People is reporting that Michelle Duggar miscarried MERGED

[Arielkay]

Well you lack consistent something because your plan would have the opposite of the effect you intend. Unless you are willing to go to police-state levels of interference in people's private lives.

Yeah, I sure as hell wouldn't tell the guy if I thought there was a chance he'd force me into mediation. I'd get the hell out of there and not say a word. Let the police stop chasing the child molesters (you know, for the born children who are abused every day) and come after me. This is NOT the same as any other mediation or couples counseling because it has a DEADLINE. As in, after so many weeks, it becomes more dangerous and ironically, the fetus becomes more like a BABY the longer you wait. So you'd actually be forcing women into a second trimester abortion while at the same time saying an abortion close to viability is especially horrible. That's if she was able to obtain one at all. No, she'd have an unwanted baby that dear hubby would take on and . . . wait . . . where'd he go?

Besides that, I also find it amazing how you fundies will yell and scream about government interference in your lives (taxes, healthcare, etc) but insist upon it if it comes to enforcing your own morals. Nice.

[valsa]

Exactly. And I want her to clearly say "I am willing to give men the right to put women's lives at risk. And I don't give a shit about the woman."

I want her to fess up to her belief that sluts should just keep their damn legs closed if they don't want to jump through all these hoops, a sentiment which is present in 99% of the cases of stupidity like this.

[Constance Vigilance]

Fundie, translated: Children are always a blessing from god, except when they're a punishment for having sex.

[kayray]

What I learned in this thread from MrsS:

She knows jack sh!t. I am truly appalled at her proposal to endanger women and take away their rights over their own bodies and lives.

You cannot force mediation. No mediator worth their training would even agree to that. And yeah, I actually have been involved in many mediations.

Pregnancy is not just the end result. If I do not want to be pregnant or give birth, I do not care one bit whether someone would take the child at the end of it. Pregnancy and child birth is not just an inconvenience.

You advocate putting women's lives at risk. How fast do you propose these 2 sessions would go if the system is overloaded (as it is with regular mediation at times). Where are the resources going to come from?

You are foolish if you think women have not already heard about or considered

their choices before deciding on an abortion. Mediation is not going to change that!

What exactly prevents couples now from talking or counseling if they both want it?

If mediation can be forced it does not matter if you choose not to tell the man - what of he finds out? What if he sues her for removing his right to mediation? Or gets an injunction to force her to go?

What happens when dad decides either later in pregnancy or after that he changed his mind? Maybe he never wanted kid at all but wanted control? What if child is special needs and that is not what he signed up for in his eyes? Now what!?

There is more, but all in all, you are clearly uninformed about the process you see as a solution, totally misguided as to what women wanting an abortion may be going through, and a complete misogynist.

[Avalondaughter]

There has been gossip in some fundie circles about the Duggars being disliked because of the show and some of the things they do. I remember reading somewhere online that the Duggars' involvement with Focus on the Family and a couple of lesser conservative organizations pissed off some hard core fundies. I think some fundies now are still supporting the Duggars, while others see them as attention seekers.

I think if the Duggars never got a show offer, they would be struggling financially now and they wouldn't have had the means for various trips, expensive electronics a few other things.

I have speculated that once J'Michelle is away from the media circus and famewhoring that she and Jboob will feel guilty that their newfound worldliness caused God to punish them with the miscarriage. They might really revert to the matching frumpers and retreat as far as possible into their bubble.

It would be a sad thing for them. The one thing that being on TV did for them was show them that there is a larger world out there, that nice people don't have to be fundies (the producers and camera crew weren't all fundie after all). I doubt the well-indoctrinated older kids would ever run, but as long as TV kept them exposed to the wider world, there really might have been a chance for the younger ones. If they retreat Maxwell style, there is no hope for those kids.

[formergothardite]

I think that if they do try to go back to how they used to be, it will cause a lot of rebellion in their children. It is one thing to be raised in matching frumpers, it is totally different to have your stylish (yet modest!) clothes snatched from you and a frumper forced on you. Especially if you are a teen/pre-teen.

[JenniferJuniper]

I think that if they do try to go back to how they used to be, it will cause a lot of rebellion in their children. It is one thing to be raised in matching frumpers, it is totally different to have your stylish (yet modest!) clothes snatched from you and a frumper forced on you. Especially if you are a teen/pre-teen.

I think even Hannie would cast a "WTF?" look in Michelle's direction if she was told to put on a frumper.

[MarciaBrady]

I've been following this thread since the beginning but I haven't chimed in yet. I'm also quite bothered by the posts by Mrs.S. Most of you have already voiced my main concern quite well, so let me move on to my second problem with her "plan." It has nothing to do with caring about men having a voice or rights here as she claims. If she truly was concerned about men having a voice then she would be in favor of mediation whether the woman was choosing abortion or choosing to continue the pregnancy. She's already stated that she thinks the mediation should only be forced if the woman wants an abortion. It's disingenuous to spend nearly 40 pages arguing your pro-life agenda under the guise of caring about mens rights when you really only care about mens rights when those men have an opinion that you agree with. She clearly doesn't care about women's rights and it's becoming increasingly clear that she doesn't care about men having rights either. She only seems to care about stopping abortions, period.

I have no idea how you guys have managed to be patient enough to argue with someone for 40 pages when they refuse to be honest about what their true position is on this subject. I'm losing patience already and this is my first post.

[kayray]

I've been following this thread since the beginning but I haven't chimed in yet. I'm also quite bothered by the posts by Mrs.S. Most of you have already voiced my main concern quite well, so let me move on to my second problem with her "plan." It has nothing to do with caring about men having a voice or rights here as she claims. If she truly was concerned about men having a voice then she would be in favor of mediation whether the woman was choosing abortion or choosing to continue the pregnancy. She's already stated that she thinks the mediation should only be forced if the woman wants an abortion. It's disingenuous to spend nearly 40 pages arguing your pro-life agenda under the guise of caring about mens rights when you really only care about mens rights when those men have an opinion that you agree with. She clearly doesn't care about women's rights and it's becoming increasingly clear that she doesn't care about men having rights either. She only seems to care about stopping abortions, period.

I have no idea how you guys have managed to be patient enough to argue with someone for 40 pages when they refuse to be honest about what their true position is on this subject. I'm losing patience already and this is my first post.

I do think that is the true motivation underlying all her argument. She is just not honest with anyone (not even herself, it seems) about it.

[Witsec1]

And that's right, ALL women have to have the same opinion on every thing. .

You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. Your "right to mediation" undermines the right to privacy granted by Roe v. Wade. That's a hard legal fact. My opinion that you are an anti-feminist is grounded in that fact.

Do I get to have divergent views on any other topic ...

Waaaaa! You're taking away my right to have opinions by having well-reasoned, factually-suppported opinions about my opinion. It's so unfair!

:violin:

... or does this cover any other racist, classist, ethnocentric belief system you ascribe to a group ? Or is gender the only thing that matters ? And if gender IS the only thing that matters you are at least as brainwashed and braindead as any of the fundies.

I have no idea what the hell you mean by this. Do you think support for Roe v. Wade falls out along strict gender lines? I don't assign beliefs to anyone based on their group membership. Obviously lots of men are pro-choice and agree with us that it is completely a woman's right to choose.

Edited for missing word

[Mama Mia]

Gee.. thanks SO much for telling me that I am

1) A fundie --- not even in the same remote ball park

2) Against social services, financial supports, birth control, sex ed etc etc etc ---even further from the truth, in fact I'm pretty much a socialist

3) That I think people should just "keep their legs closed" or 'sex is a punishment' or 'sex outside of marriage is bad' --- uh yeah, as part of my apparent world ignorance I should disclose that IRL I've known maybe a handful of people who waited until they were married until they had sex - and no one in my own generation or younger.

4. That if I think there should be a few modifications to abortion regulations it MUST mean I think that ALL abortion is bad and should be illegal and the people who have them are awful monsters ( which would be super sad since probably at least a third of the women I know IRL have had one - including people I love and respect deeply - including myself, and I kind of like me )

5 ) That if I have an actual question about a reproductive topic ( in this case ectopic pregnancy) I shouldn't ask it, or express an opinion--because you know conversation and debate is ALL about constantly bleeting your own view over and over louder and louder until the other parties stfu. And if I don't agree with you on one point, then gee somehow I shouldn't express my agreement on another for some weird fucked up reason. BUT no, we don't all have to think the same, and you don't put people in boxes. Got it.

5. Oh and the extra priceless -- "if everyone here is telling you you're wrong- you must be wrong" --so how does THAT work exactly ? If I go to some forum where everyone advocates beating children am I wrong if I state my belief that they shouldn't ? --I mean ALL of the wise people disagree with me, so they MUST be right.

Seriously, this thread is exactly what I was saying bothers me no fucking end about abortion debate -- the people who advocate for one side or the other are so incredibly self-righteous and extreme. You do know that out in the big wide world there are all sorts of variations of opinion. Right ?

And to the posts that have come in while posting this --- I agreed many pages ago that if it was more fair that the father could ask for mediation in order to give his arguments in favor of an abortion, fine, why not.

The group membership -- uh yeah, when you say a woman isn't 'really a woman' unless she agrees with you that would be exactly what ascribing beliefs to a certain group means.

[formergothardite]

Yes or no. Do you think men should be able to put women's lives in danger by using mediation? Because delaying abortion does that.

[formergothardite]

I don't think it is self-righteous to say that I don't think it should be legal for my husband to force me into a more dangerous medical situation than I originally wanted. Or sometimes, if the wait is long enough, prevent me entirely from having an abortion.

[Witsec1]

I've been following this thread since the beginning but I haven't chimed in yet. I'm also quite bothered by the posts by Mrs.S. Most of you have already voiced my main concern quite well, so let me move on to my second problem with her "plan." It has nothing to do with caring about men having a voice or rights here as she claims. If she truly was concerned about men having a voice then she would be in favor of mediation whether the woman was choosing abortion or choosing to continue the pregnancy. She's already stated that she thinks the mediation should only be forced if the woman wants an abortion. It's disingenuous to spend nearly 40 pages arguing your pro-life agenda under the guise of caring about mens rights when you really only care about mens rights when those men have an opinion that you agree with. She clearly doesn't care about women's rights and it's becoming increasingly clear that she doesn't care about men having rights either. She only seems to care about stopping abortions, period.

I have no idea how you guys have managed to be patient enough to argue with someone for 40 pages when they refuse to be honest about what their true position is on this subject. I'm losing patience already and this is my first post.

Well, she did sort of grudgingly concede that he should be able to get mediation if he was the one advocating abortion, in one comment. But when she answered about forced mediation the only conditions she gave for forcing mediation is if he wanted to keep the child. So it's unclear.

I actually do think that a man should be able to renounce financial responsibility under certain conditions. It doesn't seem fair that a man would have to pay for the rest of his life if his condom breaks or something. But I am not stupid enough to think I could sit down and think up a good plan for ensuring this, off the top of my head. No matter how much personal experience and anecdotal evidence I had. It would acquire lots of serious research by a team of experts.

[Constance Vigilance]

Edited because it's not worth it to argue with someone who can't stop lying about her motivations long enough to get a post out.

I've been following this thread since the beginning but I haven't chimed in yet. I'm also quite bothered by the posts by Mrs.S. Most of you have already voiced my main concern quite well, so let me move on to my second problem with her "plan." It has nothing to do with caring about men having a voice or rights here as she claims. If she truly was concerned about men having a voice then she would be in favor of mediation whether the woman was choosing abortion or choosing to continue the pregnancy. She's already stated that she thinks the mediation should only be forced if the woman wants an abortion. It's disingenuous to spend nearly 40 pages arguing your pro-life agenda under the guise of caring about mens rights when you really only care about mens rights when those men have an opinion that you agree with. She clearly doesn't care about women's rights and it's becoming increasingly clear that she doesn't

care about men having rights either. She only seems to care about stopping abortions, period.

Well said.

[goldennotebook]

Here's the things, MrsS2004. Your appeal to everyone having a different opinion doesn't really work when your opinion means that I don't get to exercise my own judgment about an elective surgical procedure that is mine to decide upon by right. "Everyone gets to have a different opinion!" doesn't work in the case of policy when the issue at hand is abortion (and many other issues, come to think of it.) Women either have a right to an elective surgical procedure or they don't.

[Witsec1]

5 ) That if I have an actual question about a reproductive topic ( in this case ectopic pregnancy) I shouldn't ask it, or express an opinion--because you know conversation and debate is ALL about constantly bleeting your own view over and over louder and louder until the other parties stfu.

That does seem to be your view of what debate is all about. You keep failing to address the reasonable arguments that point out the obvious problems with your plan, and instead keep just stating your opinion more and more belligerently.

[Mama Mia]

I think there should be a one week period for the mediation. Since this my own fucking hypothetical argument about a process that doesn't exist I can assume that there is access to mediators during that period. You, of course, are free to assume there are not.

And yes, obviously, I can not come up with a complete policy and procedures for implementation off the top of my head on one thread in the freaking internet. Similar to the whole 'renounce child support' idea -- actual real life policies involve much more than a few non-professionals spouting their thoughts. That does not mean that individuals do not have ideas or beliefs that might be transformed into actuality at some point, or that they shouldn't have an opinion on the topic. There are MANY structures in place that change over time and have modifications - because someone doesn't have every detail ironed out, or the means to accomplish the ideas doesn't mean they shouldn't be discussed. For example - domestic violence laws, domestic violence shelters and the counseling and restraining orders and everything else involved- none of that existed once upon a time in the fairly recent past-- yet now they do- not flawlessly, not without some conflicts, or difficulty with funding, but they exist.

[Witsec1]

You know what's funny about this whole thing? That any "mediation" would have to begin by getting both parties to agree that it is completely the women's choice whether to continue the pregnancy. At least while Roe v. Wade holds.

The fact that she thinks men need some kind of special hand-holding session to come to terms with this is very telling.

[Witsec1]

I think there should be a one week period for the mediation. Since this my own fucking hypothetical argument about a process that doesn't exist I can assume that there is access to mediators during that period. You, of course, are free to assume there are not.

And yes, obviously, I can not come up with a complete policy and procedures for implementation off the top of my head on one thread in the freaking internet. Similar to the whole 'renounce child support' idea -- actual real life policies involve much more than a few non-professionals spouting their thoughts. That does not mean that individuals do not have ideas or beliefs that might be transformed into actuality at some point, or that they shouldn't have an opinion on the topic. There are MANY structures in place that change over time and have modifications - because someone doesn't have every detail ironed out, or the means to accomplish the ideas doesn't mean they shouldn't be discussed. For example - domestic violence laws, domestic violence shelters and the counseling and restraining orders and everything else involved- none of that existed once upon a time in the fairly recent past-- yet now they do- not flawlessly, not without some conflicts, or difficulty with funding, but they exist.

Look, if your plan can't stand up to the scrutiny of some random people on the Internet maybe it's not really a good plan. The way to get better policies is to expose them to debate and think through possible unintended consequences. You're not willing to do that.

[Constance Vigilance]

I think there should be a one week period for the mediation. Since this my own fucking hypothetical argument about a process that doesn't exist I can assume that there is access to mediators during that period. You, of course, are free to assume there are not.

It isn't fun coming up against reality, is it? Name me one government agency where you can get an appointment with an advisor/mediator/whathaveyou within a week, let alone two appointments? It's impossible. Your hypothetical process is. not. possible. Where is the money coming from? Where are the staff?

I know it terrifies you that a woman might get to make a decision about her own body without having to listen to a monologue from some guy she happened to sleep with once, but really, grow up.

[treemom]

I just want to point out that there is ample evidence that this wouldn't be ruled as constitutional anyhow...so it is Mrs S pipe dream.

[goldennotebook]

You mean we don't have to get a permission slip from an irate guy to get an elective medical procedure? Phew. I was really sweating that one.

[Witsec1]

I just want to point out that there is ample evidence that this wouldn't be ruled as constitutional anyhow...so it is Mrs S pipe dream.

Put down the crack pipe, Mrs. S!

[JenniferJuniper]

The whole "required mediation" argument is patently ludicrous on so many levels. Roe v. Wade is the law of the land and in that decision the Court determined that the right to privacy under the due process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment extended to women seeking abortions.

People are free to post about whatever they like, but this particular poster is clearly just creating her own fantasy world and there is no arguing with people's personal fantasies.

I do think that folks like this would be much more comfortable in patriarchal Muslim societies. Don’t let the screen door hit you on the way out…..