind three.) So with babies 2 to 2.5 years apart, weaning--or at least such a reduction in milk supply that bf-ing would provide negligible nutrition--would tend to happen between 1.5 and 2 years, unless there's a delay in pregnancy, in which case it often extends into the third year. So weaning around 1.5 to 2.5 years is pretty normal.

 

If you're talking about demonstrable health benefits, they decrease dramatically after a child's first b-day. If you want to bf a 3-y-o or even a 4-y-o, it's not going to hurt anything. But it's not going to give the child any measurable benefits, either! There's nothing wrong with turning off a supply that's not giving a child any real benefits! It doesn't make you a bad mother any more than not cosleeping makes you a bad mother. (Yes, I coslept for the first 6 months.)

 

I would have liked--"liked" meaning from an intellectual POV--my DS to nurse to 18 mo for health reasons, but when he lost interest after a year, I wasn't going to have a knock-down, drag-out about it. The health benefits were way too small. Even if I were in a third world country, the child would be exposed to so much other food and possible contaminants by then that it doesn't help after the age of two.

[Peek a Boo]

Actually, it is backed up by cultural studies. Dr. Dettwyler likes to use the highest number she can find--like when permanent teeth come in!--but anthropological studies (in cultures in which bottle feeding hasn't had a huge amount of headway) support a normal weaning of sometime in the second year--and this in places where bf-ing is the difference between a living baby and a dead one.

 

....

 

If you're talking about demonstrable health benefits, they decrease dramatically after a child's first b-day. If you want to bf a 3-y-o or even a 4-y-o, it's not going to hurt anything. But it's not going to give the child any measurable benefits, either! There's nothing wrong with turning off a supply that's not giving a child any real benefits! It doesn't make you a bad mother any more than not cosleeping makes you a bad mother. (Yes, I coslept for the first 6 months.)

.

 

 

This last paragraph makes it sound like the "natural cut-off" is more appropriate at about a year old [give or take a month or two], since the biggest purpose of breastfeeding is to, well, offer nutrition.

 

the fact that many cultures tend to nurse longer --esp when, as you mentioned, nutrition is a huge problem-- doesn't offer a "natural cut-off" delineation for people that have adequate access to table food/ nutrition for children.

[nmoira]

 

I'll give it a shot--my big problem was a gross overproduction of milk.

I had the same issue with both girls. Nursing on one side exclusively for three hour periods helped greatly. Less frequent switching helps lower supply.

[Jenny in Atl]

This last paragraph makes it sound like the "natural cut-off" is more appropriate at about a year old [give or take a month or two], since the biggest purpose of breastfeeding is to, well, offer nutrition.

 

the fact that many cultures tend to nurse longer --esp when, as you mentioned, nutrition is a huge problem-- doesn't offer a "natural cut-off" delineation for people that have adequate access to table food/ nutrition for children.

 

Breast milk does not all of a sudden stop being of value at 12 months. If fact its protective value against disease is as important as its "food" value. Breastfeeding is also much more than food or immunities. I have always found this debate interesting as no other mammal I know of feeds its young the milk of another species.

 

Again, much of this debate goes back to when men started dictating to women about their bodies (long ago, read the histories about child birth & medicine). Doctors, food companies, etc have long made us feel our bodies were incapable of feeding our young. :tongue_smilie:

[KS_]

I had the same issue with both girls. Nursing on one side exclusively for three hour periods helped greatly. Less frequent switching helps lower supply.

 

Same here . . .I had to nurse one side for 4-6 hours intervals, then switch. So I'd do one side for the mornings, the other side for the afternoons, switch again for the evenings, and once more for the middle of the night. Any more frequent switching of sides and I'd almost drown the poor babies when they tried to nurse . . .

[PineFarmMom]

From what I've read, I think most of it is very poor land use. And horrible political situations that keep food from getting where it needs to get. There isn't a problem w/ too little food, just the SUPPLYING of that food to the people who need it.

 

No, i don't believe we are "over populated" --just terribly mismanaged.

 

Kinda like --there aren't too many puppies, just not enough good dog owners.

 

but i guess this is really New Thread stuff, eh?

 

You know, my mother and I were discussing this yesterday. I agree. We are not overpopulated. It's interesting to hear the cries of this, that there is a food shortage and too many people on earth, etc., when the govt. pays my parents NOT to farm the 50 acres they inherited from my grandmother here in TX. They plant a certain type of grass to keep the land up, but have an agreement with the govt. that they won't farm. I feel we need the farms at this point due to the ethanol mess we've gotten ourselves into.

 

This has absolutely nothing to do with the OP. I have my own opinions of the Duggar situation that I choose to keep to myself at this point.

[Peek a Boo]

Breast milk does not all of a sudden stop being of value at 12 months. If fact its protective value against disease is as important as its "food" value. Breastfeeding is also much more than food or immunities. I have always found this debate interesting as no other mammal I know of feeds its young the milk of another species.

 

 

oh, i agree there sare likely many other *values* to breastfeeding :)

 

no other mammal I know of drives around in cars or uses computers either :P

 

as humans we have quite a gift of finding ways to deal w/ our species that offer benefits most other mammals/animals don't get.

[RebeccaC]

and "fair" is in the eye of the beholder :)

 

yes, the family you reference seems a bit extreme for my tastes.

 

However, I wouldn't say that seeing older girls take on much of the responsibility of a home is blatantly "unfair." It might prove to be quite a blessing to them later down the road.

 

 

When I was in the beginning of 9 grade my folks took me out of ps so that I could be full time at home with my younger siblings and keep house. I was 15 at the time and my folks ordered ACE paces for me and the year was 76. This was done in part to give my mother a break who had become truly physically abusive to many of her children due to severe both pre and post partum depression. My mother did not bond with her youngest son and daughter however they bonded with me and this did not create a healthy mental health atmosphere or family dynamics. That brother until the day he died saw me as his mother and was often vocal about it. He was 20 and sending me mother's day cards. When he died it was like loosing a son and not a brother.

 

Was it a blessing done the road yes but it was incredibly hard to have complete charge of 4 younger kids from 1st to infant to do everything from ps teachers meetings to taking them to the ER when their asthma flared up. It was too much responsibility for a 15 yo and when I was almost 18 I left home. Jumped out of the frying pan and into the fire :001_huh: Youngest baby/ toddler stopped thriving when I left and came to live with me. If my parents had had their way I would have given up my life to raise those kids to adulthood. I watch the FQ movement and I wonder how many girls fell into that trap and never developed a life beyond that of co-parent to their siblings. I won my freedom but it was a hard win and no one in family won.

 

I know that what happened in my family was extreme and I am not uncovering even the half of it right now. However I am typing this to state that if momma and papa want to be QF they should be able to do so with out counting on making their older children co-parents. It is not right to rob older children of their lives so that mom and dad can live out their dreams or religious doctrines. It really does not matter if at some point God takes it and makes something good out of for the girl, i.e. a blessing. Bottom line is parents should be the parents and pushing children into the roll of co-parent is robbing them and the babies and young children they co-parent.

 

I look at families like the Duggar's and I wonder what kind of parental bonds can be formed when mom passes off a child under one or two to an older sibling when the new baby comes along. what happens when the baby bonds with sis and sis leaves to start her own life. I know how it played out in my family and it was not pretty. Some FQ moms and dads I suppose can do it well but I have seen a whole lot in my church, hs support groups, ect.... who failed at it and it is their children who pay the price.

 

This is of course just my experience and views but I think they are valid. Probably a knee jerk reaction to the idea that at some point it might be a blessing and this rant should not be taken personally, by peek or any one reading this.

[*anj*]

 

I look at families like the Duggar's and I wonder what kind of parental bonds can be formed when mom passes off a child under one or two to an older sibling when the new baby comes along.

 

You know, my grandmother had 9 children. Six of them survived toddlerhood. My grandmother had to work and so the older girls had to take care of the younger children. My mom was one of the youngers and she would still say that she bonded more with the sister who was in charge of her than with her own mother. When her sister grew up and left home, things got weird. There was another older sister who also had to do a lot of childcare and housework and she was actually very mean to the youngers. My mom still tells stories about that too.

 

As you said, these stories are anecdotal, but they still carry some weight. We can't say that my mom's experiences were universal, but they were real, as were yours. There are of course many other things to factor in to the equation, but I do think it's common for older children to feel a bit of resentment and for younger children to get confused about who their mother is.

[Catherine]

and speaking carefully than you are.

 

Your post uses anecdotal evidence. If you are unaware, anecdotal evidence is much weaker than controlled comparisons made using control groups, or epidemiologic evidence using larger numbers of people. I suspect the original poster was speaking of epidemiologic studies that demonstrate the superiority of breastfeeding longer, without introduction of solids, over earlier solids. There's little doubt that earlier introduction of solids is less healthy for the baby. Yes, of course people have done it, and their kids seem fine, as your do. As individuals, we cannot see the subtle differences. And they are seen across populations, not necessarily in individuals. Probably your bunch are the exception to the rule : )

[Kimber]

Thank you for being so open and honest about your own experience.

 

Kimber

[Jenny in Atl]

oh, i agree there sare likely many other *values* to breastfeeding :)

 

no other mammal I know of drives around in cars or uses computers either :P

 

as humans we have quite a gift of finding ways to deal w/ our species that offer benefits most other mammals/animals don't get.

 

Yes, but in a way we are slaves to that technology. I had a friend in Florida during Hurricane Andrew. With all the gadgets wiped away, humans were left with only their most primitive skills. She had a heck of a time helping many moms re-lactate in order to give their infants food. The more we move away from this, the more vulnerable we become.

[Joanne]

Actually, it is backed up by cultural studies. Dr. Dettwyler likes to use the highest number she can find--like when permanent teeth come in!--but anthropological studies (in cultures in which bottle feeding hasn't had a huge amount of headway) support a normal weaning of sometime in the second year--and this in places where bf-ing is the difference between a living baby and a dead one. (She also likes to declare that breasts' s*xiness is merely a bit of Western culture...which isn't true. S*x differences are s*xualized just about everywhere. Men are interested in the features that make women, well, women and not men pretty much everywhere--just in different ways.) Tandem nursing isn't the norm in pre-industrial cultures in the way that some activits want to make it--one's milk supply tends to dry up when 4 or 5 months pregnant unless one has EXCELLENT nutrition, which one doesn't get in most pre-industrial societies! (There's a good reason for this--supplying nutrition for two is really hard in places where you're not getting enough really for one, never mind three.) So with babies 2 to 2.5 years apart, weaning--or at least such a reduction in milk supply that bf-ing would provide negligible nutrition--would tend to happen between 1.5 and 2 years, unless there's a delay in pregnancy, in which case it often extends into the third year. So weaning around 1.5 to 2.5 years is pretty normal.

 

If you're talking about demonstrable health benefits, they decrease dramatically after a child's first b-day. If you want to bf a 3-y-o or even a 4-y-o, it's not going to hurt anything. But it's not going to give the child any measurable benefits, either! There's nothing wrong with turning off a supply that's not giving a child any real benefits! It doesn't make you a bad mother any more than not cosleeping makes you a bad mother. (Yes, I coslept for the first 6 months.)

 

I would have liked--"liked" meaning from an intellectual POV--my DS to nurse to 18 mo for health reasons, but when he lost interest after a year, I wasn't going to have a knock-down, drag-out about it. The health benefits were way too small. Even if I were in a third world country, the child would be exposed to so much other food and possible contaminants by then that it doesn't help after the age of two.

 

Um, OK. I never mention Detwyller and it's clear you find her assertions/concusions/research suspect. That's fine.

 

I still find your stated cut off arbitrary. Debate continues as to the nutritional benefits beyond 1, 2 or 3 years.

 

The approach you've accepted as truth is no more/less valid than others.

[pmegan]

If you're talking about demonstrable health benefits, they decrease dramatically after a child's first b-day. If you want to bf a 3-y-o or even a 4-y-o, it's not going to hurt anything. But it's not going to give the child any measurable benefits, either! There's nothing wrong with turning off a supply that's not giving a child any real benefits! It doesn't make you a bad mother any more than not cosleeping makes you a bad mother. (Yes, I coslept for the first 6 months.)

 

It's my understanding that a child's secondary immune system doesn't kick in until about their 2nd birthday, and so the immunity benefits are useful until then? But this is second-hand knowledge.

[Catherine]

I'm not sure where it came from. I was responding to Peek-a-Boo's post right above mine.

[Quiver0f10]

Sorry, I deleted because I felt it was too personal to post.

[Reya]

This to Peek a Boo:

 

A friend of mine is an AIDS activist. One of her big areas of concentration are HIV-positive mothers in Africa and how to get them to A) keep their babies alive and B) keep their babies from not contracting HIV. A ) requires breastfeeding; B) requires that she not transmit HIV during breastfeeding!

 

Untreated HIV-positive mothers have a 30% chance of transmitting HIV to their babies through breastmilk. (Since babies who aren't breastfed have something like a 70% of dying in such areas, breastfeeding is strongly recommended under all circumstances, no matter what the mother's HIV status. In the US, OTOH, it's often recommended that even treated HIV-positive mothers refrain from breastfeeding.) Treatment dramatically reduces this, but researchers have learned that all things being equal, the biggest risk factor is whether mothers try to feed their infants adult foods too young. The damage to the intestines makes the baby susceptible to infection that would otherwise not happen. The babies who are not exposed to solids too young rarely contract HIV. (They don't have problems with cow's milk allergies through proteins in breastmilk because cow's milk isn't a part of the normal adult diet there, so breastfed babies with intestinal bleeding are basically unknown.) This is a HUGE concern and a big focus of their HIV awareness campaigns. But I guess this is just a product of my "personal beliefs".

 

Doctors have recommended, in the past, all sorts of things to do to babies that any sane person today would find revolting. Babies were routinely doped out on opiates--which today gets parents JAILED. Car seats weren't in wide use until the 70s and weren't actually SAFETY devices until the 80s--and boosters weren't required in most places until the 1990s. Some doctors recommended adding "a little rice cereal" in the bottles of babies who were practically newborns so they would "sleep longer"--never mind a baby's real nutritional needs! There is NO medical organization that would endorse such awful practices today, and the US is very much behind in how slowly we have accepted the results of research and have reluctantly moved the recommendations for first solids from three months to four months to, now, generally five months. (Six months is better.) We're so backward that doctors in the US still weakly endorse circumcision, which is only ACTUALLY medically beneficial in area where the AIDS rate is above 25%. We'll have to wait for all the doctors trained in the 60s to die off to have more sane guidelines about these things. As it is, there are still some backwards doctors promoting all sorts of awful things.

 

What do YOU about those who drive around with their babies in their laps in the car? After all, this used to be common! Or how about those who give their kids opiates? Do you think those behaviors *aren't* "borderline abusive"? You get punished for those kinds of things today--as you should for feeding your 3-month-old cereal in his bottle of formula.

 

That's not like wanting to report a mom whose toddler is running into things. This is like reporting a mom who holds her baby one her lap whenever she goes to the grocery store because it's "only a short trip." This is a choice by a parent to endanger a child--to a car crash or to inappropriate foods.

 

IQ is not tested before five years, and it is 10-year-olds and older who are generally tested to determine the affects of various things on intelligence (since their IQ don't change much into adulthood). It's know that formula feeding alone causes a permanent drop of at least 5 IQ points. Introducing solids is even more harmful.

 

Regularly feeding an infant solids too early ALWAYS causes intestinal bleeding. So YES, ALWAYS. It does not always cause damage so severe that it is visible in the stool, but it always causes damage. The reason formulas are so iron enriched is because they cause damage so often, and they're specially formulated to be "gentle", blah, blah, blah--table food is much, much worse. I did not say that it was the ONLY cause, but I will say now that it is one of the two most common causes--the other one being feeding an infant formula that he becomes allergic to.

[Reya]

More to Peek-a-Boo:

 

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

 

Yours would almost certainly be healthiER if you had breastfed them and held off on the solids. And the sickly babies would almost have certainly been MUCH sicklier. You can cite all the anecdotal evidence you want, but the science is crystal clear. One of the best-designed studies I've seen is here:

 

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/101/5/837?maxtoshow=&HITS

 

It isn't about how often a particular baby becomes sick but about how often a baby would become sick if fed another way.

 

Take a look at the causes of intestinal bleeding in neonates and infants. Take a look at the percentage that are the result of poor feeding versus other causes. Take a look at your own links!

 

From kellymom:

 

"A common cause of blood in an infant's stool is a slight anal tear (fissure) from baby straining with the passage of the stool. The small amount of blood from an anal fissure tends to look like a red streak on the outside of the stool."

 

Not intestinal bleeding--and, BTW, not something that happens with breastfed babies, anyway, since their poop is pretty much liquid.

 

"Another common cause of blood in the stools of infants is food allergies."

 

Which is, 9 times out of 10, from bottle feeding! After initially trying to scare bf-ing mothers off from potential allergens in food (I didn't eat peanuts when I was bf-ing because of the scares), it's been determined that breastmilk only rarely carries enough proteins to cause an allergic reaction--and when it does, switching to formula can often be the WORST solution since so many babies develop allergies to formula and the baby is clearly very allergy-prone already.

 

"A third common cause: If mom has a cracked nipple or other bleeding, then baby may ingest some blood from mom (this is not harmful to baby), which may show up in baby's stool."

 

Not intestinal bleeding. Again.

 

"Occasionally, blood in the stool may be due to breastmilk oversupply."

 

The only one linked to bf-ing--and this a temporary condition that's easily resolved and won't grow into bacterial enteritis because you're--you got it!--breastfeeding.

 

"There are several case reports of a baby beginning to have mucous and/or blood in the stool after starting vitamin/fluoride drops, where the blood disappeared after the drops were discontinued."

 

Again, not breastmilk, and not something that most babies should be taking.

 

"Certain kinds of infectious diarrhea can cause bloody stools in babies, including Salmonella and C. Difficile. C."

 

Caused by....exposure to non-breastmilk (and usually non-formula) sources of food.

 

"Various forms of colitis, intussusception, or other intestinal disorders are other possible causes."

 

Intestinal infections and inflammations generally have their root in inappropriate feeding--very occasionally an allergy to a protein in breastmilk. Intussusception is generally a disorder they're born with.

 

The PubMed articles: I'm not sure it you didn't understand the first article, but the cause was COW PROTEIN ALLERGY, which would have been worse in an infant started on typical cow-based formulas (there are special cow-milk-protein-free formulas for infants as well as the usual soy-based ones--a good proportion of babies who start out with cow-milk-formula allergies go on to develop soy allergies, leading to the need for protein-free-cow-milk formulas). These were resolved in breastfeeding for all but two mothers--who most likely "cheated" on their milk-product-free diets. Please note the conclusions of one: "We believe that dietary protein-induced enterocolitis, previously reported in formula-fed infants, occurs occasionally in the exclusively breast-fed infant as well." Note the language, once again.

 

Yes, lightning can strike many places, but it helps your odds to not be standing on the top of a bare mountain in a suit of armor during a thunderstorm.

 

I didn't write about the contents of diapers changing, but apparently you entirely missed the poster's point. Her POINT was that in infants, a large proportion of solids come out practically undigested for a good long while. That form of food isn't very nutritionally available to them. Over time, the exact same foods result in different quality poops as the child's body becomes more able to use the food for nutrition. As the infant's body develops and matures into that of a toddlers, he can rely for actual nutrition more on his solids and less on breastmilk or formula. And my point is that some foods--like raisins--can't really be digested until a child is as old as two.

 

When it comes to too-close spacing, there are many, many dangers. You're playing anecdotal evidence off statistics again--and it just doesn't work that way. Conceiving within three months of delivering a baby makes your next pregnancy automatically high risk. Babies conceived too soon are more at risk for miscarriage, IUGR, miscarriage, and low birth weight--and all the associated complications. Women are more at risk for difficult deliveries and for osteoporosis later in life. The ideal intervals in developing countries is three to five years--in developed countries, this can be safely shorted by a considerable amount! (Risks in developed countries exist only when spacing is closer than 18 months.) A study in the US noted that spacing of less than 13 months results in a three-fold risk of a baby dying within the first year.

 

You also misunderstood what I was saying about God-designed fertility. I was criticizing those who pick and choose what to embrace in order to maximize child production. There is NONONONO Levitical law that precludes family planning. The ONLY time "family planning" is negatively mentioned in the Bible is when a man was trying to cheat his brother's widow out of a son so that he could maintain control of his brother's lands. Wet dreams also make priests ritually unclean. Any other conclusion is ridiculous. The only valid Levitical laws concerning intercourse between a man and his wife restrict married couples from having sex during and for some time after a woman's menstruation. There is NO support for anything else. If my statements seem theologically weak, they are FAR more consistent than those who declare that "God opens and closes the womb" and then deliberately take steps to make sure that it isn't up to God at all.

 

Anyhow, in general, I find a lot of parents don't actually want to have children--they want to have HAD children. They want little mini-versions of themselves carrying their genetic material, but they don't want any of the trouble associated with actually *raising* children. There's a big difference, one that people should think seriously about. I'm not arguing that everyone should have two children or twelve. I'm arguing that people shouldn't have children just to have genetic copies of themselves and that they should have no more than the ones they want to actually care for. Wherever your "selfishness" line is, that's fine. But you should know this about yourself and shouldn't have kids you don't really want for any reason--not out of misguided religion, not out of egotism, not out of some dreamy unrealistic vision of motherhood that doesn't involve any of the icky bits.

 

Guess what? I don't like babyhood. Babies bore me to tears. I get interested in kids when they can talk. But that doesn't mean I'm going to make bad decisions that will affect them for the rest of their lives. I'm in charge of a person, not a dog, and I should treat that person--even as a baby--with the respect that personhood entails.

[Reya]

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.

 

Exactly what I'm saying. That's YOUR plan. To do that and THEN piously look to heaven and say, "We leave it up to Him, and look how He has blessed us!" Uh, no. You can't breed your way to heaven--and tons of babies aren't proof that God loves you best.

[Jumping In Puddles]

I try not to judge people on the choices they make as parents but this is especially true for breast feeding.

 

I could not nurse my son. I felt like people would look at me bottle feeding my son and instantly judge me. I was a new mom, excited to nurse, and when I couldn't I was already upset then on top of that, I had to deal with people telling me it was something I was or wasn't doing. Friends thought I didn't want to breast feed enough - that's why there was no milk :001_huh:

 

People flat out refused to believe that I couldn't nurse.

 

To tell you the truth, I was thinking of what horrible things would happen to my son since he was being fed formula but you know what? He is 5, in perfect health, smart as a whip, and rarely has seen the doctor except for check ups.

So maybe he will suffer later in life, but hopefully a lifetime of eating right, exercising and learning to take care of himself properly will make up the difference.

So maybe he would be even smarter if I had nursed him? I really will never know, but I can tell you this: he will never be looked at as an ignorant person. He has so much enthusiasm for learning.

 

My daughter was nursed. She had a big problem with ear infections as a baby but is otherwise healthy. She is also very smart and if she is smarter than her brother - I certainly can't see it.

 

I am attached to each child completely equally and they to me... that clearly has no connection to which one was nursed.

 

BTW, I couldn't nurse my son because I had placenta left in my uterus ( from emergency c-section) that almost killed me. I had no idea at the time but I found out when I almost bled to death, I had an emergency d&c and saved my life just in time.

 

My son was 3 months old at the time.

 

When he was 5 months old, I got pregnant with his sister. When she was born, I nursed her for 12 months without a period.

So maybe this was God's plan if you KWIM?

 

Anyway, don't judge other people before you hear their story.

 

EDIT dang, that was a long winded post! sorry.

[Reya]

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.

 

There's also a big difference between on demand and on schedule nursing! For those that keep to a schedule--ESPECIALLY if you eliminate night feedings early--you'll end up being fertile a lot faster than those who continue to nurse on demand.

 

Personally, as soon as the baby *will* sleep through the night, I want to do so! But if I were anti-BC, I'd cosleep and night nurse until the baby was at a year to keep out of dangerous spacing.

[Kelli in TN]

When I was in the beginning of 9 grade my folks took me out of ps so that I could be full time at home with my younger siblings and keep house. I was 15 at the time and my folks ordered ACE paces for me and the year was 76. This was done in part to give my mother a break who had become truly physically abusive to many of her children due to severe both pre and post partum depression. My mother did not bond with her youngest son and daughter however they bonded with me and this did not create a healthy mental health atmosphere or family dynamics. That brother until the day he died saw me as his mother and was often vocal about it. He was 20 and sending me mother's day cards. When he died it was like loosing a son and not a brother.

 

Was it a blessing done the road yes but it was incredibly hard to have complete charge of 4 younger kids from 1st to infant to do everything from ps teachers meetings to taking them to the ER when their asthma flared up. It was too much responsibility for a 15 yo and when I was almost 18 I left home. Jumped out of the frying pan and into the fire :001_huh: Youngest baby/ toddler stopped thriving when I left and came to live with me. If my parents had had their way I would have given up my life to raise those kids to adulthood. I watch the FQ movement and I wonder how many girls fell into that trap and never developed a life beyond that of co-parent to their siblings. I won my freedom but it was a hard win and no one in family won.

 

I know that what happened in my family was extreme and I am not uncovering even the half of it right now. However I am typing this to state that if momma and papa want to be QF they should be able to do so with out counting on making their older children co-parents. It is not right to rob older children of their lives so that mom and dad can live out their dreams or religious doctrines. It really does not matter if at some point God takes it and makes something good out of for the girl, i.e. a blessing. Bottom line is parents should be the parents and pushing children into the roll of co-parent is robbing them and the babies and young children they co-parent.

 

I look at families like the Duggar's and I wonder what kind of parental bonds can be formed when mom passes off a child under one or two to an older sibling when the new baby comes along. what happens when the baby bonds with sis and sis leaves to start her own life. I know how it played out in my family and it was not pretty. Some FQ moms and dads I suppose can do it well but I have seen a whole lot in my church, hs support groups, ect.... who failed at it and it is their children who pay the price.

 

This is of course just my experience and views but I think they are valid. Probably a knee jerk reaction to the idea that at some point it might be a blessing and this rant should not be taken personally, by peek or any one reading this.

 

You know it is anecdotal and it is just one story.

 

But it's YOUR story and for that.......:grouphug:......here's to being a survivor.

 

You must be made of really strong stuff.

[Jenny in Atl]

There's also a big difference between on demand and on schedule nursing! For those that keep to a schedule--ESPECIALLY if you eliminate night feedings early--you'll end up being fertile a lot faster than those who continue to nurse on demand.

 

Personally, as soon as the baby *will* sleep through the night, I want to do so! But if I were anti-BC, I'd cosleep and night nurse until the baby was at a year to keep out of dangerous spacing.

 

Since mine are 4 1/2 years apart... night nursing (both dds nursed on and off nights till their two-year molars came in) and co-sleeping was some great BC.

[Kelli in TN]

There's also a big difference between on demand and on schedule nursing! For those that keep to a schedule--ESPECIALLY if you eliminate night feedings early--you'll end up being fertile a lot faster than those who continue to nurse on demand.

 

Personally, as soon as the baby *will* sleep through the night, I want to do so! But if I were anti-BC, I'd cosleep and night nurse until the baby was at a year to keep out of dangerous spacing.

 

Oh yes. I did the (insert name of male "teacher" who wrote a book that was supposed to make mother's wise) plan with #4. I was pregnant again when he was 9 mos old. I had a miscarriage and could not stop bleeding. The doctor ended up putting me on low-dose estrogen to stop the bleeding. Of course my milk dried up. The poor little guy was completely weaned just after turning 10 months old. Broke my heart, and of course, deprived him of the benefits of nursing.

 

With the last two I returned to nursing according the needs of the babies.

[Storm Bay]

There's also a big difference between on demand and on schedule nursing! For those that keep to a schedule--ESPECIALLY if you eliminate night feedings early--you'll end up being fertile a lot faster than those who continue to nurse on demand.

 

Personally, as soon as the baby *will* sleep through the night, I want to do so! But if I were anti-BC, I'd cosleep and night nurse until the baby was at a year to keep out of dangerous spacing.

 

Yes there is! In my case, though, I nursed on demand and ignored the lactation consultants who told me to use a pacifier for comfort instead of me, and that was often as my eldest was a very, very active baby who never stopped moving until she fell asleep. But if my dc went on a "nursing strike" (my eldest did when she was teething and would only nurse when she was very sleepy or just waking up for a day or 2--I'm foggy on which of my other 2 did a nursing strike) or missed a feeding for any reason, that was all it took.

 

I'm a very, very dedicated, pro-nursing person, although I only nursed my first 13 months because of other reasons. However, once my dc try to talk and nurse together, that's it (that was my ds when he turned 2--he was down to 3 times a day and needed the calcium has he would only drink sweet things). Where I grew up virtually everyone starts of Br**stfeeding (unless there's a real problem) and you see it in restaurants and in public all the time. Not like here, where when I had my first the vast majority didn't even try or gave up right away. I was almost a freak when I sat in the mall covered up nursing my first. As for co-sleeping, I wasn't ever going to do that, but when I started drifting off in the night feedings I started doing that so I wouldn't drop my dd. I'm not sure if I actually would have, but when I was postpartum, sleep deprived and hormonal I was very worried I might if I fell asleep sitting up.

[Mrs Mungo]

i never said that what happened during the German Nazi period was funny or even defensible. I even posted the definition and specifically clarified that. It would be nice if people would actually read some definitions and take note of context.

 

I *was* asking if you are as intolerant, domineering, or harsh in your beliefs when you are dealing w/ other people. Do you believe NOT nursing and feeding tablefood is borderline abuse? would you be ready to report a mom for abuse or have her child taken away because they weren't feeding their child as you saw fit? Reya hasn't answered that question, tho she certainly stated she believed it to be abuse. Mrs. Mungo hasn't stated that she believes it to be abuse, and she hasn't made statements as intolerant as what i have noticed elsewhere.

 

THAT is what i was talking about.

 

Feel free to clarify exactly what you believe that you would be willing to identify with the term "Nursing Nazi" per your previous post.

 

I think you need to understand that ALL breastfeeding advocates (and I am a breastfeeding advocate even though I firmly believe each woman should decide what is best for her and her baby), no matter how tolerant, get called Nursing/Nipple/Breastfeeding Nazis at some point or another. I have been *while* giving a talk on breastfeeding to a childbirth class. It was one particular soon-to-be dad in the class who was combative the entire time and honestly, I still don't know what his problem was. So, it is probably a lot more hurtful than you realize or intended.

[Marie in Oh]

there is any evidence to prove this. . .

 

When it comes to too-close spacing, there are many, many dangers. You're playing anecdotal evidence off statistics again--and it just doesn't work that way. Conceiving within three months of delivering a baby makes your next pregnancy automatically high risk. Babies conceived too soon are more at risk for miscarriage, IUGR, miscarriage, and low birth weight--and all the associated complications. Women are more at risk for difficult deliveries and for osteoporosis later in life.

 

Where did your statistics come from? I'd like to see this in print.

[Jenny in Atl]

there is any evidence to prove this. . .

 

When it comes to too-close spacing, there are many, many dangers. You're playing anecdotal evidence off statistics again--and it just doesn't work that way. Conceiving within three months of delivering a baby makes your next pregnancy automatically high risk. Babies conceived too soon are more at risk for miscarriage, IUGR, miscarriage, and low birth weight--and all the associated complications. Women are more at risk for difficult deliveries and for osteoporosis later in life.

 

Where did your statistics come from? I'd like to see this in print.

 

This blurb is from the US Gov..

 

Plan enough time between pregnancies so your body can recover and rebuild the nutrients it needs. When births are spaced at least 18-23 months apart there is less risk of the baby being born too early (premature) or low birthweight. Pregnancies too close together can also be harmful to the mother’s health.

 

Here's another siting a Britich study.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmhea/is_200308/ai_kepm410394

 

And another...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12373321/

[Jill- OK]

Well, I conceived 2 in the first year while still nursing...

 

I've done it twice, too, lol.

 

And I'm an extended nursing, co-sleeping, etc., etc...sort. :-)

 

I realize this isn't the main point of this thread...but you've got to be careful with blanket statements about fertility and nursing, or assigning some sort of lapse in the practice if someone conceives while doing everything 'right' to prevent early return of fertility. It might be rare, but it's absolutely possible, and following a certain practice or mindset doesn't guarantee absence of fertility.

 

(Just throwing that in for anyone reading that's doing exclusive nursing and believing it alone will provide a certain period--no pun intended--of infertility. No substitute for learning the symptoms of fertility if you want to know when it's back. :D)

[Kimber]

Just for clarification, I'm the one that introduced the whole Levitical Law idea into this conversation. And here's the real reason why---

 

Because the law places restrictions on intimacy that seem to focus predominantly on the most opportune time for a woman to conceive, the law would have an impact on conception as women get older and their cycles become more erratic.

 

For instance, if I ovulate on cycle day 10 rather than 14, adhering to that law would impact my fertility in a big way. It just seems to me that having erratic cycles that don't mesh with the timing as laid out in the law would greatly reduce a womans chances of conceiving as she got older.

 

I personally think this law has a built in stop that would reduce fertility simply because the timings would not sync up. And even if women were still able to conceive later in life, the opportunities for conception would be reducing thereby spacing the children further apart.

 

I came up this idea when I was thinking of the QF life. I thought about the 12 tribes of Israel and realized they were the product of 1 man and 4 women. I thought about why there wouldn't be even more than an average of 4 children per woman. I think that is because they were following the law.

 

 

And this is probably redundant, but the only reason I bring up the law is that because the qf movement itself is supposedly based on the "law" of the scripture. So it just seems that if you're going to follow some sort of law on conception based on the bible, then the one to follow would be the one that speaks directly to the act that brings about conception.

 

But this is based on my own crazy ideas, I'm not trying to convince or move anyone to do or not do anything. I know many QF people and I admire them greatly. Some of them adopt many children, something I hope to do someday. I have quite a few qf friends and role models. And they don't look down on me. I consider myself blessed to be their friends. But my dh and myself happen to interpret scripture differently.

 

 

Kimber

[Marie in Oh]

Nevermind.