|
Post by arietty on Mar 8, 2010 20:06:06 GMT -5
I am THRILLED to see that Cheryl's blog is back up! With Posts!
|
|
phatchick
Junior Member
Medicated for Your Protection
Posts: 80
|
Post by phatchick on Mar 9, 2010 0:07:24 GMT -5
Jesus, Buddah and Chuthulu!!!! Words fail me.
|
|
jwr
Full Member
Posts: 218
|
Post by jwr on Mar 9, 2010 0:12:35 GMT -5
Bill Gothard (mentioned in the blog article) is so friggin' creepy. With all his strictures regarding sex, marriage and child-rearing, you'd think that at least he'd be married himself and speak from experience. But no. He's unmarried and lived with his mom all his life. Unless she's dead now (I don't know either way) he's still living with her.
The first "born again" church my mom took me to (mid-1970s, when I was a teen) had a pretty good youth pastor in retrospect. Gothard was planning a huge Youth Conflicts seminar at a major stadium nearby and someone in the youth group asked the pastor about it. Looking uneasy, he replied, "I've known people who tried to apply all his principles in their lives and it made them have nervous breakdowns."
Hearing that caused me not to go. But I've read some of his stuff over the years and it's way creepy. Since the Duggars are so into it, they're Gothard's personal robots.
|
|
|
Post by doggie on Mar 9, 2010 0:19:17 GMT -5
the only way to be sure that god is opening your womb is to have babies without having sex. if you have sex there is no one to blame but yourself. who would want to marry someone like live with mother gothard. I could not imagine how he is when not around his followers.
|
|
|
Post by bananacat on Mar 9, 2010 8:41:14 GMT -5
"If women in OT times used the methods described earlier they were risking their lives by doing so."
Because you are a nurse, you surely must realize that these women also risked their lives by not using birth control. Childbirth was a leading cause of death for women until just less than a century ago. The prospect of dying in childbirth may have motivated some women to take great risks to prevent it.
|
|
|
Post by purpleshoes on Mar 9, 2010 9:24:07 GMT -5
I'm interested in where the information on breastfeeding within Quiverfull is coming from - I know that breastfeeding isn't a reliable method of contraception as soon as babies stop nursing every 2-4 hours and start eating supplemental food some of the time, but even so, there's no way all these women should be having a baby a year if they're breastfeeding. Heck, in the Book of Samuel there's a woman who sends her son to be raised by the priesthood as soon as he's weaned - I can't imagine she was sending a six-month-old baby!
I do know that a lot of women in the Fundamentalist community seem to do timed feedings instead of on demand - which will mean an earlier return to ovulation. Hm.
|
|
|
Post by susan on Mar 9, 2010 13:48:52 GMT -5
I'm interested in where the information on breastfeeding within Quiverfull is coming from - I know that breastfeeding isn't a reliable method of contraception as soon as babies stop nursing every 2-4 hours and start eating supplemental food some of the time, but even so, there's no way all these women should be having a baby a year if they're breastfeeding. Heck, in the Book of Samuel there's a woman who sends her son to be raised by the priesthood as soon as he's weaned - I can't imagine she was sending a six-month-old baby! I do know that a lot of women in the Fundamentalist community seem to do timed feedings instead of on demand - which will mean an earlier return to ovulation. Hm. That's why I was wondering where Hopewell got the information about QF women limiting their breastfeeding in order to get preganant again sooner. Because, even though I realize there's a high degree of variability, and a few rare women have NO break in fertility no matter what -- I also believe that ecological, baby-led breastfeeding will provide the vast majority of mothers with some additional time to restore themselves before the next pregnancy, which will incidentally provide babies with additional time to be the baby before the next baby comes. So it worries me if some QF women are getting admonished to wean their children when their children are still wanting to breastfeed. You are right that Samuel must have been breastfed for a few years, since his mother wouldn't have turned him over to the priest as an infant. Seems to me that if someone's really wanting to follow God's plan for childrearing, they'll realize that God's plan is for breastfeeding to continue for years, not merely weeks or months. I guess that's where it would help for more QF folks to accept evolutionary theory, LOL. Because our closest primate relatives breastfeed for somewhere between 5 and 6 years (anthropologist Kathy Dettwyler is a great source for this sort of information).
|
|
|
Post by kisekileia on Mar 9, 2010 14:06:12 GMT -5
When I completed the part of my nursing program dealing with pregnancy, birth control, etc I came to the same conclusion that Michelle did - that BC was not a good thing and was actually a very early abortion in most instances. I came to this conclusion without anybody preaching to me about it. I stopped using birth control but only had one more baby. All birth control methods have a certain risk inherent in their use. If women in OT times used the methods described earlier they were risking their lives by doing so. This is scientific information and should not be ignored. A woman of Michelle's age would find it quite dangerous to use most if not all available birth control methods leaving a sterilization surgery as her only other option. Millifred, where did you get your nursing training?
|
|
|
Post by susan on Mar 9, 2010 14:07:54 GMT -5
Jeb, not to take things way off course -- but the article you linked to is just one more confirmation of my new belief that it would be a huge mistake for us to illegalize abortion.
I see myself as pro-life, but, after learning about how some women are endangered in countries where abortion is 100% illegal, I favor leaving the laws as they are, and working to create a more supportive culture so more women will feel good about staying pregnant and having their babies, even if their circumstances are not ideal.
The fact that a pregnant woman in Iowa was jailed for three weeks because of a fall down the stairs, just astounds me. To think that the American legal system would take a single mother away from her two small children (I'm guessing that her little ones probably had to spend those three weeks in foster care, since they had no family support system where they were living)!
This is just insane. I see now why so many feminists emphasize the importance of being pro-choice. This was a mother who knew she'd had the option of aborting and chose not to. Then when she lost her balance and fell, and confided to medical staff that she'd gone though times of not wanting this pregancy, the staff took her confidences and turned it all into such a nightmare for her.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Mar 9, 2010 15:00:43 GMT -5
I'm interested in where the information on breastfeeding within Quiverfull is coming from - I know that breastfeeding isn't a reliable method of contraception as soon as babies stop nursing every 2-4 hours and start eating supplemental food some of the time, but even so, there's no way all these women should be having a baby a year if they're breastfeeding. Heck, in the Book of Samuel there's a woman who sends her son to be raised by the priesthood as soon as he's weaned - I can't imagine she was sending a six-month-old baby! I do know that a lot of women in the Fundamentalist community seem to do timed feedings instead of on demand - which will mean an earlier return to ovulation. Hm. It's my understanding that Samuel would most likely have been somewhere between 3 and 6 when he was weaned. Really, it does seem that QF followers are quite selective in which aspects of "biblical" culture they follow, and which they don't.
|
|
jeb
Junior Member
Posts: 97
|
Post by jeb on Mar 9, 2010 15:34:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by lg61820 on Mar 9, 2010 19:58:07 GMT -5
I have heard Michelle say on the show that one way she knows she is expecting is when the current baby loses a taste for her milk. She says the taste must change when she gets pregnant again.
|
|
autumn
Junior Member
Posts: 56
|
Post by autumn on Mar 10, 2010 9:27:13 GMT -5
When I completed the part of my nursing program dealing with pregnancy, birth control, etc I came to the same conclusion that Michelle did - that BC was not a good thing and was actually a very early abortion in most instances. Having been a maternal newborn nurse for 10 years I have to disagree with this simply because it's a gross oversimplification. Most hormonal birth control works in two ways, the primary means is to suppress ovulation. When that doesn't work it makes the uterus an inhospitable place. It may interrupt a very early pregnancy but then, so does nature in many cases AND most herbal methods would do EXACTLY the same thing!! Interrupting a 'pregnancy' before a woman even misses a period does her NO harm whatever and has no affect on future fertility!! Some BC isn't terrific for future fertility, like Depo Provera which has dosage issues. but there are scores of different formulations and doses of the BCP that can be tailored to the individual woman. Yes IUDs work by preventing the implantation of the fertilized egg. but again there is NO evidence that this causes long term health affects or fertility issues for the woman!! It is one thing to oppose BC on theological grounds. (I can understand this and won't argue it) but to invent medical reasons to oppose it that are wholly INCORRECT drives me absolutely NUTS!! If there was a smilie that had a little person jumping up and down hollaring I'd use it now.
|
|
em
Full Member
Posts: 176
|
Post by em on Mar 10, 2010 10:21:05 GMT -5
Thank you, Autumn. I get so mad when people spout crap about BC without knowing how it works. It does not cause a miscarriage or abortion. And if it were so dangerous and unhealthy for women to take, then why does the FDA approve it?
And JEB, ugh. I really, really hope no other states follow Utah's lead.
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on Mar 10, 2010 11:34:25 GMT -5
It is one thing to oppose BC on theological grounds. (I can understand this and won't argue it) but to invent medical reasons to oppose it that are wholly INCORRECT drives me absolutely NUTS!! If there was a smilie that had a little person jumping up and down hollaring I'd use it now. How's this? Also, well said. I've just read through about twenty years' worth of scientific discourse from 17th century England, and the reports of deaths from pregnancy/childbirth gone wrong (including ectopic pregnancies) are still chilling, four centuries later. Surgery was in its infancy. Women took their lives in their hands every time they got pregnant; unreliably effective herbal fertility suppressants would have ranked very, very low in the list of threats to women's lives.
|
|
nimue
New Member
Posts: 22
|
Post by nimue on Mar 11, 2010 1:04:58 GMT -5
When I completed the part of my nursing program dealing with pregnancy, birth control, etc I came to the same conclusion that Michelle did - that BC was not a good thing and was actually a very early abortion in most instances. I came to this conclusion without anybody preaching to me about it. I stopped using birth control but only had one more baby. All birth control methods have a certain risk inherent in their use. If women in OT times used the methods described earlier they were risking their lives by doing so. This is scientific information and should not be ignored. A woman of Michelle's age would find it quite dangerous to use most if not all available birth control methods leaving a sterilization surgery as her only other option. Seeing that you are a nurse, I find it somewhat shocking that you are spreading medical misinformation. ALL medicine (how many people die or suffer liver damage from Tylenol?) has risk factors. Even a lot of food has risk factors. Singling out birth control is ridiculous. I also find it difficult to believe the riskiest birth control options would be more dangerous than continued rapid-succession pregnancies would be at her age. Especially given the complications of the last one. All women need to consult with their doctor about which methods are best for them, because everyone is different. And, I would really like to know how condoms are dangerous.
|
|
|
Post by ronica on Mar 11, 2010 13:52:34 GMT -5
Hmm... that last post was much easier to read. Thanks! I am fine with your opinions and expression of them, but I agree that your writing style is difficult to process so I often skip your posts. The length, run-on sentences, CAPITALIZATIONS, random spaces, etc. are the equivalent of a TV news channel with 4 lines of text, 2 boxes, 3 headlines and 4 talking heads all at the same time--incomprehensible to me and give me a headache. I shut them off and turn on NPR. You are welcome to do it, but don't be surprised if your thoughts aren't read. You are obviously a very passionate and caring woman. I'd like to hear more from you, but (as Tim Gunn would say), you might want to edit. (And I know I waaaaay overuse the double dash--I'm working on it. Ha.)
|
|
|
Post by kisekileia on Mar 12, 2010 11:35:06 GMT -5
Seeing that you are a nurse, I find it somewhat shocking that you are spreading medical misinformation. ALL medicine (how many people die or suffer liver damage from Tylenol?) has risk factors. Even a lot of food has risk factors. Singling out birth control is ridiculous. I also find it difficult to believe the riskiest birth control options would be more dangerous than continued rapid-succession pregnancies would be at her age. Especially given the complications of the last one. All women need to consult with their doctor about which methods are best for them, because everyone is different. And, I would really like to know how condoms are dangerous. And that's why I asked where she got her nursing training. I'm guessing that it came from a Christian college of some sort.
|
|