|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Jan 29, 2010 11:45:18 GMT -5
|
|
calulu
Junior Member
Posts: 76
|
Post by calulu on Jan 29, 2010 11:47:11 GMT -5
I find it interesting that good old Jim Bob says they were always prepared for something to go wrong. Whatever happened to all the bragging about trusting God they usually do?
The thing I find so disturbing about the Duggars is that they make Quiverful seem so mainstream and 'nice'. That's the danger, they make it look attractive, not cultish, no reality for most Quivering families is shown.
|
|
|
Post by dangermom on Jan 29, 2010 13:40:57 GMT -5
I don't want to yell at the Duggars or anything. But it seems so obvious to me that this should be the end. She had preeclampsia, right? And that's the sort of thing that will kill you and the baby next time. It's not even debatable; micropreemies and near-death is the very best possibility.
I'm inclined to believe that God gave us minds and understanding. We've been blessed with enormous strides in medicine and science. We know how our bodies work, and we're responsible for them. So when we refuse to use our knowledge to limit suffering and save lives, we're morally culpable. And we ought to have the common sense to know when our bodies are pushed past the limit; just because I have the equipment doesn't mean I give up responsibility for it.
I wonder what would happen if the Duggars made it a matter of prayer and felt led to stop. Would they even accept such a thing? Even if it was really obvious? I guess I doubt it. That's the problem with putting God in a box. I find he's always doing the opposite of what I expect.
I only have two kids myself, and for a Mormon that's not very many. I had originally planned for 3 at a minimum; I like kids (I'm one of those baby-lust people, I wanted kids), I'm strong, and there didn't seem to be any reason why I would not enjoy having 4 or so. But after 2, it became clear that for my health it wouldn't be a good idea. I didn't like that at all--my prayers consisted of "If this is your plan I don't like it and you'd better do something, 'cause I want another baby." Then I woke up one day and my desire for children was gone. It had been taken away. It took me a couple of years to get used to it, it was so weird. But it was clearly an answer to prayer. So OK then.
|
|
|
Post by susan on Jan 29, 2010 13:47:58 GMT -5
I'm also concerned because at this time, I don't think it's possible for such a premature baby to be exclusively breastfed. Although exclusive breastfeeding doesn't suppress fertility for every woman, I think it's about as effective as the pill during the first 6 months postpartum.
And I don't think Michelle will have that protection this time. Which means, if she won't use any other form of contraception and Jim Bob's not willing to wait a while (I mean, I just have a feeling it will be a while before SHE feels in the mood, but I imagine she wouldn't feel it was Scriptural to put off her husband 'til she's better recovered) --
Well, she could literally end up pregnant again immediately. Which would be so hard on her body, and also on her current very needy baby, as well as on the older daughters whose responsibilities will have to increase, and the other children who are bound to get less parental attention during this time.
|
|
|
Post by anatheist on Jan 29, 2010 13:48:41 GMT -5
Vyckie, you've said before that you wondered why god wouldn't guide the surgeon to give you a hysterectomy... yet it seems that if the surgeon actually said that you needed one, that you probably wouldn't have believed him and suspected him of trying to thwart god's plan for you.
If he'd given you one while you were under anesthesia, which would be illegal without your consent (unless your life was in immediate danger unless it was removed immediately perhaps), and then told you that Jesus had appeared to him in a vision and told him to do that, would you have been ok with that? Were you kind of hoping that a "miracle" like that might happen?
|
|
|
Post by susan on Jan 29, 2010 14:01:28 GMT -5
dangermom, I initially had the baby-lust, too.
Even though I didn't marry 'til 35, I was hoping that I had at least enough time to have 4 or 5 babies.
Well, I was blessed to get pregnant right away, and had my first daughter a month before turning 36. But then it took me FOUR YEARS to get pregnant with my second daughter. I had her a couple of months before turning 41.
Since then I've had 2 early miscarriages (I also had a miscarriage when my older daughter was 3, a year before I got pregnant with my younger daughter). Now I haven't had a miscarriage for almost a year, but I also haven't gotten pregnant.
Still the cycle every month and all, but things just seem to be winding down. And I'm finding that I'm actually at-peace now about it being just our two girls.
But we still haven't done anything to "make sure" there's not another pregnancy, and I realize some people would say we're crazy for that.
I know that we'd welcome a third baby -- I just no longer feel that it "has" to happen, if that makes sense. And I'm 45, almost 46, and I've heard that the likelihood of a woman my age being able to get pregnant and stay pregnant, without medical assistance and without donor eggs, is practically non-existent.
Of course it's possible -- I suppose it's about as possible as a vasectomy or a tubal ligation "not taking" or reversing itself, LOL.
|
|
jtn
New Member
Posts: 11
|
Post by jtn on Jan 29, 2010 14:51:37 GMT -5
I feel sad for them if they are going to keep trying in part because I am extensively into genealogy. I have well over 9000 people on my tree now with branches going all over the place and well back over about 200-400 years on all sides. The one thing that is very very consistent over all my family trees is that almost every one of my major family lines that had 8-15 children the last one or two children every generation were either stillborn or died shortly after birth. It's actually quite sad, but in almost every case the mother was well over 40. Granted, perhaps many of the medical conditions could be more easily treated today, but the basic fact is that these later pregnancies were difficult for both the mother and child. That's what I can't stop thinking about when I see Michele Duggar... I also feel for the tribe of kids at home who are without the attention of their parents full time as they devote so much time and energy to the one in the hospital.
|
|
|
Post by hopewell on Jan 29, 2010 15:56:12 GMT -5
Each time she delivers I hope the doctors will risk it and tie her tubes or give her a hysterectomy. Those of you who read Free Jinger will be able to read my new parody about them. Mrs. Bates is pregnant again too, with , # 18 after supposedly nearly dying with # 17. I wonder how much insurance TLC has on her?
|
|
|
Post by susan on Jan 29, 2010 16:38:23 GMT -5
Each time she delivers I hope the doctors will risk it and tie her tubes or give her a hysterectomy. Whereas, when I think or hear of such violations of human rights occurring -- such as when this was recently done to a single mother of 9 instead of the IUD-insertion she requested -- it makes me feel less safe, and I feel like such acts are a slap in the fact to the civil rights of everyone. It makes me wonder what society or the medical profession might feel "authorized" to do to ME, should some aspect of my chosen way of life be offensive to the majority of people. Maybe I'm selfish -- but I'd rather retain my personal freedoms: even if some people use theirs in a way that I wouldn't use mine -- I'd rather they have the freedom to do that, because taking away one person's freedom threatens the freedom of everyone.
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Jan 29, 2010 18:05:13 GMT -5
No one should do anything to Michelle Duggar's body against her will. That's a scary and IMO disgusting suggestion.
As to them making QF seem wholesome.. well I put a lot of that blame on TLC! TLC packages them this way. They could just as easily focus on all the weird extremes and make them out to be totally dysfunctional if that was the aim of their show.
Vyckie I really liked this piece because it was so caring and understanding of Michelle's mindset. I remember that way of thinking so clearly and it seems even more ridiculous that I was in that fog because at least Michelle seems to have a good marriage and the support of many people, unlike my isolation. I was actually terrified that I would have a premmie because I had no support and my children would have been very vulnerable. I remember thinking I would just have to leave the premmie in the hospital until it was big enough, none of this vigil by the incubator stuff because my children would not have been taken care of properly at all.
It's funny too to me to look back on how scary it was to think of stopping (and REJECTING GOD) and how there was never the space to look around and say, hey this is a good size family. If you want a big family you can have one, your family isn't incomplete if you stop at 5 or 7 or whatever.. it's BIG just like you might idealize from reading all these blogs of lovely families and watching the Duggars. Why put repeated strain on your family with medical crises.
It is very common to have late miscarriages if you are birthing in your 40's. I have had several QF friends go through horrendous miscarriages and grieving after having a large amount of children with relatively little problems. I was weirdly still in this mode of thinking that "If I have another baby God will take care of me.." I hadn't really examined this assumption. Then one day it hit me, there was no reason why I would not suffer like these other women, absolutely no reason. I was living in some fantasy land but once I started seriously thinking about it because I was no longer QF my MIND WORKED and added it all up and took these factors into consideration. And that stuff scares me.. and my family is a lovely size now (8 kids) and works well.. and I don't want to introduce genetic roulette problems or premmies or late miscarriages into my life and there was no reason to believe that this wasn't just as likely at my age as for these other women I knew. It was interesting to make an intelligent, free of fear and dogma decision.
|
|
|
Post by runawaybride on Jan 29, 2010 18:44:47 GMT -5
do men like Jim Bob heed a dr's advice to have no intercourse for x number of weeks after a birth or a procedure?
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Jan 29, 2010 18:46:29 GMT -5
It just occurred to me that among a lot of QF "wanting a big family" is not a factor at all. Certainly it wasn't a factor with ME. I wanted to do God's will. That, apparently, meant having all the children he gave me. If someone had asked me (and this happened now and then) "Did you always want a big family?" I would have to honestly say NO. I have even had one QF friend say to me "I don't have children because I like children, I have them because that is what God gives me."
In contrast I have known a few families that deliberately had No. 5 or 6 or 7 because they LIKE children and really enjoyed having a big family. They spaced them according to family need and the reached a completion point and stopped having them.
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Jan 29, 2010 18:53:48 GMT -5
do men like Jim Bob heed a dr's advice to have no intercourse for x number of weeks after a birth or a procedure? Once again it depends on what kind of person we are talking about . An abusive, entitlement obsessed man may not care to follow a doctor's advice. Normal, nice people obviously would. Just because a man is QF doesn't mean he's going to be an asshole to his wife.
|
|
|
Post by susan on Jan 29, 2010 18:57:35 GMT -5
do men like Jim Bob heed a dr's advice to have no intercourse for x number of weeks after a birth or a procedure? I think it's standard advice to abstain for something like 1-2 months ... I can't remember exactly what we were advised. I was just thinking that if she can't exclusively breastfeed because of her baby's prematurity, and isn't willing to use any other form of contraception, the standard 1 or 2 months doesn't seem like long enough of a rest before taking the chance of becoming pregnant again. Of course, it's none of my business. But I find myself wondering if QF is like the Catholic church, in that I think the Catholic church allows for abstinence for medical reasons. I mean, I know that for me, even with my comparatively-uncomplicated pregnancies and births, it wouldn't have bothered me to abstain from sex for several months after each baby. My body was that tired and that focucused on just mothering my babies. And I normally enjoy sex -- but I've just found that for the first year or so after having a baby, I seem to have no sex drive and am a whole lot more interested in sleep.
|
|
|
Post by kisekileia on Jan 29, 2010 19:05:54 GMT -5
The Catholic Church allows natural family planning, which can be reasonably reliable if done carefully using all of the multiple methods that are now available. I believe the Catholic Church also allows women to use birth control pills for necessary medical purposes other than preventing pregnancy.
|
|
|
Post by philosophia on Jan 29, 2010 19:16:39 GMT -5
One thing that the non-Chrisitians on this blog ought to understand about the Duggars is that they are Evangelical. Although the extreme quiverfull ideology they represent is played down in the media, I am sure that Jim and Michelle see themselves as representatives or ambassadors for Christ in their "Christian Lifestyle".
What I mean when I say that is that EVEN IF THEY ARE NOW having doubts, it is part of their responsibility as missionaries and ambassadors to keep up the ideology. Being a public figure, Jim Bob will have a hard time secretly buying a stash of condoms, and the sympto-thermal method is risky. In order to maintain their consistency Michelle will probably be expecting within 6 months.
And this is the point where the power of ideology over intellect becomes so dangerous. They could simply decide that Michelle's safety is more important than maintaining the party line of "We are trusting God to take care of this". This would require a public explanation. But instead, they have decided that the "image" of trusting God even if it kills us is more important.
I think that the Duggar's position in the public eye has made some aspects of their life easier(some affluence, children behave better for an audience). But I think it also puts them in the position of shame if they change any of their positions.
|
|
|
Post by philosophia on Jan 29, 2010 19:20:51 GMT -5
do men like Jim Bob heed a dr's advice to have no intercourse for x number of weeks after a birth or a procedure? I cannot recall the scripture, but in the OT I believe the abstinence period was 30 days for a son and 60 days for a daughter. QF are usually very particular about these kind of things. I would be willing to bet he follows the scriptural rule.
|
|
|
Post by runawaybride on Jan 29, 2010 19:24:11 GMT -5
If they follow that biblical rule of 30 days for a son and 60 days for a daughter, she may well be pregnant again already.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jan 29, 2010 19:26:07 GMT -5
do men like Jim Bob heed a dr's advice to have no intercourse for x number of weeks after a birth or a procedure? I cannot recall the scripture, but in the OT I believe the abstinence period was 30 days for a son and 60 days for a daughter. QF are usually very particular about these kind of things. I would be willing to bet he follows the scriptural rule. 40 and 80
|
|
|
Post by susan on Jan 29, 2010 19:28:37 GMT -5
Re: The Roman Catholic Church: I've heard about the natural family planning. I hadn't realized that they allow bc pills if for other reasons besides contraception. But isn't it hard to do NFP right after having a baby, before you're even having a regular cycle? That's why I was thinking about how the Catholic Church allows for abstinence -- and wondering if the QF philosophy allows for that, too? I don't think it'd be hard on most MOTHERS to abstain from sex for the first several months after giving birth (though maybe some of you will set me straight -- maybe I was just abnormally sleep-obsessed -- so I'm guessing it depends on whether the FATHER would be willing to abstain for a while for his wife's health. Does anyone know if there's a QF teaching re: abstinence? Would it ever be okay for a wife to tell her husband she needs to abstain for a while, because she feels that her body needs more time to recover from the previous pregnancy and birth? On a related note: I don't think the Catholic Church ever allows for masturbation -- so I am wondering if the QF movement has a similar view -- or if they'd consider it okay for a husband to masturbate to meet his own needs for the first several months after his wife has had a baby? This isn't speculation about what the Duggars are doing -- more of just a general curiosity about the teachings related to medical problems.
|
|
|
Post by philosophia on Jan 29, 2010 19:38:09 GMT -5
I cannot recall the scripture, but in the OT I believe the abstinence period was 30 days for a son and 60 days for a daughter. QF are usually very particular about these kind of things. I would be willing to bet he follows the scriptural rule. 40 and 80 I like 40 and 80 much better. We may have to clean the bathtub after a home birth, but at least some things get a rest. ;D
|
|
jo
Junior Member
Posts: 73
|
Post by jo on Jan 29, 2010 22:12:49 GMT -5
Generally, you're told no sex for 6 weeks after childbirth. Both after my ovarian cyst and my c-section I was told 6 weeks. In the Duggars case, the doctor might have put her on longer restrictions, especially knowing they won't use birth control.
As for masturbation, by and large its incredibly unacceptable in QF/P circles, just as strict if not worse than the Catholic church since they have no option for confession and penance for sins that the Catholic church affords congregants.
Michelle Duggar has never experienced any lactational ammenorrhea anyway. She's always gotten her cycle back at 6 weeks. She's also never successfully exclusively breastfed past 6 months and almost all of her babies have weaned by 10 months. She has systemic yeast issues which dramatically impair her milk supply and cause breastfeeding to be incredibly painful to her. She's actually been pretty forthcoming about those struggles. She does try, she usually does make it to 6 months before the issues really flare and she starts struggling and 10 months before her supply is completely gone and she's pregnant again. That is why she's had babies so close together, breastfeeding has NEVER afforded her a significant break in the first place.
And, really, as much as I would love to blame her strict controlled feedings, her detached parenting methods, her hectic life and her propensity to hand her children off to older sisters to raise, I've actually read her write about her committment to breastfeeding and her struggles to succeed. And, I have to take my hat off to her. Her issues around breastfeeding, and why it has never provided her any measure of reduced fertility, is quite real and quite admirable the measures she has gone to try and be successful and battle the problems.
FTR, you can take a woman's uterus without her consent....if its a matter of life or death. Every woman who enters the OR suite for a c-section signs that consent. If they have to remove it to stop hemmorraghic bleeding and save your life, they will--with or without your consent.
But, I was eternally grateful that my OB was the one who operated on me with my last baby. It was #8 and we had walked away from QF ideas but wound up with an IUD baby instead. My OB knew it. She knew I had not intentionally gotten pregnant after I developed pre-eclampsia and hemmoraghed in my last birth. She knew I was DONE with babies, but we all had to make the most of the situation when the IUD she put in didn't do its job.
Her sister and partner, the one who watched me attempt to labor all through the night while my kidneys and liver were shutting down, repeatedly commented that if she was the one who opened me up, she was going to struggle with the temptation to tie my tubes or remove my uterus. Well, I'm sorry, but its still MY body. And, trust me, when I had to lose one ovary and tube for a massive cyst a mere 10 months prior, I did and still feel those missing parts of my body. Even QF women have the absolute right to have their bodies respected. If you have to remove their reproductive organs to save their lives, then you save their lives. But, you do NOT, NOT, NOT remove their reproductive organs to stop them from using them. My OB took 1.5 hours saving my organs for me. I have no doubt her scalpel happy sister would have happily merely removed them instead.
But unfortunately yes, I firmly believe that Michelle Duggar will in fact be pregnant again before spring is over. And, I pray that her experiences will be less traumatic than mine were in that second pregnancy after the pre-eclampsia came.
|
|
|
Post by susan on Jan 29, 2010 23:40:52 GMT -5
Well, I just checked Michelle's age and she is only 2 years younger than me.
I suppose she may have enough fertile years left for another pregnancy -- but from the reading I've done, (out of curiosity for myself) it's extremely unlikely, at my age (45), for me to conceive and carry a baby all the way to term without medical assistance, and using my own eggs.
Most of the stars we keep hearing about having babies in their late 40's and 50's are using donor eggs.
Unless the Duggars suddenly decide that their theology allows for IVF, I somehow think that though there might be a 20, there won't be a 21 (unless 20 is a multiple birth).
|
|
|
Post by madame on Jan 30, 2010 6:31:23 GMT -5
It just occurred to me that among a lot of QF "wanting a big family" is not a factor at all. Certainly it wasn't a factor with ME. I wanted to do God's will. That, apparently, meant having all the children he gave me. If someone had asked me (and this happened now and then) "Did you always want a big family?" I would have to honestly say NO. I have even had one QF friend say to me I don't have children because I like children, I have them because that is what God gives me.
In contrast I have known a few families that deliberately had No. 5 or 6 or 7 because they LIKE children and really enjoyed having a big family. They spaced them according to family need and the reached a completion point and stopped having them. Arietty, This: I have even had one QF friend say to me I don't have children because I like children, I have them because that is what God gives me. is so sad. If you don't like children, don't have them. Spare yourself, and them, the pain. I struggle with mess, chaos, constant "mamaaaaaaa!", pooey diapers, accidents in pants.... I told my husband I don't want any more. I love the children I have and I will do the hard work of caring for little children for a few more years, but I don't want this forever. As the 2nd of a qf family, I know how it is to feel like your parents don't really like what they are doing. It's not fun. Maybe some of the older girls from qf families will have had enough of caring for little ones by the time their mother reaches menopause. I wonder how many of them will go on to have many children because they don't believe they have a choice, and how many will secretly hate their lives, all along singing the praises of QF, because they have to.
|
|
jeb
Junior Member
Posts: 97
|
Post by jeb on Jan 30, 2010 13:36:49 GMT -5
jo said: As for masturbation, by and large its incredibly unacceptable in QF/P circles, just as strict if not worse than the Catholic church since they have no option for confession and penance for sins that the Catholic church affords congregants. I read somewhere, a long time ago, that once a religion/church gets involved in our sex lives we are pretty much screwed . . . so to speak. Sex is so basic to we residents of planet earth that anything after that is just 'in addition to'. If we are willing or are brainwashed into allowing a religion to tell us where, how, why and with whom to have sex, we're pretty much trapped into anything else they want to dictate to us. Seems to me that's about the truth of it, eh? Y'all treat each other kindly now. John
|
|