Jump to content
IGNORED

Upcoming Babies Five


SpoonfulOSugar

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, VelociRapture said:

@SpoonfulOSugar- Another addition for the list.

John and Alyssa Webster. Expecting Baby Girl #2 in January 2017. Pretty sure they said January 27th.

Where did you see this?  I just googled and nothing came up for me :(

so Alley will be...2? That's a pretty average age gap. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 478
  • Created
  • Last Reply
19 minutes ago, Milly-Molly-Mandy said:

Where did you see this?  I just googled and nothing came up for me :(

so Alley will be...2? That's a pretty average age gap. 

it's on UP and their blog

http://uptv.com/shows/bringing-up-bates/news/alyssa-bates-webster-and-husband-john-are-expecting/

http://thewebsterfamblog.blogspot.com/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

actually, now that I'm looking at it, I think that's a fan blog not a real one

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Milly-Molly-Mandy said:

Where did you see this?  I just googled and nothing came up for me

so Alley will be...2? That's a pretty average age gap. 

Announced via UP Tv's website and social media.

Age gap will be 21 months - same as my older sister and I. Not bad for Fundies, but still nothing to be excited over since it's likely just another kid that will be brainwashed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/15/2016 at 6:54 AM, VelociRapture said:

Announced via UP Tv's website and social media.

Age gap will be 21 months - same as my older sister and I. Not bad for Fundies, but still nothing to be excited over since it's likely just another kid that will be brainwashed.

Since Alyssa is so young, a 21-month age gap between babies could still result in her ending up with 15 kids (assuming she remains fertile for as long as her Mom did.) And if she stayed fertile for just a few months longer than her Mom, she could end up with 16 kids. That's quite depressing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On September 5, 2016 at 7:43 PM, teachergirl said:

 

It looks like Meredith Hammer is expecting number 4 as we suspected, a commenter on her FB page stated that she couldn't want to meet the "next baby girl". Color me surprised they are having 4, although the more babies the less she will be there to bug Stephen as he pursues his career. I am super cynical about those two I know.

Given Stephen's seemingly political aspirations, I can see the Hammers having four or five. IMO, enough to be considered sufficiently large, but not so many it veers into Duggar territory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, QuiverFullOfTacos said:

Given Stephen's seemingly political aspirations, I can see the Hammers having four or five. IMO, enough to be considered sufficiently large, but not so many it veers into Duggar territory.

Tbh, I was stunned because 3 kids seems about right for lots of politicians, plus I thought Stephen would be too busy for another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meredith is the one who is raising the children. Stephen only has to provide the sperm and appear in the odd photograph once the child is actually born. For the most part he can be busy doing far more important things. Like looking after himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On September 14, 2016 at 6:50 PM, VelociRapture said:

@SpoonfulOSugar- Another addition for the list.

John and Alyssa Webster. Expecting Baby Girl #2 in January 2017. Pretty sure they said January 27th.

Well they definitely announced this quietly. I missed it until now and the DM didn't even cover it.

I bet Alyssa is enjoying life without a public instagram. Certainly allowed them to delay the announcement with minimal suspicion (instead of "oh my gosh, she hasn't posted a full length picture in a month, so she must be pregnant!").

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, uber frau said:

Meredith is the one who is raising the children. Stephen only has to provide the sperm and appear in the odd photograph once the child is actually born. For the most part he can be busy doing far more important things. Like looking after himself.

There is something so smarmy about that man, I swear. Meredith seems lovestruck, but it seems like she's just arm candy for an important Harvard man. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and why wouldn't she be? For families that scoff at education and especially higher education, they sure swooned over Stephen and his credentials.....Look at her other potential mate choices...Stephen is like hitting the lottery. I am in the "Meredith and my children are props" category  on my way to political dominionism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andy and Emily Bradrick ( eldest of the Bradrick children) had their 11th on Aug. 15th, Benjamin David. Their tenth was born with Down's Syndrome so I thought perhaps they may stop but silly me, why would a child with special needs who will require much on an already too large family stop having more children?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, teachergirl said:

Andy and Emily Bradrick ( eldest of the Bradrick children) had their 11th on Aug. 15th, Benjamin David. Their tenth was born with Down's Syndrome so I thought perhaps they may stop but silly me, why would a child with special needs who will require much on an already too large family stop having more children?

So wrong.  A normal family probably would stop after have a child with Down Syndrome but Fundie families no way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, teachergirl said:

Andy and Emily Bradrick ( eldest of the Bradrick children) had their 11th on Aug. 15th, Benjamin David. Their tenth was born with Down's Syndrome so I thought perhaps they may stop but silly me, why would a child with special needs who will require much on an already too large family stop having more children?

Benjamin actually makes 12, according to Samuel's birth announcement:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no, that was their sister Betsy's husband Andrew Barth I believe?? 

Thanks for the correction, I can't imagine 12 children, just can't.  Their son with DS has already had to have surgeries, I wonder if Scamaritan pays for those????

 

It is so interesting how some of the Bradrick children have seemed to have left QF and stopped having children at a yearly pace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/23/2016 at 7:46 PM, Jana814 said:

So wrong.  A normal family probably would stop after have a child with Down Syndrome but Fundie families no way. 

What exactly is wrong? Do you think it's wrong for a family to have a child after having one with Down Syndrome? Why? What exactly is your definition of a "normal" family? Why would you state that a "normal" family would stop having children if they had one with Down Syndrome? I hope I'm misunderstanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Mudgie said:

What exactly is wrong? Do you think it's wrong for a family to have a child after having one with Down Syndrome? Why? What exactly is your definition of a "normal" family? Why would you state that a "normal" family would stop having children if they had one with Down Syndrome? I hope I'm misunderstanding.

My meaning is this. A Fundie family may not consider how more children could effect a child with a disability like Downs Syndrome.  A family who was not Fundie may consider how any future children may effect a disabled child. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jana814 said:

My meaning is this. A Fundie family may not consider how more children could effect a child with a disability like Downs Syndrome.  A family who was not Fundie may consider how any future children may effect a disabled child. 

That sounds like (younger) siblings would have a negative impact on children with down syndrome which is absolutely wrong in my opinion. I agree that in fundie families that are breeding like rabbits and are actually more child collectors than loving parents any additional kid that is added to the family decreases the DS-kids chances to get the support he or she needs, but I can not see how this applies to every other family with a disabled child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know of a family where both parents are atheists and whose son with Down's Syndrome is very much cared for and his mother fights for him to get the very best care. And they went on to have another daughter after him, and their family is all the better for it.

I know it's different in Fundie families where the children are often not appreciated and cared for as they should be, but when talking about disabilities it's important not to generalise or dictate what people should do, it contributes to "otherize" people with disabilities and their families. Except in cases where children are viewed as arrows for a quiver instead of human beings, it is not for us to judge or decide whether the risk is too great, or whether they can handle it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AliC said:

@SpoonfulOSugar Mark and Ali Corral had their sixth daughter yesterday, named Mary Elisabeth.  

Kind of a surprising name choice since the other girls' names seem more "trendy", especially Denver and Dakota. 

They have a Rebekah and a Joanna too (I can't remember the name of the other).  So quite a mix of styles - trendy and traditional/biblical.

On 24 September 2016 at 2:24 AM, teachergirl said:

Andy and Emily Bradrick ( eldest of the Bradrick children) had their 11th on Aug. 15th, Benjamin David. Their tenth was born with Down's Syndrome so I thought perhaps they may stop but silly me, why would a child with special needs who will require much on an already too large family stop having more children?

The Linzey Team family (mentioned in the Unmarried Fundies thread) have a son with DS, their 13th child of 14.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Triplet3 said:

The Linzey Team family (mentioned in the Unmarried Fundies thread) have a son with DS, their 13th child of 14.

The Mucks also have a son with DS, I think it's Jonathan (5th of 14).

@AliC Who are the Corrals?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I hate how fundie families seem to use their children with disablities as reasons to be pro-life, as "gifts from Jesus", almost refusing to see them as a complete human being. I don't think anyone was saying people shouldn't have children after one with DS. I think it is the rabid breeding of these families combined with limited resources, time, a poor education, etc that makes us worry for those children born into these families that may have a disability. Do we really think the Bradricks are getting little Samuuel EVERYTHING he would need to have a successful life?  They have so many children to care for and on a limited income.

I also worry about the corporal punishments these families use and would possibly use on these children. I don't think these families probably care too much about the developmental stages of their children.  Rant over for today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My issue when I see a Fundie family that has a child born with a disability is that they probably will not get the help the child needs. Many of them have so many children that the parent sometimes can not dedicate to that one child. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Bethella locked and unpinned this topic

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.