Almost every night lately, I wake up around 3 AM with leg and/or hip pain keeping me from going back to sleep. Ah, the joys of pregnancy...
I've been playing way too much Mahjong as a result... ;) I'm going to takea break from that, though, for some random pregnancy rambles.
Now we know we're having another baby boy(!) I think G was rather disappointed, as before he kept talking about his "baby sister." He handled the news quite maturely, though. I hope my boys have a lot of good times growing up together. I hope I survive lol
This time around, I am looking forward to trying a waterbirth-- yay!
Baby's movements are becoming stronger every day; Nick's even felt him kick a few times. I haven't invited the boys to feel it yet, as I'm afraid they'd be too disappointed if they didn't manage to feel anything right then; so I'm waiting until it will be easier for them to feel-- and see-- the movement.
I'm trying to sing a lot more during this pregnancy. With my first, I was in the community choir throughout most of my pregnancy, so G got to hear me sing a lot in the womb; but most of Z's later gestation was during the "summer break," so he didn't get to hear me sing as much. I don't know if this is the reason, but Z has always been less appreciative of my singing than G has. I used to sing G to sleep all the time, it was soothing to him; but the opposite seems to occur with Z, as it just distracts him and he asks me to stop. With this pregnancy, I am not in the community choir at all; one more good reason for starting my song blog (onethousandonesongs.blogspot.com) to help keep me singing.
I have to use a yoga ball now whenever I sit at the computer-- it's the only comfortable way to accommodate my growing belly. This wouldn't be a problem, except during the day my boys keep trying to toss it around and perform "tricks" on it (which they learned from our 7-yo neighbor next door).
That's enough ramblings for now...look for more "dark side" ramblings coming soon!
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
spinning!
For my birthday last January, I got a gift certificate for a 3-month membership to a local gym about three blocks from home. Since Z was still very young and very clingy at the time, I postponed starting the membership. Then, it was summer and I had plenty of opportunities to go for walks and get exercise outdoors, so I didn't use it then, either. Now it's Fall, and my second trimester of pregnancy-- the perfect time to use my membership!
Many benefits have been discovered for women-- and their babies-- who exercise regularly during pregnancy, including easier labor, and babies who are born leaner (more muscle, less fat) and score better overall on apgar tests.
Of course, each woman is an individual case, and exercise in some instances can be contraindicated for health reasons. For me, fortunately, that is not a problem (at least not so far). Of course I am taking it easy, keeping it low impact.
I started a spinning class last night. The instructor appeared to be in his 50s and kind of nervous about having a pregnant woman in his class. I assured him-- not in so many words-- that I would be fine, that I had a good idea what I was doing, that I was not new to exercising, that in short I was capable of taking care of myself and not overdoing it.
Anyway, I did take it easy-- relatively, but I also had come to work, and I did. I broke out a good sweat, and practiced some deep breathing and stretched as I spun. I also got kind of saddle sore; the bike seats are not very comfortable, and I found myself envying the other bikers whenever they spun standing up, which I couldn't really do comfortably. I went for a half-hour-- could have done more, but didn't push it. I felt great and look forward to the next class :)
Many benefits have been discovered for women-- and their babies-- who exercise regularly during pregnancy, including easier labor, and babies who are born leaner (more muscle, less fat) and score better overall on apgar tests.
Of course, each woman is an individual case, and exercise in some instances can be contraindicated for health reasons. For me, fortunately, that is not a problem (at least not so far). Of course I am taking it easy, keeping it low impact.
I started a spinning class last night. The instructor appeared to be in his 50s and kind of nervous about having a pregnant woman in his class. I assured him-- not in so many words-- that I would be fine, that I had a good idea what I was doing, that I was not new to exercising, that in short I was capable of taking care of myself and not overdoing it.
Anyway, I did take it easy-- relatively, but I also had come to work, and I did. I broke out a good sweat, and practiced some deep breathing and stretched as I spun. I also got kind of saddle sore; the bike seats are not very comfortable, and I found myself envying the other bikers whenever they spun standing up, which I couldn't really do comfortably. I went for a half-hour-- could have done more, but didn't push it. I felt great and look forward to the next class :)
Monday, October 3, 2011
Competition
Life is a Game.
It's Just a Game.
Win it or Lose it.
The only Opponent that matters is Yourself.
In it to Win it.
We've all heard all the above statements, or similar ones, at some point in our lives. There are a lot of differing opinions out there on competition-- Is it good? Is it bad? I don't have the definitive answer.
I do know one thing, though, if my own children are any representation of the general population: and that is, that children seem born ready to compete. A child as young as 18 months-- perhaps younger-- is already capable of joining in sibling rivalry. A baby can join you in a tug-of-war, and giggle when you finally let him win. Let's face it-- winning feels good; losing feels bad. It's a natural response.
"Experts" try to tell parents and caregivers that competition in children is bad, that it's psychologically damaging to children to let them compete in sports, in school, and so on. So is born the "non-competitive sports league," where "everyone's a winner." Or the alternative school that seeks to praise each child for whatever effort he or she exerts, and never criticize or push a child to "try a little harder next time."
Surely, children should not be pushed into competing beyond their own natural desire or capability, to be made to believe that he must win at whatever cost. Nor is it good for a child to be constantly made to feel inferior just because he did not do as well as so-on-so on whatever task. There is a delicate balance in these matters, to be sure.
But is it wise to suppress a naturally-competitive spirit? To never offer praise at a job well done? To never encourage a child to put forth his best effort? Because that's what might happen if we never allow competition.
Sure, we all hope that our children will work hard in school because it's good for them, because the intrinsic reward of learning and growing up to be a knowledgeable, capable adult should be motivation enough. But the truth is, children rarely have that kind of foresight. They need a more immediate motivation, and "competition" in the form of grades and other recognition still seems to me to be the best solution.
It's not fail-proof, of course. And how does the child feel who constantly brings home a "bad" report card despite giving his very best effort? Like I said before-- winning feels good, and losing feels bad. The "experts" do have it right, in a way. Competition can be psychologically damaging for this child. But is it really the competition that is the culprit? Or is it the losing? And how the child is taught to deal with losing?
Think about it. What are some common responses we give our kids when they lose a game?
"Oh, you lost this time. But that's okay, maybe you'll win next time." What if they don't win "next time"?
"Not everyone can be a winner every time." Small children just don't get this one. They're egotistical by nature, remember. I've tried to tell my own 4-yo this one a few times, and he always comes back with something like, "But I want to win!" Or "It's not fair!" Or simply "Waaaaahhhhh!" In other words, the world ends every time he loses; that's just the way it is, no matter what I say or don't say.
"It wasn't your fault; you'll have better luck next time." This is a dangerous one, because if said too often, it can convince a child to believe that he has no control over whether he wins or loses, or that he bears little to no reponsibility for how he fares in life.
"It's just a game." No. It's not "just a game." Not to a child. It was an opportunity-- an opportunity to show off his skill, to impress his peers and/or his "superiors" (that would be adults). When he loses a game, he not only loses the game, but also the opportunity to have his talent noticed, to be seen as someone who is "above the rest," if only for a brief moment, to shine in front of his peers, to be recognized by his superiors for his effort.
So oftentimes, we may find ourselves swinging the other way, trying to ensure that our child never has to feel the sting of losing. I've fallen into the trap myself at times: I'll reshuffle the cards when my son's not looking to ensure that he gets to the Candy Castle before I do; I'll purposefully run slower so he gets to the corner first. I can't help it, it seems, though I know it's probably not the best thing.
Here's something to ponder: why do we play "games"? I'm not talking about games like make-believe, or "ring around the rosie," which obviously are not designed to be competitive. I'm talking about games like "red-light-green-light," or "capture the flag"-- games with a clear winner at the end. Why were these games invented? They were invented to teach certain skills, to improve a child's physical prowess or strategical thinking. The competitive nature of these games, I suppose, arose naturally as children playing them realized (and continue to realize) that some of them were better at playing certain games than others were, that they could either win or not win (aka "lose"), and that-- hey! Winning felt good! Losing felt bad.
Let's take a critical look at non-sompetitive sports for a moment. On the surface, it seems like a good idea. Get a group of children together, teach them the basics of the game, and let them loose to have fun. So far, so good. But then little Junior points out that "those kids over there [in the competitive group] are getting trophies. I want a trophy!" What Junior doesn't realize, and may not even care to acknowledge even if it's pointed out to him, is that not all of "those kids" are getting trophies, and that the ones who do are working very hard to earn them. Unlike our Junior, whom we've chosen to put in a non-competitive sport because we just want him to "have fun," not work hard to compete and become a better player, or to-- gasp!-- be exposed to the psychologically damaging effect of losing when he doesn't do as well as his peers.
But, a meeting of parents and coaches is held, and it is decided that our children still deserve some recognition for "having fun." So trophies are ordered and given out at the next game, and Junior is happy. But, if every child gets a trophy every time, no matter how well he does, what's the point in trying to win? What's the point in even trying at all?
And who are we kidding anyway? Because eventually, at some point when Junior grows up a bit more, he's going to realize what's going on. Maybe he really was a good, hard-working player and deserved the trophies he got; but then, how's he going to feel about Buddy over here who got the exact same recognition as Junior, for simply sitting in the outfield and picking dandelions? Or maybe Junior was the one who goofed off during the game, paying more attention to picking on little Jane and pulling her pigtails; while Jane is the one who worked hard to learn the skills and brought in the most home runs for her team, but was denied the extra praise and recognition that she deserved as the team's "Most Valuable Player"?
But, to be fair, let's look at the other side. What are the possible bad consequences of competition-- particularly, too much competition? Because I do believe there is such a thing.
What about the attitude that I hinted at at the very start of this article? "Life is a Game."
While I do believe that some competition in life is good and natural, it can be taken too far. A child who is allowed-- or encouraged-- to compete in every aspect of his life, is likely to grow up believing that he must always "win" in everything. He must get the highest grade. He must be the fastest runner. He must be the funniest kid in the class. He must have the biggest slice of pizza. He must fly the highest kite. The list goes on. Where does it end? Every task, then, becomes a "game" in this child's mind. His whole life becomes one big game. And as he grows up, the stakes get higher: He must make the most money. He must have the biggest house. He must have the prettiest wife. He must he must he must. And what happens if one day he loses? Well, losing feels bad, remember?
The "experts" have it right, in a way. But we're not going to help our children in the long run by doing away with competition altogether. Rather, we should be focusing our efforts on teaching our children when it is appropriate to compete, and when it is not. We can focus our efforts on helping our children to learn how to be graceful winners, and confident losers. When our child loses at something, we can help him accept the defeat, and then help him find ways to become better, or else encourage him to try out other skills that he might excell at.
And, ultimately, our goal should be to teach them that the greatest achievement in life is simply to be the best people they can be, to realize and to accept their own strengths and their own weaknesses, and that they don't have to "win" at everything in order to be good and valuable human beings.
A little friendly competition in the form of "games" is the first step.
It's Just a Game.
Win it or Lose it.
The only Opponent that matters is Yourself.
In it to Win it.
We've all heard all the above statements, or similar ones, at some point in our lives. There are a lot of differing opinions out there on competition-- Is it good? Is it bad? I don't have the definitive answer.
I do know one thing, though, if my own children are any representation of the general population: and that is, that children seem born ready to compete. A child as young as 18 months-- perhaps younger-- is already capable of joining in sibling rivalry. A baby can join you in a tug-of-war, and giggle when you finally let him win. Let's face it-- winning feels good; losing feels bad. It's a natural response.
"Experts" try to tell parents and caregivers that competition in children is bad, that it's psychologically damaging to children to let them compete in sports, in school, and so on. So is born the "non-competitive sports league," where "everyone's a winner." Or the alternative school that seeks to praise each child for whatever effort he or she exerts, and never criticize or push a child to "try a little harder next time."
Surely, children should not be pushed into competing beyond their own natural desire or capability, to be made to believe that he must win at whatever cost. Nor is it good for a child to be constantly made to feel inferior just because he did not do as well as so-on-so on whatever task. There is a delicate balance in these matters, to be sure.
But is it wise to suppress a naturally-competitive spirit? To never offer praise at a job well done? To never encourage a child to put forth his best effort? Because that's what might happen if we never allow competition.
Sure, we all hope that our children will work hard in school because it's good for them, because the intrinsic reward of learning and growing up to be a knowledgeable, capable adult should be motivation enough. But the truth is, children rarely have that kind of foresight. They need a more immediate motivation, and "competition" in the form of grades and other recognition still seems to me to be the best solution.
It's not fail-proof, of course. And how does the child feel who constantly brings home a "bad" report card despite giving his very best effort? Like I said before-- winning feels good, and losing feels bad. The "experts" do have it right, in a way. Competition can be psychologically damaging for this child. But is it really the competition that is the culprit? Or is it the losing? And how the child is taught to deal with losing?
Think about it. What are some common responses we give our kids when they lose a game?
"Oh, you lost this time. But that's okay, maybe you'll win next time." What if they don't win "next time"?
"Not everyone can be a winner every time." Small children just don't get this one. They're egotistical by nature, remember. I've tried to tell my own 4-yo this one a few times, and he always comes back with something like, "But I want to win!" Or "It's not fair!" Or simply "Waaaaahhhhh!" In other words, the world ends every time he loses; that's just the way it is, no matter what I say or don't say.
"It wasn't your fault; you'll have better luck next time." This is a dangerous one, because if said too often, it can convince a child to believe that he has no control over whether he wins or loses, or that he bears little to no reponsibility for how he fares in life.
"It's just a game." No. It's not "just a game." Not to a child. It was an opportunity-- an opportunity to show off his skill, to impress his peers and/or his "superiors" (that would be adults). When he loses a game, he not only loses the game, but also the opportunity to have his talent noticed, to be seen as someone who is "above the rest," if only for a brief moment, to shine in front of his peers, to be recognized by his superiors for his effort.
So oftentimes, we may find ourselves swinging the other way, trying to ensure that our child never has to feel the sting of losing. I've fallen into the trap myself at times: I'll reshuffle the cards when my son's not looking to ensure that he gets to the Candy Castle before I do; I'll purposefully run slower so he gets to the corner first. I can't help it, it seems, though I know it's probably not the best thing.
Here's something to ponder: why do we play "games"? I'm not talking about games like make-believe, or "ring around the rosie," which obviously are not designed to be competitive. I'm talking about games like "red-light-green-light," or "capture the flag"-- games with a clear winner at the end. Why were these games invented? They were invented to teach certain skills, to improve a child's physical prowess or strategical thinking. The competitive nature of these games, I suppose, arose naturally as children playing them realized (and continue to realize) that some of them were better at playing certain games than others were, that they could either win or not win (aka "lose"), and that-- hey! Winning felt good! Losing felt bad.
Let's take a critical look at non-sompetitive sports for a moment. On the surface, it seems like a good idea. Get a group of children together, teach them the basics of the game, and let them loose to have fun. So far, so good. But then little Junior points out that "those kids over there [in the competitive group] are getting trophies. I want a trophy!" What Junior doesn't realize, and may not even care to acknowledge even if it's pointed out to him, is that not all of "those kids" are getting trophies, and that the ones who do are working very hard to earn them. Unlike our Junior, whom we've chosen to put in a non-competitive sport because we just want him to "have fun," not work hard to compete and become a better player, or to-- gasp!-- be exposed to the psychologically damaging effect of losing when he doesn't do as well as his peers.
But, a meeting of parents and coaches is held, and it is decided that our children still deserve some recognition for "having fun." So trophies are ordered and given out at the next game, and Junior is happy. But, if every child gets a trophy every time, no matter how well he does, what's the point in trying to win? What's the point in even trying at all?
And who are we kidding anyway? Because eventually, at some point when Junior grows up a bit more, he's going to realize what's going on. Maybe he really was a good, hard-working player and deserved the trophies he got; but then, how's he going to feel about Buddy over here who got the exact same recognition as Junior, for simply sitting in the outfield and picking dandelions? Or maybe Junior was the one who goofed off during the game, paying more attention to picking on little Jane and pulling her pigtails; while Jane is the one who worked hard to learn the skills and brought in the most home runs for her team, but was denied the extra praise and recognition that she deserved as the team's "Most Valuable Player"?
But, to be fair, let's look at the other side. What are the possible bad consequences of competition-- particularly, too much competition? Because I do believe there is such a thing.
What about the attitude that I hinted at at the very start of this article? "Life is a Game."
While I do believe that some competition in life is good and natural, it can be taken too far. A child who is allowed-- or encouraged-- to compete in every aspect of his life, is likely to grow up believing that he must always "win" in everything. He must get the highest grade. He must be the fastest runner. He must be the funniest kid in the class. He must have the biggest slice of pizza. He must fly the highest kite. The list goes on. Where does it end? Every task, then, becomes a "game" in this child's mind. His whole life becomes one big game. And as he grows up, the stakes get higher: He must make the most money. He must have the biggest house. He must have the prettiest wife. He must he must he must. And what happens if one day he loses? Well, losing feels bad, remember?
The "experts" have it right, in a way. But we're not going to help our children in the long run by doing away with competition altogether. Rather, we should be focusing our efforts on teaching our children when it is appropriate to compete, and when it is not. We can focus our efforts on helping our children to learn how to be graceful winners, and confident losers. When our child loses at something, we can help him accept the defeat, and then help him find ways to become better, or else encourage him to try out other skills that he might excell at.
And, ultimately, our goal should be to teach them that the greatest achievement in life is simply to be the best people they can be, to realize and to accept their own strengths and their own weaknesses, and that they don't have to "win" at everything in order to be good and valuable human beings.
A little friendly competition in the form of "games" is the first step.
Monday, September 26, 2011
On Abortion
I apologize for nothing in this post. I will be stating facts; facts do not require apology.
The following link contains some surprising statistics on abortion in the United States. As stated in the article, "All abortion numbers are derived from pro-abortion sources."
http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html
I will be quoting parts of the article below, but I do invite any readers to read the entire article.
The most pertinent sections from the above article:
Why women have abortions1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).
At what gestational ages are abortions performed:52% of all abortions occur before the 9th week of pregnancy, 25% happen between the 9th & 10th week, 12% happen between the 11th and 12th week, 6% happen between the 13th & 15th week, 4% happen between the 16th & 20th week, and 1% of all abortions (16,450/yr.) happen after the 20th week of pregnancy.
Abortion coverage:48% of all abortion facilities provide services after the 12th week of pregnancy. 9 in 10 managed care plans routinely cover abortion or provide limited coverage. About 14% of all abortions in the United States are paid for with public funds, virtually all of which are state funds.
Now enough statistics. Now for some personal facts:
Personal Fact #1: I am pregnant.
Personal Fact #2: This pregnancy was planned. I know the exact date (within a 1-2-day margin of error) on which conception occurred.
Personal Fact #3: The following image is from the low-grade ultrasound my midwife performed in her office when I was just barely 10 weeks pregnant (sorry it's upside-down):
I will also note, in this ultrasound-- though of course it is not apparent in a photo-- I could see the embryo's heart beating. It was ALIVE.
Personal Fact #4: This next image is from an ultrasound done at barely 15 weeks:
Note, it already looks like a baby!
Now to re-quote some of the statistics with the above images in mind.
12% [of abortions] happen between the 11th and 12th week, 6% happen between the 13th & 15th week, 4% happen between the 16th & 20th week, and 1% of all abortions (16,450/yr.) happen after the 20th week of pregnancy.
That means that at least 23% of abortions take place after the heart has already started beating! 4% happen between the 16th and 20th week (hmm, right before most pregnant women look forward to their first ultrasound to make sure the baby's healthy and to find out its gender).
I took a health class at our local college, and in the textbook we used is a section on abortion. It seemed fairly straightforward and non-biased, just stating the facts. Until I took a look at the pictures and got a little skeptical.
One picture illustrates the process of suction curettage, a procedure involving the gradual dilation of the cervix, then a suction cup is inserted into the cervix and the contents of the uterus are vacuumed out; finally, a spoon-shaped instrument called a curette, is used to check for complete removal. In the illustration, the amniotic sac looks much like my first ultrasound image, taken at 10 weeks after my last menstrual period. But suction curettage, according to the textbook, is typically done anywhere from 7 weeks to 13 weeks. 13 weeks is 3 weeks more than 10, and only 2 weeks less than 15, which is where I was when the second ultrasound image was taken. Which means, at 13 weeks-- the upper end of when suction curettage is routinely performed, the embryo/fetus is more likely to resemble the second image than it is the first. The heart is already beating, and limbs are fully formed, looking a lot more like a baby and a lot less like a mere "sac."
And there's the facts. Garner from them what you will.
The following link contains some surprising statistics on abortion in the United States. As stated in the article, "All abortion numbers are derived from pro-abortion sources."
http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html
I will be quoting parts of the article below, but I do invite any readers to read the entire article.
The most pertinent sections from the above article:
Why women have abortions1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).
At what gestational ages are abortions performed:52% of all abortions occur before the 9th week of pregnancy, 25% happen between the 9th & 10th week, 12% happen between the 11th and 12th week, 6% happen between the 13th & 15th week, 4% happen between the 16th & 20th week, and 1% of all abortions (16,450/yr.) happen after the 20th week of pregnancy.
Abortion coverage:48% of all abortion facilities provide services after the 12th week of pregnancy. 9 in 10 managed care plans routinely cover abortion or provide limited coverage. About 14% of all abortions in the United States are paid for with public funds, virtually all of which are state funds.
Now enough statistics. Now for some personal facts:
Personal Fact #1: I am pregnant.
Personal Fact #2: This pregnancy was planned. I know the exact date (within a 1-2-day margin of error) on which conception occurred.
Personal Fact #3: The following image is from the low-grade ultrasound my midwife performed in her office when I was just barely 10 weeks pregnant (sorry it's upside-down):
I will also note, in this ultrasound-- though of course it is not apparent in a photo-- I could see the embryo's heart beating. It was ALIVE.
Personal Fact #4: This next image is from an ultrasound done at barely 15 weeks:
Note, it already looks like a baby!
Now to re-quote some of the statistics with the above images in mind.
12% [of abortions] happen between the 11th and 12th week, 6% happen between the 13th & 15th week, 4% happen between the 16th & 20th week, and 1% of all abortions (16,450/yr.) happen after the 20th week of pregnancy.
That means that at least 23% of abortions take place after the heart has already started beating! 4% happen between the 16th and 20th week (hmm, right before most pregnant women look forward to their first ultrasound to make sure the baby's healthy and to find out its gender).
I took a health class at our local college, and in the textbook we used is a section on abortion. It seemed fairly straightforward and non-biased, just stating the facts. Until I took a look at the pictures and got a little skeptical.
One picture illustrates the process of suction curettage, a procedure involving the gradual dilation of the cervix, then a suction cup is inserted into the cervix and the contents of the uterus are vacuumed out; finally, a spoon-shaped instrument called a curette, is used to check for complete removal. In the illustration, the amniotic sac looks much like my first ultrasound image, taken at 10 weeks after my last menstrual period. But suction curettage, according to the textbook, is typically done anywhere from 7 weeks to 13 weeks. 13 weeks is 3 weeks more than 10, and only 2 weeks less than 15, which is where I was when the second ultrasound image was taken. Which means, at 13 weeks-- the upper end of when suction curettage is routinely performed, the embryo/fetus is more likely to resemble the second image than it is the first. The heart is already beating, and limbs are fully formed, looking a lot more like a baby and a lot less like a mere "sac."
And there's the facts. Garner from them what you will.
Yessiree
So, last week the word got out to the general acquaintance, so now I can announce it here, too. I am seventeen weeks pregnant.
I will probably be posting on here a lot more often now! There were so many things I could have written about the last couple months, but I wasn't ready to make things public yet.
The first trimester was a teeny bit miserable, but I can't complain too much since I've known women with a lot worse morning sickness than I've ever had. The worst of it, though, was when I was down in California last month, driving on windy roads in the hot weather.
It's amazing how that second trimester starts, and all of a sudden BAM! No more morning sickness. How does my body know?
Nick keeps feeling the need to apologize to me for getting me pregnant. Ha, like I didn't play a part in it? I knew exactly what I was getting myself into at the time; if I had told him, though, he would have freaked out-- just like he's doing now. Yes, I'm a little surprised myself that I decided I was ready again so soon, when for a while I figured I'd wait until Z was at least 3 years old before I got pregnant again. But, I've realized something else. And that is, time's ticking.
Not that I'm feeling old or like I'm going to lose my...fertility anytime soon. But, I've decided I'd rather have all my babies sooner rather than later. And that means having them a little closer together-- say, over a 10-year period-- rather than spacing them out more so as to be spending the next 20 years of my life in the baby/toddler stage. I don't want my oldest to be in high school when my youngest is just learning to walk.
But, that's just me.
Anyway, there will be just over two and a half years between Z and the new baby, so pretty much the same as with my first two. Yes, it's going to be stressful and tiring and sometimes downright miserable; but, that's how it's going to be whenever I have a baby, so I might as well get it over with. And then I can move on to enjoying my "big kids" that much sooner.
I will say, though, I sure am enjoying both G and Z at their current stages of life. So far, my favorite ages have been 2 and 4; least favorite, 0 and 3. How's that for leapfrogging?
I will probably be posting on here a lot more often now! There were so many things I could have written about the last couple months, but I wasn't ready to make things public yet.
The first trimester was a teeny bit miserable, but I can't complain too much since I've known women with a lot worse morning sickness than I've ever had. The worst of it, though, was when I was down in California last month, driving on windy roads in the hot weather.
It's amazing how that second trimester starts, and all of a sudden BAM! No more morning sickness. How does my body know?
Nick keeps feeling the need to apologize to me for getting me pregnant. Ha, like I didn't play a part in it? I knew exactly what I was getting myself into at the time; if I had told him, though, he would have freaked out-- just like he's doing now. Yes, I'm a little surprised myself that I decided I was ready again so soon, when for a while I figured I'd wait until Z was at least 3 years old before I got pregnant again. But, I've realized something else. And that is, time's ticking.
Not that I'm feeling old or like I'm going to lose my...fertility anytime soon. But, I've decided I'd rather have all my babies sooner rather than later. And that means having them a little closer together-- say, over a 10-year period-- rather than spacing them out more so as to be spending the next 20 years of my life in the baby/toddler stage. I don't want my oldest to be in high school when my youngest is just learning to walk.
But, that's just me.
Anyway, there will be just over two and a half years between Z and the new baby, so pretty much the same as with my first two. Yes, it's going to be stressful and tiring and sometimes downright miserable; but, that's how it's going to be whenever I have a baby, so I might as well get it over with. And then I can move on to enjoying my "big kids" that much sooner.
I will say, though, I sure am enjoying both G and Z at their current stages of life. So far, my favorite ages have been 2 and 4; least favorite, 0 and 3. How's that for leapfrogging?
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Trial
In today’s Sunday School lesson, the main topic—or at least,
what I mostly got out of it—was trial.
Often, we simply think of a trial as something that tests
our faith or ability; something that is difficult to bear, but—if we bear it
successfully—will ultimately make us stronger somehow.
The Merriam-Webster online dictionary provides further
insight into the meaning of the word trial, and its several definitions can
certainly be applied to our lives in a spiritual sense as well as temporal
(italicized words are my own; bolded are for emphasis):
1a: the action or process of trying or
putting to the proof : test b: a preliminary contest (as in a
sport) A trial is an opportunity to
prove myself.
During today’s lesson/discussion, the following passage
also came to mind, from 1 Corinthians 10:13--
I do not
think it inappropriate, in this context, to substitute the word “tempted” in
the above scripture with the word “tried,” and “temptation” with the word
“trial.” Temptations are trials: trials of our faith, trials of our discipline,
trials of our love for Christ and our Heavenly Father to want to overcome
temptation in order to become closer to our Savior.
So, what I
get from this is that I will never be given any trials in life that I cannot
overcome with the help of my Heavenly Father. Trials are best viewed, not as
hardships or annoyances that I would be better off without; but rather, my trials
should be viewed as an opportunity for me to prove myself, to prove my faith,
quality, and worthiness before the Lord.
It is a well-observed fact that every man or woman in this
life experiences trials. It is also a well-observed fact that every man or
woman experiences very different trials in mortality. Some people’s lives seem
so trial-ridden, complicated, and downright devastating, that it’s a wonder to
me when I hear some of these people share the trials they’ve been through, and
to realize that they are still optimistic about life, that they feel fulfilled
and happy, that they still love and trust their Heavenly Father. I only hope I
can come out as strong if I ever go through half the trials these people
have been though. But, that’s just the point: these people were tried, and they
passed the test; their value and usefulness were tested, and they were found to
be worthy, good and faithful servants.
If I want to be a faithful daughter, if I want to be a
worthy servant, if I want to be the best I can be, I will never shrink away
from my trials. Rather, I should say “Bring it on, life. There is nothing you
can do to me that I can’t face with the help of my God. There is no challenge I
might face that will not make me stronger.”
Bring it on!
2: the formal
examination before a competent tribunal of the matter in issue in a civil or
criminal cause in order to determine such issue What more “competent tribunal”
can we have than Christ?
3: a test of faith,
patience, or stamina through subjection to suffering or temptation; broadly: a source of vexation or annoyance
4a: a tryout or experiment to test
quality, value, or usefulness — compare clinical trial
b: one of a number of repetitions of
an experiment Am I valuable to God? Am I
useful?
My trials are tailor-made for me. Whatever has befallen in
the past, whatever I’m going through now, whatever trials might arise to test
me in the future—none of it is random. God knows exactly what I am capable of
bearing. He also knows exactly what trials will allow me to demonstrate my own
unique gifts, to strengthen my own unique weaknesses, to reach my maximum
potential and growth, to become a “profitable servant” before my Lord. And if I
know what’s good for me, I will welcome those trials with open arms, with a
heart and mind in tune with the Holy Spirit to guide me and comfort me along
the way.
Bring it on!
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Humorous Find
A couple years ago, I was browsing a local curio shop and came across an interesting item. I started reading the instructions on the back of the box, and it was so funny to me that I asked for a post-it note and a pen and wrote it all down word-for-word. Today while cleaning out a pile of old papers, I came across the post-it note again. Here's what is says:
Duck Egg Growing Pet
1. Put the egg in a container & fill with water level upper egg (the temperature of the water is under 35*C (95*F)).
2. The egg shell will break after 12-24 hours. Slowly then the pet hasten out of the shell. (Please keep the full water into the container)
3. After the egg shell is broken entirely please add the new water into the container again (the pet will be expanding after 24-48 hours fully).
4. Can remove the growing pet to another container to watch them grow daily.
Some jobs are best not being outsourced...
Duck Egg Growing Pet
1. Put the egg in a container & fill with water level upper egg (the temperature of the water is under 35*C (95*F)).
2. The egg shell will break after 12-24 hours. Slowly then the pet hasten out of the shell. (Please keep the full water into the container)
3. After the egg shell is broken entirely please add the new water into the container again (the pet will be expanding after 24-48 hours fully).
4. Can remove the growing pet to another container to watch them grow daily.
Some jobs are best not being outsourced...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)