jclalor 12
that said, there's something about jim-bob i just do not like. i can't put my finger on it. I also think some of their belifs are weird. no dancing? wtf? the whole thing about god deciding how big your family will be is quite silly too. furthermore, after the complications with number 19 coupled with her age, it would be stupid to get pregnant again. its their choice though.
"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com
See, you pointed to nothing that the Duggars themselves have said.
You are also comparing a consenting adult woman to a 12 year old girl. Nice.
Tell me, was Nadia Suleman abused by the fella who wanted to keep her pregnant? Or do you think there are women out there who may actually want to have lots of kids and can find consenting sperm donors?
Ever stop to think that maybe the Duggar dad is pussy-whipped out of his mind by a woman? The scenario is possible.
I think your tone is insulting toward women. And the writing you dug out was nothing more than opinion and allegation - unsubstantiated by anything more than the egocentric thought that "I know what nobody else does - what's really going on. I'm not gonna tell you how I know. I just do."
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda
QuoteThey don't affect me any more than certain sects of the mormons that wed 12 year old girls, Abuse of children comes in all forms.
So now you compare this lady having kids to a 12 year old child? WOW Way to swing way out in left field. If they have 19 kids so what? Why do you care?
JohnnyD 0
Quote
The girls can't wear pants, no kissing until marriage, no dancing, no secular music,
Side note: I found that kind of funny. With that many kids, the control factor is quite diminished. At least that was my experience with a childhood friend that came from a very large family.
QuoteSeems to me these people don't affect you in the least. I believe that you aren't supporting them or providing any money for them.
My thinking is that tolerance involves that which does not affect you. So the Doogars have a lot of kids. Their choice. I wouldn't make it.
Octomom can't afford any kids, already has six and pays to get 8 more for the public dole. That I've got a problem with - foisting onus of her choices on others.
Could not agree more!
You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers!
billvon 3,080
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>music, no birth control, ( even after marriage, don't wanna interfere with
>god's plans)) the females are to be sub-serviant to the men. etc,etc,etc.
Doesn't sound like child abuse to me. Some of those decisions might be foolish and/or counterproductive, but they are their decisions to make.
jclalor 12
You have to give credit to the Amish, when their kids turn 18 they are given a year to see how the secular world lives and then decide how they want to live the rest of their lives.
QuoteWhen a girl is raised to believe her only lot in life is to marry and have twenty babies is wrong. Why not raise them to make their own choices when they are adults? Because most people not raised with religion can make an unbiased decision about superstions.
What makes you feel that this is 'wrong'? Why is your way of life and attitude toward raising children and the role of women 'right' while this one isn't? I am disgusted by the above lack of choice and ingraining of religious beliefs, however, I also think that other people deserve the right to raise their kids or propagate their belief systems as they see fit.... who's to say my belief system is 'right'? In the absence of anything illegal, I don't see how it's my business to determine how another family chooses to raise their children.
Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda
billvon 3,080
> twenty babies is wrong.
No more wrong than a boy who is raised to believe that his lot in life is to go to law school and become a lawyer, or that he's destined to be a football star.
>Why not raise them to make their own choices when they are adults?
They'll do that anyway. All you can do is provide them a good foundation with which to do so - and "family is very important" isn't such a bad foundation. (Neither is "work is important" or "school is important.")
>Because most people not raised with religion can make an unbiased
>decision about superstions.
That's like saying that people raised as a strict atheist can never make an informed decision about religion.
BillyVance 34
As long as the kids are well-behaved, polite, and loved, who cares what their parents' religion is. They're doing a damn good job of raising those kids by all appearances, and the older kids are learning responsibilities by helping care for their younger siblings, skills that will help them later in life.
All that said, 20 is a ridiculous number. 
Wait until those 20 start having kids of their own. What if they average 5-10 kids EACH? Jim Bob and his wife will have one helluva family reunion! 
wolfriverjoe 1,523
QuoteAs long as the kids are well-behaved, polite, and loved, who cares what their parents' religion is. They're doing a damn good job of raising those kids by all appearances, and the older kids are learning responsibilities by helping care for their younger siblings, skills that will help them later in life.
All that said, 20 is a ridiculous number.
Wait until those 20 start having kids of their own. What if they average 5-10 kids EACH? Jim Bob and his wife will have one helluva family reunion!
I heard a story on NPR "a while back" about some of these conservative Christian (perhaps extremist - depends on your point of view) who have large families. A good bit about the sacrafices necessary, the work required - some of them raised their own meat (pigs), but the scary part was their belief that by having so many kids, they would increase their numbers at a time when many who they disagree with are having smaller families. Something to the effect of "Think about in 5 generations of families this size. We'll outnember them and be able to elect who we want to power".
"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo
rehmwa 2
Quote>The girls can't wear pants, no kissing until marriage, no dancing, no secular
>music, no birth control, ( even after marriage, don't wanna interfere with
>god's plans)) the females are to be sub-serviant to the men. etc,etc,etc.
Doesn't sound like child abuse to me. Some of those decisions might be foolish and/or counterproductive, but they are their decisions to make.
I think they are nuts - but then I contrast them to the vegan-nutjobs that almost killed their baby or Octomom on gov assist and I can take a step back
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
Quote
Don't these people ever stop, I know it's their right to have 100 kids if they choose but I think their idea of raising kids borders on child abuse.
The girls can't wear pants, no kissing until marriage, no dancing, no secular music, no birth control, ( even after marriage, don't wanna interfere with god's plans)) the females are to be sub-serviant to the men. etc,etc,etc.
http://www.ivillage.com/duggar-family-more-kids/1-a-84833
I'm not a Baptist... I'm not even a Christian, and I started watching the show out of morbid curiosity. I was expecting to watch a freak show, and what I saw was the complete opposite.
Just to clarify: The girls have said in interviews that they are allowed to wear pants if they wish, but they prefer skirts. As for the "no dancing", its not an absolute "no dancing", it's no dancing in public. Jim-Bob and Michelle have said that it is fine for the two of them to dance in private, but they feel that public dancing is inappropriate. They feel that since the majority of dance has an element of sexuality to it, that the appropriate place for it is between husband and wife.
They do allow non-religious music in their home, but stick to mainly classical and instrumental if it's not religious music.
The no kissing thing was a recommendation by Jim-Bob to his children as a way to avoid premarital sex, there were conversations about it, but it was ultimately left up to the children to decide, and Jim-Bob and Michelle have admitted freely that they kissed before marriage, danced (Michelle was a cheerleader), listened to secular music, used birth control, and did most of the things they're discouraging in their children. They're very open about it, both in interviews on the show and with their kids. They just don't want their kids making what they view as "the same mistakes we did".
As for females being subservient, Jim-Bob and Michelle have discussions, she definitely has her own opinions, and he listens and values them. They really do seem like partners... just because her role is different than his doesn't mean it's inferior.
As for those kids, they're not abused in any sense of the word. They're happy, healthy, and well cared for, and certainly not neglected. They have plenty of time to talk to either parent if anything needs to be said. They have older siblings and relatives like Amy and Anna to talk to if they need to as well. While they may not get a ton of one on one with mom and dad, from what I've seen the house really is full of love and caring, and, personally having a parent from a large family and growing up surrounded with aunts, uncles and cousins, being surrounded by people that care about you is pretty darn cool.
Different does not equal wrong.
Quote
I heard a story on NPR "a while back" about some of these conservative Christian (perhaps extremist - depends on your point of view) who have large families. A good bit about the sacrafices necessary, the work required - some of them raised their own meat (pigs), but the scary part was their belief that by having so many kids, they would increase their numbers at a time when many who they disagree with are having smaller families. Something to the effect of "Think about in 5 generations of families this size. We'll outnember them and be able to elect who we want to power".
In Northern Ireland and Quebec this is known as the "revenge of the cradle" and came straight from the pulpit. It worked well in Quebec until the 70's and is still working in Ulster.
jclalor 12
QuoteI think their idea of raising kids borders on child abuse.
I never said it WAS child abuse, but I suppose raising racist children is technically not child abuse either.
I would defend the liberty of concenting adult creationists to practice whatever intellectual perversions they like in the privacy of their own homes; but it is also necessary to protect the young and innocent. [Arthur C. Clarke]
Quote
I never said it WAS child abuse,
No. But bordering on it. You made your point.
[Reply]but I suppose raising racist children is technically not child abuse either.
Yes. Just like raising religion hatin' kids.
[Reply]I would defend the liberty of concenting adult creationists to practice whatever intellectual perversions they like in the privacy of their own homes;
That's nice.
[Reply]but it is also necessary to protect the young and innocent.
Hmm. You sure that wasn't said by Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell? Sounds just like them!!!
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites