Dillards 24 - Smug Bible Tweets and Maneaters (Jill/Derick/Israel/Baby Dillard)

[JesSky03]

I am Christian but I don't think it has much impact on my feelings about abortion. I fall somewhere in the middle...I do not like abortion. To me science tells me that what is so often called a clump of cells is a unique individual with its own human DNA and its own beating heart. However, it cannot be denied that abortion is absolutely necessary in certain situations and that it needs to be available for those who need it. I understand the want to put restrictions on who can and cannot get an abortion depending on the situation. The problem though, is how do we enforce restrictions while still making sure a woman who needs one gets one? How do you define exactly which conditions- physical or mental- warrant an abortion? How do you define it so that there is no room for interpretation and so that women who need one aren't turned away and later die as a result as seen in the links posted throughout this thread? I have no good answer...therefore as much as I dislike abortion, I do believe it needs to be legal and it needs to be safe. A doctor shouldn't make medical decisions based on his or her interpretation of the law. The decisions should be based on the facts of the case presented in front of them. I can't see any way of applying restrictions to the law without endangering of health of women. All we can do is provide proper sex education so we can prevent women from ever having to make this choice, and offer support to those who decide to carry to term.

[Chickenbutt]

Not to intrude on the abortion conversation, but does anyone know how the Duggars feel about end of life matters? Do they believe in hospice? Do they protest against assisted suicide? In your opinions (all you FJers), how does prolife fit into the end of life discussion?

[Childless]

I've had an abortion.  I did it to save my life and I don't regret the decision at all.  Save for when I'm reading an article about abortion or debating the issue, I don't even think about it.  I'm to busy living in the present to dwell on a decision I considered in my best interest.  I suffer no depression or any of the other myriad of calamities that pro-lifers warn about. 

Thankfully, I was able to get the abortion I needed without any issues.  I'm alive today because of that fact.  I will always be pro-choice.

[Lurker]

Chickenbutt, do you remember the right wing talking point of "Death Panels"?  Sarah Palin and others made a fuss because the ACA would reimburse doctors for    spending time with and discussing end of life and treatment directives with patients.   

 

[SuchABlessing]

I don't understand the fundie mindset of "I survived abortion" or "I survived Roe v Wade". 

No, you did not. To say you survived abortion, you are insinuating that you were an unwanted pregnancy and the only reason you are alive is because your mother was  prevented from getting an abortion. 

[Lurky]

@BlessaYourHeart With respect, those articles are opinions, not evidence of abortion being used as contraception.  Lord Steel is conflating repeat abortions with "as contraception", and he's only suggesting it.

If you're against repeat abortions, I'd be interested to know why. To me, it's logical that if someone has been hyper-fertile, and got pregnant while using contraception, that's not going to stop just because they've had an abortion, and the same goes for people who accidentally get pregnant and have an abortion because they just don't have the resources to bring up a child. 

And for the other end of the spectrum, the situations of eg a chaotic drugs user (a technical term referring to how they're using drugs, and/or their lifestyle), or someone who's being sexually abused, and doesn't have a say over contraception, aren't going to change either as the result of one aboriotn, so can definitely result in multiple abortions, much as it's super-distressing to think about it.

That second article is a really odd one - the "evidence" that women are using abortion as contraception includes the fact that married women, and women who already have children.  But there's no actual evidence of the premise "women are using abortion as contraception" - there's opinion about why the abortions these women are having are wrong (the solution that's offered is "better counselling and advice", which is not exactly a surprise from a blog on a counselling website, but it doesn't suggest measures to tackle underlying issues, such as sex education, poverty, cost of childcare, tackling domestic abuse etc etc etc)

[Chickenbutt]

@Lurker (my tagging thingie is not working again) I don't remember that. If all life is precious, does that extend to the terminally ill? So many questions.

[BlessaYourHeart]

4 minutes ago, Lurky said:@BlessaYourHeart With respect, those articles are opinions, not evidence of abortion being used as contraception.  Lord Steel is conflating repeat abortions with "as contraception", and he's only suggesting it.If you're against repeat abortions, I'd be interested to know why. To me, it's logical that if someone has been hyper-fertile, and got pregnant while using contraception, that's not going to stop just because they've had an abortion, and the same goes for people who accidentally get pregnant and have an abortion because they just don't have the resources to bring up a child. 

And for the other end of the spectrum, the situations of eg a chaotic drugs user (a technical term referring to how they're using drugs, and/or their lifestyle), or someone who's being sexually abused, and doesn't have a say over contraception, aren't going to change either as the result of one aboriotn, so can definitely result in multiple abortions, much as it's super-distressing to think about it.

That second article is a really odd one - the "evidence" that women are using abortion as contraception includes the fact that married women, and women who already have children.  But there's no actual evidence of the premise "women are using abortion as contraception" - there's opinion about why the abortions these women are having are wrong (the solution that's offered is "better counselling and advice", which is not exactly a surprise from a blog on a counselling website, but it doesn't suggest measures to tackle underlying issues, such as sex education, poverty, cost of childcare, tackling domestic abuse etc etc etc)

I made clear in my first post that I'm pro-abortion in circumstances that cannot be helped any other way. For example multiple pregnancies by abuse or rape among probably hundreds of other things. 

Im not saying that every woman who has an abortion or multiple abortions is using it as contraception. I'm saying that in any case where it's used because the woman wouldn't try contraception or couldn't be bothered and uses abortion as a contraception then I am firmly against it because I think it's an abuse of the system which is in place to help women who have genuine reasons/do not take it lightly.  No matter what the frequency of abortion as contraception I think it's wrong and don't agree with it. The articles don't state it as fact but there are suspicions and more than likely cases of abortion as contraception in a symstem where it's completely free and there for anyone. 

I wouldn't take away the system in England and would want it to be implemented in Northern Ireland because it does help so many women. But that doesn't change the fact that I do not agree with it as a contraception. 

 

Ive bolded or done something to text in this and I don't know how or how to fix it on my phone. 

[front hugs > duggs]

While I certainly don't think it's common, I too know someone personally who had at least five abortions because she just did not use protection in her committed, monogamous, consensual relationship. I think this is just irresponsible and lazy, IMO.

But I do think there are people, especially teenagers, who really just haven't had adequate sex ed, whether it be from parents or in schools. And I think it's really important to improve this aspect of it- not just to potentially decrease abortions, but because if you feel mature enough to engage in a sexual relationship, you should at least be aware of the potential implications. Again, while I'm pro-choice, I'm sure it can be a very very difficult decision to make, even if you know it's best for you. I personally hope I'm never in that situation where I'm having to make that choice, and I wouldn't wish that position on anyone, especially teenage girls, where having to make that decision could have been prevented just from sex ed.

[Lurky]

2 minutes ago, BlessaYourHeart said:

I'm saying that in any case where it's used because the woman wouldn't try contraception or couldn't be bothered and uses abortion as a contraception then I am firmly against it because I think it's an abuse of the system which is in place to help women who have genuine reasons/do not take it lightly.  No matter what the frequency of abortion as contraception I think it's wrong and don't agree with it. The articles don't state it as fact but there are suspicions and more than likely cases of abortion as contraception in a symstem where it's completely free and there for anyone. 

So what would your solution be for these women you think are doing this? 

I'm asking genuinely, because I can't for the life of me see what better options there are.  Forcing someone to give birth to a child she doesn't want, and then raise it?  Force her to give it up for adoption?  The UK and Ireland had a long, shameful history of forced adoptions, and the practice was rightly stopped, because it's terrible for mother and child.

As to the idea that these women (who there's no evidence of) are doing it because abortion is free on the NHS - the obvious solution to that would be to make everyone pay for abortions, but that's a really awful response to a problem that might not even exist.  Not to mention the whole issue of women who need an abortion as they can't afford to raise a child wouldn't have the money for abortions.  We also know, from history and from places all over the world right now, what happens when people can't afford to have a medical abortion - they try folk remedies, and other dangerous practices, that can result in damage to the fertility, babies that survive but are born with all kinds of medical issues, and maternal death.  That's a high price to pay, just because there's this idea that if abortion wasn't free, hypothetical women wouldn't get pregnant.

(I guess there's the option on someone deciding whether an abortion is "justified" or not, and the acceptable ones are free, and other women have to pay or give bith - but wow, who would make that decision?  We see from those articles that there are some people who think that married women/women with children already etc shouldn't be allowed abortions.  Who would decide what a legitimate contraception failure was, eg?  It would be impossible)

[WhatWouldJohnCrichtonDo?]

30 minutes ago, SuchABlessing said:

I don't understand the fundie mindset of "I survived abortion" or "I survived Roe v Wade". 

No, you did not. To say you survived abortion, you are insinuating that you were an unwanted pregnancy and the only reason you are alive is because your mother was  prevented from getting an abortion. 

I don't suppose it applies to fundies wearing/posting "I survived Roe v Wade", but I do know a person whose bio-father wanted their mom to have an abortion, but their mom chose to have them. They didn't find out until they were middle aged, but it was still a difficult thing to find out, emotionally. I wish they wouldn't throw those phrases around so lightly.

[December]

6 hours ago, nastyhobbitses said:

From watching a few PureFlix and Kirk Cameron movies, I think that in general, fundamentalists tend to assume that the "other side" thinks exactly like they do.

Oh man, PureFlix movies... exactly the sort of thing I had in mind when I wrote that post!

[BlessaYourHeart]

14 minutes ago, Lurky said:

So what would your solution be for these women you think are doing this? 

I'm asking genuinely, because I can't for the life of me see what better options there are.  Forcing someone to give birth to a child she doesn't want, and then raise it?  Force her to give it up for adoption?  The UK and Ireland had a long, shameful history of forced adoptions, and the practice was rightly stopped, because it's terrible for mother and child.

As to the idea that these women (who there's no evidence of) are doing it because abortion is free on the NHS - the obvious solution to that would be to make everyone pay for abortions, but that's a really awful response to a problem that might not even exist.  Not to mention the whole issue of women who need an abortion as they can't afford to raise a child wouldn't have the money for abortions.  We also know, from history and from places all over the world right now, what happens when people can't afford to have a medical abortion - they try folk remedies, and other dangerous practices, that can result in damage to the fertility, babies that survive but are born with all kinds of medical issues, and maternal death.  That's a high price to pay, just because there's this idea that if abortion wasn't free, hypothetical women wouldn't get pregnant.

(I guess there's the option on someone deciding whether an abortion is "justified" or not, and the acceptable ones are free, and other women have to pay or give bith - but wow, who would make that decision?  We see from those articles that there are some people who think that married women/women with children already etc shouldn't be allowed abortions.  Who would decide what a legitimate contraception failure was, eg?  It would be impossible)

They keep on doing it and I keep on disagreeing with it - I can't change that. 

But I do think a better sex Ed curriculum that actually goes in depth about sex, relationships, contraception etc is needed. I have kids who study A-Level RE and barely know anything about constraception when it comes to us covering the reproductive/abortion/contraception/relationships ethics part of the course which is ridiculous. 

More awareness is needed that abortion isn't something to be taken likely and it's just a contraception or last resort like the pill or coil. 

Adoption where viabale - which isn't often. 

For a woman that has used abortion as contraception - better education from their GP about contraception etc. 

My mum was forced into having an abortion by her parents when she was in her 20's and sent to England on her own for the procedure. It had a massive impact on her. So I definitely think that abortion should be more regulated for cases like that and to identify woman who are abusing the abortion system as contraception so that appropriate post abortion support etc can be issued. 

If my contraception failed right now and I became pregnant I'd probably have an abortion because I wouldn't be able to give the child a good life. My fiancé works but I'm still in uni and no way could we afford or take care of a child- it wouldn't be fair, right or loving to bring a child into that situation. 

[Lurker]

56 minutes ago, Chickenbutt said:

@Lurker (my tagging thingie is not working again) I don't remember that. If all life is precious, does that extend to the terminally ill? So many questions.

 

I am using "they" in general terms to reflect what my Fox News watching catholic cousins  believe and also the position of the orthodx jews I know, and one friend from assemblybof god...evangelicals are not a big factor in NYC.

They do not believe in the right to assisted suicide, they liken it to euthanasia.   They do not believe that doctors should inform patients of the fact they have end of life choices, like having a do not resusitate/dnr or a advanced order directive saying they dont want to be forced tube fed or hydrated.

 

[nausicaa]

26 minutes ago, Lurker said:

They do not believe that doctors should inform patients of the fact they have end of life choices, like having a do not resusitate/dnr or a advanced order directive saying they dont want to be forced tube fed or hydrated.

 

That's interesting. I've known religious people who are against euthanasia, but didn't know there were people also against DNRs. I have a friend who is an EMT and works with a lot of elderly people because of his location, and he says he's only had one patient above age ninety who didn't have a DNR. 

My understanding is that the Catholic church is not against DNRs? My very Catholic grandfather chose not to have yet another surgery for his terminal cancer because he was 84 and just wanted to live out his remaining days in peace. Isn't that similar to a DNR in philosophy?

[Snarkle Motion]

1 hour ago, Chickenbutt said:

@Lurker (my tagging thingie is not working again) I don't remember that. If all life is precious, does that extend to the terminally ill? So many questions.

I've often wondered how fundies deal with fetal absorption. If there were two "people" to begin with, did the person cannibalize their twin? Can we try that baby for "murder"? 

Whenever talking about euthanasia I remember being very confused when I was younger about why so many people wanted to "kill the kids in Asia?"

[Exposedknees]

If you're anti abortion, don't have one. I had access to healthcare, contraception etc and never had to make that decision.  I don't know if I personally could have an abortion,  but I don't have the right to tell ANYONE that they can't. So I am very pro- choice.

In a similar vein.....I have 2 daughters ( aged 21, 24) that are very focused on their undergrad and grad school degrees and aren't currently dating anyone. In light of current events, I'm seriously considering buying a Plan B/Morning after pill-just to have. They do not expire for 4 years and you never know if this abortion thing is going to extend to revoking those. Many fundies consider the morning after pill to be abortion. It's kind of sick that I am thinking about purchasing this when they're not even dating much, but 4 years is a long time! I like to think that my kids would use contraception but heaven forbid contraceptive failure or (GOD FORBID rape).  Honestly this makes me feel like hoarding pharmaceuticals like one of those survivalists I once mocked. 

 

 One of my daughter's friends is considering an IUD because they last 8 years and isn't sure that she will be on her parent's insurance. I'm concerned that mine may be kicked off my insurance with this whole revoking ACA kerfuffle. (Now they can stay on through age 26.)

Times are scary. 

[SuchABlessing]

2 hours ago, nausicaa said:

My very Catholic grandfather chose not to have yet another surgery for his terminal cancer because he was 84 and just wanted to live out his remaining days in peace. Isn't that similar to a DNR in philosophy?

I don't think that's the same. Your grandfather made an end-of-life decision about how he wanted to spend his final days. My grandfather did the same with his cancer. He was 77 and just didn't want to deal with the pain anymore. He had he blessing of his priest, so he was at peace. 

A DNR is an order in place when the patient can't speak for themselves and someone has to choose if life saving procedures are what the patient would want. 

I once had a boss who wanted to get "DNR" tattooed on his chest in case he ever became a vegetable (his wife talked him out of it)...

[nausicaa]

5 minutes ago, SuchABlessing said:

I don't think that's the same. Your grandfather made an end-of-life decision about how he wanted to spend his final days. My grandfather did the same with his cancer. He was 77 and just didn't want to deal with the pain anymore. He had he blessing of his priest, so he was at peace. 

A DNR is an order in place when the patient can't speak for themselves and someone has to choose if life saving procedures are what the patient would want. 

I once had a boss who wanted to get "DNR" tattooed on his chest in case he ever became a vegetable (his wife talked him out of it)...

Ah, that makes more sense. I thought someone could choose a DNR for themselves? (That's how it sounded when my EMT friend was talking about it, but I may have misunderstood. I have no medical background.) For example if they are very elderly and have a history of heart attacks, et cetera. Is there a different term for that? And what would be the Catholic Church's stance on that if anyone happens to know?

[imokit]

In the UK DNARs (the A is for attempt - making it Do Not Attempt Resuscitation) should be discussed with the patient.  There is a legal duty for health care professionals to have this discussion before putting it in place.  If the patient is unable to have the discussion (dementia/very very ill) then professionals need to try to speak to family.

You can put one in place without agreement of a patient/family, but you must try and discuss it first if possible (so they know).

An individual can request one and choose it for themselves and that's valid.

 

DNAR is different from palliation eg someone who chooses not to have cancer surgery because it probably won't work.

People having palliation will almost certainly have a DNAR.  But you can have a DNAR for anything even if its just what you want.   You can also be having serious treatment for things eg cancer, and having everything done with the hope of cure but still have a DNAR just in case it doesn't work.

[Lurker]

I think the catholic church permits DNR under some circumstances,. That there is no hope of recovery such as brain death.  My mom had one, also she stated her wishes on hydration and tube feeding (no to both).She consulted with her parish as she was very devout. 

 The elder law attorney we went to was very judgemental because he was an orthodox jew and said the goal always should be to preserve life no matter what the circumstances.  He did what she wanted, grumbling all the way.

10 years later, I I had her under hospice and my sister was concerned about the church,  the acting Monseigneur came to do last rites and was very supportive of hospice and natural death and said he had his mother under hospice before her death.  I found out later he was some canon authority, babysitting a small parish while publishing papers.

 

[MargaretElliott]

Wait, why do these churches hate DNRs? If the beginning of life is in God's hands, shouldn't the end of life be, too? It just seems to me that fighting tooth and nail to stop an inevitable and (presumably) natural event is the opposite of trusting in God. Like, if you're 96 and on your fourth heart attack, maybe God's trying to tell you something.

After I get to a certain age, I'm definitely finagling a DNR. If I'm dead, I'm dead. But it should be up to the individual.

[Fun Undies]

20 hours ago, Snarkle Motion said:

This a million times. The bible is totally okay with murder and slavery in the right circumstances. It's the pagan Hippocrates who was against abortion historically.

To me the issue has always really been about controlling women. I think it's telling that abortion and homosexuality were the main issues for the Christian Right. Both of these issues are really about who should be having sex and controlling people through sex. 

To include another theory, I have read several articles, and books, and watched quite a few documentaries about the historical context of the Bible - and though I can't for the life of me understand why evangelical Christians want to focus so much on Old Testament law, when Jesus is supposed to be the "fulfillment of the law" - one suggestion about why quite a bit of Leviticus focuses on rules & regulations is because it's about ensuring "multiplying" and longevity.  As in: procreate (let no seed spill outside of a vagina) my Jewish brethren so we can amass great numbers, and eat only these foods listed, so you live longer, and anything that gets in the way of that is "unGodly".  Of course, there we go again with humans needing to find a way to hide a thinly veiled "do as I say" command, under the premise of God, instead of admitting it's for survival/political/socio-economic reasons. /shrug

 

16 hours ago, Georgiana said:

-snip-
And just a caution: people lie all the time about "why" they had their abortion. Because it's not socially acceptable to discuss abortion honestly.  It might be easier for someone to say "I didn't want to switch my car" than "I was alone and scared" or "I didn't know how I would feed both of us if I had to take that level of unpaid leave" or "The father was dangerous, I just barely got out, and I can't give him a reason to come back into my life". 

I mean, look at how people are handling just talking about abortion on this thread (though overall, I will say this thread does a pretty good job being supportive, and informative!).  Is it any wonder that a woman doesn't want to explain the painful details as to the "why", when she's already trying to downplay any reactions the word "abortion" had on the person standing opposite her? 

Besides, how often do we really answer with the truth when someone just asks, "How you doing?" . . . the thought of having to explain an abortion might be (understandable) overwhelming for the person who had it.

12 hours ago, nastyhobbitses said:

From watching a few PureFlix and Kirk Cameron movies, I think that in general, fundamentalists tend to assume that the "other side" thinks exactly like they do. We want to make abortion completely illegal and have only one choice? They want all women to get abortions all the time! We want to teach only Christianity in school? They want to make students sign statements saying that God is dead and teach them S&M techniques in kindergarten!

That's because in fundie minds, it's all black and white.  There's never any middle ground, or compromise.  It's Jesus and the Bible controlling ALL things ~ and only when they themselves do something against the grain, well, then it's Satan's fault.  There's never any talk of God's freewill, or human nature (except when they can further shame women by insinuating what an honor it is to give birth naturally, so they can relive the pain of Eve).  It's easier to follow a book, then it is to use their minds, and the people they come across to broaden their own understanding. . . . I'm getting ranty, so I'll end that there.

6 hours ago, JesSky03 said:

-snip-
A doctor shouldn't make medical decisions based on his or her interpretation of the law. The decisions should be based on the facts of the case presented in front of them. I can't see any way of applying restrictions to the law without endangering of health of women.

-snip-

That's the part that scares me - and I know we're a long way of it probably getting to this point (but maybe not?) - anyways, five years and a half years ago I had a miscarriage.  Some placenta remained behind, the baby had passed, and my body was beginning to form a clot around the tissue with a threat of infection looming.  So, I get rushed back for an emergency D&C.  Now, what if the doctor decided she couldn't be sure I wasn't a case of a botched home abortion?  What if she decided she didn't want to help me?  Would I be allowed to go into septic shock before the hospital would assist me?

I know it sounds extreme, but then again, if we ever get to a point where the law allows a doctor to decide on a treatment plan based on moral reasons, when does it stop?  Can he deny treating the gunshot victim, because he's in a gang?  Would he refuse to operate on the drunk driver, because they had been drinking?? 

So I agree, there's no way to apply the restrictions without opening up a can of worms :/

6 hours ago, Childless said:

-snip-
Thankfully, I was able to get the abortion I needed without any issues.  I'm alive today because of that fact.  I will always be pro-choice.

Because of my own chronic health issues, I've been advised not to get pregnant again.  Since I'm done anyways, we don't go into the specifics (like is it an issue for me, for the baby?  Higher risk of C-section??).  My husband and I did talk about abortion if there was a threat to my life, or the baby would die before reaching full term ~ I'm grateful for the choice, because though we are doing everything we can to prevent, it still can happen, and I'll be grateful for the option (though obviously I hope to never have to face that choice!).

[Snarkle Motion]

24 minutes ago, MargaretElliott said:

Wait, why do these churches hate DNRs? If the beginning of life is in God's hands, shouldn't the end of life be, too? It just seems to me that fighting tooth and nail to stop an inevitable and (presumably) natural event is the opposite of trusting in God. Like, if you're 96 and on your fourth heart attack, maybe God's trying to tell you something.

After I get to a certain age, I'm definitely finagling a DNR. If I'm dead, I'm dead. But it should be up to the individual.

I dunno but I remember the outrage over Terri Schiavo case from the Christian Right. I feel like that's the first time it became one of their hot button issues. 

[EmmieJ]

8 hours ago, WhatWouldJohnCrichtonDo? said:

I don't suppose it applies to fundies wearing/posting "I survived Roe v Wade", but I do know a person whose bio-father wanted their mom to have an abortion, but their mom chose to have them. They didn't find out until they were middle aged, but it was still a difficult thing to find out, emotionally. I wish they wouldn't throw those phrases around so lightly.

My son's father wanted me to have an abortion.  I chose not to.  The pregnancy was unplanned and I was using a contraceptive at the time.  In my initial shock at finding myself pregnant and probably facing single parenthood, I momentarily considered abortion.  I was only 7 weeks along.  After a few seconds, I knew I could not do so.  I've never regretted having my child, BUT I got to make that choice.  It was not forced on me!  I think it's cruel to bring an unwanted child into the world.  There are times when your child works your last nerve and you grip the counter so hard your knuckles hurt, so you don't reach out and smack him.  That's when you draw on your deep love for that child, to take a breath and hopefully speak calmly and rationally to the child having a tantrum on the kitchen floor.  But what if you never wanted that child to begin with, and resent him or her?  What if you take your resentment out on that child, tell him "I never wanted you" or "I hate you".  Worse, what if you hit and abuse that poor child?  

Better that child not be born to such a miserable existence.  If there is a God, then I'm sure any souls returned unborn to her will have other opportunities to be born, to parents who will welcome that child.