Jump to content
IGNORED

Duggars by the Dozen - General Discussion Part 16


Coconut Flan

Recommended Posts

On 2016-01-21 at 8:55 PM, Bugaboo said:

The Duggar family official fb posted about Joseph's birthday today. They said he completed a year at Clown and is now home doing work for the construction business. He's apparently going for his real estate license. So I guess no more college for him....just a taste if it is enough.

 

BTW, happy birthday Joe.

I would have no particular hope for the academic integrity of Clown College, but I suspect, however minimal their standards, Joe could not meet them. Remember, he is part of a family where education is not taken at all seriously, and there is no attempt to encourage the students to study intently, analyze, memorize, or critically evaluate.

Like most of the Duggar spawn (with the possible exceptions of Johannah and Josiah), Joe never struck me as being very bright, though it's like his potential has been considerably dampened by his anti-intellectual, anti-science upbringing.

I'm guessing that, whatever courses Joe took, he did not do at all well, so JimBoob and MEEEchelle decided to cut their losses and withdrew him.

I'm also guessing that it was JimBoob and MEEEchelle who decided he could now do construction work and try to get a real estate license. He's still under their "umbrella," so they get to determine his fate.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 537
  • Created
  • Last Reply
10 hours ago, foreign fundie said:

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. (1) 

Again it saddens me how this debate is clouded by the shouts of ignorant people and their copy-paste viewpoints. (2) 

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. (3) 

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. 

Ugh, why won't it let me split the quote into multiple parts? 

1. Isn't that really the same thing I said though? They say they're making these decisions based on a reverence for "life", but in actual fact they have other concerns. They reject universal health care because they are more offended about their taxes going up or about people they don't approve of having access to health care, than about people dying. They deny treatment to pregnant women because dogma is more important to them than medical ethics and preserving life. Meanwhile they call their movement pro LIFE and tell anyone who will listen to them that they believe LIFE is sacred and precious and to be preserved at all costs. But that's plainly NOT what's motivating their actions, otherwise their actions would be different. I am not trying to paint anybody with a broad brush. If they want me to think they really and truly revere life, they should try acting like it. I should note that by them I mean the politicians who are passing these laws and making these decisions. I do recognize that pro life people on the ground may actually possess a functioning conscience. But those people need to ask themselves if the people they vote for are actually representing their beliefs? If these draconian restrictions and public misinformation campaigns are actually producing the results they were told they would? 

2. I really hope you don't think I'm just ignorantly shouting and copy and pasting someone else's viewpoint. I believe you have put actual thought into your positions and beliefs and are arguing in good faith. Shouldn't the other side also get the same courtesy? 

3. Our choices ARE being taken away. It's not a hypothetical. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NakedKnees said:

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. :pb_biggrin: 

I'm probably more "dedicated" to the Free the Nipple campaign than I am to Christian or Muslim modesty standards, in that I talk about it more and with a broader group of people. It is fucked up that breasts are so sexualized that they can be exposed when they are in a push up bra but not in taking care of an infant. And it, as a topic, just comes up more in daily life as I am at an age where friends are having babies. In general, I try to avoid discussing other people's clothing like I avoid discussing other people's gender identity. There is just so much inherent personal nuance at that level. Oppressive thought systems that limit people's ability to go with what feels right to them, those are fair game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Cassielfsw said:

Ugh, why won't it let me split the quote into multiple parts? 

1. Isn't that really the same thing I said though? They say they're making these decisions based on a reverence for "life", but in actual fact they have other concerns. They reject universal health care because they are more offended about their taxes going up or about people they don't approve of having access to health care, than about people dying. They deny treatment to pregnant women because dogma is more important to them than medical ethics and preserving life. Meanwhile they call their movement pro LIFE and tell anyone who will listen to them that they believe LIFE is sacred and precious and to be preserved at all costs. But that's plainly NOT what's motivating their actions, otherwise their actions would be different. I am not trying to paint anybody with a broad brush. If they want me to think they really and truly revere life, they should try acting like it. I should note that by them I mean the politicians who are passing these laws and making these decisions. I do recognize that pro life people on the ground may actually possess a functioning conscience. But those people need to ask themselves if the people they vote for are actually representing their beliefs? If these draconian restrictions and public misinformation campaigns are actually producing the results they were told they would?

2. I really hope you don't think I'm just ignorantly shouting and copy and pasting someone else's viewpoint. I believe you have put actual thought into your positions and beliefs and are arguing in good faith. Shouldn't the other side also get the same courtesy? 

3. Our choices ARE being taken away. It's not a hypothetical. 

1. Pro-life as I understand it refers to valueing the sanctity of life over any individual's personal wishes when it comes to the question of aborting unborn babies. The protection of the mother's life when there is a need for it, should be relevant in the discussion.  I think this exception (abortion when the mother's life is in danger)  is made, even by many fundies.  And I fully agree with you that it should.

When it comes to war, it is not so relevant in the pro-life discussion. It is also a matter of life and death but in a very different way. And not all pro-lifers are pro-war. But if a war is fought to protect the lives of a given people group, pro-life and pro-war could hypothetically co-exist. 

Why many fundies reject Obamacare is a complete mystery to me. I cannot comment. Obamacare just seemed so way over due to me...

2. Actually I was not talking about you at all, but about the often ignorant copy-paste viewpoints of pro-lifers. Ignorance and misinformation can be convincing, but I will not choose to fight my battles like that. I share their (assumed) concern for unborn children, but feel majorly embarressed to associate with some of them. And I wish they would shut up and let reasonable people debate. 

3. Are you talking about a possible overturn of Roe vs Wade? Because I honestly don't think this fear is justified. I also expect the political influence of fundieism will wane, and will do so fast. It is a secular age. I consider RvsW a long lost battle and hope that all those who want to protect unborn life will do so by focussing on changing hearts, not laws.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, foreign fundie said:

3. Are you talking about a possible overturn of Roe vs Wade? Because I honestly don't think this fear is justified. I also expect the political influence of fundieism will wane, and will do so fast. It is a secular age. I consider RvsW a long lost battle and hope that all those who want to protect unborn life will do so by focussing on changing hearts, not laws.

 

I'm talking about the hundreds of abortion restrictions that have been passed just in the last five years. I'm talking about the fact that 87% of all US counties have no abortion providers (and that figure is from 2008, it has gone up since then but I can't find current data). I'm talking about how the clinics that are still open are under continuous attack, both political and arson, shootings, bombings, and threats of same. I'm talking about the fact that women are being charged with murder for having miscarriages. I'm talking about the mandatory waiting periods that make it so women seeking an abortion have to go to the clinic not once but twice, (which in many areas of the country is a 100+ mile trip),  get a hotel, take several days off work,  possibly lose their job while they're gone due to the time off, all of which poses a significant and undue financial burden on them. I'm talking about how many hospitals in the US are now owned by the Catholic Church and accordingly refuse to provide birth control, emergency BC in case of rape, or any abortion care regardless of reason, even if they are the only hospital for miles and the mother's health or life is at stake. I'm talking about the ways in which it doesn't even matter what happens to Roe v Wade because it has been made effectively irrelevant. 

That's what I'm talking about. We're well PAST worrying about Roe v Wade. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, foreign fundie said:

Are you talking about a possible overturn of Roe vs Wade? Because I honestly don't think this fear is justified. I also expect the political influence of fundieism will wane, and will do so fast. It is a secular age.

I do have concerns, though at the moment, it does seem to be 5-4 on SCOTUS in favor of Roe,  However, individual states are whittling away at Roe and SCOTUS doesn't always push back.  Moreover, it may be a secular age, but because of gerrymandering, conservatives tend to be in many states and of the  US House of Representatives.  Finally, Trump has tapped into genuine fears and may well become the Republican candidate for POTUS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a slightly less adversarial note, I really wish that more pro lifers would recognize that we have many goals in common. Instead of focusing all their energy on shaming and coercing women into remaining pregnant against their will, how about making sure public schools have comprehensive, medically accurate sex ed, and that birth control is freely available to everyone who wants it, and that people have access to health care (I mean actual universal health care like the civilized countries have, not the piss poor excuse we have now), paid maternity leave, living wage jobs, and affordable child care, so no one feels like they have to abort for financial reasons? 

I really feel like focusing so much on abortion itself does everyone a disservice. The real problem to be solved is not how to best twist women's arms into making the decisions we want them to make,  but how to help them avoid being put in that position in the first place. Then everyone's happy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cassielfsw said:

On a slightly less adversarial note, I really wish that more pro lifers would recognize that we have many goals in common. Instead of focusing all their energy on shaming and coercing women into remaining pregnant against their will, how about making sure public schools have comprehensive, medically accurate sex ed, and that birth control is freely available to everyone who wants it, and that people have access to health care (I mean actual universal health care like the civilized countries have, not the piss poor excuse we have now), paid maternity leave, living wage jobs, and affordable child care, so no one feels like they have to abort for financial reasons? 

I really feel like focusing so much on abortion itself does everyone a disservice. The real problem to be solved is not how to best twist women's arms into making the decisions we want them to make,  but how to help them avoid being put in that position in the first place. Then everyone's happy. 

I agree.

I also believe that for many fundies, the focus on abortion is really a bait and switch.  It really is about control of women (and their bodies) and pictures of aborted fetuses plays better in the media than admitting the real issue it the fear of (predominantly white) men losing their status in and control of the universe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, NakedKnees said:

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. :pb_biggrin: 

I am in the US, and I can honestly say that I support and respect all people's choices regarding clothing, food, etc.  That doesn't mean that I don't feel discomfort connected to certain clothes, food and practices.  And I don't think I should feel ashamed of that discomfort so long as it doesn't cause me to act in ways that limit other people's choices.

I would never support laws that deny people the right to wear the clothes their faith and/or culture prescribes for them.  Even if I believe they are mistaken, it is their right.  

This is true whether the person is Christian, Jew or Muslim.  And I equally make allowance for people wearing shirts with logos or pictures that reflect views I disagree with.  I may find most "Pro Life" messages on t-shirts offensive, but I don't think that pro-lifers need to change their shirts to be "sensitive" to my feelings.   Similarly I would not change my pro-choice shirt to be "sensitive" to theirs.

Tolerance of others requires tolerance of the way they choose to present themselves and their views.  Real tolerance is not when you respect other people's messages so long as they don't offend you. It is when you recognize that you have to respect another person's right to express a view that offends you.

Discomfort is not necessarily bad.  Complaining about being made uncomfortable may be a way of refusing to change or of not respecting others' right to be different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, gustava said:

I do have concerns, though at the moment, it does seem to be 5-4 on SCOTUS in favor of Roe,  However, individual states are whittling away at Roe and SCOTUS doesn't always push back.  Moreover, it may be a secular age, but because of gerrymandering, conservatives tend to be in many states and of the  US House of Representatives.  Finally, Trump has tapped into genuine fears and may well become the Republican candidate for POTUS.

At the moment, yes. But consider the changes that will occur during the next presidential term. RBG is 82. Scalia and Kennedy are both 79. Whoever wins this election will likely be appointing 3 SCOTUS seats, particularly if they serve a second term. The fact that Trump could choose RBG's replacement makes my skin crawl. Plus, as @Cassielfsw has stated, Roe v. Wade may be currently upheld, but there are plenty of restrictions that effectively remove abortion as an option for many women. As great an option as adoption is, it isn't a panacea.

 

If anyone hasn't read Freakonomics, the chapter entitled "Where have all the criminals gone" is worth a perusal! (hint: the criminals were aborted).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/27/2016 at 1:24 AM, EmCatlyn said:

 

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.

 

Adoption is not wanting to be a parent, abortion is ending a pregnancy. They are not the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, PokaDot said:

Adoption is not wanting to be a parent, abortion is ending a pregnancy. They are not the same thing.

True, they are not one and the same thing. But adoption is not a panacea for those who don't want to be parents. There are a LOT of concerns inherent the choice to put your child up for adoption, just as there are a lot of concerns inherent in the choice to abort. No two situations are the same, and there is a lot of personal nuance in all such cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, missegeno said:

True, they are not one and the same thing. But adoption is not a panacea for those who don't want to be parents. There are a LOT of concerns inherent the choice to put your child up for adoption, just as there are a lot of concerns inherent in the choice to abort. No two situations are the same, and there is a lot of personal nuance in all such cases.

True, but 99% of the time, many pro-lifers just go "omg, just adopt" and don't consider that some people need to stop the pregnancy, and it's not the parenthood part that is undesired. There are many people that a pregnancy could kill them, and they should not be judged for needing to end a desired one (well, no one should be judged for wanting an abortion, but that's a different discussion).

 

This is why I loathe that stupid Glen Beck meme about changing a few letters in Abortion to Adoption. It's not the same damn thing, and if you  (general you) can't understand that, you (again, general you) should not be debating the topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/16/2016 at 9:28 PM, HereticHick said:

Josh is a lumberjack and he's OK?

David Waller would be better for that part than Josh.  Priscilla would nail the befuddled sweetheart bit in that skit, too.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, PokaDot said:

Adoption is not wanting to be a parent, abortion is ending a pregnancy. They are not the same thing.

I don't think I said they were the same thing.  I believe I was agreeing with someone else who said that lack of money shouldn't put women in the position of choosing between abortion and giving up the child for adoption.  The point was that in a perfect world pregnant women would have better choices.  A lot of women who have abortions might choose to have and keep the babies if the could afford it.

I disagree that giving up a child for  "adoption is not wanting to be a parent."  Sometimes women want to be mothers  but they know/believe/fear that they won't be able to support or take good care of the child.  So they give the baby to someone who (they hope) will provide for the child as the biological mother cannot.  It is a selfless decision and I admire the women who make it tremendously.

And some women have abortions for similar reasons, because they can't face bringing a child into the world that they can't support or care for.   Other women, as you point out in another message, need abortions for health reasons.  And still others choose abortion rather that bring a child who is going to be ill into the world.

There are, in fact, a lot of different reasons for choosing to abort a pregnancy or to give birth and either give the child up or keep it.  I support women having the choice to make the decision that is best for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On January 27, 2016 at 1:51 AM, foreign fundie said:

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

2) Personally I think many people on the pro-life side are driven by... the assumption that abortion is an easy way to deal with the fall-out of an immoral life style.

3) 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. 

1) If you are referring to the way this issue is polarized and depicted in the media, then I can see your point. If you are referring to some of us here at FJ, this is incredibly insulting. The nature of FJ is such that we are all critically-thinking individuals and have thought through our beliefs.

2) In my opinion, the belief that an unwanted pregnancy is the "result of an immoral lifestyle" reveals the believer's ignorance. I think that individuals who believe this should actually talk to women (more than one) who have had abortions and listen to their stories.

3) I agree with this idea. However, in my opinion, this compromise was already made with Roe vs. Wade.

*We need a "disagree" button that isn't the down vote button.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, warriorblade8857 said:

 

*We need a "disagree" button that isn't the down vote button.

I like this idea.  @FloraKitty35ThankS.  InOW have ThiS song stuck IN my head.

Every time I try to quote, or put in an @somebody, the keyboard on my tablet goes insane with caps. Aargh. I've been spurgeoned again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On January 27, 2016 at 3:05 PM, goldfishgoddess said:

Michelle's fave rag...
 

christianmag.jpg

Her hair is not long enough. This heathen has had her crowning glory cut off. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, warriorblade8857 said:

1) If you are referring to the way this issue is polarized and depicted in the media, then I can see your point. If you are referring to some of us here at FJ, this is incredibly insulting. The nature of FJ is such that we are all critically-thinking individuals and have thought through our beliefs.

2) In my opinion, the belief that an unwanted pregnancy is the "result of an immoral lifestyle" reveals the believer's ignorance. I think that individuals who believe this should actually talk to women (more than one) who have had abortions and listen to their stories.

3) I agree with this idea. However, in my opinion, this compromise was already made with Roe vs. Wade.

*We need a "disagree" button that isn't the down vote button.

1) As I already clarified in another post, I was referring to how many pro-life people chose to debate this issue. Which should be clear from the context anyway.  Is it really so hard to believe that some one who thinks abortion should be avoided where possible is at the same time abhorred by the way many pro-lifers in the US make this case? It seems really, really obvious to me that any sane person with pro-life sympathies feels nothing but shame and horror when watching the way fundies debate this issue in public. It is their attitude that gave me a lot more understanding and sympathy for women arguing on the other side.

2. Agree. It is the same reasoning as saying people have aids for living immorally. Sometimes that can be true. But it should never be assumed in a given case.

3. Sorry no time left now to answer this!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, PokaDot said:
21 hours ago, missegeno said:
True, they are not one and the same thing. But adoption is not a panacea for those who don't want to be parents. There are a LOT of concerns inherent the choice to put your child up for adoption, just as there are a lot of concerns inherent in the choice to abort. No two situations are the same, and there is a lot of personal nuance in all such cases.

 

Quote

 

True, but 99% of the time, many pro-lifers just go "omg, just adopt" and don't consider that some people need to stop the pregnancy, and it's not the parenthood part that is undesired. There are many people that a pregnancy could kill them, and they should not be judged for needing to end a desired one (well, no one should be judged for wanting an abortion, but that's a different discussion).

 

This is why I loathe that stupid Glen Beck meme about changing a few letters in Abortion to Adoption. It's not the same damn thing, and if you  (general you) can't understand that, you (again, general you) should not be debating the topic.

 

And by @EmCatlyn:
 

Quote

 

A lot of women who have abortions might choose to have and keep the babies if the could afford it.

I disagree that giving up a child for  "adoption is not wanting to be a parent."  Sometimes women want to be mothers  but they know/believe/fear that they won't be able to support or take good care of the child.  So they give the baby to someone who (they hope) will provide for the child as the biological mother cannot.  It is a selfless decision and I admire the women who make it tremendously.

And some women have abortions for similar reasons, because they can't face bringing a child into the world that they can't support or care for.   Other women, as you point out in another message, need abortions for health reasons.  And still others choose abortion rather that bring a child who is going to be ill into the world.

There are, in fact, a lot of different reasons for choosing to abort a pregnancy or to give birth and either give the child up or keep it.  I support women having the choice to make the decision that is best for them.

 

This was exactly my point! Thanks for elaborating on some of those personal nuances!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is trashy but its being reported by 3 gossip sites so its worth a post. Apparently there's a gay cousin in the family. I don't know why this matters beyond the Duggar hypocrisy, but here we are. http://realmrhousewife.com/2016/01/28/duggar-family-gay-relative-exposed-exclusive/ that's the original source of the rumor. If true, it would be nice if the Duggars didn't cut him out of their lives just because he's gay. Too bad Meeechelle's sister didn't get the same treatment...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me preface this by saying I CAN. NOT stand Dr Phil.   He drives me nuts.  

But!!! I would happily watch a show (or a dozen!) if he could get the Duggars on.   

Wouldn't that be interesting!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MoonFace said:

Let me preface this by saying I CAN. NOT stand Dr Phil.   He drives me nuts.  

But!!! I would happily watch a show (or a dozen!) if he could get the Duggars on.   

Wouldn't that be interesting!

 

Same!!!!  Would love to watch that.

 

also a show with the Supernanny.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Rubyroo said:

This is trashy but its being reported by 3 gossip sites so its worth a post. Apparently there's a gay cousin in the family. I don't know why this matters beyond the Duggar hypocrisy, but here we are. http://realmrhousewife.com/2016/01/28/duggar-family-gay-relative-exposed-exclusive/ that's the original source of the rumor. If true, it would be nice if the Duggars didn't cut him out of their lives just because he's gay. Too bad Meeechelle's sister didn't get the same treatment...

Kind of a non story. The Duggars see themselves above their family members and only allow a few on their show. An adopted cousin won't bother them any. They'll "pray for them" if they even know or care about the person in the firsr place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Coconut Flan locked and unpinned this topic

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.