benk
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by benk on Feb 3, 2010 22:39:32 GMT -5
By the way, that's how it is in our secular legal system, too. If a single mom has children, the only way they can get her last name is if there's no way of figuring out who the dad is. They are automatically assigned the name of the dad if his identity is known. I think this must depend on local laws. I live in New Mexico and my son has my last name. I am married to his father, and was when he was born. When we registered his birth we just put down the name we had chosen, with my last name. We got no kind of pushback on it.
|
|
benk
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by benk on Feb 3, 2010 22:49:48 GMT -5
Also, while Michelle is not actively breast feeding Josie at this time, she is pumping regularly. My sister's twins were very small when born (one was under 2 lbs) and they have you pump and later, when the child is ready they start breast feeding. They can also simulate breast feeding while supplementing and give the stimulation needed to increase mom's supply. It's a lot of really hard work and most people don't succeed, but it can be done.[/quote]
I had a preemie (although mercifully not a micro-preemie) and he was fed my pumped breast milk through a tube into his stomach. Eventually he was strong enough to take a bottle with the BM in it, and finally, he was able to breastfeed in the usual manner. But it was very, very hard work to get to that point. If Michelle has had limited success with keeping up her milk supply previously, she may not be able to maintain lactation with only pumping.
I hope she does get a break in the pregnancies though. Putting aside her physical health, I recall the NICU as being profoundly emotionally draining, and taking a long time to recover from.
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Feb 4, 2010 0:11:25 GMT -5
RE: Diversity in the different homeschooling/QF/patrirarchy groups I wrote this a couple of years ago, noting only some of the different splintered subgroups that embrace patriarchy and why it is sometimes difficult to navigate through the ideas. undermuchgrace.blogspot.com/2007/12/perception-major-problem-for-patriarchy.html I think that I wrote this because of discussion about the kinists (racialists against intermixing)... Followers of patriarchy can be Contitution Party, Agrarian, Confederate, interested in Confederate economics only, a Theonomist, just Reformed, Republican, outright kinist, Family Integrated, pro-life, etc. But most all of these groups love the Pearls and homeschooling and Gothard. And there are huge dramas behind it all such as the big war between Phillips/Sproul and the kinists because Phillips helped Sproul pay for the adoption fees for a child of a different race which kinists found disgusting and sinful. You will note overtones of this in Jen Epstien's saga (Jen's Gems) because she was backed and supported by the kinists who capitalized on the opportunity to get at Phillips. Phillips venerates the writings of the Presby minister, Dabney, who was one of the Confederacy's greatest advocates for slavery, patriarchy, etc. The kinists see Phillips as someone who is something of an apostate from Dabney's religion and a turncoat for the Southern Cause which Phillips has played to his advantage in the past. Rushdoony encouraged the study of the Confederates because they advocated for homeschooling and decentralization of the top-heavy federal government, but the Confederates also said things like "marriage was like man getting his rib back" and a wife "no longer had a personality of her own" after marriage because of subordination. That is where all this stuff comes from about women not voting per Vision Forum, because Dabney staunchly opposed women's suffrage. The group of those who follow patriarchy is very splintered, and the general ideology is a collection of borrowed ideas from a vast number of other ideologies. But it is often hard to sort out who believes what because of the parachurch borrowing of ideas from one group or another. For instance, the Pearls don't embrace the Confederate stuff that I know of, nor do I know that they venerate Rushdoony. Gothard is eclectic, definitely dominionist but not necessarily a Calvinist. You have to keep a scorecard. There's a ton of this stuff on my blog. undermuchgrace.blogspot.com/2008/08/i-recently-received-some-indirect.htmlI also wrote this post after putting the video for my patriarchy lecture at an Southern Baptist Convention seminary online, and the CBMW folks had me denounced, trying to wipe all history of the lecture off the face of the earth. Ha, ha, ha! Backfired big time. The faculty at SBTS were quite angry that I named their teachings and that of CBMW as major contributors to the apologetic FOR patriarchy. They were furious that I "associated them with fringe" from the hallowed halls of one of their sister seminaries. But I show a comparison in that blog post regarding how the ideas overlap and how they teach many of the same things. Sadly, I think that the primary motivator behind much of this is purely money and power. (The sex comes through all of the gender obsession and control.) The Southern Baptists see a big market in FIC related stuff. They borrow from one another and everyone is trying to come up with some new novelty to keep them bringing in the money. And they all want to keep their target demographic groups as wide as possible.
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Feb 4, 2010 0:37:55 GMT -5
Specifically about Gothard, For those interested, I just posted a description about how I was culled into Gothardism on my blog: undermuchgrace.blogspot.com/2010/01/memory-of-my-own-cognitive-dissonance.htmlThere are three key elements to understanding Gothard: 1. Submission Doctrine that came out of the shepherding movement and the Charismatic Renewal during the late '60s. There was a lot of fear over experiential Christianity during this time, so the church became very "paternal." The theological term for this is "sacerdotalism" which means that pastors, elders and leaders believed that they were "mini-intercessors" (mini-HOly Spirits and mini saviors) for the rank and file members. It became less and less about encouragement and more about manipulation and control. Mark Driscoll is also much like this, and he follows a program of "ecclesiocentricity" or a system wherein the church is central to your spiritual experience. That of course means submission. (See the NYT article on "Who Would Jesus Smack Down?" from last year.) Overview of shepherding and submsission on my blog: undermuchgrace.blogspot.com/search/label/shepherding%2FdiscipleshipGothard's paradigm in particular includes submission through his "umbrella of authority" concept as necessary and unquestionable, attributing a mystical physical and spiritual protection to those who remain under authority. Exiting your "God-given" authority structure results in harm because of lack of protection. God Himself even smites those who reject His authority. Leave a church, a husband, or a parent, and you are rejecting God Himself. And you will pay!!!! 2. Gothard teaches that salvation comes through faith alone but that ongoing Christian life and the "sanctification process" by which we become more and more Christlike is partially mediated by works. Gothard redefines grace as something that can be earned by humility because "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble." It is a metaphysical force or something, and you can earn grace points that can be accumulated, and these points give you spiritual power, "God's favor to enable you to do something for Him." The best way that you can earn humility points is through unjust suffering, usually under an authority figure to whom you are bound for life. This is aberrant doctrine. It is similar to a Vatican I Catholic doctrine, which is okay if you're Catholic, but not okay if you claim to be a Reformed Protestant like Gothard. 3. Because Gothard makes Christian living a system of performance (ongoing salvation that is merited by works and law-keeping), and with his novel views that are very superstitious if not more like pagan spiritualism, almost everything is treated like some kind of sacrament -- acts that impart spiritual blessing and metaphysical power. That is why birthing is so important -- it is one of Gothard's sacraments. Wearing khaki pants, white shirts and blue blazers for men and boys is a sacrament. The wearing of dresses and looking like you just stepped off the Donna Reed Show is a sacrament. Home birthing is a sacrament. And, naturally, Gothard has inside information -- as he follows the ideals of the Higher Life Movement (also called the Keswick Movement). That's Gothard in as small of a nutshell as I can muster!
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Feb 4, 2010 0:44:04 GMT -5
Ooopps.
There is more information on Gothard that you can Google -- Put in Midwest Christian Outreach and Gothard's Talmud. Don Veinot and Ron Henzel have a whole series of articles posted on the midwestoutreach website.
And
Grace is nothing more than to be favorably disposed to someone, and it was not considered a religious term in Greek. The only one who used it in religious terms was Aeschylus who used it once in "Prometheus Bound." It just means "unmerited favor."
Gothard redefines it as merited favor, the exact opposite of what it really is. But he does an excellent job at what he does, particularly when you consider that to learn this "secret info," you have to go to a conference that is every weeknight, Mon-Thurs, then all day Friday and most of Saturday. You are so tired and bombarded with his novel and aberrant views, by Friday afternoon, you agree with some of these weird things that you'd otherwise reject.
|
|
|
Post by doggie on Feb 4, 2010 1:03:32 GMT -5
nothing short of death if even that will stop Jim bob from getting his game on. Remember it is not up to Michelle it is Jim boob's choice always.
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on Feb 4, 2010 5:00:58 GMT -5
nothing short of death if even that will stop Jim bob from getting his game on. Remember it is not up to Michelle it is Jim boob's choice always. If this were a Greek play, his eldest daughters would give him sleeping pills and take a kitchen knife to his sperminator. But alas, it's not a Greek play, and that would be assault.
|
|
|
Post by nonbreeder on Feb 5, 2010 15:07:17 GMT -5
Everybody here does know that the single worst problem that this planet has is the simple fact that there are too many human beings on it, right? Our species directly or indirectly uses up or otherwise makes unavailable more than a third of the planet's net primary productivity and about 40% of the planet's land area. The most common threat to other species, endangered or othewise, is habitat loss because we take it from them. Currently, we add about 75 million new humans to the planet each year (including the United States; the US has the highest growth rate of any country in the western world). From an ethical perspective, that's really unconscionable, and from a pragmatic perspective highly irresponsible. Stepping away from an environmental focus, every extra person means another job is needed, it means more traffic congestion, more competition for the basic necessities of life, more crowding, etc. etc. etc.
Whenever I see a person with more than 2 kids, I think 'irresponsible selfish environmental criminal'.
|
|
|
Post by susan on Feb 5, 2010 15:38:07 GMT -5
nonbreeder, have you ever heard of the Zeitgeist Movement/Venus Project? www.thezeitgeistmovement.com www.thevenusproject.comI'd encourage anyone worried about overpopulation to start learning more by reading at the above sites. Our earth really does have the resources to meet the needs of every life on this planet -- especially now that humanity has the technology to enable us to live and use those resources sustainably. The problem is NOT too many people: the problem is humanity's intolerance and unwillingness to get together and find common ground for solving the problems affecting ALL of us. Your following comment actually indicates that you are currently part of the prolem (not that this label has to stick or anything -- I say currently because it's never too late to change your thinking): Whenever I see a person with more than 2 kids, I think 'irresponsible selfish environmental criminal'.
|
|
|
Post by madame on Feb 5, 2010 17:16:26 GMT -5
Whenever I see a person with more than 2 kids, I think 'irresponsible selfish environmental criminal'.
I'll get my husband to design a bumper sticker with that definition for parent of more than two children. We'll be rich! Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by nonbreeder on Feb 5, 2010 18:21:44 GMT -5
I took a quick scan of the zeitgeist movement website. Much of what they say has some truth in it; there is a heavy cultural and social component to the environmental impacts of individuals and groups, which is exacerbated by many of the common ideologies followed by various groups on this planet. This is one of the factors that makes it so difficult to estimate the planets's human carrying capacity. We can change our cultures (including such components as city design, also known as smart growth) to reduce our overall impacts, and it's a darn good idea to do so. I strongly encourage it. I also noticed that the zeitgeist movement encourages population stabilization.
However, there seemed to be a lot of wishful thinking there as well that technology will save us. This is the technophilia fallacy. One day that magic hat is going to run out of rabbits. Also, technological fixes address only symptoms and often have side effects that create their own set of problems; for example, the green revolution increased crop yields but required irrigation because the strains were more water demanding, and now water tables are falling dramatically in large parts of India and farmers can no longer irrigate their crops. This probably wouldn't have been much of a problem if India had stabilized its population and used the benefits of the Green Revolution to improve the quality of life of its existing citizens, but that's not what happened.
BTW, what problem is it that I'm supposed to be part of? Certainly not environmentally; my spouse and I have a very small ecological footprint and even if we drove a Hummer and ate nothing but seafood our n=2 group would have much less of an environmental impact than the Duggars at 22 and counting. If you mean it was uncivil of me, well maybe a little, but my point was that it's my experience that people seldom think of the larger impacts of their reproductive decisions (or nondecisions in the case of the Duggars). We're much more rational on this when it comes to our dogs and cats. So sometimes some strong words will make people notice where otherwise they wouldn't.
|
|
|
Post by nonbreeder on Feb 5, 2010 18:24:04 GMT -5
Madame:
Why do you need your husband to do it? Why can't you? Is he a graphic artist or something?
BTW, I think your expectations of wealth are inflated.
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Feb 5, 2010 19:16:13 GMT -5
Whenever I see a person with more than 2 kids, I think 'irresponsible selfish environmental criminal'. Wow you must spend a lot of time condemning people. I would advise you don't go out in public too often, for your own mental health.
|
|
|
Post by dandydeluxe on Feb 5, 2010 19:21:15 GMT -5
Only came on-line to exalt nonbreeder.
The overpopulation is/will be a source of Herculean concern that will affect us all.
You can agree with her and still love your kids.
I love my kid and agree 1000 percent.
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Feb 5, 2010 19:35:42 GMT -5
Coming to a forum that aims to support women leaving QF teachings and telling them they are a "irresponsible selfish environmental criminal' offers NOTHING of substance or value. It's just another way of stomping on hurting folks with your own superiority.
|
|
|
Post by susan on Feb 5, 2010 20:24:28 GMT -5
I also noticed that the zeitgeist movement encourages population stabilization. Yes, and they believe this will happen as a result of everyone having free access to information and resources. I've never heard any of the spokespeople condemning people who have more than two children -- and they are definitely not in favor of coercive birth control practices, either. It's all about better access to information and resources that can help people make better choices. What you see as technophilia, I see as belief in humanity and belief in humans working and thinking together in LOVE. Technology is really just an extension of human ability. Well, I don't think that technological fixes necessarily HAVE to fix only symptoms, I think it's possible to get at the root causes -- only right now much of what gets done, gets done in the name of making the greatest possible short-term profit. In a similar way, the reason there's not more care taken to troubleshoot and correct problems early on or, better yet, before they even happen -- is that things are currently set up in favor of big business making big profits NOW. To me, it seems like you're getting so wrapped up in how you're following environmental law better than others, that you're losing sight of how we're really all one people, one planet. If we can all get connected and unite around what we have in common -- our humanity and our common need for clean air, water, food, clothing and shelter -- there is literally no problem too great for us to solve. So, to me, the root problem is NOT that too many people don't use birth control, or don't recycle or live sustainably: these are definitely problems but they're really only symptoms of our root problem of disconnectedness. Too many of us see ourselves as separate entities: we think in terms of winners and losers, and of others' succeeding at our expense, unless we get there first. We've lost sight of the big-picture reality that working together for the common good, is what brings the best things to each of us personally. Short-term success at the expense of others, and at the expense of these wonderful ecosystems that we are all a part of and that we depend on for life -- robs each and every one of us and our children. Nonbreeder, I see your attitude as part of the problem because I think this attitude fosters disconnectedness and hampers our ability to get together and start working to turn it all around.
|
|
|
Post by madame on Feb 6, 2010 2:38:56 GMT -5
Madame: Why do you need your husband to do it? Why can't you? Is he a graphic artist or something? BTW, I think your expectations of wealth are inflated. Yes, he's the web and graphics designer. You're right about my expectations of wealth. It was just a hint at how many families would fall under your banner of irresponsible criminals.
|
|
|
Post by mommybunny1 on Feb 6, 2010 8:08:18 GMT -5
I have been reading this thread. It proved to me that Socrates was correct. Moderation is the chief good. Extremism on either end creates tension and dissension. I really do not think that the women who believed that letting G-d plan their family are criminal. I think they were naive and that the leaders they believed in are criminal. The children they have, I am sure that they love and want the best for them.
Choosing not to breed is a personal decision. It is not more honorable or superior. It is also not less honorable. The earth does have limited resources. But humans are one of the earth's resources. Choosing to have children, even more than two children is responsible and earth friendly, if your family has the resources to provide for them. The question that we all have about the Duggars is that although they have found a way to provide financially for their children, there is evidence that two parents cannot provide for the emotional needs of so many individuals. Their solution is to ignore the individuality of each of their precious progeny.
As it turns out, I have three children. My second birth was a set of twins. Should I have sacrificed one of my children not to offend the zero population folks? Making blanket statements ends up insulting folks and is counterproductive.
If there is one important lesson to be learned about families, it is that coercive family planning is not healthy. Families need to make these kinds of decisions according to their own abilities and desires. This includes the decision to adopt, interracially and intraracially. ( We can discuss whether race is a biologic or sociologic construct on another thread.)
My personal belief is that all children should be wanted. Notice that I did not write that they need necessarily to be planned. Planning is ideal, but surprises do happen. I am certain that my stance on babies that are clearly not wanted and will not be loved or cared for would not be shared by everyone here.
Let us get back on common ground. Coercive breeding...not allowing women to have the final decision on having children, and on how many children, does not make a healthy family.
|
|
|
Post by rosa on Feb 6, 2010 10:50:13 GMT -5
Wow, is this our first ZPG driveby?
|
|
autumn
Junior Member
Posts: 56
|
Post by autumn on Feb 6, 2010 12:38:41 GMT -5
Gee, do we ever see ZPGs defending womens' rights to choose or contraceptive access??
Do we see them working to better the lives of women and children all over the world?
Do we see them working on campaigns to improve maternity care?
It's very first world of them to say many of the things they say, when women all over the world are not given any choice in the numbers or timing of their children...It's also, in some cases, blaming the victim.
If you improve the lives of women, healthcare, contraception, economic opportunity, the birthrates will fall. It's been proven time and time again.
|
|
|
Post by ashmeadskernal on Feb 6, 2010 12:42:56 GMT -5
Wow, is this our first ZPG driveby? No, there was another one before, but I can't find it. I have no problem with zero population growth as an abstract concept (well, actually, I do, the Earth's carrying capacity is not constant, just as the Earth's climate is not constant), but I have a problem with not just the only 2 children per family thing, but also the other option that only certain licensed families can breed as much as they like and others are not able (eguneic necessarily implied) so that the total new babies is constant thing. Both require coercion in breeding of the totality of the world's population, and the practicalities of that actually happening are just not happening. It would be orders of magnitude more difficult than just global universal health care. And that's not even touching the whole God/morality/control issues implied there. Ecological footprintists need to reread Jeavon's Paradox if they wish to understand my view that I LIKE having a decent standard of living, damnit, and trying to be as minimalist as possible is the kind of martyrdom that may make you feel better but just literally doesn't work on a macro level, and according to Jeavon's Paradox just makes the carbon cycle problem worse. If Michelle Duggar wants to have another baby, it's none of my business, any more than if Brittany Spears or a random inner city welfare single mother or my broke and divorced siblings or my rich siblings wants to have another baby. If you really have a problem with it, then I recommend making sizable monetary donations to organizations that provide free birth control or free sterilizations (not touching the abortion issue here) for women and men who freely choose it but can't afford it. It is much more effective than finger-wagging online. All I can do is look at her life and swear that that is not what I want for my life, nor is that what I want for my children's lives. And acknowledge that I have the authority to make my own individual reproductive decisions, as do we all.
|
|
|
Post by doggie on Feb 6, 2010 19:37:29 GMT -5
The only things that will stop her are death, menopause or a truly emergency hysterectomy. If she gets pregnant again she obviously doesn't care if the child suffers damage or disability. Her husband should be ashamed. I don't see how he can love her and let this continue. This isn't something she can do without him. If she dies doing this who is going to take over taking care of the children she already has? Does she know how much that could damage them emotionally? I just cannot get my mind around this mindset. If they were rational, they might interpret the events of the last pregnancy as a warning. they can have this mindset because they believe god will take care of them. of course this is pretty foolish and irresponsible. but it is typical of fundies. Even when god hits one upside the head they seldom see anything but they want. I posted how these parents were convinced of murder when they did not take their child to the doctor because they believed only in praying and laying on of hands. the really bad part is earlier their children did the same thing to their own child. though they got off on a mistermeaner. so sometiems faith is stronger then anything else including the health of your children.
|
|
jo
Junior Member
Posts: 73
|
Post by jo on Feb 6, 2010 21:30:29 GMT -5
Wow, the arrogance of a ZPG zealot in automatically assuming that large families are destroying the environment and she is not.
Not that its really fully relevant to a discussion on whether the Duggars will have more children or not. But, I'd put my family's carbon footprint up against yours any day of the WEEK Nonbreeder.
See, ZPG enthusiasts assume that the carbon footprint of a family grows exponentially for each additional child. This is an invalid and incorrect assumption. In general the larger the family the smaller the footprint per person becomes. Even the Duggars, who are far from impressive in their concerns about the environnment, have a far smaller carbon footprint and environmental impact than you would assume.
I'll put my family of 10's carbon footprint up against any DINK nonbreeders any day of the week. You see, you do everything you do in a moral superiority to 'save the planet'. I do it to SAVE MONEY. And, I search for ways to do it better, more effectively and to save more because it saves me money that allows me to take care of my family in other ways. I have all flourescent lightbulbs because they last longer, I have to replace them less and saves me money. I buy meat on the hoof from farmers locally and store it in a chest freezer for the same reason, saves me money. I religiously use cloth diapers on all of my babies and wash them in an HE washer again to save costs. I cook from scratch (I'm buying a Bosch mixer and a grainmill next week) because I can give my family healthy food options without breaking the bank. I use a clothes line, grow a garden, buy in bulk if at all possible. Yes, I own a 12 passenger van and it gets 13mpg so I live 3 blocks from the children's school and centered in the city area so that we WALK. I use my double stroller far more frequently than my van. I go through a tank of gas a month....maybe. Before we moved, I lived further out and to save on fossil fuels we only left the house for doctor's appointments or field trips. Any errands we needed to do were done as my DH was leaving work to come home to save on travel costs. I put 8 kids in 3 bedrooms. They share a bathroom. Baths are taken 3 kids at a time. I save on water usage, trash volume, processed foods, fossil fuels. I turn my heat lower and we wear sweaters to save costs. I spend less than $100 a season on clothes for the ENTIRE family, and that includes myself and my DH. I breastfeed every one of my babies, breastfeed well into the toddler years. In addition to not using formula (never bought a can of it in my life) I use hardly any antiobitics or doctors visits. We cut electric usage anywhere we can. The list goes on and on and on. I contemplated family cloth to save costs once but I just didn't have the heart for dealing with that so yes we use toilet paper.
And, the primary reason we do 99% of what we do is not merely because its good for the envionrment but because these things are good for my pocketbook. Heaven knows that 8 kids already stretch my pocketbook to the max, every dime I can save through conservation and lowing my carbon footprint is a dime I can put to use in other areas where my family can use those differences.
So, maybe rather than assuming that large families are selfish breeders who are destroying the environment, you should look inside yourself to wonder why you feel that way. Oh, and ftr, while you were carefully counting your carbon footprint, I was out there actually making the difference in the lives of those chlidren nonbreeders like to use as the example for why no one should breed more kids. 3 of the children in my home were from outside my home whom we choose to love and embrace and make our own. Three boys were given real lives and out of orphanages and blessed us with the amazing precense of their lives.
Yes, you see large families and just KNOW they are destroying the environment, because we all know that's all little kids do--right??? Of course, in your old age, it will be MY little environmental disasters who will be called upon to care for your pathetic and arrogant rear. Guess you'd better hope I teach them far better compassion and decency for all humans than you have for them, otherwise they might be as condescending about your pooped pants as you are about their need to exist and learn to be responsible with this earth in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by susan on Feb 6, 2010 22:40:23 GMT -5
Wow, Jo, you sound like one neat lady!
|
|
|
Post by tapati on Feb 9, 2010 18:07:16 GMT -5
But never fear, some are predicting a population crash: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_populationand the rate of growth has slowed. With the epidemic of childhood obesity and diabetes, I'm sure we'll make great progress towards limiting our population growth!
|
|