Yesterday I posted several disgusting comments by internet-users, who had just learned the news of Michelle Duggar’s miscarriage. Two days ago, I reviewed an article about loving those with whom we disagree (What Does It Have To Do With Love?), and the two posts intersect in several places…
Truthfully, I understand it’s hard to show compassion for somebody you believe invited the problem themselves. Many feel Michelle "should have known better" than carry a high-risk pregnancy, and they declare, "Maybe this will teach her!” It is not Christ-like, but it is understandable. I, too, struggle with impatience and frustration toward people who make bad decisions...
Yet—I state firmly with Dan from the article I reviewed—this should have nothing to do with love. How can someone possibly support the statement , "You don't deserve my pity"? Who refers to a grieving mother's uterus as a clown car? Who really believes the family deserves ridicule because they tell their story in a public forum? Since when is there any excuse to be completely, unapologetically mean?
------
Some of the comments are nothing but unveiled ugliness--sin natures, unchecked and screaming. But the comments by people who mask their hatred as "concern" make me the most sick. Many pose as advocates of Michelle's safety--saying they worry for her health. However, they don't come across very concerned for her spiritual health, encouraging her to worship God the best she can. Nor do they consider if their comments affect her emotional health.
Similarly, some declare concern for her babies....recommending that, instead of carelessly risking a little life, Michelle simply stop giving life altogether. I'm not suggesting that declining to get pregnant is the same as taking a life. But I AM saying that giving a baby a chance to be born--even through complicated pregnancies--isn't barbaric when never getting pregnant always means no chance. I don't buy that people are really worried about theoretical, potential children when they admit they'd prefer if the babies never existed in the first place.
Other good citizens fear that the Duggar children are "publicity stunts," even though the family was independently wealthy before the TV show. They have said repeatedly their real estate properties support the children without the extra money earned from the "sin" of being interesting. The family’s only public “stunt” is remaining dignified while society rips them apart. (A pretty impressive one, I might add.)
Similarly, some declare concern for her babies....recommending that, instead of carelessly risking a little life, Michelle simply stop giving life altogether. I'm not suggesting that declining to get pregnant is the same as taking a life. But I AM saying that giving a baby a chance to be born--even through complicated pregnancies--isn't barbaric when never getting pregnant always means no chance. I don't buy that people are really worried about theoretical, potential children when they admit they'd prefer if the babies never existed in the first place.
Other good citizens fear that the Duggar children are "publicity stunts," even though the family was independently wealthy before the TV show. They have said repeatedly their real estate properties support the children without the extra money earned from the "sin" of being interesting. The family’s only public “stunt” is remaining dignified while society rips them apart. (A pretty impressive one, I might add.)
Finally, a common accusation remains that the Duggar parents aren't doing their job because they rely on support from the older kids. It seems those critics think all parents need to spend four hours a day, one-on-one with their two kids, teaching them the world revolves around them and the finer points of bad-mouthing reality families on the internet, but it doesn't have to work that way. No, I’m not trying to suggest that parents-of-two always train their kids to be jerks--so don't let the last sentence twist your panties. I don't mean that small families are "wrong," while bigger is better. But, I'm mad at the many, many, many, many people who DO say "smaller is better," and they don't understand all the benefits of sibling support. They assume the same thing about having lots of children as society does about getting married 'too soon' :
But what does this really mean? What 'should' kids do with their precious childhood, which gets ruined by spending lots of time together, meeting each other’s needs?
“Their 12-year-olds handle responsibilities which rival a typical 20-year-old’s workload, and that’s just…just…just…bad!”
Really? Then describe the “ideal” childhood. Watching TV? Dancing? Not having a care in the world, besides your own interests? Or maybe just having at least a little time to be at least a little selfish?
Is it a big, unforgivable loss to miss out on those things?
As far as the effects on the children who "don't spend enough time with Mom and Dad," you'd think all the working mothers would stand up for poor Michelle on this one. Child psychologists have been reassuring them for years that 'quality' of time matters, not 'quantity.' Single moms march bravely forward because they hear promises like, "There's nothing wrong with leaving kids in childcare, with strangers, 10-12 hours a day, as long as they know you're doing it for their benefit." Yet. we dare suggest the little Duggars will be damaged, surrounded 24/7 by a huge group of people who love them? Nonsense.
As far as the effects on the children who "don't spend enough time with Mom and Dad," you'd think all the working mothers would stand up for poor Michelle on this one. Child psychologists have been reassuring them for years that 'quality' of time matters, not 'quantity.' Single moms march bravely forward because they hear promises like, "There's nothing wrong with leaving kids in childcare, with strangers, 10-12 hours a day, as long as they know you're doing it for their benefit." Yet. we dare suggest the little Duggars will be damaged, surrounded 24/7 by a huge group of people who love them? Nonsense.
Finally, what about the writer who thinks Michelle's fertility somehow affects another person's infertility? Some accuse her of wrong because "many couples can't have any kids," and obviously this is Michelle’s fault. It's like they think there is just a small pile of babies at the stork factory and the greedy Duggars keep snatching up more, before other mothers get a fair share. Folks, the good fortune of others does NOT automatically result in your misfortune. Baby-making isn't a game with winners and losers…one where Michelle constantly enjoys success at other people's expense. It’s not a competition!
And, that commenter who "feels more sorry" for infertile couples needs to write this down: compassion shouldn’t be a competition, either. To say one person (a childless couple) deserves sympathy "more" than another (woman with many kids) assumes that kindness is a limited resource. It eliminates the option of having sympathy for both.
Love shouldn’t be a limited resource.
There is no reason some people should “win” our goodwill, while the rest lose out. A person who justifies their insensitivity on the grounds they'd rather feel sensitive for someone else resigns their human responsibility to treat everyone with respect and tenderness. These people--who do not understand that the ability to love only increases with the more love we give--are the real examples of people who shouldn't parent. Anybody who lacks compassion, throws insults, or considers children "burdens" if they arrive after "too many" others, probably shouldn't have any.
But, for upstanding people like the Duggar's, the inability to have another baby is nothing but a tragedy.
...one which deserves true, kindness-filled condolences rather than the fake concern of people who do not understand love...
Well done. As one who has had miscarriages, who has four kids, and while not really wanting to add to our family, has not done anything to make it impossible if God chooses, I fully agree.
ReplyDeleteThis puts to words exactly what I've been thinking for 2 days. A few months before I got pregnant with my second I had a miscarriage. I was devistated, and had never felt such a great loss. One person told me that I really shouldn't be sad because "it's not like you were trying for a baby." and another told me "It's probably for the best, now is not a good time to have another." Those were the responses of 2 out of the 4 people we told, and the reaon we only told 4 people. No matter the circumstances the death of a baby is sad. There is never a cause to say "It's ok because..." or "It's not that bad because...". Saying it was Michelle's fault is just horrifying. She truely loves her children, and to imply that a grieving mother had any part in the death of her child is cold. It was a life lost and that is devistating and to say anything other than "I'm sorry" is wrong.
ReplyDeleteWell Done, Amanda... you should be a professional blogger, you have wonderful way with words and express yourself so well. I am so glad God made you the way you are! Keep being faithful to the task!
ReplyDeleteThank you! I appreciate the encouragement very much...
Delete