Yeah well, I don't accept that abortion is a bad thing, so your outrage tactic fails right there. Three or four kids in decent health is a superior outcome to more with crippling problems.
I don't expect you to feel my outrage, so your tactic of whatever that was fails.
Let's bash people for not being tolerant or open-minded when they don't agree with me! It's the height of hypocrisy!
Yes, absolutely, of course! If I want to be TRULY "tolerant" then I need to keep my mouth shut when people spew racism.
Liberals are nowhere near perfect, and I'm not going to claim that they are. Nevertheless, the segment of the population that's publicly anti-gay and anti-women identifies much, much more with conservatism and fundamentalist Christianity than it does with liberalism and secularism.
Except of course you are the arbiter of which topics get to be defined as off-limits for this double-standard. That's the inherent issue with screaming "TOLERANCE".
That's really dumb. Everyone here agrees that the "quiverfull" movement is made of fundamentalist (conservative) Christians, and ElJeffe was the one who brought up "liberal" "non-religious" values as a contrast. Not me.
You still haven't acknowledged my repeated statements about their rights as parents and the fact that I don't really object to large families. But I guess that would make it harder to stay sprawled across the fainting couch, eh.
Let's bash people for not being tolerant or open-minded when they don't agree with me! It's the height of hypocrisy!
You might want to look up the difference between tolerance and acceptance. Respecting someone elses' right to be a dumbass doesn't mean you have to respect them.
I think this family is not really important or worth worrying about.
There are worse cases, I think the McCaugheys should be mentioned here. Not only did they rely on IVF to produce their brood, they refused selective reduction of the resultant 7 fetuses, so two were born with cerebral palsy and one other has eyesight problems. Both parents only have a high school education and really do rely entirely on charity to survive. The birth procedure itself apparently cost a million dollars. And yeah, this was another case of 'doin' it for god'.
That's disgusting. And I'm not talking about the McCaughey's -- you just demonized someone in part because they did not have an abortion.
Selective reduction is a little different than abortion. Also, this sort of thing increases the chances of having a kid with a serious congenital condition.
Selective reduction is a euphamism for abortion.
Yeah dude! Aborting a baby because you don't want one, and aborting a few babies so that the mother is far less in danger of dying, and because you can't afford to feed all of the babies, and because they're going to be born highly damaged (and thus even more expensive to keep alive) is totally the same thing!
No, but they are all abortions. Aborting a baby as a method of birth control is different than for reasons or health is different than for rape is different....
It's all abortion. Using a euphamism does nothing but attempt to hide that fact.
No, but they are all abortions. Aborting a baby as a method of birth control is different than for reasons or health is different than for rape is different....
It's all abortion. Using a euphamism does nothing but attempt to hide that fact.
Its not a euphemism, its the correct technical term for the procedure. FFS, we know what the result is, you don't have to remind us that the word doesn't refer to giving the blastocyst a cuddle.
Oh, stop throwing 'demonised' around. I disapprove of the decision to force an already infertile body into birthing, and I disapprove of the decision to make it carry over three times as many fetuses as it can safely handle. I thoroughly disapprove of purposefully creating children with a painful, chronic, lethal condition. they had a right to do it, but they're still terrible people in my opinion. deal with it.
Oh, I can deal with it. But you should know that if you post your disapprovals on a forum, people are free to call you on them. Deal with that.
You still haven't acknowledged my repeated statements about their rights as parents and the fact that I don't really object to large families. But I guess that would make it harder to stay sprawled across the fainting couch, eh.
You might want to look up the difference between tolerance and acceptance. Respecting someone elses' right to be a dumbass doesn't mean you have to respect them.
You still haven't acknowledged my repeated statements about their rights as parents and the fact that I don't really object to large families. But I guess that would make it harder to stay sprawled across the fainting couch, eh.
The Cat on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
No, but they are all abortions. Aborting a baby as a method of birth control is different than for reasons or health is different than for rape is different....
It's all abortion. Using a euphamism does nothing but attempt to hide that fact.
Its not a euphemism, its the correct technical term for the procedure. FFS, we know what the result is, you don't have to remind us that the word doesn't refer to giving the blastocyst a cuddle.
Especially since certain groups have seen fit to infuse the word abortion with extreme emotional connotations, the proper scientific term is better in some cases, such as this one.
No, but they are all abortions. Aborting a baby as a method of birth control is different than for reasons or health is different than for rape is different....
It's all abortion. Using a euphamism does nothing but attempt to hide that fact.
Fine then, it's all abortion. In the case of selective reduction abortions, the fetuses that are kept are much more likely to survive birth without severe injury or other health problems. Plus, mom's health (life?) is preserved.
Oh, stop throwing 'demonised' around. I disapprove of the decision to force an already infertile body into birthing, and I disapprove of the decision to make it carry over three times as many fetuses as it can safely handle. I thoroughly disapprove of purposefully creating children with a painful, chronic, lethal condition. they had a right to do it, but they're still terrible people in my opinion. deal with it.
Oh, I can deal with it. But you should know that if you post your disapprovals on a forum, people are free to call you on them. Deal with that.
Whoops! Looks like The Cat isn't tolerant of your answers!
Shit, The Cat! What will you do now? Your logic train is derailed and ryuprecht is victorious!
No, but they are all abortions. Aborting a baby as a method of birth control is different than for reasons or health is different than for rape is different....
It's all abortion. Using a euphamism does nothing but attempt to hide that fact.
No, it's being specific and nuanced so as to not whitewash the particulars of a certain case.
Oh, stop throwing 'demonised' around. I disapprove of the decision to force an already infertile body into birthing, and I disapprove of the decision to make it carry over three times as many fetuses as it can safely handle. I thoroughly disapprove of purposefully creating children with a painful, chronic, lethal condition. they had a right to do it, but they're still terrible people in my opinion. deal with it.
Oh, I can deal with it. But you should know that if you post your disapprovals on a forum, people are free to call you on them. Deal with that.
Whoops! Looks like The Cat isn't tolerant of your answers!
Shit, The Cat! What will you do now? Your logic train is derailed and ryuprecht is victorious!
I'll chuckle, and go to bed, since its 2am and I believe I've made my position sufficiently clear. When I wake up, I will infract anyone stupid enough not to start a separate thread about abortion if they want to talk about it so badly.
Anyways, your opposition has moved from "Oh, but you're not being tolerant!" to "Oh, it's okay for parents to raise women as though it were still 1940!" to "But the ABORTIONS, won't someone think of THE ABORTIONS?," which is great and all, but you haven't really made any counterpoints besides "You're disagreeing with me! That's liberal! Hah, you dirty liberal you, I'm calling you out on being a liberal!"
Feel free to say something with substance, though.
You still haven't acknowledged my repeated statements about their rights as parents and the fact that I don't really object to large families. But I guess that would make it harder to stay sprawled across the fainting couch, eh.
No, it's not really necessary. Do I have to say "I recognize that you feel this way, but I take issue with the statements you made thus:"
I never said you advocated that they couldn't do this, I pointed out that your ire is disproportional to the issue.
No, but they are all abortions. Aborting a baby as a method of birth control is different than for reasons or health is different than for rape is different....
It's all abortion. Using a euphamism does nothing but attempt to hide that fact.
Fine then, it's all abortion. In the case of selective reduction abortions, the fetuses that are kept are much more likely to survive birth without severe injury or other health problems. Plus, mom's health (life?) is preserved.
What's the problem? Why the outrage?
Wrong thread to go into that. Suffice it to say I have an outrage to abortion.
Anyways, your opposition has moved from "Oh, but you're not being tolerant!" to "Oh, it's okay for parents to raise women as though it were still 1940!" to "But the ABORTIONS, won't someone think of THE ABORTIONS?," which is great and all, but you haven't really made any counterpoints besides "You're disagreeing with me! That's liberal! Hah, you dirty liberal you, I'm calling you out on being a liberal!"
Feel free to say something with substance, though.
No, but they are all abortions. Aborting a baby as a method of birth control is different than for reasons or health is different than for rape is different....
It's all abortion. Using a euphamism does nothing but attempt to hide that fact.
Fine then, it's all abortion. In the case of selective reduction abortions, the fetuses that are kept are much more likely to survive birth without severe injury or other health problems. Plus, mom's health (life?) is preserved.
What's the problem? Why the outrage?
Wrong thread to go into that. Suffice it to say I have an outrage to abortion.
...And that's why I think it's a bad idea for people to base their family planning decisions exclusively upon religious ideas, as the quiverfull types apparently are doing.
I never said you advocated that they couldn't do this, I pointed out that your ire is disproportional to the issue.
What would be the appropriate level of disdain then? Afterall, there's only so much contempt to go around.
Hm....I guess I wasn't clear enough on that point. It's not a matter of proportion, but the catalyst. In this case, the bulk of the outrage seemed to stem from the fact that it's a Christian family, as evidenced by the fact that the discussion quickly moved from "how do they support these kids?" and "I think adoption would be better" to "the issue is that they believe in procreation as a Godly mandate".
I never said you advocated that they couldn't do this, I pointed out that your ire is disproportional to the issue.
What would be the appropriate level of disdain then? Afterall, there's only so much contempt to go around.
Hm....I guess I wasn't clear enough on that point. It's not a matter of proportion, but the catalyst. In this case, the bulk of the outrage seemed to stem from the fact that it's a Christian family, as evidenced by the fact that the discussion quickly moved from "how do they support these kids?" and "I think adoption would be better" to "the issue is that they believe in procreation as a Godly mandate".
Eh, possibly, and we need to be careful of that, but I'd like to think the concern was that the belief in procreation as a godly mandate is the primary motivating factor in the decision to procreate without regard for the circumstances of the family.
Zalbinion on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I'm pretty sure people were more upset that they believed in procreation as a Godly mandate, so much so that they procreated without taking into account what they could actually support (financially, etc).
I'm going to be hard pressed to argue this point reasonably, but I consider it selfish because, basically, their position is that, because the point of any human being is to procreate no questions asked end of story good bye, they deserve more than the average family of one or two children. They breed to fill any space they can, all under the iron rule of the men of the household. It's like the mormons in that they're growing in size not because of popularity, but because they make so many of themselves on their own.
Try this: they're selfish because they're breeding to fill what they see as a godly mandate, not because they like children and enjoy raising them. The younger duggars are raised largely by the older ones. Its a breed-your-own-cult kit, not a family. I can't wait until the family rebel breaks free and writes a book.
Oh horror among horrors!! They feel that procreation is a Godly mandate and so that makes them selfish? How do you reconcile that logic? Doing good deeds is a Godly mandate as well, so I guess that makes those selfish. Love thy neighbor and all, it's all just selfishness couched in fundamentalist speak so as to make then seem pious.
Learn to read man. It's not selfish because it's a godly mandate, it's selfish because that godly mandate results in too many children to properly raise and care for.
Allow me to quote:
they're selfish because they're breeding to fill what they see as a godly mandate
Very good.
Now, what that means is that it's selfish to use a "godly mandate" as an excuse to be irresponsible.
See?
No, I don't. I'll say it one more time:
they're selfish because they're breeding to fill what they see as a godly mandate
The because was already in there, and the statement stood by itself. It was never asserted as you claimed, ie, the assertion was not that "that godly mandate results in too many children to properly raise and care for". That's the only point I was arguing.
they're selfish because they're breeding to fill what they see as a godly mandate
The because was already in there, and the statement stood by itself. It was never asserted as you claimed, ie, the assertion was not that "that godly mandate results in too many children to properly raise and care for". That's the only point I was arguing.
Wow. You really like to be wrong, don't you?
Yep, it's selfish to breed to meet a "godly mandate". Just as it would be selfish to breed because you can't figure out how to use a condom. Or because you need the workforce. Or any of the other reasons that these people give for consistently popping out kiddos. The reason the Duggars scare the living fuck out of us is because their worldview doesn't just stop at seeing if they can singlehandedly field a full football team, as Cat has pointed out (over, and over, and over, and over...). To give you another case, let's talk about Andrea Yates - it's pretty well known that her husband pushed her into pregnancy over and over using religion even when doctors said that the stress of carrying a child was no longer safe for her mentally.
Debating you isn't even sporting anymore. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.
Yeah. I'm willing to admit that the main reason this family unsettles me is that they're being raised by crazy fundies. If we're lucky some of them might grow up to not be crazy, but I'd bet most of them will not only be crazy fundies until they die, but will birth above-average size families of crazy fundies. It's a genuine concern!
FFS, we know what the result is, you don't have to remind us that the word doesn't refer to giving the blastocyst a cuddle.
You are my new favorite poster because of this sentence.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Yep, it's selfish to breed to meet a "godly mandate". Just as it would be selfish to breed because you can't figure out how to use a condom.
ITT: People don't know what the fuck the word "selfish" means.
"Selfish" means you're doing something because it benefits you. Doing it because God says so is not selfish, because you're doing it for someone else - specifically, God. Doing it because you really love children and want to surround yourself with a little army of snuggle-bugs, on the other hand, would be selfish. This is all independent of whether or not you can afford to raise the little snotters. Having a huge family that you can't support is just as bad whether you're doing it because you like kids or if you're doing it because God says so. Having a huge family that you can support is not bad, whether you're doing it for God or for yourself. This is assuming, of course, that the parents love the kids equally in either case, and there's no evidence that the Duggers, et al, don't love their kids.
In summary, if you even mention the whole God issue here, you're belying a prejudice against religion, because the presence of the God issue is completely irrelevant.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I'm going to be hard pressed to argue this point reasonably, but I consider it selfish because, basically, their position is that, because the point of any human being is to procreate no questions asked end of story good bye, they deserve more than the average family of one or two children. They breed to fill any space they can, all under the iron rule of the men of the household. It's like the mormons in that they're growing in size not because of popularity, but because they make so many of themselves on their own.
Try this: they're selfish because they're breeding to fill what they see as a godly mandate, not because they like children and enjoy raising them. The younger duggars are raised largely by the older ones. Its a breed-your-own-cult kit, not a family. I can't wait until the family rebel breaks free and writes a book.
Oh horror among horrors!! They feel that procreation is a Godly mandate and so that makes them selfish? How do you reconcile that logic? Doing good deeds is a Godly mandate as well, so I guess that makes those selfish. Love thy neighbor and all, it's all just selfishness couched in fundamentalist speak so as to make then seem pious.
Learn to read man. It's not selfish because it's a godly mandate, it's selfish because that godly mandate results in too many children to properly raise and care for.
Allow me to quote:
they're selfish because they're breeding to fill what they see as a godly mandate
Very good.
Now, what that means is that it's selfish to use a "godly mandate" as an excuse to be irresponsible.
See?
No, I don't. I'll say it one more time:
they're selfish because they're breeding to fill what they see as a godly mandate
The because was already in there, and the statement stood by itself. It was never asserted as you claimed, ie, the assertion was not that "that godly mandate results in too many children to properly raise and care for". That's the only point I was arguing.
Oh come on now! How can you not get it?
Doing good deeds is a Godly mandate as well, so I guess that makes those selfish.
You asserted that people were objecting to any and all things deemed godly mandates purely because they are godly mandates. And those godly mandates were by definition selfish. That is NOT what was meant by that statement.
Proto on
and her knees up on the glove compartment
took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
Jesus Christ, I go to work for a few hours and the thread asplodes. All that comes of it for me is asking myself that selfsame question I first asked about ryuprecht. I won't repeat it here, I got infracted for it.
Let me clarify my position, since I mostly agree with The Cat but want to make sure ryuprecht doesn't get the chance to put words in my mouth.
I do have a problem with all exceedingly large families. Pretty much anything above four biological children in a situation where the children can't be supported or don't receive propoer care and attention for whatever reason. Do I think we should go the way of China? Absolutely not. It's a couple's right to fuck up all of their many, many chilluns. Does it stop me from judging them for it? Again, no. Some of my friends that just got married were talking about having a "whole mess of children," specifically seven or eight. I have a problem with that, and they're bigger hippies than I am (hint: I'm not that big of a hippie, but damn, these people are hippies).
I have an even greater problem when people go through fuck-all to make themselves have biological children. TLC runs shows about those all the time too, and they piss me off to no end. They do, however, have their rights. I can still be judgmental, however.
I have a problem with fundamentalist indoctrination in all its forms. When my uncle home schooled his kids because there were "dirty brown people" at the local school, I chastised him for it. I was alone against almost my entire family in a yelling fight because they're backwards assholes. But, you know, that's their right.
I have a problem with the Duggars specifically because they combine so many undesireable traits into a giant, writhing mass of red polo shirts, ugly dresses, and bad hair. I could buy that somebody wants kids because they love kids and they want to raise them if they're devoting time to their children, but these people don't. They fire off kids as fast as they possibly can, and, as The Cat has pointed out, the kids are raised mostly by the other kids. They're not a family, they're a settlement, but they just happen to have one last name and dwindling genetic material to distribute.
But, you know, that's their right. I can't stop them, but I can certainly call them selfish, fundamentalist bastards that are raising a generation of fucked up children because that's "God's will."
Parents want their kids to grow up with their values, that's not news. But because these aren't proto-typical secular liberals, it's a problem for you. The kids have to do chores, so it's being demonized as slavery. They prefer traditional male/female roles, so they are the target of vitriolic hand-wringing by liberals. It's all crap.
I find it pretty funny that you can get so incensed about "euphemisms for abortion" while using a phrase like "traditional male/female roles" with a straight face.
Yep, it's selfish to breed to meet a "godly mandate". Just as it would be selfish to breed because you can't figure out how to use a condom.
ITT: People don't know what the fuck the word "selfish" means.
"Selfish" means you're doing something because it benefits you. Doing it because God says so is not selfish, because you're doing it for someone else - specifically, God. Doing it because you really love children and want to surround yourself with a little army of snuggle-bugs, on the other hand, would be selfish. This is all independent of whether or not you can afford to raise the little snotters. Having a huge family that you can't support is just as bad whether you're doing it because you like kids or if you're doing it because God says so. Having a huge family that you can support is not bad, whether you're doing it for God or for yourself. This is assuming, of course, that the parents love the kids equally in either case, and there's no evidence that the Duggers, et al, don't love their kids.
In summary, if you even mention the whole God issue here, you're belying a prejudice against religion, because the presence of the God issue is completely irrelevant.
Disagree.
It's primal selfishness, the way Meerkats kill off the babies of the other families of Meerkats. Or pretty much any social animal, for that matter.
Yep, it's selfish to breed to meet a "godly mandate". Just as it would be selfish to breed because you can't figure out how to use a condom.
ITT: People don't know what the fuck the word "selfish" means.
"Selfish" means you're doing something because it benefits you. Doing it because God says so is not selfish, because you're doing it for someone else - specifically, God.
...Except that the Duggars are only procreating for God because there's something in it for them. Specifically, adherence to God's law that helps them ensure entry into Heaven later, or something to that effect.
Here's what wouldn't be selfish, re: childbirth:
- offering to be a surrogate for a woman who couldn't carry a pregnancy to term;
- offering to adopt the children of parents who died or otherwise couldn't parent;
...because these reasons are closer to altruism than satisfying one's personal religious beliefs.
Posts
I don't expect you to feel my outrage, so your tactic of whatever that was fails.
That's really dumb. Everyone here agrees that the "quiverfull" movement is made of fundamentalist (conservative) Christians, and ElJeffe was the one who brought up "liberal" "non-religious" values as a contrast. Not me.
You might want to look up the difference between tolerance and acceptance. Respecting someone elses' right to be a dumbass doesn't mean you have to respect them.
No, but they are all abortions. Aborting a baby as a method of birth control is different than for reasons or health is different than for rape is different....
It's all abortion. Using a euphamism does nothing but attempt to hide that fact.
Its not a euphemism, its the correct technical term for the procedure. FFS, we know what the result is, you don't have to remind us that the word doesn't refer to giving the blastocyst a cuddle.
Oh, I can deal with it. But you should know that if you post your disapprovals on a forum, people are free to call you on them. Deal with that.
Nothing, but Ryu's trying really hard to frame the (off topic) argument as though it was.
Tangent ends now.
Oh man. Here we go.
They're called chaise lounges. And botp'd
I'm waiting for ElJeffe to hop in here and say "we are so not going there".
Fine then, it's all abortion. In the case of selective reduction abortions, the fetuses that are kept are much more likely to survive birth without severe injury or other health problems. Plus, mom's health (life?) is preserved.
What's the problem? Why the outrage?
Whoops! Looks like The Cat isn't tolerant of your answers!
Shit, The Cat! What will you do now? Your logic train is derailed and ryuprecht is victorious!
No, it's being specific and nuanced so as to not whitewash the particulars of a certain case.
I'll chuckle, and go to bed, since its 2am and I believe I've made my position sufficiently clear. When I wake up, I will infract anyone stupid enough not to start a separate thread about abortion if they want to talk about it so badly.
Anyways, your opposition has moved from "Oh, but you're not being tolerant!" to "Oh, it's okay for parents to raise women as though it were still 1940!" to "But the ABORTIONS, won't someone think of THE ABORTIONS?," which is great and all, but you haven't really made any counterpoints besides "You're disagreeing with me! That's liberal! Hah, you dirty liberal you, I'm calling you out on being a liberal!"
Feel free to say something with substance, though.
No, it's not really necessary. Do I have to say "I recognize that you feel this way, but I take issue with the statements you made thus:"
I never said you advocated that they couldn't do this, I pointed out that your ire is disproportional to the issue.
Wrong thread to go into that. Suffice it to say I have an outrage to abortion.
What would be the appropriate level of disdain then? Afterall, there's only so much contempt to go around.
Nice but horribly flawed summary of my positions.
...And that's why I think it's a bad idea for people to base their family planning decisions exclusively upon religious ideas, as the quiverfull types apparently are doing.
Hm....I guess I wasn't clear enough on that point. It's not a matter of proportion, but the catalyst. In this case, the bulk of the outrage seemed to stem from the fact that it's a Christian family, as evidenced by the fact that the discussion quickly moved from "how do they support these kids?" and "I think adoption would be better" to "the issue is that they believe in procreation as a Godly mandate".
Eh, possibly, and we need to be careful of that, but I'd like to think the concern was that the belief in procreation as a godly mandate is the primary motivating factor in the decision to procreate without regard for the circumstances of the family.
No, I don't. I'll say it one more time:
The because was already in there, and the statement stood by itself. It was never asserted as you claimed, ie, the assertion was not that "that godly mandate results in too many children to properly raise and care for". That's the only point I was arguing.
Wow. You really like to be wrong, don't you?
Yep, it's selfish to breed to meet a "godly mandate". Just as it would be selfish to breed because you can't figure out how to use a condom. Or because you need the workforce. Or any of the other reasons that these people give for consistently popping out kiddos. The reason the Duggars scare the living fuck out of us is because their worldview doesn't just stop at seeing if they can singlehandedly field a full football team, as Cat has pointed out (over, and over, and over, and over...). To give you another case, let's talk about Andrea Yates - it's pretty well known that her husband pushed her into pregnancy over and over using religion even when doctors said that the stress of carrying a child was no longer safe for her mentally.
Debating you isn't even sporting anymore. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.
You are my new favorite poster because of this sentence.
ITT: People don't know what the fuck the word "selfish" means.
"Selfish" means you're doing something because it benefits you. Doing it because God says so is not selfish, because you're doing it for someone else - specifically, God. Doing it because you really love children and want to surround yourself with a little army of snuggle-bugs, on the other hand, would be selfish. This is all independent of whether or not you can afford to raise the little snotters. Having a huge family that you can't support is just as bad whether you're doing it because you like kids or if you're doing it because God says so. Having a huge family that you can support is not bad, whether you're doing it for God or for yourself. This is assuming, of course, that the parents love the kids equally in either case, and there's no evidence that the Duggers, et al, don't love their kids.
In summary, if you even mention the whole God issue here, you're belying a prejudice against religion, because the presence of the God issue is completely irrelevant.
Oh come on now! How can you not get it?
You asserted that people were objecting to any and all things deemed godly mandates purely because they are godly mandates. And those godly mandates were by definition selfish. That is NOT what was meant by that statement.
took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
Let me clarify my position, since I mostly agree with The Cat but want to make sure ryuprecht doesn't get the chance to put words in my mouth.
I do have a problem with all exceedingly large families. Pretty much anything above four biological children in a situation where the children can't be supported or don't receive propoer care and attention for whatever reason. Do I think we should go the way of China? Absolutely not. It's a couple's right to fuck up all of their many, many chilluns. Does it stop me from judging them for it? Again, no. Some of my friends that just got married were talking about having a "whole mess of children," specifically seven or eight. I have a problem with that, and they're bigger hippies than I am (hint: I'm not that big of a hippie, but damn, these people are hippies).
I have an even greater problem when people go through fuck-all to make themselves have biological children. TLC runs shows about those all the time too, and they piss me off to no end. They do, however, have their rights. I can still be judgmental, however.
I have a problem with fundamentalist indoctrination in all its forms. When my uncle home schooled his kids because there were "dirty brown people" at the local school, I chastised him for it. I was alone against almost my entire family in a yelling fight because they're backwards assholes. But, you know, that's their right.
I have a problem with the Duggars specifically because they combine so many undesireable traits into a giant, writhing mass of red polo shirts, ugly dresses, and bad hair. I could buy that somebody wants kids because they love kids and they want to raise them if they're devoting time to their children, but these people don't. They fire off kids as fast as they possibly can, and, as The Cat has pointed out, the kids are raised mostly by the other kids. They're not a family, they're a settlement, but they just happen to have one last name and dwindling genetic material to distribute.
But, you know, that's their right. I can't stop them, but I can certainly call them selfish, fundamentalist bastards that are raising a generation of fucked up children because that's "God's will."
I find it pretty funny that you can get so incensed about "euphemisms for abortion" while using a phrase like "traditional male/female roles" with a straight face.
Disagree.
It's primal selfishness, the way Meerkats kill off the babies of the other families of Meerkats. Or pretty much any social animal, for that matter.
...Except that the Duggars are only procreating for God because there's something in it for them. Specifically, adherence to God's law that helps them ensure entry into Heaven later, or something to that effect.
Here's what wouldn't be selfish, re: childbirth:
- offering to be a surrogate for a woman who couldn't carry a pregnancy to term;
- offering to adopt the children of parents who died or otherwise couldn't parent;
...because these reasons are closer to altruism than satisfying one's personal religious beliefs.