Breeding for God

15 01 2007

That is the only thing I can call these people, or rather this “movement.” What else do you call having kids by the bucketloads, with the excuse that “It’s What God Wants” I’d never heard of them, but according to the article on ABC News A Full Quiver the group is, apparently growing in America. I would take that with at least a pinch of salt, however I thank Carisa, who brought Quiverfull (link below) to my attention.

In short, the Quiverfull group is about having as many kids as possible. Actually, that’s not quite how the group describes it. For them it’s about having as many kids as “The Lord blesses them with.” Which to me, is having as many kids as possible. This could be six, seven, or even 15. There are no limits. This particular family has eight kids. And if more “come along” then they’ll be added to the tally.

Needless to say,to breed consistently on this basis, the Quiverfull group is against all forms of contraception. Unsurprisingly, they also have a problem with the rhythm, or “natural” method of contraception. To them contraception is unnatural and goes against “the way God designed our bodies.” In other words, preventing conception whenever you have sex. Sounds rather Catholic to me. And as to the question of whether it’s dangerous for a woman to keep having children one after another, well, this isn’t an issue for Ken Carpenter, the father who was interviewed for the ABC News article.

At the centre of the Quiverfull movement is the role of the father as head of the household and the woman as the submissive wife. The biblical model, as he says. Indeed, the oft quoted verse that instructs women to be submissive to their husbands would need to be the bedrock, otherwise how else would God (or the man, depending on how you look at it) have total control over the woman’s body?

Forget that this is a model that could today be called outdated at best and oppressive to women at worst. The man leads and makes all the decisions, the woman defers to his leadership. Ken Carpenter’s wife fully agrees with this model. Her role, she says, is to be “nurturing, loving, and submissive to my husband and shepherding to my children.” And, this is the way they want their children to live, so these values will be instilled into them from an early age. Given that I have a marriage where my husband and I are equals, the model makes me shudder just as much now as when I was a church-going Charismatic singleton.
They say this is the way God wants it, and that women are “opening their wombs to God”. God is in control of their fertility. Meanwhile, as to how they will feed and clothe these children they are breeding like rabbits? Well this particular family aren’t too sure about the money. No problem then with others’ taxes supporting their breeding then – at the very least in terms of perks and tax breaks for parents. Though this particular family home schools the kids.

It’s clear that, to this group childfree people (or people who don’t want to have more than one or two kids, or who want to plan their families for that matter) are totally unnatural and selfish. As a childfree woman, I am aghast as the utter selfishness of this group in the name of religion and God, not to mention their total disregard for the health of the women and any social responsibility.

I suppose poorer people, who can barely manage to feed and clothe one child hear this “teaching” they are supposed to replace any sense of social responsibility with the the God will provide mantra as the reason to breed non-stop.

Choosing not to have children is called selfish particularly by the churched. The thousands of diapers to be tossed on the garbage heap, the food and clothing that this one family will consume, the sheer fuel resources that will support this one breeding group is not seen selfish. How amazing. And the other pressures that this continuous breeding will put upon our environment and planet isn’t selfish either. Oh no.

Because, as far as Quiverfull are concerned, God wants them to have kids, so He will also provide the means to look after them. and of course, it’s “God’s will.”

They can have kids, so by God, they are going to continue breeding till the cows come home. Of course, the idea that they are selfishly using the God given resources of our planet is completely ignored. As is the idea that God also asked people to be stewards of the resources of this earth.

But hey, others have used God (along with selected Bible verses) to justify whatever they want to do. It’s nothing new. So Quiverfull hasn’t the slightest problem being able to quote chapter and verse on how this is “God’s will.” In my experience of protestant churchgoing, (and I have plenty) the “this is God’s will” was often a cop out people used to justify and abdicate responsibility for their actions whenever they wanted something, as well as an excuse to seemingly switch off their brains.

I can see governments concerned about the dearth of kiddies being born in the light of rather more enlightened men and women who see reproduction as a choice and not a mandate just loving Quiverfull.

I can just hear them encouraging them to breed in the same breath as they tell countries to do more about over population, the destruction of the environment,pollution, mass starvation, drought and global warming. And they won’t even have to pay the women – who will happily breed for free. Sorted. Not.
If you are interested, here’s the link Carisa found. Pandagon also had a take on the Quiverfull “movement” with some interesting responses.

The Quiverfull website is full of reasons why breeding should continue unabated. Warning: 15 kids aren’t considered too many.

Bookmark this!
  • del.icio.us
  • digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • BlinkList
  • Fark
  • Furl
  • feedmelinks
  • LinkaGoGo
  • Ma.gnolia
  • NewsVine
  • Netvouz
  • Reddit
  • Simpy
  • TailRank
  • YahooMyWeb

Actions

Information

8 responses to “Breeding for God”

15 01 2007
sulz (08:03:19) :

a lot of muslims in my country have the same regard to this, although the al-quran does not forbid contraceptives, but apparently it’s up to interpretation according to my muslim friends. so we have these old-fashioned muslims who breed like rabbits then when their kid gets run over by a truck because of negligence, they’d say something like it’s god will.

15 01 2007
mercurior (15:16:48) :

i am a lapsed catholic, and i dont know about how catholocism is taught elsewhere, but even here in the Uk, there isnt that many, quiverful people.. YET.

i wonder what their stance is on infertility, since god did it, should ivf be banned. when they say about god wants us to do this or that i have a good answer.. god must have made me not want kids.. or i would want them so by forcing me to have kids, well thats going against gods will.

and since god is everywhere and knows everything, it sort of denies free will.. so.. (a little bit of a twist and it gets them annoyed like hell)

remember the duggars, 16 of them. all homeschooled as well..

15 01 2007
Britgirl (20:55:47) :

@ sulz…yes, how screwed up is that!
@mercurior… my bet is that they’d have no problem going for anything that helps them breed more kids. Because they also believe that if you can’t have kids, you must not have God’s favour. So as long as they are “doing it for the Lord” they can justify it. Of course, I could be wrong. The old double standard might not apply here at all!

16 01 2007
Rhea (14:54:03) :

One word … speechless

16 01 2007
Joy (15:33:38) :

… What the hell? Uhm… not having kids… uh… well… you know, it’s good if you can’t support them. If there is a couple out there who actually wants that many children (uhm… I’ve heard of eight) and they have the financial and physical (by that I mean a house and stuff) resources, I’d say it wouldn’t matter too much. It would be nice if they were very environmentally-minded people, though.

17 01 2007
Hillari (17:56:57) :

Christians aren’t the only people who have a patent on the idea of breeding kids for religious reasons. I have no doubt that some who practice Judiasm, Islam, etc., hold the same ideas.

I do know that Christianity also speaks of good stewardship. Bringing a horde of kids into the world without a plan other than their parents believing they should have as many as they can pop out, doesn’t fit into good stewardship of resources, in my opinion.

17 01 2007
Britgirl (20:44:09) :

@ Hillari - you’re quite right. Sulz mentioned that Muslims do too. Except that this group seems to be the only one making a huge thing of it, such that they’re almost seen as a “movement” and courting the press as part of the “publicity drive”. And they seem to have no problem side-stepping the idea of good stewardship which makes me wonder how they can justify having so many kids simply because they can.
@ Joy - even if they do have the house and money to look after multiple kids my question would still be - what about the pressure on the environment, other resources.

18 01 2007
Joy (20:08:25) :

That’s true. I also find it a little idiotic that they think God can’t stop people from not having kids. Especially since they believe (presumably) in the story of Mary’s conception of Christ as being a virgin birth.

Leave a comment

You can use these tags : <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>




Login