|
Post by jemand on Jul 10, 2009 9:30:58 GMT -5
Luneargentee, I quote you here: "And then I remembered a girl I went to high school with. I didn't know her well; she was more of a friend of a friend. Her parents were Mennonites," I too went to high school with a girl who was Mennonite. She was in my GYM class, but was not allowed to wear the shorts the rest of us had for gym. Had to participate in her ankle length skirts. But she was required to shower in front of everyone, like all the rest of us...this was about 1958? When she realized that all of us shaved our legs and pits...she wanted to do likewise. Poor girl. There were no disposable shavers, etc., then, so she used her dad's old straight-edge and had nicks all over the ONE LEG she managed to shave before her mother caught her, and refused to let her shave the other one! Imagine her shame when she had to come to school later with one leg all chopped up and the other all hairy...and she had really DARK hairs on her legs. The other girls teased her unmercifully, despicably...and I wanted to shoot them! the shaving story is interesting... because when I was in high school I refused to bow to the social pressure and never shaved my legs, neither did my best friend. I do now, but I didn't feel like I wanted to then, and I didn't feel like social pressure was something I wanted to bend to... and I wonder that girls are shaving younger and younger now, sexualization of childhood and all that. Out of all the things you can do, I wouldn't necessarily jump on shaving legs as you know, the most freeing thing ever! But at the same time being forced not to isn't great either, especially when it means horrible teasing.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jul 7, 2009 9:29:05 GMT -5
the girl is homeschooled, and only goes to a sort of home church thingy where she's the only child. Otherwise she and her mother are pretty much always at home. (the only children she sees her age are my sisters, for a couple weeks a year) She lives in California. If CPS comes to their house, I'm betting the parents will be off to "do missionary work" in Turkey, which they've been talking about for three years or so but haven't actually done much about...
I still may call, especially since all of you are advising it... but I DON"T want her to end up in Turkey. Whatever chances she has of running away in 8 years when she reaches majority would be GONE in that case.
Oh, and her father is a doctor. He really should know better. But I don't think she really goes to see other doctors though.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jul 6, 2009 9:36:46 GMT -5
I'd be completely OK with CPS intervening in that kind of situation. It appalls me that churches would tolerate children being starved at their own events. Jemand, it honestly sounds like that 10-year-old is anorexic already. I would speak to her parents and to a non-QF/P adult in her life about her behaviour. And wow, requiring INFANTS to only eat every six hours?! That is both abusive and likely medically dangerous for some kids. If nobody else intervenes for that girl and for any siblings with similar meal regimens, i.e. if things don't actually change, I would call CPS. I was only 12 when she was born, so it was awhile before I understood exactly what they'd done with her-- I don't think what they are doing is even now obvious enough to actually get the CPS to DO anything, and she's an only child. So I really don't think there's anything I can do right now...
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jul 3, 2009 10:56:01 GMT -5
I didn't know that kind of behavior could be shown in a child either... but it's obviously there. She's always eaten enough to keep her alive, because of the adults in her life deciding when she's hungry... but I wonder what will happen when she grows up and starts living on her own, given what her parents have done with her head.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jul 3, 2009 10:00:39 GMT -5
I believe my cousin no longer knows what it's like to feel hungry. Her parents from day one had her on the "Ezzo" schedule-- breast fed every 6 hours, NO more often, and she had a set amount of time to eat at each time... after a couple months she was expected to sleep through the night so she got 3 meals a day. After weaning, she went to two meals a day with maybe a piece of fruit at 4:30 or so, nothing after that. Plus, she is so primed to avoid fat she will not eat avocado. "daddy says it is fattening" she says-- she's 10 years old and so thin she wears jackets in the middle of summer-- too cold otherwise. If she's out for a day with my grandparents, they report she will NEVER bring up food, and actually seems very dismissive if they ask her if she's hungry.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jul 3, 2009 9:44:35 GMT -5
I want to talk about the older children. Older children in large families often grow up way too early and are worked, worked worked... I would not be surprised if one or more of these older children were NOT looking forward to one more charge they had to "help" with-- and I don't blame them, children, which is what they still are, really shouldn't be raising their younger siblings. But-- what does an older child who wasn't looking forward to this infant think NOW? I imagine there would be tremendous psychological upheaval and a feeling of guilt-- feeling that they, by not wanting the responsibility of "helping" more-- somehow caused this.
Anyway, no one mentioned this, I just wanted to bring it up. Because I wouldn't be surprised, if at least ONE of those children, was dealing with conflicting emotions on this, glad to not have still less parental attention and still more way-too-early responsibility, but horrified at what happened to allow them this "freedom."
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jul 2, 2009 12:51:53 GMT -5
it's hard to blog about because you can't really tell your readers to forage for edible weeds That sounds like a great blog subject. Now I'm remembering eating wood sorrel as a child and my mouth's watering. Wood sorrel's awesome... but... it doesn't hold a CANDLE to wintergreen. mmmm... Makes winter camping worth it a million times over! NOTHING can beat eating wintergreen berries covered lightly with frost...
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jul 2, 2009 11:39:06 GMT -5
I suppose. Though as long as you stay away from mushrooms and stick with stuff like... dandelions... it's kinda hard to poison yourself even with wild foods. And I've forgotten the names of most of the plants I know too, which is annoying. Even though I still know them on sight.
Although you're as likely to have an allergic reaction to wild food as domesticated plants-- so if someone's allergic to lots of stuff, I wouldn't recommend trying (any) wild foods without an epi pen around or something.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jul 2, 2009 10:16:34 GMT -5
...but it's hard to blog about because you can't really tell your readers to forage for edible weeds... Of course you could! Actually I went on an edible wild foods craze in my teens, learning a great deal about edible wild plants, especially those edible raw. Even got myself pretty full one night for supper, but it was early fall which is generally the easiest time to do that with.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jun 30, 2009 15:56:01 GMT -5
who wrote that last piece? It was on Carri's blog, but doesn't seem to be from her point of view.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jun 30, 2009 14:26:08 GMT -5
where did you find that info?
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jun 30, 2009 12:15:25 GMT -5
late sea! she's already introduced herself. I think we're all cross posting. ETA, lol, yup, just noticed you'd already replied to the intro. Ha, yep....posted too hastily....I really appreciate Summer's blog post, and thought maybe the people taking part in this discussion would too, and didn't mean to take credit for it. Not MY blog. oops! sorry for the mis-attribution! It was a good link though.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jun 30, 2009 12:13:53 GMT -5
correct me if I'm wrong Vykie, but wasn't that reasoning after your Wesley? Your youngest child? As in, it didn't change your mindset at the time but I didn't think you did have any more children after the partial uterine rupture.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jun 30, 2009 11:49:01 GMT -5
late sea! she's already introduced herself. I think we're all cross posting.
ETA, lol, yup, just noticed you'd already replied to the intro.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jun 30, 2009 11:37:48 GMT -5
thanks for your input... I think we've tried to be careful here not to be too quick to call for state mandates and push for more options for mothers while still calling on those mothers to be responsible in their use of those options. I liked your blog post. And the one commenter who is facing an unassisted birth not because she really wants to, but because she has no other option other than a hospital where her wishes will be countermanded and overruled by doctors who think they can live her life better than she can...
It points to what I've been trying to say all along. Trying to stop UC births by regulating mothers and midwives-- only backfires. MORE women and children are put at risk. Instead, we should regulate hospitals and doctors, to ensure that pregnant and birthing women are given the same right to informed consent that any other patient does, and that doctors do not misuse their authority and physical advantages to force things on women.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jun 29, 2009 14:14:45 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure God WAS inside her letting the little boy die, according to their belief. Honestly it's really more of a Stockholm syndrome thing than anything else.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jun 25, 2009 16:26:02 GMT -5
I'm sure I'll be flamed to death, bbq-d in fact, but I can't help but wonder after reading Carri's hubby's "update" how soon she'll be "expecting" again. I think given the title and tone of this blog "No Longer Quivering"] I doubt I'm the only one worried about this. She is, of course, "free" to chose that road, but I sincerely hope our Lord Closes her womb now..... I actually wouldn't be surprised if they performed a emergency hysterectomy-- after all there was mention of "surgery to control bleeding" or something... and putting it together with ICU for days and the apparently very bad shape she was in, it's likely they couldn't save her uterus.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jun 25, 2009 16:24:01 GMT -5
"Grandma", After all, the woman is the main care provider for the little ones as she nurses them and cares for them throughout the day while daddy is at work... lol, you realize that this is a forum pretty much filled to the brim with feminists? You realize that bit of stereotypical sexist gender role-assumptions isn't really going to go over well here, even if you mention it "innocently" because you don't even realize how harmful it can be? I'm sure you're a very nice person and I think life has been very nice to you-- but I don't think you know very much about this forum or have really taken the time to read any of our stories.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jun 25, 2009 15:03:12 GMT -5
Rejoice, are you a Christian? Because even a very casual perusal of your holy book makes it clear that the god described within has absolutely zero issues with overriding biological impediments to conception, such as, say.... abstinence?
I'm pretty certain that if such a god existed there would literally be nothing you could do to avoid a child he wanted to put into existence. Heck, for all I know, he could get a man pregnant. It just seems so odd to me as an atheist to see believers say all the things their god apparently has no power over, and then describe it as "omnipotent."
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jun 24, 2009 13:16:27 GMT -5
cloth napkins/diapers might be much more comfortable. Although cloth "toilet paper" really doesn't seem like it would be worth the hassle-- it not being something you wear for an extended time.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jun 24, 2009 8:57:09 GMT -5
The problem of women deciding their pastor or husband (excuse me, God) should be in charge of their birth isn't going to get better just because some *other* group of men decide she's not competent to be in charge of her own body. THIS too!
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jun 24, 2009 8:52:21 GMT -5
At the core of this whole issue is the "yet to be fully had" discussion on where this set of circumstances fits into our society as a whole. We, as a community, value life. Many of us have drastically differing views on when life begins. Thats fine - and I'm not trying to go there. The question that is left to be answered is: as a society, are we willing to allow more Carries and more Benniniahs to suffer the same fate? When answering any question that requires a "balancing test" we must determine what it is that we are balancing. In this case, I believe it is the womans constitutionally protected right to choose what happens to her body vs. the right a child/fetus may have to live - even if that requires medical care contrary to a mother's choice. Its a tough one! I will state, for the record, that I am pro choice. I do believe, though, that that "choice" is not absolute. I cannot accept that a legally protected entity emerges at the moment he takes his first breath and not a second before. As has been mentioned on other sites, we prosecute women for using drugs while pregnant and the like. That is because our society has determined that such reckless behavior is unreasonable in context with our values, regardless of the woman's right to her body. Perhaps this is because the woman had no "right" to use illegal drugs, or perhaps because of the harm to the fetus. So, the true dilemna that needs to be hashed out within our legislative entities is - does a woman have a right to refuse ALL medical treatment even at the risk of a child's life? Does her right trump his? And when does "it" become "him"? These are DEEP and complex matters - these are politically incorrect questions. But they are essential questions to determine where we AS A SOCIETY take a stand for children. I believe that a baby becomes a "baby" at viability. At the point the infant can reasonably survive outside his mother I believe he should be granted some rights of protection - the right to be born in a manner that is in HIS best interest. One of the most distressing points in carri's story was where she referred to "her" birth. I posted over on FJ that this birth was NOT just "hers". It was his too. I have no answers to give. They are well above my paygrade. But I think a start is to have an open discussion about what we really desire when it comes to bringing children into the world. If a woman wants to go unassisted, then fine - so long as she understands the risks and she has been checked out to ensure that the baby has a fighting chance. The thought of forcing women into stirrups scares me - but so do dead babies. So sad... Don't you see?? This attitude DRIVES women who are already suspicious of the "outside world" to isolate themselves so much they may not even tell anyone they are pregnant! They are so scared of your attitude, and the doctors attitude, that they will be handcuffed to the bed, they take GREATER medical risks to secure their freedom of choice! If women are ASSURED they will have INFORMED CONSENT of the things done to THEIR BODIES, fewer of them will be scared into the woods to give birth!! NO ONE forces ANY parent to donate a kidney or liver or any other live-donor organ to their child, unless they CONSENT. Women giving birth are NO DIFFERENT!! This attitude of tie them down and doctor as god... that causes more dead babies than anything else... because it fosters a justifiable fear in people who are already unreasonably afraid of "the world."
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jun 23, 2009 12:22:42 GMT -5
Jemand - I agree with you!!! It's just that people take things too far. I agree that there have been too many interventions... unnecessary c-sections, unnecessary inductions... all of that! But please understand that some of us cannot birth without help. Some c-sections are necessary. I don't want to debate this, I agree with what you are saying. I'm just saying that there are people who take it too far. Of course! I think we are saying the same things!
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jun 23, 2009 12:08:34 GMT -5
yooper, you can take anything to extremes, but the truth is that over-intervention causes a lot of problems with women who have no risk factors in their pregnancies... but it's very common many of them will have interventions such as induction, or C-sections, anyway. Those may be very necessary in some cases, but they ARE way overused in this country...
The US has an infant mortality rate nearly double other developed countries, and also higher maternal mortality rates-- but going along with that are vastly higher numbers if C-sections and inductions. It generally goes the doctor is impatient, wants to schedule a birth at a convenient hour for his schedule, starts the induction, something goes wrong, and then they do a C-section and "save the day."
But they ruin the year 'cuz often as not, a little patience and the baby would be fine, the mother would be fine, and there would have been no invasive abdominal surgery.
Yes, they can be LIFESAVING techniques, but people come to view them s having no inherent risk of their own, and fact is, they do. Sometimes the balance is to have a C-section anyway-- but it shouldn't be assumed that the C-section will not create it's own problems down the line, as I think it often is. I mean, look at Vykie, her first C-section was completely unnecessary, and much of her later pregnancy related health problems stemmed directly from that.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jun 23, 2009 11:41:45 GMT -5
New here - came over from the FJ blog. I am one of the snarkers... and proudly so. Sorry I'm missing something: what is the FJ blog? I believe it is "free Jinger" because she seems to be one of the Duggar girls who may prefer to have more freedom of choice than she currently does.
|
|