Arkansas Mom Prepares for Birth of 17th Child

[AnnaTherese]

I’m sorry but the bolded statement sounds ridiculous, in my humble opinion. Having babies close together makes them unhealthy?? Can you back that up with scientific fact?

I think I already did, when I referred to the work of Weston A Price, but I’ve also read about it elsewhere. A woman is not able to fully restore her own vitamin A stores until approximately 2 years and 3 months after a baby is born. Iron doesn’t go back to normal until much later than that. (And how many women do you know who take iron supplements when pregnant----very many). Those are just two examples, which serve as a reflection of a deeper reality: her body is just not ready. I think it’s a little sad when I see a pregnant mom with a very young toddler who is screaming to be picked up and the mother just shakes her head no because she isn’t supposed to pick up heavy things when she’s pregnant. She can’t meet her toddler’s justifiable needs (kids that young need to be picked up) because she got pregnant too soon. God’s perfect will? Maybe, or maybe just permissive will. A surprise pregnancy? Possible, but maybe not. A blessing? Very definitely. But also a sacrifice. Also a cross. And I think children that small are too young to have to make such a sacrifice. Can it be done? Of course, but not without a significant amount of pain on their part. If it happened to me, what would I do? Thank God for the blessing and do the best I could to prevent my first child from having to make too many sacrifices, like every respectable Catholic mother does. But that doesn’t mean that God, in his perfect will, willed it to happen or that there was no oops! on my part.

I think it’s entirely possible that God, in his perfect will, intended for me to be a Carmelite nun, but I chose, through my free will, to get married. Through His permissive will, He allowed me to do that and has since blessed me with a child. He permits pretty much everything, whether it’s a sin or just a prudential decision. Because He created our free will, He respects that free will and will not trespass over it except maybe for some very special intentions of His own. So that’s where I’m coming from. We all make prudential decisions everyday and God allows us to do that. We might make the wrong decisions, but God will work with our decisions to bring about good if we allow Him to. Blah, blah, blah…that’s enough.

 

[CatholicSam]

I happen to think it’s rather imprudent, but that most people do so because they don’t realize what a serious effect it has on the newborn’s health and on the mother’s health (you can’t give what you don’t have, and the mother doesn’t have the nutrients she needs to pass on to that baby so early on) and the attachment needs of the previous child, which will not be met as they should be if another child comes along too soon.

What about multiple births? I’m talking twins and triplets. So one of the twins will suffer because the mother can only satisfy the attachment needs of one? And if that’s not true, then neither is it true of children born closer together than 3-4 years as you prefer.

My 2 children are 25 months apart and extremely healthy. My youngest has never been sick in her 6+ months of life. I suffered a little set-back after donating blood 4 months post-partum (stupid move, but I believed the Red Cross when they told me it was fine to do–never again though). But other than that I’ve been fine as long as I eat enough and the right kinds of food.

I appreciate your concern for women’s and babies’ health, but I think many of your worries about this are largely unfounded. With a healthy lifestyle and diet, babies spaced less than 3-4 years apart do not equal health tragedies waiting to happen. And also, just because some author found that in some more “primitive” cultures and ways of life the average spacing was 3-4 years, does not mean that 3-4 years is the optimal. As far as social interaction, 3-4 years is not nearly as beneficial as siblings spaced 1-2 years apart. And if you can have a 1-2 year spacing in a healthy way (and yes, you CAN do this!), why not? If you have to take prenatal vitamins with iron, so be it. Ok, so the vitamin A stores take 2 years to naturally build up again. As long as someone is getting the Vitamin A they need each day (by eating a balanced, healthy diet), having a nice big surplus store of it in the body isn’t really that important to one’s health. The stores come into play when you do not get the required amount in your diet. Then your body can use the Vitamin A in the stores. By not having a “normal” amount of Vitamin A stored up you are not dooming your baby to a dangerous and deadly childhood. If anything, the baby will have all the Vitamin A he needs and the mother will be the one lacking.

I was pregnant while my first child was about 16 months to 2 years old. I nursed, I carried, I wrestled him at Mass over my big pregnant belly And he’s a big boy. I think it’s nonsense that women don’t pick up their very little toddlers just because they’re pregnant. If they have some other condition that prevents them from being able to safely pick up a 20-30 pound toddler, then that’s a different story. But picking up a 1-2 year old is not a contraindication to a normal pregnancy. And by age 2 they usually cry and fuss to be put down, not picked up

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

Whatever I write is what I really mean.
When you say they (large families with children close together):
*baby after baby without a care in the world
*constantly pop out baby after baby and act as if it’s nothing
*a baby every year or so. In the history of the world, it is not natural to do that. Large families, yes, but not without good spacing.
*for married couples to have a child every year. I happen to think it’s rather imprudent, but that most people do so because they don’t realize what a serious effect it has on the newborn’s health and on the mother’s health
*don’t give it a second thought
*it’s a mistake (not a sin, mind you, but a mistake) to have access to NFP and not practice it regularly
*we are all obligated to consider the consequences of adding a new member to the family and praying over it to see if it really is the will of God.

Well thank goodness you don’t think we’re sinners. As a side note, health was the most common sacrificial act of faith of women throughout history.

So to continue…
this problem that I have been talking about seems to be a phenomenon among good Catholics with good intentions

**It’s NOT a problem for anyone other than you. **

Those are just two examples, which serve as a reflection of a deeper reality: her body is just not ready.
In a healthy woman, stores are not depleted in such a drastic manner or for that long. If they are indeed like that - it has nothing to do with having children. She isn’t healthy for other reasons and waiting to get pregnant won’t change it. Most teens are notriously malnurished for example because they eat junk. Pregnancy might make it worse, but no amount of postponing is going to change the fact she needs to eat better.

when I see a pregnant mom with a very young toddler who is screaming to be picked up and the mother just shakes her head no because she isn’t supposed to pick up heavy things when she’s pregnant. She can’t meet her toddler’s justifiable needs (kids that young need to be picked up) because she got pregnant too soon.
Most healthy pregnant women can pick up their toddlers. For goodness sakes, I pick up my preschoolers while pregnant. More likely the mom is shaking her head no because the little tyrant is screaming at her and she doesn’t want to reward him for it. Or she’s at the store and needs her hands free. Or maybe she’s been holding him all day long and her arm feels like it’s going to break off? He does not need to be picked up everytime he wants to throw a screaming fit for it.

I think children that small are too young to have to make such a sacrifice. Can it be done? Of course, but not without a significant amount of pain on their part.
**Utter nonsense. Yes, of course the “poor” kid is certainly on the road to perdition because mommy didn’t break her back meeting his every demand. **

Mod: edit

I just want to note for the sake of others who may be reading…

**I am NOT anti-NFP. I simply take strong exception to the notion of some that Catholics are somehow required to use it at any time or that it should be a de facto part of marriage. This is not the case and those who leve their family size to God are usually not zealots or extremists. Most are just like you - couples who love their kids and are raising the family God has sent them as best they can according to His will. **

 

[Zelie_Louis]

Let’s all please remember our charity in this discussion or the thread will be closed.

 

[AnnaTherese]

Thank you Zelie.

 

[AnnaTherese]

I admire large families. I had 3 in 3 years and that was all I could have but I often think of all that I was not able to have. I look at the joy I have with 3 children (2 Air Force sons and a daughter) and my three grandsons (12, 10 and 3) and just imagine how that would be increased with more children. The Lord’s peace to all families.

I admire them too. Cheers!

 

[aimee]

I’ve seen the 'Duggars reality shows about their family and they seem like really nice people.

 

[mesquite_magic]

I just wanted to address the health issues… Iron in particular. Understand, I’m talking about myself here. I’m always on the low iron side. First baby low iron. Second baby, concieved six months after the first, low iron. Third baby, concieved five years later, low iron. Forth baby, concieved eleven years after the third, low iron. I just have low iron issues With the fourth baby my midwife put me on two extra iron tablets on top of the prenatal vitamins. That’s just the way my body is. Doesn’t matter how many leafy greens or iron frying pans I use.

My point is, for me, spacing really doesn’t matter.

My sister, on the other hand, is a gestational diabetic. Every time she gets pregnant, she gets this type of diabetes. She also had a C-section with her second baby. Spacing probably would have been important for her. The doctors really worried about the stress of pregnancy on her body. She ended up having five babies in less than five years. Her first was extremly premature and died a week after birth. The rest of her kids were very healthy. I guess God knew better than the doctors in her case.

I understand your concerns Ana Therese. They are sound. You just might want to put links in backing up your ideas. People, like me, are too lazy to research a name of a study. I need links

Kim

 

[AnnaTherese]

I understand your concerns Ana Therese. They are sound. You just might want to put links in backing up your ideas. People, like me, are too lazy to research a name of a study. I need links

Kim

Thanks for responding in such a gracious way. I have read most of this stuff in books, not on the web. I don’t read very much on the web because it’s hard on my eyes. Nutrition and Physical Degeneration is a wonderful book. You see all kinds of photographs of people from both industrialized cultures and non-industrialized. You see how the form of the face, the actual bone structure of the face and the teeth are radically different from one another, one obviously healthy and the other obviously compromised. There are links and I will try to dig some up for you. Thanks for talking and not just reacting.

 

[AnnaTherese]

Here’s a quote from an article on the Weston A Price website called “Wise Choices, Healthy Bodies”. It can be found in full length at westonaprice.org/women/wise_choices.html

“The fat-soluble vitamins play a critical role in fertility. Vitamin A is essential to the proper development of the follicle of the ovary, the structure that develops monthly to extrude an egg from the ovary and produce hormones that foster its successful implantation in the uterus.45 Low levels of vitamin D are also associated with infertility.46”

Here’s another quote, not from a site that I know very well, but which makes my point. childsurvival.com/documents/CSTS/SpacingBirthsSavingLives.pdf

“Malnutrition is an underlying factor in
more than half of all under-five deaths.
Rutstein found that the risk of chronic or
long-term malnutrition (also known as
stunting) decreases with longer birth
intervals. There are many possible
explanations for this association. First,
short birth intervals are associated with low
birth weight, which places the child at risk
for poor health and nutrition outcomes.
Second, when children are born closely
together, older children usually end up
getting weaned from breastmilk too early,
which has negative consequences for their
nutrition and health. In general terms,
more young children in the household
means more mouths to feed. Through
birth spacing, families can reduce the
number of young children in the
household, resulting in less competition for
food and other resources, and more care
and attention from the mother and other
caregivers.
Rutstein also observed a direct
association between birth intervals and
the risk of under-five mortality (see
Figure 1). Children who are born less than
24 months after the previous birth are
almost two-and-a-half times more likely to
die by the age of five than children who
are born 36–47 months after the previous
birth. It is important to note that a
minimum birth interval of 24 months is
not enough. According to Rutstein’s
Spacing Births, Saving Lives
analysis, children born 24–35 months after
the previous birth are still 41 percent more
likely to die than children born 36–47 months
after the previous birth. Therefore,
extending the minimum recommended
birth interval from two years to three
years really makes a difference in terms
of child survival.
The findings are also convincing for
survival during the first year of life. Birth
intervals of 36–47 months are associated
with the lowest risks of neonatal and infant
mortality. Thus, in terms of maximizing
neonatal and infant survival, it appears that
a birth interval of 36–47 months is not too
long, and it’s not too short. It’s just right.”

And another: from westonaprice.org/women/fertility.html

Spacing Children

One of the most interesting traditional practices reported by Dr. Weston Price was the deliberate spacing of children in primitive societies. Throughout Africa and the South Seas, it was considered shameful to have a child more than once every three years. Modern science validates this practice. We now know that the ideal interval for preventing physical birth defects is three years; this is also the optimal spacing for the emotional health of children. And allowing at least three years between pregnancies permits the mother to recover her nutritional stores between children and to provide sufficient attention to each child–and to her marriage!Fertility Awareness can help create a healthy well-spaced family. It encourages communication and cooperation between husband and wife, and illuminates the fact that the family’s health depends on the cyclic nature that characterizes human reproduction."

And the last for tonight from pronutrition.org/files/EHSAbrief.PDF

“Extending birth spacing and giving women longer non-pregnant,
non-lactating intervals provides them the time they
need to replenish their energy and micronutrient stores. As
well as improving maternal nutrition, longer birth intervals
improve child survival and health. An inter-pregnancy interval
of 39 months allows for six months of exclusive
breastfeeding, followed by at least 18 months of
breastfeeding and complementary feeding, and at least six
months of neither pregnancy nor lactation. The length of
birth intervals in many African countries is often much
shorter (Figure 3) with more than half of birth intervals less
than 36 months. Surveys show that many women in Africa
would prefer to have longer birth intervals.”

Granted that some of these organizations promote contraception, but most of them also promote NFP and LAM as preferable options.

 

[sanctareparata]

AnnaTherese ~

Thank you for posting that information.

Okay, now here are “my” discoveries:

First of all, the places studied in the excerpts you quoted are not developed nations. So obviously, the impact over there of having one child after another would be far more serious than in a developed nation - namely, the USA. In an underdeveloped nation of course the risk to the mother and child would be increased because she doesn’t have access to the resources to restore and sustain her own health.

I’ve looked up some more information from the Catalyst Consortium regarding child spacing and the impact on both child/mother health and mortality.

Maternal Mortality Ratio in the countries they have studies are as follows:
India 440
Yemen 850
Pakistan 200
Nepal 830
Egypt 170
Bolivia 550
Peru 240

In the United States the MMR is 17.

That is a shocking difference, which tells me several obvious things: We have access to better foods and therefore have better nutrition and we have access to better medical care and prevention.

As far as replenishing vitamin A stores, people in developed countries usually have wonderful access to eggs, meat and dairy products. Whether or not we wish to consume these is our prerogative, of course, but they are accessible. However, the people in third world nations and a large of population of South Americans live in poverty. They suffer from parasites, malnutrition, iron-deficiency anemia, iodine deficiency and vitamin A deficiency on a regular and constant basis.

You state that "Malnutrition is an underlying factor in more than half of all under-five deaths. Rutstein found that the risk of chronic or long-term malnutrition (also known as stunting) decreases with longer birth intervals.”

That is not surprising. But this isn’t a concern for healthy people in developed countries (US, Canada, etc). We don’t suffer from long-term malnutrition or are even occasionally malnourished, unless one is deliberately denying their body healthy foods.

“First, short birth intervals are associated with low birth weight, which places the child at risk for poor health and nutrition outcomes.”

Yes, in a developing country, I am sure this is the case.

“Second, when children are born closely together, older children usually end up getting weaned from breastmilk too early, which has negative consequences for their nutrition and health.”

I agree. Having to wean my 8 month old because I was pregnant again and the milk was gone broke my heart. But just a few months later he was back on breast milk again - I’m pumping for him. So he’s still getting in, just in a different way.

“Through birth spacing, families can reduce the number of young children in the household, resulting in less competition for food and other resources…”

Doesn’t this in a way confirm that this study was done in and intended for poorer countries? Competition for food in an American home among the children? Perhaps in a very, very poor American family, but it’s certainly not the norm.

As for the spacing of 3-5 years between children, I’d have to say that would be something I would not like, personally. I can’t imagine children that far apart - would they really ever play together and KNOW each other? I mean, you’d potentially have a 15 year old with his own age-appropriate interests, a 10 year old, and a 5 year old. I love that fact that my kids are so close (and all but the first were not planned, but came as surprise gifts). They play together, interact constantly and seem at this age to be the best of friends. Are they lacking in motherly affection/attention? I don’t think so. I take time every day to cuddle them when they wish to be cuddled and it’s not at all difficult nursing the baby while holding another child (or both) in my lap.

I’m one momma, by the way, who can’t carry around the toddlers after having a new baby. It strains me far too much. So my remedy? Take them by the hand to the recliner where they can crawl up and be snuggled as much as they wish. They’re still being held, and loved, and doted on without being carried around. And that only lasts about 3 weeks till I can carry them again.

I would have to say that the information you presented is interesting, and should compel women to make sure they ARE eating right and getting the proper nutrients to not only grow healthy babies, but to produce healthy milk and keep their bodies strong and ready for another child when the Lord sees fit.

 

[CatholicSam]

I haven’t had a non-pregnant, non-lactating time in over three years. And I haven’t had a period either. The way I feel pregnant and/or lactating is many times better than how I feel when I have my period. Before I ever got pregnant I was turned away by the Red Cross because my iron was too low. Every time since I’ve become a mother that I went to donate blood my iron was high enough.

Maybe I’m just a rare exception, but having babies and lactating seems to have actually boosted my iron, while being non-pregnant and menstruating has a much more severe impact on my iron supply. And also in my second pregnancy (during which I breastfed the whole 9+ months)I didn’t need *any *iron supplements at all. First baby born at 42 weeks was 8.5 pounds. Second baby born at 41 weeks was 7.75 pounds. Both babies were very fast growers, and my second baby has just now dipped low enough to register on the growth chart on the 95th percentile (before hand she was a lone dot floating way above any of the curves). So having a “piddlly” spacing of 25 months doesn’t seem to have adversely affected anyone in our family.

If Vitamin A and D deficiency cause infertility problems, it makes sense that a woman probably *won’t *conceive until her Vitamin A and D levels are at a certain point again. The body is brilliantly designed.

Another thing to consider about primitave cultures considering spacing less than 3 years to be “shameful” is that those people don’t have access to the same kinds of healthcare and baby care products that we have. They don’t have great access to formula, baby vitamins, or antibiotics. So babies are dependent on mother’s breastmilk to get these things. If the mom gets pregnant and her milk dries up, that’s really disastrous for the baby who’s depending on that milk for much of his nutrition, vitamins, and antibodies! Also, early pregnancy may be a reflection of “poor mothering” in those cultures. We know that the success of LAM is dependent on frequent nursing and no “mother substitutes.” Having an early return of fertility could (whether or not it is true for that particular family) be attributed to a mother not being as involved with her infant as the acceptable societal norm.

 

[sanctareparata]

If the mom gets pregnant and her milk dries up, that’s really disastrous for the baby who’s depending on that milk for much of his nutrition, vitamins, and antibodies! Also, early pregnancy may be a reflection of “poor mothering” in those cultures. We know that the success of LAM is dependent on frequent nursing and no “mother substitutes.” Having an early return of fertility could (whether or not it is true for that particular family) be attributed to a mother not being as involved with her infant as the acceptable societal norm.

Very good points!

 

[dranzal]

My kids never have to compete for food. They do, however, resort to begging type tactics and competition for treats.

My boys are 20 months apart and they are 2 peas in a pod. This is good and bad. Two boys that close inspire each others naughtiness. They are each others catalysts.

I had an older sister who was 2 yrs older and a younger sister 5 years younger. The younger one always felt like part of the second batch rather than one of us older two.

In America I think the literal sacrifice made by having children 2 years apart is negligible. However, 12-16 months is pushing it. That is just my opinion. I do think kids do better when they get to be the “baby” for at least 18 months or so. My second is only 18 months younger than my first and he craves attention to this day. On the other hand, once you’re beyond 3 years there is a discernable gap.

There is now a gap of 6 years between my third and my youngest (God’s design). We didn’t intend it as there was a child in that gap who has preceded us to heaven. So now if we have any more there will be two groups–the older kids and the younger kids.

I don’t know the Duggars. I don’t know why they wean at 6 months (or even if they do). Our plan is to breast feed each baby until they wean themselves. With some of ours my cycle returned by 6-8 months. With others, it returned around 15-16 months. If a mom breastfeeds on demand and doesn’t introduce food too early, she may experience natural infertility for some time and won’t just “pop them out” every 12 months.

 

[lizzielou]

**I am NOT anti-NFP. I simply take strong exception to the notion of some that Catholics are somehow required to use it at any time or that it should be a de facto part of marriage. This is not the case and those who leve their family size to God are usually not zealots or extremists. Most are just like you - couples who love their kids and are raising the family God has sent them as best they can according to His will. **

This debate is really starting to irritate me, because I think Anna Therese does have somewhat of a point but I can also understand why others are getting ruffled by what she’s saying. Obviously children are ALWAYS a beautiful blessing from God, but even the Church advocates responsible parenthood. And, just to be clear, I am in no way at all saying that the Duggars or anyone here or anyone anywhere are being irresponsible parents because they are having “too many” children…there is no way on earth that I would ever make that judgement. However, I’m sure somewhere, it’s happened. And yes, some women do end up with significant health problems associated with closely spaced children – others do not.

Anyway, I just want to point out that what she is advocating is using NFP for health purposes (ie, to track cycles and note changes, predict potential health problems, etc.)…she is NOT saying that everyone “must” use NFP to avoid or even space pregnancy; just that everyone “should” use it (ie, simply keep the charts, regardless of whether or not you avoid sex) because it is a wonderful gift of science. She explained that very very clearly in one of her earlier posts. I totally agree with this. The science behind NFP is amazing, and so many women experience wide ranges of reproductive-type problems throughout their lives, that can be better predicted and diagnosed through thorough NFP-style tracking.

 

[CatholicSam]

This debate is really starting to irritate me, because I think Anna Therese does have somewhat of a point.

Yes, if you’re living in a 3rd world country.

I agree that charting even if you’re not actively trying to avoid or achieve pregnancy is a great idea! Knowing what’s going on with your body is wonderful

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

Obviously children are ALWAYS a beautiful blessing from God, but even the Church advocates responsible parenthood.

**sigh I’ve been waiting for that. Another “but clause” **

And, just to be clear, I am in no way at all saying that the Duggars or anyone here or anyone anywhere are being irresponsible parents because they are having “too many” children…there is no way on earth that I would ever make that judgement. However, I’m sure somewhere, it’s happened.
I agree, somewhere someone isn’t being the best parent they could be. Where I disagree is that it has anything to do with how many children they have. If they have any love for their children at all, having more children forces a parent to be better than they might otherwise have the luxery of being.

And yes, some women do end up with significant health problems associated with closely spaced children – others do not.
**Actually, that’s doubtful. Now of course women do sometimes get health problems related to complications in pregnancy/delivery, but most of the time it’s not because of how many or how close. It would have been just as likely to have happened if it had been the first pregnancy. **

everyone “should” use it (ie, simply keep the charts, regardless of whether or not you avoid sex) because it is a wonderful gift of science.
**I don’t really agree, personally, but I have no issues with others doing so. Personally, I’m not interested in doing and think it seems a bit much to be that preoccupied with every temp and mucus change for no reason other than there might one day be a problem? **
If there were health reasons to do it already, then I guess I would “get it” better, but I see no reason for a healthy person to be that preoccupied with it on a daily basis.

hmm, I guess I don’t get it. I know things are in working order. Kind of like blood pressure, even if you know you have some issues with it - you don’t keep a chart on hand for daily analysis. You might chart if you think somethng feels “off”, but if it’s otherwise most people wouldn’t keep a daily chart.

---

**By all means, keep charting away if anyone wants to… I see nothing wrong with it, just don’t really get the purpose of it… **

 

[kamz]

The thing is, I am a foster parent and in my training I have had to hear true stories and believe me weather it is one child or twenty some parents are not great parents and it has nothing to do with how many kids a person has, some people are not good people and thus children are sometimes taken out of those homes and put into foster homes so those parents can get the skills they need to deal with these kids and learn to be good parents.

I know this is off topic but how many kids you have has nothing to do with how good a parent you are.

God gives us no more than what we can handle, some of us can handle more than others, God made us all these amazing (individual) people.

Martha has been given the grace to handle 8 children and probably (I hope so) more and that is 8 Catholic citizens in this world (Awesome)

I have been given the grace to handle 4 kids, God knows what is right for me and has given me what he knows I can handle.

God has given the Duggars 17 because he knows what they can handle, they are trusting in God that this will work for them and they don’t rely on govt assistance-nothing, I say more power to them, if their older kids don’t like it, believe me when they are 18 nobody is going to stop them from leaving and living their own lives, these kids are happy and they are not faking it, they are happy, well rounded good people, again, I wish like crazy they would become Catholic and I pray for their conversion, I think they would make awesome witnesses to the Catholic faith, I really do.

My grandma had 11 kids as did my mother in law they both started at 19 and ended at 41 and my mother in law is a feisty, smart, 81 yr old woman who would do it again in a heart beat and my grandma was the same (God bless her soul) they didn’t have any health issues having kids so close together and from my grandma that was in the 40, 50, and early 60’s and she never ever once had health issues with any of her pregnancies except when she had twins that they were unaware of until she had them and then she was fine but one of my twin aunts almost didn’t make it but she is a healthy happy 50 yr old today

I think women actually took better care of themselves, ate fresh garden produce, etc.

Maybe its not for everyone but it is not my business to say who it is for, I applaud the Duggars and I think I can learn a lot from them and their amazing organization skills, I love their documentary on tlc.

sorry for getting off track, just my two cents!

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

**My apologies for letting my hot head get the worst of me. I’ve asked the moderator to remove the portion of my post that I am personally ashamed to have my name attached to. **

---

I would like others to take a moment to understand what riled me so, no excuses for the shameful part though.

---

If you look at the list of things I quoted as being said …

---

Would you say something similiar about a couple who had discerned not to have more children?

---

For example, would you replace:
"popping out a baby a year without a thought"
with
"too selfish to give having children a thought"?

Would you tell them they are unnatural and unhealthy to not have more children?
Would you say they are imprudent and ignorant of the serious mistake they, according to you, are making?

---

Most people would agree that’s rather derogatory not not very thoughtful.

---

It’s bad enough parent’s hear so much blarney about not having children. The last thing they need is fellow catholic’s joinign the bandwagon.

 

[OldAgeGuru]

**My apologies for letting my hot head get the worst of me. I’ve asked the moderator to remove the portion of my post that I am personally ashamed to have my name attached to.
I would like others to take a moment to understand what riled me so, no excuses for the shameful part though.If you look at the list of things I quoted as being said …Would you say something similiar about a couple who had discerned not to have more children? For example, would you replace:“popping out a baby a year without a thought”“too selfish to give having children a thought”?

Would you tell them they are unnatural and unhealthy to not have more children?Would you say they are imprudent and ignorant of the serious mistake they, according to you, are making? Most people would agree that’s rather derogatory not not very thoughtful. it’s bad enough parent’s hear so much blarney about not having children. The last thing they need is fellow catholic’s joinign the bandwagon.**

Rob’s Wife. I’ve sat out of the conversation because I didn’t want to keep fanning the flames. But, I have to say, that neither AnnaTherese, nor I said anything about how people should not have big families. I stated in one of my first posts, that I think big families are great. I think that if you decide to have one, more power to you, however, I think that you when discerning whether or not to have more children have to say to yourself, how many of these kids am I actively parenting? Now, you might be taking care of each of your kids, sometimes as a group, sometimes as an individual. The Duggars, from what appears on tv (which again, is what I am going by) seem to cease actively parenting each child at 6 months, at which point the bulk of child rearing gets passed on to the older buddy. That to me is not ok. If only because a 13 year old, heck, even an 18 year old doesn’t always have the best judgement. My parents did put some responsibility on my older sibling for my care. Babysitting, changing a diaper etc. But they were not responsible for my education, which on TLC they discuss how the older kids are teaching the younger kids.

They may “love” all of their children, and I have no doubt that they do, but to me, it seems as they are passing off their responsibilities onto children and that’s not ok with me.

And yes, when they are 18 they might fly the coop never to return, but here’s something I’ve learned. Kids who are raised in very tight, repressive enviornments, don’t always make good decisions in their first years of being independent adults. They suddenly see how much is out there, and what they can do now that they don’t have to answer to anyone, and make really bad decisions. This doesn’t happen to everyone, but to enough of them.