Mom Beats Daycare, Again
by Candice Watters on 03/26/2007 at 2:15 PM
The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) is releasing the results of a landmark daycare study begun in 1991. The longitudinal study, which has followed over 1,000 children from birth to age 12, and is the collaborative effort of groups with competing (some have said "warring") viewpoints, is the largest of its kind.
The goal of the study is "to examine how differences in child care experiences relate to children's social, emotional, intellectual, and language development, and to their physical growth and health."
"Children who spend large amounts of time in child-care centers exhibit more minor behavior problems, such as aggression and disobedience, than other children, at least through sixth grade," the study reports. (Sixth grade is as far as the study has gone, to date. The study will continue, revisiting the children when they are 15.)
In addition to what the study found about different care options (e.g., institutional child-care centers/preschools, home-based child-care services, nannies, etc.) producing greater or lesser problems in the children, what emerged, consistent with opponents of wide-spread daycare, is that nothing compares to the care of mom (or dad) at home with the kids.
These studies always stir up lots of emotions among women who have children in daycare. My heart goes out to those who find their circumstances leave them with no other option -- especially single moms.
Still, in the midst of the debates and hand-wringing about what current parents are to do, let's not lose sight of what these results mean for Boundless readers. Most of you are still single and as yet, childless. Translation: you still have control over, or at a minimum, the ability to influence, your future circumstances -- and the circumstances into which your children will be born.
When I was expecting our first child, Steve and I found that our biggest hurdles to me staying home were financial; and that we could have minimized them with better planning. We took out school loans liberally, using the money for books, classes and, it's embarrassing to admit, lattes. We relied on consumer debt to pay for things we had to have right now, rather than waiting until we had cash-in-hand for non-essential purchases. We qualified for our first mortgage using both of our salaries, even though we planned for me to stop working full-time once we started a family. And we bought cars that we had to finance, rather than ones we could actually afford.
Thankfully I had chosen a path of study in college and graduate school that was both flexible and portable. Flexible in that I could take a break from my career without suffering long-term penalties (as you would in fields where making partner or getting tenure is a key part of success) and portable in that I could work from home. This is easy to do when you're a writer, not so easy if you're a doctor, lawyer or astronaut.
With so much evidence stacked against daycare, it only makes sense that if you're not yet facing decisions about what to do with your children while you're at the office, and you do want to be a mom someday, you should start thinking about it now.
1. Blair said the following at 2:39 PM on Mar 26:
I agree with Candice. I went to daycare starting around the age of four. I remember wishing I could have one of those mommies that was home after school. I was exposed to a lot of things (you never know what other children are being taught in their homes) that I should not have even known about untill I was older. I want to be a stay at home mother when I have children.
As far as money goes I know a lot of women who stay at home with their children despite being married to men who are in the military and don't make a lot of money. My goal is to be out of debt before I get married (or atleast consumer debt). When I get married I want to live off of my huspands salary and put mine towards debt,savings, and charity. That way when we do have children we are already use to living off his income and have some saving and little if any debt. I also do not want to finance a car, will see if my 88 Mazda hold up for a few more years :). I like that Candice is trying to get singles out their to think about these issues while we are still single, I think it will help many of us out in the future.
2. a reader said the following at 3:08 PM on Mar 26:
I admit I read that article in my local paper this morning and it is troubling to me. Especially because I do see it as likely that my children (whom do not yet exist) will end up at least a few days a week in daycare. People like to point to consumer evils, but my husband and I do not yet own a house, we drive old cars, and have no fancy gadgets, or clothes. I know some people would say that I shouldn't have kids, if I expect to put them in daycare. Sometimes I wonder if they are right.
3. Ame said the following at 4:05 PM on Mar 26:
Before my ex and I married, we both knew that when we had children, I would stay home. It was a given. Fortunately, he's one to whom appearances matter, and he affords (kinda) for me to stay home with our children - at least for four more years.
It IS a hot debate, but I believe the findings will always be the same. God did not create families for us to abandon them or their purposes.
However, I am thankful for the selection of child-care services for those who really need them.
Also, something that young people do not account for, other than the financial aspects (there are ministries which help with these for families who want to keep mom home), is the possibility of special needs children.
My Oldest has an anaphalactic allergy to fire ants, and we live in Texas where we co-habitate with fire ants. She carries an epi-pen in a fanny pack when in school and at friends' houses. The school staff must be trained, the children must know to watch her - buddy system, and the parents in whose homes she plays must be willing to use it if necessary. Not a small challenge.
Also, my Youngest has several Special Needs and would, literally, fall apart in any other care than mine. Her dad knows this is true, and, fortunately, the law somewhat provides for/protects in the divorce.
Another thing, I believe children never out-grow the need for mom and/or dad to be available to them. It is stressful for kids in school to think about getting sick or needing to be home for any reason, yet mom and dad not be available.
I'll never forget the times, when I did work before kids, when mom's and dad's would be found arguing over the phone as to who would pick up the sick child when the school called.
As a single mom, I would love not to need to depend on my ex to support my girls and me, but my firm belief in staying home with my children trumps my pride.
4. Kim said the following at 4:11 PM on Mar 26:
I think my husband and I are going to have to find more creative avenues when it comes to daycare... I am in ministry pretty much full time, and he is a teacher. We cannot afford to go to one income, and I honestly feel called both to my ministry role and my future role as a mother. I just think that we have to be more openminded and consider that society's definition of daycare is not the ONLY option, and staying at home is not the ONLY RIGHT option.
5. Tomi said the following at 7:27 PM on Mar 26:
I've always thought daycare was bad for kids!
I wonder though, if the study accounts for socio-economic status. A wealthy little boy going to a $35,000 a year daycare (yes they do exist) in upstate New York might be faring a bit better than a little girl at a daycare in Compton.
6. Keb said the following at 8:22 PM on Mar 26:
I used to work in a daycare. The teachers--especially me--were quite attatched to the kids, and gave them as much love as we could. One child was actually returned to our center after his parents tried to move him to another, more convenient place because he (at the age of almost two) seemed to be horribly missing his friends and the teachers, and saying their names in a sad little voice.
But most of the teachers there (they were all women) who didn't have kids said flat out that when they did, they weren't going to put them into daycare. One teacher was there because it meant she could be near her grandchild all day, though he was in a different class, and another started working there for similar reasons with one of her sons.
There's some benefits to daycare settings--such as kids learning to get along with other kids and hopefully mastering skills they'll need when they go to school. But there's huge disadvantages, too. A daycare remains profitable by having as many students per teacher as their accredation/state laws allow. Though limits do keep going down to reflect reality, this meant that even in the infant room, with kids between 6 weeks and 14 months old, there were 4 babies per teacher. The center tried to have 12 babies in the room at all times, with three teachers. This meant there was always one teacher changing diapers (they had to be checked every hour, of course), and two teachers tending to the other kids. We had an academic program we were meant to be following but it was hard to fit everything into the schedule while meeting the children's other needs. (The standards were changing when I left the industry for another job--3 infants per teacher, which is slightly more humane, and the other age groups going down as well--but it still means that the kids aren't getting the personal attention they deserve, in my opinion.)
And even with all the love and effort we put into it, at the end of the day, most of the kids were happiest when Mom and Dad came to "rescue" them. Kids -want- to be with their parents in those early ages, even if they love their teachers, too.
Meanwhile, though again because of the demand for better educated and more qualified caregivers and educators, the standards are going up...I was paid about a dollar more per hour for taking care of other people's precious children than I had been paid for hanging dresses on racks and ringing up sales in retail. The salary that caregivers get isn't a living salary, and the people that you would probably want raising your kids (college-educated, well-trained in child development, otherwise stellar humans) are likely to get a better paying job in another field, because they can.
Yet already I heard many parents saying that one parent's salary was pretty much dedicated to the daycare fees. It's not cheap. It left me wondering why those parents didn't choose to have one stay at home.
It's definitely the choice I'm going to make, when the time comes. I don't want to miss the earliest days of my children's lives, or have someone I barely know helping them take their first steps and teach them their first words. As wonderful as their caregivers may be...they can't replace me as a parent.
7. Marie said the following at 8:42 PM on Mar 26:
I WORK at a daycare---a Christian one at that and while I love my job, i think its sad that mothers dont get to spend as much time with their kids as they did in days of yore. I don't know what i would do when/if I have kids. I'd like to stay home, but I'm planning on teaching first grade eventually, so
I think i compromise saying i have the 3 months in the summer. I wonder what other teachers do?
8. Iris said the following at 2:24 AM on Mar 27:
As a part time working mother that has my children at a babysitter's 2x a week (a 3 yo and 16 month old), I'm never sure what I should do with information like this. While I agree that overall the ideal situation is that mom stays home with the kids, it isn't always feasible, as in our case. At times this can make me feel guilty, but considering the what the options are, I think we came up with a good compromise (I work in the office 2x a week and at home the rest of the time and my employer is very flexable if I need to stay home for a sick child. I should probably mention I live in Europe, which changes things somewhat from typical American circumstances) . Up until now, I can't see a detrimental effect in my girls, I do my best to be there for them. We are blessed to have a Christian babysitter so the instruction they get there does not run counter to what we do at home. Once they start school, my plan is to continue working part time during those hours so that I can be home when they come home.
9. EmmaLee said the following at 6:14 AM on Mar 27:
I have always wondered how my parents managed to do it. My mother says it was by the grace of God. My mom was a stay at home mom from the birth of her first to the present. My father was the school janitor and bus driver. On that salary and odd jobs, my family managed to raise 3 children who never wanted for anything. They even provided us help for college we wouldn't otherwise have had. Because my mom stayed home, she payed close attention to our education, even having us do extra school work in the summers. All 3 of us received full tuition scholarships to college, something we never would have had if it weren't for our mothers help.
I am currently pregnant with my first child, a daughter, who I am going to stay home with until she graduates. Thankfully my husband makes over twice what my father did, but it is still less than most two income households. We have simply realized that surviving on one income doesn't have to be a problem, with the right mindset. We both have always kept the fact that we want children in the foreground of our thoughts when making financial decisions, and it has helped us save much more than we would have otherwise. I think the real key is budgeting and prayer. Stick to a sensible budget and trust that God will provide you.
10. am27 said the following at 8:20 AM on Mar 27:
I have to comment, I feel the same way as the last poster. My husband and I do not own our house, do not drive fancy cars or have fancy things, but we have no large amount of debt. However, neither of us work high paying jobs (he is a mechanic, and I work for non-profits). Our health insurance plans are great for covering us, but not dependents. If I stayed home with children, it would be nearly impossible for us to get by with just his salary and having us all on his insurance plan! My mother has a health condition that makes her unable to work full-time so that leaves me to help provide for her. I would love nothing more than to stay home with our children, but what can I do? Is it selfish for my husband and I to want children? Should we not have any children because of this situation? These are questions I ask myself every day... I pray about this often, but so far I haven't received any wisdom. Any suggestions?
11. Michelle said the following at 9:10 AM on Mar 27:
My husband and I got married when I had 1.5 years of undergrad left and he had 2 years of undergrad left. We both have full scholarships and neither of us work. I have never felt poor, although most of our peers think we are. I now have 1 month left before graduation and am nearly 7 months pregnant with our first baby. I have no plans to work outside the home, unless I find some amazing job that allows me to bring my little one with me (unlikely). My husband will not graduate for 8 more months. We still don't feel poor. We feel like we have everything we need and most things we want. My husband will commission into the military when he graduates, so we do have an expected steady income, which we believe will be plenty for us and our future large family. What do people spend so much money on that they think they "have" to have two incomes for?
12. Becky F. said the following at 10:37 AM on Mar 27:
I totally want to raise my own kids all the time and not have to rely on childcare, at least outside of free "grandma daycare". I want to stay home, and my husband knows this. My mom stayed home with my 4 siblings and me, but my husband's mom was a teacher and he and his brother were in daycare for a little while at the beginning and end of the school day. He and his brother turned out just as intelligent, etc. as my brothers and sisters, so for them daycare didn't "hinder" any development. They were relatively good kids too, just like we were.
With my husband in Seminary training to be a pastor we know that we will never have an excellent income from him alone, but we're going to try our best to keep me from working more than part-time.
13. Charles H. said the following at 12:01 PM on Mar 27:
For me it all comes down to the old saying: nobody washes a rental car.
I had a friend when I was young, whose parents were both professionals with six-figure incomes. She could have easily stayed home, but chose not to; the children were raised by their housemaid. The result, to be kind, was not optimal. What really got me about the whole situation is how avoidable it was: would "getting by" on the father's $200k+/yr income alone really have been such an awful fate?
I don't doubt that some mothers end up in circumstances where daycare is simply unavoidable, and I don't blame them -- but to place children in daycare simply to make more money, or because our culture suggests that a woman who stays home to care for children is somehow lazy, doesn't seem fair.
Pet peeve, incidentally: the phrase "working mother." Would all the stay-at-home moms, present or planned, please raise their hands if they do NOT do at least as much work raising children as they did at their last job?
14. Becky F. said the following at 1:14 PM on Mar 27:
Charles, honestly I think I'll be doing more work staying home raising my children and taking care of my household duties than the work I do at my current full-time job, haha.
15. Aaron Sutton said the following at 8:47 AM on Mar 28:
The problem is that most wives are not relying on their husbands enough to provide the needed income. I think wives ought to encourage their husbands lovingly to provide the income needed for them to stay home with the children. Women need to understand that it UN-MOTIVATES men when their wives are working just as hard to provide income. Men will in most cases rise to the occassion when they are the only income option. So, let go of the worry and the fear of loosing control. Love, support and encourage your husband. A man will rise to the occasion for the woman he loves and for his children. I just recently got married and my wife is staying at home even though we don't have children yet. I have never been so inspired and fullfilled in my job. I am working for something greater than myself now. I work hard because I love my wife and I truly appreciate everything she takes care of at home.
16. Lynne Padgett said the following at 1:23 PM on Mar 28:
I find reading this fascinating. My husband and I chose to delay having children until I finished grad school (2001). I made this decision, knowing I would be 34 at the time and married for 11 years (by that time). There is also a history of infertility in my family, so I gathered info and made some prelimnary decisions in that area. While I certainly miss the energy I would have had as a mid-late 20s mother, I gained in some other areas (like filing down the rough edges of my rather nasty temper : )
I'm part of a play group of women with whom I attended a Christian counseling master's program. They have all taken the route most frequently described here, either stopping or drastically cutting down on their hours once they had kids.
What I enjoy about this group is that no one seems to think I'm short-changing my children because I work full-time. They ask me about it, I ask them about staying at home. At the end of the day, it appears everyone goes home pretty happy with the decision they've made, which is good. What I notice most is the difference in marital issues that we struggle with. Now I'm sure a large part of that is personality related, but part of it is the couples perceptions of whose "job" things are. Also, I have to say my husband (who also works full-time) spends more time with our kids, than most of these dads do. If we stay at home and then dad has to work 65 hours a week, is what we're gaining worth the cost?
I don't actually think there is a nice, easy answer to that. I've read scripture, prayed, I've sought out mentors and advice, and right now, striving for me to stay at home full-time or cut back on my hours drastically is not possible to continue to do the work I like to do (and yes, that is a requirement for me). I'm a psychologist, so people suggest "why don't you just see a few clients at a home office?" Because that's not the work I like. So, in the words of a (disrespectful) child of a stay-at-home mom in a local Christian school...."So you're putting your kids in daycare so that you can do what you want? That's pretty selfish."
I'm sure this child's parents did not intend for anything they said to imply that working mothers are inherently selfish people, who sacrifice their child's needs on the altar of their likes/dislikes.
Nonetheless, it is to our advantage to think about these issues and what we communicate to our kids. Look forward to reading more, even though I'm twice as old as your average reader : )
17. Ted Slater said the following at 1:29 PM on Mar 28:
"So you're putting your kids in daycare so that you can do what you want? That's pretty selfish."
That's a pretty poignant comment from one so young.
18. Mandi said the following at 1:49 PM on Mar 28:
I don't understand why people always describe moms that work outside the home as "working moms". What do people think moms who stay at home *do* exactly?
I don't know the child you speak of personally, Lynne Padgett, so I can't say whether they're generally "disrespectful". But I totally agree with their sentiment. It may be that the longer women stay working outside the home, the more wedded many of us become to the idea that *that's* what's fulfilling, that we can't live with it, etc. But when it comes down to it, that kid was right. It may be hard and require sacrifice on our part to let go of that path (and we may not like that men don't really have to do that), but regardless, the kid was right.
19. Julia said the following at 1:50 PM on Mar 28:
My husband and I are both engineers each bringing in good salaries (although we take home less than 60% of what we earn due to taxes and health premiums.) I went to university with the goal of being a stay-at-home mom, but the sense to know that God doesn't necessarily give us what we want. I chose a career that would fulfil my financial needs and give me some purpose outside of seeking a husband. Luckily, the Lord provided a good husband for me. (We are coming up to our 3rd anniversary and plan to have kids in the next few years.)
My husband and I are required to live in a large city in order to be employed in the careers we are now "stuck with." In this city, house prices have gone up over 50% in the last year. We recently bought a very small 50+ year old home in a bad neighbourhood that will cost us over $2000 a month to pay for the mortgage, taxes and utilities alone. We also have a large amount of student debt. We have a used 10-year old vehicle and have 3rd-hand furniture. We chose to buy the house because if we did not "get into the market" now we would not ever be able to buy a home here.
We have done the math and we will not be able to afford for me to stay at home with our future children without losing our new home. We do not have the option of moving and rent has become equally unaffordable in this province. So my question is, should we hold off having children indefinitely? Should we wait 10 more years (I would be in my late 30s) to have children, thus increasing the risk of genetic diseases and infertility? Should we sell our home, quit our jobs, move and default on our loans just so I can stay at home with our kids? Do we stop tithing? Isn't there some other option?
I feel like my dreams of being a good mother have been dashed by the harsh reality of today's economy. I also resent that Christians make these decisions so much more difficult by guilt-tripping women when they are only trying to do the best by their children (or future children in my case.)
20. EmmaLee said the following at 3:02 PM on Mar 28:
I think one of the big problems is that people assume if daycare doesn't hurt the children, it's fine and they miss the fact that children can gain so much more from a stay-at-home mother. My husband was a daycare kid and I had a stay-at-home mom. We both turned out "fine". But when we discuss our childhoods, he often tells me he slightly envies me mine. I was able to participate in more activities, learn more hobbies, and develop closer family bonds because of the time my mother spent with me. I know that working mothers also can make time to teach their children lifes extras, but imagine what more could be done with the extra 8 hours a day spent working. When the kids are in school all the chores of dishes, laundry, and dinner prep can be done, so that when they come home, their parents can devote the whole evening to them, for everything from homework help to sporting events to playing monopoly and catch. That is why I think it is fair to say that those who work only because they want to are being selfish. I went through a rough struggle of deciding to be a stay-at-home mom when I got married. I was exceling in college and my advisor was helping line up grad school for me. But now that I'm pregnant with my first baby, I can't imagine turning her over to someone elses care for half the day just so I can feel fulfilled by using my intellect. I intend to devote my life to the care of my children. As the bible says, learn to be a servant of all.
21. Andrew said the following at 6:02 PM on Mar 28:
I think there’s a lot of presumptiveness here about how the child raising process. There have been comments here that are quite judgemental about other people’s choices. These are big calls to make.
Income is one issue. We can be frugal, planful and well-intentioned but still find ourselves having to both work to make ends meet. If you’ve read “The Two Income Trap” by Elizabeth Warren, you would understand that American families are NOT living the “affluenza” lifestyle that’s portrayed by the media. More commonly, families are spending more money than ever before on the basics of life: housing, health insurance, education, transportation and taxes.
If you’re twenty five years old, just a few years out of college and life is pretty good, how experienced can you be at evaluating the budgeting required for these costs when you’ve never even been married?
And of course any family who is just scraping by are obviously over-spending slackers and have never had to deal with unexpected layoffs, chronic illness, or inherited debts?
Raising kids is difficult and costly. You might be a dedicated parent who finds seven days a week with two ankle biters just a bit TOO much. Apart from financial need (see previous paragraphs), I think that a lot of people actually enjoy having a day or two in a workplace, with adults to talk to. Not that adults don’t act like children, but at least you don’t have to wipe your colleagues noses or change their diapers. Doing this at home for years on end is a lifestyle that some people just don’t deal with very well.
That said … I believe living on one wage can be done and is possible. But, it is counter-cultural, difficult to sustain and leaves you vulnerable to any number of financial shocks that we commonly experience throughout life. I could explain why this is so, but that is a subject better suited to the time and money blogs.
If you want a catch-word to describe this, try this awful one … the power of choice. Make your choices (where you can) and move on.
If you want (or have to) leave you kids in care, pray for them and do what you have to. If you want to have them at home and can, enjoy that and be accepting of others circumstances.
I would hope that most Christian men would be willing to support their family as best they can. But one wage sometimes just doesn’t cut it; even the Boundless staff confessed this. As well, they reported that past experience molded their thinking. Husband: two income families normal. Wife: stay at home mother typical. Result: topic requiring serious discussion
In all, there is room for us to budget, prepare and plan for the cost of family life. These costs increase with age, by the way. Can we cut the accusations and give people the benefit of the doubt? Parents are not ALL selfish, pleasure-seeking hedonists who can’t wait to dump their offspring into daycare. Just as stay at home moms are not all vegetative Oprah addicts, berating their husbands for not earning enough. These stereotypes are just as offensive as suggesting that college students are all party-animal C-graders perpetually looking for their next hookup.
Now I must get back to work. As a guy, I’ve got several decades more toil as yet. I personally would love to work part time for a year or two to look after the kids, especially if the wife wanted to return to work. But do you think my employer would allow that to happen? And could we afford to? Ahh, all good questions, grasshopper. Come back and ask me in ten years.
In the meantime, I have choices to make. As do you. Make them prayerfully, and move on.
22. Bethany said the following at 8:02 PM on Mar 28:
As a stay-at-home mom who has worked in daycare and after-school care, I've enjoyed reading everyone's comments--this is a difficult issue, and everyone here has had something interesting and thought-provoking to say. But I felt the need to respond to two things EmmaLee said.
First I would like to assure her that simply being a mom, whether she stays at home or not, is going to tax her intellect in ways she has probably never even thought about! ;-) Second, I would challenge her idea of getting all the chores, dinner prep, etc. done while the kids are in school. For one thing, young kids are so eager to help and want to do things like put sweep and put away silverware, it's a great chance to painlessly teach them how to do those things which they will need to learn how to do anyway. For another thing, I find that my chores are made a lot more fun simply by letting my 3-year-old participate! I may not get done as quickly, and things may not be done exactly as I'd like them, but those things fade in comparison to my daughter's beaming face as I tell her what a good job she's doing putting her dishes away, or hearing her eagerly ask, "What goes in the banana bread next, Mom?" I thank God every day that I am blessed to stay at home and have the chance to do these things with her.
23. Andrew said the following at 8:47 PM on Mar 28:
Julia,
Your comment is accurate and presents difficult issues. I am convinced that many Boundless readers fail to appreciate these issues as yet. Smug accusations of selfishness from stay at home parents have no place in the body of Christ.
Your story is the reality of today; asset inflation had led to rising house prices. Rents are following. We have done the math too; it’s not pretty.
Many of us have struggled with these issues; I can’t tell you what to do. Neither can anyone else. But you still have time to make choices; that is in your favour.
Difficult times call for unusual measures. If you want to be a SAHM, but can’t afford to in your current situation, something will have to change. If you intend to stay in your current city, can you get ahead with house repayments? If you have to return to work after having a child, what is your company’s attitude to part time workers? If this isn’t feasible at your present company, what other companies are there in your city that might be more amenable to this?
In your current city, are there any prospective grandparents that are close and willing enough to share care duties?
Can your husband take a posting elsewhere? What length of posting might be available?
I know I’ve considered all these questions and more. Each of them has its own pros and cons. But in all things, be reassured that others are asking the same questions. Find those others, and talk to them. What did they do? How are they managing? What choices have they made?
Personally I wouldn’t wait another ten years to have children. But I don’t have that choice. You do.
As I’ve said before, I believe that it is possible to live on one income … if you want to ... and IF you have somewhere affordable to live. Some cities are just out of reach. And this is a key issue for you to chew on … can you move elsewhere? Do you want to?
Sorry for all the questions. Wish I had more answers. Just empathy for where you are at now.
It IS hard and criticism from other Christians does nothing to address the issues. That's just a blame game of "I'm better than you" that some children pretenting to be adults have yet to grow out of.
The sentiment behind the accusation may be genuine; but so is the hurt it causes.
Work hard, pray often and make your choices.
All the best,
24. Mandi said the following at 8:57 AM on Mar 29:
Does anybody seriously think we'd be having this discussion if people weren't often relying upon abortifacient birth control -- like the Pill, the patch, and the IUD? I'm not assuming anyone for or against daycare here is using abortifacients, by the way. I'm just saying that the whole operating premises of our society as a whole has come to rely upon these murderous birth control methods to structure economics, post-secondary study, etc.
Please don't think you need to use these things to avoid having two dozen children. There are ethical ways of doing things that God has provided for us, which He can use in co-operation with us for everyone's good. But this business of thinking and talking about kids like they're extra expenses doesn't quite fit what the Scriptures tell us about children -- that they are blessings from God. God's Word emphasizes that even though children have always "cost" their parents something, including in biblical times.
I just wonder how it was that so many women in our generation made decisions based on an assumed ability or right to open or close their own wombs (often using, as I said, birth control methods marketed as "contraceptives" that are really abortifacients)? I confess that I used to think that way until I did a lot more praying, reading, and thinking about these issues. But God is a merciful God and He can change circumstances if we would just be open to letting Him. There is no comparable blessing than to submit and rely on God for everything. Including money and "fulfillment".
Also, speaking for myself as one of the people who's not a daycare enthusiast, I found the criticism of myself and other like-minded people here to be rather harsh and uncalled for. You cannot enter the mind or heart of someone who disagrees with you to really say whether they are judgmental...otherwise, ironically, you yourselves would be judgmental. No one is saying that leaving the workforce outside the home for the one inside is a decision that is easy to make, especially for women who didn't meet their husbands until later in life and had to build careers in the meantime. But the fact that it may not be an easy doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do. When people are consistently making comments about "their" likes, "their" wishes, "their" whatever, haven't they themselves admitted to some self-centredness?
25. Julia said the following at 11:11 AM on Mar 29:
Ouch Mandi!
I think you've stepped over the line a bit in assuming that people who are delaying having children after marriage are "aborting" their children to do so. There are other methods of birth control than the pill.
Secondly, in the time before the pill (and other methods of BC,) house prices, taxes, and general costs of living were not nearly as high as they are now, nor did the average Joe/Jane graduate from college with thousands of dollars of debt.
I was not trying to accuse people with differing viewpoints of being judgemental. Rather, I was expressing my frustration at those who without seeking to understand my circumstances, make broad generalizations and assumptions and then accuse me of being selfish for considering that it may not be possible to stay at home fulltime with children. This hurts especially when it comes from those who are supposed to be the most loving, accepting people (ie Christians.) This hurts because I too believe that the best situation for children is at home with mum. This hurts because I long to have children and wish desperately for an "accidental" pregnancy.
I understand the need to hold fellow Chrisians to a high standard, but we should seek to help and encourage, not judge and condemn.
26. Lynne Padgett said the following at 12:48 PM on Mar 29:
Julia stated
"I feel like my dreams of being a good mother have been dashed by the harsh reality of today's economy. I also resent that Christians make these decisions so much more difficult by guilt-tripping women when they are only trying to do the best by their children (or future children in my case.)"
In the world of apologetics, there is a concept referred to as the essentials of the Christian faith (orginal sin, virgin birth, bodily resurrection and others). I simply don't believe the mother's work location (in or outside the home), is an abslute black/white, tenet of our faith.
When we discuss it this way (working moms are being selfish, suffering from affluenza, short-changing their children in terrible ways, etc), we cut off a part of the body of Christ that needs support also. There is a danger in setting ourselves up as "more holy" or closer to God because of our choices in this area. I don't say that to be hurtful, I say that as an older woman who has had younger women cry to me that they had "sin in their heart" because they didn't want or could not stay home full-time.
It is easy to concentrate on easily observed behaviors (work status, participation in Bible studies, daily quiet time length, volunteering), but Christ knows our heart. We venture into legalistic territory by laying down hard and fast rules and criticizing others, rather than asking about their struggles.
One of my dear friends from my community group doesn't work at a job outside the home, but volunteers at her kids school. When my whole family (except the baby) was sick, I called her and she kept my little one at her house, away from the germ cesspool, for 2 days. After we bounced back, she said "put me on the list of adults at Josh's daycare that can pick him up, that way if you're sick or he is, I can help you out."
That's the heart I want to see in others, she felt strongly about staying home, but when I experienced consequences of working, she volunteered support. It's that support from the body, (as well as grandparents, neighbors,etc) that isn't really communicated in this discussion, and I would encourage Julia and others to talk to older women who have continued to work for a variety of reasons, to battle this sense of discouragement and guilt.
27. Becky F. said the following at 3:04 PM on Mar 29:
I just came across this article on slate.com refuting the NICHD daycare study: The Kids are Alright.
I haven't read the whole thing yet, but I figured you all would want to know about it.
28. Mandi said the following at 7:14 PM on Mar 29:
Julia,
I was not "assuming that people who are delaying having children after marriage are 'aborting' their children to do so."
In fact, I specifically said that I wasn't: "I'm not assuming anyone for or against daycare here is using abortifacients, by the way."
I also realize that there are birth control methods other than the Pill, and I said that too: "There are ethical ways of doing things that God has provided for us, which He can use in co-operation with us for everyone's good."
What I *was* saying was that "the whole operating premises of our society as a whole has come to rely upon these murderous birth control methods to structure economics, post-secondary study, etc." In a society in which women spaced their children naturally, they were still bound to have more children than most women have today. This is easily seen by the plummeting birth rates in all the "developed" countries.
I'm not entirely sure why you put the word aborting in quotation marks. If it is because you doubt the abortifacient nature of the Pill, the Patch, and the IUD (and I'm not saying that you *are* necessarily, I just don't know why you put the quotes around that word), you can read what the drug companies themselves -- and even pro-aborts like Planned Parenthood -- say about these birth control methods. Only they don't call it abortion because they have conveniently and deviously decided to define pregnancy as beginning at the point of implantation, not fertilization. That's 5-7 days *after* fertilization. That's 5-7 days after a unique human being for whom Christ died has already been in existence. Again, I'm not saying that you doubt the abortifacient nature of these methods by your quotation marks. But if you are, I thought I'd clarify. Many, many, many Christians are deceived by the pharmaceutical companies, their own doctors, and the media into believing these widely used methods are strictly contraceptive. They're not.
What I'm saying is that before these murderous types of birth control were available, discussions like these would often be moot. People didn't think they could (or should) try to "plan" when they would have their kids. Now, our society -- including our corporate and academic cultures -- operate on the premises that children can be "planned" into existence (or out of it, for that matter). And that's where this whole debate about daycare enters.
As for rising costs, these are opportunities for us to evaluate our chosen career paths as women carefully, as well as our priorities in general. We're not the first generation to want our kids to have great futures, or to want to feed and shelter them for that matter. The generations before us managed, and the ones who did best did so by relying on God to provide.
29. Brooke said the following at 9:51 PM on Mar 29:
Mandi,
It is true that some types of BC prevent a fertilizated egg from implanting. However, there are types of BC pills (as well as the patch and the ring) which prevent ovulation, as well as make the enviroment unfriendly to sperm. I realize there are numerous articles that claim all types of BC cause abortions, but this is not the case. However, Christian women should ask their doctors how any BC they are prescribed works.