Josiah & Lauren 13: Drift, Duggars, Drift (Miscarriage Content Warning)

[luv2laugh]

21 hours ago, SassyPants said:

Sadly, Lauren and Michaela are experiencing and will continue to deal with the consequences of “leaving it all up to God and letting God decide the number of children you have”, because out here in the non-cult, real world, sometimes couples are dealt the number zero. So, since these folks claim that their way, approach, values, beliefs...are superior to us common folks living in the real world, why don’t they tell and show us how they support and encourage women (couples) within their fold  for whom HE (their he) has decided to give zero blessings?  Personally, I think these ladies (and their spouses) get very, very limited support beyond being told to “keep sweet.”

I know adoption is not easy and not for everyone but I want to know why pro-life fundies always say they want to adopt and won’t do it. JB & Michelle used to say it, Jessa said it, and there’s others that mentioned a desire to adopt. Technically, JB & Michelle did it with their (nephew?) though.

I think there is a foster to adopt process that is more cost effective. There are so many children that grow up in temporary foster homes and group homes that need a family.

Edited May 15, 2019 by luv2laugh

[theotherelise]

It takes a lot of effort to become approved foster parents and a lot of effort and money to become prospective private adoption parents. Sometimes I think the Duggars have a view that adoptions will just fall into their lap if God divines it. And I suppose it kind of did for Tyler. But kinship adoption is not the same as foster care or foster to adopt. I'm not sure what the law is in Arkansas, but in MO, you would not be able to show any pictures of a foster child before you are their legal parent. Certainly no shows or people magazine covers. Here, children in foster care have a right to privacy regarding their status. 

As for private adoption through an agency, you're looking at about 30k with in-depth home studies for a finalized adoption. But that means you have to get selected. And only the humpiest leg-humper would pick a family of that many children when you're looking through a book of loving families that frequently cannot have biological children. 

International adoption takes a similar amount of money, but the time can stretch out for years even after you are selected. You frequently have to be in-country for weeks at a time and you have to learn another country's legal system.

If any of the Duggar extended family were to adopt a non-related child, I think it would be a private, non-agency adoption. Like a niece of their friend at church found out she was pregnant at 16 and decided to place the child for adoption but doesn't want to go through an agency and would you be interested?

Why don't they adopt? Because they are lazy. Why do they say they want to adopt? Because they are in an arrested development and spout answers that many people say when they are teenagers before they understand the realities of the situation. 

[VelociRapture]

I’d like to point out that I’m pretty sure Tyler has not been adopted. As far as I remember, the Duggars are his legal guardians - not his adoptive parents. 

[Jana814]

15 minutes ago, VelociRapture said:

I’d like to point out that I’m pretty sure Tyler has not been adopted. As far as I remember, the Duggars are his legal guardians - not his adoptive parents. 

I think you are right. Although I think I heard somewhere that he was adopted but I could be wrong. 

[allthegoodnamesrgone]

People like the Duggar's don't want the hassle of adopting someone else's problem child.  None of these people care at all what happens to the mother or child once it is a living breathing tax needing citizen.  In their view if you lived your life just like they do it will all be fine. They can't see past their own front door to see that life isn't x y & z  all over the globe.  

Oh you want to piss of a "prolifer" tell them that their unyielding support of Israel & their tax dollars go to government paid for abortion.  They don't like that.  

[VelociRapture]

1 hour ago, Jana814 said:

I think you are right. Although I think I heard somewhere that he was adopted but I could be wrong. 

Last I remember they were appointed his permanent guardians. InTouch has the court documents regarding that in this November 2016 article:

https://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/duggars-child-20-119968/

So I don’t think he’s ever been formally adopted. It appears to be a legal guardianship situation. 

[JesSky03]

2 hours ago, theotherelise said:

 

Why don't they adopt? Because they are lazy. Why do they say they want to adopt? Because they are in an arrested development and spout answers that many people say when they are teenagers before they understand the realities of the situation. 

Snipped quote. I do agree with you but also I don't think this is limited to just teenagers or people in a state of arrested development. My husband and I talked about adopting early on in our marriage but time, experience, mental health issues, jobs, school, housing, etc. has shown us that it would not be a good fit for us. Having a kid of our own also cemented that adoption would not be a great fit for us. The difference is though that we talked about it privately and came to these conclusions privately. We didn't put it out there publicly so people would think we are these amazing people for wanting to "save" these poor children. 

[justmy2cents]

@JesSky03 the thing is they could have discussed it privately also. They didn't need to share on their show that it was something they wanted to do. I'm sure there's a lot they keep private. They're the ones who put it out there and now they have to deal with the (deserved) criticism. 

[JesSky03]

1 hour ago, justmy2cents said:

@JesSky03 the thing is they could have discussed it privately also. They didn't need to share on their show that it was something they wanted to do. I'm sure there's a lot they keep private. They're the ones who put it out there and now they have to deal with the (deserved) criticism. 

I agree, that's why I mentioned it. 

[beepy13]

We'd know if he had been adopted because his name would be J'Tyler.

[Anna Bolinas]

I'd rather they just bluster about it instead of actually adopting some poor child into their cult. That goes double if it's a child of another race or whose parents were of another religion. 

[PumaLover]

Mr. Puma and I became legal guardians of a relative (by marriage's) child. (No relation to us.) When he and I first got together 13 years ago we decided that if we had any children we would adopt them. Then we got comfortable and lazy in our lives and decided we didn't want any kids. Then this opportunity presented itself and she would have gone to foster care if we hadn't taken her in. This is a very brief synopsis of a years-long situation that I won't go into.

The fundies I read about on this site would not take in a pre-teen child for a lot of reasons, not the least of which because they might have experienced horrible abuse and trauma and have a need for many years of therapy. I'm glad we got our daughter when we did because we believe in therapy and there are issues that I know a lot of these people would just pray for and would hope would get better. Or even worse, might think the child had a demon and who knows what they might do. Bro Gary (in my avatar) would scream at her and beat her until he thought she was better.

We watched the movie "Instant Family" about a month ago and I cried through the entire thing. It was too real, too close to home. I didn't enjoy it at all. I just feel like these fundies are being insulting when they talk about their desire to adopt but don't really have any intention of doing so. (And I am strangely conflicted because I'm also glad they aren't bringing more vulnerable children into the flock, but I've seen the other side of it too. I'm not really sure which is worse.)

[Toothfairy]

19 hours ago, luv2laugh said:

I know adoption is not easy and not for everyone but I want to know why pro-life fundies always say they want to adopt and won’t do it. JB & Michelle used to say it, Jessa said it, and there’s others that mentioned a desire to adopt. Technically, JB & Michelle did it with their (nephew?) though.

I think there is a foster to adopt process that is more cost effective. There are so many children that grow up in temporary foster homes and group homes that need a family.

Because  it's all talk. I'm happy they're not adopting. Adoption and foster care is not only hard but the child has trauma and grief. Imgaine a child stealing food in a Duggar home or being forced to wear modest clothing or being blamed for being abused. Foster kids come from hard backgrounds and they'll will not be grateful for being with you. Many foster kids still love their birth families. Adoption from foster care isn't hard but you have to be patience and understanding of trauma. These kids will test you and keep testing you. They have real issues that can't be prayed away. 

 

 

International adoption takes years and is a long process. Most countries have closed down because kids were be stolen and paperwork was falsified. 

 

Private infant adoption there are already long lists of couples especially Christian couples waiting to adopt. A birth mom chooses a family. 

 

Both infant and international adoption cost $30-$50k 

 

Also, none of them have real jobs. What income are they making? 

 

The Duggars love to  post and brag about being pregnant and how much sex they have. I fear the adopted child will be treated like an outsider 

[SweetJuly]

5 minutes ago, Toothfairy said:

The Duggars love to  post and brag about being pregnant and how much sex they have. I fear the adopted child will be treated like an outsider 

Oh, absolutely! I can see them singling any adopted child(ren) out all the time for "testimony" purposes. Or simply because they are too ignorant and dense to realise how hurtful it can be for a child to constantly hear that they are different from the biological children: "This is JAdopted. He is soo special to us." / "I gave birth to 19 children, and we are also raising a very special boy whose mother was a whore, but G-d laid it on her heart to give him to us instead of choosing to have him murdered"

So while I'd want the Duggars to not just talk the talk, I am so grateful for every vulnerable child that is spared this abusive mindfuckery these people call family.

[Smee]

I only recently read the thread on the Hana Williams case/trial and I wholeheartedly concur that fundies adopting children is a bad idea. 

[OyToTheVey]

I don't think the Duggars are strong enough to adopt tbh. My friend recently adopted. It was an extremely difficult expensive process. At one point birth mom disappeared and tried to milk them for even more money. It was a long miserable process but they love the baby and he's doing really well. They're obsessed with the kid. It's very cute to watch.

[front hugs > duggs]

I would LOVE to adopt one day. My little sister was adopted and I just can't imagine not having her in my life. However, I feel like we won't ever be able to because of how much it costs. Maybe I need to read more into it, but I can't imagine being able to straight up afford that amount of money, and I even have a decent paying job.

[KeepingChrysanthemum]

42 minutes ago, front hugs > duggs said:

I would LOVE to adopt one day. My little sister was adopted and I just can't imagine not having her in my life. However, I feel like we won't ever be able to because of how much it costs. Maybe I need to read more into it, but I can't imagine being able to straight up afford that amount of money, and I even have a decent paying job.

I used to work for a fortune 500 company and one of the benefits was Adoption Assistance. One of my coworkers adopted and the company paid him part of the cost. Imagine tuition assistance, but for adoption. Similar terms (don't just leave the company right after). Additionally they offered adoption leave (like maternity or paternity). 

I bring this up to say - talk to your HR department. They may have a program in place to help.

I hope to one day adopt and while I now work for a start up I'm pretty hopeful we'll have such a program in place if/when the time comes as our benefits are on point and our owners are very compassionate men. 

Edited May 16, 2019 by KeepingChrysanthemum
know =/= now

[PainfullyAware]

*TW for miscarriage reference 

Did anyone see Anna's comment on Si's Instagram mother's day post? He was essentially recognizing Lauren being a mother despite having miscarried. I thought it was a thoughtful post, an acknowledgement of their loss and what it meant to them. So what does Anna say about this? "Happy Mother's Day!!"

So insensitive and hurtful to Lauren. Trust me, mother's day is not a happy day for women with miscarriage losses or infertility. Is Anna just that obtuse or is she on some kind of passive aggressive rampage (like trolling Derick for not mentioning Michelle in his mother's day blog post)?! 

[bal maiden]

Do you guys all seriously agree that she is a mother then, for having carried a zygote for a few weeks? I understand that the things Josiah said could be helpful in supporting her through her grief (although much of my own grief surrounding my miscarriages was that I wasn’t to be a mother, so I personally wouldn’t have found that much comfort),  but since the user base here leans pro choice, I am really surprised at the reaction to Josiah’s post. Yes, he was being very supportive, within the framework of their life-begins-at-conception framework of beliefs, but I am curious as to whether the pro life narrative has penetrated American society to such an extent that we cannot critique it when someone claims motherhood based upon a few weeks of pregnancy? Especially since the Duggars themselves are strong critics of other forms of self identification such as non binary or transgender identification. 

 

I’m not trying to flame here, just for clarity. I am honestly shocked and surprised by this forum’s reaction, and trying to make sense of how much the pro life narrative has gained hegemonic status in the US... happy to hear other perspectives.

Edited May 16, 2019 by bal maiden

[seraaa]

19 minutes ago, bal maiden said:

Do you guys all seriously agree that she is a mother then, for having carried a zygote for a few weeks? I understand that the things Josiah said could be helpful in supporting her through her grief (although much of my own grief surrounding my miscarriages was that I wasn’t to be a mother, so I personally wouldn’t have found that much comfort),  but since the user base here leans pro choice, I am really surprised at the reaction to Josiah’s post. Yes, he was being very supportive, within the framework of their life-begins-at-conception framework of beliefs, but I am curious as to whether the pro life narrative has penetrated American society to such an extent that we cannot critique it when someone claims motherhood based upon a few weeks of pregnancy? Especially since the Duggars themselves are strong critics of other forms of self identification such as non binary or transgender identification. 

 

I’m not trying to flame here, just for clarity. I am honestly shocked and surprised by this forum’s reaction, and trying to make sense of how much the pro life narrative has gained hegemonic status in the US... happy to hear other perspectives.

I think it's always complicated and subjective. If you fall pregnant and expect to carry that pregnancy to term, you may begin to feel like a mother. I don't think that being pro-choice and acknowledging that is necessarily in conflict. 

Part of the reason why I'm pro-choice is that I recognise that there so many variables, of circumstance, yes, but also of attitude and feeling. People should be able to figure out what it is they want and need to do. That extends to how you deal with not being pregnant any more, IMO. Rushing in to police how someone relates to their own pregnancy - their own body - is not the thing.

I imagine that grieving the loss of a wanted pregnancy is very hard. If she felt like a mother, I wouldn't be one to tell her she doesn't or isn't one. Her feelings are her feelings. Who is anyone to tell her she shouldn't, you know? 

Edited May 16, 2019 by seraaa

[bal maiden]

I don’t want to police how someone relates to their own body and pregnancy;  I think people are entitled to grieve however they want. But when it’s a public post by a public figure? I find it very hard to separate that from the lawmakers of the state of Alabama deciding that I am a mother from conception, and denying me an abortion should I want or need one. I think at some point there have to be limits to self identification and subjectivity on these things, and that point is when we are getting harmful legislation based upon those subjectivities. 

 

[seraaa]

5 minutes ago, bal maiden said:

I don’t want to police how someone relates to their own body and pregnancy;  I think people are entitled to grieve however they want. But when it’s a public post by a public figure? I find it very hard to separate that from the lawmakers of the state of Alabama deciding that I am a mother from conception, and denying me an abortion should I want or need one. I think at some point there have to be limits to self identification and subjectivity on these things, and that point is when we are getting harmful legislation based upon those subjectivities. 

 

It is true that the lawmakers do not care what people think, believe or feel when they make these laws. As I understand it - correct me if I'm wrong - Roe v Wade in the US is based on bodily autonomy - meaning people should have access regardless of their feelings on the matter. Obviously people do have a range of attitudes, but that's aside from the legal right of access

Edited May 16, 2019 by seraaa

[Satan'sFortress]

25 minutes ago, seraaa said:

I imagine that grieving the loss of a wanted pregnancy is very hard. If she felt like a mother, I wouldn't be one to tell her she doesn't or isn't one. Her feelings are her feelings. Who is anyone to tell her she shouldn't, you know? 

This.

I am pro-choice, but that also means that I believe that Lauren is entitled to her feelings and I can respect that.  Not all women may have felt as she does, but if she calls herself a mother, I'm OK with that.

[PainfullyAware]

37 minutes ago, bal maiden said:

Do you guys all seriously agree that she is a mother then, for having carried a zygote for a few weeks? I understand that the things Josiah said could be helpful in supporting her through her grief (although much of my own grief surrounding my miscarriages was that I wasn’t to be a mother, so I personally wouldn’t have found that much comfort),

My feeling is that on an individual issue that however someone wants to view it is on a personal level is fine by me- it's their choice at what stage they want to define 'mother'and 'child'.

What I liked in his post was that he mentioned Lauren had already felt protective and loving like a mother would... I think it's good to acknowledge she felt that way. Carrying a zygote is different than her previous state of not being pregnant, and it's valid to acknowledge the nascent maternal feelings she felt in that stage, and subsequent grief after the loss.

 I personally don't subscribe to the second part of the post- that they will meet the baby in heaven. To me a zygote is like a seed, but not yet a separate person with a soul who you would meet in the afterlife (if there is one). And I think they always take these moments to publicly promote pro-life views which I don't like.

The extremes of opinion would be to whether the potential of the child is something you deeply wanted, and that pregnancy loss feels like the loss of that child. Or, if the pregnancy was unexpected, unwanted or not feasible then it could just be seen as a mass of cells that is still part of your own body. There are so many in between perspectives, too. But it comes down to how you feel about the potential of the zygote I think and that's so personal and based on circumstance.