A Question For Any Quiverful Followers Who Lurk Here

[debrand]

I was curious. The definition of quiverful seems to be that the parents let god decide the number of children that they have. For any quiverful women on this board....

 

Is there a limit to how far you would follow this belief? What is a doctor told you that your next childbirth could be your last? Or that you might die in labor? Or that you might die in pregnancy? What if your children were going without food because of lack of money?

 

How far would you take being quiverful?

 

I know that there are lurkers here. If your shy about posting, just use an annoymous screen name. We will have no idea who you are.

[abba12]

Well this seems a slightly safer topic than the last one lol!

This will vary widely from family to family! I will give you my opinion.

What if a doctor told you that your next childbirth could be your last? Or that you might die in labor? Or that you might die in pregnancy? - I would do a lot of research. Some doctors like to tell mums of many that they shouldn't get pregnant again because of x. There is a lot of infomation online and in medical studies (Thank goodness I was taught how to research, and how to make sense of an official medical study or report. I consider myself fortunate in this, as I have had to go against doctor advise multiple times in the past.)

If the risk was a small one, for example the 'risks' associated with a VBAC, or the smaller risks of gestational diabeties, I would believe God is keeping me safe and trust him. If we're talking a big risk, like my friend who has basically been told her uterus will tear open if she carries another baby due to a botched c-section, I do believe God gives us thought for a reason and is trying to tell me it's my time to stop. (it's like the story of a woman on a roof in a flood, she tells the two boats and a helicopter that she dosen't need saving, God will save her. God tried to save her, with two boats and a helicopter! She dies.) God wants us to trust him, and were I already pregnant with a viable baby upon discovering it I would not abort, I would trust Him (eptopic pregnancy being an obvious example of an exception to the rule as the baby cannot live either). But if He's showing a neon sign saying 'that's it, no more', I think we need to look. It's like what I was saying in the other thread, yes it's sinful for her to prevent pregnancy, however, because we live in a fallen world she has been forced into that situation.

What if your children were going without food because of lack of money? - I believe God provides. My husband and I have coasted by in the past, somehow managing to make bills we didn't think we had any money for, but money appeared, whether it was one day of work, an odd job, or a gift. We would cut back, move in with our parents, not buy clothes, and trust that God would provide us with what we needed when the time came. It works both ways, now we are better off I regularly send money and gifts to families doing it tough.

I'm yet to hear of a QF family dying of starvation. In fact, I'm yet to hear of a QF family without a roof over their heads, even if it's the roof of a friend or family member.

I said in the other thread, I did prevent pregnancy for 6 months after my baby was born. We live in a fallen world and are sometimes forced into such situations. But it is always sin, it's simply, at times, a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils. It's like a woman who has to choose between allowing her children to be beaten, or divorcing her abusive husband. Both are sinful, in a biblical world the situation wouldn't exist, but because we are in a fallen world and because of her husbands sins she has to choose the lesser of two evils.

[emmiedahl]

Oh, we can tell you about QF families in dangerous situations because they refuse to stop having children and allow the woman to work. Anyone want to make a list? I am losing motivation here.

Hint: God does not help them, and the other QFers seem to find endangering children to be admirable.

[VeraAnne]

I'm actually in that situation.

I talked to my doctors after my last c-section and they told me that everything looked good, but that it would be wise for me to have only one more child at the most.

Now I'm facing the possibility of having to have a D&C if I don't complete this miscarriage by next Tuesday. IF I have to have that surgery, it is unlikely that we will have more children because my cervix is already pretty crappy and I don't want to risk a 2nd or 3rd trimester miscarriage because of it.

I don't believe in hormonal birth control but I couldn't take it even if I did because I have a clotting disorder. I also don't want to get my tubes tied because if you do somehow get pregnant after having them tied, your risk of ectopic pregnancy is 50%. I don't want to take that risk. So my husband will be getting snipped. It makes the most sense, and is the least likely to result in a failed pregnancy.

Now of course, I could just ignore these risks and trust God. I do trust God, but I've seen my baby with an IV in his head and his organs nearly visible. I don't want to do anything that could result in another child facing that same situation or worse, especially since I am aware of my personal risk factors.

I guess my personal belief is this: God gave us knowledge of our fertility. In an ideal world, we could simply use that knowledge to prevent pregnancy and there would be no need for any other measures. However, I do beleive that as parents we also have a mandate to protect our family. If the possiblity of pregnancy could result in the death of the mother or child, I think that it is wise to use medical options to help make sure that a pregnancy does not occur. I guess I'm not so much quiverful as pro NFP, which is more a Catholic view.

Edit to add that I have 3 kids and have had 5 pregnancies, in case anyone is curious.

[KnightInShiningAmore]

The teaching I've heard in many ATI circles is that abstinence is an acceptable method of birth restriction, and that if a man cannot provide for his family he should simply abstain from making more family, since they also love the verse that says 'he who cannot provide for those of his own house is worse than an infidel'. Other circles insist to keep having children and the church will cover the costs he can't cover until he is able to raise his income.

[GenerationCedarchip]

The teaching I've heard in many ATI circles is that abstinence is an acceptable method of birth restriction, and that if a man cannot provide for his family he should simply abstain from making more family, since they also love the verse that says 'he who cannot provide for those of his own house is worse than an infidel'. Other circles insist to keep having children and the church will cover the costs he can't cover until he is able to raise his income.

That's the teaching I've heard most often from QF followers and that's one big reason that I get uneasy about the movement. Deciding not to use hormonal birth control, barrier methods, etc... is one thing, but being unable to provide for one's family and continuing to seek more children bothers me. I can see the church caring for each other when folks fall on hard times, but seeking out the hard times and expecting indefinite provision doesn't sit quite right.

[debrand]

Thank you everyone for answering.

[maybeizfundie]

We are not 'followers' of a particular movement. Dh and I independently reached a conclusion about this that I guess constitutes QF years before we met each other. A couple of years ago, I would have said we were QF, but with what I see as a major redefinition and the addition of all kinds of other stuff that we don't participate in, I don't use that label for myself anymore.

Additionally, not only is my husband not American, but he was born and raised in abject poverty in a developing nation. So he has the pespective of one who's been there, done that. He has no love of poverty. He has no desire to see his children suffer. He will work himself into the grave in order to care for them. And he still does not think that his parents were wrong to have 9 children, nor does he resent his upbringing. ETA: I should add that this means he also has a very different perspective of what constitutes deprivation. Although my parents are doctors, we have an odd history so I was not raised in an upper-middle class lifestyle and tend to have views about this much in alignment with dh's, even though we grew up in vastly different situations.

It's hard to play the what-if game. When things are looking tight financially, we assess and make changes as necessary. I am home because we believe that is best for the family and the children. And I'm grateful my husband values what I do at home. If something happened to him, or there was no other option, I would also go to work. We don't think it's sinful for a woman to earn money. We believe that it is better for the children to have their mom at home if possible, but if we were looking at not being able to feed them, then the "better" balance shifts, and it's better to be able to eat.

Side note: I do think this financial consideration is one reason that many QF families do go the homesteading/hobby farming route. So that they will have land, shelter, and food even if the economic infrastructure stumbles or collapses.

Healthwise, like abba I would seek out multiple opinions, first. I'm not anti-medicine or anti-doctor. I was raised by doctors. :D But I've had the unfortunate experience of a medical professional using predictions of death and destruction when they were highly unlikely, because she was uncomfortable with my decision and wanted me to change my mind. And in discussion she admitted this, flat out. So that comes first. Abstinence for a time would be next, while we sorted out "possible problem" vs. "very real and present danger". The only long term avoidance method either of us would be even remotely comfortable with would be NFP, and it would be deeply painful for us to have to use it. When I had a molar pregnancy, it was abstinence, but by default since my husband was out of the country. He came back before a year was up, but by that point my hcg had been at zero for many months, and I had no fears about getting pregnant again (I didn't though).

For us, we just don't use birth control, and for us it is a matter of faith, and for us, we have experienced what in Christianese might be called Providence. It is an intensely personal thing, and so we aren't out there writing books and telling people they should do what we do, even if we do think it would be neat if other Christians at least *understood* our position, rather than mocking or making odd comments about the size of our family (which, with three children, is pretty dang small still). We understand that at times the ideal comes in conflict with the fallen world, as abba called it. However vigorously I might debate with others, or defend my views, I don't have antagonism or hatred towards people who differ.

And no it is *not* about having as many children as possible. For us it is about being open, completely. Our family is smaller than one would expect, given that belief. We are not "seeking" children any more than we are avoiding them. I don't wean early. I don't chart. We definitely do not use fertility treatment or enhancement. This is not something that we stress over, though it took me a few years to reach a place of contentment that my family was going to look different than I had envisioned it looking all my life. At some point I realized that if I was going to "trust God" in this regard, that meant trusting him even when things weren't going my way.

[Sola]

The teaching I've heard in many ATI circles is that abstinence is an acceptable method of birth restriction, and that if a man cannot provide for his family he should simply abstain from making more family, since they also love the verse that says 'he who cannot provide for those of his own house is worse than an infidel'. Other circles insist to keep having children and the church will cover the costs he can't cover until he is able to raise his income.

I cannot for one moment imagine that Jimboob Duggar will be partaking in abstinence since Josie's birth. I wish I could imagine that.... you have no idea how much I wish I could imagine that...

[DistantStar]

I've gotten some help from my church during a major crunch. Were I to keep expecting to get help every month because of something I chose repeatedly to do that is financially stupid, I'm pretty sure that'd make me a freeloader. Accepting help is tough enough when you are in genuine need, but to expect it because you keep having children you can't afford? Real good life lesson there, folks. Not!

[clarinetpower]

So sorry for your loss, VeraAnne.

[dormouse]

One thing I'd like clarified is this:

It's like a woman who has to choose between allowing her children to be beaten, or divorcing her abusive husband. Both are sinful, in a biblical world the situation wouldn't exist, but because we are in a fallen world and because of her husbands sins she has to choose the lesser of two evils.

Do you really think that men didn't beat their children and wives in biblical times? or is it just your way to say "in an ideal world, this wouldn't happen"?

[apple1]

Well this seems a slightly safer topic than the last one lol!?

This will vary widely from family to family! I will give you my opinion.

What if a doctor told you that your next childbirth could be your last? Or that you might die in labor? Or that you might die in pregnancy? - I would do a lot of research. Some doctors like to tell mums of many that they shouldn't get pregnant again because of x. There is a lot of infomation online and in medical studies (Thank goodness I was taught how to research, and how to make sense of an official medical study or report. I consider myself fortunate in this, as I have had to go against doctor advise multiple times in the past.)

If the risk was a small one, for example the 'risks' associated with a VBAC, or the smaller risks of gestational diabeties, I would believe God is keeping me safe and trust him. If we're talking a big risk, like my friend who has basically been told her uterus will tear open if she carries another baby due to a botched c-section, I do believe God gives us thought for a reason and is trying to tell me it's my time to stop. (it's like the story of a woman on a roof in a flood, she tells the two boats and a helicopter that she dosen't need saving, God will save her. God tried to save her, with two boats and a helicopter! She dies.) God wants us to trust him, and were I already pregnant with a viable baby upon discovering it I would not abort, I would trust Him (eptopic pregnancy being an obvious example of an exception to the rule as the baby cannot live either). But if He's showing a neon sign saying 'that's it, no more', I think we need to look. It's like what I was saying in the other thread, yes it's sinful for her to prevent pregnancy, however, because we live in a fallen world she has been forced into that situation.

What if your children were going without food because of lack of money? - I believe God provides. My husband and I have coasted by in the past, somehow managing to make bills we didn't think we had any money for, but money appeared, whether it was one day of work, an odd job, or a gift. We would cut back, move in with our parents, not buy clothes, and trust that God would provide us with what we needed when the time came. It works both ways, now we are better off I regularly send money and gifts to families doing it tough.

I'm yet to hear of a QF family dying of starvation.(apple1) This is quite possibly because of public assistance, whether it is Medicaid, WIC, or other. We as a nation are far from perfect, but we DO have an emergency net in place that usually prevents children from starvation. This thinking absolutely astounds me. In fact, I'm yet to hear of a QF family without a roof over their heads, even if it's the roof of a friend or family member.

I said in the other thread, I did prevent pregnancy for 6 months after my baby was born. We live in a fallen world and are sometimes forced into such situations. But it is always sin,(apple1) Why? Based on you posts, you claim Christianity. I am Christian and I don't find this theology in my Christian Bible. it's simply, at times, a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils. It's like a woman who has to choose between allowing her children to be beaten, or divorcing her abusive husband. Both are sinful, in a biblical world the situation wouldn't exist, but because we are in a fallen world and because of her husbands sins she has to choose the lesser of two evils.

My "red flags". I really have a hard time with this thinking. As- You might be in a situation (already having many kids?) of having no choice but to move in with friends (soon to be ex-friends!) or parents (I guarantee that relationship will never recover either), but you would continue to create more kids? As in, you can't support the ones you already have but you are going to have more? If you were my daughter (which you obviously are not, and my daughter does not share this belief system), some very frank talk would be occurring.

[VeraAnne]

Thank you, Clarinetpower. I haven't told many people about it IRL because of bad experiences in the past, but I've actually found online strangers to be really supportive. I don't mean to keep harping on it, I've just been dealing with the missed miscarriage part for over a month and I'm starting to go a little crazy. Thank God it's finally starting to happen.

[formergothardite]

When you can't care for the children you already have yet you keep having more, it shows you don't really care about those "blessings", you care about collecting baby points. That is why I don't for a second believe that QF people view their children as blessings. More like collectible objects. If they were really viewed as blessings you wouldn't put them at risk and place their life in constant stress and chaos by adding more babies. There was a brief time as a child when my dad lost his job and we were very, very poor and I can still remember the stress of that. Thank God my parents weren't QF and had the sense to prevent pregnancies because it would have been horrible to add the worry of "How are we going to care for another baby." QF parents put their selfish desires to have collect children above the nees of already existing children and there is no getting around that.

[VeraAnne]

formergothardite, I think that can be true, but I don't think that it is true of every family. I don't think that you can say that every QF couple doesn't care for the children that they have. I know a lot of families who are very loving and stable who care for all of their children. The idea behind being quiveful isn't to have as many children as possible, it is to be open to having however many children you are blessed with, be that 1 or 10.

I know that that theory is often abandoned for the "have as many children as possible" plan, but the QF ideology basically states that you will do nothing to prevent or encourage pregnancy, but rather to let things fall as they may.

[maybeizfundie]

What VeraAnne said.

And that's what i was talking about when I mentioned the redefinition. My early understanding of QF was as VeraAnne described. It seems to have become something entirely different.

Thus far, I've only run across one person IRL who adovcated the kind of "selfish aquiring of children" that's been mentioned, and condemned those who didn't do that. Not only was he totally out of line and improper to suggest that I was selfish to be "still" breastfeeding my 3 month old and that I must be doing it for birth control, but he was also wrong as far as what we meant by our beliefs. We *thought* we had found someone who was similarly minded, but the constant suggestions that we weren't "doing it right" because weren't having a baby every 12 months got old. And ironically, he became "QF" after God told him he was to have two more children, and then dropped a third one on him, which made him mad. :? Out the door went QF.

Apart from that one, the people I know IRL, and have known for years, are consistent in their application, and are not "seeking" hordes of children. They are open to large family living. It is not the singular focus and pursuit of their life, though.

[Guest Anonymous]

I said in the other thread, I did prevent pregnancy for 6 months after my baby was born. We live in a fallen world and are sometimes forced into such situations. But it is always sin, it's simply, at times, a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils. It's like a woman who has to choose between allowing her children to be beaten, or divorcing her abusive husband. Both are sinful, in a biblical world the situation wouldn't exist, but because we are in a fallen world and because of her husbands sins she has to choose the lesser of two evils.

How the fuck does that prayer of repentance go?

"Dear God, thank you for sending Jesus to die on the cross so that you could forgive me for divorcing the man who was beating my children. In an ideal world, I would have stayed."

[VeraAnne]

It's more "in an ideal world my husband wouldn't beat my children." Does that make sense?

Oops, sorry I edited your post not mine. Fat fingers!

[formergothardite]

But from my understanding, "being open to however many children God sends" means that even if it would lower the quality of life of your current children, you would still not try and prevent a pregnacy. And that is selfish and shows that you don't value your already existing children. If you really view children as a blessing, then you don't purposely create situations that can be detrimental to them. And continually having children you can't afford to care for either emotionally, physically or finacially is detrimental to children. If you are willing so prevent pregnancy if it would not be good for your family, then you aren't quiverful. And the QF people would say you don't trust God.

[maybeizfundie]

And that gets into the definition of what is constitutes acceptable "quality of life" and what is "detrimental", and what, in terms of finances and resources is required for a valuable and good life, and where one ultimately places these things, as well as relationships, in their list of priorities.

I'm not sure it's even possible to have a satisfactory debate, because people's definitions of these things, and their priorities, vary so hugely. Barring food, shelter, concern for health/safety, and love, what is considered acceptable manifestations of those things is often cultural and based on societal norms.

[VeraAnne]

Edit to clarify that this is in reply to formergothardite.

You're taking your mindset and applying it to a belief that you don't share. From the QF perspective, the quality of life of their other children is not harmed by having more children. You may disagree with them from the outside, but you can't ascribe your thought process to their motives.

They believe that having another child is always a blessing to the family, no matter what. In their minds, it is better for their other children to have a sibling because it is God's will, even if that means that the other children will have to make due with less.

Again, I'm not saying that you have to agree with that belief. I'm just saying that you can't say that they are acting from a selfish perspective when they believe that they are doing their other children a favor by following God's will. In their minds it would be selfish for them to go against God's will.

[Guest Anonymous]

It's more "in an ideal world my husband wouldn't beat my children." Does that make sense?

What doesn't make sense is the idea that it is 'sinful' to leave him. In my opinion, he broke the marriage covenant in the most terrible way when he raised his fist, and the divorce is just the paperwork that tidies things up. Along with the 'paperwork' involved in getting the bastard locked up.

[VeraAnne]

Oh I agree that he is the one that sinned.

[masagoroll]

Edit to clarify that this is in reply to formergothardite.

You're taking your mindset and applying it to a belief that you don't share. From the QF perspective, the quality of life of their other children is not harmed by having more children. You may disagree with them from the outside, but you can't ascribe your thought process to their motives.

They believe that having another child is always a blessing to the family, no matter what. In their minds, it is better for their other children to have a sibling because it is God's will, even if that means that the other children will have to make due with less.

Again, I'm not saying that you have to agree with that belief. I'm just saying that you can't say that they are acting from a selfish perspective when they believe that they are doing their other children a favor by following God's will. In their minds it would be selfish for them to go against God's will.

Even if it makes the existing children make do with less FOOD than they need to grow? Less attention to help them grow up into a well-adjusted person? Not enough clothes to wear? Not enough room to sleep?

How can they believe it would ALWAYS be better to add another child?