Michaela & Brandon Keilen 5: She Goes By Michaela

[SassyPants]

7 minutes ago, meee said:

She's going to nursing school.

Yes, I had heard that was her plan, but she’s been married for years. I think for a young, capable, healthy adult, it would be depressing to be stuck away, isolated at home. 

[Melissa1977]

2 hours ago, SassyPants said:

She is an educated adult, so why isn’t she working? What is a woman in their culture supposed to do  if God has decided she will have zero children?

I suppose she should move near her parents or parents-in-law and care for them when they're old and help raising nieces and nephews and sew some dresses. Oh wait.

[HereticHick]

Just a bit of sticking up for Michaela-- she hasn't been twiddling her thumbs all day. She's been sewing and selling baby accessories for a couple of years. There have also been mentions of her working at a "mothers morning out" type program at a church, although I don't know for sure that it was paid. I know that some Fjers like to disparage any sort of homebased work, esp. if it is traditionally "woman's work" as "not a real paycheck." 

But that is pretty insulting to all the music teachers, nannies, laundresses, maids, and seamstresses in our lives and the lives of our ancestors.

[CaptainFunderpants]

7 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

I don’t wish for Michaela to Bring another another IBLP raised child into the world.If she desires to be a mother there are always girls even in fundamentalism who end up not being able to keep a baby  for whatever reason and would be very happy for a well off “famous”  family like the Bates to adopt from them. 

As far as I know their beliefs only allow adoption if you've already had biological children.

In their cult, Michael is being punished by God and so to circumvent that punishment is a no-no.

[tabitha2]

Michelle and JB adopted her nephew. He was not even fundie raised as far as we know.

Has it ever been point blank said no children=punishment by God?  Or is that one of those internet “truths” 

[Johannah]

I don’t understand why they don’t do an embryo adoption through a Christian organization like Nightlight. One of the biggest embryo donation centers is actually based in Knoxville. Maybe that’s why they’re moving back? ?

These people are on a mission to “save” frozen “babies” and give them good Christian homes. Seems right up their alley. No IVF. No fertility treatments. Michael gets to be pregnant. And gets bragging rights for “saving” a life, both literally and spiritually. Win-win. I’m surprised it hasn’t been discussed. Plus it’s lower cost and more straightforward than adopting a child. 

[theotherelise]

@Johannah we have talked about it in a past Michael thread, but it's been awhile  The snowflake "adoption" costs $8000. Then you have to do an "adoption" home study which costs at least $2000. Then you have to pay for the frozen embryo transfer which is probably at least $3000 for each transfer. You're looking at a minimum of $13,000 for a few, likely not perfect graded, embryos. I doubt they keep stats, but based on my infertility knowledge and research I'd ballpark your chances of one live birth at no more than 40% if you did three cumulative transfers of these "adopted" embryos. If you do get pregnant, they encourage "open adoptions" with the biological family. Of course I doubt that could be legally enforceable considering embryos are counted as property in the court system, not as children. But still. 

Also, frozen embryo transfers still require use of meds including birth control in many cases. You can do a more natural cycle I believe, but you definitely can't get through an FET without any hormonal treatment.

[Johannah]

A lot of embryo donations are anonymous, so that would be an option if they wanted it. And it is expensive, but still less than the cost of adoption. Also now with genetic testing, it can be known in advance whether the embryos are chromosomally normal or not (which increases their chances of implantation). 

It’s definitely not totally straightforward for them. Which is probably why they haven’t and may never do it. But a lot of people don’t know about it as an option and it’s specifically touted/endorsed by the evangelical community. So I figured of all the options to have a child, that might be the most feasible and acceptable for them. 

[theotherelise]

The kinds of people who put their embryos up for adoption are unlikely to be the kind of people who did PGS/PGD testing. It could be possible to do an embryo donation transfer within a clinic, I suppose, but I really don't think that option is as widespread as the snowflake adoption sites make it seem. It seems like you'd have to call around to clinics and see if they offer it. 

Michael and Brandon have not continued sharing their private medical details, so we really have no idea if additional issues have been discovered or what their prognosis is at this point. They could have physiological issues they're looking to correct or they could have some reason to think they could still get pregnant spontaneously or with treatments they find palatable. 

I really hope Michael falls in love with nursing as she finishes her degree and then spends more time in the real world through a nursing job.

[Pretzel]

Some people just don't feel like adoption is for them, and that is okay. A couple does not necessarily need to opt for adoption just because they can't have children of their own.

We know nothing about how Michael and Brandon feel, what issues they are really dealing with and what plans they have for the future*. Maybe they decided to take a break from TTC and just accept that it is not going to happen for them at the moment. It's great that Michael has valid career plans for the future. Not just because she'll be getting out of the house and broaden her horizons, but also because there is a whole lot more to having a fulfilled and happy life than just continuous procreation. In fundie words, I'm glad the Lord laid nursing on Michael's heart and I am sure she'll find that she can be a blessing to many people that way. Michael has always struck me as a no-nonsense, hard-working, and dedicated person and I think those are great prerequisites for the job. I don't believe she'll become a pro-choice nurse at a women's health center, but I could definitely see her working at a children's hospital or a nursing home. 

*I could see them choosing a foster-to-adopt approach a few years from now. 

[Johannah]

All we know about her adoption views is that she told Erin on the show that she was going to “adopt me a baby,” which makes me think they may choose that route eventually. But we’ll see.

I’m fascinated by her story because I’m interested in fertility and reproduction issues in general and I went through IVF myself. I have always wondered what would happen if a quiverfull member dealt with infertility and Michael is now going through it in the public eye via their show.

I’m so curious to see how they’re going to reconcile her desire for children with their religious cult “beliefs.” My best guess is that they’ll view it as a punishment/season of life/trial by God for awhile, and then they’ll find a loophole to justify some form of fertility treatment or adoption like her sisters have with jeans and dancing and dourting. But Michael is one of the most conformist and deeply entrenched of the Bates kids so it’s hard to say. 

[PlentyOfJesusFishInTheSea]

19 hours ago, CaptainFunderpants said:

As far as I know their beliefs only allow adoption if you've already had biological children.

In their cult, Michael is being punished by God and so to circumvent that punishment is a no-no. 

I see claims like this on FJ occasionally but I've never seen the Wisdom Booklet (or whatever) to back it up. Does anyone have a citation?

I suspect they word it more like "God works in mysterious ways; he has some reason to not give you children" and many people come to the conclusion that it's their fault somehow.

I've heard Gothard was anti-adoption ("the sins of the father" reasoning) but not that it was Ok if you already have kids. I'm curious if anyone knows the reasoning behind this, if true.

[Flossie]

59 minutes ago, PlentyOfJesusFishInTheSea said:

I see claims like this on FJ occasionally but I've never seen the Wisdom Booklet (or whatever) to back it up. Does anyone have a citation?

I suspect they word it more like "God works in mysterious ways; he has some reason to not give you children" and many people come to the conclusion that it's their fault somehow.

I've heard Gothard was anti-adoption ("the sins of the father" reasoning) but not that it was Ok if you already have kids. I'm curious if anyone knows the reasoning behind this, if true.

My opinion:  Gothard is an asshole, and wanted to simultaneously keep his flock in line via the "children are gifts from God if you are worthy" and didn't want his followers falling under the gaze of the authorities if at all possible.

I bet he got a real kick thinking of all those women turning themselves inside out trying to have as many children as possible to prove how much God loved them.

[Palimpsest]

2 hours ago, PlentyOfJesusFishInTheSea said:

I see claims like this on FJ occasionally but I've never seen the Wisdom Booklet (or whatever) to back it up. Does anyone have a citation?

I suspect they word it more like "God works in mysterious ways; he has some reason to not give you children" and many people come to the conclusion that it's their fault somehow.

I've heard Gothard was anti-adoption ("the sins of the father" reasoning) but not that it was Ok if you already have kids. I'm curious if anyone knows the reasoning behind this, if true.

Yeah.  I think that was a wild guess.  I've never seen anything anywhere to back up this concept that Gothard taught people must have biological children before they adopt.  I could be wrong though.

But, yes, there is evidence that Gothard was (and probably still is) anti-adoption. 

Here is an article from Recovering Grace on BG's anti-adoption stance.  I only quoted a short passage but there are citations to BG's specific teachings in the rest of the article.

Quote

It might be surprising to many to discover that a “family-centric” worldview such as Bill Gothard’s would have anything against the idea of adoption, but Gothard’s writings and teachings are decidedly against the practice. Though never stating outright in print that adoption is wrong for a Christian couple, Gothard’s lectures—and personal counsel to many families—demonstrate his belief that the benefits are not worth the risks. Any Advanced Training Institute (ATI) family considering adoption is asked to first consult the ATI staff. Gothard’s CARE Booklet on the topic offers so many warnings and case studies of adoptive failure that its cumulative effect is most certainly to dissuade prospective parents from considering this option. Although he does acknowledge Moses and Esther as instances of biblical adoptions in Scripture, he believes that adoption is a cultural, not a biblical, convention: “It is significant that our modern concept of adoption in unknown to the Law which God gave to Israel.”[1]

Adopting a child is certainly a choice to be made soberly and in full view of the unique responsibilities and challenges it entails.  But it is also a decision to be made out of faith, not fear. The concept Gothard uses to cast the most doubt and fear on the practice is the concept of ‘generational sin.’  For those who grew up in ATI, the diagrams are familiar.[2] Gothard proof-texts the idea that we are connected to the sins of our ancestors by referring to an obscure text in Hebrews: “One might even say that Levi, who collects the tenth, paid the tenth through Abraham, because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of his ancestor.” (Hebrews 7:9-10)

 

http://www.recoveringgrace.org/2011/10/adoption-the-ultimate-act-of-grace/

Not all IBLP affiliated folk followed that teaching, of course.  Some got caught up in the Evangelical Adoption Crusade to save heathen babies of Jesus, beginning in the early 2000s.  It's this sort of thinking that makes the Jessa Duggars of the Fundie world talk blythely about adoption when they have no idea of the practicalities.  Many of the adopters for Jesus have now backed off international adoption because they found it was harder than they thought.  See Kathryn Joyce's the Child Catchers.

18 hours ago, Johannah said:

 My best guess is that they’ll view it as a punishment/season of life/trial by God for awhile, and then they’ll find a loophole to justify some form of fertility treatment or adoption like her sisters have with jeans and dancing and dourting. But Michael is one of the most conformist and deeply entrenched of the Bates kids so it’s hard to say. 

She certainly seems that way, and she and Brandon have been drinking the concentrated koolaid at IBLP HQ for a long time.  Time will tell.

21 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

Michelle and JB adopted her nephew. He was not even fundie raised as far as we know.

No, they did not.  This is another frequently repeated misconception.  Michelle and JB were given first Temporary and then Permanent Guardianship of young Tyler.  Guardianship and adoption are not the same thing.  Simply put, Guardianships, even "permanent" ones, can be (and are) petitioned by interested parties, overturned, and reassigned by the court.  Adoption is permanent.  You need a court order revoking parental rights for cause (like abuse) to end an adoption.  

Edited May 29, 2019 by Palimpsest
fixed quotes

[BookwormExtraordinaire]

It must be awful to struggle with infertility in a world like theirs. I truly feel sorry for Michael and Brandon for having to go through it, but at the same time I cannot wish for another child to be born into an environment like that.

I think they will adopt in a couple of years if they don’t have any biological children at that point. Michael seems to love children, and I wonder if she’ll ever be able to accept living a life without any of her own.

[Audrey2]

1 hour ago, Palimpsest said:

But, yes, there is evidence that Gothard was (and probably still is) anti-adoption. 

Here is an article from Recovering Grace on BG's anti-adoption stance.  I only quoted a short passage but there are citations to BG's specific teachings in the rest of the article.

http://www.recoveringgrace.org/2011/10/adoption-the-ultimate-act-of-grace/

 

I'm still shaking my head and this is making my logical brain want to explode. The same people who are so vehemently anti-abortion, who we've seen carrying anti-abortion signs, who have made anti abortion posts followed a leader who, there was evidence, didn't like adoption.

Who was supposed to raise these children after they were born?

 

[PlentyOfJesusFishInTheSea]

19 minutes ago, Audrey2 said:

I'm still shaking my head and this is making my logical brain want to explode. The same people who are so vehemently anti-abortion, who we've seen carrying anti-abortion signs, who have made anti abortion posts followed a leader who, there was evidence, didn't like adoption.

Who was supposed to raise these children after they were born? 

 

It's so weird and sad.

I respect Shannon of 5 Kids 6 Months for at least realizing that being "pro-life" should mean being open to adoption. I believe she participates in some ATI/IBLP stuff (she goes to Big Sandy every year). She also seems to get in way over her head...

[llg1234]

1 hour ago, Audrey2 said:

I'm still shaking my head and this is making my logical brain want to explode. The same people who are so vehemently anti-abortion, who we've seen carrying anti-abortion signs, who have made anti abortion posts followed a leader who, there was evidence, didn't like adoption.

Who was supposed to raise these children after they were born?

Here's the thing about the anti-choice community: They don't want non-married people to have sex. Period. They're against abortion, sex education and access to birth control, because if you're not married, you shouldn't need any of that. These children shouldn't be born at all and their existence is an example of the mom's (but not usually the dad's) moral failings. They want to scare women into not having sex (which is why Alyssa Milano's 'sex strike' was such a stupid idea, but that's a whole other issue). Allowing access to birth control and education goes against their morals, because they think it encourages people to have sex outside of marriage. They talk about adoption being an option, but what they really want is for the kid to not exist in the first place. Once the mom is pregnant though? She needs to 'repent' for her sins.

I see people on social media wonder how you can be anti-abortion and also be against a social safety net and sex education. It's not actually about the kids, it's about making everyone live within a very narrow idea of how you can and cannot live your life. 

[backyard sylph]

47 minutes ago, llg1234 said:

Here's the thing about the anti-choice community: They don't want non-married people to have sex. Period. They're against abortion, sex education and access to birth control, because if you're not married, you shouldn't need any of that. These children shouldn't be born at all and their existence is an example of the mom's (but not usually the dad's) moral failings. 

...

I see people on social media wonder how you can be anti-abortion and also be against a social safety net and sex education. It's not actually about the kids, it's about making everyone live within a very narrow idea of how you can and cannot live your life. 

I keep trying to tell people this; it's why science and logic don't work on them. You can tell these people every fact in evidence that it's more pro-life to keep it legal, but they won't accept it because it would also make more sex okay. 

I do get sick enjoyment, well, "enjoyment," from seeing the various preachers/Senators exposed with the pool boy or a call girl/rent boy, at least, halfway, because their hypocrisy is limitless; they just act ashamed for awhile, then go back to preaching the same awfulness. Of course, it does suck to be the pool boy or hired companion if they're named, but fortunately there's rarely much focus on them to make it easier to hush up fast, and sometimes they get college money out of it.

Please don't think I'm callous. I'm just angry right now. 

Edited May 29, 2019 by backyard sylph
we mustn't leave out the senators.

[SHERA]

On 5/28/2019 at 2:48 PM, Johannah said:

I don’t understand why they don’t do an embryo adoption through a Christian organization like Nightlight. One of the biggest embryo donation centers is actually based in Knoxville. Maybe that’s why they’re moving back? ?

These people are on a mission to “save” frozen “babies” and give them good Christian homes. Seems right up their alley. No IVF. No fertility treatments. Michael gets to be pregnant. And gets bragging rights for “saving” a life, both literally and spiritually. Win-win. I’m surprised it hasn’t been discussed. Plus it’s lower cost and more straightforward than adopting a child. 

Frozen Embryo Transfers from embryo adoption is so much easier than IVF! 

Finally she has a nice dress!!!

 

 

[AliceInFundyland]

Michael's sincere love for her family is a beautiful thing to see. Since she does dress plainly and simple. This stands out. When you add happiness - bam.

[QuiverDance]

19 hours ago, llg1234 said:

Here's the thing about the anti-choice community: They don't want non-married people to have sex. Period. They're against abortion, sex education and access to birth control, because if you're not married, you shouldn't need any of that. These children shouldn't be born at all and their existence is an example of the mom's (but not usually the dad's) moral failings. They want to scare women into not having sex (which is why Alyssa Milano's 'sex strike' was such a stupid idea, but that's a whole other issue). Allowing access to birth control and education goes against their morals, because they think it encourages people to have sex outside of marriage. They talk about adoption being an option, but what they really want is for the kid to not exist in the first place. Once the mom is pregnant though? She needs to 'repent' for her sins.

I see people on social media wonder how you can be anti-abortion and also be against a social safety net and sex education. It's not actually about the kids, it's about making everyone live within a very narrow idea of how you can and cannot live your life. 

Extremely well said, and I actually just had this argument with someone this morning.  Conservative positions on reproductive care are about punishment for women, not mercy for the unborn.

[QuiverFullofBooks]

17 hours ago, SHERA said:

Frozen Embryo Transfers from embryo adoption is so much easier than IVF! 

It’s still IVF, just a frozen round instead of a fresh round. Much easier though.

[CaptainFunderpants]

18 hours ago, SHERA said:

Frozen Embryo Transfers from embryo adoption is so much easier than IVF! 

Finally she has a nice dress!!!

 

 

That dress flatters Michael's body absolutely fabulously. It also seems slightly out of her old comfort zone with the superficially covered shoulders.

Props to Carlin for having bridesmaid dresses that enabled everyone to look and feel great.

--
Edited because accidentally added comment to quoted comment, rather than in the new area ??‍♀️

Edited May 30, 2019 by CaptainFunderpants

[SHERA]

1 hour ago, QuiverFullofBooks said:

It’s still IVF, just a frozen round instead of a fresh round. Much easier though.

Except you skip the horrible first half and do the easier cheaper second half. I did it twice and got pregnant both times. I didn’t get pregnant from IVF.