Posted on 12/10/2008 8:18:42 AM PST by Alex Murphy
I learned a new word today - Quiverfull.
According to a blog entry on Sodahead.com (doesn't sound very impressive but hey, let's take our new words where we can get them), "Quiverfull...is a growing movement of Protestants" who believe that "since children are blessings from God, we should receive as many as God will give." Therefore, no birth control. The Duggar family is about to have their 18th child, and they are a quiverfull family.
The best line from the Sodahead post is, "I'm not sure how to tell the difference between a husband who wants sex and God saying that it's time to put another bun in the oven." I imagine that someone who has a strong faith in God would say that it's all the same thing - that is, if daddy wants some and that leads to another baby, then it was all God's will. (No, I am not a theologian.) The comments on the post bring up a host of issues ranging from whether or not it's responsible to bring children into the world willy-nilly to abortion rights.
The quiverfull movement takes the following Biblical passage literally:
Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord,
The fruit of the womb is a reward.
Like arrows in the hand of a warrior,
So are the children of one's youth.
Happy is the man who has his quiver full of them.
If I may be flippant for a moment, let's analyze this passage.
"Happy is the man" - well sure, he's not the one who has to change all of those diapers! (Well, in my house he is. But remember, I'm being flippant.) And since the quiver in question is, in fact, the type that arrows are stored in, how many babies can one really fit into a quiver? Here's a quiver for sale at Amazon.com that measures 13 x 3 x 2 inches. According to this site the average length of a newborn baby is 20 inches. I don't think you could fit more than one kid in a quiver.
Now, I apologize if that offends anyone, that's not my intention. But it does illustrate something that I find difficult to understand about the quiverfull movement. If you are taking this particular Biblical passage literally, well, put the kids in a quiver! And if not, then you really AREN'T taking the passage literally. Right?
Personally I think there is some validity to the argument made by many commenters on Sodahead that having that many children is a bit selfish and irresponsible. I respect other people's religious beliefs. But is there a point when those beliefs start to negatively impact the rest of the world? On the other hand, this isn't China. Everyone is entitled to have as many kids as they want to. Or, depending on your beliefs, that God wants you to. For me, two is enough; now that I'm a parent, "Eight is Enough" is basically a horror film. (I kid, of course.)
Do people with tons of kids bother you? Or is it none of our business?
Unless the LORD builds the house,
those who build it labor in vain.
Unless the LORD watches over the city,
the watchman stays awake in vain.
It is in vain that you rise up early
and go late to rest,
eating the bread of anxious toil;
for he gives to his beloved sleep.
Behold, children are a heritage from the LORD,
the fruit of the womb a reward.
Like arrows in the hand of a warrior
are the children of one’s youth.
Blessed is the man
who fills his quiver with them!
He shall not be put to shame
when he speaks with his enemies in the gate.
One of my favorite Psalms. :o)
In these kinds of discussions, why is the working assumption always that Mama doesn't want some herself?
The idea of chicks who don't "want some" themselves is just completely at odds with my own experience.
This family is completely self-supporting, so they’re just exercising their freedom in a what is supposed to be a free country. I don’t think it will catch on widely, so I don’t think we need to worry about the impact on society of excessively fast population growth. I’m much more concerned about all the crack and welfare addicts who keep popping out babies, who the taxpayers then have to support, and who mostly grow up to be crack/welfare addicts, gangbangers, and breeders of more of the same.
How dare they create these little parasites to suck up the resources from precious mother Earth!
/end sarcasm
Crack/welfare addicts will soon be recognized as our nation’s bravest.
:/
The Duggars are indeed a BLESSED family!!
I understood that about 5 arrows fit in a quiver. Therefore, following the analogy, 5 would fit the bill. But, the real meaning is trusting the Lord to send the number of kids which He wants the family to raise. I know people who don't use birth control and only have 3 kids and I know people who don't use birth control and have quite a few more than that.
Or is it none of our business?
Yes, it is NONE OF OUR BUSINESS. I get very irritated at non-Christians defining Christian behavior and then getting mad at us for not living up to that definition.
Why aren’t welfare mammas with multiple kids to multiple sperm donors known as “quiverfuls”???
Would commenitng on those choices make it part of this writer’s business?
“I don’t think it will catch on widely, so I don’t think we need to worry about the impact on society of excessively fast population growth.”
Most women’s bodies simply wouldn’t let them crank out that many babies. My mother had to slow down after getting pregnant three times in three years and miscarrying the third one.
1. There is nothing wrong with wanting OR HAVING a large family - IF you can support them yourself. If you want 4-10, and can raise them responsibly, go for it.
2. I know several families of 3-6 kids, where he wanted more and she said “enough”.
There should be a veto of whomever says “that’s enough” gets that vote. Whether the man OR the woman says “stop”, it stops. Anything else is unfair.
3. I only have 2 myself, debating whether or not to have more. Yet I’ve had feminists who thought it was wrong to have more than 1, or that any woman who had any was somehow doing a disservice to herself and the planet. This article acts as if having kids is horrible - and that the writer’s 2 are barely excusable.
Although I cannot find the citation, one historian or anthropoligist claims that modern Greeks are entirely descended from Christian forebearers. The elite classical Greeks stopped having children and the Christians did not.
Demographics are the future.
I love these big families.
We’ve had 8 spread out over 19 years (last one in May).
We both decided this is our limit - physically, emotionally, and financially.
If we didn’t feel that way, we might have thought of more.
If we thought this way after one or two, we would have stopped then.
Not everyone is the same - not all couples are the same.
I get tired of those who think there is a “one size fits all” answer to every situation.
A couple wants to have more kids? They can handle it? Great!
A couple wants to stop? No more? Great!
"Geeze Lady, I like a good cigar ... but I take it out of my mouth every once in a while"
I know a lot of families that are quiverfullers. All of those kids are the future conservatives of the US! Hopefully, the libs won’t catch on. :)
I know a lot of families that are quiverfullers. All of those kids are the future conservatives of the US! Hopefully, the libs won’t catch on. :)
Looks like a very comfortable retirement plan.
People vary tremendously in their ability to procreate. A lot of people just do not have the energy to even make and raise one child, barely enough to live, themselves. Others are fountains of energy, both for having and raising children. Most fall in between the two extremes.
Though it is seldom openly pondered, people seem to be inherently aware of both how much energy they, and those they want to marry have. A subconscious calculation of childbearing potential.
This begins with just appearance, males being adept at discerning “fertility beauty” in female body proportions, such proportions being indicative of degrees of fertility. Then personality and energy level come into play as well, couples measuring each others stamina and endurance in ordinary activities.
Much has to do with the “frequency” of energy as well. Some people seem to be designed for very different tempo in their lives. Some are grandparents around the age of 40, others in their 70s. Marrying someone with a different speed can be problematic.
And obviously, there is an age matching window for most people, which strongly limits the field of potential spouses, with a few exceptions.
All told, procreation isn’t easy.
I have seven kids, and I think I could find the time for a couple of more (definitely not in the works, however), but eighteen? I've read of a couple of other large families like this one, and think you have to be a bit nuts to have that many kids.
Frankly, I'm ready to enjoy grandkids, and wondering where we're going to put all the in-laws and grandkids when they arrive!
“Hopefully, the libs won’t catch on. :)”
Sorry, but they Liberals got there many decades before the Conservatives.
What government subsidizes, government gets. Government subsidized unmarried women having children (bastards) and got lots of ‘em.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.