Michael and Brandon Keilen- Part 2

[Purrl]

I had the same thought @jqlgoblue . Also, when I was going through a period of infertility, I got severely depressed and began to put on weight.

[faraway]

I doubt she's pregnant. Why would she bother to comment if she was? She isn't Jessa Duggar. Btw, the comments are a whole new level of stupid, people getting upset about the ones asking about a pregnancy and sharing their own fertility stories, someone suggested Christian fertility treatment in a lenghty post. I can't even. 

[Mela99]

5 hours ago, faraway said:

I doubt she's pregnant. Why would she bother to comment if she was? She isn't Jessa Duggar. Btw, the comments are a whole new level of stupid, people getting upset about the ones asking about a pregnancy and sharing their own fertility stories, someone suggested Christian fertility treatment in a lenghty post. I can't even. 

What on earth is Christian fertility treatment? 

[Carm_88]

That's the issue with putting your life out there and your family being all about the babies! I do think it's rude to ask if someone is pregnant though, bad bible quote for sure. It seems like they are having issues of some sort, if we are going by the teaser, so clearly they are struggling with it. That is hard, even if I don't want a child to be born into their awful belief system. Whatever is going on and how serious it is or isn't, is not my business. Nor is it the business of those who are asking her.

[faraway]

23 hours ago, Mela99 said:

What on earth is Christian fertility treatment? 

 I have no idea, some doctor was named but I have no interest to look into it. 

[Mela99]

I decided to do a little googling on Christian fertility treatments. Some of them are pretty reasonable and just don't want to see abortions for handicaps or excess eggs thrown out or experimented on. Some of them are pretty far out in left field. I did find an article by a "Christian led Doctor" who states the following:

So, where does this leave us? Which fertility treatments are admissible? My own answer is to accept those which are performed in a spirit of service and love, and which honour life and uphold marriage.

Infertility treatments that compromise the survival of embryos or violate the marriage bond fall outside these parameters. This must include any IVF programme which involves:

experimentation on embryos

freezing of embryos (since it raises their mortality and many are never reimplanted)

disposal of embryos

PGD and disposal of 'unhealthy' embryos

routine amniocentesis and abortion for handicap

donor gametes

abortion of twins or triplets

There is also the high failure rate (75-85% per cycle) and the high cost of treatment to consider. Costs of £2,500 per cycle exhaust the resources of many couples and the emotional roller-coaster of raised hope and dashed expectation can exert its own damage, opening parents up to exploitation by those who wish to profit financially. However, having said all this, IVF may be acceptable if there is no freezing, experimentation or destruction and all embryos are replaced in the womb at the time in numbers likely to maximise survival.

One fairly recent development has been the use of frozen eggs. Previously it was thought that, whereas embryos and sperm can be frozen, the freezing of eggs led to irreparable damage, but this has not been borne out by the most recent studies. And if eggs can be frozen successfully there is then no justification for freezing embryos.

GIFT does not involve embryo destruction since fertilisation does not take place outside the body.

ICSI is used when sperm quality is not sufficient to achieve fertilisation through normal intercourse. It does not necessarily involve the destruction of embryos and hence in theory may be acceptable, but there is evidence that increased fetal malformations may result. In fact, recent research in Australia has shown that a group of infants born after ICSI and IVF had approximately twice the expected rate of major birth defects.[23] It seems counterintuitive to 'help' already defective sperm.

Surrogacy again introduces the problem of donor gametes as well as problems in terms of the emotional bond between the child and the carrying mother, or the lack of this bond with the legal mother. Similar problems arise in adoption, but adoption makes the best of a bad situation, whereas surrogacy intentionally creates these problems.

Sex selection of embryos clearly violates the above principles, even when performed to avoid the transmission of genetic diseases. It is not ethical to avoid disease by destroying (through non-implantation) affected individuals. Even sperm sorting introduces the idea of a 'designer baby', which has its characteristics chosen on the basis of someone else's preference. Children are not consumer items and their needs are more important than their parents' preferences. They are a gift, not a right. They are not there to satisfy our needs but to be cared for as God himself cares for all his children.

Final thoughts

If the principles of respect of the embryo, respect of the marriage bond and the needs of the child being paramount had been followed, then many of the more difficult cases that have emerged from Warnock's Pandora's box would not have been an issue. We would have no 'geriatric' mothers, no black babies from white parents, no cloning or designer babies.

Instead we would treat infertility in a way that combined loving service of the infertile with honouring life and upholding marriage.

There is also a role for patience and prayer - waiting for God's good time. I have been amazed at the number of Christian couples who have eventually gone on to conceive, either with ethical infertility treatment or naturally after a long period of waiting. Of course this does not happen for all, and God in his wisdom has left some couples childless despite good treatment and patient prayer.

There will always be mysteries beyond our understanding and answers that we will never have this side of heaven. In these circumstances we need to trust that God knows best. And yet I wonder if one of the reasons that God allows some couples to be childless is so that there are couples with a strong desire to be parents, who can either adopt children, or serve others' children in some way or be freed up for some other special purpose that God has for them.

In a very small way this has been my own experience. My wife and I have been blessed with three sons, for whom we thank God, but we lost our fourth child, a daughter, eighteen weeks into the pregnancy, and are unlikely ever to have another. This loss meant that my wife returned to work earlier than expected. As a community paediatrician working in adoption and fostering consultancy and as a school governor she has been able to make a valuable contribution to the lives of others; particularly in making the lives of other people's children better than they would otherwise have been. In addition it has meant extra income beyond our needs that we have been able to use in the Lord's service in building his kingdom. We don't know God's full reasons for our loss, but we can at least glimpse some of the way he is working for good through it.

In the end we must recognise God's sovereignty, be realistic about the fact that we live in a fallen world, and serve the childless with grace and compassion, whilst honouring life and upholding marriage. Whilst the final mysteries remain his, God can be trusted, and we can be confident that ultimately all will be put right in a new and perfect world when Christ returns to gather his own children to himself.'

 

I'm kind of confused as to what kind of IVF program could exist without freezing excess embryos. I wonder what they would do - just take one out? Take them all and implant every single one?

[Italiangirl]

I Think that the will implant something like 3/4 for time untill the embryos arent finish. I don't other way.

[JermajestyDuggar]

5 hours ago, Mela99 said:

I decided to do a little googling on Christian fertility treatments. Some of them are pretty reasonable and just don't want to see abortions for handicaps or excess eggs thrown out or experimented on. Some of them are pretty far out in left field. I did find an article by a "Christian led Doctor" who states the following:

So, where does this leave us? Which fertility treatments are admissible? My own answer is to accept those which are performed in a spirit of service and love, and which honour life and uphold marriage.

Infertility treatments that compromise the survival of embryos or violate the marriage bond fall outside these parameters. This must include any IVF programme which involves:

experimentation on embryos

freezing of embryos (since it raises their mortality and many are never reimplanted)

disposal of embryos

PGD and disposal of 'unhealthy' embryos

routine amniocentesis and abortion for handicap

donor gametes

abortion of twins or triplets

There is also the high failure rate (75-85% per cycle) and the high cost of treatment to consider. Costs of £2,500 per cycle exhaust the resources of many couples and the emotional roller-coaster of raised hope and dashed expectation can exert its own damage, opening parents up to exploitation by those who wish to profit financially. However, having said all this, IVF may be acceptable if there is no freezing, experimentation or destruction and all embryos are replaced in the womb at the time in numbers likely to maximise survival.

One fairly recent development has been the use of frozen eggs. Previously it was thought that, whereas embryos and sperm can be frozen, the freezing of eggs led to irreparable damage, but this has not been borne out by the most recent studies. And if eggs can be frozen successfully there is then no justification for freezing embryos.

GIFT does not involve embryo destruction since fertilisation does not take place outside the body.

ICSI is used when sperm quality is not sufficient to achieve fertilisation through normal intercourse. It does not necessarily involve the destruction of embryos and hence in theory may be acceptable, but there is evidence that increased fetal malformations may result. In fact, recent research in Australia has shown that a group of infants born after ICSI and IVF had approximately twice the expected rate of major birth defects.[23] It seems counterintuitive to 'help' already defective sperm.

Surrogacy again introduces the problem of donor gametes as well as problems in terms of the emotional bond between the child and the carrying mother, or the lack of this bond with the legal mother. Similar problems arise in adoption, but adoption makes the best of a bad situation, whereas surrogacy intentionally creates these problems.

Sex selection of embryos clearly violates the above principles, even when performed to avoid the transmission of genetic diseases. It is not ethical to avoid disease by destroying (through non-implantation) affected individuals. Even sperm sorting introduces the idea of a 'designer baby', which has its characteristics chosen on the basis of someone else's preference. Children are not consumer items and their needs are more important than their parents' preferences. They are a gift, not a right. They are not there to satisfy our needs but to be cared for as God himself cares for all his children.

Final thoughts

If the principles of respect of the embryo, respect of the marriage bond and the needs of the child being paramount had been followed, then many of the more difficult cases that have emerged from Warnock's Pandora's box would not have been an issue. We would have no 'geriatric' mothers, no black babies from white parents, no cloning or designer babies.

Instead we would treat infertility in a way that combined loving service of the infertile with honouring life and upholding marriage.

There is also a role for patience and prayer - waiting for God's good time. I have been amazed at the number of Christian couples who have eventually gone on to conceive, either with ethical infertility treatment or naturally after a long period of waiting. Of course this does not happen for all, and God in his wisdom has left some couples childless despite good treatment and patient prayer.

There will always be mysteries beyond our understanding and answers that we will never have this side of heaven. In these circumstances we need to trust that God knows best. And yet I wonder if one of the reasons that God allows some couples to be childless is so that there are couples with a strong desire to be parents, who can either adopt children, or serve others' children in some way or be freed up for some other special purpose that God has for them.

In a very small way this has been my own experience. My wife and I have been blessed with three sons, for whom we thank God, but we lost our fourth child, a daughter, eighteen weeks into the pregnancy, and are unlikely ever to have another. This loss meant that my wife returned to work earlier than expected. As a community paediatrician working in adoption and fostering consultancy and as a school governor she has been able to make a valuable contribution to the lives of others; particularly in making the lives of other people's children better than they would otherwise have been. In addition it has meant extra income beyond our needs that we have been able to use in the Lord's service in building his kingdom. We don't know God's full reasons for our loss, but we can at least glimpse some of the way he is working for good through it.

In the end we must recognise God's sovereignty, be realistic about the fact that we live in a fallen world, and serve the childless with grace and compassion, whilst honouring life and upholding marriage. Whilst the final mysteries remain his, God can be trusted, and we can be confident that ultimately all will be put right in a new and perfect world when Christ returns to gather his own children to himself.'

 

I'm kind of confused as to what kind of IVF program could exist without freezing excess embryos. I wonder what they would do - just take one out? Take them all and implant every single one?

I'm assuming they don't fertilize all of the eggs retrieved? They are probably ok otherwise disposing of eggs and sperm but not embryos. 

[SweetFellowshipper]

It's pretty rare that people start showing until 12-16 weeks. She wouldn't wait 4 months to announce and then do it in a coy way. I also don't think she'd use that verse about Jesus' birth to refer to herself...I assume they'd consider that disrespectful.

She may have just *gasp* gained weight! 

[JillyO]

11 hours ago, SweetFellowshipper said:

It's pretty rare that people start showing until 12-16 weeks. She wouldn't wait 4 months to announce and then do it in a coy way. I also don't think she'd use that verse about Jesus' birth to refer to herself...I assume they'd consider that disrespectful.

She may have just *gasp* gained weight! 

It may not even be that. This is the picture that has led to all the speculation and questions (more so than usual, anyway):

And I have to agree, she DOES look quite different in the picture. Not at all like her usual self. However, in her latest Instagram pic, she looks completely normal again, so I think the above one is just kind of a weird picture. Nothing more, nothing less. Here's the latest one for comparison:

https://www.instagram.com/p/BOfh38vBpd0/?taken-by=brandon_michael_jn15

[Carm_88]

It could just be a strange day or a weird angle that caught her slightly differently. I swear I have denied pictures of me because I think they look nothing like me.

[SweetFellowshipper]

She has a fairly round face to begin with. I do too. Even when I'm very thin. It's the first thing I notice in photos...Some angles make my face look enormous and others look perfectly good. 

[HRM1216]

I have a round face and agree different angles can reflect poorly, but I think even in the newest post she still looks slightly more round than ever before. That could obviously be due to a number of reasons, but I enjoy speculating so my mind's not letting her off the hook yet lol.

[MotherOfDragons]

I noticed that her face, as well as her arms and bosom, looked fuller in that Christmas Instagram post. I hope she's just eating well and being happy. 

[Fun Undies]

On 12/26/2016 at 10:58 PM, jqlgoblue said:

I thought that too, then considered that she also could be on medication or have changed her diet -- maybe because she is pregnant or because it is a new stage in trying.

I don't imagine her flat out stating, "I'm not pregnant", if she secretly is.  So in my opinion, it's either weird angle and/or lifestyle change (either diet changes, or medicinal - maybe hormones that might help her get/stay pregnant?)  Just my two cents though . . . who knows for sure =p

[SweetFellowshipper]

I gained a bunch of weight when I got married and I didn't get pregnant for a year. Just a lot of restaurant eating

[Pasta]

I won't read anything into the pose since they've posed like that before. It's the holiday season and people put on weight. 

 

Sidebar question; does iblp close for the winter? Would Brandon get time off to visit her family and his? 

[SweetFellowshipper]

Just looked at the photo again and someone just commented "Are you infertile?" Not even "I hope God blesses you with a child" or whatever they usually write. 

No matter what show you're on or what your family is known for, that's pretty messed up IMO. She has a lot of patience for the commenters. I'd have blown up long ago. 

[RosyDaisy]

I see it as Karma, or as Brandon said "God is saying no".

[JermajestyDuggar]

2 hours ago, SweetFellowshipper said:

Just looked at the photo again and someone just commented "Are you infertile?" Not even "I hope God blesses you with a child" or whatever they usually write. 

No matter what show you're on or what your family is known for, that's pretty messed up IMO. She has a lot of patience for the commenters. I'd have blown up long ago. 

I have dealt with infertility and people ask crazy personal shit even when you aren't on tv. But if I were in her shoes, I would've deleted instagram a long time ago.

[infooverload]

Interesting everyone assumes she's the infertile one. Brandon everyone just assumes has no problems, despite the fact either of them could have fertility issues.
 

[jqlgoblue]

Well, I don't think an Instagram poster is going to say "are you and/or Brandon infertile?" it could be the 'romantic' you.

[SweetFellowshipper]

19 hours ago, infooverload said:

Interesting everyone assumes she's the infertile one. Brandon everyone just assumes has no problems, despite the fact either of them could have fertility issues

Question Everything!
 

Exactly... Infertility issues are around 40% likely to be the dude, 40% likely to be the woman, and about 20% likely to be a combination. He could have low testosterone or other hormonal imbalances, a history of varicoceles or other issues we don't know about, thyroid issues, poor sperm count, motility or morphology...Lots of chances for infertility to be the guy's issue. Most people just generally assume it's about the woman's body, especially in their circles, I'm guessing.

[Mela99]

20 hours ago, infooverload said:

Interesting everyone assumes she's the infertile one. Brandon everyone just assumes has no problems, despite the fact either of them could have fertility issues

Question Everything!
 

Truth. 40% of the time, it's the man.

[Jigsaw3]

We've been talking about Gothard's attitude to fertility treatment, but I think a much more topical question is health insurance for IBLP employees. Does THAT include fertility treatment? Does IBLP even offer insurance for their employees, or are they expected to join Scamaritan?

Brandon and Michael might not be able to afford fertility treatment, even if they want it.