Advertisements
I read this on another forum and wondering if anyone knows more about it... The Duggars are followers of Bill Gothard (per their own web site, via the links to the Advanced Training Institute and Institute in Basic Life Principles) who is a major proponent of quiverfull. He is also the gem who came up with the idea that adoption is a no-no because children inhereit the sins of the parents ([url=http://www.pfo.org/evol-fad.htm]Dangerous Leanings of Bill Gothards Teachings[/url]) among other things. Family Non Planning/Quiverfull a la Gothard, which the Duggars I guess subscribe to, is against adoption. Quiverfull as a movement is not. I think it is important distinction. The QF movement is about answering the spiritual call to grow your family.
Like
Share
Advertisements
Advertisements
I'm not sure what your question is? Most people who are QF are not anti-adoption, but like most people I'm sure anyone can be mislead into believing nonsense like that, ie. Bill Gothard's teachings. I think the reason many people who are QF end up with large families of bio children is because a lot of people in general (Christian and non-Chrisitan alike) will rarely consider adoption as a means to build a family if they're not forced to by infertility or some other reason. I've found that the people who choose to adopt regardless of fertility status is very rare and often treated as a bit :arrow: by other people who don't understand the desire to adopt. ETA: I did a quick scan of the link you provided because I'm not familiar with his teachings and it doesn't say that he's anti-adoption. It says that he says that adopted children should be cleansed of the sins of their biological parents (which are apparently numerous ** roll eyes **) to make sure that the sins of the fathers are not passed on. That's all I got from that page, no anti-adoption sentiments. But, like I said, I just scanned it because I have no desire to spend more of my time reading his teachings.
Maybe in some areas...but I've found a lot of support and encouragement from co-workers and family with my decision to adopt as a single person without fertility issues. There are people that adoption comes to mind first :arrow: Then again I've always done things in life a little different and outside of the box :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: so maybe I'm a little :arrow:
SAVeronika
I'm not sure what your question is? Most people who are QF are not anti-adoption, but like most people I'm sure anyone can be mislead into believing nonsense like that, ie. Bill Gothard's teachings. I think the reason many people who are QF end up with large families of bio children is because a lot of people in general (Christian and non-Chrisitan alike) will rarely consider adoption as a means to build a family if they're not forced to by infertility or some other reason. I've found that the people who choose to adopt regardless of fertility status is very rare and often treated as a bit :arrow: by other people who don't understand the desire to adopt.
DannieAS
Maybe in some areas...but I've found a lot of support and encouragement from co-workers and family with my decision to adopt as a single person without fertility issues. There are people that adoption comes to mind first :arrow: Then again I've always done things in life a little different and outside of the box :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: so maybe I'm a little :arrow:
Well, you sparked my interest, so I googled the guy. Because I like primary sources better than secondary sources, I looked at his own website first. [url=http://billgothard.com/bill/teaching/authority/]Bill Gothard | Protection Under Authority[/url] Poked around a bit. Didn't mind his "charactor qualities" much. Agreed with most of them, but I had some problem with the antonyms. Didn't find much more on the website that I agreed with, and didn't find anything about adoption, but I certainly didn't look at the whole site. Then googled "quiverfull" and good old wikipedia has a piece right on top. Wikipedia is a great resource, but it is written by whoever wants to write for it, and often it is not accurate. But this is what it says about adoption: Adherents view [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrenness"]barrenness[/URL], referred to as an "empty quiver" by adherents, as something to be accepted from God if that is His choice, while also making it a matter of prayer in the belief that God may wish to miraculously intervene. [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infertility"]Infertility treatments[/URL] are seen as a usurpation of God's providence and accordingly rejected. Adoption is viewed as a positive option in which couples also rely on God's providence to send children. Biblical references to God's love for the orphan and to the belief that persons are saved through adoption into God's family are often noted. My problem with the teachings of Bill Gothard, and to an extent, my problems with the Duggard family, is the decision to not allow contact with anyone whose views challenge your own. And this is something I've thought a lot about over the past few days. As a child growing up in a politically active family, I remember being in 2nd, 3rd and 4th grade, and sitting in silence listening to everything President Nixon said. (Yeah, I'm old). My parents would then dissect his words, and the meanings behind those words. I was taught to think critically. To listen to everything. To draw on evidence, and to form an opinion based on evidence. And to be willing to modify my opinions when new evidence appeared. In other words, I was encouraged to listen to and learn from those whose world views were very different from the world views of my parents. To listen critically. Children growing in in family's like the Duggards are never exposed to anything outside of their own belief systems. I am guessing that they will be among the children forbidden from hearing President Obama's address to school children next Tuesday. They will be limited to secondary sources, or someone else's interpretation of events. I think that is very sad. [URL="http://billgothard.com/bill/teaching/authority/"][/URL]
Advertisements
DannieAS
Maybe in some areas...but I've found a lot of support and encouragement from co-workers and family with my decision to adopt as a single person without fertility issues...
vernellinnj
As a single woman hoping to adopt, I find that very interesting. Would you mind telling me the source of the information.
Who are the members of SMC? The average age of our members is 35, and nearly all have completed college or beyond. Almost half of our members are "thinkers" (as we call those women who have not yet decided whether or not they want to become single mothers) and the rest are trying to adopt or conceive, or are already mothers. About 52 percent of the mothers conceived a child by donor insemination, and approximately 25 percent have adopted. About 20 percent have become pregnant with a "known donor" or sex partner, although they are raising their child alone. We are a diverse group of women, including teachers, lawyers, doctors, bankers, nurses, business owners, and more. We are of all races, religions, ethnic groups, and lifestyles, from all over the United States and abroad. The main thing that we have in common is our belief that a woman can successfully raise a child on her own. Feel free to take a look at our pictures page for photos of some of our members and their children.
Advertisements
sugarandspice697
Your right, there are single mothers who choose adoption as their first choice. However, even in the "Choice Mom" community, about 70-80% choose sperm donation rather than adoption. Also, even in the LGBT community the vast majority of us (especially lesbians) don't choose adoption as our first choice - we turn to donor sperm or surrogacy arrangements. So SAVeronika does have a point, for most parents (especially those adopting domestically) adoption is generally a second choice (but not second best).
Quesita
As a child growing up in a politically active family, I remember being in 2nd, 3rd and 4th grade, and sitting in silence listening to everything President Nixon said. (Yeah, I'm old). My parents would then dissect his words, and the meanings behind those words. I was taught to think critically. To listen to everything. To draw on evidence, and to form an opinion based on evidence. And to be willing to modify my opinions when new evidence appeared. In other words, I was encouraged to listen to and learn from those whose world views were very different from the world views of my parents. To listen critically.