18 Kids... not the Duggars...

JMay · August 2011

I'm only 6 minutes in to this ABC special, and I'm just shaking my head. Can't God spread it around a bit? And why on Earth am I sitting here listening to the doctor's opinion on this womans P4?

https://www.hulu.com/watch/271402/abc-primetime-nightline-my-extraordinary-family-bates-18-kids-

EDIT: WARNING - as I watch, there are a number of comments that have brought me to tears. Just want to give anyone who watches a heads up.

MaybeMore · August 2011

If they followed God's plan and breastfed for an appropriate amount of time, this would be virtually impossible. Also, if you're taking progesterone, you're not "letting God decide." But with the Quiverfull movement, your blessings are made physical in your children.

You also don't care how many children you can afford because refusing to get pregnant is refusing God's will. So there are Quiverfull families living with 8 children in a single wide trailer and $60 a week for groceries. (Hence not having health insurance.) After all, God will provide. Everything's tied up with reproduction. One of the founders of the Quiverfull movement had to have a hysterectomy to save her life, and she went into a spiral of depression because she thought she was betraying God! Now, that's sick, to think that God values you for your uterus.

I really, really, really don't have a problem with people having as many kids as they want. 8, 10, 12--as long as you can afford it, take care of the children you have, and aren't hypocritical, it's all good with me. When you say that you're following God's plan, well, God's plan includes breastfeeding for over a year, exclusively for the first 5-6 months. And if you breastfeed over a year, it's virtually biologically impossible to have a child every year. 18 months to 2.5 years is the natural--therefore, God-ordained--spacing. But Quiverfull families routinely breastfeed for limited amounts of time in order to artificially increase parity. Having children so close together is bad for the body. Even in Western nations, children born 12 months apart suffer from higher risks of all kinds of complications.

There is NO DIFFERENCE between that and having unneeded fertility treatments to raise the chance of twins and higher order multiples.

My problem with the Quiverfulls is the fundamental insincerity and the equating of human outcomes with God's design. In their society, breeding becomes competitive as children are the embodiment of God's blessing. If you have more blessings, then God loves you more. It causes women who suffer from PPD to continue to strive for more children and not seek treatment. It causes overwhelmed mothers to lean far too heavily on their daughters. It means that women with life-threatening complications will not avoid repeat pregnancies even if the risk of death is high because that's the same as rejecting God. And it creates a culture in which no one can say, "This is enough for me. This is what I can handle, emotionally, physically, and financially." See, that's rejecting God, too. Even if your husband is a construction worker making $25,000 a year, you're supposed to be able to support ten kids on his income with no debt, including for cars or houses. God will always provide, right? Sometimes, that means that families survive only on the continuing charity of their church. As a "plan," that's ridiculous.

Daughters, particularly, are often abused under the system, being forced to bear an enormous burden of child-rearing and housekeeping before they are even teenagers. For this reason, the number of second-generation female Quiverfull women is low, as many of the girls reject the drudgery of their childhoods. But these girls still often suffer from guilt and depression due to their decision not to follow the path they've been taught represents God's one plan for women.

tosh24 · August 2011

MaybeMore:

If they followed God's plan and breastfed for an appropriate amount of time, this would be virtually impossible. Also, if you're taking progesterone, you're not "letting God decide." But with the Quiverfull movement, your blessings are made physical in your children.

You also don't care how many children you can afford because refusing to get pregnant is refusing God's will. So there are Quiverfull families living with 8 children in a single wide trailer and $60 a week for groceries. (Hence not having health insurance.) After all, God will provide. Everything's tied up with reproduction. One of the founders of the Quiverfull movement had to have a hysterectomy to save her life, and she went into a spiral of depression because she thought she was betraying God! Now, that's sick, to think that God values you for your uterus.

I really, really, really don't have a problem with people having as many kids as they want. 8, 10, 12--as long as you can afford it, take care of the children you have, and aren't hypocritical, it's all good with me. When you say that you're following God's plan, well, God's plan includes breastfeeding for over a year, exclusively for the first 5-6 months. And if you breastfeed over a year, it's virtually biologically impossible to have a child every year. 18 months to 2.5 years is the natural--therefore, God-ordained--spacing. But Quiverfull families routinely breastfeed for limited amounts of time in order to artificially increase parity. Having children so close together is bad for the body. Even in Western nations, children born 12 months apart suffer from higher risks of all kinds of complications.

There is NO DIFFERENCE between that and having unneeded fertility treatments to raise the chance of twins and higher order multiples.

My problem with the Quiverfulls is the fundamental insincerity and the equating of human outcomes with God's design.

I have to disagree with the bolded part. I BF DD exclusively for the first 6 months and continued to BF until she was 14-15 months old. I got my period back at 5 weeks post-partum, and it continued to be regular every month while I was BF. Because I temp, I know that I was also ovulating. Totally would have been possible for me to get pregnant again right away while exclusively BF. Now, actually having sex that would have made it possible to get KU that quickly afterward??? Totally did not happen.....

MaybeMore · August 2011

If you look at the child spacing in countries where there are no baby formula options, you'll find that there are almost never children extremely close together if the mother is the one doing the breastfeeding. Even when women get their period back, many don't ovulate for a number of months, and even when women ovulate, it often still takes a while to get KU again. And if it happens once, it usually doesn't happen the next time and the time after that.

MaybeMore · August 2011

Off topic: I am in shock that they don't coupon and buy so much overpriced, preprepared crud. They're paying four times as much as they should be.

They are paying too much for their clothes, too, versus careful shopping elsewhere.

tosh24 · August 2011

MaybeMore:
If you look at the child spacing in countries where there are no baby formula options, you'll find that there are almost never children extremely close together if the mother is the one doing the breastfeeding. Even when women get their period back, many don't ovulate for a number of months, and even when women ovulate, it often still takes a while to get KU again. And if it happens once, it usually doesn't happen the next time and the time after that.

I didn't say that it was common or the more natural state, just that it's not "biologically impossible" as you stated. I know that most women's PP AF doesn't return quite as quickly as mine did, and that even if it does, it doesn't necessarily mean you're ovulating (I'm a biologist - I'm familiar with how the human body works).

My disagreement was with the exclusivity of the term "impossible" - because it's not. Because I had AF AND was ovulating within 5 weeks after giving birth while EBF, it would have been possible for me to get KU again. Not the norm, but not impossible.

JMay · August 2011

tosh24:

MaybeMore:
If you look at the child spacing in countries where there are no baby formula options, you'll find that there are almost never children extremely close together if the mother is the one doing the breastfeeding. Even when women get their period back, many don't ovulate for a number of months, and even when women ovulate, it often still takes a while to get KU again. And if it happens once, it usually doesn't happen the next time and the time after that.

I didn't say that it was common or the more natural state, just that it's not "biologically impossible" as you stated. I know that most women's PP AF doesn't return quite as quickly as mine did, and that even if it does, it doesn't necessarily mean you're ovulating (I'm a biologist - I'm familiar with how the human body works).

My disagreement was with the exclusivity of the term "impossible" - because it's not. Because I had AF AND was ovulating within 5 weeks after giving birth while EBF, it would have been possible for me to get KU again. Not the norm, but not impossible.

I have to agree with you Tosh. While BFing may delay the ability to get pregnant, it is not an assured birth control. (Anecdotally, I know many women who have gotten pregnant while BFing, believing the myth that you can't get pregnant during this time) In the countries where child spacing is being tied to breastfeeding, I seem to remember something about women's bodies being "untouchable" in many cultures and very much for the child during pregnancy and BFing, which would explain the low number of pregnancies. Of course, there are places that practice little to no family planning - regardless of breastfeeding, closely spaced siblings are common. (Look up "CDC Child Spacing Uganda" for example)

I will say I had a problem with much of what I saw in this show. And I frequently saw the mother with empty arms - how can that be? How can that be good? (Coming from a devout baby-wearer) And how is it fair that one of their children started his own business at 13 and frequently funds family needs like grocery shopping? And I could just hear the young girls thinking "oh God, I have to do this too?" It seems so selfish to me. On top of that, I felt a lot of condescension... God doesn't love me because I've only been blessed with one? I dont want to judge these people, but I don't understand the logic behind much of what they are doing. God did give us brains so that we may use them, right?

hoping4more · August 2011

They are friends of the duggars, I have seen them on a few of the duggar's shows...

Twizzle · August 2011

Hmm, my midwife told me after DS was born that BFing was as effective as any other birth control, but only if these conditions were met: 1) Baby less than 6 mo old, 2) Exclusive BF--no formula, no solids, and no pumping (or at least very little pumping, only a few times a week), 3) Round the clock on-demand nursing, even at night. It definitely worked for me, and in fact I didn't cycle again until DS was 18 months even though he was on solids, and my LP was only 6-8 days until weaning.

I saw one episode of the Duggars where all of the kids said they also wanted very big families. I do feel sorry for the kids sometimes though--they have had to be "parents" way too early. My cousin's family is sort of like this--they have 10 kids that are all about 2 years apart. They are the nicest, most well-behaved kids you have ever met. I don't think they subscribe to the Quiverfull though.

MaybeMore · August 2011

Okay, let me say then that 18 so close together with BFing is VIRTUALLY biologically impossible.

BFing is NOT 100% birth control. However, you must be ovulating AND your prolactin levels have to be low enough AND your endometrial lining good enough to conceive. A close spacing of 18 months means that there are only 9 months of "infertility." (In many cultures, bleeding women are "unclean," but that doesn't come into play after 4 weeks postpartum, at the outside, barring complications.) The first 2-4 periods while still breastfeeding are usually still infertile. Countries that have very close spacing still usually have a lot of infant mortality--if your baby's dead, you're not feeding it--and push the baby off onto other foods and liquids very young--which also causes the high mortality rates.

Her oldest child is 22. She is 45 and has had a number of miscarriages--at least 4, from the descriptions. This means in 23 years, she has conceived 22 times. That really is sitting on the edge of biological impossibility if she is breastfeeding.

Of course, the QF movement also believes in sleep training from a VERY young age, therefore severely limiting breastmilk consumption at night, which is most closely correlated with stopping menses. So even if she breastfeeds to 6 months--the age many QF mothers stop--if she's letting a 6-w-o "cry it out" and isn't giving the baby the milk it needs at night (one feeding at most), she'll be fertile again a lot faster than women who are following nature and are feeding their children around the clock.

karencz · August 2011

Interesting. I've seen them on the Duggars' show. At least they are able to provide for their family (for the most part--borrowing from the son is kinda weird). I don't like how the woman's worth is judged through her ability to have kids. Could be sad and lead to problems like PP have said.

My fave part--when the reporter is picking out a cover-up. How terribly awkward for that boy!!! LOL

18 Kids... not the Duggars...

Re: 18 Kids... not the Duggars...

Choose Another Board

Search Boards