Serious question about the Duggars...

[nmoira]

Birth control pills taint the water supply. Timed abstinence is more effective, has no side effects, costs nothing, and empowers women.

 

Untreated sewage taints the water supply. Point being?

 

Timed abstinence is not more effective than the pill. However, this is only if a reliable supply is guaranteed. Implants are probably most effective. 

 

As to abstinence empowering women, there are unfortunately many situations in which a woman is powerless to say no, sometimes including within marriage.

[LucyStoner]

Untreated sewage taints the water supply. Point being?

 

Timed abstinence is not more effective than the pill. However, this is only if a reliable supply is guaranteed. Implants are probably most effective. 

 

As to abstinence empowering women, there are unfortunately many situations in which a woman is powerless to say no, sometimes including within marriage.

 

 

To say nothing of the fact that people of all demographic groups often, oh so often, find themselves not wanting to be abstinent.    

 

Women in impoverished counties are being made out like they are objects and have no say in their own lives on this very thread.  

[Moxie]

 

Women in impoverished counties are being made out like they are objects and have no say in their own lives on this very thread.

Seriously. I'm a bit horrified.

[*Michelle*]

I saw a clip about this organization today. 

 

http://www.digdeepwater.org/index.html

 

[Cammie]

Seriously. I'm a bit horrified.

 

Horrified that it has been pointed out or horrified that it is true?

 

Many women (not all) in poorer countries have less access to education than the men in those countries.  They have less access to decent jobs and less access to ways of improving their lives.  In addiition, between the fact that they receive less health care from birth onwards, may be forced into child marriages, and may be subject to domestic violence with no recourse to courts or police...it seems pretty clear that many women are in fact not in control of their lives.  Many cultures will not take back a daughter who wants to flee an abusive spouse.  I have never heard of a DV shelter here (not saying there are none - just saying if there are they are not widely known.)  Police routinely turn away people who come with "family problems."

 

The most common way women deal with severe martial problems in this country - suicide.  Pick up an Indian newspaper.  Every day there are reports of this wife or this daughter hanging herself to avoid/get out of a marriage.  Yesterday it was a woman who had been forced into a marriage.  She killed herself the day after the wedding after being subjected to a rape at the hands of her "husband" the night before.

 

Now, there are women who manage to get out of bad situations.  There are women who find a way to get a job, support themselves, find a new path.  But there are rare enough here to be the exception and not the rule.

 

We should all be horrified that this is the state of many women's lives around the globe.  Women wanting to but being unable to control their fertility should be horrifying.  Talking about it should not be horrifying.

[LucyStoner]

I think she meant horrified that people claiming to want to help women in impoverished countries were discussing them as if the women themselves don't know what is best for their own lives, families and realities. Poverty and geography doesn't mean stupidity. I know that is what I meant.

[Free]

I think she meant horrified that people claiming to want to help women in impoverished countries were discussing them as if the women themselves don't know what is best for their own lives, families and realities. Poverty and geography doesn't mean stupidity. I know that is what I meant.

 

Unfortunately though many (most?) women in impoverished conditions do not have the power to assert control over their lives. Birth control is way of taking back that power in a small way.

[Cammie]

But poverty and geography may mean lack of access to inforamtion, lack of empowerment within the relationship and lack of any resources to take the steps you might take if you knew about them.

 

It is amazing to me that people would rather believe that women are "choosing" to have large families rather than believe that women in some countries do not have the education or the power in the relationship to make an informed choice on the subject.

 

My friend's maid comes from a family of 13 children.  The dad sells vegetables.  The mother is too sickly to do anything.  No one is educated.  The daughter who works as a maid brings in most of the income to the family and as a result the family is refusing to arrange her marriage or agree to any marriage because they will loose her income.  The family is as poor as it gets.  The mother did not "choose" to have 13 children.  She just "had" 13 children. 

 

On the other hand my neighbor had 9 children.  She and her husband are both highly educated, loving people whose religious conviction was that they would have as many children as they were blessed with.  They made a choice to have a large family. 

 

I see a huge difference in these two situations and pretending otherwise is turning a blind eye to the conditions that many women around the world live in.

[Moxie]

I think she meant horrified that people claiming to want to help women in impoverished countries were discussing them as if the women themselves don't know what is best for their own lives, families and realities. Poverty and geography doesn't mean stupidity. I know that is what I meant.

Yes, this. I'm horrified that these woman and their fertility are being discussed like they are no more than cattle. I'm waiting for someone to suggest mass sterilization "to help these poor things".

[LucyStoner]

Unfortunately though many (most?) women in impoverished conditions do not have the power to assert control over their lives. Birth control is way of taking back that power in a small way.

 

I am the last person you will ever find unsupportive of access to birth control. But you won't find me talking about grown women, no matter how poor, as children who can't make their own best decisions.

 

The best successes at fighting third world poverty I have studied focus on replicating and duplicating bright spots and trusting people to make their own best decisions, not substituting the judgment of outside helpers for that of people living in poverty.  Here is a really excellent book:  http://www.powerofpositivedeviance.com/  

[LucyStoner]

But poverty and geography may mean lack of access to inforamtion, lack of empowerment within the relationship and lack of any resources to take the steps you might take if you knew about them.

 

It is amazing to me that people would rather believe that women are "choosing" to have large families rather than believe that women in some countries do not have the education or the power in the relationship.

The exact same thing is true in reverse. Affluence and advantageous geography can mean lack of information and real life experience/understanding. People living it shouldn't be treated like idiots and are oftentimes better able to suggest solutions than outside do gooders.  

 

I am not choosing to believe that impoverished women want large families. I am choosing to believe that I don't know what someone else wants or why. I am all about education, autonomy and reproductive freedom. That includes the freedom to make decisions I may not make myself.

[Aelwydd]

The exact same thing is true in reverse. Affluence and advantageous geography can mean lack of information and real life experience/understanding. People living it shouldn't be treated like idiots and are oftentimes better able to suggest solutions than outside do gooders.  

 

I am not choosing to believe that impoverished women want large families. I am choosing to believe that I don't know what someone else wants or why. I am all about education, autonomy and reproductive freedom. That includes the freedom to make decisions I may not make myself.

 

 

 

I agree with you about patronizing attitudes regarding women from less economically developed nations.  But, I disagree with your equivocation regarding autonomy, self-determination and agency between someone in say, the slums of India, and someone in Vancouver, Canada.

 

It's really not comparable. Anymore than my choice to have one child should be considered on level with the Chinese mother's "choice" to have one child, constrained by legal requirements to limit her fertility.

 

I think it's disingenous to talk about "choice" of women who are impoverished, as if they have the same options as women who are economically better off.  It doesn't matter if it's a first world or third world country--poor women have fewer options.  Money and power are intrisically linked.

 

Here and here are two articles about a prime example of how those in power--especially religious authority--work to limit the access poor women have to contraceptives, and therefore nullify the entire question of choice to begin with. 

 

From the LA Times article:

 

It's one example of how religious and political forces affect women's control over childbearing and, as a result, the trajectory of population growth in the developing world.

 

I agree with you, Lucy, that every woman should have her own choice, and I don't presume to know what that should be.  What I dispute, is that every woman has equal legal access and ability to procure what she needs to make her own decisions.  In short, I don't want hormonal birth control in my drinking water, and I also don't want some other person's church or religious authority in my pharmacy, hand cuffing the pharmacist (metaphorically). Neither do I want some politician ratifiying the size of my family, whether it's one or many, into legal code.

 

As long as that continues to be the case in many regions of the world, then the concept of "choice," itself, continues to be highly variable and quite subjective. In my opinion, the greatest determining factor of how much leeway a woman has in her reproductive decisions appears to be economic class.  Which is why wealthy women in China can afford to get around the one-child law, by paying fines, and wealthy Filipino women can buy their own contraceptive and limit family size, if they choose.

[Cammie]

Yes, this. I'm horrified that these woman and their fertility are being discussed like they are no more than cattle. I'm waiting for someone to suggest mass sterilization "to help these poor things".

 

It is so interesting to me that on this thread, the only people to bring up the concept of mass sterilization, forced reproductive issues, etc. are those people who are accusing others of having that in mind!  I don't think a single person who is in favor of reproductive FREEDOM would condone those ideas.  Yet it seems to me that any talk about actual choice in family size results in being accused of supporting coersive methods.  Why do you think that is?

[mommymilkies]

It is so interesting to me that on this thread, the only people to bring up the concept of mass sterilization, forced reproductive issues, etc. are those people who are accusing others of having that in mind!  I don't think a single person who is in favor of reproductive FREEDOM would condone those ideas.  Yet it seems to me that any talk about actual choice in family size results in being accused of supporting coersive methods.  Why do you think that is?

Because it is not just a common "solution" posed to the issue, but also legal mandate in one major country.  And because you say things like below and how you are upset that those of us in countries at/below replacement fertility choose to have more than 2 children.  What if it was reversed?  What if you said that you were in America and upset that people in India have more than replacement numbers of children?  Both are stupid because first of all most developed nations are at/below replacement levels, so your argument is invalid.  Again, the chart.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility  and secondly, I can't imagine being mad at a country or people because they choose to have children.  

 

So why are you upset about countries with high consumption and high fertility levels when no such thing exists? Go ahead and be upset.  But it's not going to help a thing. Nobody is doubting that the USA is highly wasteful.  You'll find that much of that is due to governmental and business rules that a good portion of our population disagrees with.  It doesn't have anything to do with Suzie B. Public or the Duggards having more than 2 children. By all means, if you're upset, find a way to tell them that they're stupid (I won't disagree) and make some change there where it actually counts and where it actually could affect you. 

 

I don't think anyone on this board is advocating a China style one child mandate.... or any mandate at all.  However, I believe that fertility decisions should be made consciously and with full knowledge of all the facts.  People having 20 children because they believe "over population is not a problem" are not making wise decisions.  Do they have the right to make wrong decisions - sure.  Do we have the right to be upset that families in the nations that consume the most see no problem in having more than replacement levels of fertility (ie, two children to two parents) of course we have the right to be upset.  We are on this planet too.  Our children and grand children will inherit this mess. And where there is no water, or wars over water, they are the ones who will have to face it.  When climate change starts to impact the deniers it will be too late to get a "do over." 

[Cammie]

Really trying to get my head around the accusation that women were being talked about as "children" and "cattle."  I've re-read the entire thread and I genuinely don't see it. 

 

The fact of the matter is, when a society increases access to education for women, fertility levels fall.  How is recognizing that women in some places have higher fertility because they have no choice and no information about alternatives talking about them like children?  Does anyone really believe that a woman in the US has the same issues regarding family planning that a woman in the developing word has? Do people really think that the entire world has walk-in clinics, access to healthcare, access to the internet, and all the other avenues to information that women in the West have?  Are we really supposed to pretend that there are not greater challenges - economic, cultural, educational - that women in some countries face?  Would that be better, to pretend we are all facing the same challenges?

 

 

[Cammie]

Because it is not just a common "solution" posed to the issue, but also legal mandate in one major country.  And because you say things like below and how you are upset that those of us in countries at/below replacement fertility choose to have more than 2 children.  What if it was reversed?  What if you said that you were in America and upset that people in India have more than replacement numbers of children?  Both are stupid because first of all most developed nations are at/below replacement levels, so your argument is invalid.  Again, the chart.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility  and secondly, I can't imagine being mad at a country or people because they choose to have children.  

 

So why are you upset about countries with high consumption and high fertility levels when no such thing exists? Go ahead and be upset.  But it's not going to help a thing. Nobody is doubting that the USA is highly wasteful.  You'll find that much of that is due to governmental and business rules that a good portion of our population disagrees with.  It doesn't have anything to do with Suzie B. Public or the Duggards having more than 2 children. By all means, if you're upset, find a way to tell them that they're stupid (I won't disagree) and make some change there where it actually counts and where it actually could affect you. 

 

It is not a "common solution" posed to the problem.  I have never heard any politician or scientist who was not a total nut job advocate such a thing.

 

So, because China has a one-child policy anyone who belive that the planet can support only a limited number of people must also believe in coersive government policies?

 

And because I said I have a right to be upset (which guessing from this Board everyone has a right to be upset about something - kilts, cupcakes, tardy UPS men) that means I don't actually do anything else?  Somehow I alone in the universe have no right to be upset?

 

I believe you actually misread one of my sentences.  I was addressing those families in nations with high consumption patters that chose to have more than replacement level fertility.  It was the family that had a high fertility level that I was addressing - not the fertility level of the high consuming nation.  I am well aware that high consumption levels occur in those countries at or below replacement level fertility.  However, I am equally aware that one American uses as much electricity as approximately 300 Bangladeshis.  So an additional 20 Americans uses the equivalent of 6000 Bangladeshis.  In my opinion, the fertility level of the average American family becomes much more important given the average consumption patters in the nation.  It is the combination of the two issues that becomes important.

 

Just to be absolutely clear - I don't think the government has any right dictating anyone's fertility issues.  To avoid inflaming matters further I will leave that issue without saying more.

 

And also to be absolutely clear - while I believe that population growth is a very serious problem and while I chose to limit my family size to replacement level, I would fight just has hard for your right to have 20 kids if you wanted. 

 

What I have said over and over is that population growth has a global impact (resources issues don't generally understand political boundaries) and that those choosing to have a large family should do so in light of those problems.  (This all started because the op had a quote from Mrs. Duggar which indicated she did not believe in overpopulation.)

[Murphy101]

I think genuine choice isn't a birth control prescription.

 

I completely agree women should have education, food, water, free from fear of abuse, free to marry or not as they choose.

 

And I think that should be the first things we fight for and consider. Because I don't think the choice between watching their kids starve or birth control to not have them is really much a choice. I think women deserve more than that.

 

Plus, I really wonder how such oppressed women would even get reliable birth control in those situations. People who would marry off their 12 year old to a rapist are not exactly the kind of people I'd expect to see they get medical care or birth control. And that's not considering the abuse they could face for hiding it.

[Free]

I am the last person you will ever find unsupportive of access to birth control. But you won't find me talking about grown women, no matter how poor, as children who can't make their own best decisions.

 

The best successes at fighting third world poverty I have studied focus on replicating and duplicating bright spots and trusting people to make their own best decisions, not substituting the judgment of outside helpers for that of people living in poverty.  Here is a really excellent book:  http://www.powerofpositivedeviance.com/

 

I don't know what you mean Katie. Are you saying that women do not need to be educated about birth control options? A year back a 17 year old girl I knew personally got married.  Yes, she came from poverty. At the time I told her to use birth control. Yes, I did that. I felt it my responsibility to inform her of her choices because I know she would not be thinking of the impact of marriage and pregnancy at such a young age. She came to my home last week to show me her new baby. This time I told her to wait for a few years until her next one.

 

You probably think this is horrible of me? That I would try to suggest to this girl how best to live her life. I can see how it can seem patronizing. I also know she will ignore my advice and do exactly what her circumstances dictate - in this case it would be dictated by her husband and her in laws.

 

I personally know many women who married really young and are struggling to support themselves, their kids and their drunkard husbands and yet when it comes to educating their daughters or holding off marrying them off until they are older, these women fall into the same trap that they were themselves victims of. Their excuse often is "This is how it has always been done in our community" or "People will talk if she is not married".

 

In all such cases any advice given is just ignored, because what seems like a minor decision to us is probably a radical change to their way of life. So, thanks for your post I guess because it has given me some food for thought.

[Free]

I'm waiting for someone to suggest mass sterilization "to help these poor things".

 

I don't even know what this means. What did you read on this thread that would make you think somebody would suggest mass sterilization?

[Aelwydd]

I think genuine choice isn't a birth control prescription.

 

I completely agree women should have education, food, water, free from fear of abuse, free to marry or not as they choose.

 

And I think that should be the first things we fight for and consider. Because I don't think the choice between watching their kids starve or birth control to not have them is really much a choice. I think women deserve more than that.

 

Plus, I really wonder how such oppressed women would even get reliable birth control in those situations. People who would marry off their 12 year old to a rapist are not exactly the kind of people I'd expect to see they get medical care or birth control. And that's not considering the abuse they could face for hiding it.

 

What you think (or I think) is a "genuine choice" is beside the point, Martha.  I don't use hormonal birth control, for various reasons. For me, it's not a serious consideration.

 

That doesn't mean it's not a viable option for other women.  The LA Times article on the situation in the Philippines makes it clear there are impoverished women that want the option.  Whether you or I consider it personally acceptable should not in any way be reason to hinder their access to it, should they want it.

 

Your statement that "genuine choice isn't a birth control prescription" is a red herring anyway.  Nowhere did I state, nor the articles I linked to state poor women should be prescribed birth control.  That term implies involuntary participation, like a general de facto medical order for all poor women.  I put it in terms of women having free access to it, if they desire it. As in, there is a free clinic where one may, of her own volition, walk into it, procure information about birth control, and obtain it, if she chooses.

 

"I don't think the choice between watching their kids starve or birth control to not have them is really much a choice. I think women deserve more than that."

 

Your determination of what is or what is not a viable option--or anyone else's--should not be the deciding factor for what those women may want.  There is majority support for free access to birth control in the Philippines.  They have expressed their desire to have access to that, and to deny them that on the basis of what you or I would choose, is to introduce a patronizing attitude of, "Oh, you don't need that...you don't know what's really good for you."

 

As far as your last statement, I'm not sure what that has to do with the very many poor women out there who could and would use birth control, if it wasn't for barriers like cost or legal campaigns being brought by religious and political groups.  The articles I referenced focused on women who very much desired access to birth control, but whose access was being blocked by religious groups. The fact that there are 12 year old girls raped and married off should not have any bearing on whether other poor women should have access to birth control. 

 

There should be no confounding of the issues here. Making birth control available to poor women is not the same as coercing them to take it.  It is not the same as attaching legal or financial punitive actions to those who don't opt to take it.  It is not the same as dumping it into their drinking water or forcefully sterilizing them.  Just as teaching NFP methods is not the same as ordering a woman to have as many babies as she is capable of, or holding her down and forcefully impregnating her.

 

I don't have any problem with religious or moral imperatives to use other methods than barrier or chemical birth control. (I told you I do not care for birth control pills, myself.) I have a problem with those imperatives being used as justification to deny other people the right to make their own reproductive choices. To deliberately block another's outstretched hand from obtaining what she would choose is to deny her free agency, and worse, because her wealthier sisters may purchase what they need, her poverty is the tool by which she is being denied.

[Aelwydd]

 Here and here are two articles looking at the issue of birth control and women's health in developing nations.

 

Reducing maternal deaths

 

Use of contraceptives in developing nations

 

[MolleenCarie]

It only empowers women if women have the right to say no. In many places of the world, poor women (or any women) do not have that right.

That's unfortunately very true.

[Kathryn]

And also to be absolutely clear - while I believe that population growth is a very serious problem and while I chose to limit my family size to replacement level, I would fight just has hard for your right to have 20 kids if you wanted.

 

I don't understand this statement. How did you limit your family size to replacement level? If you have two children or less, you're under and other women who have more make up your deficit. If you have three children or more, you're over and other women having less children make up for your surplus. You can't personally limit your family to replacement level with two births as there is no knowing whether or not those two births will translate into two similarly reproducing adults. Replacement level is about whole populations and changes with conditions over time.

[MolleenCarie]

Untreated sewage taints the water supply. Point being?

 

Timed abstinence is not more effective than the pill. However, this is only if a reliable supply is guaranteed. Implants are probably most effective.

 

As to abstinence empowering women, there are unfortunately many situations in which a woman is powerless to say no, sometimes including within marriage.

 

We were talking about the water supply eventually running out; it would be best if it were left as clean as possible.

 

I am recommending NFP as a best choice for women in stable, loving, single-partner relationships. Implants are not recommended in multi-partner relationships, as they pose a health risk. This could be a problem for the women who face rapes from multiple men.

 

I know many an OB makes the following joke at the 6 wk pp appt.: "Oh, you use NFP? See you next year!" However, NFP fails are usually due to user error or bc a couple decided that another baby wouldn't be so terrible, and decided to get busy on a fertile day.

[Cammie]

I don't understand this statement. How did you limit your family size to replacement level? If you have two children or less, you're under and other women who have more make up your deficit. If you have three children or more, you're over and other women having less children make up for your surplus. You can't personally limit your family to replacement level with two births as there is no knowing whether or not those two births will translate into two similarly reproducing adults. Replacement level is about whole populations and changes with conditions over time.

 

Many population organizations speak of "replacement fertility rate" or the "we two our two" concept as shorthand for each couple having two children.

 

As expounded upon by numerous sites:

 

If there were no mortality in the female population until the end of the childbearing years (generally taken as 44,45 or 49, though some exceptions exist) then the replacement level of TFR would be very close to 2.0 (actually slightly higher because of the excess of boy over girl births in human populations). The replacement fertility rate is roughly 2.1 births per woman for most industrialized countries (2.075 in the UK, for example), but ranges from 2.5 to 3.3 in developing countries because of higher mortality rates.^[4] Taken globally, the total fertility rate at replacement is 2.33 children per woman. At this rate, global population growth would tend towards zero.

 

The overall point being that at approximately two children per couple the global population growth would tend towards zero.  As I have yet to figure out how to have 0.1 children, I assumed that my having two children was sufficiently close to having 2.1 children to qualify as "replacement fertility."    Of course fertility can be measured on a woman by woman basis as well as on a country by country basis or any other demographic you choose to use.  One country can have "replacement fertility rates" even while world populations are growing.  Similarly a woman can have "replacement fertility rates" while her country may not.

 

Here in India the concept of replacement rate fertility has been reduced to the family level from the total population level with the common slogan "we two our two" that you see painted on the backs of many trucks!

[J-rap]

The best successes at fighting third world poverty I have studied focus on replicating and duplicating bright spots and trusting people to make their own best decisions, not substituting the judgment of outside helpers for that of people living in poverty.  Here is a really excellent book:  http://www.powerofpositivedeviance.com/

 

I've always believed that education for girls/women is where you need to begin, but I also really like this philosophy (on the link you listed) as well!  I think it's very, very intriguing.

[Haiku]

Because I don't think the choice between watching their kids starve or birth control to not have them is really much a choice. I think women deserve more than that.

 

Those choices are not mutually exclusive. There are many women who don't want more children even if they don't have to watch them starve. They don't want more children simply because they don't want them, and that should be a valid choice, also. I have three kids; one is bio and two were adopted. Although I would like to have four or five children, I have zero (or less than) desire to create more biological children, and we takes steps to avoid that. It's not a choice between starving kids and birth control. It's a choice between wanting to create more kids and not wanting to do so.

 

Presenting women with a false dichotomy of choices doesn't help them.

[LucyStoner]

Meeting people where they are at and focusing on social and political change rather than a charity only approach is not always easy or popular but it works.  I have seen it work in many contexts.  

 

It sounds a lot more simple and pat than it actually is.  In reality it is what real empowerment, versus charity, is all about.  

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Meeting people where they are at and focusing on social and political change rather than a charity only approach is not always easy or popular but it works.  I have seen it work in many contexts.  

 

It sounds a lot more simple and pat than it actually is.  In reality it is what real empowerment, versus charity, is all about.  

 

:iagree:

[nmoira]

Meeting people where they are at and focusing on social and political change rather than a charity only approach is not always easy or popular but it works.  I have seen it work in many contexts.  

 

It sounds a lot more simple and pat than it actually is.  In reality it is what real empowerment, versus charity, is all about.  

 

See CARE's shift from a resource based approach to more of an emphasis on empowerment and rights. I was trying to find a fascinating podcast I'd heard, an interview with its US president, but have so far struck out... it was a "Stuff" podcast, and their website is crap. I'll try again later.

[LucyStoner]

I agree with you about patronizing attitudes regarding women from less economically developed nations.  But, I disagree with your equivocation regarding autonomy, self-determination and agency between someone in say, the slums of India, and someone in Vancouver, Canada.

.

.

.

 

I don't disagree with you on anything on that post except this term equivocation.  I am absolutely not saying that people everywhere have the same autonomy and self determination as many enjoy in first world nations.  I am saying they aren't going to get it when people treat them like they are stupid or incapable.  Ask them what they want and need.  It's the difference between offering someone education and jamming that education down people's throats.  

[Dahliarw]

I find this thread interesting in light that wide-spread use of birth control is a rather modern thing.  Look back even 100 years - you could use animal skin condoms (which I imagine were less effective than latex) or insert things like lint "up there" to try to block the sperm.  You could abstain or use withdrawal.  Or you could have a very dangerous abortion.  Most women did not use anything to prevent pregnancy.  Poor nutrition probably had more of a bearing on number of children than birth control did.

 

19 kids, historically, is still larger than most families, but it was a lot less striking in a time when families would routinely have more that 2 kids apiece, which seems to be average today.  It also would be less likely for 19 kids to survive into adulthood - which is probably why the Duggars have 19 living children.  100 years ago maybe 11 would have survived...

[I.Dup.]

Then again, it could also be that Michelle is addicted to babies, or that she feels a certain martyrdom she must fulfill.  The psychological possibilities are boggling.

 

Or it could be that she genuinely loves being a mother and loves children.

 

Is it also possible that even women who live in poverty truly desire to have children, many children even? For much of history children (esp. sons) have been considered assets, not liabilities like they are here in the West.

[nmoira]

Is it also possible that even women who live in poverty truly desire to have children, many children even? For much of history children (esp. sons) have been considered assets, not liabilities like they are here in the West.

 

Setting aside the terms "asset" and "liability," geographic concerns, and love of children and having children solely for the sake of having children... In a rural context, yes, having more children has often been viewed as a good economic strategy. However the world is becoming increasingly urbanized, not just the west. For example, in the last 20ish years, China's urban population percentage has more than doubled, to over half. India's population is about 30% urban, and this is increasing. The African continent has about a 40% urbanization rate, also increasing. 

 

ETA: Just to clarify, I'm talking about views from within a family unit. Not a state.

[Haiku]

Is it also possible that even women who live in poverty truly desire to have children, many children even? 

 

Of course it is. And I don't think anyone has argued that these women shouldn't be allowed to do that. In fact, the argument has been (and consistently reinforced) that women should have a choice in their reproductive lives. For some women, that means having a lot. For some women, that means having few or none. I support the right of a couple to do what they want or of either of the partners to have access to birth control to limit their childbearing if that is what they desire.

 

Do I believe that it is responsible to have 19 children in the United States in this time in history? Not really. But it's not my decision.

 

Edited for typos.

 

[Murphy101]

To deliberately block another's outstretched hand from obtaining what she would choose is to deny her free agency

I suppose it's true that not wanting to give someone something could be taken that way.

 

I don't feel a need to fill outstretched hands with whatever they want.

 

I am fine filling them with needs.

 

The disagreement here is some view articifial birth control as a need of every woman and others simply do not.

 

It stands to reason that if I don't view birth control in that light, it's not what I'm likely to fill an outstretched hand with.

 

Which does not mean I would ever consider to leave them empty handed either.

[nmoira]

The disagreement here is some view articifial birth control as a need of every woman and others simply do not.

 

It stands to reason that if I don't view birth control in that light, it's not what I'm likely to fill an outstretched hand with.

 

Which does not mean I would ever consider to leave them empty handed either.

 

 

Just to clarify: Reliable *access* to birth control, not the need of every woman for birth control.

[Mrs Mungo]

I find this thread interesting in light that wide-spread use of birth control is a rather modern thing. Look back even 100 years - you could use animal skin condoms (which I imagine were less effective than latex) or insert things like lint "up there" to try to block the sperm. You could abstain or use withdrawal. Or you could have a very dangerous abortion. Most women did not use anything to prevent pregnancy. Poor nutrition probably had more of a bearing on number of children than birth control did.

 

19 kids, historically, is still larger than most families, but it was a lot less striking in a time when families would routinely have more that 2 kids apiece, which seems to be average today. It also would be less likely for 19 kids to survive into adulthood - which is probably why the Duggars have 19 living children. 100 years ago maybe 11 would have survived...

Long term breast feeding combined with the mild to severe malnutrition faced by many helped keep many women from ovulating often enough to have 20 children. Look at the Ingalls kids. It is believed that childhood malnutrition deeply affected their adult health and fertility.

[Haiku]

The disagreement here is some view articifial birth control as a need of every woman and others simply do not.

 

I certainly don't feel that way. I would never go to a woman who doesn't believe in using birth control or doesn't desire to do so and tell her that it is a need of hers or try to force her to use it. I would, however, argue that every woman (and man, for that matter) should have access to reliable birth control, and then she or he can decide for her or himself whether to use it.

[Ipsey]

I certainly don't feel that way. I would never go to a woman who doesn't believe in using birth control or doesn't desire to do so and tell her that it is a need of hers or try to force her to use it. I would, however, argue that every woman (and man, for that matter) should have access to reliable birth control, and then she or he can decide for her or himself whether to use it.

 

I agree. I wonder if this 14-year-old girl, ill from the birth of her second child, would accept birth control? I'd think providing her with education on how to care for herself is critical, also the ability to choose to not conceive another child if that's her desire.  If she could be healthy, and have the information she needed to make a decision for or against, I think that would be the best thing.  Whether she can convince her husband to agree to NFP or whether she takes other measures, or none at all, that can be up to her, but access and information. . . I can't in good conscience deny that to any woman.

 

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/06/child-brides/sinclair-photography#/07-asia-washes-new-baby-714.jpg

[I.Dup.]

In fact, the argument has been (and consistently reinforced) that women should have a choice in their reproductive lives. For some women, that means having a lot. For some women, that means having few or none.

 

That sounds very nice, but from what I read people saying about the Duggars (just read the comments on any of their articles, anywhere on the internet) there is nothing respected about their choice. Even though their kids have already turned out better than 95% of kids being raised in this country, but I guess that doesn't matter either.

[Haiku]

That sounds very nice, but from what I read people saying about the Duggars (just read the comments on any of their articles, anywhere on the internet) there is nothing respected about their choice. 

 

People don't have to respect what they do to be in favor of allowing them to make the choice.

[Mergath]

That sounds very nice, but from what I read people saying about the Duggars (just read the comments on any of their articles, anywhere on the internet) there is nothing respected about their choice. Even though their kids have already turned out better than 95% of kids being raised in this country, but I guess that doesn't matter either.

 

So if you can judge the family's character based on a thirty minute tv show, why can't the rest of us?

[Murphy101]

You've somehow missed the whole point. ACCESS.

No, I haven't. Access to what I view as something that is not a priority above food and avoiding abuse is not something I'm going to work for or encourage. Access to something I view as possibly very unhealthy is not something I'm going to work for or encourage. Access to something I view as possibly sinful is not something I'm going to work for or encourage.

 

I don't think access to birth control pills or sterilization is a right or even an inherently good thing.

 

So no, I will never be interested in pushing access to those things.

 

Of course, you are free to disagree with me and have the right to spend your money on making that happen.

 

But I am free to disagree with you and have the right, tenuous though it is, to not want my money to go for that.

[Aelwydd]

I suppose it's true that not wanting to give someone something could be taken that way.

 

I don't feel a need to fill outstretched hands with whatever they want.

 

I am fine filling them with needs.

 

The disagreement here is some view articifial birth control as a need of every woman and others simply do not.

 

It stands to reason that if I don't view birth control in that light, it's not what I'm likely to fill an outstretched hand with.

 

Which does not mean I would ever consider to leave them empty handed either.

You may dedicate any help you wish, Martha. My statement has to do with stepping in between or blocking the attempts of others to give options such as birth control. If you don't wish to give such help, no foul. But others do and there are women who have expressed a need for birth control.

 

Any attempt to block or hinder those women from availing themselves of such help is a violation of their right to make their own decisions. I'm very tired of social schemes dressed up as concern for poor women that are frequently used to thwart them from following their own conscience.

[Aelwydd]

No, I haven't. Access to what I view as something that is not a priority above food and avoiding abuse is not something I'm going to work for or encourage. Access to something I view as possibly very unhealthy is not something I'm going to work for or encourage. Access to something I view as possibly sinful is not something I'm going to work for or encourage.

 

I don't think access to birth control pills or sterilization is a right or even an inherently good thing.

 

So no, I will never be interested in pushing access to those things.

 

Of course, you are free to disagree with me and have the right to spend your money on making that happen.

 

But I am free to disagree with you and have the right, tenuous though it is, to not want my money to go for that.

You missed her point. As she said, it is about access.

 

You are not expected to facilitate access to birth control. You are merely expected to stay out of the way of others that provide it or who choose to use it.

 

This is the point I have made over and over. Poor women should have access to birth control if they want it. I don't use the pill but I'd not get in the way of others that do.

 

Futhermore, your tax dollars are not "your" money. It is the government's due, something owed in return for residence in this country.

 

Jesus told the pharisees, "give to CAESAR what is Caesar's..." making it clear that they were not excused from their civic duties. Keep in mind, tax monies went to roads, aquaducts, etc. It also went to state sponsored temples, sacrifices to pagan gods, and so forth. Abortion existed then and was codified into law.

 

So. Arguing that "your" tax dollars gives you the right to impede others' access to birth control is another form of economic oppression of women poorer than yourself.

[MolleenCarie]

I have to say this has been one of the most thoughtful Duggar threads I've read on the Internet.

 

We have two things to consider: what should women such as ourselves consider when it comes to having children, and how best can we reach out to other women who aren't as privileged?

 

This discussion has challenged my thinking and made me more compassionate towards women.

 

(May I add that I made an error in a previous post which quoted nmoira; I confused implant with IUD.)

[mommymilkies]

Long term breast feeding combined with the mild to severe malnutrition faced by many helped keep many women from ovulating often enough to have 20 children. Look at the Ingalls kids. It is believed that childhood malnutrition deeply affected their adult health and fertility.

Kind of OT, but I've read some things about possible genetic issues at play with the Ingalls.

 

And Breastfeeding definitely helped. Nestlé and similar companies who push formula (especially in areas with possibly unsafe water supplies) are downright shameful.

[Murphy101]

I have just as much right to petition and argue and work for laws that reflects what I think is good for society as anyone else. In that regard, yes, I'm well within my rights to spend my money as I see fit and to encourage legislation that follows needs and priorities I see as socially good.

 

I never mentioned taxes at all or the bible.

 

But according to your logic, it's not your money either (it's Caesar's) so you should have no say or opinion in government not spending on birth control. Or anything the government spends money on or doesn't. If you're actually okay with that, well I guess that's your choice, but I disagree.

[Murphy101]

Kind of OT, but I've read some things about possible genetic issues at play with the Ingalls.

 

And Breastfeeding definitely helped. Nestlé and similar companies who push formula (especially in areas with possibly unsafe water supplies) are downright shameful.

I thought it was illegal for formula companies to advertise in India for that reason? Was I wrong or did that change? Off to surf the www...