Kristina Keepsake is pregnant with #4

[Sprocket]

I forgot she was so close to me. Georgia has some really good pre k programs is she'll trust teh ebil guvernment. Then she could work!

Bright From The Start is the lottery funded pre-k program in GA. Again HINT, Kristina!

[moreorlessnu]

Kyngg Jaymz

Kurlee Fryz (Arby's tribute)

Jashooah Jr.

[BravaAmica]

I'm glad they have medicaid and SNAP and WIC and perhaps even an Obama phone, and Obama internetz. If Romney is elected I can't wait to see her react to having her benefits cut.

I would have to say, "I told you so!" It wouldn't do any good but it'd make me feel better.

[Rosie]

Where are these posts of hers (and yours) that you all refer to?

[BravaAmica]

Yes.

kristinaskeeps.blogspot.ca/2009/02/my-colorsno-date-yethouse-update.html

kristinaskeeps.blogspot.ca/2009/08/inside-of-house.html

How do they afford their mortgage???

[NjoyingNsanity]

Kristina if you are reading this can I ask a few questions? Why if the fundie lifestyle is all about the sanctity of life is the life and wellbeing of the mother held in such low regard? Why keep having kids if it's clearly ruining your health? Why if you believe god is all powerful and managed to get a virgin pregnant do you then limit him by thinking that he couldn't get you knocked up while on birth control if he really wanted to, and it was in his plans for you to have X number of kids?

I'm not going to jump your case for having a bunch of kids, or being on welfare. I won't even complain about the addict who's getting welfare, because damnit their kids deserve to eat and have shelter despite their parents poor choices. I figure kids born into that kind of mess deserve all the saving graces they can get. That's why I think Romney is a monster and I'm voting for Obama. I'm personally anti-abortion as in I could never go through with it, but politically I believe a woman should have the right to choose. I think it's far better to have easy access to reliable birth control, than to have a buttload of kids you either can't afford or don't have the emotional resources to raise, because let's face it not everyone is cut out to be a parent. I know you guys believe in being fruitful and multiplying but as a species with around six billion of us on the planet at the moment I think we've done pretty good as a species and aren't in any danger of dying out. Families back in Biblical times pretty much had to be quiverful since infant and child mortality rates back in those times were pretty high. In our society I don't think any of us have to fear losing half the family if we all come down with a fever.

I know you guys aren't real big on mainstream science, but let me throw a few facts at you. Over-population is not a myth while you could possibly fit the worlds entire population into a state or two, or three you still have to feed all those people which takes acres and acres of farm land to grow enough crops to feed them all, plus it takes even more acres of farmland to raise animals that people eat and even more farmland to raise feed for those animals. Resources are limited and given factors like draught and other natural disasters shortages happen. Also we all depend on cars and other combustion engine powered vehicles to transport ourselves and all manner of other necessities around. Oil and coal are non-renewing resources unless you have a few million years to wait for them. Want to know why gas cost so much it's getting harder and harder to find the huge deposites we need to keep living the way we have the last 80 or 90 years. That why sane people like Obama realize we need to find clean renewable energy sources. You want a large family fine, but take this into consideration your carbon footprint is going to be many times higher than that of a large family living in Israel several thousand years ago. Heck it's going to be many times higher than that of a large pioneer family living during the 1800's.

[Daisy]

Where are these posts of hers (and yours) that you all refer to?

She deleted them. They were on her facebook.

[Funintended]

Dear Kristina,

I would be the first in line to say that I'm overjoyed at the announcement of your 4th baby because my baby #4 was a bright, sweet spot in my life and was the one positive experience in my life at that time. I loved every part about my baby's existence -- even the sleepless nights -- and I look back at that time with all good memories. Even though I was going through a hard time in life and my baby had health needs that resulted in me getting zero sleep, I literally absorbed every second of my baby's life because I could do nothing less than that.

It saddens me to have to say "I would be the first in line" because unfortunately, my conscience would not let me act excited or be hopeful for your 4th baby. While I know we both agree life begins at conception and every life is sacred, where we part ways is here: EVERY life deserves to be cherished... including the lives of the children already born. Aka: your 3 babies you already have.

You have health needs, Kristina, that limit you. This is not a fault of your own or something you could even fix but pregnancy, child birth and the physical stress a baby brings on a mother's body, is very draining. Your children deserve a mother that can physically get up during the night to hold them, rock them, feed them and love on them. But you are too sickly to do that. And you believe that it's okay to allow your *babies* to cry up to 3 hours a night because your sleep is more precious to you than your babies are. Your children suffer because you're so intent on producing more children and adding to your "quiver" that you do not have the energy or strength or health to love on and care for the ones you already have. I'm sorry but I can't be excited that your 4th baby has a future in a cold, big crib where they'll cry for hours in the middle of the night because they're hungry and need their mom who is trying to sleep in another room. Sorry, but I feel bad for your baby already. :-(

The child you carry is a life and so is every future child you may carry. But allowing your older babies time to grow up, develop into children that don't need to rely so much on their mom and giving your body a break is not sinful. Your God made you with not only a reproductive system but also a heart and brain. Barrier method family planning does not kill "life" the way you believe life begins.

As for having a large quiver, If you look at history, in Bible times a women could not reproduce every year like they can now. In the last century due to a decline in food (hormones in meats, etc) and environmental influence, a woman can conceive a lot sooner than God originally created. That's where your brain that God gave you comes into play. You have free choice to use it though and science won't change when a sperm meets an egg and conception happens. Even if this takes place in a body that's already physically run down and has 3 babies age 2 and under.

So Kristina, while I hope you have an uneventful pregnancy and you change your mind about letting babies cry for hours on end, I cannot be happy for your situation. Anymore than I could be happy about another unwanted baby born to an unwed mother. While you may say you want this baby, your actions indicate (in how you treat them after they're born) that you would rather not be inconvenienced so therefore all these little "blessings" will submit to your whims and wishes as you "pop" them and force them to be left alone while you catch up on sleep.

Yours truly,

A Concerned Christian Mother

Ps.

In the Old Testament, when God said "be fruitful and multiply" he said it to Noah and his family because they were the only 8 people on this earth and without multiplying, the world could not go on.

In the Old Testament, when God said "build an ark" he said it to Noah and his family because if they didn't, the flood would kill them.

If you're obeying "be fruitful and multiply" then you should really "build an ark" too because both of those commands were sent exclusively to Noah. Not to every living person that would read the words until the end of time.

(Edit because I do know how to properly construct a sentence.)

[library_youth]

Josh only makes $11 an hour? No wonder she came to the yuku board trying to peddle her MLM junk.

[alysee]

Josh only makes $11 an hour? No wonder she came to the yuku board trying to peddle her MLM junk.

What state are they in? Are living expenses cheaper where they live because I can't imagine making such little money and having to support three kids and a wife on $11 an hour. Wow, just wow.

[library_youth]

What state are they in? Are living expenses cheaper where they live because I can't imagine making such little money and having to support three kids and a wife on $11 an hour. Wow, just wow.

They're in Georgia.

[slickcat79]

What state are they in? Are living expenses cheaper where they live because I can't imagine making such little money and having to support three kids and a wife on $11 an hour. Wow, just wow.

Granted, I have a car payment that takes up a good chunk of my monthly expenses, but I couldn't even support myself on $11/hour. I've run the numbers lately as I've been looking for a permanent job, and yeah, that would really not cut it :?

[CrazySister]

Granted, I have a car payment that takes up a good chunk of my monthly expenses, but I couldn't even support myself on $11/hour. I've run the numbers lately as I've been looking for a permanent job, and yeah, that would really not cut it :?

Ditto from Denver.

[valsa]

As for having a large quiver, If you look at history, in Bible times a women could not reproduce every year like they can now. In the last century due to a decline in food (hormones in meats, etc) and environmental influence, a woman can conceive a lot sooner than God originally created. That's where your brain that God gave you comes into play. You have free choice to use it though and science won't change when a sperm meets an egg and conception happens. Even if this takes place in a body that's already physically run down and has 3 babies age 2 and under.

Erm, while I appreciate that you're trying to relate to Kristina on her level, there are a few things here you're incorrect about. This is the first. Hormones in food have been linked with girls going through puberty at an earlier age but there's nothing to suggest that they cause women to conceive children closer together. However, women in Biblical times had a natural source of family planning in that women in agricultural cultures tend to exclusively breastfeed their children much longer than most women in the U.S. do.

In the Old Testament, when God said "be fruitful and multiply" he said it to Noah and his family because they were the only 8 people on this earth and without multiplying, the world could not go on.

In the Old Testament, when God said "build an ark" he said it to Noah and his family because if they didn't, the flood would kill them.

If you're obeying "be fruitful and multiply" then you should really "build an ark" too because both of those commands were sent exclusively to Noah. Not to every living person that would read the words until the end of time.

This is also incorrect. The "be fruitful and multiply" thing come from Genesis 1:28 and God was talking to Adam and Eve. While you could still argue that it was said with the intention of the only human beings on the planet at the time populating the earth with other humans, the context implies that it is a command to humanity in general, not specifically Adam and Eve.

[Deleted03]

Erm, while I appreciate that you're trying to relate to Kristina on her level, there are a few things here you're incorrect about. This is the first. Hormones in food have been linked with girls going through puberty at an earlier age but there's nothing to suggest that they cause women to conceive children closer together. However, women in Biblical times had a natural source of family planning in that women in agricultural cultures tend to exclusively breastfeed their children much longer than most women in the U.S. do.

it's partially true. Most often for breastfeeding to have an effect, babies need to drink through the night at regular intervals. If they sleep through the night chances are fertility comes back way more quickly. But the roughness of living back then (not staying at home and doing medium chores) and malnutrition surely helped.

[Wolfie]

Erm, while I appreciate that you're trying to relate to Kristina on her level, there are a few things here you're incorrect about. This is the first. Hormones in food have been linked with girls going through puberty at an earlier age but there's nothing to suggest that they cause women to conceive children closer together. However, women in Biblical times had a natural source of family planning in that women in agricultural cultures tend to exclusively breastfeed their children much longer than most women in the U.S. do.

One reason why people in the US can conceive more often/easier than in Biblical times, is that we have better access to food than they did, though. (But I do agree with you about the hormones.)

[Funintended]

Erm, while I appreciate that you're trying to relate to Kristina on her level, there are a few things here you're incorrect about. This is the first. Hormones in food have been linked with girls going through puberty at an earlier age but there's nothing to suggest that they cause women to conceive children closer together. However, women in Biblical times had a natural source of family planning in that women in agricultural cultures tend to exclusively breastfeed their children much longer than most women in the U.S. do.

This is also incorrect. The "be fruitful and multiply" thing come from Genesis 1:28 and God was talking to Adam and Eve. While you could still argue that it was said with the intention of the only human beings on the planet at the time populating the earth with other humans, the context implies that it is a command to humanity in general, not specifically Adam and Eve.

Ok... But my point was: it hasn't always been this common to have a baby every year and the wear and tear that child bearing is on a woman's body is not supposed to happen every year. Something in our environment (food, nutrition, etc.,) has changed our bodies -- women exclusively breast feeding CAN conceive now days. 30, 60, 90 years ago, yeah, it happened once in a blue moon but not like today.

Genesis 1:28 ("be fruitful and multiply") was directed to Adam and Genesis 9:1 ("be fruitful and multiply") was directed to Noah. I was trying to keep it in context with the whole "just because God said it once to someone during a population crisis doesn't mean every living person after the population crisis should follow the rule." Plus, the whole pick and choose what we want from the Bible just irks me because people use it for their advantage and then say the Bible supports them.

[Deleted03]

Ok... But my point was: it hasn't always been this common to have a baby every year and the wear and tear that child bearing is on a woman's body is not supposed to happen every year. Something in our environment (food, nutrition, etc.,) has changed our bodies -- women exclusively breast feeding CAN conceive now days. 30, 60, 90 years ago, yeah, it happened once in a blue moon but not like today.

Genesis 1:28 ("be fruitful and multiply") was directed to Adam and Genesis 9:1 ("be fruitful and multiply") was directed to Noah. I was trying to keep it in context with the whole "just because God said it once to someone during a population crisis doesn't mean every living person after the population crisis should follow the rule." Plus, the whole pick and choose what we want from the Bible just irks me because people use it for their advantage and then say the Bible supports them.

Where is your data? In Québec women did not have access to any contraceptive other than don't do it, and they had one of the highest rates of pregnancies in North America. (European women were already at about 2 children by women by then).

Dying from pregnancy or childbirth was one way to limit family sizes. Sheer exhaustion too.

[valsa]

Ok... But my point was: it hasn't always been this common to have a baby every year and the wear and tear that child bearing is on a woman's body is not supposed to happen every year. Something in our environment (food, nutrition, etc.,) has changed our bodies -- women exclusively breast feeding CAN conceive now days. 30, 60, 90 years ago, yeah, it happened once in a blue moon but not like today.

Except nothing has changed our bodies. As other people have mentioned, malnutrition back in Biblical days causes it to be easier to conceive today than it was back then but that's not a change in our bodies. If women back in Biblical times were as well-fed as we are today, they'd have similar fertility rates. Also, women exclusively breastfeeding today is still not the same as it was back then. If you compare the rates of pregnancy in women who sleep with their infants and exclusively breastfeed on demand (and probably wear their babies), you'd likely find the rate is similar for women who get pregnant doing all that today as before (once you adjust for things like nutrition and other modern advances)

Genesis 1:28 ("be fruitful and multiply") was directed to Adam and Genesis 9:1 ("be fruitful and multiply") was directed to Noah. I was trying to keep it in context with the whole "just because God said it once to someone during a population crisis doesn't mean every living person after the population crisis should follow the rule." Plus, the whole pick and choose what we want from the Bible just irks me because people use it for their advantage and then say the Bible supports them.

Isn't using only one instance of God giving a specific command to a specific person to try to pursued someone not to do something, while ignoring an instance of God giving the same command to everyone, kind of the definition of picking and choosing?

[SpeshulTaterTot]

Ok... But my point was: it hasn't always been this common to have a baby every year and the wear and tear that child bearing is on a woman's body is not supposed to happen every year. Something in our environment (food, nutrition, etc.,) has changed our bodies -- women exclusively breast feeding CAN conceive now days. 30, 60, 90 years ago, yeah, it happened once in a blue moon but not like today.

My grandfather was born in 1901 and had 13 siblings. It'd be surprising if my great-grandmother didn't have miscarriages, and considering the child mortality rate at the time, there were most likely more than the 14 children who lived to adulthood. It was not at all uncommon to have that many children at the time.

[Funintended]

Wow. The point of my post was to emphasis that on Biblical grounds, Kristina has nothing to stand on to solidify her convictions. If people choose to disagree with me like Kristina does, that's fine. I feel really bad for her kids which Is why I participated in this thread.

[ADoyle90815]

My grandfather was born in 1901 and had 13 siblings. It'd be surprising if my great-grandmother didn't have miscarriages, and considering the child mortality rate at the time, there were most likely more than the 14 children who lived to adulthood. It was not at all uncommon to have that many children at the time.

That's true, if most people looked at their family history, they would see where someone had 14 children, with less than half at most surviving to adulthood. Childbirth complications were a leading cause of death for women, and sometimes C-sections were only done to save the baby, while the mother died as a result. Not only were they done without sanitation, but without any anesthesia as well.

[valsa]

Wow. The point of my post was to emphasis that on Biblical grounds, Kristina has nothing to stand on to solidify her convictions. If people choose to disagree with me like Kristina does, that's fine. I feel really bad for her kids which Is why I participated in this thread.

Except it doesn't work to tell someone "you have no Biblical grounds to stand on" when they do, in fact, have Biblical grounds to base their lifestyle on.

And for the record, I don't disagree with you like Kristina does. I'm an atheist and what the Bible does or does not say has as much impact on how I live my life as, say, the Rig-Veda. However, if you're going to try to convince someone who does believe in the Bible that they're misinterpreting scripture, you should at least do it accurately.

[Funintended]

That's true, if most people looked at their family history, they would see where someone had 14 children, with less than half at most surviving to adulthood. Childbirth complications were a leading cause of death for women, and sometimes C-sections were only done to save the baby, while the mother died as a result. Not only were they done without sanitation, but without any anesthesia as well.

I agree. Both of my grandmothers have 10 and 16 siblings. While there were some twins, most pregnancies were 2-3 years apart, not one a year. Kristina will have 4 kids before her oldest is even 3.

[Funintended]

Except it doesn't work to tell someone "you have no Biblical grounds to stand on" when they do, in fact, have Biblical grounds to base their lifestyle on.

And for the record, I don't disagree with you like Kristina does. I'm an atheist and what the Bible does or does not say has as much impact on how I live my life as, say, the Rig-Veda. However, if you're going to try to convince someone who does believe in the Bible that they're misinterpreting scripture, you should at least do it accurately.

Ok, I'll remember that next time I try to argue genesis 1:28 and 9:1 with an atheist. :-) Thanks for the input.