Guest guest Posted November 24, 2004 Report Share Posted November 24, 2004 Pratick, I had just written this for someone else earlier today! I'm being lazy (and busy), so I have just copied and pasted my response! I am glad you chose to ask! I have used Lansinoh Lanolin (purple tube) for the last 4.5 years since my homebirth nurse introduced me to it, and the La Leche League endorses it. My babies are so sensitive, that we have trouble finding things that are " pure " enough, and not chemicals. (Petroleum is what gasoline and oil for your car are made from. They also found that it works as a moisture barrier, and market Vaseline!) I use the lanolin for diaper rash, heat rash, on anything that needs a moisture barrier... dry skin, chapped lips... Lansinoh is so pure it is " edible grade " , as it is designed for breastfeeding mothers for sore, chapped nipples.) I actually don't put anything on their bottoms after cleaning (warm water and a terry cloth square - old washcloths work well!), occasionally (when we are out or I am being lazy! LOL) I use Huggies Supreme Care, as it is the most pure wipe with the least amount of Aloe. My kids react to processed aloe, and I can't use anything that adds lanolin or aloe. (That's kind of silly, but true. We couldn't find " purple stuff " -that's what my kids call the Lansinoh- after we moved, and we tried buying " medical grade " lanolin.... It felt greasy and nasty, and cashed horrible rashes. (Which I got rid of with clean pure water wipes, and breast milk compresses!) We are all chemically sensitive, so some of my practices seem odd to " normal " people. I truthfully don't know what baby oil is supposed to be used for... I break out horribly from contact with it. (sunbathing as a teenager. LOL) As for soap, I don't! Soap is so drying, and I have had trouble finding anything that doesn't cause us problems. We really like Whole Foods 365 brand for our shampoo (which washes bodies well too!) I have used that on the babies since the day they were born, and never had any tears to worry about. We haven't needed conditioner since we added enough fat into our diets, but we used to use the 365 brand again. (I am currently looking for a new brand since we moved and there are no Whole Foods close enough to get to. I almost desperate enough to ask if anyone on list would buy it and ship it to me!) I also have to be careful what dish soap I use, or the kids can't touch their plates (lol), and the laundry detergent, or everyone breaks out in rashes! For these I use Seventh Generation brand. Their products are not outrageously expensive, and clean thoroughly, and are natural so they don't hurt the environment either. As for killing germs... if it is a cut or scrape, I use breast milk, or tea tree oil. If it is the table, counter, toy, etc, I put vinegar in one spray bottle and hydrogen peroxide in another and rinse (wet cloth if it doesn't fit in the sink) This was proven to be the best " cleaner " for killing " germs " available (proven at a study at Harvard -I think... it was a big name eastern college.) Okay, I think I have answered everything you asked and more! LOL! I am full of information like this! Just ask! And a good place to start researching information like this is www.mercola.com Hope I have helped! And sorry it is so long! On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 06:34:26 -0800 (PST), Pratick Mukherjee <pratickmukherjee@...> wrote: > Here's a more specific question -- > > What do you guys use instead of the usual baby lotions, baby powder and baby > oils? > > We have been massaging our daughter with cold-pressed virgin olive oil, but > we have also > been using regular commercial baby oil for the hair, baby powder to keep her > dry and baby > lotion at night. > > What do you suggest? > > Also, what do you use to wash her clothes? > We have been using a few drops of disinfectent (Dettol) in warm water to > wash her > clothes. > > What do you do? > > Thanks everyone for the ideas - keep them coming > > -Pratick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 24, 2004 Report Share Posted November 24, 2004 Aven, I so agree with finding the right man. That would be why there is a 7.5 year space between my first and second. I went throught the abusive first marriage (at not so young an age), quickly divorced, and spent years looking for the right man. I think what Deanna meant (and what I meant) is that there are woman who put off having babies for the sole reason of their career. These woman are generally more self absorbed (generally). That doesn't mean that they never " see the light " and find the best for their children. Also, as Deanna pointed out, there are more health issues when pregnancies occur outside of the " normal range " . I was not ready at 22 yrs. for my first child. I did not have the self-esteem, or the support, or the resources. I have never had the financial. I have learned with my first child, I have regreted choices I made in ignorance, and " paid " for my choices. (And I am still paying...) At age 29...My second child is healthier, more secure, better balanced...you can see it. And I continued to learn. At age 32...My third child is an absolute marvel to me...healthy, secure, incredible balance, intelligent (more than my other 2 geniuses), just amazing... And I continue to learn. And just to say it... the family bed, the breast feeding, the slinging, the attatchment parenting, the better nutrition... I do because I am selfish! I didn't want to lose that close attatchment and put my baby down...ever...for any reason. The nutrition is so that I feel better and have enough energy to get down on the floor and crawl, to talk walks and collect pine cones, and sticks, to chase a butterfly trying to catch it, you get the idea. So although I had my first child young, I am a much better parent at an older age. Everyone is different, and needs to listen to their own " clock " . But it is best to become a parent when you are ready (or is it still able) to play like a kid. L. On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 19:25:07 -0000, Aven <twyllightmoon@...> wrote: > > Thanks for sticking up for us. I had my DD at 36 - Gee, > I *thought* I loved her, but I guess after so many years > of being totally self-centered, I couldn't possibly *love* > anyone! I guess I'm doing all this for myself, somehow - > the breastfeeding, the co-sleeping, the homeschooling, > the careful attention to nutrition. Sheesh. > > I was engaged at 18 to an abusive man, and I often > wonder how my life would be now if I'd married him > and had children. It's not a pretty picture. It took me > a while to find the right man for me. I wish we could have > more than one, but I'm happy knowing that my one has > a wonderful dad. > > I hang out with moms *much* younger than myself. > One of my young aquaintances got married, > had three kids, and got divorced fast enough > to make your head spin. I think a stable, loving > marriage is so, so important to kids. Even the > most loving mom can't be a dad, and a good, loving > dad is one of the great treasures of life. Waiting > for a really good man is a way of loving your kids > before they're born. > > Aven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 25, 2004 Report Share Posted November 25, 2004 In a message dated 11/24/2004 6:47:46 AM Pacific Standard Time, pratickmukherjee@... writes: What do you guys use instead of the usual baby lotions, baby powder and baby oils? We were given a gift of the Weleda baby calendula soap and calendula oil, and we love it! It's expensive stuff, but we love the scent. We never really used powder, though the gift did include some Weleda powder. I'd figured we'd use corn starch if we ran out of powder. Anabel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 25, 2004 Report Share Posted November 25, 2004 and Aven, , I appreciate your efforts at clarifying my remarks. I think you understand my view here pretty accurately. Aven, I did know I would be " stepping on toes " and possibly " opening a can of worms " by making these sorts of opinions known. That is why I said as much when I said young parents are nature's choice. These are my views and my values, and I think they are very relevant and in line with the core WAPF principles. In fact, Dr. Price studied birth spacing of native peoples, physical and moral degeneration, all with an emphasis on nutrition. I don't know if maternal age was even known to factor into the mix in his day. He was very concerned about " Mongoloids, " known today as down syndrome children. Today we know that such things as maternal age do have a major impact on the health of offspring, down syndrome being very directly proportional in incidence to the age of the mother. Finding these kinds of correlations was his life's work. It is what NN is concerned about, with Sally Fallon and Enig continuing the effort. We all should maximize the human potential according to the knowledge we have. Read his book and see if HE doesn't step on your toes too! IOW, these are not Off Topic or POLITICS subjects. If I ever even appear to be malicious in a post, I usually correct myself straight away. I have not personally attacked anyone here by my remarks, nor would that be my intention. occasionally raises my hackles, however, that may be his intention I am only making biological and social commentary about child birth and maternal age. There are no hard, fast rules in life, but the correlations do exist. I can only express my subjective view of things, hopefully as objectively as possible. And, With respect, Deanna Lillig wrote: > I think what Deanna meant (and what I meant) is that there are woman > who put off having babies for the sole reason of their career. These > woman are generally more self absorbed (generally). That doesn't mean > that they never " see the light " and find the best for their children. > Also, as Deanna pointed out, there are more health issues when > pregnancies occur outside of the " normal range " . > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 25, 2004 Report Share Posted November 25, 2004 I have never used ANY lotions or oils on my babies. I used flannel cloths with warm water for cleansing the diaper area, or my own homemade wipes from Bounty paper towels (I forget the exact recipe for these, but can dig it up if no one else does and it's asked for). If I did use a lotion, it would be one from Whole Foods--a natural one, without chemicals as far as is possible. Powder--I admit to having a fondness for J & J (guess it's what my mother used on me!), but Burt's Bees and other natural brands are far better if the child needs them, I think. I'm not sure just why all these creams, lotions, and powders are necessary, in the absence of extremely dry skin or excema or severe diaper rash or something. Marilyn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 25, 2004 Report Share Posted November 25, 2004 Deanna - I am not the least bit offended by a discussion of maternal age and health, which I agree is completely on-topic. WAP discusses this issue in NAPD, which I have read. But this is *not* what your remarks below were about! The remarks below appear to generalize the selfishness of your sister and her friends to all parents who start later. This type of generalization is what another poster called " silly. " No one that I noticed said that a discussion of maternal age and health was silly. Your point here seems to be that a mom who lives through her twenties without having a child will be more self-centered and less able to play with her children than one who had a child earlier. I think this generalization is completely wrong, and I know lots of parents, old and young, who disprove this. Aven ........ > Selfishness. When you have a child in your twenties, you can not begin > to think of yourself. But when you think only of yourself until you are > pushing forty, you can not begin to think of another in the same way. > Oh, now, I am going to step on toes, opining thus. Nevertheless, I have > seen it so well with my sister and other women, that I can say candidly > that I play with my kids on OUR level. We are friends. But my sister, > for instance, can not relate on the same level because of her age and > perceived position in corporate life. There is just a separation that > folks used to call a generation gap. > > So you are a young mother. You never lived even one decade - let alone > two - where all you REALLY had to be concerned about was YOU. That is > the key difference and I think it is more important in mom than dad. > Okay, I know, sexist remark. But the nourisher is mom after all in most > families. Only mom can feed properly, right? Even if, like a good > friend of mine, you have kids being born while you are forty, the fact > that you have kids in college as well, makes you who you are today. > But, thank the Lord that is not me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 25, 2004 Report Share Posted November 25, 2004 - Okay, I admit it. It really is selfish for me, too. I find attachment to my child so profoundly pleasurable that I would never trade it for the freedom some of my friends have. I have more and more freedom as she gets older, and someday she'll move out and I'll be totally free! But why would I want to *push* her away before she grows away? What we have now is so wonderful! I think the ability to play with kids on their level is something some folks have and others don't. I know people in their seventies who are great this way (though they might have a little more trouble getting up and down from the floor) and I know people in their twenties who are too concerned with appearing " grown up " to really play with kids. It's more about the personality than the age, IMO. Aven --- In , Lillig <catzandturtles@g...> wrote: > And just to say it... the family bed, the breast feeding, the > slinging, the attatchment parenting, the better nutrition... I do > because I am selfish! I didn't want to lose that close attatchment and > put my baby down...ever...for any reason. The nutrition is so that I > feel better and have enough energy to get down on the floor and crawl, > to talk walks and collect pine cones, and sticks, to chase a butterfly > trying to catch it, you get the idea. > > So although I had my first child young, I am a much better parent at > an older age. Everyone is different, and needs to listen to their own > " clock " . But it is best to become a parent when you are ready (or is > it still able) to play like a kid. > > L. > > > On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 19:25:07 -0000, Aven <twyllightmoon@y...> wrote: > > > > Thanks for sticking up for us. I had my DD at 36 - Gee, > > I *thought* I loved her, but I guess after so many years > > of being totally self-centered, I couldn't possibly *love* > > anyone! I guess I'm doing all this for myself, somehow - > > the breastfeeding, the co-sleeping, the homeschooling, > > the careful attention to nutrition. Sheesh. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 25, 2004 Report Share Posted November 25, 2004 Then why, Aven, do women wait to have children until it is no longer optimal for the health of themselves or their offspring? BTW, a woman doesn't become a mom until she has kids. So your first sentence below is nonsensical. Happy Thanksgiving! Deanna > > Your point here seems to be that a mom who lives through her > twenties without having a child will be more self-centered and > less able to play with her children than one who had a child > earlier. I think this generalization is completely wrong, and I > know lots of parents, old and young, who disprove this. > > Aven > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 25, 2004 Report Share Posted November 25, 2004 Deanna- >BTW, a woman >doesn't become a mom until she has kids. So your first sentence below >is nonsensical. Actually, that's not so, though I suppose grammatical perfect would've required Aven to say " who lived " rather than " who lives " . But a woman who has her first child in her thirties is plainly a mom who lived through her twenties without having a child. > > Your point here seems to be that a mom who lives through her > > twenties without having a child will be more self-centered and > > less able to play with her children than one who had a child > > earlier. I think this generalization is completely wrong, and I > > know lots of parents, old and young, who disprove this. > > > > Aven - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 25, 2004 Report Share Posted November 25, 2004 Won't bother turning on the heat today--as these posts are generating enough warmth. B. On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 10:10:56 -0600, Deanna <hl@...> wrote: > > Then why, Aven, do women wait to have children until it is no longer > optimal for the health of themselves or their offspring? BTW, a woman > doesn't become a mom until she has kids. So your first sentence below > is nonsensical. > > Happy Thanksgiving! > Deanna > > > > > > > Your point here seems to be that a mom who lives through her > > twenties without having a child will be more self-centered and > > less able to play with her children than one who had a child > > earlier. I think this generalization is completely wrong, and I > > know lots of parents, old and young, who disprove this. > > > > Aven > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 25, 2004 Report Share Posted November 25, 2004 Many so-called experts agree that older mothers are more mature and thus make better mothers. These are different times. What may apply in the 40's, 50's or 60's or in a primitive culture might be very difficult to apply here. There are cultural differences that make comparison difficult on many levels. As an older mother, I can say that it was somewhat by choice and somewhat by fate that I became an " older " mother at 37. I was diagnosed with stage IV endometriosis at 36 when I had surgery to open both blocked fallopian tubes and remove an endometrioma. My son was born a year later when my husband was graduating. It was perfect for us. We do practice attachment parenting with modified continuum concept style. Our son (an only child now) nursed until he was 5 years 4 months. He was cloth diapered, worn in a sling, still sleeps with us, is unvaccinated and uncircumcised. I didn't see much mention of limiting media exposure. I think some media exposure is inevitable, but there are many who feel that media exposure can be detrimental to development and to behavior. We are not media free by any stretch of the imagination, but we do limit it pretty significantly and we are selective about what is available. We limit the non-educational computer games, we limit the kind and amount of television. We focus on reading a lot here and my son was an early reader at 2 years old. (He is now 6.) I think we have a good mix of exposure. The only thing we don't have that he really wants is a sibling. If I were able to give him one right now at my age, I wouldn't hesitate. I was a little take aback at the judgmental tone of the comments about the sister. The comments seem inappropriate to this list for a number of reasons. I think that many folks who take offense at a poster's comments do not speak up and I bet there are more who share these sentiments. I sincerely hope we can now drop this unpleasant thread. Connie Bernard http://www.PandoraPads.com Organic Cotton Feminine Pads, Tampons, Nursing Pads, Natural Progesterone Cream, and Children's Supplements. On-line Discount Voucher: nn242g223 Re: Baby care - NT style Deanna - I am not the least bit offended by a discussion of maternal age and health, which I agree is completely on-topic. WAP discusses this issue in NAPD, which I have read. But this is *not* what your remarks below were about! The remarks below appear to generalize the selfishness of your sister and her friends to all parents who start later. This type of generalization is what another poster called " silly. " No one that I noticed said that a discussion of maternal age and health was silly. Your point here seems to be that a mom who lives through her twenties without having a child will be more self-centered and less able to play with her children than one who had a child earlier. I think this generalization is completely wrong, and I know lots of parents, old and young, who disprove this. Aven ........ > Selfishness. When you have a child in your twenties, you can not begin > to think of yourself. But when you think only of yourself until you are > pushing forty, you can not begin to think of another in the same way. > Oh, now, I am going to step on toes, opining thus. Nevertheless, I have > seen it so well with my sister and other women, that I can say candidly > that I play with my kids on OUR level. We are friends. But my sister, > for instance, can not relate on the same level because of her age and > perceived position in corporate life. There is just a separation that > folks used to call a generation gap. > > So you are a young mother. You never lived even one decade - let alone > two - where all you REALLY had to be concerned about was YOU. That is > the key difference and I think it is more important in mom than dad. > Okay, I know, sexist remark. But the nourisher is mom after all in most > families. Only mom can feed properly, right? Even if, like a good > friend of mine, you have kids being born while you are forty, the fact > that you have kids in college as well, makes you who you are today. > But, thank the Lord that is not me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 25, 2004 Report Share Posted November 25, 2004 When I need a " lotion " for my babies I use -Aloe Vera gel -Coconut Oil -Hemp Oil I use the oils just as they are. I use them on myself as well. I also only use soaps once or twice a week. Except for hand washing. Other than that I use plain ol'water and a cloth. As to baby powder, it is terrible for you and the baby. There has been female's autopsied for research who had talc from baby powder used on them as babies on their ovaries. The stuff is so fine that it gets into your lungs, and obviously up into the uterine cavaity. Never use the stuff. > In a message dated 11/24/2004 6:47:46 AM Pacific Standard Time, > pratickmukherjee@y... writes: > What do you guys use instead of the usual baby lotions, baby powder and baby > oils? > > > We were given a gift of the Weleda baby calendula soap and calendula oil, and > we love it! It's expensive stuff, but we love the scent. We never really > used powder, though the gift did include some Weleda powder. I'd figured we'd > use corn starch if we ran out of powder. > > > Anabel > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 25, 2004 Report Share Posted November 25, 2004 I started making my laundry detergent. I use the dry version, and use an old oxyclean scoop for it. http://www.thefrugalshopper.com/articles/detergent.shtml > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: " Pratick Mukherjee " > > > > Here's a more specific question -- > > > > What do you guys use instead of the usual baby lotions, baby powder and > baby oils? > > > > I personally never used any of that for any of my children--the oldest is > now 7.5. Baby powder is an inhalant irritant and, despite being used to > absorb moisture, doesn't prevent the skin irritation it is intended for. At > best, the perfumes mask diaper odors that most find objectionable. I've > never seen the need for oils and lotions, either. > > > Also, what do you use to wash her clothes? > > We have been using a few drops of disinfectent (Dettol) in warm water to > wash her > > clothes. > > > > What do you do? > > I've always washed the baby's clothes with our clothes. I always use > significantly less detergent than the manufacturer recommends (they do, > after all, have a vested interest in you using *more* than less and never > had a problem with skin irritation. > > --s, who heartily seconds all the other family bed, breastfeeding, delayed > solids, slinging, cloth diapering suggestions.....worked well for us so far! > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 25, 2004 Report Share Posted November 25, 2004 Thanks, ! Aven > Deanna- > > >BTW, a woman > >doesn't become a mom until she has kids. So your first sentence below > >is nonsensical. > > Actually, that's not so, though I suppose grammatical perfect would've > required Aven to say " who lived " rather than " who lives " . But a woman who > has her first child in her thirties is plainly a mom who lived through her > twenties without having a child. > > > > Your point here seems to be that a mom who lives through her > > > twenties without having a child will be more self-centered and > > > less able to play with her children than one who had a child > > > earlier. I think this generalization is completely wrong, and I > > > know lots of parents, old and young, who disprove this. > > > > > > Aven > > > > - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 25, 2004 Report Share Posted November 25, 2004 >>As to baby powder, it is terrible for you and the baby. There has been female's autopsied for research who had talc from baby powder used on them as babies on their ovaries. The stuff is so fine that it gets into your lungs, and obviously up into the uterine cavaity. Never use the stuff.<< ~~~Boy, do I agree with that. My sister used it excessively on her daughter, who was crippled with RA, (and who insisted on the talc), and she ended up with autoimmune lung disease. (My sister did. And she died at a young age. Had never smoked a cigarette in her life.) Carol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 25, 2004 Report Share Posted November 25, 2004 Maybe because people are different, and different people focus on different things they want for their kids. They may be trying to give their kids what they had as children ( a big house in the country, perhaps), or they may be focused on giving them something *different* from what they had (like parents with a stable, loving marriage). Not everyone has health uppermost in their minds, and even fewer have nutrition uppermost, and *even fewer* have WAP nutrition *anywhere* in their minds. A midwife told me that she'd much rather take care of an older woman who was caring for herself properly than a young one who wasn't. Age is just one small part of the whole health picture. Women who wait are probably trying to make something else " optimal, " and they're just not on the same page as you with regard to the importance of maternal age. I don't think this makes them less caring or more selfish. Aven > Then why, Aven, do women wait to have children until it is no longer > optimal for the health of themselves or their offspring? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 25, 2004 Report Share Posted November 25, 2004 There are lots of cultural aspects that make young parenting problematic. We are nuclear-family oriented - one family, one house. It's hard for young people to afford a " great place to raise children. " They might struggle to buy a decent house, and then both have to work to pay for it. My ideal is for a young family to have a nice house and a home-based livelihood, where the parents don't work more than 8 hours a day combined. My family has had a life like this, and it's wonderful. But we had to build this life - it couldn't have happened when we were very young. I wonder about those primitive cultures, and if a lot of what we call parenting was done by older members of the tribe. Our culture isolates families, putting a lot of emotional and physical stress on new mothers. Younger mothers may not know where to turn for help, and may fall apart more easily under the stress. If we want people to marry young have babies during those ideal years, we need a culture (at least a subculture) that supports that lifestyle. Aven > Many so-called experts agree that older mothers are more mature and thus > make better mothers. These are different times. What may apply in the > 40's, 50's or 60's or in a primitive culture might be very difficult to > apply here. There are cultural differences that make comparison difficult > on many levels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 26, 2004 Report Share Posted November 26, 2004 Aven, May the Lord bless you. Thank you for responding to my question. I don't want to argue with you. I can accept that we have differing views on child rearing. Health is most important though, isn't it? How can you enjoy a country home when you have sickness in the family? Money is not a precursor to happiness, is it? We have been blessed with both right now ourselves, thankfully. My husband is a great provider, but we have had to move around to obtain this sort of financial security (nature of salaried professionals in this day and age). Now we live in the country and the boys can actually enjoy it at their age. We have animals, animals, and more animals - mostly cats! Stability in marriage is important, yes. If it is not present, children should not result, imo. But, to each his own. I am happy to see my kids off to college when I am 45. I will be so happy to be a grandmother and share the wealth of my knowledge with others. Can't we all start our own native traditions and bring back optimal health to our families? Money and things in the mainstream ideal don't figure into this sort of paradigm. However, we all have to deal in the real world to survive, don't we? I guess that is the trick: optimize health and security all in one fell swoop. Om Shanti, Deanna Aven wrote: > > Maybe because people are different, and different people > focus on different things they want for their kids. They may > be trying to give their kids what they had as children ( a big > house in the country, perhaps), or they may be focused on > giving them something *different* from what they had (like > parents with a stable, loving marriage). Not everyone has > health uppermost in their minds, and even fewer have > nutrition uppermost, and *even fewer* have WAP nutrition > *anywhere* in their minds. > > A midwife told me that she'd much rather take care of an > older woman who was caring for herself properly than a > young one who wasn't. Age is just one small part of the > whole health picture. > > Women who wait are probably trying to make something > else " optimal, " and they're just not on the same page as you > with regard to the importance of maternal age. I don't think > this makes them less caring or more selfish. > > Aven > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 26, 2004 Report Share Posted November 26, 2004 In a message dated 11/25/2004 5:12:01 PM Eastern Standard Time, twyllightmoon@... writes: > If we want people to marry young have babies during those ideal > years, we need a culture (at least a subculture) that supports that > lifestyle. > > Aven So right, Aven! I had this for the first years of parenting my oldest two, and I don't know how we would have made it without my parents' support and easy proximity! When my daughter was pregnant last year, she knew that she could count on me to be here for her, and help raise the babies (she was carrying twins) should she go back to work. Her fiance moved in with us, and we discussed buying a mother-daughter type of home (or building one) since we're planning on moving this coming year anyway. Unfortunately, my grandsons were stillborn. But our plans still are in the works. We're buying a home that can house our older kids in a separate living space for as long as they need it--and then house our younger, disabled girls for the rest of their lives there, with older siblings moving into our part of the house once we can no longer care for the girls ourselves. We believe this is the way it should be, and for our family it is more important than for most! Marilyn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.