Duggars by the Dozen - General Discussion Part 16

[devoe364]

On 1/23/2016 at 4:20 PM, biblelandjunkie said:

In regards to Duggar girls ...when they reach adulthood and cannot get pregnant I wonder what the family and other fundy types will think?  Christians say "children are a blessing from god" and equate blessing with children in general.  Would the opposite then be the rule as no baby meaning a curse from god?  I have no children and have had two women tell me god didn't bless me or that I am a unfulfilled woman or not as female or worthy of gods grace and blessings as women who have birthed babies.  Christians are some of the meanest people in my opinion.  

I'm 34 tattooed (including the names of the two babies I've lost) and I hear all the time about how I need to get started if I ever want kids.

I would love them. I cannot have them. The Duggars have a few extra. Can't I just be one of their buddies? I'm in Canada and all, and the child would have to learn to speak French... maybe if I just don't tell J-Boob that and change my name to Jemima he'll give me one...

[SassyPants]

12 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

I think that inducing early labor and hoping the kid will survive does not count as an abortion in their minds (or mine).   I do agree they are hypocrites, but not necessarily because Josie was induced early instead of waiting for both of them to die naturally.

Josie was not induced.

Josie was born via an emergency C-section because Michelle's life was in danger.

Someone with sky high blood pressure would not be induced at 25 weeks.

[JMO]

1 hour ago, SassyPants said:

Josie was not induced.

Josie was born via an emergency C-section because Michelle's life was in danger.

Someone with sky high blood pressure would not be induced at 25 weeks.

I actually would wonder what they would have done if Michelle was earlier in her pregnancy.  At 25 weeks Josie had a chance of viability and survival.  What if Michelle was 21 weeks?  What would have they done then?  I know several neonatologists and medicine is pushing viability and medical intervention ever earlier but what if she was before that point where the NICU could or would do anything?  Would they have still consented to the C section? 

[ksgranola1]

Quote

 

I worked in an abortion clinic for years. None of those girls came in for the procedure casually. They were all upset and scared. Most of them were teens or twenty-ish and they were all acutely aware of the tragic side of it. One was a thirteen year old kidnap victim. She hadn't started her periods yet It must have been her first ovulation. She was very brave. oOne girl yawned while she was under anesthesia and dislocated her jaw. We had to get the dentist upstairs to come down & reduce it. One woman had 9 children & certainly didn't want any more. The only casual case I ever witnessed was a woman who had had 9 abortions. The doctor & the counselor told her of the dangers and absurdity of using abortion as birth control. Tissue from the procedure was sent to a lab to make sure we did indeed remove the products of conception. We did sonograms on them all to make sure they were within the 12 week limit. I had one girl who was 36 weeks and she insisted she had only missed 2 periods. She was shaken to the core. We made an appointment withPlanned Parenthood and the counselors talked to her about adoption. She was 17. I did a sonogram on one girl who was carrying triplets. The doctor didn't feel he needed to tell her that but I thought in might change her decision. I wasn't allowed to tell her myself. It's haunted me these past 20 years. If she didn't want one baby why would she want 3; I get that, but it still bothers me.

The other thing is, if we let congress decide whether we should have a baby, that leaves the door open for them to tell us when we cannot have a baby generations down the road. My generation fought to make Roe v. Wade a law, I just hope today's young women don't let it slide b/c congress will slip it by them if given the chance.

[xlurker]

Want to pipe in on the abortion discussion.  I whole heartedly believe to my core that it has no place in legislation...let me re-word that...religion in any form, has no place in legislation.  Do I believe a fetus is a life? Yes.  Do I believe a woman should have a choice regardless of my personal views?  ABSOLUTLY!  Should R v W be overturned, would it end abortions? Nope.  Will women and girls die due to it be overturned? Again, yes.  If these folks care so much about life, why do they not consider the life that is already present in its totally viable form?

 

 

 

 

 

[Cassielfsw]

30 minutes ago, JMO said:

I actually would wonder what they would have done if Michelle was earlier in her pregnancy.  At 25 weeks Josie had a chance of viability and survival.  What if Michelle was 21 weeks?  What would have they done then?  I know several neonatologists and medicine is pushing viability and medical intervention ever earlier but what if she was before that point where the NICU could or would do anything?  Would they have still consented to the C section? 

This is the $1,000,000 question. I would love for someone to ask the Duggars this on tape. 

[Cassielfsw]

12 minutes ago, xlurker said:

Want to pipe in on the abortion discussion.  I whole heartedly believe to my core that it has no place in legislation...let me re-word that...religion in any form, has no place in legislation.  Do I believe a fetus is a life? Yes.  Do I believe a woman should have a choice regardless of my personal views?  ABSOLUTLY!  Should R v W be overturned, would it end abortions? Nope.  Will women and girls die due to it be overturned? Again, yes.  If these folks care so much about life, why do they not consider the life that is already present in its totally viable form?

 

 

 

 

 

And why do they oppose universal health care even though people die?  Why are they so eager to start wars in which people will die? Why are they A-OK with poisoning children (in Michigan)?

A couple of years ago a woman died in Ireland because she was miscarrying but her body was retaining the fetus. She begged and pleaded for an abortion,  but was refused because the fetus still had a heartbeat. All involved agreed that she was miscarrying the pregnancy and it was not possible to save her fetus. Due to the refusal of the hospital to provide appropriate medical care, she got sepsis and by the time her fetus finally passed it was too late to help her. How could it possibly be pro-life to insist on two deaths when it could have been only one? 

It's very difficult for me to conclude anything other than that they don't actually care about life. 

[Hera]

I suspect that Michelle would have done the C-section and left it up to Gothard.  I mean, the Lord.  

As for why these people don't care that women will die having abortions if R v. W is overturned, they don't actually care about life. Once you're  born you're on your own.  

And this is especially the case with female life.  The whole notion of men who don't agree with abortion even in the instance of rape because all babies are blessings from god might be the most horrifying thing I have ever heard.  Not sure which part is worse: the insinuation that a woman should feel that getting raped was ultimately a blessing or the insinuation that all women want babies, regardless of where they come from, rapist or not.  And of course, every woman has the right to feel and respond to this particular situation however she wants.  Her life, her body, her experience, her choice.  It's just the idea that some dude she's never met thinks he can tell her how to feel and act that blows my mind and makes it clear how these folks just don't consider women as actual people.  

I always wonder what one of these men would do if it were their wife or daughter who got pregnant after being raped.  Would he consider it a blessing?  Would he raise his wife's rapists' child as their own?  Want to see his granddaughter's life derailed due to having to have her rapists' baby?  Force her to marry him?  Call them cheaters or whores because everyone knows that a woman's body can totally shut down the baby thing in the event of an actual rape so if there's a baby, there must not have been a rape?  All of it is so gross.   

 

[karen77]

Not that I wish them strife, or something incredibly tragic, but I really wish one of them would go through some situation where their simplistic views would be challenged, and they'd have to make a decision that they currently would be against.

[SilverBeach]

21 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

However, maybe we can be more forgiving of the well-meaning bigot, even when we do everything we can to stop his bigotry (or worse) from increasing in power and influence.

Really? Not me. Well-meaning bigot is an oxymoron.

On 1/24/2016 at 3:39 PM, EmCatlyn said:

But most importantly, it is not the "insensitivity" for which we should fault him (and the Benhams, and the other Duggars etc.) It is the narrowmindedness that leads the to oppose Gay rights and so forth.

Narrowmindedness and insensitivity go hand in hand. 

On 1/25/2016 at 5:37 AM, Front Hugging Fiend said:

For example, almost everyone abhors Hitler's actions as unjust, evil, horrific and morally wrong. But in his mind, if he thought what he was doing was right, how does that affect how we perceive his actions?

It wouldn't affect my perceptions one damn bit since Hitler was a raving lunatic. Crimes against humanity are not subject to moral relativity, in my opinion. Besides, the Nazis knew they were wrong which is why they tried to cover up their wrongdoing by blowing up concentrations camps.

[DuringThisSeasonOfLife]

1 hour ago, karen77 said:

Not that I wish them strife, or something incredibly tragic, but I really wish one of them would go through some situation where their simplistic views would be challenged, and they'd have to make a decision that they currently would be against.

In a far smaller way, less earth shattering way, they're probably going through a version of that with Josh now. I'm sure what he did was just impossible to fathom for a boy raised in the good ways of Gothardism.

It's not the same as having to say yes to a medical abortion to save the mother (which would shake anyone, let alone them), but I'm sure it's something unthinkable in their world.

[Hera]

1 minute ago, DuringThisSeasonOfLife said:

In a far smaller way, less earth shattering way, they're probably going through a version of that with Josh now. I'm sure what he did was just impossible to fathom for a boy raised in the good ways of Gothardism.

It's not the same as having to say yes to a medical abortion to save the mother (which would shake anyone, let alone them), but I'm sure it's something unthinkable in their world.

You'd think so, but I suspect the reality is that Josh's behavior isn't that far from the norm in Gothardism.  Per JB and M, most of the people they know have dealt with molestation, which is mind-boggling, but I don't doubt it.  I also don't doubt that in a society like theirs where women are responsible for both causing and satiating men's "urges," cheating is fairly common, too.  And it's always the woman's fault and the couples stay together and "heal" through the "church" or whatever.  Sadly, I suspect in his parents' eyes, Josh's biggest sin was the publicity his actions caused.  That's why he got sent away.  Not because cheating (or molestation) are so unheard of they just don't know how to deal. 

[MoonFace]

Thought I was pregnant with a third baby in 3 years (got pregnant with the second one with the IUD in place while I was nursing)  I was pre-eclampsic iwth the second one and she almost didn't make it - the babies were a year apart exactly.   The doctor said that if I didn't have a period within a week he was NOT going to do a pregnancy test but would perform a "menstral extraction' (back in the 70's)   It was just too dangerous for me to have another child and survive.      Luckily, it didn't have to happen.   

When I got pregnant with the IUD in place I was advised to abort.   I CHOSE not to- but that was MY decision and my husband was agreeable.   We got lucky in that the baby was healthy. 

I support a woman's right to make her own informed decisions

 

[DuringThisSeasonOfLife]

27 minutes ago, MoonFace said:

Thought I was pregnant with a third baby in 3 years (got pregnant with the second one with the IUD in place while I was nursing)  I was pre-eclampsic iwth the second one and she almost didn't make it - the babies were a year apart exactly.   The doctor said that if I didn't have a period within a week he was NOT going to do a pregnancy test but would perform a "menstral extraction' (back in the 70's)   It was just too dangerous for me to have another child and survive.      Luckily, it didn't have to happen.   

When I got pregnant with the IUD in place I was advised to abort.   I CHOSE not to- but that was MY decision and my husband was agreeable.   We got lucky in that the baby was healthy. 

I support a woman's right to make her own informed decisions

 

God that whole situation sounds terrifying... I'm glad that things worked out for you guys!

29 minutes ago, Hera said:

Sadly, I suspect in his parents' eyes, Josh's biggest sin was the publicity his actions caused.

As awful as it sounds, you're probably right 

[Ofglen]

On 1/24/2016 at 4:39 PM, EmCatlyn said:

any more than I expect female Muslim students in my class who are wearing veils to be "sensitive" to how uncomfortable this expression of limited rights for women makes me

please don't tell me you actually think this about your veiled muslim students?? 

yikes

People interpret their religious beliefs differently. Wearing a hijab doesn't mean they're oppressed by it or fundamentalists. Can we get beyond this dated thought?

[sophie10130]

Many women consider the hijab to be personally freeing. As in, they have the freedom to express their religion and the freedom to choose whether or not they want to fit the mold of the typical face of beauty in the western world. It isn't always oppressive. But anyone forcing that oppressive stereotype on hijabis IS oppressive. 

[patsymae]

On January 25, 2016 at 10:31 PM, Catey said:

Why not? I think that people should be able to hold onto whatever hate filled judgemental doctrine that gets them through the night, I do wish that people would be more considerate of what they actively display to others. It is so much more than just the gay rights stance for me with those boys, it was all the public flaunting and misrepresentation of Jane Roe that pisses me off.

Either way, I understand that people can wear whatever they want,, but just like I would call someone out with a stupid I survived Roe vs Wade shirt or someone wearing a Hitler costume on Halloween I see wearing their shirt as equally inappropriate.

I despise Trump, yet I still wouldn't wear a shirt espousing those thoughts, while I would be happy to debate his ideas all night long I just think that some things are rude, tacky and offensive. I KNOW that the Duggars and many of their ilk are never going to see it that way, but I will always want more from all of them.

I'm on the opposite side--I couldn't care less if someone is offended by my clothing or what is printed on my t-shirt, or what bumper sticker I have on my car (if I were to put a bumper sticker on my car.) Some Donald Trump lover gets his/her delicate sensitivities offended? Too bad. I don't know when society seems to have gotten the idea that everyone has to be inoffensive or that we have the right not to ever be confronted with anything we might find distasteful. 

[Catey]

17 minutes ago, patsymae said:

I don't know when society seems to have gotten the idea that everyone has to be inoffensive or that we have the right not to ever be confronted with anything we might find distasteful. 

For me it was right when 90% of LGBT teens reported being physical or verbally abused at school.

When between 30-40% of LGBT teens attempt to commit suicide.

The leading causes of minority stress are interpersonal prejudice and discrimination.

When you have the brothers over and over again tying homosexuality to Satan they are square in the middle of the people adding to the rampant homophobia that these teens have to deal with every day of their life.

People who make statements  like  "Christians must be "willing to die" in fight against marriage equality and other LGBT rights"

are part of the problem. People would call someone out for wearing a KKK shirt, the Confederate flag got taken down after the Charleston church shooting and there are many people who find wearing a shirt that promotes people with their agenda equally offensive. It is not a matter of not being confronted with what I find distasteful it is about saying that is not OK, and eventually hoping that the tides of change continue to a point where it is no longer  okay to just casually were a shirt that is .a clear homophobic statement.

[EmCatlyn]

18 hours ago, foreign fundie said:

I find it very sad that the 'pro life' side of things is so often represented by people who are anti-choice.

I believe a woman should be free to choose to engage in sexual activities or not. No woman should ever be forced in or outside marriage. And women should be free to learn about their fertility and choose anti-conception if they want. And I believe women of all ages should have the freedom AND the support they need to keep and raise the child they conceive, also when the child was unplanned. 

Also women should not in my opinion willingly engage in sexual activity if there is a risk of pregnancy which they are not willing to face the consequences of. Nor should men btw, as they have every bit as much responsibility for the child if conceived. Abortion is never a small matter, and can have emotional and physical side effects.

Personally I think an abortion is a tragedy that should be prevented if at all possible. Taking human life in your hands is a very serious issue and no child should ever be so unwelcome that it is not allowed to be born.

I think society has the responsibility to promote the protection of women so that unwanted pregnancies through rape or force are minimized. And to make sure there is support for women to raise their babies so abortion and adoption are never forced by economics. And men and women have their responsibility to make sure they don't make babies they can or will not raise. 

Although I think abortion is a tragedy, I realise a woman can/should not be forced to have a baby if she really does not want it, after all options have been offered and discussed. An unborn baby is at it's mother's mercy in that sense. Society cannot ultimately protect unborn babies without the mother's cooperation. In such cases I believe a medically safe abortion should be available, lest the mother should endanger herself.

And there will always be tragic cases of incest, medical complications and babies who cannot live after birth. These should in my opinion be looked at individually and the tragedy be minimized in what ever way is best, carefully considering the mother's needs.

So although I believe every baby deserves the right to be born, I do realise this moral viewpoint can at best be promoted, but cannot be forced on autonomous individual women. 

As for pro-life activists, I think most of the effort should go to fighting rape culture, ignorance about reproductive health, and poverty. This will hopefully prevent the bulk of abortions.

If zero abortions is unattainable at least I hope to see the day that every woman who wants to keep her child can keep it.

I tend to agree with you. I think there was a "pro-life" campaign about 10 years ago (or was it 15?) that had at its slogan "Life, what a beautiful choice!"  I liked the approach of encouraging women facing unplanned/unwanted pregnancies to choose childbirth over abortion.  

Ideally abortions "should" only happen when the mother's health is in danger or the infant is known to be facing major health problems upon birth.  (I am talking of conditions that will cause long-term acute suffering, and have a risk of death.) I agree that as a society we should do everything to make abortion unnecessary, especially when the choice to abort is from economic or social (reputation) concerns.  But abortion should not be illegal.

No sensible person thinks of abortion as other than a last resort, a sad choice. Yet the rights of an individual to her own body need to be respected.  The pro-life approach should focus on making it possible for more women to choose life, rather than being forced to carry an unwanted child to term.

I agree also that parents should not be forced to choose between abortion or giving up a child for adoption because they can't afford to feed and care for a(nother) baby.

 

[EmCatlyn]

8 hours ago, Ofglen said:

please don't tell me you actually think this about your veiled muslim students?? 

yikes

People interpret their religious beliefs differently. Wearing a hijab doesn't mean they're oppressed by it or fundamentalists. Can we get beyond this dated thought?

I don't know why my students wear the hijab or what it means individually to them. And I respect their right to wear it.

However, I was talking about what veiled women mean to me.  And I feel the same way about veiled women as I feel about women who won't wear pants or who feel their skirts have to be a certain length etc. to express their modesty.

I find fundamentalist attitudes towards women offensive.  This is equally true whether the fundamentalists are Catholics, Evangelical Protestants, Jews or Muslims.   Specifically, the idea that women are secondary to men permeates most if not all extremely conservative "we are the only ones who know how to worship God right" groups.

The hijab or chador or burqa is a statement, a declaration of identity with a particular type of Islamic beliefs and practices.  My veiled students are not permitted by their religion to have a male study partner. Some are not permitted by their religion to have their (veiled!) picture taken with a mixed group of students.  Yes, I see the veil as a symbol of patriarchal oppression.

I am old enough to remember when women couldn't enter a Catholic Church with an uncovered head.  The reason we no longer do it was that the veiling was associated with ideas of female modesty and subservience. 

14 hours ago, SassyPants said:

Josie was not induced.

Josie was born via an emergency C-section because Michelle's life was in danger.

Someone with sky high blood pressure would not be induced at 25 weeks.

That's right, but my point is the same.  A C-sectiion is not the same as an abortion.

[foreign fundie]

12 hours ago, Cassielfsw said:

And why do they oppose universal health care even though people die?  Why are they so eager to start wars in which people will die? Why are they A-OK with poisoning children (in Michigan)?

A couple of years ago a woman died in Ireland because she was miscarrying but her body was retaining the fetus. She begged and pleaded for an abortion,  but was refused because the fetus still had a heartbeat. All involved agreed that she was miscarrying the pregnancy and it was not possible to save her fetus. Due to the refusal of the hospital to provide appropriate medical care, she got sepsis and by the time her fetus finally passed it was too late to help her. How could it possibly be pro-life to insist on two deaths when it could have been only one? 

It's very difficult for me to conclude anything other than that they don't actually care about life. 

Although I share your indignance about these examples, I do not share this conclusion. 

They may very well care about life, but they have other priorities too, such as protecting their country and freedoms, or following the rules.

Just like pro-choice people also care about life, but want to protect women's autonomy.

Again it saddens me how this debate is clouded by the shouts of ignorant people and their copy-paste viewpoints.

Personally I think many people on the pro-life side are driven by the inherent horror of ending a child's life, the way abortion is spoken of (a simple medical procedure, an industry, a woman's right) which can be devoid of moral awareness, and the assumption that abortion is an easy way to deal with the fall-out of an immoral life style.

Pro-choicers tend to react to the overly conservative ideas of some prominent pro-lifers, who see having children as a womanly duty or against the near comlete absence of nuance on the pro-life site of the debate, as well as a fear that their personal choices would be taken away by a bunch of moralistic cave men. 

I am sure well meaning people can come a long way in forging a compomise for maximum protection of women and unborn children while retaining their principles. 

[Whoosh]

I have some different views and beliefs than some here and that actually carries over into the way I think about and talk about the right to choose and the decision to terminate a pregnancy.  I don't expect a diverse crowd to agree with me on all of what I believe and I (mostly) don't think I am RIGHT!!!!!11!11!1!!! and others are not and thus I typically just keep it to myself (which is what I will do now).

I just wanted to take a second to say that I just read the last few pages of this thread and I am simply beyond impressed with the ability of a few of you to express your views on the abortion issue with clarity, reason, compassion, and sensitivity to the rights and needs of women as a whole.  Thanks for sharing those thoughts.

[EmCatlyn]

8 hours ago, sophie10130 said:

Many women consider the hijab to be personally freeing. As in, they have the freedom to express their religion and the freedom to choose whether or not they want to fit the mold of the typical face of beauty in the western world. It isn't always oppressive. But anyone forcing that oppressive stereotype on hijabis IS oppressive. 

Thank you.  Regardless of how some women may choose or embrace being veiled, my point was not about their feelings and reasons but of what the veiling of women symbolizes to me.  

As I explained in my previous message, I respect Muslim (and other) women's choice to go around veiled if they so choose. But wearing a veil gives a message.  It may or may not be the message one intends, and it may or may not be the "right" message... But it is still a message. 

The question I was raising was that if we are going to fault the Duggars (or anyone else) as "insensitive" for wearing clothes that express (or represent, or symbolize) beliefs or views that make others uncomfortable, where do we stop? 

 

[SilverBeach]

9 hours ago, Catey said:

It is not a matter of not being confronted with what I find distasteful it is about saying that is not OK, and eventually hoping that the tides of change continue to a point where it is no longer  okay to just casually were a shirt that is .a clear homophobic statement.

+1000

[NakedKnees]

7 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

Thank you.  Regardless of how some women may choose or embrace being veiled, my point was not about their feelings and reasons but of what the veiling of women symbolizes to me.  

As I explained in my previous message, I respect Muslim (and other) women's choice to go around veiled if they so choose. But wearing a veil gives a message.  It may or may not be the message one intends, and it may or may not be the "right" message... But it is still a message. 

The question I was raising was that if we are going to fault the Duggars (or anyone else) as "insensitive" for wearing clothes that express (or represent, or symbolize) beliefs or views that make others uncomfortable, where do we stop? 

 

I get the impression that we may be on the same page here, but I used to agree with you 100% regarding hijabs and how they made me feel. Over time, my answer to your question has changed to regard privilege a bit more. In Western counties like the US, Christian women do not generally face oppression from public institutions and the public in general for wearing conservative Christian garb. However, Muslim women face everything from stares to violence to legislation for wearing their religious clothes, and I've come to find that unjust, and worth sympathizing with.

On the other hand, I'm sure there are many parts of the world where the opposite is true, and in those contexts, that would be unjust as well. I don't know where you are from, but in the US (and the Americas in general), the "message" the comes from covered Christian women and covered Muslim women just doesn't seem equal. "Where we stop" should be wherever is most just.

And at the end of the day, how many of us women are really free from oppressive modesty standards? I would wager that most of the women in this forum aren't particularly dedicated to the Free the Nipple campaign or anything like that.