19 Kids & Courting - Duggar Snark for Season 8

[mypsychoticself]

Don't you just hate the hypocrasy? They're anti-abortion... until Michelle Duggar activates labor early to save her life. Ummm that's abortion.

And women need to be baby-making machines... unless you're doing God's work, then you don't need to.

All these exceptions to the rules to make it convenient for the elite.

Why do people keep saying that what Michele did was an abortion? It resulted in a live birth ffs.

Back on topic: I can see Jill wanting to have a kid fairly soon after she marries, but spacing them out/limiting the number after that. She seems to genuinely like kids, so I wouldn't be surprised to see a pregnancy announcement within a year of her marriage.

[Georgiana]

Don't you just hate the hypocrasy? They're anti-abortion... until Michelle Duggar activates labor early to save her life. Ummm that's abortion.

And women need to be baby-making machines... unless you're doing God's work, then you don't need to.

All these exceptions to the rules to make it convenient for the elite.

I'm actually happy for it. I know that seems weird, but I would rather have them be hypocrites than let the women die just to keep their ideals pure.

The only thing worse than forcing a woman to undergo continually and potentially dangerous pregnancies is to force her to do it in a place without access to modern medical care. In remote Nepal, a dangerous pregnancy could be a very real death sentence.

Does it suck that they don't realize that there is no huge difference between activating labor at 25 weeks to save the mother and doing so at 18 weeks? Yes. Do their ideas clearly not work? Yes. But as someone with QF friends, I'm hopeful that someday one of the hypocritical loopholes could be used to save my friends' lives if it ever comes to that.

[Ampak]

Ha y'all make me laugh with the fundie lite label. My husband and I are Christians and very politically conservative. We are prolife but in no way fundie! Not just because I wear whatever I want and work. The fundamentalist mindset is so much deeper this checking off boxes of what someone does/does not believe.

[tralala]

Don't you just hate the hypocrasy? They're anti-abortion... until Michelle Duggar activates labor early to save her life. Ummm that's abortion.

And women need to be baby-making machines... unless you're doing God's work, then you don't need to.

All these exceptions to the rules to make it convenient for the elite.

I see the point you're trying to make, but what happened with Michelle and Josie was not abortion.

Abortion is when a living fetus becomes no longer living. A miscarriage is known as a spontaneous abortion (This is what happened with Jubilee). A medical procedure that removes a fetus for the benefit of the mother with no chance of fetal survival is known as a therapeutic abortion.

If Josie did not stand a chance to live outside the womb, then yes it would have been abortion. However, since she was at a viable age for survival, and JB and Michelle chose to keep her alive, what you're seeing is a risky early delivery which benefited both mother and baby, not abortion.

Hopefully that helps :)

[DuggarsTheEndIsNear]

Why do people keep saying that what Michele did was an abortion? It resulted in a live birth ffs.

Back on topic: I can see Jill wanting to have a kid fairly soon after she marries, but spacing them out/limiting the number after that. She seems to genuinely like kids, so I wouldn't be surprised to see a pregnancy announcement within a year of her marriage.

Even if Josie was stillborn, I wouldn't call that an abortion. It was an emergency c-section when Josie was viable with medical intervention. Had she not lived, they could have called it what it would have been: a still birth. If Michelle hadn't attempted the emergency c-section, neither she or Josie would have had the possibility of living. An abortion would have killed Josie purposefully, rather than attempted to save her life through modern medicine. There is a huge difference.

[nokidsmom]

I see the point you're trying to make, but what happened with Michelle and Josie was not abortion.

Abortion is when a living fetus becomes no longer living. A miscarriage is known as a spontaneous abortion (This is what happened with Jubilee). A medical procedure that removes a fetus for the benefit of the mother with no chance of fetal survival is known as a therapeutic abortion.

If Josie did not stand a chance to live outside the womb, then yes it would have been abortion. However, since she was at a viable age for survival, and JB and Michelle chose to keep her alive, what you're seeing is a risky early delivery which benefited both mother and baby, not abortion

Hopefully that helps :)

This and also, the term "abortion" in medical terminology isn't used on it's own as opposed the non-medical, every day use of the word. It's combined with other words such as "missed", "therapeutic", "spontaneous", or other words to describe the specific circumstances under which the pregnancy is ending and there's no viable fetus.

[paganhomeschooler]

And what's the rush with these people? Five months isn't enough time to get to really know someone.

My husband and I met March 23, eloped August 25, and 4 kids and 13 years later are still very happily married! We were 21 and 22 when we were married.

[Mama Mia]

Does it suck that they don't realize that there is no huge difference between activating labor at 25 weeks to save the mother and doing so at 18 weeks? Yes. Do their ideas clearly not work? Yes. But as someone with QF friends, I'm hopeful that someday one of the hypocritical loopholes could be used to save my friends' lives if it ever comes to that.

Actually it sucks that you don't realize there IS a huge difference between activating labor at 18 weeks and 25 weeks in a medical emergency.

At 18 weeks you will probably have saved the mothers life, but there is no possibility of saving the fetus. At 25 weeks you have a 50/50 shot at saving both their lives. How is that not different?

I really don't understand how trying to turn any premature delivery that is performed to save the life of the mother into some sort of abortion is any less ignorant than refusing treatment for an ectopic pregnancy or any other condition where both the mother and the fetus will die. In both situations people seem to be using the trigger word abortion to fill an agenda that doesn't really relate to reality.

[twinmama]

Even if Jessa or Jill used NFP to prevent, when they aren't churning out babies every 18 months, questions will be asked. Even if that's wildly inappropriate. J'Chelle and JB *will* ask.

I would hope that the girls at least know that not everyone is as fertile as their mother. And that sometimes, even for two young healthy people, it can take years. They can prevent pregnancy all they want, and just say "we're trying, it's just not happening yet" and that has to be a sufficient answer as it is medically possible. Granted, if J'Chelle doesn't want to believe that, clearly she won't as she doesn't take medical fact as fact (as in birth control pills don't cause miscarriages).

[Georgiana]

Actually it sucks that you don't realize there IS a huge difference between activating labor at 18 weeks and 25 weeks in a medical emergency.

At 18 weeks you will probably have saved the mothers life, but there is no possibility of saving the fetus. At 25 weeks you have a 50/50 shot at saving both their lives. How is that not different?

I really don't understand how trying to call any premature delivery that is performed to save the life of the mother into some sort of abortion is any less ignorant than refusing treatment for an ectopic pregnancy or any other condition where both the mother and the fetus will die. In both situations people seem to be using the trigger word abortion to fill an agenda that doesn't really relate to reality.

Sorry, I meant for the mother. Obviously, there is a huge difference for the fetus. I'm also not trying to equate a premature delivery with an abortion. However, there is something that doesn't make sense with the stance that it's OK to go ahead with medical treatment to save the mother when the chances of the baby dying are as good as the chances of it living (in some cases, greater that it will die), but not OK to do so when there is absolutely no chance of saving the fetus in any circumstance (so both mother and baby must die).

[Mama Mia]

Sorry, I meant for the mother. Obviously, there is a huge difference for the fetus. I'm also not trying to equate a premature delivery with an abortion. However, there is something that doesn't make sense with the stance that it's OK to go ahead with medical treatment to save the mother when the chances of the baby dying are as good as the chances of it living (in some cases, greater that it will die), but not OK to do so when there is absolutely no chance of saving the fetus in any circumstance (so both mother and baby must die).

I'm curious about this. Does anyone have any statistics on the number of women who do actually turn down treatment that would save their life when there is no chance of the fetus surviving? I know people talk about it a lot, on both sides of the issue, but are there any numbers regarding actual maternal death due to this? I would assume the most common would be refusing to get treatment for an ectopic pregnancy.

Probably difficult to get any actual information on, since a maternal death could be caused due to refusing treatment on philosophical grounds, or by not realizing there was a problem until it was too late.

I really don't understand the idiocy of refusing to get a therapeutic abortion if it is certain that both the mother and the fetus will die.

[mypsychoticself]

Sorry, I meant for the mother. Obviously, there is a huge difference for the fetus. I'm also not trying to equate a premature delivery with an abortion. However, there is something that doesn't make sense with the stance that it's OK to go ahead with medical treatment to save the mother when the chances of the baby dying are as good as the chances of it living (in some cases, greater that it will die), but not OK to do so when there is absolutely no chance of saving the fetus in any circumstance (so both mother and baby must die).

Have they ever actually said that they're against abortions that save the life of the mother? A google search is just turning up a bunch of articles about them comparing abortion to the holocaust.

[Trynn]

Most forced burghers that I know (all of them, actually) are in favor of abortion if it will save the life of the mother, especially if the fetus wouldn't survive anyway and even more especially if its a teenager.

The mother I mean, not the fetus.

And with my conservative friends, it's 50/50 as to whether or not they believe abortion is acceptable in cases of rape.

[Georgiana]

Some fundies do say you can't terminate the life of the fetus even to save the mother, yes. I don't have any links for you, but a few groups/teachers were talked about on No Longer Quivering several years ago. There was one that said even treatment for a tubal pregnancy was inappropriate if it meant destroying the fertilized egg. If you die from pregnancy/childbearing, you're a martyr. That was the logic. Was it in Vicky's story? Maybe.

I don't know if the Duggars subscribe to this openly. They're no longer open about their Pearl association either, though they did/do blanket train. Very few pro-life folks will come out and say they don't support terminating a pregnancy to save the mother. It's a tough question, and really makes you look bad either way.

Do I know some people who believe you should continue a pregnancy against medical advice because abortion is wrong? Yup. Because God will save you if He wants to. So they do exist, but I can't imagine being able to get numbers on it.

What I do know is this, the legislation/candidates the Duggars et. al support do not (always) create/support loopholes for medically necessary pregnancy terminations. Or make it difficult to impossible to obtain a medically necessary abortion. They are anti-abortion, not anti-elective abortion.

[Rescinded and Mended]

A little off-topic, but I had a friend who had an ectopic pregnancy. She began bleeding heavily after she had an argument with her then-fiance. Apparently, he was still so pissed at her that he refused to drive her to the hospital, in spite of the fact that she was bleeding all over their apartment. She had to call her mother to drive her to the emergency room. The fiance stayed home.

She recovered, and they later married and had two children. Why she ever decided to marry him after he put her through that, I'll never know.

[Mama Mia]

Some fundies do say you can't terminate the life of the fetus even to save the mother, yes. I don't have any links for you, but a few groups/teachers were talked about on No Longer Quivering several years ago. There was one that said even treatment for a tubal pregnancy was inappropriate if it meant destroying the fertilized egg. If you die from pregnancy/childbearing, you're a martyr. That was the logic. Was it in Vicky's story? Maybe.

I don't know if the Duggars subscribe to this openly. They're no longer open about their Pearl association either, though they did/do blanket train. Very few pro-life folks will come out and say they don't support terminating a pregnancy to save the mother. It's a tough question, and really makes you look bad either way.

Do I know some people who believe you should continue a pregnancy against medical advice because abortion is wrong? Yup. Because God will save you if He wants to. So they do exist, but I can't imagine being able to get numbers on it.

What I do know is this, the legislation/candidates the Duggars et. al support do not (always) create/support loopholes for medically necessary pregnancy terminations. Or make it difficult to impossible to obtain a medically necessary abortion. They are anti-abortion, not anti-elective abortion.

Yeah I know there are extremely hard-core types who say they believe in no abortion, ever, even if both the mother and the fetus ( usually an embryo at that point ) will certainly die. And I know some women who would choose to have the baby saved over themselves, if it came down to an emergency with a fetus at viability.

But I wonder how often it has actually come up and the decision was made, in real life, to purposefully sacrifice both?

[J'ean Skirt]

Some fundies do say you can't terminate the life of the fetus even to save the mother, yes. I don't have any links for you, but a few groups/teachers were talked about on No Longer Quivering several years ago. There was one that said even treatment for a tubal pregnancy was inappropriate if it meant destroying the fertilized egg. If you die from pregnancy/childbearing, you're a martyr. That was the logic. Was it in Vicky's story? Maybe.

This is the Catholic point of view I was taught. You cannot, you must not do anything that directly harms the fetus. It is acceptable to harm the fetus if that harm is a side effect of the treatment. So, in the Catholic church, removing the fallopian tube is an acceptable treatment for an ectopic pregnancy. Yes, the pregnancy is terminated but that is a side effect. Removing just the product of conception or administering drugs to stop the pregnancy from progressing, is harming the fetus directly and is therefore banned.

In cases where the choice is the mother or the child, I was taught that one cannot make that choice. Neither life is more important than the other and we, as humans, cannot decide which to save.

This is part of why I left the church. It really seemed like a total cop out to me. "We can't decide, so we'll let both die." Um... What?

Also, the Catholic church insists, absolutely INSISTS that pregnancy itself is never life threatening. Which is just such total bullshit I can't even....

EDIT: riffles

[RosyDaisy]

I'm not defending the Duggar's (lack) of discipline or their reprehensible parenting, but the bolded may just be a southern thing. I'm a huge fan of positive parenting and couldn't imagine ever spanking my kids at all, but we do live in the south and I do teach my kids to address adults as Ma'am and Sir.**

Because that is part of our everyday vocabulary, sometimes when when I'm reminding them about some other form of polite behavior it is not uncommon for me to say to them "No Ma'am! You know we don't jump on the couch like that!" Actually, I usually don't even have to add the second part - a simple "no ma'am" lets them know that whatever they're doing isn't appropriate.

I'd hate to think someone who heard me say that in public would think I was following some kind of Pearlesque crap, but I guess they might if we were travelling or they "warn't from around here." :D

**I know it can sound odd to those in other places, and I'm not interested in stirring up that debate, but around here other adults - especially older ones - find it much more polite and there's no harm done, IMO. I'm not trying to teach them any sort of subservient behavior, just that these are the social norms and they should follow them in polite society as long as it isn't hurting them or anyone else. I'm in my 40's and call older adults I don't know well Ma'am and Sir.

I was raised to say ma'am and sir, so it's definitely a southern thing. It's just good manners, and in no way means old lady or old man. Anyway, saying that to your kids here in Alabama wouldn't strike anybody as strange. It predates the Pearls, and nobody would make that connection.

[twinmama]

Hmm, why can't I delete this? Anyway, already covered, didn't need to respond.

[Georgiana]

This is the Catholic point of view I was taught. You cannot, you must not do anything that directly harms the fetus. It is acceptable to harm the fetus if that harm is a side effect of the treatment. So, in the Catholic church, removing the fallopian tube is an acceptable treatment for an ectopic pregnancy. Yes, the pregnancy is terminated but that is a side effect. Removing just the product of conception or administering drugs to stop the pregnancy from progressing, is harming the fetus directly and is therefore banned.

In cases where the choice is the mother or the child, I was taught that one cannot make that choice. Neither life is more important than the other and we, as humans, cannot decide which to save.

This is part of why I left the church. It really seemed like a total cop out to me. "We can't decide, so we'll let both die." Um... What?

Also, the Catholic church insists, absolutely INSISTS that pregnancy itself is never life threatening. Which is just such total bullshit I can't even....

EDIT: riffles

I'm from a Catholic background as well, so maybe this is just a Catholic thing (I hope!)? Though I was always taught you couldn't do anything to jeopardize the health of fetus either because it was already a baby.

When I was in high school there was this story of a woman who found out she had an aggressive cancer (breast, I think)...and then found out she was pregnant. She chose not to undergo treatment for the cancer (chemo, radiation) because it could terminate the pregnancy. Her doctors told her that if she did not begin treatment until after her pregnancy, her chances of surviving were minimal to none. But she continued with the pregnancy anyway.

AND GOD CURED HER AND SHE HAD NO MORE CANCER.

Moral of the story: even if you need treatment for cancer and will die if you don't get it, you do not have the right to terminate or risk a pregnancy to do so. Your first obligation is to see the pregnancy through until the end.

[Rita]

I'm from a Catholic background as well, so maybe this is just a Catholic thing (I hope!)? Though I was always taught you couldn't do anything to jeopardize the health of fetus either because it was already a baby.

When I was in high school there was this story of a woman who found out she had an aggressive cancer (breast, I think)...and then found out she was pregnant. She chose not to undergo treatment for the cancer (chemo, radiation) because it could terminate the pregnancy. Her doctors told her that if she did not begin treatment until after her pregnancy, her chances of surviving were minimal to none. But she continued with the pregnancy anyway.

AND GOD CURED HER AND SHE HAD NO MORE CANCER.

Moral of the story: even if you need treatment for cancer and will die if you don't get it, you do not have the right to terminate or risk a pregnancy to do so. Your first obligation is to see the pregnancy through until the end.

What if the mother wouldn't live long enough to deliver?

[FakePigtails]

I'm from a Catholic background as well, so maybe this is just a Catholic thing (I hope!)? Though I was always taught you couldn't do anything to jeopardize the health of fetus either because it was already a baby.

When I was in high school there was this story of a woman who found out she had an aggressive cancer (breast, I think)...and then found out she was pregnant. She chose not to undergo treatment for the cancer (chemo, radiation) because it could terminate the pregnancy. Her doctors told her that if she did not begin treatment until after her pregnancy, her chances of surviving were minimal to none. But she continued with the pregnancy anyway.

AND GOD CURED HER AND SHE HAD NO MORE CANCER.

Moral of the story: even if you need treatment for cancer and will die if you don't get it, you do not have the right to terminate or risk a pregnancy to do so. Your first obligation is to see the pregnancy through until the end.

Catholic women can get treatments that risk the fetus. Yeah, some put refusing potentially harmful chemotherapy on a pedestal but that's not the official teaching.

It's the same reasoning that allows for use of hormonal contraception if medically indicated. It's called the principle of double-effect - as long as the primary purpose isn't to harm the fetus needed care for the mother is okay.

[Mama Mia]

This is the Catholic point of view I was taught. You cannot, you must not do anything that directly harms the fetus. It is acceptable to harm the fetus if that harm is a side effect of the treatment. So, in the Catholic church, removing the fallopian tube is an acceptable treatment for an ectopic pregnancy. Yes, the pregnancy is terminated but that is a side effect. Removing just the product of conception or administering drugs to stop the pregnancy from progressing, is harming the fetus directly and is therefore banned.

In cases where the choice is the mother or the child, I was taught that one cannot make that choice. Neither life is more important than the other and we, as humans, cannot decide which to save.

This is part of why I left the church. It really seemed like a total cop out to me. "We can't decide, so we'll let both die." Um... What?

Also, the Catholic church insists, absolutely INSISTS that pregnancy itself is never life threatening. Which is just such total bullshit I can't even....

EDIT: riffles

That's so different than my local hospital, which is Catholic. While I couldn't schedule my tubal ligation there, I know several women who had surgery for ectopic pregnancy, and in the more recent ones, as techniques have improved, they've always been able to save the tube. I personally know at least one woman where they tried the medication first, and when that didn't work did the surgery. They also suggested a therapeutic abortion to someone I know who was having potentially life threatening complications with her pregnancy ( but medical interventions worked and mother and baby were both fine) . Do other hospitals/ physicians follow the official Catholic Position, or do they follow medical guidelines?

[Shrinra]

LOL! Did anyone else see Chelsea Handler's monologue just now on the "Duggars and their 19 sexually repressed children"? She did a bit on the dangers of hugging (both side and front!) and showed how it was important to always use protection while hugging.

[Toothfairy]

I'm from a Catholic background as well, so maybe this is just a Catholic thing (I hope!)? Though I was always taught you couldn't do anything to jeopardize the health of fetus either because it was already a baby.

When I was in high school there was this story of a woman who found out she had an aggressive cancer (breast, I think)...and then found out she was pregnant. She chose not to undergo treatment for the cancer (chemo, radiation) because it could terminate the pregnancy. Her doctors told her that if she did not begin treatment until after her pregnancy, her chances of surviving were minimal to none. But she continued with the pregnancy anyway.

AND GOD CURED HER AND SHE HAD NO MORE CANCER.

Moral of the story: even if you need treatment for cancer and will die if you don't get it, you do not have the right to terminate or risk a pregnancy to do so. Your first obligation is to see the pregnancy through until the end.

I was taught this as well but don't agree with it. So have the baby and the child grow up motherless? Or a husband loses his wife? The children lose their mother? I get it's a hard choice but I have other people in my life to think about if I did have to make this choice.