Kelly recommends taking from other people

[Hisey]

In her recent post on GC, Kelly makes the argument that since giving birth is "natural", people should give have babies all the time.

A commenter writes in--what about financial hardship? What if we don't have any money?

Kelly forgets to mention how she lives on her parents land, used to live in their house, and how her husband was employed by her dad. Instead, she says,

I would say breast feeding and a diaper-baby shower would get you the sweetest blessing of your life that costs virtually nothing for a long time.

Take, take, take. This woman does nothing but take from others to meet her own needs.

http://www.generationcedar.com/main/201 ... ment-79868

[deelaem]

Talk about a nonsensical response to a sensible question. This one really does live in her own private Idaho.

[patsymae]

So then Kelly Jo Bates shouldn't be taking progesterone because it is interfering with God's "off" switch, no? And medical intervention to prevent a miscarriage would also be interfering with the plan.

She must have had some dynamite baby showers if she got everything she needed in order to not spend any money raising her children. I got some bibs, pacifiers, baby toys and a crib mobile. Plus because of a medical condition I had to stop breastfeeding at three months and he spent two years on very expensive noncommercial formula.

What totally flummoxes me is not that these people say things like this, but that they are convinced that they are coherent and logical.

[linnea27]

So then Kelly Jo Bates shouldn't be taking progesterone because it is interfering with God's "off" switch, no? And medical intervention to prevent a miscarriage would also be interfering with the plan.

She must have had some dynamite baby showers if she got everything she needed in order to not spend any money raising her children. I got some bibs, pacifiers, baby toys and a crib mobile. Plus because of a medical condition I had to stop breastfeeding at three months and he spent two years on very expensive noncommercial formula.

What totally flummoxes me is not that these people say things like this, but that they are convinced that they are coherent and logical.

I'm not sure that they do think they're being logical. Logic = free thinking = science = no god. Some of their arguments are so obviously illogical, especially when it comes to government and politics, that they must realize that they are not following logic. But I think, for some, that is the goal. FAITH ALONE! Logic might interfere with that. I think some of the fundies truly think that if they try to rationalize things out, it shows a lack of faith in god's plan. By purposely making illogical arguments they are showing their unconditional faith in the word. At least, that's how it seems to me.

What is that saying I've heard thrown about by some fundies? The freethinker is Satan's slave, or something like that?

[desertvixen]

What totally flummoxes me is not that these people say things like this, but that they are convinced that they are coherent and logical.

Yes, there is a lot of WTF-ery in those comments...

I like how Brenda tries to introduce some rationality by asking why some medical measures are okay.

Is Kristy someone here? They seem rational:

I think it’s a beautiful thing to have many babies, but I do think that sometimes it’s not a beautiful thing if the parents aren’t able to financially support a large family, or support each of them emotionally–especially if it is a single mom, (either from divorce or the spouse passing away) I believe God also gives us a free will to make the right choice for us, because ultimately, we each have to live with the choices that we make. (Just a few thoughts spoken with love)

Then of course, she gets answered by lots of crazy, including that single moms would not be having babies because it's against God's law :

Secondly, children are BLESSINGS. They are not a curse. In the normal course of human life, babies start at marriage and end at menopause. When we use birth control, we are telling God that we don’t trust Him to provide for the children with which he wants to bless us, and furthermore, telling him that we do not want His blessings. Both of those are rather odd statements for Christians.

And there is another person with some working brain cells:

I cannot rightfully sit here and say that God calls all mothers be stay at home moms. I am one and choose not to juggle a career until my kids are in school…even then I may keep doing what I’m doing being at home. I’ve met wonderful female lawyers, doctors, and teachers who have one or two children. It would be very, very difficult for them to have more than that and homeschooling would be next to impossible. I shared this argument with someone and mentioned my close friend who is a doctor (and works part time–she’s home when her kids come home from school). Their response was, “Well is she really following God’s Word?†Which really bothered me! Can you really justify that every single working mom out there who has used birth control and has one or two kids is not following God’s Word?

But really, is anyone surprised that Kelly advocates what she does?

[Katydid]

Talk about a nonsensical response to a sensible question. This one really does live in her own private Idaho.

Pretty much exactly. That poster had real concerns that deserved to be addressed.

[GolightlyGrrl]

In her recent post on GC, Kelly makes the argument that since giving birth is "natural", people should give have babies all the time.

A commenter writes in--what about financial hardship? What if we don't have any money?

Kelly forgets to mention how she lives on her parents land, used to live in their house, and how her husband was employed by her dad. Instead, she says,

Take, take, take. This woman does nothing but take from others to meet her own needs.

http://www.generationcedar.com/main/201 ... ment-79868

Kelly Crawford: High Plains Grifter

Why can't this trifling skank just admit she's a very privileged woman who has been able to live off of others and their charity pretty much her entire life? Oh, yes. She's a bitch.

[slickcat79]

Simply put, having babies is a naturally occurring incident. We have developed ways to stop it, but that’s not our bodies default mode. God didn’t create our reproduction system with an “on/off†switch.

So, all debates aside about the right or wrong thing to do, we are still required, as thinking people, to demonstrate logic and acknowledge that having children is natural.

Being “crazy†implies the act of doing something abnormal. Having children isn’t doing something at all. And it certainly isn’t doing something not normal. It’s simply letting. It’s as natural as any other bodily function.

Just because something is natural doesn't mean we have to continue doing it unchecked until it kills us. Tetanus is natural, but I'm still vaxxed against it, thank you.

This whole segment is just dripping with smug condescension. For one thing, our bodies do have a naturally functioning on/off switch for reproduction. More to the point, she is completely ignoring infertility, which affects something like 20% of couples. For those people, having children is not natural, and they will not be able to have them just by "letting". I don't even want to have kids, and I still find comments like this from people who have easily given birth to 5+ kids irritating in the extreme. I'd love to hear some perspective from a "quiverfull" couple who has never actually managed to fill the quiver. How does faith persist through that, and if they do fertility treatments, how do they justify it?

[bananacat]

Ok, several things:

1) Nature sucks sometimes. Giving birth is natural. And women and babies naturally die from it very frequently. Childbirth was a leading cause of death for both women and newborns until very recently. Just because something is natural doesn't mean it's safe or good.

2) Breastfeeding isn't free! Those calories don't just magically appear out of nowhere like manna from Heaven. The mother has to eat more food to produce the milk. I know these fundies don't get thermodynamics lessons at the SOTDRT, but on an intuitive level they should at least understand conservation of energy. That milk has to come from somewhere. On a more general note for women who have a life that doesn't consist of just baby-making, breastfeeding takes time and time is money. It's only free for those who think women's time is worth absolutely nothing. And that doesn't even just apply to women with paying jobs. Any time a woman spends breastfeeding is time she doesn't spend on something else, so it does have some related costs.

[CrazySister]

Ok, several things:

1) Nature sucks sometimes. Giving birth is natural. And women and babies naturally die from it very frequently. Childbirth was a leading cause of death for both women and newborns until very recently. Just because something is natural doesn't mean it's safe or good.

2) Breastfeeding isn't free! Those calories don't just magically appear out of nowhere like manna from Heaven. The mother has to eat more food to produce the milk. I know these fundies don't get thermodynamics lessons at the SOTDRT, but on an intuitive level they should at least understand conservation of energy. That milk has to come from somewhere. On a more general note for women who have a life that doesn't consist of just baby-making, breastfeeding takes time and time is money. It's only free for those who think women's time is worth absolutely nothing. And that doesn't even just apply to women with paying jobs. Any time a woman spends breastfeeding is time she doesn't spend on something else, so it does have some related costs.

You put it much more eloquently than I could have. I also find it interesting that even if the first year of life were somehow miraculously free, what about the next 17?! They make it sound as if it's only the first year's cost that matters and after that they, what, start their first job or something? They use such pitiable arguments to defend their asinine beliefs.

[Mela99]

Did she breastfeed the entire family?

And I'm pretty sure it's considered tasteless to have a shower of any sort after your first child.

[emmiedahl]

How is birth control thwarting an omnipotent God again?

srsly, I need two hands to count my number of pregnancies conceived on birth control.

[DistantStar]

Our brains are just as natural as our uteruses (uteri?) -- we can use them to plan ahead and to know what to do to not have more kids than we can handle. Or else God gave us brains and we should use them, no? Given the chance throughout history women have tried to not have too many kids; it's just that they often didn't have a way to do that. Now we have quite a few effective ones, thanks to our natural brains.

I don't think they'll buy this argument, but it's what occurs to me every time some fundie says having babies is natural and BC isn't.

[caito]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I'm sorry, did she say a baby costs nothing for "virtually a long time"?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

*dies laughing*

But seriously, that's some of the most dangerous advice you can give to someone. To practically encourage someone to have a child on a household income of $850 a month? WTF

[SamuraiKatz]

How is birth control thwarting an omnipotent God again?

srsly, I need two hands to count my number of pregnancies conceived on birth control.

This. If god wants a woman to have a baby, he is more powerful than any old birth control pill, cause he's god.... Does gc Kelly really believe all the crap she spews? Or is Kelly the person she is trying most to convince? :shock:

[FundiesInMyFamily]

So it's okay to get pregnant when you can't afford to feed the child and give him/her a good life because you can throw a big shower and people will give you all the stuff you need, but it's not okay for hard working parents going through hard times to ask for a little help such as food stamps. Thanks so much for clearing that up Kelly.

[snarkbillie]

I had a great baby shower for my first. My husband's aunts threw me a shower and I got enough diapers to last for the first year of the baby's life. They were cloth, but they were free! There are a lot of things that cost money when you have a baby that you can't get at a shower though, like well child visits and vaccinations and medicine if God forbid they get sick. What does Kelly say about those things?!

[bananacat]

How is birth control thwarting an omnipotent God again?

srsly, I need two hands to count my number of pregnancies conceived on birth control.

The way I see it, if God allegedly got a virgin pregnant, then birth control shouldn't even be a blip on his radar.

[CrazySister]

I had a great baby shower for my first. My husband's aunts threw me a shower and I got enough diapers to last for the first year of the baby's life. They were cloth, but they were free! There are a lot of things that cost money when you have a baby that you can't get at a shower though, like well child visits and vaccinations and medicine if God forbid they get sick. What does Kelly say about those things?!

With the exception of the preemie, I doubt any of the kids ever go to well child visits and I'd be surprised if any (including the preemie) are immunized unless the doctor threatened like to call CPS if they didn't since they DO have a preemie. Meds, don't know.

[Wolfie]

Ok, several things:

1) Nature sucks sometimes. Giving birth is natural. And women and babies naturally die from it very frequently. Childbirth was a leading cause of death for both women and newborns until very recently. Just because something is natural doesn't mean it's safe or good.

2) Breastfeeding isn't free! Those calories don't just magically appear out of nowhere like manna from Heaven. The mother has to eat more food to produce the milk. I know these fundies don't get thermodynamics lessons at the SOTDRT, but on an intuitive level they should at least understand conservation of energy. That milk has to come from somewhere. On a more general note for women who have a life that doesn't consist of just baby-making, breastfeeding takes time and time is money. It's only free for those who think women's time is worth absolutely nothing. And that doesn't even just apply to women with paying jobs. Any time a woman spends breastfeeding is time she doesn't spend on something else, so it does have some related costs.

Both of these- I've had people argue against the second with me.

On number one, I had two students who lost their mom in childbirth. Their sibling survived, but mom died shortly after delivering him.

[Wolfie]

And I'm pretty sure it's considered tasteless to have a shower of any sort after your first child.

My cousins did- I just didn't go, because I agree that it's tasteless. (I often would love to not admit that I'm related to them)

About the only times I wouldn't find it in bad taste would be if there had been a long space and then "oops" after everything had been gotten rid of, if it was very informal and just a group of friends getting together, or if something tragic had happened to the first child, and so it was a celebration to help reassure the parents.

[hapamama]

Ok, several things:

1) Nature sucks sometimes. Giving birth is natural. And women and babies naturally die from it very frequently. Childbirth was a leading cause of death for both women and newborns until very recently. Just because something is natural doesn't mean it's safe or good.

2) Breastfeeding isn't free! Those calories don't just magically appear out of nowhere like manna from Heaven. The mother has to eat more food to produce the milk. I know these fundies don't get thermodynamics lessons at the SOTDRT, but on an intuitive level they should at least understand conservation of energy. That milk has to come from somewhere. On a more general note for women who have a life that doesn't consist of just baby-making, breastfeeding takes time and time is money. It's only free for those who think women's time is worth absolutely nothing. And that doesn't even just apply to women with paying jobs. Any time a woman spends breastfeeding is time she doesn't spend on something else, so it does have some related costs.

It's recommended that breastfeeding mothers consume an extra 500 calories a day, and it's better that those calories come from nutritious food, not processed crap out of boxes and cans. Nevermind the fact that those babies can't breastfeed forever.

Diaper showers only go so far. The average baby goes through 4,702 diapers in their first 2 years of life. I think it's safe to say that even Moms-to-Be with many friends and families giving them diapers aren't going to get even half of that number.

Nevermind the cost of prenatal care, the birth of the child, well baby care, replacing clothing and gear that is worn out or outgrown.

[MrsKay]

How is birth control thwarting an omnipotent God again?

srsly, I need two hands to count my number of pregnancies conceived on birth control.

QFT.

Around here, baby showers for each child are common, esp. if the new baby is a different gender from the last baby. But guess what? PEOPLE RARELY GIVE NECESSITIES! Seriously, most people I know use showers as an excuse to buy the baby a cute outfit or something that the parents really can't or don't want to spend money on. The only showers I have ever been to, where the gifts were very useful, were mine, when I was pregnant with my first - my mom had one for our side, his mom had one for his side. They made it clear to everyone that I was a teen mom, and needed diapers, wipes, everyday clothing, etc. At every other shower, there's the 25 bottles of baby lotion and powder and 10 jars of Vaseline, but other than that, people want to give FUN things. And they have every right to do so. Expecting a baby shower to set your child up in clothing, furniture, car seats and diapers from birth to toddler is just ridiculous and greedy. Breastfeeding ToddlerKay also cost a small fortune; with my low supply, there were pumps to rent and buy, supplements to buy to increase milk supply, and expensive formula to make up for the milk shortage. It also ate into my time in a huge way. Oh, and he'll be on that formula until he's 2, since he has allergies, as did his siblings. Kelly is a friggin' douche.

[DarkAnts]

In her recent post on GC, Kelly makes the argument that since giving birth is "natural", people should give have babies all the time.

A commenter writes in--what about financial hardship? What if we don't have any money?

Kelly forgets to mention how she lives on her parents land, used to live in their house, and how her husband was employed by her dad. Instead, she says,

Take, take, take. This woman does nothing but take from others to meet her own needs.

http://www.generationcedar.com/main/201 ... ment-79868

Arsenic, polio, bubonic plague, Syphilis, Aids, uranium, exc exc exc are also natural. But, we do our best to limit exposure because those things can kill you.

[Rosa]

You put it much more eloquently than I could have. I also find it interesting that even if the first year of life were somehow miraculously free, what about the next 17?! They make it sound as if it's only the first year's cost that matters and after that they, what, start their first job or something? They use such pitiable arguments to defend their asinine beliefs.

after the first year they don't need anything, they raise themselves and forage for food!

See, making babies is women's sacred duty but actual PARENTING having value is feminist claptrap. Apply the rod from the get-go and they'll never bother you while you blog.