Michelle Duggar is expecting # 18

[LisaKinVA]

I've read a lot of this thread with great interest.

 

My brother & sister-in-law have 10, and are expecting #11. They have children about every 18 months -- and have never used bottles or weaned to forumla. I do know they have said they will take as many as the Lord gives -- but other than that, I have no comment.

 

Me? I am a Christian, and I do try to follow God's plan for my life. That said, despite on-demand nursing, co-sleeping, etc. I begin ovulating & cycling at, or around my 6-week check up.

 

My closest two children are 18 mos. -- and, if given the choice, I will not have that happen again. I can't handle it. I don't have horrible pregnancies (I don't terribly mind being pregnant, have easy deliveries, etc.) Perhaps it's because I had my first at 30... perhaps it had something to do with my dh working *a lot.* All I know is, while I love children, I have not been called to have one every time my body THINKS it can, and any group (Christian or no) telling me otherwise would have me running screaming for the hills...

 

Don't get me wrong, I love my children... but having a 10 mo. old and an infant repeatedly scares me beyond belief. Maybe I'm not trusting enough, maybe my "mommy gene" has a short-circut -- but no one is going to convince me that God's plan for me is to have as many children as my body is able.

 

Just like no one (not even my mother) can convince me it's wrong to supplement a baby I've been bfeeding, when he cries continually, isn't peeing normally (one wet diaper a day), and has sunken eyes. BTDT -- and bore the scorn, "tsk-tsk" "don't you know if you'd just let your body adjust, he'd be FINE?" from quite a number of people.

 

I'm very happy with my four blessings -- and I hope to have another one someday. I don't know when that day will come, though. We are physically living in 900 square feet and falling over one another. If it happens now, it happens. I'll worry about those ramifications later. I'm almost 40... and have no idea how easy it will be for me to get pregnant.

 

Before DH and I married, we talked about "how many" children. We thought it would be "nice" to have 4-6. But, we didn't set any goals -- and we didn't set any limits. If our 4th had been twins we'd have 6 right now, and I'd still think about getting pregnant -- and my husband would be fine with that.

[JennifersLost]

I didn't read this whole thread but wanted to add my two cents about the "nursing as birth control" thing.

 

I'm one of those women who gets her first period exactly 28 days after giving birth, even when exlusively nursing - every single time! I would never, ever depend on nursing for birth control, LOL.

[Elisabeth in IL]

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.

 

There were more children just not male children. The 12 tribes only include the male children born to these women.

[Kimber]

You're right of course. Obviously I chose to assume not many.

 

Kimberly

 

Actually, I thought it was just Dinah. Hmm...

 

I did a quick search, and it says the sons and daughters number 33. That would be a lot of qf kids. When I read that I always suspected those were dil's and that they were called his daughters because they were sort of adopted in.

 

Anyway, I was right when I said that I'm not a scholar. I just love Him. :)

[RebeccaC]

You're right of course. Obviously I chose to assume not many.

 

Kimberly

 

Actually, I thought it was just Dinah. Hmm...

 

I have thought along the same lines when it comes to the law giving women a break in child bearing :) However I do not think that Jacob's large family is the poster family for large families. Most of his kids turned out rather questionably or just down right bad. Joesph being the exception. Which also means Jacob's family is not the poster family for those who want to dig up the polygamous marriage laws and live by them. Seems like the larger the family if you really look at the OT the greater the dysfunction. I am sure some one can maybe come up with the successful OT family...... I just haven't. Maybe Job's second set of kids but then not much is known about them.

[Kimber]

Well, it's nice to know I'm not alone. :)

 

And true they weren't perfect, but none of us are so I don't hole it against them or thinks it due to size. :)

 

When I read on this quickly, I came across a site that said that there is some belief that the brothers each had a twin sister. I had never heard of this.

 

We're covering ancient history next year, and I can't wait to study this in more depth and in context.

 

Homeschooling can be so much fun,

 

Kimberly

[Quiver0f10]

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.

 

I know I am only one person, but all my babies were very close in age. I have never had a baby born less that 41 weeks and most were 42-42 and all but one weighed under 9#s, with two weighing 11# and one 12# LOL. I have only had one MC that I know of and no OB has ever treated me as high risk or even batted an eye at my pregnancies, except when I tried to have a VBAC and succeeded.

[RebeccaC]

I kinda feel the need to temper a bit of what I have written :blush: I am not anti large family. I am anti QF doctrine that around 10 years ago seemed to equate that if you did not trust God on family size you really were not saved.

 

I would have had more kids if it was not a life and death thing for me. My heart stopped during my first c-section. I am in the heart of QF country and ATI and it seemed I was constantly explaining why I only had only two and was often rebuked for my lack of faith by well meaning QF folks in a local hs group. Quit going to that support group for that reason.

 

I understand that my story in all of this is anecdotal, I was trained as a scientist :001_smile: and have more than a few child psychology classes under my belt. When it comes to QF tho anecdotal evidence is about all there is to my knowledge. I doubt that a large enough percent of those who are FQ would permit their families to be part of a longitudinal study. I doubt that the leaders of the FQ would would want that much or kind of exposure :eek: All that written I bet it would be a fun study to work on :D Don't think I could be objective enough to do it tho :glare:

[Susan in TX]

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.

 

That is not my understanding of the QF movement at all. Being QF is not based on the law but rather based on 1) the belief that children are blessings, and 2) that God is the one who opens and closes the womb.

 

Susan in TX

[Parrothead]

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.

 

I can't find any information about this. Where are you getting this information? Seems to me that massive studies including millions of children/infants would have to be done to be able to say ALL CHILDREN/ALWAYS have intestinal bleeding due to an early start of solid foods. And if such a study has been done it seems to me that supporting evidence of ALL CHILDREN ALWAYS having intestinal bleeding when early on solid foods would be cause for national/internations news.

 

Using three different search engines I can't find any one study that cited as saying the early starting of solid foods causes ALL CHILDREN to ALWAYS have intestinal bleeding.

 

I can't find any thing about studies of a relationship between starting solid foods early and intelligence either. What are your sources?

[amy g.]

http://news.aol.com/health/story/ar/_a/breast-fed-children-smarter-study-finds/20080506091309990001?icid=1616058736x1201622612x1200302629

 

This is one study about breastfeeding and IQ.

[unsinkable]

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 . . .

 

This brings back poignant (sp?) memories of my little ones struggling with a huge letdown! With each baby it got worse. I finally learned to help the babies deal with it but I remember the huge gasp they'd let out as they pulled away from a huge let down. Poor little drowning bunnies. (Is there a smilie for this?)

[SmallChanges]

God Bless her!

[Kari C in SC]

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:

 

Yep! Once again, I can't say it better than you!

[RebeccaC]

That is not my understanding of the QF movement at all. Being QF is not based on the law but rather based on 1) the belief that children are blessings, and 2) that God is the one who opens and closes the womb.

 

Susan in TX

 

No actually it is based on pre-law on the so called mandate to be fruitful and to multiply, the passages about opened and closed wombs in the the OT and then on the passages in Ps. The mandate is turned into a law, a legalistic rule or at least that was the way it was being preach 10 years ago.

[abreakfromlife]

very interesting thread..... I've read the same study about it being dangerous for a mother to have babies close together - it was in an issue of the big medical journal a couple years ago. It had me really concerned my last couple pregnancies......some people are just really really fertile. Our oldest is 7 and I just gave birth to number 5 (all unplanned), 2 weeks ago. We got pregnant with number 3 without even having s*x, and got pregnant with 4 and 5 with charting and condoms.........so that's when I say that God must really have wanted us to have these kids, LOL. The last two conceptions happened when the babies were only 6 months old. Baby number 4 did have some complications during pregnancy and did come out very little and skinny, and I think that is b/c of how close she was to her brother. This last baby grew, but he was always on the low end of the chart, and I was aware that there could be problems, so I was more conscientious about eating right and resting a lot.

[Reya]

The AAP, WHO, and Canadian and UK government health bodies all recommend waiting until 6 months to introduce solids.

 

Here's a bit on the history of doctor's recommendations on solid food, to give you an idea of how recent and how:

 

1800s: 6 months at earliest for limited foods (though many of these foods we now know were bad ideas!!!)

1920s - 9 or 10 months

1935 - 6 months

1950s - 2 or 3 WEEKS

1960s - 6 weeks

1970s/80s - 3 months

NOW - 4-6 months, with 6 month preferred

 

The move to early solids was strongest when doctors were discouraging breastfeeding and encouraging formula--a distrust of women's bodies and a deep misogyny is at the root of this.

 

Why are early solids bad? A quick search revealed this:

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=39&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjournals.cambridge.org%2Fproduction%2Faction%2FcjoGetFulltext%3Ffulltextid%3D916132&ei=XaEoSKymA6bM-AKFya2eDA&usg=AFQjCNFqUttlCOeyE8X1N7eK6bpeukOukA&sig2=hKdgQR9cR34nnXYC6Cof8Q

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/541952

 

Early solid foods as a cause of bleeding:

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kfshrc.edu.sa%2Fannals%2F166%2F96-296.pdf&ei=66IoSP3FNqLm-QKii6CsDA&usg=AFQjCNGqx_liugNCf1pil-OK4I8oq65weg&sig2=4M-KE_TRf-lnsI7ltjO1fw

 

Formula is also often a frequent cause of intestinal bleeding, so people tend to downplay the solid food/bleeding link. (That's why formula is heavily iron fortified--to keep babies on formula from getting anemic.) You'll find not many references to it in the literature of developed countries since it doesn't kill babies here but a LOT of references when talking about areas where it kills you.

 

Here's an article that lays things out nicely in simple language (which I'm not good at!):

 

http://www.wholesomebabyfood.com/early-solid-food-feeding.htm

 

---

 

Quiverof10-- Yes, you will always find those who had close-spaced babies and were "just fine." You will find many people who have never used seat belts and are still alive. But you still face the statistical risks of close spacing with every close birth, just as those who go seat-belt-less still face higher dangers even if the don't get in an accident. A lack of tangible consequences doesn't negate risk.

 

(I'd also be very interested in hearing *how* you--and others--breastfed for that to be the case--whether you fed on demand or on a schedule, whether you used a pacifier or sometimes pumped, and when you introduced solids and at what age the kids were heavily on solids. All these things can be factors that can fool your body into thinking your baby is older than it is. All the "experts" who recommend scheduling babies are setting so many women up for failure. A good percentage of women will end up with inadequate milk supplies--and many more will, of course, get their periods back sooner.)

[jedbel]

My situation is different. I would of loved more children but I developed chronic high blood pressure after my second pregnancy (I was 26 yrs. old) and was told any pregnancy after that would be considered high risk. Because of this we decided that 2 precious healthy boys was it for us.

 

Son #3 came along 3 years later without us planning him. The night I found out I was pregnant I remember kneeling in prayer and crying out to the Lord for answers. I was so afraid. I opened my bible to a verse from the Lord that consoled me. Even so I had many moments during that pregnancy where doubt took over and I was afraid of the many things that could happen (Preeclampsia, Eclampsia, placental abruption, complications due to prematurity etc.) . My blood pressure was controlled with medication most of the pregnancy but toward the end would not respond to meds. I was put on bed rest and was not able to tend for my other two for weeks. I had apt.s constantly and had to monitor baby movements a thousand times a day. It was a horrible experience with a happy ending. My son was born perfectly healthy at 37 weeks and was able to go home with me two days later. Never even visited the NI CU. Since was very small ( weighed only 5lbs when we took him home) and my other two before high blood pressure babies were born 9lbs and 8lbs it was a major adjustment to care for such a tiny babe but he had no complications! I did not develop further complications either. The Lord blessed us abundantly but we have chosen not to have anymore children because of the many risks involved.

Now my question is would a person totally for FQ approve of our decision or would they believe we should continue regardless. Is it considered a lack of faith in God to stop because of maternal health issues?

[Reya]

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

 

 

Who spay and neuter their pets? ;-)

 

(Sorry! Hard to resist!)

[Reya]

Oh, and to clarify--yes, I would report the woman who drove with a baby on her lap. That isn't "borderline" anything--it's reckless endangerment. I'd also report a family who had a pool in the back yard that a toddler had constant access to if the family was alerted tot he danger and didn't do anything about it.

 

OTOH, I would make gentle suggestions to the one who fed her infant solids too early and would give her some of the soft literature that explains why three-month-olds shouldn't have solids even though ol' Granny thinks they should, and I'd encourage them to talk to their pediatrician, who hopefully isn't in the dark ages.

[Reya]

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.

 

Sorry--by health benefits, I mean raised IQ and decreased illness specifically, not total nutrition. It's still extremely digestible and a great way to get nutrients--if I were in a 3rd world country but able to still kid my kids great nutrition, then weaning would be fine at that age. If I weren't, it would be a very bad idea, of course! There is still a illness and possibly a TINY IQ benefit after the first year, but it declines as the percentage of one's food from breastmilk declines. Nutritionally, yes, it would have been better for me to nurse for a second year, but it wasn't big *enough* of an advantage to fight over. By that time, it was like letting the kids eat fries once a week instead of having a no-fries policy. No fries would be better, but once a week doesn't cause enough problems to disallow it. (Compare that to fries every day... *g*)

 

I don't think there's any evidence that there's any benefit after age 3, though--though again, it's not going to hurt anything.

[Reya]

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.

 

That's what I did! It still took WEEKS. I'd keep at one side until it was empty, then switch to the other. My body was certain I had those four other babies hidden around somewhere, and it was going to be PREPARED.

[8filltheheart]

I have avoided this thread like the plague until I read Pam's funny title to Jean.

 

I just thought I would insert another theological POV......bet you could never guess which one!!

 

If you respect that marriage is a holy union between a man and a woman.....sanctioned by God or from my perspective a sacramental union joined by God's grace........the marital union is not simply an earthly relationship between man and woman, but really is a holy and blessed union that is centered around God.

 

(Of course if you don't believe that.....than nothing else I say will matter......use your time for better things!!!! :) )

 

As couples, fertility is a gift that allows us to become co-creators with the Creator. That is truly a statement of pure awe.

 

However, we are also created in the Divine Image and gifted with the virtues prudence and temperance. Prudence is the virtue which enables us to think carefully before acting, to make wise choices, and to do things well and temperance is the virtue by which we exercise self-control with regard to the drives of human nature.

 

God has gifted us with prudence and temperance as well as fertility. As a couple, we are called to prayerfully reflect upon our roles as spouse/parent/provider and to pray for guidance in prudently exercising (or not) the fertility with which we have be given. Serious issues.....whether health, financial, physical, emotional......do not need to simply be ignored like we are not gifted with reason. He created us with reason. He expects us to use it to pray, reflect, and exercise gifted wisdom.

 

There is no "right" definition of what determines serious reasons to limit family size. We as individual couples are bound to prayerfully make that decision. What is undue stress for one might not be for someone else. That is why it is supposed to be a continual prayerful decision. (BTW....continual is a key word b/c normal circumstances are fluid and life changes constantly, therefore our decisions need to be re-evaluated and prayerfully considered as they change month by month)

 

For some......there exists no need to ever NOT consider conceiving. For others, serious reasons exist that the prayerful response is to not conceive. If the decisions are based upon prayer and the grace from the marital union, both are equal. That somehow having unlimited children is "holier" is a perversion of thought. Children are an incredible gift, no doubt. But some people are given unseen (by outsiders) burdens and those burdens are a reality. Not having children in those circumstances is a prayerful decision.

 

 

From Humanae Vitae

***************************************

Responsible Parenthood

 

10. Married love, therefore, requires of husband and wife the full awareness of their obligations in the matter of responsible parenthood, which today, rightly enough, is much insisted upon, but which at the same time should be rightly understood. Thus, we do well to consider responsible parenthood in the light of its varied legitimate and interrelated aspects.

 

With regard to the biological processes, responsible parenthood means an awareness of, and respect for, their proper functions. In the procreative faculty the human mind discerns biological laws that apply to the human person. (9)

 

With regard to man's innate drives and emotions, responsible parenthood means that man's reason and will must exert control over them.

 

With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.

 

Responsible parenthood, as we use the term here, has one further essential aspect of paramount importance. It concerns the objective moral order which was established by God, and of which a right conscience is the true interpreter. In a word, the exercise of responsible parenthood requires that husband and wife, keeping a right order of priorities, recognize their own duties toward God, themselves, their families and human society.

 

From this it follows that they are not free to act as they choose in the service of transmitting life, as if it were wholly up to them to decide what is the right course to follow. On the contrary, they are bound to ensure that what they do corresponds to the will of God the Creator. The very nature of marriage and its use makes His will clear, while the constant teaching of the Church spells it out.

********************************************************

 

Of course, all of the above is intended that it is prayer, and not selfishly oriented. (And......ummmmmm.......of course it is temperance and not birth control that spaces children.)

 

 

Anyone and everyone is welcome to disagree with me. :) It is obviously not MY position alone. But I do believe it is theologically sound. :)

[Karie]

My children are adopted and I could NOT breastfeed. After reading so many of these posts, you'd think my children would be unhealthy and stupid. But, thankfully, my children are healthy, happy, and smart, and I gave them formula. If I had biological children, I would have breastfed, but the world didn't come crashing down and end because my kids weren't breastfed.

[Rich with Kids]

My children are adopted and I could NOT breastfeed. After reading so many of these posts, you'd think my children would be unhealthy and stupid. But, thankfully, my children are healthy, happy, and smart, and I gave them formula. If I had biological children, I would have breastfed, but the world didn't come crashing down and end because my kids weren't breastfed.

:iagree:

[Reya]

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.

 

Sorry--I've seen all of her figures, as well as those of other researchers. Some people like to give the greatest weight to the oldest age--THAT'S what I find suspect, when you make questionable conclusions based on when adult teeth come in, for example, when there's no human society ANYWHERE that adheres to that. (Has EVERYONE got it wrong? Or--wait--are our late teething related not to our "natural" weaning age but to our head growth?)

 

We have *pretty* clear idea of what the benefits are at each point, which is what I base my conclusions upon, as well as what preindustrial cultures do.

 

The benefits up to a year are pretty much incontrovertible. From a year to two years, there is some documented benefit, but it is much smaller. There aren't any documented benefits after two years.

 

Babies can get complete nutrition from breastmilk from six months to a year of age, depending upon the baby. Delaying the introduction of solids after a year is connected with a number of problems, from nutrition to adapting to different tastes, textures, and chewing.

 

The bc effects pretty much evaporate around 1.5 years, showing that a woman's body tends to prepare for nurturing a second child around then.

 

Extended breastfeeding can tax a woman's stores of various minerals and nutrients quite heavily beyond a certain point, as well, so supplementation becomes increasingly important as baby grows into toddlerhood.

 

There isn't any evidence that show that there are any benefits for nursing a two-year-old, so it would be safe to say that this would be around the cut off of the natural time of benefits of nursing. That doesn't mean that there's any reason to stop a kid who gets plenty of solids from continuing to nurse for another couple of years, provided the mother takes good care of her own needs!

[Mrs Mungo]

Reya,

I'm one of the biggest breastfeeding advocates you'll find. However, sometimes it's best to stop while you're ahead.

 

I can see this is starting to deteroirating into a better-mother-than-thou debate and those are always hurtful and unnecessary.

 

I don't think you are the cause but sometimes it's best to walk away and let things lie.

 

:grouphug: all around.

[Joanne]

Sorry--I've seen all of her figures, as well as those of other researchers. Some people like to give the greatest weight to the oldest age--THAT'S what I find suspect, when you make questionable conclusions based on when adult teeth come in, for example, when there's no human society ANYWHERE that adheres to that. (Has EVERYONE got it wrong? Or--wait--are our late teething related not to our "natural" weaning age but to our head growth?)

 

We have *pretty* clear idea of what the benefits are at each point, which is what I base my conclusions upon, as well as what preindustrial cultures do.

 

The benefits up to a year are pretty much incontrovertible. From a year to two years, there is some documented benefit, but it is much smaller. There aren't any documented benefits after two years.

 

Babies can get complete nutrition from breastmilk from six months to a year of age, depending upon the baby. Delaying the introduction of solids after a year is connected with a number of problems, from nutrition to adapting to different tastes, textures, and chewing.

 

The bc effects pretty much evaporate around 1.5 years, showing that a woman's body tends to prepare for nurturing a second child around then.

 

Extended breastfeeding can tax a woman's stores of various minerals and nutrients quite heavily beyond a certain point, as well, so supplementation becomes increasingly important as baby grows into toddlerhood.

 

There isn't any evidence that show that there are any benefits for nursing a two-year-old, so it would be safe to say that this would be around the cut off of the natural time of benefits of nursing. That doesn't mean that there's any reason to stop a kid who gets plenty of solids from continuing to nurse for another couple of years, provided the mother takes good care of her own needs!

 

Respectfully, I find your passion for your beliefs and opinion admirable. But I find your conclusions based on opinion, not fact.

 

I'd like to point out that your words around nursing assume that mother limits healthy, developmentally and age appropriate solids. And the benefits of breastfeeding are, in your discourse, centered on nutrition and immunity. There are developmental benefits such as jaw development and subjective benefits as well.

 

Look, I'm not suggesting you should have held your toddler and forced nursing. I'm not defending people on the extreme side in terms of age (though I was one by some standards).

 

But you are presenting as facts what are essentially OPINIONS.

[RebeccaC]

I have avoided this thread like the plague until I read Pam's funny title to Jean.

 

I just thought I would insert another theological POV......bet you could never guess which one!!

 

If you respect that marriage is a holy union between a man and a woman.....sanctioned by God or from my perspective a sacramental union joined by God's grace........the marital union is not simply an earthly relationship between man and woman, but really is a holy and blessed union that is centered around God.

 

(Of course if you don't believe that.....than nothing else I say will matter......use your time for better things!!!! :) )

 

As couples, fertility is a gift that allows us to become co-creators with the Creator. That is truly a statement of pure awe.

 

However, we are also created in the Divine Image and gifted with the virtues prudence and temperance. Prudence is the virtue which enables us to think carefully before acting, to make wise choices, and to do things well and temperance is the virtue by which we exercise self-control with regard to the drives of human nature.

 

God has gifted us with prudence and temperance as well as fertility. As a couple, we are called to prayerfully reflect upon our roles as spouse/parent/provider and to pray for guidance in prudently exercising (or not) the fertility with which we have be given. Serious issues.....whether health, financial, physical, emotional......do not need to simply be ignored like we are not gifted with reason. He created us with reason. He expects us to use it to pray, reflect, and exercise gifted wisdom.

 

There is no "right" definition of what determines serious reasons to limit family size. We as individual couples are bound to prayerfully make that decision. What is undue stress for one might not be for someone else. That is why it is supposed to be a continual prayerful decision. (BTW....continual is a key word b/c normal circumstances are fluid and life changes constantly, therefore our decisions need to be re-evaluated and prayerfully considered as they change month by month)

 

For some......there exists no need to ever NOT consider conceiving. For others, serious reasons exist that the prayerful response is to not conceive. If the decisions are based upon prayer and the grace from the marital union, both are equal. That somehow having unlimited children is "holier" is a perversion of thought. Children are an incredible gift, no doubt. But some people are given unseen (by outsiders) burdens and those burdens are a reality. Not having children in those circumstances is a prayerful decision.

 

 

From Humanae Vitae

***************************************

Responsible Parenthood....................

 

 

:iagree: With just about all of this post with the exception of

That is why it is supposed to be a continual prayerful decision.

 

I think that there are situations in which the subject can be close for good and the chief being that another pg would cost the mother her life or the life of the child. Both of my pgs went that route and we had to make a permanent decision on the matter. We did tho spend a few years praying about adopting but my ability to carry a child and survive delivery were next nil. Not to mention that both pgs and deliveries cost more than our house did at the time. We just financially could not afford another high risk pg and the Doc told my dh that I would not survive another.

[Colleen]

I'm one of the biggest breastfeeding advocates you'll find. However, sometimes it's best to stop while you're ahead. I can see this is starting to deteroirating into a better-mother-than-thou debate and those are always hurtful and unnecessary. I don't think you are the cause but sometimes it's best to walk away and let things lie.

 

Well said, and based on the small portion of this monolithic thread I've read, :iagree: And because I have zero interest in the Duggars...and because, even as a Christian, the term "quiverful" makes me cringe...and because my breastfed children ate both peanut butter AND honey as infants (horrors!)...I will say nothing more.

 

:D

[8filltheheart]

I think that there are situations in which the subject can be close for good and the chief being that another pg would cost the mother her life or the life of the child.

 

 

You are correct. In that circumstance, if a pregnancy would cause the death of the mother, the prayerful decision is indefinite. (which Humane Vitae does state) I was trying to avoid extremism. Most peoples lives are fluid. Circumstances change.

[Guest Amy in MS]

Now my question is would a person totally for FQ approve of our decision or would they believe we should continue regardless. Is it considered a lack of faith in God to stop because of maternal health issues?

 

In A Full Quiver Family and Be Fruitful and Multiply, you'll find that even in cases where you believe your health is at risk, people shout not avoid pregnancy, but be ready to accept all the blessings (and potential complications) that this entails.

 

Amy

[Scarlett]

In A Full Quiver Family and Be Fruitful and Multiply, you'll find that even in cases where you believe your health is at risk, people shout not avoid pregnancy, but be ready to accept all the blessings (and potential complications) that this entails.

 

Amy

 

Ugh. That is disgusting.

[Jumping In Puddles]

My children are adopted and I could NOT breastfeed. After reading so many of these posts, you'd think my children would be unhealthy and stupid. But, thankfully, my children are healthy, happy, and smart, and I gave them formula. If I had biological children, I would have breastfed, but the world didn't come crashing down and end because my kids weren't breastfed.

 

Exactly. As I've said, I have one breastfed, one formula fed and I doubt any researcher would be able to find health or IQ differences between them. Smart, happy, healthy is right on the mark :iagree:

[Reya]

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.

 

Argh. Okay. I am really trying not to get to convoluted... *g*

 

There is evidence that children between the ages of 15 and 24 months who breastfeed are less likely to get ill than those who don't, BUT when you compare bf-ing toddlers to babies who were breastfed until 12 months but aren't now instead of to the general population, there haven't been any studies that show any benefit. I'm not saying there isn't additional benefit, but it isn't big enough to be easily measured. The benefits of breastfeeding the first six months, even, continue to be measurable through the whole of the first three years.

 

Common sense tells me that, if you had an active flu or cold going through your family and you got it first and the toddler got it second, it would shorten the duration of the illness for the toddler to still be breastfed because he'd get your new, virus-specific antibodies at the same time he was exposed to the virus.

 

But this isn't going to be as easy to measure as total number of illnesses, etc., which probably don't change much if you've bfed throughout the first year but then stopped.

 

If kids still got small pox and whooping cough, you'd better believe I'd be breastfeeding them till they were three! *g* But when the most likely benefit is that their first flu will be a day shorter--not so much.

[Pensguys]

Ugh. That is disgusting.

 

Disgust isn't the word *I* would use, but I do think it is rather nonsensical. The family that I referenced earlier about the older girls doing most of the work/parenting are an example of this. Mom has had 8 c-sections now. I think it's 8, I keep losing track. After c-section number 3, she and her dh were told that they shouldn't have any more children because of the thickness of mom's uterine wall (or lack of thickness....paper thin was what she told us). They've been told with each following pregnancy that they shouldn't have any more because of the high risks to Mom's uterus/life/current baby. But they follow the teaching of "not enough faith" if they stop.

 

I have another friend who finally decided enough was enough because of the vein/clot problems she would have with each pregnancy. When her life came into jeopardy, they finally decided they should really stop but did not consider it a lack of faith.

[nmoira]

 

I have another friend who finally decided enough was enough because of the vein/clot problems she would have with each pregnancy. When her life came into jeopardy, they finally decided they should really stop but did not consider it a lack of faith.

I have a blood clotting disorder and the LMW heparin alone for my last pregnancy ran over $50,000. We were very lucky it was covered under insurance. Money can be a big consideration too.

[Scarlett]

Disgust isn't the word *I* would use, but I do think it is rather nonsensical.

 

I re read the post and my reply....thinking maybe I'd replied in haste...but I don't just think 'oh that is non sensical' (which it is of course). I think, 'ugh. How sickening to use such reasoning and then lay the blame on God.' So yeah, I'm sticking with disgust as my descriptive word.

[Pensguys]

I re read the post and my reply....thinking maybe I'd replied in haste...but I don't just think 'oh that is non sensical' (which it is of course). I think, 'ugh. How sickening to use such reasoning and then lay the blame on God.' So yeah, I'm sticking with disgust as my descriptive word.

 

That's okay. :) I was just using "non-sensical" because if something as life threatening as c-sections or clots or whatever were to come up, it just makes no sense to me to risk the life of the mother just to have more children. My friend with the clots said they would rather her be alive than to keep on having more children and her not be around the raise them.

[Scarlett]

My friend with the clots said they would rather her be alive than to keep on having more children and her not be around the raise them.

 

Per Zactly. I know you weren't arguing with me....but I didn't want anyone to think I was using words hastily.

[cin]

I really was trying to avoid posting in this thread because The Duggar's story brings a strong emotional response from me. I don't hate them nor am I angry with them. But then again, yes, I am. In a whole different way. I had a miscarriage 18 yrs ago. We ttc for another 12 years. A couple of those years included medical intervention.

 

So as I read the discussions about quiverfull stuff, I am insanely jealous and defensive of them. But only because of my past.

 

I'm also disturbed about the breastfeeding debate. Both of my girls were adopted and therefore not breastfed. (The older one MIGHT have been for the first couple of months, but definitely NOT after 6 mos of age). They are healthy, alert and, if I say so myself, quite bright. Obviously, they would be geniuses if they HAD been breastfed. :lol:

 

And now, at the present time....I sooo want a 3rd baby, but DH says no. So, our quiver is full. And to the Duggar Family I say...

 

 

More Power To You!

:party:

 

 

[M&M]

If you respect that marriage is a holy union between a man and a woman.....sanctioned by God or from my perspective a sacramental union joined by God's grace........the marital union is not simply an earthly relationship between man and woman, but really is a holy and blessed union that is centered around God.

 

As couples, fertility is a gift that allows us to become co-creators with the Creator. That is truly a statement of pure awe.

 

 

God has gifted us with prudence and temperance as well as fertility. As a couple, we are called to prayerfully reflect upon our roles as spouse/parent/provider and to pray for guidance in prudently exercising (or not) the fertility with which we have be given. Serious issues.....whether health, financial, physical, emotional......do not need to simply be ignored like we are not gifted with reason. He created us with reason. He expects us to use it to pray, reflect, and exercise gifted wisdom.

 

There is no "right" definition of what determines serious reasons to limit family size. We as individual couples are bound to prayerfully make that decision. What is undue stress for one might not be for someone else. That is why it is supposed to be a continual prayerful decision. (BTW....continual is a key word b/c normal circumstances are fluid and life changes constantly, therefore our decisions need to be re-evaluated and prayerfully considered as they change month by month)

 

For some......there exists no need to ever NOT consider conceiving. For others, serious reasons exist that the prayerful response is to not conceive. If the decisions are based upon prayer and the grace from the marital union, both are equal. That somehow having unlimited children is "holier" is a perversion of thought. Children are an incredible gift, no doubt. But some people are given unseen (by outsiders) burdens and those burdens are a reality. Not having children in those circumstances is a prayerful decision.

 

 

 

 

 

As someone who has been greatly criticized about the size of my family (5 dc). Not being Catholic, it was a couple of friends that introduced us to NFP and Humanae Vitae. It has been a blessing to our marriage.

 

Nuf said

[Storm Bay]

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.

 

()

 

My OB-Gyn, who is very laid back and easy going (but one of the best in the state) just pleasantly told me that if I relied on b-feeding, he'd be seeing for prenatal checks soon.

[Storm Bay]

 

Just like no one (not even my mother) can convince me it's wrong to supplement a baby I've been bfeeding, when he cries continually, isn't peeing normally (one wet diaper a day), and has sunken eyes. BTDT -- and bore the scorn, "tsk-tsk" "don't you know if you'd just let your body adjust, he'd be FINE?" from quite a number of people.

 

 

I wholeheartedly agree, even though I personally didn't have to. But I remember my aunt having to do this with her fourth baby. Her body had successfully nursed 3, but never "adjusted" to her fourth. I've seen more mothers give up completely in this situation than supplement (this is strictly anecdotal.) You do the best you can and sometimes not supplementing is NOT doing the best you can.

[Storm Bay]

I'm also disturbed about the breastfeeding debate. Both of my girls were adopted and therefore not breastfed. (The older one MIGHT have been for the first couple of months, but definitely NOT after 6 mos of age). They are healthy, alert and, if I say so myself, quite bright. Obviously, they would be geniuses if they HAD been breastfed. :lol:

 

 

More Power To You!

:party:

 

 

 

 

This is where things can go too far with pushing b--feeding, IMO. Your girls are in a loving home, which, IMO, is the most important thing.

[*LC]

I hope they both have good life insurance policies.

 

I also hope they have wills and have thought about what will happen with the children if they die. I don't think just anyone would be able (or willing) to raise 18 kids, or howeven many minors they have. Can you imagine if you woke up tomorrow and had 10-18 new kids.

 

My husband's sister is named guardian of our kids. I can't really imagine how it will work as she and her husband are 50+ and have never had kids. My youngest is 4.

 

LC

[Cindy in C-ville]

We had 6 kids within a month after my oldest turned 7. I breastfed the first until she was 8 months, but after than my milk just dried up earlier and earlier. And I nearly always got pregnant the month after I lost my milk supply. We have no regrets. We wanted a large family (although it's not that large by some standards) and we're so thankful. We have a ton of fun and I could tell you scads of stories about what makes each child unique.

 

We're beginning the process of trying to adopt a little girl from Ukraine that it seems almost as if God is dropping her on our doorstep. She'll be coming to stay with us for three weeks this summer and then we'll begin the international adoption process. I have to say that I am absolutely thrilled.

 

Since my abdominal wall split (Colleen knows what I'm talking about) with baby #4 resulting in non-stop back pain and then I nearly bled out during one of my deliveries, by the doctor's advice and with our agreement, we said that my body was "done" having babies, but we were always open to more by adoption. (Boy, that's a terrible RU sentence!) Up to this point, there just wasn't a situation that seemed like we were to be adoptive parents, but this time, it does. I'm SO excited to see this little girl face to face in June and am so helpful that we'll welcome her into our family in the coming year.

 

About the Duggars, I'm glad they're following their personal convictions. I don't see the need to embrace them as my own or criticize them for holding to them.

 

:) Cindy

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

Am I mistaken? Wasn't the law written many many years *after* Jacob had his children? You are talking about the laws in Leviticus, right? The ones called the law of Moses?

 

Anyway, I know a quiverfull family that has done a study on those particular "fertility" laws, using a certain curriculum popular with many in a certain group. I didn't ask what their conclusions where. :-)

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

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

 

 

Yes, he does. I know 3 FQ families and they all have used various ATI materials, and have all at one time advocated the Pearl's books/methods.

[Leah]

Finally have to add my 2 cents here...

 

I grew up in a QF family (I am 33 now), and am the oldest of 10. We also had a number of large families as friends.

 

I love being part of a large family and do not think poorly of my parents' QF convictions or the way they raised me. I think they are pretty much the most amazing parents ever really. As the oldest, I had plenty of responsibilities but it was not out of control. In fact, my parents were quite sensitive to me NOT taking on more mothering than I should. They were the parents, no question about it. I did babysit, but it was not frequent. I did help with housework, but was by no means a slave to the house. I had a very full childhood-for example during my teen years I volunteered at the local convalescent hospital, gave school tours at the hospital, worked a part time job, volunteered at church, was on the youth group leadership team, traveled a bit... I was not bound to the house, but I was very involved.

 

I do know other eldest who did not have the same experience. They did take on more parenting roles and it was not good for the older or the younger. They had many house responsibilities, sometimes functioning more like a nanny than anything else. I don't know anyone who had to do that forever though. :) They all moved on to other things in life.

 

Most of the older children in our family (maybe all over 20) also could be considered QF. No one has more that 3 kids though yet. My parents do have 6 grandkids born within the last 2 years. :)

 

The bottom line in this is the heart attitude and dedication of the parents. It can be just a bit tough to know the heart attitude of other families, but please know that a family can be large and function quite well. My mother is a dedicated mother! She made it work.

 

I had a favorite quote from a book in years past-"8 kids and not an idiot in the bunch!" My sibs and I tend to think that we all turned out ok in spite of being in a large family, having fewer possessions, sharing more time and toys, wearing hand-me-downs...

 

(But I do know there are families who did not parent well-and some of them have 1-2 kids and others have 5 or more. Detached parenting isn't limited to parents of large families.)