The Quiverfull Movement

[boldbidder]

Is anyone familiar with the Quiverfull movement? Basically they are against any form of contraception and even rhythm method style family planning is considered a kind of abortion. The thrust of the movement is to create an army of followers to 'wage war on god's enemies'.

Article over at Newsweek gives info on a family of such folks who just had their 19th child.

Crap like this never ceases to amaze me.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[maxpot46]

Is anyone familiar with the Quiverfull movement? Basically they are against any form of contraception and even rhythm method style family planning is considered a kind of abortion. The thrust of the movement is to create an army of followers to 'wage war on god's enemies'.

Article over at Newsweek gives info on a family of such folks who just had their 19th child.

Crap like this never ceases to amaze me.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.'d love to have 19 kids, if I could afford it.

And now that I think about it, an army of followers sounds pretty sweet too :)

[boldbidder]

I'd love to have 19 kids, if I could afford it.

And now that I think about it, an army of followers sounds pretty sweet too :)

Come on, Max, 19?! Besides if world domination through progenic proliferation were a viable option then we'd all be following the teachings of the dearly departed Eazy E by now. ;)

Seriously though, if you check out that article, there's some pretty disturbing stuff (at least in my book) being taught to all these newly indoctrinated followers.

[maxpot46]

Come on, Max, 19?! Besides if world domination through progenic proliferation were a viable option then we'd all be following the teachings of the dearly departed Eazy E by now. ;)

Seriously though, if you check out that article, there's some pretty disturbing stuff (at least in my book) being taught to all these newly indoctrinated followers.Hm, I have to say that after reading the article, I'm not so alarmed. I'm something of a social deviant myself, being a home-schooler and an anarcho-capitalist. I actually agree somewhat with their views (though I'm an agnostic/athiest) in that I am also pro-life, pro-family, and anti-feminist. They don't seem to advocate coercion in their political views, seeking to use the system to advance their positions.

My guess is that most folks will take issue with the "submissive" part of it. Frankly, if that's their choice then feminists have nothing to say. There are plenty of submissive women out there who want nothing to do with feminism.

[uncon]

I am also...pro-family

I'm anti-family and I prefer Ol' Dirty Bastard (13 children isn't half bad) to Ezy E.

I quote the sacred scripture on reproduction, verse 1, line 3 from the Chapter "Got Your Money":

"I don't have no problem with you fucking me
But I have a little problem wit you not fucking me"

Wise words to live by. Now, let us pray.

[Storm]

I feel sorry for the children. There is no way a person can give 19 children enough one on one time. It sounds like they rely heavily on the older children to parent the younger ones. The children are also given little room to stretch their mind or become independent.

It's also a huge health concern for the mother. That many children with little time between pregnancies is not healthy.

Just saying, I would never subscribe to this kind of family life. Not saying they don't have a right to if they wish.

[raharu]

Hrmmm.

I don't find them too offensive on the surface. What ever works for you, you know? Anti-feminism? If you can find someone to play along. Pro-family? Well that doesn't really mean anything... Pro-life? I can deal. No contraceptives? Well, I suppose that's workable as long as you can control yours- OH. You mean you don't want to control yourself because that's violating god's plan.

I'm pretty sure that's some straight bullshit. We've come a long way from living in caves and having to drown our babies in streams because we couldn't provide for them. But if society and our way of life ever collapsed, that's exactly what these people would have to do. They are just as dependent on "the system" to make their family possible as Ms. Suleman is; they just put a different spin on it.

[BostonIan]

If my own personal economic crisis was already taken care of, I'd be in the midst of a serious courtship with home-schooled 20-year old virgin who didn't believe in birth control and thought child-bearing was a gift from God. (Not an abstact by the way, I'm describing an actual person. INFJ, not a sensor.)

I do have some qualms with the timing of births, impregnating a woman with an infant doesn't seem cosmically right. I'd also have concerns whether the woman was being "depleted" of vital nutrients and birthing unhealthy children, especially if she's common about diet and lifestyle. The raising of the children I have much fewer issues with. The modern 2-working parent, 2 children or fewer, daycare to send-away-education to electronic babysitting model seems like greater abandonment, and I think "controlled raising" is an overrated concept. Kids grow like flowers, parents provide the environment.

Nineteen is a bit over-busy, but somewhere around six is the minimum for me.

[Lucid]

The whole thing about feminism is for women to have a choice about whether they stay home with the kids or have a career and also that they have equal rights in society.

So being anti-feminist is saying that you think women should have no choice other than to stay home with the kids and should not have equal rights in society.

What you may mean is that you have a preference for traditional gender roles, which is not the same thing and isn't something most people would be offended because of.
But then, you may actually mean that you think women should not be allowed to be lawyers or CEOs, I wouldn't want to put words in your mouth.

With regard to these people.... I'd be scared if it weren't so fucking nutty. "We will breed an army of minions to do God's bidding!!! Go forth minions! Breed in the name of the lord and let Him worry about feeding and clothing them all! Kill fags! Bomb abortion clinics! Nuke a gay whale for Jeeeebus!!!"

I mean really.
We'll see these people on the news in a few years holed up in a compound somewhere with a bunch of guns and canned food. Or drinking the kool aide and feeding it to their 9000 children. :rolleyes:

[eternaltriangle]

Oversized families would be fine by me if it weren't for pro-natalist policies that put a lot of the burden of child-rearing on the taxpayer. The quiverfull don't bother me that much ideologically though. I am pro-choice, but I can see where pro-life people are coming from. Neither of us can really prove when life begins, so it is ultimately an insoluble issue.

[maxpot46]

Oversized families would be fine by me if it weren't for pro-natalist policies that put a lot of the burden of child-rearing on the taxpayer. The quiverfull don't bother me that much ideologically though. I am pro-choice, but I can see where pro-life people are coming from. Neither of us can really prove when life begins, so it is ultimately an insoluble issue.After reading this, I feel compelled to clarify my "pro-life" stance. This is an issue that I've changed my mind on twice now, being pro-choice as a youth on the grounds that a fetus was not a person, becoming pro-life as a young father on the grounds that a fetus was obviously a person and that the right to life was the most eminent of them all, then becoming pro-choice again very recently (after re-reading Rothbard's Ethics of Liberty chapter 14 (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), which I disagreed with the first time but had to bow to the logic of the second time around) on the grounds that all rights devolve to property rights, meaning there is no "right to life" which can trump the mother's self-ownership.

In any case, I am only pro-life on a personal level, within my own domain. I would be considered pro-choice from a political standpoint.

And as an aside, I went to see this cool exhibit once called Bodies, where (among many other bodily displays) they'd put fetuses of varying ages in a display case. It's really hard to think of a fetus as a non-person when you look at them directly.

[Ool]

Is anyone familiar with the Quiverfull movement?

What are you amazed about? Nature views contraception as censorship and routes around it. Once you give people power over their reproduction it is those people who are either so clumsy that they can’t handle those contraceptive tools or people who deliberately ignore contraception who will dominate future generations.

It’s evolution at work. It’s selective breeding at work. It has nothing to do with those people being individually reasonable or not. All that counts is that their genetic personality traits will outnumber those of others in just a few generations.

Why do you think that in our high tech times there are still so many people who fall for religion or voted for a total moron for president twice? This is why. Intelligence, rationality, and wealth doesn’t translate into huge litters these days any more…





Ool added to this post, 3 minutes and 42 seconds later...

I feel sorry for the children. There is no way a person can give 19 children enough one on one time.

In evolutionary terms it doesn’t matter if those children are happy or develop well-rounded personalities, if only they remain healthy enough to reach adulthood and to spawn children of their own.

That’s what the human condition is all about.

[Lucid]

Hey, they should recruit the Octomom!

[Arminius]

The whole "breed an army" thing also strikes me as rather creepy, and I think there is something inherently wrong with regarding children as ammunition. The number of kids actually isn't that unusual. People have been having 10+ kids for a while. Only difference is now all 10+ are more likely to reach adulthood. I agree with them in thinking abortion is murder, however, I do not share their hostility to preventing conception. People should use some self discipline. If you don't want kids, don't have sex, or at the very least use a condom.

As to feminism, I must confess I have a great deal of dislike for it's modern form. Much of it's modern form seems to be more on the lines of obliterating traditional society, promoting hostility between the sexes, and disassociating people from their children. It seems to promote the view that women who decide to have children and raise said children instead of abandoning them to strangers are failures and of less worth than a female CEO. They are labeled "submissive" and "weak". Children are to be feared because of their disruptive effect on a woman's career, and once born are shuffled into daycare. If a marriage is entered into at all, it is not so much marriage anymore, being abandoned as soon as the going gets tough. All this is not entirely feminism's fault, it is just one aspect of the problem, and both sexes are to blame for the dissolution of marriage. Basically, it is a messed up way to run a society, and a recipe for instability in the long run.

[Feral]

Was just talking about this on another forum yesterday.
Those folks are scaaarrrryyyyy

[raharu]

What are you amazed about? Nature views contraception as censorship and routes around it. Once you give people power over their reproduction it is those people who are either so clumsy that they can’t handle those contraceptive tools or people who deliberately ignore contraception who will dominate future generations.

It’s evolution at work. It’s selective breeding at work. It has nothing to do with those people being individually reasonable or not. All that counts is that their genetic personality traits will outnumber those of others in just a few generations.

Sure, that's evolutionary terms. But evolutionary "logic" isn't the only factor, and it doesn't operate in a vacuum. Unwillingness to use contraceptives is not a genetically inherited trait.

Unless these parents try to keep their spawn locked in some compound to ensure they breed more of their "kind," the kids are just as likely to become gay rights activists and abortion-performing gynecologists as they are god-soldier-breeders.

All you have to do to see the truth in this is look back a single generation. The parents' parents were not religious or social extremists, and likely had nowhere near as many children as these parents do. My bet is that this will only last a generation. And if it doesn't, there's a good chance it will get labeled as a "cult" and the government will intervene to protect the children. And I'm predicting that from historical evidence.

[SeaCzar]

Being an only child, this whole Quiverfull idea makes me shudder. Nineteen kids? This is not a family, its a mob.

I will take issue with the point that if both parents work they are "bad" parents. Due to economics, many times both parents have to work. Others do so in order to have more money. I fail to see how this alone constitutes bad parenting. That is not to say that a lot of couples are delinquent parents, not giving enough nurture and attention to their children. This I have seen far too often.

[Indy]

Why can't they have some more pedestrian goals, like "God gave us 10 children to form our own basketball team"?

Mormons are growing a faith primarily due to their views on having large families. With the heritage of polygamy that might not be surprising. (They don't practise that anymore now, I know). I don't know what to think of them, the stereotype is that they are incredibly nice, pleasant people, with an odd religion. The succesful efforts by Mormon groups to ban gay marriage is not such a great development, but I digress.

[charolastra]

As much as I'd like to raise a small tribe of agnostic humanists in my likeness to bring me wine and chocolate on demand, I know there are limits. When I was a small child, I told my parents that I planned on adopting 10 children. As I grew up, I realized that was an immature viewpoint and that I could not give that many people (as well as myself and my husband) the emotional support that they need. I may be able to multitask but there's only so far that I can go!

I also tend to have a problem with having so many biological children. Why not adopt? The Duggars specifically are in a very good place financially. Did the last 8 children really need to be biological? Couldn't they have given 8 children who needed homes a new life and raised them to be little God warriors too? Or what about 8 foster children? It strikes me as incredibly selfish.

I really wish all of the Duggar children (and all other Quiverfull children) the best. Statistically, at least one of them is gay... closer to 2 at this point. The children are absolutely not competitive in the workforce. The parents set the oldest son up in a business. Can they do that for all of them? Most parents who homeschool cite large class sizes being a problem for public schools. How can 10-15 school aged children at vastly different ages and ability levels all be stuck in a room together and have their needs met? I'm not exactly a supporter of homeschooling in general, but this is absolute appalling to me.

At least they're not dependent on government money.

[Freedom Geek]

They're trying to out breed us! To dilute the gene pool to the point that INT children stop being born and this glorious age of science comes to an end.
I propose the sword-flight plan to counter this we purposefully replace no-NT people's children with ones we have genetically engineered to be pro-INT.