Quiverfull Religions?

[valsa]

A more accurate wording would probably be "natalist religions".

The main one have already been covered- Quiverfull, Catholics (individual Catholics might not be but the religion itself is), certain flavors of Judaism, Mormons. I've known a few pagans that had more children than the norm because the mother found it empowering and in line with an Earth goddess/mother creatrix type belief but that was more of a personal belief rather than thinking it should apply to all women.

[Irishy]

I have to admit, this attitude really bothers me. I know several women who have had unplannned pregnancies when using birth control correctly. One friend with the mini-pill (prescribed because she was breastfeeding), one when a condom broke, and a women I sort of know got pregnant with an IUD in place. Its a fallacy to think that birth control is always effective and anyone who finds herself pregnant must have been using it incorrectly. ALL birth control has a failure rate, even when used correctly. SOMEONE has to be that .01%. And as far as women using NFP to try to prevent pregnancy, they are doing what you are doing, but for whatever reason it didn't work for them.

And this is coming from someone who also experienced infertility and needed medical interventions in order to conceive.

I agree, artificial contraception is fallible. But NFP followed very closely is pretty rock solid. I am not a rigid follower but I've read Taking Charge of Your Fertility by Toni Weschler and even that much has educated me so much. I don't rely on it though as never chart or temp but it's remarkable. I would recommend this book to anyone just because its so interesting. I believe the creighton method is very detailed.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I agree, artificial contraception is fallible. But NFP followed very closely is pretty rock solid. I am not a rigid follower but I've read Taking Charge of Your Fertility by Toni Weschler and even that much has educated me so much. I don't rely on it though as never chart or temp but it's remarkable. I would recommend this book to anyone just because its so interesting. I believe the creighton method is very detailed.

I'm calling bullshit on the bolded part.

Here is a rundown on various methods of birth control, including NFP, along with their rates of effectiveness.

http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/u ... eption.htm

Taking Charge of Your Fertility is a good resource and I'd agree that its helpful for women to know more about what their bodies work, but I have never seen any reputable source anywhere state that NFP is 100% effective for all women.

Another point is that doubling up on birth control methods results in failure rates that are exponentially lower. Sex education would be far more effective if that point was made, instead of simply saying, "well, birth control can fail". Google "double Dutch contraception" and teen pregnancy rates in the Netherlands vs. the United States to see the benefits of reality-based education.

[yetanothermeg]

I agree, artificial contraception is fallible. But NFP followed very closely is pretty rock solid. I am not a rigid follower but I've read Taking Charge of Your Fertility by Toni Weschler and even that much has educated me so much. I don't rely on it though as never chart or temp but it's remarkable. I would recommend this book to anyone just because its so interesting. I believe the creighton method is very detailed.

The bloggers I have read, all got pregnant repeatedly and unintentionally using the creighton method. I can think of three blogs off the top of my head where the women really bared their souls about being overwhelmed cause they already had 3-4 small children and found themselves pregnant again. And they feel shame because they feel they have personally failed at NFP. Unfortunately, they have become prisoners of their own ideology (much like many of the quiverfull women). If they used NFP in conjunction with condoms, they would probably have a better outcome in postponing pregnancy, but they won't, because that would remove the procreative part of the sex act. I think the whole Catholic theology of the body is really nice in theory, but in practice its a different story.

I hesitate to provide links because for the most part these bloggers seem like regular moms that are really just looking for connection and support.

[yetanothermeg]

Another point is that doubling up on birth control methods results in failure rates that are exponentially lower. Sex education would be far more effective if that point was made, instead of simply saying, "well, birth control can fail". Google "double Dutch contraception" and teen pregnancy rates in the Netherlands vs. the United States to see the benefits of reality-based education.

Oh, I totally agree with you! I'm not saying that birth control can fail so why bother, more that birth control does fail in some instances and we should not assume that someone who is pregnant in less than ideal circumstances acted irresponsibly.

[Irishy]

I never said 100%. All I'm saying is, when used totally and utterly faithfully, NFP is really effective. I imagine there are very few users who are absolutely utterly vigilant. In my experience, I got pregnant from unprotected sex on day 7 of a 28 day cycle so I would say (for me), no sex is safe between menstruation and ovulation. In reality, there would be very few "safe days" in a cycle so if you examine closely the failures, you'd probably find some pattern or signs over time that meant it was, in fact, a risk. I'd say you'd want to be charting away for a long time before you'd be confident in the method. I wouldn't have the balls to try it because I'd be lazy about the temps and charting.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I never said 100%. All I'm saying is, when used totally and utterly faithfully, NFP is really effective. I imagine there are very few users who are absolutely utterly vigilant. In my experience, I got pregnant from unprotected sex on day 7 of a 28 day cycle so I would say (for me), no sex is safe between menstruation and ovulation. In reality, there would be very few "safe days" in a cycle so if you examine closely the failures, you'd probably find some pattern or signs over time that meant it was, in fact, a risk. I'd say you'd want to be charting away for a long time before you'd be confident in the method. I wouldn't have the balls to try it because I'd be lazy about the temps and charting.

Fair enough. The CDC data that I posted doesn't deny that it can be effective. I was objecting to the idea that other methods were, in your words, "fallible" while NFP was "rock solid". In reality, there are "artificial" methods that are more effective (such as the IUD).

[YPestis]

I think all major religions have subcultures who share the 'quiverful' ideology. In the US, the most prominent are traditional Catholics, Mormons and ultra-orthrodox Jews. However, Muslims in many countries also observe a pro-natal attitude. In fact, one could argue that for most of human history, we ALL advocated a 'quiverful' ideal, mainly because so many kids died young. The human race would die out if our ancestors all had two or three kids. "Be fruitful and multiple" was a way to ensure survival of the tribe, the community and the human race.

Birth control is pretty revolutionary if you look at it through the lens of human history. In the past several decades, humans were finally able to control how many kids they have. Couple this with decreasing child mortality, and we have seen huge societal upheaval. This has led to women in the the workplace, the intense one-on-one parenting for even lower class parents, the expansion of childhood and creation of adolescence. I think it was much harder to let any of this happen when most families had to have a dozen children and put them to work early on.

I'm ok with the quiverful mentality for individual families because some people really love kids. However, I bet many mega-families today do not really want a dozen children but feel compelled to do so because their religion tells them to. That's why I think this idea is harmful....because it is a directive that requires an all consuming dedication. I'm willing to bet many quiverful families are not happier because mom is overwhelmed and dad is stressed and the oldest have to do so much work. Not surprisingly, the only people who benefit from the archaic quiverful attitude is the religions which advocate it.

Re: NFP. Our pre-marriage counseling retreat through the Catholic church ended with NFP pamphlets which nearly gave me an aneurysm. Modern birth control, especially when combined (i.e OCP + condoms) is more than 99% effective. NFP has a failure rate of something like 25%. I had the church giving me crap about the "nearly 99%" success rate of NFP. It amazed me even more when a nonquiverful Catholic friend totally bought the Church's numbers. He was surprised when I told him the success rate was more like 75%.

As a physician, I could never in good conscience lie to people like that. I was just surprised that the Church was still pushing this. It's one thing to tell people birth control is bad, it's another to spread false information about it.

[Jinger Jar]

The bloggers I have read, all got pregnant repeatedly and unintentionally using the creighton method. I can think of three blogs off the top of my head where the women really bared their souls about being overwhelmed cause they already had 3-4 small children and found themselves pregnant again. And they feel shame because they feel they have personally failed at NFP. Unfortunately, they have become prisoners of their own ideology (much like many of the quiverfull women). If they used NFP in conjunction with condoms, they would probably have a better outcome in postponing pregnancy, but they won't, because that would remove the procreative part of the sex act. I think the whole Catholic theology of the body is really nice in theory, but in practice its a different story.

I hesitate to provide links because for the most part these bloggers seem like regular moms that are really just looking for connection and support.

Agree 100% with the bolded. I can think of a half a dozen scenarios where it's very hard for NFP to be reliable, including when one is weaning a child, perimenopause, menopause, irregular cycles, being on medications that affect mucus (like certain antihistamines and cough syrups), and having certain endocrine conditions like hypothyroidism. Women with vision issues have a hard time checking their mucus. Women with a lot of belly fat or back problems cannot do a manual examination of their cervices.

And the Church categorically refuses to acknowledge any of this. The party line seems to be that NFP works, period, and if you get pregnant you were doing it wrong. I've read bloggers who've abandoned their sex lives because they want to remain faithful to Church teachings but will die if they get pregnant again. And I know of so, so many Catholic couples who want to remain faithful but know that NFP does. not. work. for them and are forced to decide between remaining celibate until their post-menopause years or using some form of "intrinsically evil" artificial birth control.

Personally, I think Humanae vitae painted the Church into a corner, it alienated and continues to alienate a good number of lay Catholics and theologians who speak out against it are censured hard. I think it's one of the biggest reasons Catholics fell away in the 70s and 80s. I get the thinking and the theory behind HV and Theology of the Body, but they don't play out well in the real world, where the vast majority of us have to live.

[GiggleOfGirls]

Most Quiverful Christians I've run across are involved with Gothard, VF, and/or Above Rubies. It seems to me that most QF Christians, at least, end up extreme after finding one of those gurus/organizations and getting sucked in. Maybe they wanted a large family, but spaced out, and the only resources they could find for Christian large families were QF in nature (I've seen that happen several time and was almost how I got sucked in).

It'd be interesting to me to know how prominent QF is in the various denominations percentage-wise or something.

[GenerationCedarchip]

Most Quiverful Christians I've run across are involved with Gothard, VF, and/or Above Rubies. It seems to me that most QF Christians, at least, end up extreme after finding one of those gurus/organizations and getting sucked in. Maybe they wanted a large family, but spaced out, and the only resources they could find for Christian large families were QF in nature (I've seen that happen several time and was almost how I got sucked in).

It'd be interesting to me to know how prominent QF is in the various denominations percentage-wise or something.

Yes - that's been my experience, too. I grew up in a fundie church, and several of the elders there had personal ties to folks in VF and as VF grew, so did the influence of Quiverfull ideas in that church.

As a sidenote, while I don't know of it being official doctrine in any denomination, I've noticed that most of the reformed-fundie churches I've encountered have at least a noticiable subset of Quiverfullers.

[maybeizfundie]

Quiverful is not set in Christian doctrine, and it is mandated in very few denominations.

It's a bit nebulous. There are "QF" people who actively try to concieve. There are others who believe that's no different than using birth control. There are still others who are OK with NFP for periods of time. There are people you'd neverk now are QF because the *don't* have a gigantic family, even though they've never used birth control. (Me, for instance :lol: There are 5 years between my 3rd and 4th child, and we were doing nothing to prevent. Everybody assumed we were done, and then *boom* along came babykins. :lol: Of course, to a lot of people in our circles, four is a big family, so I guess they do think we're a little nuts )

IME, there majority of "fundies" are not QF by any stretch, and quite a few have a disdain for the whole idea. Gothard and the Duggars are not representative of all fundamentalist Christians--there's quite a variety.

[maybeizfundie]

Actually, even the Pearl's are not technically QF. They are pro-large family, but with responsibility. They are OK with NFP and barrier methods, and not just in "emergency" situations. Dobson is definitely not QF, and there is leeway within his organization for advocacy of the Pill, even. I'm trying to think of others that are prominent who have actually said anything about it. Mark whatshisname of Mars Hill church is pro-large family but not against family planning. Dennis Rainey/Family Life Ministries is the same. I have even noticed mention of NFP and sterilization (for health reasons, usually, often followed by an adoption story) in Above Rubies write-ins, though I don't think that's their official position.

[freesarah88]

Most of the QF families I've encountered have been reformed (think Vision Forum), for what it's worth.

[GiggleOfGirls]

I've heard that the Pearls are even fairly anti-QF - I think based on this article where Debi is pro-child spacing when the headship demands it and says that the conviction to not space children came from somewhere other than the Bible because there's no sin in spacing children as long as there's no aborting of fertilized eggs (other than, presumably, those which occur naturally :roll: ) http://nogreaterjoy.org/articles/do-you ... h-control/

I haven't found any other gurus other than Gothard, VF, and Above Rubies that actively teach QF doctrine, but many of their adherents seem to be fans of the Pearls' wifely submission and child-beating manuals.

[lilith]

I've heard that the Pearls are even fairly anti-QF - I think based on this article where Debi is pro-child spacing when the headship demands it and says that the conviction to not space children came from somewhere other than the Bible because there's no sin in spacing children as long as there's no aborting of fertilized eggs (other than, presumably, those which occur naturally :roll: ) http://nogreaterjoy.org/articles/do-you ... h-control/

I haven't found any other gurus other than Gothard, VF, and Above Rubies that actively teach QF doctrine, but many of their adherents seem to be fans of the Pearls' wifely submission and child-beating manuals.

Debi Pearl says its always up to the husband, and if a girl is strongly convicted that birth control is wrong she needs to tell the man during courtship and not marry him if he wants a wife who uses contraceptives.

I'm pretty sure Rebecca Pearl Anast is quiverfull, but not the other kids.

[lilith]

There are also people like Zsuzsanna Anderson who space children through strict attachment parenting and demand breast feeding. Zsuzsanna doesn't believe in other NFP methods though cause they require abstaining when the wife is ovulating and her sexual desire is at its peak.