Lisa Metzger: Homeschooling on Bed Rest with Your 14th Child

[JermajestyDuggar]

This is one of the dumbest things I’ve seen on FB in awhile. This woman homeschools. Does she not understand how advertisements work? They can say anything they want. Ads aren’t fucking science you moron.

[JermajestyDuggar]

I really hate what this naive, ignorant, immature child is doing to this woman. I can only imagine all the lies she’s feeding this woman. 

[NotQuiteMotY]

On 3/7/2020 at 8:27 PM, JermajestyDuggar said:

I really hate what this naive, ignorant, immature child is doing to this woman. I can only imagine all the lies she’s feeding this woman. 

That poor woman! It sounds like she's already conflicted enough over the decision without Metzger meddling. 

I'd love to ask what exactly she plans on doing to help this woman should she decide against an abortion. Or is she just going to do the standard fundie "yay, baby saved, now let's vote to cut every single program that would help this woman birth and raise these kids safely and healthily"?

(Yeah, I know, I know, it's ALWAYS the second option...)

Edited March 11, 2020 by NotQuiteMotY

[JermajestyDuggar]

11 minutes ago, NotQuiteMotY said:

That poor woman! It sounds like she's already conflicted enough over the decision without Metzger meddling. 

I'd love to ask what exactly she plans on doing to help this woman should she decide against an abortion. Or is she just going to do the standard fundie "yay, baby saved, now let's vote to cut every single program that would help this woman birth and raise these kids safely and healthily"?

(Yeah, I know, I know, it's ALWAYS the second option...)

If the mother allows it, these women will throw her a baby shower and will post on fbaboit it. And then when the babies are born, they will take pictures of the babies they saved to push their agenda. They use these women and their babies. It’s disgusting.

[smittykins]

Unless she’s pressured to give them up for adoption.

[JermajestyDuggar]

1 hour ago, smittykins said:

Unless she’s pressured to give them up for adoption.

This rarely happens. Which is fine with me. I hate hate hate when women are pressured into putting their child up for adoption. But when these assholes tell these women that they have so many other options besides abortion, they are lying. The only options for these women are abortion or carrying a baby they don’t want. That’s it. Telling them they could put the baby up for adoption is like telling them they could win the lottery tomorrow. That’s about how likely of an option it is for them. 

[Petronella]

1 hour ago, JermajestyDuggar said:

Telling them they could put the baby up for adoption is like telling them they could win the lottery tomorrow. That’s about how likely of an option it is for them. 

Can you elaborate? I understand that it's not an *easy* option. Can you explain what you mean about it being not a *likely* option?

[JermajestyDuggar]

7 minutes ago, Petronella said:

Can you elaborate? I understand that it's not an *easy* option. Can you explain what you mean about it being not a *likely* option?

Statistically, it just doesn’t happen. The rates of women putting babies up for adoption at birth are at an all time low. And I’m glad. If you look at all the women that were shamed or forced into putting their babies up for adoption in the 50s, 60s, 70s, you’ll see women who wanted to actually keep their baby. To me, adoption is not even close to an equal option to abortion. Although providers will tell you it is. And tell you how amazing and selfless you are for providing a fresh out of the womb baby for another couple.

[Petronella]

1 minute ago, JermajestyDuggar said:

Statistically, it just doesn’t happen. The rates of women putting babies up for adoption at birth are at an all time low. And I’m glad. If you look at all the women that were shamed or forced into putting their babies up for adoption in the 50s, 60s, 70s, you’ll see women who wanted to actually keep their baby. To me, adoption is not even close to an equal option to abortion. Although providers will tell you it is. And tell you how amazing and selfless you are for providing a fresh out of the womb baby for another couple.

But if the rates are so low, wouldn't that mean someone who *wants* to give up their baby for adoption would find many people who would want the baby? It being unlikely for young women to DO isn't the same as it being unlikely to succeed for a woman who DOES.

[JermajestyDuggar]

Just now, Petronella said:

But if the rates are so low, wouldn't that mean someone who *wants* to give up their baby for adoption would find many people who would want the baby? It being unlikely for young women to DO isn't the same as it being unlikely to succeed for a woman who DOES.

Sorry I’m not following.

[Walking Cat Bed]

1 minute ago, JermajestyDuggar said:

Statistically, it just doesn’t happen. The rates of women putting babies up for adoption at birth are at an all time low. And I’m glad. If you look at all the women that were shamed or forced into putting their babies up for adoption in the 50s, 60s, 70s, you’ll see women who wanted to actually keep their baby. To me, adoption is not even close to an equal option to abortion. Although providers will tell you it is. And tell you how amazing and selfless you are for providing a fresh out of the womb baby for another couple.

I've also read that, unless arrangements are made (which are one in a million), the baby usually goes into foster care. And the "desirable" babies and little kids might be adopted, but that's usually based on their health, physical characteristics, reasonable certainly that there are no addiction or psychological issues, and how easy the process is. A cute baby whose parents were church-going honor students and athletes who "fell into sin one time" might be adopted quickly, maybe, if the adoption process is easy. 

[Petronella]

1 minute ago, JermajestyDuggar said:

Sorry I’m not following.

You said "Telling them they could put the baby up for adoption is like telling them they could win the lottery tomorrow." Which reads to me that you think anyone actually adopting the baby is as unlikely as the young pregnant woman winning the lottery.

If that's not what you mean, who is the lottery winner in your metaphor? And what is the lottery?

[JermajestyDuggar]

Just now, Petronella said:

You said "Telling them they could put the baby up for adoption is like telling them they could win the lottery tomorrow." Which reads to me that you think anyone actually adopting the baby is as unlikely as the young pregnant woman winning the lottery.

If that's not what you mean, who is the lottery winner in your metaphor? And what is the lottery?

Because only 4% of women who are dealing with an unwanted pregnancy actually end up putting their baby up for adoption. It’s not a viable option for most women who have an unwanted pregnancy. Lots of women are convinced by these folks that they can give their baby up for adoption, and then they change their mind shortly before birth or after birth. There is only a short window of opportunity to have and abortion and these assholes know that. They lie and shame them until it’s too late. The most likely outcome is that women have babies they they don’t want to put up for adoption and the struggle even more. My point is that they convince them that adoption is going to fix all their problems but when time comes, most women don’t actually give them up for adoption. 

9 minutes ago, Walking Cat Bed said:

I've also read that, unless arrangements are made (which are one in a million), the baby usually goes into foster care. And the "desirable" babies and little kids might be adopted, but that's usually based on their health, physical characteristics, reasonable certainly that there are no addiction or psychological issues, and how easy the process is. A cute baby whose parents were church-going honor students and athletes who "fell into sin one time" might be adopted quickly, maybe, if the adoption process is easy. 

What you will see happen more often is that these women keep their babies and struggle. Whether it’s financially, with addiction, homelessness, domestic abuse and then their kids go into foster care when they are older. Then nobody wants them. Thousands and thousands of kids never get adopted out of foster care. It’s sad as hell. And these people like Lisa metzger are part of the problem.

[Petronella]

20 minutes ago, JermajestyDuggar said:

Because only 4% of women who are dealing with an unwanted pregnancy actually end up putting their baby up for adoption. It’s not a viable option for most women who have an unwanted pregnancy. Lots of women are convinced by these folks that they can give their baby up for adoption, and then they change their mind shortly before birth or after birth. There is only a short window of opportunity to have and abortion and these assholes know that. They lie and shame them until it’s too late. The most likely outcome is that women have babies they they don’t want to put up for adoption and the struggle even more. My point is that they convince them that adoption is going to fix all their problems but when time comes, most women don’t actually give them up for adoption. 

What you will see happen more often is that these women keep their babies and struggle. Whether it’s financially, with addiction, homelessness, domestic abuse and then their kids go into foster care when they are older. Then nobody wants them. Thousands and thousands of kids never get adopted out of foster care. It’s sad as hell. And these people like Lisa metzger are part of the problem.

Ah! So "winning the lottery" here is "feeling psychologically able to give the baby up once it comes." I get you. Thanks for helping me understand your point!

[JermajestyDuggar]

3 minutes ago, Petronella said:

Ah! So "winning the lottery" here is "feeling psychologically able to give the baby up once it comes." I get you. Thanks for helping me understand your point!

Yes. Many women think they can put their baby up for adoption but when the time comes, only 4% actually do it. I know I could never ever do it. I’m positive. I feel lucky that I know exactly what I can and can’t do when the time comes. It’s going against a biological instinct. I’m not saying that all women can’t. But it’s instinctual for us to want to keep our babies after birth. And it can be incredibly hard to go against that instinct.

[Walking Cat Bed]

40 minutes ago, JermajestyDuggar said:

What you will see happen more often is that these women keep their babies and struggle. Whether it’s financially, with addiction, homelessness, domestic abuse and then their kids go into foster care when they are older. Then nobody wants them. Thousands and thousands of kids never get adopted out of foster care. It’s sad as hell. And these people like Lisa metzger are part of the problem.

Yeah -- not many women can let go of their child, even if that's what they planned to do. Which is why leaning on women to continue pregnancies is absolutely cruel.

There's also the problem of fundies and abusers adopting children only to abuse them and "re-home" when the child can't adapt (or murder them). And adoption agencies that will allow any heterosexual couple who claim to be Christians adopt, but refusing LGBTQ+ couples.

[justwatching]

Truly asking out of curiosity, here, and not trying to start a riot. I honestly want to understand. The above several posts are talking about women changing their minds and not being able to give up the baby for adoption. How does that compare to taking the child’s life, instead? I mean, at least you can change your mind about adoption, right? How can ending the life of the child be favorable to adopting it out?

Again, asking respectfully because I’ve always felt like I was missing an important piece of information in the debate about life/choice in general, and this conversation brought my confusion to the forefront. I am not interested in trying to change anyone’s mind, just in figuring out what is confusing me.

[Walking Cat Bed]

21 minutes ago, justwatching said:

Truly asking out of curiosity, here, and not trying to start a riot. I honestly want to understand. The above several posts are talking about women changing their minds and not being able to give up the baby for adoption. How does that compare to taking the child’s life, instead? I mean, at least you can change your mind about adoption, right? How can ending the life of the child be favorable to adopting it out?

Again, asking respectfully because I’ve always felt like I was missing an important piece of information in the debate about life/choice in general, and this conversation brought my confusion to the forefront. I am not interested in trying to change anyone’s mind, just in figuring out what is confusing me.

There is not enough medical evidence (without a religious perspective) to convince me that an unborn fetus is an autonomous life; however, the pregnant person is an autonomous life. Most abortions occur before the fetus could live outside of the uterus. The exceptions are most often because of serious medical problems. 

[JermajestyDuggar]

45 minutes ago, justwatching said:

Truly asking out of curiosity, here, and not trying to start a riot. I honestly want to understand. The above several posts are talking about women changing their minds and not being able to give up the baby for adoption. How does that compare to taking the child’s life, instead? I mean, at least you can change your mind about adoption, right? How can ending the life of the child be favorable to adopting it out?

Again, asking respectfully because I’ve always felt like I was missing an important piece of information in the debate about life/choice in general, and this conversation brought my confusion to the forefront. I am not interested in trying to change anyone’s mind, just in figuring out what is confusing me.

A Big piece is that adoption is not an answer to not being pregnant. Pregnancy is EXTREMELY difficult for me. It is 9 months of hell. So even if I could give a baby up for adoption, I am not physically and mentally able to deal with the 9 months prior to the birth. That’s why adoption and abortion will never be equal choices. 

[feministxtian]

3 hours ago, justwatching said:

Truly asking out of curiosity, here, and not trying to start a riot. I honestly want to understand. The above several posts are talking about women changing their minds and not being able to give up the baby for adoption. How does that compare to taking the child’s life, instead? I mean, at least you can change your mind about adoption, right? How can ending the life of the child be favorable to adopting it out?

Again, asking respectfully because I’ve always felt like I was missing an important piece of information in the debate about life/choice in general, and this conversation brought my confusion to the forefront. I am not interested in trying to change anyone’s mind, just in figuring out what is confusing me.

a >13 week fetus does NOT equal a full person. Please go find unbiased stats. MOST abortions occur in the first trimester. "Late term" abortions are less than 1% of all abortions and are pretty much only for SEVERE FETAL ABNORMALITIES. Like, incompatible with life abnormalities. Those abortions are extremely expensive, only offered in one or two places in the country (I can only think of the doctor in Boulder CO) and not covered by insurance. I'm sick of pro-lifer's lies about pregnancy and the "adoption" solution. 

If the choice is abortion or bringing a child into the world who you can't feed, can't clothe, can't house...well...you figure out which is "pro-life". And if you're so damn concerned about this, support the policies that make life easier on single mothers like paid maternity leave, universal medical care, fair wages, cheaper housing, etc. IF you're "pro-life" and don't support those policies, then you're a goddamn liar who is "pro-birth" only. 

[Petronella]

1 hour ago, feministxtian said:

a >13 week fetus does NOT equal a full person. Please go find unbiased stats. MOST abortions occur in the first trimester. "Late term" abortions are less than 1% of all abortions and are pretty much only for SEVERE FETAL ABNORMALITIES. Like, incompatible with life abnormalities. Those abortions are extremely expensive, only offered in one or two places in the country (I can only think of the doctor in Boulder CO) and not covered by insurance. I'm sick of pro-lifer's lies about pregnancy and the "adoption" solution. 

If the choice is abortion or bringing a child into the world who you can't feed, can't clothe, can't house...well...you figure out which is "pro-life". And if you're so damn concerned about this, support the policies that make life easier on single mothers like paid maternity leave, universal medical care, fair wages, cheaper housing, etc. IF you're "pro-life" and don't support those policies, then you're a goddamn liar who is "pro-birth" only. 

This is a much more hostile answer than the question warranted.

[justwatching]

There is not enough medical evidence (without a religious perspective) to convince me that an unborn fetus is an autonomous life; however, the pregnant person is an autonomous life. Most abortions occur before the fetus could live outside of the uterus. The exceptions are most often because of serious medical problems. 

Thank you! This is definitely the missing chainlink I was looking for. The point at which a person believes that life begins could/would certainly affect their views on the subject. I appreciate your kindness in pointing it out.

A Big piece is that adoption is not an answer to not being pregnant. Pregnancy is EXTREMELY difficult for me. It is 9 months of hell. So even if I could give a baby up for adoption, I am not physically and mentally able to deal with the 9 months prior to the birth. That’s why adoption and abortion will never be equal choices. 

Thank you for explaining (and I’m sorry you experienced such a rough pregnancy). I hadn’t thought of that perspective so I appreciate you sharing it with me.

[JermajestyDuggar]

Same shit, different day:

[Howl]

Don't listen to all those lying liars who lie, listen to meeeeeeeeee, Lisa Metzger! And some guy whose handle is RedPillRev. 

Is Lisa Metzger in the San Antonio area? Brooke Army Medical Center,  SAMMC (San Antonio Military Medical Center) and KSAT TV station referenced in those tweets are all San Antonio. 

[JermajestyDuggar]

8 hours ago, Howl said:

Don't listen to all those lying liars who lie, listen to meeeeeeeeee, Lisa Metzger! And some guy whose handle is RedPillRev. 

Is Lisa Metzger in the San Antonio area? Brooke Army Medical Center,  SAMMC (San Antonio Military Medical Center) and KSAT TV station referenced in those tweets are all San Antonio. 

No, she’s in North Carolina (I think). She’s in one of the Carolinas just like TAM. They spend a lot more time together now that TAM moved down there from Ohio.