Comments on: The Bible says that God is the only opener and closer of the womb.

By: Ntswaki

Ntswaki — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 06:23:01 +0000

I’ve always believed that birth control is against the perfect will of God. But I personally would not want to have so many children.

By: Tom Nolan

Tom Nolan — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 22:21:04 +0000

That’s not a family. It’s a nest of Russian dolls. Each kid fits into his next-size-up sibling, and they all fit inside mommy, who in turn fits snugly into the Ampersand-lookalike. Somebody should film them doing it and post it to youtube.

By: Ampersand

Ampersand — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 22:04:40 +0000

You’ve discovered my secret.

By: Robert

Robert — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 21:55:10 +0000

I had forgotten this thread until the trackback above appeared.

Now that I look at again, it occurs to me:

the dad in the posted picture bears a striking resemblance to Amp.

By: Evangelicals Against Birth Control « Per Christum

Evangelicals Against Birth Control « Per Christum — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 00:55:19 +0000

[…] Another blog worth checking out to see how Evangelicals think about things is Alas, A Blog. They have a post called: The Bible Says that God is the only Opener and Closer of the Womb. […]

By: ms_xeno

ms_xeno — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 01:07:36 +0000

Amp:

Note also the final page of the Nation article, in which DLC1 paid researcher Kenneth Longman is quoted recommending that Democrats should bid for these voters by urging a return to patriarchy (and giving up on abortion rights). Unsurprising, but still annoying as hell.

Just annoying ? I think you’d be beyond annoyance into full-blown rage by now, considering that reproductive rights have been such an effective tool to keep feminists in the Democrats’ pen for years now. I mean, on top of the way the last two Supreme Court Justices were handled with kid gloves, on top of Casey, Dean’s footsie with the fundies on TV, and the so on, and so on. Is there any point at which feminists will finally have had enough of this manipulative bullshit ?

By: mythago

mythago — Sat, 02 Dec 2006 20:27:38 +0000

The Bible feels that this is the best way to care for women and children

The Bible does not “feel” anything. But I am curious as to where the Bible says that women should homeschool their children and not bring home a paycheck.

By: Brenda

Brenda — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 05:17:36 +0000

I strongly agree with you when you state that the “issue here isn’t just how many children to have, but the sex roles for men and women. Men on top, ruling the household; women below, raising the kids. Lots and lots and lots of kids.” I strongly believe that now that the world has seen how successful and vital women can be, women all over the world should not be restrained from their capabilities and reaching their full potential ( at a job, at home, at school, etc.). Unfortunately, children in most cases can be a major factor that holds back women from reaching their full potential and/or success-at school, at a job, at a career and it is vital to understand that women should receive the same opportunities as men and should be considered as equals. Therefore, women should have the right to choose to either have or to not have children.

By: perianwyr

perianwyr — Wed, 22 Nov 2006 00:51:43 +0000

No, feminism is the only way for women to live, because it is just about the only way that ensures that women and children will be allowed to live on their own merits. Feminism expounds a concept of equal value for the hopes and aspirations of women, no matter what they are. This includes the freedom to have eleventy hundred kids. Without respect for the quality of someone’s life, you can’t have respect for the simple fact of its existence, either. The lack of such respect is the cause of much death in this world. Simple, really.

By: TBQ

TBQ — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 20:16:36 +0000

“Also, this woman already can’t say “no” because she’s worried about another mouth to feed. How long before she can’t say “no” at all? Is it her purpose in life to be available for sex whenever the husband wants it? ”

The homeschooled kids in our church have been traveling the world at age 16, and going to top notch colleges (RIT for example). They have lots of options available to them. The Bible does not tell you women cannot hold a job. But we find that homeschooling, large families, and faith raise strong steady kids, so that is why many parents do it this way. If these kids hated their lives they would not be such wonderful examples of the way of life. They would not continue to live that way as adults.

By: TBQ

TBQ — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 17:24:30 +0000

“Right. Just like grassroots movements of misogynist christians who are opposed to abortion have had little or no influence toward denying abortion to others.”

I think misogyny is the wrong word here. Misogyny means “to hate women”. These people do not hate women. You hate the roles they feel are proper, so you feel they hate you. You are mistaken. The Bible feels that this is the best way to care for women and children. Men are charged with protecting, caring and loving women above themselves. This is not about hatred.

Not everything that is against feminist doctrine is against women. That is misleading to assume feminism speaks for all women, or that feminism is the only way for women to live. It is not.

By: KeXia

KeXia — Sat, 18 Nov 2006 05:20:24 +0000

There certainly does seem to be quite a feminist backlash coming from the more fundamentalist groups, a sort of “we have to take our women back” mentality. It’s real easy to use the Bible for subjugation, and while most of these movements might start out innocent enough they rarely stay that way for long. Maybe, just maybe, this woman really did choose this lifestyle for herself. But what about her daughter? Homeschooled and sheltered, she’s not gonna have many options. And her daughters will have even less. This “movement” has all the signs of a cult in the making.

Also, this woman already can’t say “no” because she’s worried about another mouth to feed. How long before she can’t say “no” at all? Is it her purpose in life to be available for sex whenever the husband wants it?

By: Decnavda

Decnavda — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 21:52:22 +0000

Tom T:
The Newsweek article is a bit alarmist. … There doesn’t seem to be any suggestion in the article that these people have any influence toward denying birth control to others.

Reverand Debra, quoted on a slightly later post here at Alas:
The Bush administration yesterday announced its appointment of Dr. Erik Keroack as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population Affairs, the nation’s official in charge of the national family planning program. … Dr. Keroack is an anti-contraception advocate who has been serving as medical director of “A Women’s Concern,” an organization with an official policy that states “birth control…is demeaning to women, degrading of human sexuality, and averse to human health and happiness.”

Yeah, I know these are not exactly the same people, but they are clearly allies on the same side and at pretty much the same point of extremity.

By: valley_grrl

valley_grrl — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 21:08:01 +0000

To answer your question, Rachel-according to the Newsweek article they are against infertility treatments-as this is a man made way to get pregnant and therefore not the will of the Lord. Hope that helps.

Here is the text of it from the Newsweek article.

“Also taboo: any form of artificial fertility treatment. “The point is to have a welcoming heart,” says Mary Pride, a mother of nine whose 1985 book, “The Way Home,” celebrated a return to traditional gender roles.”

At least that is how I read it.

By: Rachel S.

Rachel S. — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 19:57:00 +0000

Kate L. and I have talked about that Learning channel special, and it is just crazy, but here is my question. What do these people think about INFERTILITY treatments? (I would suspect that they support this. Does anybody know?)

By: Kate L.

Kate L. — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 19:50:45 +0000

Environmentally this is not a sound idea and I hope it does not take off. I’ve seen the specials about the Duggers and it’s a little frightening. I wonder at which point Michelle’s health will fail… I don’t doubt IF it will, just when.

By: Kaethe

Kaethe — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 17:46:33 +0000

Robert and Tom, I don’t think it defies the dictionary to label as “extremist” people who hold a view well outside the norms of society. A group, regardless of their size or political influence, who maintain that only their god can decide against pregnancy, that women should have no control over their bodies whatsoever, that women should be completely subjugated to the authority of their husbands, and that marriage is solely about producing as many children as possible, is an extremist group. That they do not currently have the numbers or influence to inflict their views on others, does not make their views any less alarming.

I guess you’ve never heard the pro-choice position falsely characterized as a call for all abortions, all the time. The normal position, that people should be able to decide how many children they want to have and when is often presented as extreme. How could this not be?

By: curiousgyrl

curiousgyrl — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 16:19:19 +0000

There doesn’t seem to be any suggestion in the article that these people have any influence toward denying birth control to others.

Right. Just like grassroots movements of misogynist christians who are opposed to abortion have had little or no influence toward denying abortion to others.

Anyway, this does seem to be cropping up more and more, expecially during the plan b fight. I heard one radio interview where an opponent of plan be was asked ‘is it really an abortificant? isnt it jsut birth control?’ and the opponent answered that all hormonal birth control was tantamount to abortion.

By: anon

anon — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 14:24:59 +0000

This article has shown up roughly seven million times on the RSS feed. Or at least, on the LJ version thereof (at http://syndicated.livejournal.com/alasablog3/).

[Whoops! Thanks for letting me know - I think I’ve fixed it now. –Amp]

By: Tom T.

Tom T. — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 05:15:09 +0000

The Newsweek article is a bit alarmist. I’ve seen the Discovery Channel programs about the family with 16 kids, and they’re all but devoid of discussion of the family’s religious beliefs. Otherwise, all the article can point to is 2500 families, a meeting of 250 activists, a manifesto, and a non-binding resolution urging families to have more children in a Utah town of 3500 people. There doesn’t seem to be any suggestion in the article that these people have any influence toward denying birth control to others.