Spin off on the duggars

Merry - posted on 11/09/2011 ( 193 moms have responded )

9,274

169

248

If Jim bob and Michelle had two bio kids, or three since their second successful pregnancy was twins, but then closed up shop and started adopting kids, if they then adopted 16 kids and were now adopting their 17th, to make 20 total, what would you say about them?

Is it the mass producing biological kids that makes the most enemies? Or is it just the sheer number of kids?

If they adopted to this huge number would we still be calling them selfish nuts and crazy?

MOST HELPFUL POSTS

Krista - posted on 11/22/2011

12,562

16

842

Well to you that is a huge concern Feen. However, for them that isn't and that is okay too.

Um, no. It's not okay. I support peoples' rights to parent however they wish, as long as they're not harming anybody (including their kids).

But it's not "okay" for them to just blithely pump out 20 babies, who will grow into 20 adults, all using our continent's rapidly diminishing clean drinking water, all using up fuel to heat the homes they eventually have, all driving cars, all consuming goods. And what if those 20 kids all have 10 kids each (which is likely)?

When it starts affecting society, then it's no longer solely their business. Like it or not, we all share this planet and its resources. And if one family is deciding to pump out 20 kids to add to the strain on our natural resources, then yeah...they have the right to do that. But I sure as heck have the right to criticize them for it.

Jaime - posted on 11/22/2011

4,427

24

196

I think I've seen it mentioned in other conversations that Michelle and Jim Bob believe that it's God's will for them to keep procreating, but interestingly enough all I can think of when I hear that is the one story that has always stuck out to me from Sunday school when I was a kid. Something about a man that was stranded after a flood and had prayed to God for help. Along came a boat and a few other rescue attempts, all of which he turned down and eventually drown. When he got to heaven, he asked God why he didn't help him, and God said something like; "dude I sent you a boat and a helicopter, what more did you want?". I think that's the jist of it anyway. My point being that the Duggars are hell bent on their belief that it's God's will for them to have so many children, however their last attempt was near-fatal for their child. Might that not be seen as God giving them a 'whoa back', and a 'how 'bout we ease up on the baby making since you already have 19 healthy children'? I don't personally know the Duggars, and perhaps they are very kind-hearted, well-spoken individuals, but their common sense dropped off when they reached double-digit offspring.

Charlie - posted on 11/19/2011

11,203

111

401

I personally will not have more than two mainly for enviromental reasons, the planet is being crippled by overpopulation, would I like more ? sure ! but given my enviromental stance the only way we ( my partner and I ) can have our right to have children and keep our footprint to a minimum is for us to stop at two.



The duggers are beyond words , 20 children who at their best if raised to be enviromentally aware would still leave quite a footprint however they are not being raised to be enviromentally aware in fact quite the opposite to the point of disturbing, adoption would greatly reduce their footprint while giving others a chance at a family.



I dont think there is a magic number I only know what is right for us, I do not support forced population control but I do encourage forethought for the future of our planet and what will be left of it for our future great grandchildren to enjoy and survive on.



Given that a large number of people don't give a shit about the resources they use in particular industrialized nations our resources are diminishing at an alarming rate.



Sure we could fit another billion or so but what are they going to drink ? will they experience the Amazon in all its glory ? will our great grandchildren get to see a rhino ?where will they get the materials for infrustructure ? fuel for heating ? food that hasnt been all but wiped out by GMO crops.

we live in a symbiotic relationship with our planet and its inhabitence and our ever growing population has been at the forefront of thousands of species of both flora and fauna's extinction because of the need to resource our own.



The proof is in the demise of the enviroment around us, it is RIGHT IN FRONT OF US.



I think you would have to be either incredibly ignorant or or just unaware by some sheer miracle you had no access to information or the ability to simply step outside and see for yourselves to believe any of these bullshit "overpopulation myth" sites .



Humans have always been great at making excuses for their destruction, hey if a couple of websites can clear your conscience from the reality outside what can I say ?....

Pamela - posted on 11/24/2011

1,496

104

41

Speaking as a Christian, this is terrible theology - and it is a newer theology that finds its roots in John Darby from the 1840's or so. The Tim LaHaye interpretation of the apocalypse (in his "Left Behind" series) was never the early church's understanding of the apocalypse.



The Duggars are a part of what we call Dominionism or Reconstructionism - which is a Calvinist theology. Dominionists generally (note I say generally - I am sure there are exceptions) do not subscribe to the rapture etc. They do subscribe to the idea that the planet is for our use and they often do not care overly much about the environment. They typically regard the environmental movement with a lot of suspicion. In fact, they are typically deeply suspicious of any kind of science that doesn't support their 10,000 year old earth. Dinosaur rides anyone?



Reconstruction Theology was repackaged by Rushdooney back in the 60's-70's, and started picking up steam in the late 70's-early 80's (though it was primarily regarded as the "extreme" end of Christianity - it wasn't originally part of the evangelical movement at all. It has normalized itself through men like James Dobson and Pat Robertson, who are fundamentalists but have branded themselves as leading voices for evangelicalism.



I myself come from the evangelical movement but over the past few years, I have found myself increasingly disheartened by the lurching to the extreme far right and I now find it harder to identify with this movement. I absolutely reject Rushdooney's ideas - scarily, many evangelicals embrace them and that frightens me.



There are a fairly significant number of evangelicals who are deeply concerned about the stewardship of the earth - it is based on the idea (from scripture) that the earth belongs to God, not us. He has given it us for our use, but he has arranged it so that our survival and well-being is intricately connected to the survival and well-being of the planet. Someone mentioned the tale of the old man sitting on top of his house while the flood waters rose, waiting for God to rescue him. He turned down the boat, the helicopter and drowned. He asked God "Why? why didn't you rescue me?" And God replied "I tried - I sent the boat, and the helicopter." This reflects our relationship with the earth. It is through the planetary systems that God sustains us. If we destroy it and the other beings who reside on it, we destroy ourselves.

Charlie - posted on 11/20/2011

11,203

111

401

Every human has the right to bear children it is up to the individual couple to decide how many.



( pretty sure I covered all this in the last post)



For us we had two and will only have two , one to "replace" my partner and I , it is voluntary, it is our personal decision.



Im already the caregiver of another child who is not my own, I have taken on someone I care very much for to give her the life and future she deserves.



I will continue to foster and possibly adopt in the future if and when time and money allows for it.



I applaud those who have relinquished their right to have children purely to not add to the population.



I would consider a conscience devoid of reality nicely masked with validation for their destruction no real conscience at all.



Everything about the Duggers screams selfishness , they only think of the here and now , The way they consume and waste on that show is appaulling, her own body is desperately trying to tell her to stop and yet she pushes on with more and more children not giving a damn at the massive risk she puts on the baby .

So its ok for her to have as many children as "god" is willing to give her but she isnt willing to let "god" take them away when she gives birth to them 3 months too early because her body cannot handle it anymore ? So she can use medical / human intervention when she sees fit ....pick and choose as she wishes.



You know whats a great medical intervention ? Contraception !



We are talking sheer numbers here though ....Im not even going to begin on their nicely droned children.



I have no issue with large families , I would hope ALL families were not as lacking in awareness of the enviroment and finite resources around them as the Duggers but there comes a point when you should be able to tell yourself enough is enough and if you can't do that then when your own body gives big flashing warnings then you should stop , when you continue to go against yourself , the body "god" made for her and no doubt the signal he built into it then there is a lot to be said for that and the rationality behind deciding to keep getting pregnant.

This conversation has been closed to further comments

193 Comments

View replies by

Jamie - posted on 12/14/2011

185

2

1

LOL I didn't read all of latter posts on here. I didn't realize the "Duggar Debate" had turned into an existential one.

No offense to you guys, because I'm sure many of you are worthy commenters of the topic, but the last place I think i could seriously debate a topic about this is an online forum like "circle of moms"- I'll be bowing out now

Jamie - posted on 12/14/2011

185

2

1

You have a risk of dying in every pregnancy. Maternal mortality (and morbidity which is even more present) is still unfortunately alive and well in this country, just much lower than the rest of the world (except Europe has us beat). There are no guarantees.

So, regardless of whether you decide to have three or twenty you are still potentially putting yourself at risk of leaving your children without a mother. The fact that Michelle had so many successful pregnancies and home births one could even argue that she is lower risk than most women.

There is no "acceptable" number of children. China does that, look how that has worked out for their children in the countryside.

Thank goodness this is a choice for each individual to make for themselves. Could you imagine someone else telling you how many children you should have? It's not a good feeling.

Before my husband had a vasectomy We had countless amount of strangers and doctors tell me to keep having children. I didn't want anymore! I had what Michelle suffered from with Josie, and I mentally could not handle trying to deal with another pregnancy. prepregnancy we had planned to adopt. Children were important to me, but not specifically biological children. My husband and I were happy with our decision (still are) and it was no one's business to judge us to try to tell us otherwise.

Sherri - posted on 12/14/2011

9,593

15

387

@Megan now if my mom died tomorrow. I would get great comfort and solace knowing that my mom was in heaven with God/Jesus looking down and watching us.

♥♪Megan♫♥ - posted on 12/14/2011

6,434

12

67

Krista E, pretty much my thoughts. I grew up Catholic and I never understood how it was supposed to be comforting that it was God's will to take someone.

I know that my beliefs are completely different from others including the Duggars though. And who knows, maybe their children would be comforted by the fact that their mom was in heaven. But I know many people who aren't like that and I know I'm not like that. I'm across the country from my mom and I would definitely not feel cheerful and comforted by the fact that I couldn't see her any more because she was with God

Charlie - posted on 12/14/2011

11,203

111

401

There is no freedom in servitude.

Anyway religion doesn't bother me when used as a moral guide as long as that doesn't impose on others human rights or used as a tool for hate , I'm glad to hear you are a good person who has done good things regardless of reason. The world needs more good people :)

Cassandra - posted on 12/14/2011

185

3

32

I live my life how i want. And i serve the lord because i want to. I am excited to go to heaven but serving the lord is the reward. And if there is no heaven, fine, but i will die satisfied because i am a good person and have done good things and lived as much by the bible as i could.

Charlie - posted on 12/14/2011

11,203

111

401

How can you not know and yet know ?

Anyway you are entitled to your beliefs, I am happy to know many an atheist who live good moral lives because it is simply the right thing to do, because we only get one chance at life so we better make it good for us and for the good of humanity.

people should be on the right path because its the right thing to do not because they expect a reward or because someone told them too IMO.

Krista - posted on 12/14/2011

12,562

16

842

I believe what Michelle states is what most (including me) think, that even if she should die (or the child) that God is still in control and will make sure that the family is supported.

Yeah.

And I'm sure it'll be a HUGE comfort to all of those kids, especially the little ones, to know that God is in control and that they'll still be supported. "I miss my mommy and cry every night over her, and don't understand why God let her die. But hey...at least our phone bill is still paid."

/rolls eyes.

Cassandra - posted on 12/14/2011

185

3

32

So i dont think Michelle has a mean bone in her body. But her laugh really gets to me :)

Cassandra - posted on 12/14/2011

185

3

32

Right path (imo) is the path of god. But im not going to sit here and tell everone they are living their lives horribly because they dont believe in god, because i dont want to judge. I dont know what happens when you die. I know im going to heaven though.

♥♪Megan♫♥ - posted on 12/14/2011

6,434

12

67

Cassandra I really hope you meant your last part as in if we have led a good life instead of if we have believed in God.

If not then would you care to tell my Atheist husband that he's not on the right path? This is why I stopped going to church, I couldn't stand the whole black and white with no grey areas. Sorry, but I know of plenty of wonderful law abiding, kind and generous people who believe that the Bible is nothing more than another legend up there with Norse and Roman mythology.

[deleted account]

"Its nice seeing a show on tv that doesnt have sex or violence on it. "

LOL - just 20 children. Yeah that's not evidence of massive sex.

[deleted account]

"After all our grandmothers and before that often had far more children with far less medical care."

And women died from too many babies in too many years rather a lot.

Cassandra - posted on 12/14/2011

185

3

32

God lets us live our lives. He doesnt pick who dies for the day. But when we do die, he is there with arms wide open. If you choose the right path that is......

♥♪Megan♫♥ - posted on 12/14/2011

6,434

12

67

Yeah pretty much. But I think people were put off by how it was said/implied. Tone doesn't translate very well on the internet. Anyone who's gotten into a YIM arguement will tell you that.



ETA: I can't grasp the whole it's okay if I die it's God's will. So it's God's will to leave your children without a mother? Sounds like a great guy

[deleted account]

Thank you Jaime Lynne for backing up what I said about maternal deaths. And also thank you for pointing out the mistake that Michelle seems to think that God will protect her no matter what she does. I agree, that assumption is totally not related to the Christian faith at all. I believe what Michelle states is what most (including me) think, that even if she should die (or the child) that God is still in control and will make sure that the family is supported. I know that to be true personally as well. I'm sorry if people don't understand my Faith, and that of so many others.
I agree, many mothers in Third world countries die in their first pregnancy because there is NO medical care at all, it is up to the female members of the family and/or community, there is no medical intervention available, PLUS many of these first time mothers are VERY young, much much younger than even the teen mums who are much maligned in our Western culture (to me very unfairly as most I've met are excellent mothers given support).
In any case it is Michelle's and her husband's desire to have a large family and it is their decision alone, of course they have to put up with many who aren't backward in coming forward with their own opinions and standards. As far as I can see, the family supports itself with very little help from Government funds, so if they're happy to have a large family then sobeit. It's not my cup of tea, I had 3 (but lost 5) and now have many kids that I've unofficially taken under my wing on the streets. God bless.

Charlie - posted on 12/14/2011

11,203

111

401

Because people and those they hold responsible do not want to be held accountable for bad things ...... only the good, it soothes the ego.

You see it on a smaller scale in the parenting world ALL the time....." Oh look at sammy he got all grade A's , thats because of the way I raised him" *proud parent soaking up the glory*

" Oh look at sammy he is a bully. That is his friends/school/anyone else possible to blame it on....nothing to do with me"
*wipes hands clean*

Cassandra - posted on 12/14/2011

185

3

32

I think they do quite well for a big family. They arent living off government assistance and they have really good values and morals. Even if the older ones help with the younger ones. It seems to work for them. Its nice seeing a show on tv that doesnt have sex or violence on it.

Johnny - posted on 12/14/2011

8,686

26

318

I'm a litle perplexed by the reaction to Janessa's post. Why is it okay to thank jesus for making babies but not for taking them away? I mean, if God has a plan and he wants the best for us, then shouldn't we thank him for ALL decisions, whether we like them or not?

Jamie - posted on 12/14/2011

185

2

1

I have to disagree with Jaime and Krista. Between 5-8% of all pregnancies will result in Preeclampsia. Most are first pregnancies,but it can happen for the first time even if you've had successful previous pregnancies. I had HELLP Syndome (the most severe form of preeclampsia) with my biological son. Does that mean God is telling me I shouldn't have more children?

Preeclampsia is it is very specific to each individual placenta and implantation. Michelle only had preeclampsia in one other pregnancy -her first set of twins (two placentas, double the chance that something can go wrong)
But the truth is that any one of you can get this. It isn't because she had this many pregnancies that caused it. It is something totally unique to human gestation.

And maternal mortality is not lowering because we are having less children. Unless you're specifically talking about the western world where we have medical interventions.
I recently started a foundation taking on projects lowering maternal mortality and morbidity in Sidama Ethiopia (where my son is from)- There is absolutely no medical assistance for these women, that is what is killing them. The ratio is comparable with American sized-families, and in many cases much less because most mothers die giving birth to their first child.

And if you look at historical birthing rates, most women who had successful first pregnancies go on to have significantly larger families than the ones today without many complications.

Recently, many medical journals are publishing the explaination behind the spike in infertility is due to our poor nutrition and processed foods.

And whoever mentioned she thinks God will keep her safe, that is a complete misunderstanding of their Christology and Apologetics. It isn't a good idea to judge someone about their faith if you don't understand it.

Krista - posted on 12/14/2011

12,562

16

842

After all our grandmothers and before that often had far more children with far less medical care.

That's not really a great example. The reason that maternal mortality is so low in this day and age is BECAUSE women are having fewer children, and have access to better medical care. Our ancestresses faced a much higher maternal death rate, many of them dying in childbirth. My FIL's grandfather had three wives over the course of his life, because two of them died in childbirth.

So this "Well, we did it this way in the olden days and it all turned out just fine!" argument...it doesn't hold water.

Human women are not biologically meant to have that many babies. It is only today's modern medicine and improved nutrition that has even made it possible for Michelle to have that many live babies. But that doesn't mean that the design and function of the human reproductive system is fully caught up to this century. It still has its weaknesses. And even if every pregnancy thus far had gone perfectly, the fact of the matter is that with every pregnancy, she is risking her health more and more. That's inarguable. And when you have THAT many dependents, you really should start thinking about whether you want to take risks like that with your health.

But, I guess to her it's not a risk, because she thinks that her god will keep her alive, no matter what -- conveniently ignoring the many people, who were no less faithful than her, that her god DIDN'T save.

[deleted account]

I can't help but admire these two wonderful parents and their love for their entire family (how they remember all those names is beyond me, or do they, like me go through them all plus assorted pets before getting to the one they want to pay attention? I'm sure that Michelle takes care to have proper medical attention etc, so no, whilst being pregnant so many times must be taxing on her health, I don't think she is putting either herself or the developing child in her womb in any more danger than any other mother. After all our grandmothers and before that often had far more children with far less medical care. As to whether they should have so many children, well that is their choice, they don't seem to be expecting others to support their family financially. Sure there are many children who are needing to be fostered and/or adopted, but that is a totally separate issue. I congratulate this family on its success and managing such a large brood, they have my deepest respect.

Jaime - posted on 12/13/2011

291

0

22

My issue with them is not how many children they have, it is the safety and health risk to Michelle that she is putting herself and her new babies through. They almost lost Josie and she may probably grow up with some type of health issues so why would you want to put another child in that type of danger? I think that is God telling them it is enough...

Merry - posted on 12/13/2011

9,274

169

248

How dare you disrespect Jesus' name like that!
I hope this weighs on your conscience because that's a horrid way to use Jesus' name.

Sherri - posted on 12/12/2011

9,593

15

387

Wow Janessa that is a horrific thing to say. I hope you never have to ever feel what it is like to lose a child by miscarriage. Although if you did I can assure you, you wouldn't be quite so callous and cruel.

Cassandra - posted on 12/12/2011

185

3

32

Wow you are thanking the lord for taking an innocent life. maybe you will get cancer, should everyone thank the Lord for that? But you dont sound like an innocent person. Ill pray for you anyways.

Janessa - posted on 12/12/2011

444

38

28

Thank You Jesus she lost that baby. I think he was telling her enough with so many kids and that making her older kids parent the younger.

Jamie - posted on 12/11/2011

185

2

1

Oh, I love the Duggars. I had a severe form of Preeclampsia with my biological son, like Michelle did with Josie. I am in awe of her faith in God to trust in him enough to continue with pregnancies after as scary as that one was.

We were planning on adopting anyway, but we were thinking we would possibly have two biological children and adopt two. After my pregnancy I was so scared my husband had a vasectomy. I wish I was more like her.

I think they are great parents and their children are going to be great adults. If those are the kind of people overpopulating the world, then more power to them.

[deleted account]

Everyone in this world is somebody's baby. She's a mother that lost her baby and she's someone's baby too and their heart is breaking for her! Our babies will grow up too and I can only hope that someone wouldn't be so callous to my son at a time like this, regardless of his personal choices. :(

Merry - posted on 12/09/2011

9,274

169

248

His name is James Robert duggar
It's a fine name. The nick name is common southern style. Not a favorite of mine but that's their culture!
I don't think a baby dying can ever be any kind of blessing

Robyn - posted on 12/09/2011

242

54

20

Jim Bob is the worst name ever! Sorry!! LOL

Oh, and obviously its sad to miscarry. My point was, maybe this was a sign. I 100% disagree with their belief that they need to keep having sex and having babies as they come. A blessing in disguise, I think this was. Plus, they never would've had to deal with the tragedy if one or both were fixed! Just saying.....!

[deleted account]

It's sad, no matter how I feel about their choices as a family - they are a family and miscarrying a baby that you'd carried inside of you is devastating, even if you haven't met them yet. :(

Jenn - posted on 12/09/2011

675

1

47

She lost her second pregnancy as well. The body will normally end a pregnancy if there is a severe problem. She lost this one in the second trimester which is even harder and more tragic. Regardless what number this baby was, it is terrible to go through a miscarriage at any time.

PS. Many families, including my Dad's, in the South use a second name as part of the first.

Robyn - posted on 12/09/2011

242

54

20

Looks like they lost baby 20. Like I said before either baby will be sick, or mom. Their beliefs are wrong and god just told them so! Its a blessing in disguise this baby miscarried because I'm sure it would have had complications. Maybe now they will finally get a clue and STOP reproducing!

[deleted account]

My biggest problem is that older children shouldn't be tasked with parenting their siblings. If you have so many kids that parental burden is falling on other children, there are too many of them and not enough of you. And I am not talking about families with multiple kids where everyone has to pitch in...this is way beyond that.

Cassandra - posted on 12/07/2011

185

3

32

They are lucky, I am having a hard time getting pregnant with my 2nd! Wish I had her ovaries!

Stifler's - posted on 11/28/2011

15,141

154

597

They're into the church of ignorance if you ask me. Very environmentally unaware.

Pamela - posted on 11/28/2011

1,496

104

41

Again, they probably are not into the whole "rapture" thing. The type of theology they are into (and is part of the quiverfull movement) is called Reconstructionism or Dominionism. But you're correct, that's one heck of a lot of kids. Makes me exhausted just looking at 'em.

Carol - posted on 11/28/2011

325

14

15

I dont see them getting a show. My husband is adopted and his family was 9 kids, 3 bio and 6 adopted. Personally its their choice to have that many kids, if you can handle 2/3 + more power to you, i dont know how your doing it. I do not see them as being selfish but nut and crazy yea. Thats alot of kids!

Shannon - posted on 11/28/2011

18

1

1

I have never seen any evidence that the Duggars are trying to bring about the rapture. They say they are part of the quiverful movement. That relates to the scripture that (I'm paraphrasing) you children should number as many as you arrows against evil. It's the idea that the more children that you raise right (whether they are you birth children or not) the better you are protecting the world from bad people. And though I don't espouse the quiverful movement I think all parents hope that their children will work towards a better world. They just think that the more children they have, the more likely that is.

Pamela - posted on 11/27/2011

1,496

104

41

One of my goals (or perhaps more accurately desire) has been to work within the context of the church, educating people that this planet is important. The very word that describes us - human - means "of the earth," which even scripture tells us we are. We are made from the very soil we walk on. We should never forget this - in fact, we really should embrace our earthiness. God sustains us through all the planetary systems, of which without we could not exist. It is hugely important that all of us - regardless of faith or non-faith - know our origins.

But I'm going off topic. Again, my only real response to the Duggars is for those who enjoy their show to understand who these folks are and what ideology they espouse. They are probably wonderful people - of that I have no doubt. But at least educate yourselves on what their gig is.

I guess to some degree I find their attempt to normalize large familes problematic. I so disagree with their ideology and perhaps I sound alarmist, but I have done quite a bit of reading on this movement, and I think it unwise to ignore it or minimize it.

♥♪Megan♫♥ - posted on 11/27/2011

6,434

12

67

Thanks Robyn.

If someone with 2 or 3 biological children wants to go adopt another child, go for it. But from what my parents went through just waiting to adopt me back in the 80's (4 years on a wait list plus lawyer costs) and my brother I'd say they have their work cut out for them.

Charlie - posted on 11/27/2011

11,203

111

401

Based on what Rebecca ? My post in here listing a small part of what we do ? unless you know my home life intimately you really have no idea what is we do here.

I dont feel the need to list every single effort we make as a family to you as you demand because we are are confident in our efforts made, we are very aware of of our actions.
I have no need to either prove myself to you or engage in a pissing contest.

We can all do more thats a fact.
I am happy with the progress our family has made and look forward to finding new ways to lessen our footprint.

Lets try and stick to the topic because the deflection tactics does nothing strengthen your argument ( quite the opposite actually)

Minnie - posted on 11/26/2011

7,076

9

786

Most who attended my church weren't bent on bringing about the rapture via depleting the earth's resources. They simply believed that God placed everything on this planet for human use. There isn't any respect for the planet or its resources.

In Genesis, humanity is instructed to reproduce until the earth is 'replenished'- basically until it is filled. Those in our church used that as a defense for popping out as many children as they could- because to them the earth wasn't filled- physically.

But it IS filled. Just because I can take a step to the side and not bump into someone else doesn't mean that it's working like a well-lubed engine, like it did 200,000 years ago.

But that doesn't matter anyway, because the earth is only 6,000 years old. ;)

Krista - posted on 11/26/2011

12,562

16

842

It wasn't MY assumption -- it was someone else's. I just thought I'd throw that out there, because it just seems like you often have to go back and clarify your statements. Anyway -- it was just a bit of unsolicited advice. Feel free to disregard it.

Sherri - posted on 11/26/2011

9,593

15

387

Well as we all know Krista things don't always come across perfectly in writing as they would from the mouth. And I only said I use them I never said I use them daily that was your assumption hence why the clarification once I realized that is how it was taken.

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms