|
Post by redheadedskeptic on Dec 13, 2009 17:37:16 GMT -5
amyrose: I know, right? Like, how do you define "harm" exactly? As something that someone who looks nice could never do? We aren't nice on my site! It is difficult, because nobody wants to be the "bad" one, the calloused one who says, look, it caused harm. It makes people like me and you who refuse to "be nice" about it look cold and heartless. It's not that I don't feel for them. It's just that I've watched them, and so many people saw the train about to wreck, but they just kept on chugging. It IS hard to feel sorry for people who ignored the warnings of so many other people. It is not, however, too hard to feel very deeply for all the children who have to go through this, too. Plus, "being mean" opens a whole other can of worms: should all women who get pregnant over 40 be judged so harshly? Are we blaming Michelle for having a preemie? Because that's ridiculous! To me, it's a conglomeration of factors, not just one or two: the risk from the vast amount of past children coupled with age (not just one, but both together), the seeming failure to acknowledge that this was a serious risk, etc. I don't know if anyone else feels the same way.
|
|
|
Post by Angelia Sparrow on Dec 13, 2009 20:29:52 GMT -5
The thing is, she doesn't have job security. After all, JimBob will just marry another woman if she dies, right? Won't matter to him or the kids, really. Besides, if he gets someone younger, she can crank out even MORE kids.
That's what I was taught when I was told that abortion to save my own life would be WRONG. Because real women aren't afraid to die in childbirth. Because my husband would remarry and my kids were young enough they would never remember me. So I was not worth saving, only the baby. I looked at my pastor's wife and said, "You have got to be kidding me. This is supposed to be a selling point of your movement?"
As for the Duggers? Suck it up, buttercup. You got yourselves into this position with hyperfecundity and I'm just sorry the little one (and the ones after her) will have to suffer for it.
|
|
|
Post by purpleshoes on Dec 14, 2009 10:31:53 GMT -5
Vyckie, I have always found this story of your reasoning (that the doctor wouldn't have left you your uterus if it wasn't safe for you to use it) so heartbreaking, because it's like you were okay with him (<i>him</i>) making decisions about your fertility, as long as you didn't. It always sounds like you would have been more okay with him taking a major organ - with lots of functions other than childbearing - out of your body than you would have been with using birth control. I have every respect for you, and I'm always so confused by this: would it have been okay for him to make that decision for you because he was a man and you were a woman? Would it have been okay because in order to reject birth control and yet keep delivering in hospitals, you have to accept that doctors control your reproductive outcomes even if you don't? I could imagine few things more horrifyingly unethical than a doctor performing an unnecessary hysterectomy because he judged a patient unfit to reproduce; <i>birth control</i> is what doctors have developed for patients who are medically unfit to reproduce. I don't know how to explain what I mean any better - of all your stories, it's always this one that just breaks my heart.
|
|
|
Post by purpleshoes on Dec 14, 2009 10:42:50 GMT -5
In response to the Duggar update: it's well-known that the most dangerous pregnancies in places where people aren't necessarily using birth control are either the first (in adolescence) or the last before menopause after a long line of births. However, I think it's necessary to distinguish between things that everyone who has a baby at age 40 has a risk of, things that everyone has a one-in-twenty chance of, and the very real medical consequences of constant pregnancy. Just because you've got a one-in-ten chance of a certain genetic disorder, for example, doesn't mean you're any more likely to hit that chance on baby ten then on baby two. However, conditions related to the health of the mother are super-duper more likely on baby ten.
|
|
|
Post by hopewell on Dec 14, 2009 11:21:05 GMT -5
The Duggars claim to have private health insurance and do not take any government assistance. so they should be "fine." They will probably also be able to negotiate the part they pay out-of-pocket especially if they pay a substantial amount of it at one time.
I guess what saddens me most here is that it's the 4 oldest girls who will be "paying" for this child. I doubt they will have any hope of marrying in their 20s since someone will have to do the housework, raise the "other" little kids, homeschool them while one of them and or Mom/Dad cares for Josie if she makes it. Even if she does come home and does not have any disabilities [which is possible] she will still need far more care in her first year than Jordyn did. Since it took BOTH parents to be with Jordyn when she was hospitalized I can only imagine what it will take with Josie.
If I was Jill, Jana, Jessa or Jinger I'd get the car keys and head out while Mom/Dad are stuck at the hospital and never look back.
|
|
|
Post by rosa on Dec 14, 2009 11:32:30 GMT -5
Heh. Hopewell, the day one of those girls really wants out, bad enough to defy her parents, she can just go to the public library and google her own name & have a place to stay that afternoon. Plus the first one can sell her story to Star or somewhere for thousands of dollars, I bet.
Though I would guess (and it probably would be healthier, though less entertaining from the outside) that one of the older girls will marry someone who *looks* acceptable to the parents but is secretly not, & establish a moderate separataion from the family, then quietly help the younger ones out.
|
|
|
Post by ashmeadskernal on Dec 14, 2009 11:49:11 GMT -5
In response to this news, I have mixed feelings. I had a 31 weeker myself, so I feel a certain amout of sympathy. I also feel that relatively uncomplicated 18 out of 20 pregnancies is some damn good fertility odds, and she shouldn't (there I go, telling people what they should feel again!) be blamed for having a problem, anymore than any other health-problem victim should be blamed. And yet... she chose to have another, so it's not like she's completely off the hook as far as responsibility for bad outcomes are concerned.
I have problems making the judgment call for her that she "shouldn't have any more children". I still think it's her decision, her risk/benefit analysis, and I'm not willing to make that decision for her, as if I can dictate to her who she is and what her purpose in life is.
I can say that I'm not going to choose her path, that I'm not going to have 19 children, or "however many God chooses to bless me with, though it slay me." And it took a full graphic description of exactly where the QF lifestyle leads, in regards to parentification of children, the never-ending work, the replaceability of the fertile womb and child-raising functions, to make that decision.
Bad things happen to everybody. I guess I'm saying that laying blame doesn't solve any problem, doesn't free Jinger, regardless of how well that blame may or may not be justified. And it's not my problem to solve, so I'll just wish her and her little one well, and go on trying to solve my own problems, learning what I can from hers. Anger and hatred at the situation aren't going to help ME, and neither would excessive sympathy.
|
|
|
Post by austin on Dec 14, 2009 12:04:09 GMT -5
I think it goes without saying that everyone is concerned for the health and welfare of these two human beings (Michele and the baby). I don't think being critical of Michele's public choices (in that she has made her life public in order to profit) is out of line, either.
Michele is only a couple of years younger than I am and I would NOT consider having another baby to be remotely responsible or advisable at this stage of my life. Older mothers and their babies are much more susceptible to chromosomal abnormalities and premature birth.
I am also sympathetic as I had my twins somewhat prematurely, although they weren't micropreemies like the Duggar baby and I was 28 years old at the time. My problems with the pregnancy and their prematurity could not have been necessarily foreseen. However, Michele and her health care providers certainly knew that there is much increased risk in continuing to bear children well into her 40's.
I find myself agreeing with those who say that one can only "roll the dice" so many times before it results in a negative outcome. The person that has to bear the consequences of that negative outcome, unfortunately, is an innocent child. I know this sounds harsh, but there is a point where the adults (Michele and Jim-Bob) making these choices need to be considered responsible for the outcome.
Like Amy, I also cannot get on the band wagon of "Oh, aren't they cute, aren't they such a nice family, they're not hurting anyone", blah, blah. Because I know what the underpinnings of patriarchy are, I do not think this is cute, or nice, nor do I think they are "not hurting anyone" else. It is a morally corrupt system, plain and simple.
|
|
|
Post by rosa on Dec 14, 2009 12:32:13 GMT -5
If they're not hurting anyone, it's not because they're not trying - the whole point of having TV shows, originally, was to evangelize their pronatalist (and other) ideas.
|
|
|
Post by margybargy on Dec 14, 2009 18:17:48 GMT -5
Pandapaws, I believe you are right. I had HELLP syndrome. DD was delivered by emergency-c at 32 weeks. But the docs did everything they could to keep her in the womb for as long as possible. They saw my blood pressure creeping up. They knew I was at risk for this. She was very small for her gestational age. I was in the hospital for weeks under constant monitoring. The doc told me and my husband they were worried about HELLP. He told us the baby would have to be delivered immediately if I had pain in upper left abdomen and vomiting. When it hits, it hits suddenly. Blood pressure and liver counts sky-rocket. After the c-section, I was out of it for a week on anti-seizure medication. The whole hospital was abuzz. I guess HELLP is somewhat rare and interesting to medical pros. DD was in the NICU for 34 days. I am forever grateful for the skill of the doctors, and the vigilance of my husband. Age is a risk factor. I was 37. We are not having any more kids because of the risks. To me, a potential child's health and well-being far outweighs the desire to have another child. I was very fortunate to have a healthy baby girl. I hope, with all my heart, that Josie will be healthy as well.
|
|
|
Post by razingruth on Dec 14, 2009 20:33:49 GMT -5
First post here,...hi.
I don't think anyone feels like Michelle or Josie (really, any of the Duggars) deserved to have such a tragedy happen. What I think people are trying to say is that it should come as no surprise that it did finally happen. If you roll the dice twenty-odd times (and this was Michelle's 20th pregnancy), you're bound to have a complication at some point. Really, Michelle has had several and they seemed to come faster and more frequently as she got older and had more children. I've seen people argue that she's had eighteen other children "with no problems", as a justification that she "couldn't have expected this". Boloney! Michelle has had Pre-E before (with the first set of twins). She's had, to my knowledge, three prior c-sections (not "normal", but common). She's had two or three transverse babies (a hazardous situation in itself), all resulting from having too many pregnancies, too close together. She's had blood pressure problems and bleeding problems (from the book and from her own admission on the shows/interviews). Despite what Dr. Sarver said, this woman has a complicated birth history. She's not "made to have babies to the n'th degree" - she's just lucky! She's been lucky. Her luck ran out.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Dec 14, 2009 21:31:16 GMT -5
welcome ruth! I think I found and read your blog today, really powerful writing. *hugs* to you and I hope your mother does well with her latest pregnancy.
Random rant from jemand: What the quiverfull movement doesn't have is satisfaction. It casts itself as only looking for "blessing" but in many cases it seems to go far beyond that to reach the collectors mentality which bespeaks more of greed, grabbing for every child you can, and if you don't do that, you fail spiritually. It's an insidious teaching and my only regret in accepting my atheism is knowing that there will be no ultimate reckoning where those who promoted and gained from this teaching do not face what they have created and seen it for what it really is. The quiverful movement claims to welcome every child, but it never allows you to be happy with just what you have already. Satiety and peace are foreign to it.
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on Dec 15, 2009 7:25:07 GMT -5
First post here,...hi. I don't think anyone feels like Michelle or Josie (really, any of the Duggars) deserved to have such a tragedy happen. What I think people are trying to say is that it should come as no surprise that it did finally happen. If you roll the dice twenty-odd times (and this was Michelle's 20th pregnancy), you're bound to have a complication at some point. Really, Michelle has had several and they seemed to come faster and more frequently as she got older and had more children. I've seen people argue that she's had eighteen other children "with no problems", as a justification that she "couldn't have expected this". Boloney! Michelle has had Pre-E before (with the first set of twins). She's had, to my knowledge, three prior c-sections (not "normal", but common). She's had two or three transverse babies (a hazardous situation in itself), all resulting from having too many pregnancies, too close together. She's had blood pressure problems and bleeding problems (from the book and from her own admission on the shows/interviews). Despite what Dr. Sarver said, this woman has a complicated birth history. She's not "made to have babies to the n'th degree" - she's just lucky! She's been lucky. Her luck ran out. Welcome, Ruth! I, too, read your blog with interest and sympathy. You have absolutely done the right thing getting out of that mess, no matter what 'anonymous' commenters spout from their self-righteous pedestals. I hope you are finding support and healing now outside of your family. I spent all my time at college living in their housing, never going home, even when it meant fighting with the administration who could not understand why I needed to be there every summer. I used to get really angry about it, as they just assumed that everyone has a happy home to go back to and that only the international students have a valid excuse for staying. I still have a mind to write them a strongly-worded alumni letter and explain to them why any future gifts will be carefully directed away from their office unless they change their policies. I wasn't the only girl in that boat, so it's something colleges really need to be prepared to deal with. The early parts of my story are up on the blog, if you are wondering who I am. I escaped William Branham's 'Message of the Hour' cult when I was 19. Isn't it great to be able to do whatever you want with your hair and wear a pair of jeans if you feel like it?
|
|
jennie
Junior Member
Posts: 96
|
Post by jennie on Dec 15, 2009 8:07:51 GMT -5
Off topic, sorry - How do you find razingruth's blog? And welcome to you, Ruth.
|
|
|
Post by austin on Dec 15, 2009 11:16:51 GMT -5
Off topic, sorry - How do you find razingruth's blog? And welcome to you, Ruth. Here you go, Jennie: razingruth.blogspot.com/Welcome, Ruth. I just discovered your blog and was very moved by your journey. Keep putting one foot in front of the other.
|
|
|
Post by philosophia on Dec 15, 2009 13:46:48 GMT -5
Welcome, Ruth. I just discovered your blog and was very moved by your journey. Keep putting one foot in front of the other. I read Ruth's post on her first date at 25. Neither my 23 nor my 21 year old have dated, but my 21yo has been out to lunch. For us, it was the excited call and "what do I do?" conversation. (We were of the courship mold) But having been away at college a couple of years now, she has become pretty self assured. I'm proud of her. She's going to be okay! But it is like landing on earth from mars!
|
|
|
Post by amyrose on Dec 16, 2009 23:56:15 GMT -5
On a fan forum(for a sport) I participate in, there is a thread in the off topic section on the Duggars and their situation. A few posters, including me, have tried to point out the downside of the Duggars--QF and Patriarchy. The response has been quite interesting. One main thing is insistence that the Duggars are not QF, that it is an organized movement with formal membership and they have not "joined". This based on Jim-Bob apparently saying at some point he has disagreements with some QF proponents.
Beyond that, these people are convinced of so many things that just are not true. Some examples--
--The Duggar daughters would be allowed to pursue higher education and careers if they wanted to. They just don't want to. --The appearance of conformity (for the kids) is merely an accident of how the show is edited. --Michelle has never had a pregnancy related health problem and people who suggest she has are lying. --Patriarchy is something practiced in "name only" and surely in reality Jim-Bob and Michelle and all other couples dedicated to patriarchy make decisions together and live equally in their marriages. --If Michelle was now or had ever been told that she should not have more children for the sake of her own health, she would certainly use birth control. --People who have left QF and patriarchical families and have bad things to say about it obviously are bitter and angry and didn't do it the right way or their lives would have been shiny and happy like the Duggars. (This blog and razingruth's blog were both linked and specifically mentioned).
In short, a massive group of viewers of this show are falling for exactly what the Duggars are using it to sell--QF and the patriarchy movement is just another lifestyle choice and it is not at all harmful nor does it promote gender inequity.
This is why they make me angry. --
|
|
|
Post by redheadedskeptic on Dec 17, 2009 0:03:47 GMT -5
Ruth, that is exactly what I think most of us are trying to say.
Love your blog! But I've commented about 100 times, so you probably already figured that out!
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Dec 17, 2009 3:10:34 GMT -5
First post here,...hi. I don't think anyone feels like Michelle or Josie (really, any of the Duggars) deserved to have such a tragedy happen. What I think people are trying to say is that it should come as no surprise that it did finally happen. If you roll the dice twenty-odd times (and this was Michelle's 20th pregnancy), you're bound to have a complication at some point. Really, Michelle has had several and they seemed to come faster and more frequently as she got older and had more children. I've seen people argue that she's had eighteen other children "with no problems", as a justification that she "couldn't have expected this". Boloney! Michelle has had Pre-E before (with the first set of twins). She's had, to my knowledge, three prior c-sections (not "normal", but common). She's had two or three transverse babies (a hazardous situation in itself), all resulting from having too many pregnancies, too close together. She's had blood pressure problems and bleeding problems (from the book and from her own admission on the shows/interviews). Despite what Dr. Sarver said, this woman has a complicated birth history. She's not "made to have babies to the n'th degree" - she's just lucky! She's been lucky. Her luck ran out. Yes there is some desire to flee facts as though they are a threat to faith. I am sure there are ways to accept both. Just the other day I had a friend trying to talk me into having another baby..this happens fairly often with the homebirth crowd I know, none of whom are at all religious or QF. They just think it's very cool to have babies.The argument used at me was that I had had healthy babies and "only two problems in pregnancy" (LOL) and then lots of commentary about how my eggs might be younger than they seem because I don't look like I've been run over by a truck like people expect you to look once you've had 8 kids. I realized these people were trying to get me to toss the facts (age, multi-para) as if the facts flew in the face of the goodness of babies. Some of that was anti-doctor bias rubbing off on how they viewed facts. I have had to explain to people that I am not immune to facts!! My eggs are old! I am statistically for several reasons likely to have a horrible early birth/late miscarriage and/or a chromosomally challenged child if I had another one! There is nothing in my birth history that makes this any less so, and in fact there there is no way there could be. So, given those facts and my feelings about them I have decided to have no more children (as well as other reasons like pregnancy sucks). If I had never had any kids I might well have chosen otherwise and that would have been my considered choice to face the risks. With QF I don't hear about considered choice to face risk, it's all about how the facts don't matter in the face of faith. For some people in the homebirth crowd it is faith in your body, for QF'ers it is faith in God. It's scary stuff when the risks are just brushed away as pesky doubting voices.
|
|
|
Post by rosa on Dec 17, 2009 10:53:21 GMT -5
That's so scary, to me, because that means it's really widespread - which begs the question, is the pro-natalism just a general idea in our culture that's got various adherents, or are the Christian pro-natalists somehow having that affect on the rest of the culture? The lack of responsibility is really bugging me. I just googled ATI Christian to try to remember what ATI stands for and i got to this forum where a woman was saying, well, I'd like to use ATI curriculum but it's too much money, but if Jesus wants me to use the curriculum he'll make it happen. And it made me wonder if she was using any curriculum or resources at ALL, with that attitude.
|
|
|
Post by margybargy on Dec 17, 2009 12:32:54 GMT -5
Oooh. A bullet list. I love bullet lists. Thanks, amyrose.
--The Duggar daughters would be allowed to pursue higher education and careers if they wanted to. They just don't want to. And they've been told that over and over again their whole lives. --The appearance of conformity (for the kids) is merely an accident of how the show is edited. Wow. That's quite amazing. --Michelle has never had a pregnancy related health problem and people who suggest she has are lying. Well, she's had one now that's pretty undeniable. --Patriarchy is something practiced in "name only" and surely in reality Jim-Bob and Michelle and all other couples dedicated to patriarchy make decisions together and live equally in their marriages. Then why practice it all? Why write books about it? Why make videos about it? Why preach it? --If Michelle was now or had ever been told that she should not have more children for the sake of her own health, she would certainly use birth control. We'll see. --People who have left QF and patriarchical families and have bad things to say about it obviously are bitter and angry and didn't do it the right way or their lives would have been shiny and happy like the Duggars. (This blog and razingruth's blog were both linked and specifically mentioned). Yeah, yeah, yeah. Anyone who doesn't like camping is just bitter and angry and didn't do it right. Or maybe some people just don't like camping? Is that even possible?
|
|
|
Post by amyrose on Dec 17, 2009 20:37:26 GMT -5
Nice job with that list, margybargy Your responses are exactly what I gave up trying to tell these people.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2009 23:44:49 GMT -5
--People who have left QF and patriarchical families and have bad things to say about it obviously are bitter and angry and didn't do it the right way or their lives would have been shiny and happy like the Duggars. (This blog and razingruth's blog were both linked and specifically mentioned). In short, a massive group of viewers of this show are falling for exactly what the Duggars are using it to sell--QF and the patriarchy movement is just another lifestyle choice and it is not at all harmful nor does it promote gender inequity. This is why they make me angry. -- That final point is the one that always gets to me. As I've mentioned, my family was never more than just on the fringes of the whole QF universe by virtue of homeschooling and all that inevitably goes along with having more than a passing connection to the rest of the homeschool community, but the reason I don't want anything to do even with that bit of the QF world that my family dabbled in isn't because I had any bad experiences or am bitter about anything, it's because I considered what they were teaching and concluded that wasn't a life I was interested in living. You don't HAVE to have a horrible experience with something to realize that it's not for you and that you think it's harmful to others.
|
|
|
Post by redheadedskeptic on Dec 19, 2009 4:04:36 GMT -5
Exactly. As long as they are painted as harmless and dressed up in a neat shiny package, I will continue to say what I think. And when people ask me why I can't leave them alone and mind my own business, I'll tell 'em when the Duggars start minding their own business, I'll start minding mine!
|
|
|
Post by tapati on Dec 20, 2009 8:47:43 GMT -5
www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/TV/12/18/duggar.baby.update/index.html(PEOPLE.com) -- Michelle Duggar told PEOPLE she is cherishing every moment with her premature 19th child, Josie Brooklyn, who remains hospitalized at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences in Little Rock. "Josie is doing as well as can be expected for a baby at her age. We are taking each hour as it comes," Michelle said, who has been released from the hospital. "We feel so blessed that God has given us to her and are cherishing every moment with her." Josie was born on December 10 weighing 1 lb., 6 oz. Michelle, who had been in the hospital recovering from a gallstone, was taken to the operating room for an emergency C-section. Her husband Jim Bob Duggar remained by her side. Michelle's doctors said the baby was born prematurely because Michelle suffered from preeclampsia, a rare condition during pregnancy that causes high blood pressure. Jim Bob says the family is "very grateful" for the support, love and prayers they have received from around the country. "God's will is what we would choose if we knew all the facts. Our children's spiritual maturity is going to deepen so much through this, in a way that couldn't happen any other way," he says. Jim Bob added, "This is so difficult, but I know that we are leaving this in God's hands." PEOPLE.com's Alicia Dennis contributed to this report.
|
|