Did You Have a Baby in 2011?

Why, yes I did have a baby in 2011. Thanks for asking, TurboTax.

Having determined we could provide for a growing family--and believing a mini-McKinney would enhance our lives, my husband and I made the private decision to conceive.

But, why is the government paying us for that decision this tax season?

Don't get me wrong, it's a nice bonus. But I wanted to have a baby anyway. On the other hand--if Luke and I were incapable of supporting a child apart from a tax incentive--we wouldn't have gotten pregnant.  So, this few hundred (or thousand?) dollars will be given to us for...really, no reason. 

I bring this up because I'm thinking about the insane American debt--the "budget crisis,"--and I hear many argue that making cuts only sounds good in theory...until someone personally feels inconvenienced by the results. Perhaps that's true. Selfish interests make budget cuts difficult. But I'm not so selfish as to demand money for a life choice like the one I made last year. This New Baby Tax Credit affects me personally, and I'm willing to sacrifice it. I honestly wouldn't holler a bit if the next President decided to eliminate the costs of paying parents for doing what parents are supposed to do: raising their own babies.

What about those energy-efficient windows we installed two summers ago?  We bought them because we liked the look and we wanted to save money on future heating bills.  There was no need for Uncle Sam to contribute on top of that. Also, though I believe tax increases are not the sole answer to our current problem (because taxing all citizens at 100% of their income still wouldn't sustain the government at its current spending rate), it seems a little bizarre that Luke and I have never owed Federal taxes due to our income being too low. This can be said regarding a good portion of the country. But we live here, and we enjoy the protection of the armed services, the right to vote, and the privileged title of American. I'm willing to start contributing a percentage of our earnings, provided the revenue isn't wasted on needless programs and more freedom-killing laws.

-----
We've heard we "can't balance the budget on the backs of college students." We can't sacrifice programs meant to help the poor, the elderly, those just-starting-out, or those representing the "99%" of the population.  But where CAN we make changes? 

I had a baby in 2011, and it's my job to raise her with or without the tax incentive. Let's talk specifics. Is there anything you're willing to give up?

Why Did God Make Babies?

My little girl makes my heart swell.

She has the best giggle, the most beautiful eyes, and the strongest will of any child I've ever met. She is smart and determined. She is a blessing.

But, this week, she's also a challenge.

Before Cami got a fever, two teeth, and a croupy cough, I planned to write an update for my Adventures in Marriage collection of posts. (I mean, hasn't it been too long since I proved relationships require patience, hard work, and constant self-sacrifice by sharing something unstable I said/did to my husband?)  :)   But I haven’t had time to mistreat Luke lately because we’ve been embarking on Adventures in Miserable Babies.
Soooo you get one of Amanda's Parenthood Ponderings instead.
----
Why did God create babies?

Some say babyhood is important for the parent-child relationship; their sweet faces and total dependency encourage long-term attachment. But I'm not particularly attached to the whining, the night-wakings, and the loss of my free time. Yes, babies are cute, with good-smelling breath and soft skin. But they're a lot of work, too! If their sole purpose is making us fall in love with them, the  pooping, crying, and constant-attention-requiring part all seem counterproductive. God should have seen that coming…

It also seems logical that babies “must” start small because  they come packaged in a tight space. Naturally, after birth, they have to spend time growing. But I believe God is fully creative enough to invent a quicker way. He could have programmed babies to crawl, walk, and run within hours of birth--as with horses. Or, He could have arranged humans to be independent immediately, never even meeting their parents (like sea turtles).
Why are human babies immature for so long? If God could have eliminated babyhood--or at least sped it up--why didn't He?

----

I'm lucky my little girl plays fabulously by herself, most of the time. But lately, when I try to wash a few dishes, or write for my blog, or even brush my teeth, she crawls after me, crying. Her moodiness has confined me to the rocking chair (in my PJ's, with no makeup) trying to console the inconsolable--considering the irony of "Miss Amanda--the unshakable, unstoppable, Teacher of dozens" begging for mercy from ONE red-faced 8-month-old.

Desperately, I want her to get over this illness or growth spurt or whatever, so we can get back to normal. I want to play with her, sing with her, take her to run errands, and all the other important mommy-things…

But what if these difficult, tear-filled days, when my to-do list is neglected and I feel like a failure are the most important mommy-things? What if bonding and teaching are only secondary purposes of Cami's babyhood—with the main point being to challenge me?

Like teaching special education and marriage, parenthood is hard.  And if all the "incentives" had to come from Cami herself, it might not be worth it. Perhaps, since I have a "good baby,” this seems unfair. Her good days outnumber the bad. It should be easy to press through a rough week knowing it probably will get better, right?

But what about children who aren't so "good?" What about colicky babies? Or, what about those with disabilities, whose challenging behavior shows no end? Let's face it--if parenthood hinges on physical rewards, like giggles and hugs, there are kids whose extreme needs aren't worth it.

That's why I think parenthood has more to do with becoming better people than raising them. It's precisely the most un-cute, un-productive, un-pleasant days which have the most to teach us.  
----

I’m confident Cami will be easy-going again soon…and it will be a relief. I don't LIKE when my patience is challenged. Unconditional love isn't easy to learn. And, when Cami goes back to normal, eventually I’ll go back to taking her for granted, complaining about small things, nagging her father, and other self-serving activities, too.  

 But I’m glad that God made babies—cute, needy, sweet, whiny, selfish babies—to put parents like me in our place now and then.

Little, White-and-Red Lies

My disillusionment with Santa began when I started working with preschoolers. Every year, without fail, the parents with the wildest children would stand near the door, with hats and mittens in hand, yelling across the room, "If you don't come put your coat on, Santa won't bring you any presents!"  I realize not every parent who encourages the Santa myth uses him (unsuccessfully) to manipulate their ill-behaved kids. But this scene got me wondering how and why parents ever started willfully deceiving their children in the first place.

I don't believe the Bible supports the usage of "little white lies."  It says, "Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much."  Furthermore, Jesus is called the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

If Truth describes God Himself--I want to imitate it as closely as possible. But does this impact that famous, white-and-red lie many parents adopt at this time of year?  Would truthful parents encourage belief in the North Pole. elves, flying reindeer, and the "Big Man," too?

I think the author of this blog post, Why Lie to Your Kids About Santa, makes some excellent points.

------
Often, when someone questions a trend that LOTS of people embrace, there is backlash. This case in no exception. But, if you read the comments, Clint (the author) responds to each criticism with respect. I appreciate the way he distinguishes between playing pretend with your child (when he/she knows it's just a game) and telling them something is real which isn't. I also appreciate the way he reiterates that parents must decide what is best for their own children. But, even with all the disagreement, it seems to me the commenters largely failed to address Clint's bottom line:

"I want my children to grow up knowing that their dad never, ever lies to them. About anything."

Many commenters argued, "I believed in Santa, but I didn't consider my parents liars!"  Maybe you didn't, but can you see how some children might? Were they being totally truthful? Another person said, "I guess I should take ALL the fiction books off the shelf and throw them away, so my kids don't get confused..."  (Even though Clint already explained he thinks fantasy is fun, if kids are in on the "joke.")  I realize the issue is not related to "salvation"--which is Christianese for "not that important," and I don't think Santa-selling parents are "bad"....

But I also agree with the commenter who summarized:  There is a big difference between reading fiction for entertainment or lessons and selling fiction as truth.

And I want my children to grow up knowing that their mom never, ever lies to them. About anything.

 The article continues:
"This may lead to some awkward moments in life, like a premature discussion about where babies come from. But surely adding a stork to the catalog of misinformation can’t be a better tactic than opting for truth in every situation."

I can almost hear the critics now....
"Oh, so you're going to explain sex positions to your 4-year-old?"

Of course I am! We all know "don't lie to your kids" means "tell them everything you know, before they go to bed tonight."

NO! It's my job to present the truth on whatever level my audience can handle. Let's be honest. We're smart enough to give the kid-version of where babies come from without adding untruths about a stork. We should be able to get our kids to mind without making empty threats about coal in the stocking. And, regardless of where you draw yours, there ought to be a line between "truth" and "falsehood." I don't want my kids to think mine shifts.

I want them to know mommy never, ever lies to them. Whether black, white, or red-and-white.  About anything.

Christian Oppression...

I came across this picture online recently.

Do you notice anything ironic about it?

If not, let me change the scenario a bit.  Experts project that, within two generations, Christianity will cease being the dominant religion. The Muslim people have a birthrate of roughly twice that of the non-Muslim population, and Islam may be the most widely-practiced religion sometime even before you and I die.

My point is not whether this is “good” or “bad.”  I’m only saying that—shortly—the pie chart above may look completely different, with “Muslim” being the big blue area that currently says “Christian.”

Now, let’s imagine it’s the future, and the predictions have come true—there are more Muslims in the world than Christians. Then, let’s suppose I take that pie chart and put a quote above the blue, Muslim area which says, “I’m taking over this plane.”

Is that okay?

…Or would a Muslim have the right to complain that I’m stereotyping?

If I assume something negative about an entire group of people—and then post a picture making fun of them on the internet—is that oppression? I think it would be offensive, regardless of how many Muslims exist, how many of them become terrorists, whether it's a joke, etc. etc. 

It's wrong to categorize and then crack jokes.

------

I’d just like to say two things in response to the pie chart, as it exists today. First, it doesn't matter if Christians out-number members of other faiths in the world. Individual Christians still can experience oppression at the hands of an aggressive group. 

Even if there are 1,000,000,000,000 Christians in the world and only two Hindus, if those Hindus seek out others to beat, torture, or even "just" make fun of other beliefs, that's persecution. If they overpower Christians for their beliefs in any way, that's oppression.

Regardless of whether Christian beliefs are“popular," the fact remains:  Some of my brothers and sisters ARE oppressed. They are thrown in jail, maimed, cast out of their country, or even killed, because their religion is unpopular in their immediate circle.

It disgusts me that ignorant Americans, with access to chart-developing software, can mock this tragedy with the sarcastic quote, “Help, we’re being oppressed!” just because THEY’VE never seen an arrest, a hanging, or a beheading. (Here are a just a few true examples)

Secondly, I’m lucky enough to live in a place I don't fear for my life, so I've never personally said, “Help, I’m being oppressed!” That's why I don’t enjoy having those words put in my mouth.

Yet I HAVE said things are unfair--even in America--since society is allowed to make statements about Christians like me which political correctness prohibits being said about anybody else. My "Taking-Over-This-Plane" chart is just one example. 

If you believe it's NOT okay to stereotype Muslims with a flippant quote attributed to the whole group--but you believe it's fine to do so with Christians--then here's a thought from ONE Christian on the subject. (Feel free to make a digital poster and pass it around.)

"Hey! I'm being treated unfairly!”

Good Reasons to be Selfish

Reasons to be Rude:

You didn't get enough sleep.
Traffic is moving slowly.
You don't feel like "yourself" today.
You disagree with someone.
You're under stress at work.
You're under stress at home.
So-and-so was rude first.
You have the right to free speech.
You have a "big" personality.
You were joking.
You've been un-selfish for a long time, and you just snapped.
You're online.
No one will know.
Other people are more selfish than you.
You're "right."
Someone else is "wrong."
You're just giving your opinion.
You're criticizing someone famous and he/she should expect negativity.
You learned it from your parents.
You're on a different medication.
They don't have to listen.
Your service was lousy.
You're looking out for number 1.

"I'm not the only one who thinks Barack O-blah-blah is ruining the country."  "I just want to enjoy my meal in peace, and sales pitches annoy me." "I feel bad they lost a child, but the Duggar's shouldn't have gotten pregnant again." "This is just how I am--take it or leave it."  "If you don't like it, make your blog private."  "I've been feeling lonely, and I'm tired of asking God to fix me all the time."

Good Reasons to be Rude:

.

--------------------------
 Regardless of our many, many, many excuses, rudeness is pure, inexcusable selfishness. We can't be rude and loving at the same time; we can't possibly focus on serving others while justifying a bad attitude toward them.


Comment with other common "reasons to be rude."

Pseudo-Condolences: Where Is the Love?

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.)

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'  :

"Kids should spend time being kids…enjoying their childhood!"

 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.

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...

Condolences, Internet Style

The Duggar family, whom I have written about before, lost their 20th baby today. Below are just a few things the glorious, anonymous internet (which I also have written about before) had to say:

The womb is not a clown car.

Posted by: Gigi | December 8, 2011, 9:45 pm 9:45 pm 

Get a clue! ——-God

Posted by: RomeWasntBurnedInaNight | December 8, 2011, 8:39 pm 8:39 pm

Why are the reproductive issues and decisions of this idiot national news? Who in the world announces to the world that she’s had a miscarriage and actually thinks the world cares? These people need to get over themselves already.

Posted by: Mary Kaye | December 8, 2011, 9:02 pm 9:02 pm 

My condolences to the family. maybe time to shut down the oven?

 by AttentionDeficit December 8, 2011 5:48 PM EST

I dont understand anyone on here who is defending this woman. Ive lost a child as well and understand her pain but...... NOBODY needs that many children. She cannot possibly give every one of those the INDIVIDUAL attention they NEED, not to mention she is abusing her body by putting it through that much. The human body was not meant to bear that many children.

Posted by: Anonymous, about an hour ago  

(in response to someone saying the Duggar's choices are no on else's business)

You’re absolutely correct. It is no one’s business. So why is this in the news? Oh yea, because [the Duggar's] issued a press release telling everyone, thus making it our business and open for discussion! If they don’t want to face public opinion they should go raise their herd in private!

Posted by: Jenn | December 8, 2011, 9:28 pm 9:28 pm 

 

I'm glad I'm not alone in not quite feeling 100% sympathetic about it. Yes, miscarriages are tragic. However, I feel a lot more sympathy towards the women in this country who cannot carry their first or second child to term, or who cannot conceive at all, than for a woman who has child after child after child, and then turns to reality TV to help provide an income to raise them. Those who lose child #1 or child #2 to a miscarriage or who cannot conceive deserve my empathy a lot more than Michelle Duggar does. If that makes me callous or unfeeling, so be it, but someone who has 19 kids and opts for more when there are people out there who can't have even one should have little expectation of sympathy for their own sadness at missing out on #20.

Posted by:  AZ, 1 hour ago

Can you imagine if everyone thought like these nutballs!!!!!

 by deohgee December 8, 2011 6:04 PM EST

 -----

If everyone thought like the Duggars, the next generation would know how to work on a team, to live on a budget, and to act on their beliefs even in the face of intense criticism. The world would be full of optimistic individuals too busy thanking God for their blessings, helping their neighbors, and enjoying life to waste time in front of a television...or worse, spewing venom from behind a computer. Comments about clown cars and nutballs would disappear, in favor of prayers and wishes of peace. And, no one would try to justify abandoning morals and attacking fellow humans personally on the basis it's "public news" so it's "fair game."

If everyone thought like the Duggars, every single child would know he/she was desired and deeply loved by Mom and Dad.  

 

This baby's death, ultimately, is a loss for the entire world, which--if his or her siblings are any indication--should mourn the passing of a future self-supporting, God-fearing, life-loving citizen at a time we desperately need more of them....

Prayers for you, Duggar family. May you feel the presence of God and the support of the thousands of internet-users who wish you well...ignoring all the rest.