Jill, Derick and Israel- Part 17

[LadyCrow1313]

14 hours ago, ClaraOswin said:

There was a 1-car accident moments after we passed yesterday on our way home from Walmart. If hadn't made my husband wait for me to snatch up and amazon deal before leaving...we could have been involved. At least by Dillard logic.

 

21 hours ago, SportsgalAnnie said:

So back to Duggar Snark... 

Does anyone think the Dullards will use the Derick Lightning story as a platform for their ministry ?

I've had a few brushes with near-death experiences myself. Does this mean I can start my own ministry, too? (And if anyone here knew my last name in real life, you'd get a kick out of it; and no, I'm not a Fundie or Fundie relation. It'd be very funny if I was.)

[AuntCloud]

On 12/07/2016 at 4:51 PM, EmCatlyn said:

ou the right to regulate other people's behavior.   The "pro-life" movement is at fault not because they are wrong about when life begins.  They are at fault because they are trying to make other people live according to "pro-life" beliefs.

@lizzybee - I'm so sorry you had to go through miscarriage and all the pain it left behind. What I am about to say has absolutely nothing to do with the pain you (and me, and many many other women) had to go through. 

The entire experience of raising a child from the + pregnancy test to having an entire, complete adult in your life is a costly one. Never mind the financial cost and the added paid and unpaid work the parents and extended family put in. For the mother, there is a very real physical cost, throughout the pregnancy, birth and the aftermath - anything from varicose veins to diabetes (as in gestational diabetes that never quite goes away - it can happen), to back, hip and joint problems to thyroid that goes haywire, and have I mentioned depression, interrupted sleep with all that it entails, and an increased risk to relationships? And the complete switch in priorities, when your entire well-being is contingent on the well-being and happiness of another person, that is 100% dependant on you? Of course any woman who has a baby will have her world shaken up, of course most go on with their lives because the reward of being a mother *when this is what you want* is so much greater than the cost.  

For some women, the cost - financial, emotional, or physical - is too much. No woman should be forced to pay what she can not afford, or wouldn't want to pay. Many women have no control on whether they get pregnant - they should at least have the dignity of having control over whether they stay pregnant. And yes, I am looking things right in the eye, and will readily admit that an abortion is a termination of life. I also believe that sometimes tough choices are inevitable, and this is the cost of having choices - and I would much rather have choices than not have them. In a better world the number of unwanted pregnancies (not the same as unplanned!) is almost nil because of better access to contraception, better sex education, and an entire cultural switch where respect to women as human beings is a given. 

When I signed my mortgage, I had to go through a lengthy process. If the lawyer suspected I am signing it against my will, they wouldn't let the process go through. My kids are eleventy times more significant to me than a mortgage, I took on the decision to have them with all the seriousness and deliberation I took on my mortgage - and I firmly believe every woman should have the same choice, and yes, this choice involves death.

I apologise if I have offended anyone. I'm wishing for a world where each woman does what she feels is right for her and her family. 

[lizzybee]

1 minute ago, AuntCloud said:

@lizzybee - I'm so sorry you had to go through miscarriage and all the pain it left behind. What I am about to say has absolutely nothing to do with the pain you (and me, and many many other women) had to go through. 

You definitely didn't offend me, I completely agree with you and was saying much the same thing myself. 

[SilverBeach]

Is a Bumbo weighted at the bottom so that it will not tip over? I have to ask because there were no Bumbos when I had a little one. If not, then I think allowing Izzy to stand on the edge of it is not sensible. My experience is that little ones will find a way to hurt themselves no matter how much you hover and childproof (one day I'll tell you all about the portable dishwasher and the black eye).  I don't think a very little one should have to visit the school of hard knocks to learn about danger, isn't that what parents are for, to prevent injuries as much as possible, particularly serious ones like head injuries and losing teeth? I must say I don't quite understand those of you who have no problem with Jill's snapshot, but parents all have different comfort levels, I guess. That's OK.

BTW, in all fairness,  JillDer may have tested the Bumbo first to see if it could support Izzy's weight.

[EmCatlyn]

@lizzybee I am glad you found FJ and are back to enjoying the internet.  (The pre-internet online communities of the 1980s kept me sane during my two pregnancies.) I agree that one problem with how the abortion debate frames itself is how the different sides try

Quote

to define what life is to the point of exaggeration and then to the point of flippancy. 

The abortion debate has many sides to it, but the focus on the unanswerable question, "When does (human) life begin" is, in my opinion, misguided.   I like to stick to the question of who decides what happens to a woman's body.

And I want to agree with you that it doesn't matter if the miscarried offspring was only a few cells or a fully formed tiny tadpole-human. It is a loss of a possibility, a future child that was briefly available then denied.  From my experience I can tell you that the grief will decrease as you have children to care for. But you have a right to that grief.

The fairy tale (as you rightly put it) of the Duggars and IBPL and fundie-dom may be seductive, but it is grounded on a fallacy.  How could a God that is all-forgiving and who guarantees salvation through faith, not works, also be a God who causes miscarriages if you don't "live right" and give you many children if you follow a prescribed lifestyle?

The Duggars appeal to a lot of people because they seem to have found answers to major questions.  But in truth, what they have done is evaded the key questions and latched on to superficial answers.  (Think of Mr. Collins, Lizzy!  He would have made a good Duggar.)

Bad things happen to good people.  To believe that we can somehow make ourselves safe from misfortune by placating an irrational god is not Christianity but paganism.

Please resist all temptation to turn fundie as the "price" of a healthy child.  Remind yourself of all the evil atheists out there who reproduce like rabbits.  

Thanks for sharing your story.

[allthegoodnamesrgone]

On 7/13/2016 at 0:08 PM, JesSky03 said:

This whole debate is a little emotional for me right now. I had a miscarriage at 9 weeks and now six months later we are still not pregnant. I think about the loss everyday so just reading about other people's losses, and even pregnancies often makes me tear up. I never got to hear the heartbeat, but they guess the baby died around 6 weeks 5 days so there was a chance that it did beat for a very short period of time. I often think about if I would feel differently if the loss happened earlier or later. Sometimes I wish I could have had a later loss, so I could actually have been able to see my baby. Other times I wish it had happened very early so I wouldn't feel like a life had already begun inside me ( or would I have still felt that way?). So yes, it is a very complex issue and people will feel differently about when life begins. After my loss I feel more confused about that than ever and can neither side with pro-life nor pro-choice as I think each situation is personal and I sit somewhere confused in the middle. 

I'm very sorry for you loss @JesSky03.  I would imagine you would feel this way no matter when you lost your baby.  I think for almost every woman who got pregnant and WANTED that baby, the second they found out they were expecting, it was YOUR BABY, it was real and it was a person, I know I did. No matter what our views on abortion on. 

From the post you responded to;

I've always wondered why the heartbeat is so important in conservative ideology. I read a story a few months back about a woman in IN (I think or maybe TX)) who discovered at like 20 weeks her baby had anencephaly (the condition where the baby has no brain).  She wanted to terminate but since she was past 20 weeks it wasn't an option, and they would do nothing as long as the baby had a heart beat they considered it alive.  That baby had 0% chance of survival beyond a few hours, but some man somewhere finds abortion after 20 weeks icky so she couldn't have one.  I'm sure we've all ready stories of women nearly bleeding to death during a miscarriage but doctors can't do anything because the babies heart is still beating.  Some women have even died from this.  The last ones I read about 1 was in Ireland and another in S. America.  Why does is it just  a heart beat? you have to have brain function AND a heart beat to survive.  The only thing I can really find in the bible about when life begins is from Genesis 2:7 Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. To me it says you are not a living being until you have breath, meaning the baby isn't considered a life until it can breath with out being attached to the mother. All this to say it is still a personal choice, if it isn't affecting you directly it's none of your business.  Jes I'm not talking to you, this is directed at everyone in general.

[lizzybee]

9 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

@lizzybee   (Think of Mr. Collins, Lizzy!  He would have made a good Duggar.)

 

Oh dear, yes he would, and Mary Bennet would have been a fabulous fundie wife. They could have named their first blessing Fordyce! 

[AuntCloud]

23 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

Bad things happen to good people.  To believe that we can somehow make ourselves safe from misfortune by placating an irrational god is not Christianity but paganism.

In the immortal words of Westley...

 

[EmCatlyn]

8 minutes ago, lizzybee said:

Oh dear, yes he would, and Mary Bennet would have been a fabulous fundie wife. They could have named their first blessing Fordyce! 

  You are so right!  It's really too bad that the plot made it necessary for Collins not to marry one of the Bennet daughters because it would have been perfect for Mary. 

Here is Mr. Collins on Christian forgiveness.  Very Duggarlike, don't you agree?

Quote

``I am truly rejoiced that my cousin Lydia's sad business has been so well hushed up, and am only concerned that their living together before the marriage took place should be so generally known. I must not, however, neglect the duties of my station, or refrain from declaring my amazement at hearing that you received the young couple into your house as soon as they were married. It was an encouragement of vice; and had I been the rector of Longbourn, I should very strenuously have opposed it.  You ought certainly to forgive them as a Christian, but never to admit them in your sight, or allow their names to be mentioned in your hearing."   Austen, Pride and Prejudice,  Vol. III, Chap. 15.  

Text at the Republic of Pemberley

(Note: If Harry Potter fans can go on for threads, we can derail this thread long enough to make a few allusions to Pride and Prejudice.  But note that there is actually a connection.  Mr. Collins was ordained Church of England but he represents the repressive, unimaginative, wants-easy-answers Christian which we find among many fundies.)

 

 

[lizzybee]

19 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

  You are so right!  It's really too bad that the plot made it necessary for Collins not to marry one of the Bennet daughters because it would have been perfect for Mary. 

Here is Mr. Collins on Christian forgiveness.  Very Duggarlike, don't you agree?

Text at the Republic of Pemberley

(Note: If Harry Potter fans can go on for threads, we can derail this thread long enough to make a few allusions to Pride and Prejudice.  But note that there is actually a connection.  Mr. Collins was ordained Church of England but he represents the repressive, unimaginative, wants-easy-answers Christian which we find among many fundies.)

 

 

Yes! Completely relevant. He was so ridiculous, poor Charlotte Lucas. I imagine him smelling strongly of wet, wild onions. 

My favorite Mr. Collins moment is naturally his effusing on how to properly speak to ladies, he begins by referring to Lady C's sickly daughter Anne de Bourgh.  My text also comes from RoP. 

Quote

 

"Her indifferent state of health unhappily prevents her being in town; and by that means, as I told Lady Catherine myself one day, has deprived the British court of its brightest ornament. Her ladyship seemed pleased with the idea, and you may imagine that I am happy on every occasion to offer those little delicate compliments which are always acceptable to ladies. I have more than once observed to Lady Catherine that her charming daughter seemed born to be a duchess, and that the most elevated rank, instead of giving her consequence, would be adorned by her. -- These are the kind of little things which please her ladyship, and it is a sort of attention which I conceive myself peculiarly bound to pay.''

"You judge very properly,'' said Mr. Bennet, "and it is happy for you that you possess the talent of flattering with delicacy. May I ask whether these pleasing attentions proceed from the impulse of the moment, or are the result of previous study?''

"They arise chiefly from what is passing at the time, and though I sometimes amuse myself with suggesting and arranging such little elegant compliments as may be adapted to ordinary occasions, I always wish to give them as unstudied an air as possible.'' 

 

Ah, how I love Austen's sense of humor. Her wit was as sharp as a knife. Funny that she was the daughter of a clergyman, though from what I have read he was nothing like Mr. Collins. Remember the part where Collins was forcing the girls to listen to him read Fordyce's sermons because he never read from novels? I allege that Mr. Collins was the first fundie. 

[EmCatlyn]

37 minutes ago, lizzybee said:

Yes! Completely relevant. He was so ridiculous, poor Charlotte Lucas. I imagine him smelling strongly of wet, wild onions. 

My favorite Mr. Collins moment is naturally his effusing on how to properly speak to ladies, he begins by referring to Lady C's sickly daughter Anne de Bourgh.  My text also comes from RoP. 

Ah, how I love Austen's sense of humor. Her wit was as sharp as a knife. Funny that she was the daughter of a clergyman, though from what I have read he was nothing like Mr. Collins. Remember the part where Collins was forcing the girls to listen to him read Fordyce's sermons because he never read from novels? I allege that Mr. Collins was the first fundie. 

Back then a lot of people had bad things to say about novels. It was seen the way TV is still seen by some people.  As for clergymen, I suspect that then, as now, they come in different varieties.  The rector of the Episcopal church I attend is nothing like the Baptist minister who lives two doors down from me, and both are different from the super-Calvinist Evangelical Presbyterian who is the father-in-law of my best friend. 

The people that the Duggars remind me of the most are some of the very strict Catholic families I knew as a kid in Colombia. They were legalistic, the parents hardly raised the kids (servants did it) and their lives were structured and regimented around religious observance, fear of God, and filial piety.

There is nothing new about the Quiverful life and Gothard perspective.  That Austen was writing, 200 years ago, about characters that would fit right in with the  Duggars and Bateses today just shows how persistent and dangerous that kind of person is.  

ETA -- why wet wild onions?  

[VelociRapture]

@lizzybeeI'm guessing you're referring to me by stating, "clump of cells"? 

If so, please note that I mentioned that because that was logically and scientifically what I personally knew to be true while I was in the middle of miscarrying this February - I vividly remember thinking it as the ER Doctors did the pelvic exam and my husband grasped my hand for dear life. This was what I needed to believe and remind myself of in order to handle my grief in an appropriate and healthy manner - others find other methods work better for them and that's ok. Everyone grieves differently - for me, science and logic and understanding where we were in the developmental process at the time of our loss helped a great deal. 

Emotionally, as I've stated over and over, it was an entirely different story - the loss of that potential life and future utterly devastated me and I still have trouble with what I went through (despite the fact that I will be in my second trimester with our second pregnancy this Saturday.) I can't listen to Judy Garland sing, "Over the Rainbow," without crying a bit because it reminds me of what could have been. Occasionally, "Lost Boy," by Ruth B. has the same effect - I always imagine that miscarried or stillborn kids go to a Neverland like place where they grow to be 8 years old and happy and free to play until their parents are reunited with them after they die. No idea why (and I know it sounds kind of dumb), but that brings me comfort too.

I did my best in my posts to make it clear that miscarriage is an extremely personal and difficult journey for many of us and that there is no manner of grieving that works for everyone. I am sorry if my posts upset you in anyway as I did my best to be clear I was speaking about my own unique experience. 

[lizzybee]

45 minutes ago, VelociRapture said:

@lizzybeeI'm guessing you're referring to me by stating, "clump of cells"? 

I actually wasn't referring to anyone in particular. Clump of cells or blasocyst, etc are really common references for early pregnancy and I pulled them out of my head. If I used it because I read it in your post over something else, it wasn't intentional or purposeful, maybe just fresh in my mind.  I realize everyone's experience is different and personal. I sincerely hope my post wasn't hurtful to you because I definitely wasn't referencing you or anyone for that matter. Truthfully. I was specifically speaking to my experience for another perspective and was emphasizing that often we leave those behind on both sides of the argument by trying to drive our points home. That's all. Hugs. 

*For the record I'm really happy for you and myself and anyone who is getting a second (or whatever number) chance for a rainbow baby. 

[VelociRapture]

27 minutes ago, lizzybee said:

I actually wasn't referring to anyone in particular. Clump of cells or blasocyst, etc are really common references for early pregnancy and I pulled them out of my head. If I used it because I read it in your post over something else, it wasn't intentional or purposeful, maybe just fresh in my mind.  I realize everyone's experience is different and personal. I sincerely hope my post wasn't hurtful to you because I definitely wasn't referencing you or anyone for that matter. Truthfully. I was specifically speaking to my experience for another perspective and was emphasizing that often we leave those behind on both sides of the argument by trying to drive our points home. That's all. Hugs. 

*For the record I'm really happy for you and myself and anyone who is getting a second (or whatever number) chance for a rainbow baby. 

Gotcha! I just remember using that term in a post or two, so I wanted to be sure I clarified if needed.

Grief and processing trauma is so interesting. You have two people who go through a similar experience, yet they have different reactions - you removed those terms from your process and I clung to them for support. As long as someone is mourning in a healthy way that's all that counts in the end.

I hope you're doing better now (and I also hope you have your healthy and happy little rainbow soon if you don't already!)

[Bad Wolf]

One of the best things I heard was that no one can show you how to grieve. We have to find what works for us, and hopefully have good support.

[lizzybee]

7 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

 

[PennySycamore]

@sophie10130,  that's interesting about the date of viability being 23 weeks 6 days. Almost 30 years ago in 1987, it was around 24 weeks.  IOW, it hasn't changed in 30 years!  To go much lower than 23.5/24 weeks would require developing an artificial uterus.  Not only are the baby's lungs very seriously underdeveloped (they're just a solid block of tissue < 22 weeks), but the skin is gelatinous and on and on.  My daughter's eyes were still sealed shut like a kitten's.  Her estimated GA was 26 weeks although the eyes indicated 24 weeks GA.  She was more mature in other respects so they settled on 26 weeks.

[sophie10130]

6 minutes ago, PennySycamore said:

@sophie10130,  that's interesting about the date of viability being 23 weeks 6 days. Almost 30 years ago in 1987, it was around 24 weeks.  IOW, it hasn't changed in 30 years!  To go much lower than 23.5/24 weeks would require developing an artificial uterus.  Not only are the baby's lungs very seriously underdeveloped (they're just a solid block of tissue < 22 weeks), but the skin is gelatinous and on and on.  My daughter's eyes were still sealed shut like a kitten's.  Her estimated GA was 26 weeks although the eyes indicated 24 weeks GA.  She was more mature in other respects so they settled on 26 weeks.

They still tell people 24 weeks. I remember my nurse friend when she got to 24 weeks she said she felt so much more secure. Like she could finally be excited. And she had never miscarried. She was just a nurse so she saw a lot of heartbreak.

[Mercer]

I don't fault Jill and Derrick for imperfect baby-proofing - no one is perfect in that regard - but I do think it's a problem that they're photographing a potentially very dangerous behavior (I can see about three different ways he could hit his head) rather than intervening. They probably think they're close enough to catch him, but neither parent is close enough to be in the frame and at least one parental hand is occupied with a phone, so I simply do not buy that they'd be able to react fast enough to grab him if he falls. It seems like they haven't quite realized how quickly things can happen to small children, and I hope it's not a lesson they have to learn the hard way.

Obviously this situation turned out fine or they wouldn't have posted it, but I just don't get why you would run that risk for the sake of a moderately amusing photograph.  

[ClaraOswin]

14 hours ago, Four is Enough said:

I'm sitting here thinking that I'm the only mother on this forum who thinks that what Izzy is doing is completely natural. He's certainly learning that "if I stand on this, I can reach that" so... critical thinking! 

I'm hoping that all things that can harm him are out of reach, ok?

But if he falls and knocks his head on the kitchen counter, he'll either learn to push the bumbo a little closer, so he doesn't have to lean as far and tip over, OR, he'll learn, "Hmmm. maybe I shouldn't do that." Critical thinking!

One thing I learned by having Two around is: you can NOT completely baby proof a home from a determined child. 'Taint possible. He will explore and he will get into things.

We had a brick hearth. When Two was learning to crawl, he was fascinated by it. We never put bumpers around it, and he never got a concussion, or even bumped his head on it. 

I guess you didn't see my post where I said what Izzy is doing isn't out of the ordinary (in other words, "completely natural."

Personally, I am all about bumpers on sharp edges though. I've known way too many kids with ER visits and stitches. Obviously they can't be avoided completely because shit happens. But I'm sure as hell going to try my best to keep stitches (and scars) away. 

[ClaraOswin]

12 hours ago, MayMay1123 said:

why the hell is there still a bumbo around? i thought they were for babies who couldn't sit up on their own yet?

You are correct. They also shouldn't be placed on elevated surfaces but the Duggars don't seem to care about that either (as evident in other photos.)

9 hours ago, SilverBeach said:

Is a Bumbo weighted at the bottom so that it will not tip over? I have to ask because there were no Bumbos when I had a little one. If not, then I think allowing Izzy to stand on the edge of it is not sensible. My experience is that little ones will find a way to hurt themselves no matter how much you hover and childproof (one day I'll tell you all about the portable dishwasher and the black eye).  I don't think a very little one should have to visit the school of hard knocks to learn about danger, isn't that what parents are for, to prevent injuries as much as possible, particularly serious ones like head injuries and losing teeth? I must say I don't quite understand those of you who have no problem with Jill's snapshot, but parents all have different comfort levels, I guess. That's OK.

BTW, in all fairness,  JillDer may have tested the Bumbo first to see if it could support Izzy's weight.

I am definitely a more cautious parent so I get what you're saying for sure. Our son climbs onto chairs in the kitchen...but as soon as he stands we tell him not to. He has tipped over plastic bins and stood on them to reach a table. I feel like many parts of the day are mentally assessing the risk of his activities and then deciding when to intervene. It's definitely a balancing act of letting them explore and learn while also keeping injuries away (by injuries, I mean things other than minor bumps/bruises/scrapes.)

18 minutes ago, Mercer said:

I don't fault Jill and Derrick for imperfect baby-proofing - no one is perfect in that regard - but I do think it's a problem that they're photographing a potentially very dangerous behavior (I can see about three different ways he could hit his head) rather than intervening. They probably think they're close enough to catch him, but neither parent is close enough to be in the frame and at least one parental hand is occupied with a phone, so I simply do not buy that they'd be able to react fast enough to grab him if he falls. It seems like they haven't quite realized how quickly things can happen to small children, and I hope it's not a lesson they have to learn the hard way.

Obviously this situation turned out fine or they wouldn't have posted it, but I just don't get why you would run that risk for the sake of a moderately amusing photograph.  

I think as "famous" people...they are really clueless about what they should and shouldn't post. It's not the same as a regular person posting a photo like this on their Facebook page. They are public figures but time and time again they post stuff that they should know will get criticism.

Then again...maybe they think any comments/attention = good.

[Arwen]

6 hours ago, VelociRapture said:

Gotcha! I just remember using that term in a post or two, so I wanted to be sure I clarified if needed.

Grief and processing trauma is so interesting. You have two people who go through a similar experience, yet they have different reactions - you removed those terms from your process and I clung to them for support. As long as someone is mourning in a healthy way that's all that counts in the end.

I hope you're doing better now (and I also hope you have your healthy and happy little rainbow soon if you don't already!)

Huge huge internet hugs to you guys. Your stories really touched me and I hope everything works out well for you.

[SportsgalAnnie]

3 hours ago, Mercer said:

I don't fault Jill and Derrick for imperfect baby-proofing - no one is perfect in that regard - but I do think it's a problem that they're photographing a potentially very dangerous behavior (I can see about three different ways he could hit his head) rather than intervening. They probably think they're close enough to catch him, but neither parent is close enough to be in the frame and at least one parental hand is occupied with a phone, so I simply do not buy that they'd be able to react fast enough to grab him if he falls. It seems like they haven't quite realized how quickly things can happen to small children, and I hope it's not a lesson they have to learn the hard way.

Obviously this situation turned out fine or they wouldn't have posted it, but I just don't get why you would run that risk for the sake of a moderately amusing photograph.  

yes and it also looked like he had a full diaper. remember when some of us thought Jessa wouldn't be as good a mom as she is? I think she could give Jill a few pointers 

[Bad Wolf]

It looked like a cloth diaper to me, and they are bulkier. I remember my grandson wearing special pants to accommodate them. Disposables are much slimmer. Of course, I could be wrong.

[IrishCarrie]

Hugs to all of you who have grieved the loss of precious, wanted babies - you've made me tear up here, sitting eating cornflakes in my robe before work!

Any baby would be lucky to be so loved, and you're going to be the best mamas in the world when that happy day comes and you have your child in your arms.