A Question For Any Quiverful Followers Who Lurk Here

[VeraAnne]

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

Because they belive that God has a plan for every child, and that He would not create a life unless it was for a good purpose.

That's why they believe that you should not prevent pregnancy even if another pregnancy could kill you. In their minds, if God creates a new life in that situation, it is His will,and thus good regardless of the outcome.

I think it really comes down to how you view God's role in reproduction. Is He actively creating new life, or did He simply design us with the ability to create life? I think most QF people would say that God has a direct hand in creating each new life and thus an explicit plan for that life.

[Guest Anonymous]

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."

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.

Oh I agree that he is the one that sinned.

You said first of all that both you and the husband were sinners. Now you agree he is 'the one' that sinned. Which is it?

[VeraAnne]

I never said that both of us were sinners, I was just explaining that the "fallen world" was talking about the abuse, not that the woman should have stayed.

Abba12 is the one who said that both parties were sinners. I never did.

[debrand]

Because they belive that God has a plan for every child, and that He would not create a life unless it was for a good purpose.

That's why they believe that you should not prevent pregnancy even if another pregnancy could kill you. In their minds, if God creates a new life in that situation, it is His will,and thus good regardless of the outcome.

I think it really comes down to how you view God's role in reproduction. Is He actively creating new life, or did He simply design us with the ability to create life? I think most QF people would say that God has a direct hand in creating each new life and thus an explicit plan for that life.

This is where I get honestly confused. If god wanted the life to be created, there is nothing the parents could do to prevent that pregnancy. Taking a pill or wearing a condom isn't going to stop an all powerful being. Quiverful makes it sound as if humans control god.

[VeraAnne]

Taking a pill or wearing a condom isn't going to stop an all powerful being. Quiverful makes it sound as if humans control god.

They actually believe that you can't stop God by these measures anyway if it is His will that you have another child, but if you try to do something to prevent pregnancy you are basically telling God that you are trying to control Him. That's actually one of their big points about why BC is against God.

[debrand]

They actually believe that you can't stop God by these measures anyway if it is His will that you have another child, but if you try to do something to prevent pregnancy you are basically telling God that you are trying to control Him. That's actually one of their big points about why BC is against God.

But wouldn't refusing BC when a further pregnancy might be dangerous be an example of testing god?

[formergothardite]

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.

Using real life situations of QF people I know. I talking about not having enough food for the kids, ends up God didn't provide. Not having shoes that fit, God didn't provide that either. Not being able to afford to heat the house, God somehow managed to miss that too. Mothers being so overwhelmed by constant pregnancies and young children that all they did was scream at their kids and the poor kids act horrible all the time because at least when they are bad their mom pays attention to them and any attention is good attention. The older kids literally cry when they find out their mom is having another baby because they know it is more work for them. And these families wouldn't have been this way if they had stopped having kids they couldn't care for. And just because you believe God told you to do it doesn't make it less selfish and uncaring towards the children you already have. And anyone who is willing to say that they would not prevent pregnancies for any reason even if it did things like this to their kids, doesn't value their children. And suck as parents.

I have called CPS on some of these people. Didn't do a lot of good.

[JenniferJuniper]

Because they belive that God has a plan for every child, and that He would not create a life unless it was for a good purpose.

That's why they believe that you should not prevent pregnancy even if another pregnancy could kill you. In their minds, if God creates a new life in that situation, it is His will,and thus good regardless of the outcome.

I think it really comes down to how you view God's role in reproduction. Is He actively creating new life, or did He simply design us with the ability to create life? I think most QF people would say that God has a direct hand in creating each new life and thus an explicit plan for that life.

Nonsensical, comical thinking.

"Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is good......"

[VeraAnne]

They wouldn't say testing, they would say that they are just trusting in God.

[VeraAnne]

It is sensical, Jennifer. It follows a logical progression based on a scriptural understanding.

The problem is that it makes a big assumption about the role God plays in reproduction. That's really the heart of the debate, and there isn't really any specific scripture that points one way or another. This one assumption leads to the entire QF philosophy. A Christian with a different idea of God's role in reproduction can read the same scripture, and come to a completely different logical conclusion.

Obviously someone who doesn't believe in God can come to an even different logical conclusion. Of course, not everyone has given the issue this amount of thought, and they might not have any logical underpinnings for their beliefs at all... But for most people, it all rests on our basic assumptions about the origin of life.

[treemom]

It isn't sensical to me at all.

[JenniferJuniper]

It isn't sensical to me at all.

Me neither. And frankly, I'm tired of people telling me a book from thousands of years ago provides a "logical" roadmap to anything. I've read both the old and new testament cover to cover and they provide nothing of the sort.

Believe whatever floats your personal boat. But don't insist to me your "faith" is "logical" when it's clearly nothing of the sort.

[VeraAnne]

Ok, let me break it down then. Here is the bare bones argument.

Premise 1: God creates human beings according to his will.

Premise 2: As Christians we should not intervene in a way that attempts to usurp God's Will

Conclusion: Since the creation of life is God's will, and we should not intervene in a way that attempts to usurp God's will, we should not intervene in the creation of life.

[treemom]

Ok, let me break it down then. Here is the bare bones argument.

Premise 1: God creates human beings according to his will.

Premise 2: As Christians we should not intervene in a way that attempts to usurp God's Will

Conclusion: Since the creation of life is God's will, and we should not intervene in a way that attempts to usurp God's will, we should not intervene in the creation of life.

Yeah that is the nonsensical part

[treemom]

God creates cells.

We should never intervene in the grow of cells, even if that growth is life threatening.

God created tree.

We should never interfere in the growth of trees.

God created ants.

We should never interfere in the growth of ants.

It is stupid. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

[VeraAnne]

But don't insist to me your "faith" is "logical" when it's clearly nothing of the sort.

The thought process is logical. It just relies on an assumption that you do not agree with.

[deelaem]

It is sensical, Jennifer. It follows a logical progression based on a scriptural understanding.

The problem is that it makes a big assumption about the role God plays in reproduction. That's really the heart of the debate, and there isn't really any specific scripture that points one way or another. This one assumption leads to the entire QF philosophy. A Christian with a different idea of God's role in reproduction can read the same scripture, and come to a completely different logical conclusion.

Obviously someone who doesn't believe in God can come to an even different logical conclusion. Of course, not everyone has given the issue this amount of thought, and they might not have any logical underpinnings for their beliefs at all... But for most people, it all rests on our basic assumptions about the origin of life.

Except someone who doesn't believe in God is using actual logic, not living their life based on myths. Logic would prevent believing such a petty, judgmental, hypocritical being such as the Quiverfull God would rule the universe successfully.

[treemom]

The thought process is logical. It just relies on an assumption that you do not agree with.

No it isn't, not to me. The process is not logical.

[Austin]

What about all the children who are born into this world to lead short, torturous lives in conditions that most of us would describe as hell on earth? Are they blessings? What is God's plan for their lives? What is the purpose of this cruel exercise?

More than 41,000 children die every. single. day. due to starvation and preventable disease.

[Hane]

Because they belive that God has a plan for every child, and that He would not create a life unless it was for a good purpose.

But aren't these women in dangerous pregnancies God's children, too, and might they have some purpose in life other than childbearing?

[VeraAnne]

It's not stupid. Many people build logical conclusions around the fact that we shouldn't harm trees or animals or whatever based on the exact same syllogism. Your examples don't prove that the underlying logic is unsound, they just prove that others can create an ethical system based around the same original premise. That's true.

You don't have to agree with a person's conclusion to realize that they are using sound reasoning.

Obviously just because something is logical doesn't mean that it is ethically sound, however you can't simply dismiss the QF movement of being nonsensical when it is actually quite methodical in how it derives its beliefs.

You can attack the assumptions and the premise, but you can't just dismiss the entire argument out of hand.

[Cannelle]

Yeah that is the nonsensical part

Totally nonsensical. In that case, should we never treat any kind of disease? I mean, if God gives us cancer, obviously it's his will that we be sick. If we intervene and get chemo, are we trying to control God's will?

[treemom]

It's not stupid. Many people build logical conclusions around the fact that we shouldn't harm trees or animals or whatever based on the exact same syllogism. Your examples don't prove that the underlying logic is unsound, they just prove that others can create an ethical system based around the same original premise. That's true.

You don't have to agree with a person's conclusion to realize that they are using sound reasoning.

Obviously just because something is logical doesn't mean that it is ethically sound, however you can't simply dismiss the QF movement of being nonsensical when it is actually quite methodical in how it derives its beliefs.

You can attack the assumptions and the premise, but you can't just dismiss the entire argument out of hand.

The logic is unsound. Do you know what logic? Can someone way smarter and less cranky than me take this one on?

[Kaylee]

I think one reason it is hard to debate the extreme situations is that most of us have never had to face them. We could say what we ideally would like to think we would do (ie, what would be most consistent with out beliefs), but it might be different when the situation actually comes up.

My definition of quiverfull is leaving my fertility up to God & not taking any action specifically to have more of fewer children. When I got married, I was looking forward to a large family, so I figured the biggest challenge would be seeing that they were all loved and provided for. Instead, I ended up having PCOS and other issues that meant I was infertile for years. I considered IVF or other treatments, but ended up declining them because I felt like that would also be a way of trying to manipulate God's plan for my family.

At the time, trying to get myself to a place where I could see that as God's will and choosing to accept that I might never have children was a pretty tough decision on its own. Now that my one and only is a toddler, I am thankful that I only have one because he is a handful. I did choose not to go on birth control after he was born, even though there was an increased risk to me if I had gotten pregnant within 18 months, but that wasn't a huge life or death situation. I assume now that I probably won't have a large family, but a friend recently reminded me that she was my age when she had her first, and is now a mother of 8.

I would like to think I'd still trust God in any situation, but I would really have to do some searching. It was pretty easy with the first to say if it came down to one of the rare "mom or the baby" type situations to save the baby, but I don't know what my answer would be if that meant leaving my living child motherless. I was a high-risk birth and my dad had told them to save my mom if there was a choice - we both lived, obviously, but I can see where they made that decision because he loved her and because she had another child to raise. If there was just just a chance of dying, I'd probably go through with the pregnancy & birth as long as the baby was likely to live, but I wouldn't risk an ectopic pregnancy or something where the baby would almost certainly die IF it also meant I was likely to die and leave my living child motherless.

If my children were going without food, then it would be irresponsible to have another. At the same time, I don't know that I would go on birth control. The first thing I would probably do would be to see if there were any areas we could cut back on, and to look for work, either from home or outside the home. Staying home with my son means a lot to me, and I do plan to homeschool, but I would not make such an idol out of the SAHM lifestyle that I would let him (and any future children) go without so that I would not have to take a job. I would also take public assistance if I had to in order for us to have food, clothing, and shelter, and would be really uncomfortable with the idea of having another child if I needed that to support the one(s) I already had. One of the reasons I am a survivalist and do have a big garden, some animals, and a few year's of stockpiled food and other items, is so we will at least be able to eat if we fall on hard times.

I know some people will think this is crazy, but I do believe God would provide if it got that bad, or at least provide a way to make ends meet (maybe he won't send food or pay the heat bill, but I need to not ignored the help wanted signs posted around or the option to move to a smaller home or for my husband to take a job elsewhere if that's an option He provides). We've been in tight situations before - when I got pregnant (totally by surprise, since I was supposedly infertile), I had over $300,000 in medical bills, was in remission from leukemia and on a chemo drug that I had to stop so it didn't put my son at risk, had no vehicle because I was in a wreck 2 months before that totaled our car, my husband was unemployed because of his second layoff in 3 years, I had just recently gotten out of the hospital for depression and suicidal ideation, and then I lost my job (which had always paid much more than my husband's) at 7 months along. Still, it all worked out - my husband found a job, the cancer didn't some back, my son was healthy, and losing my job sort of reassured me that I was making the right choice to stay home.

Things are tight now, but we're making it, we have plenty of food, my son has clothes & toys, I'm able to spend a lot of time with him and go places like the park and playgroups, and I'm doing enough freelance work on the side to afford luxuries like a decent vehicle of my own, a gym membership, and sometimes new clothes, eating out, ballet or theater tickets, and also to be able to help several other people in need (ok, I'm a sucker for donating to people I hear about via blogs or facebook having rough times). The odd thing is I feel like there's less stress on our finances and lifestyle now, on about 30% of our previous income, than there was before. My mental health is much better than it was and I'm able to recoup a lot of the lost income because I'm doing much less driving, not eating out anywhere near as often, and not spending a chunk of it on advertising and business expenses. I hate that it doesn't work out like that for everybody, but I think it can for some. I don't know why it has for me, because I'm definitely not any sort of superior Christian as much as I sometimes try, but I do think God will take care of my family or at least open the doors for us to provide for ourselves.

[VeraAnne]

Except someone who doesn't believe in God is using actual logic, not living their life based on myths. Logic would prevent believing such a petty, judgmental, hypocritical being such as the Quiverfull God would rule the universe successfully.

You are starting form the assumption a religious person can not be logical, despite the fact that this is quite easily disproven. Nearly every philosopher in history has held some view of a higher power, and has utilized the hypothetical existence of the higher power when crafting his arguments.

But aside from that, just because it is logical does not make it ethical. Evaluating the ethics of an argument is a far higher order than evaluating the logic of the argument. Using Utilitarianism, I can create a logically sound arguement that it is ok to kill all red heads. That doesn't mean that my argument is ethical or should be put into place.

I'm not arguing for the ethics of the QF movement (other than to point out that they are internally consistent). I am simply arguing that the movement does have its roots in logical thought.