Should Women Who NEVER Want Children Remain Abstinent Forever?

y

FAIL! Try an article about the subject at hand - the Duggars, who you love to debase because they choose to have a large family.

Here's one:

Duggar Family Helps Rescue Tornado Survivors

Yeah, let's talk reality.

 

Maybe because that is what they say and act?

Continue reading on Examiner.com ‘GMA’ visits with the Duggar family from '19 Kids & Counting' (photos) - National 19 Kids and Counting | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/19-kids-and...-from-19-kids-counting-photos-1#ixzz1NJvRRgld

Why don't YOU believe them?

 

so following that logic, a depressed person could be killed without it being murder...or it could be used as a defence "Hey, they didn't want to live anyway, all they did was sit around all day, that's not 'valuing life'"


and note that the poster uses the terms "child" and "baby" not fetuses...

 

Is the depressed person inside your body leeching off your nutrients? No? Then you can't kill them.

Women can decline taking on the risks of the long list of temporary/permanent/dangerous side effects of pregnancy and terminate to protect their health, lives, and bodies.

 

there you go!

it all goes back to hatred of religion. You want choice for yourself but feel free to mock and denigrate women who choose differently than you. I do not view Mrs. Duggar as a 'breeding sow'..that is YOU, an avowed feminist. I would never refer to another woman as a sow.

 

Women who feel that their child is a leech and feel that pregnancy is too 'dangerous' SHOULD do the responsible thing and get themselves sterilized so that they don't resort to killing their unborn children that they don't want.

 

Does anyone here wish to get back on topic? Or shall I make a thread specifically addressing the Duggars so that everyone may make their comments about the family there?

Goodness. All this hubbub over a picture with a caption on it.

And that's ok Otter. I can't read anything you're saying at this point, just fyi.

 

you honestly believe that everything they show on reality shows is 100% false and that people always lie?

what a cynical view of life you have...there are some people that live differently than you that are actually very happy. Not everyone has to live the life you think is best for them in order to be happy.

 

Never said that. But not everything on reality TV is 100% true either and lots of people lie on television. I'd say it's about half and half. 50% truth 50% twisted/edited information, leaving details out, etc.

When did I ever say that they have to? You have no idea what my view on life is because I have not stated it.

 

or if they are worried that they might *shudder* get a stretch mark or two...heck how would they ever be able to go back to supermodeling?

lord knows, we don't want to 'ruin' those fine bodies with a baby!

 

I have your own words refering to a woman as a 'breeding sow' and complaining about people with large families, and complaining about how other people raise their kids. I think I have a pretty good idea of your view on life.

 

Really...it isn't. What is sad is when children have no responsibilities. That is sad. I struggle with that regarding my kids...trying to raise them in a way where they take responsbility, have a real job that means something to them and the family. When my grandson comes over...a really tough 2 year old....they are called in to be a BIG help. And they are. And it makes them feel important.

One of the things that I think is wonderful about Hispanic and Indian families that I know here...is that the older kids take alot of responsibility for the younger ones...they are integral part of the family. The kids are respectful, mature....and I always forsee that they are going to do well in life. Its a good culture...as long as the PARENTS are taking responsibility over all.

 

Ideally, yes.

She should be celibate.

Pragmatically? I don't expect much from people anymore.

so cynically, I'd say the notion of celibacy and waiting for marriage
is a dying concept along with chivalry...

but ideally...yes a woman and a man...who do not want children?

They should be celibate. It's the only 100% guaranteed way not to pro-create an
unwanted child.

 

Way to totally trivialize pregnancy and childbirth.

Hell. Just the way doctors treat their pregnant patients is enough to scare me away from having a baby, at least in a hospital! The crap people put potential mothers through is unbelievable!

http://myobsaidwhat.com/category/birth-trauma/
http://myobsaidwhat.com/category/dead-baby-card/
http://myobsaidwhat.com/category/postpartum/
http://myobsaidwhat.com/category/informed-consent/

 

Yes, I think they are good actors.

I know that the Dugger family has veto power over what is shown on TV. If something is not flattering, it doesn't make the cut. I know that the Dugger family is considered the poster family for Bill Gothard teachings, teachings I consider harmful to women's happiness and welfare.

 

Lots of people complain about how people raise their kids. I don't agree with how some people raise their kids either, but I am not interested in legislating against their rights to raise them how they please. I believe in freedom of religion and freedom to have as many kids as people want. I don't personally agree with it, yes I DO frown on it. But I will NEVER legislate against it.

Yes, I honestly do believe that the quiverfull movement reduces women to 'breeding sows'. I believe it is an archaic concept that has no place in this day and age. I believe it is selfish to bring that many children into this world when there are many more who could use a loving home and family. I also believe it forces women to believe that their only purpose in life is to be mothers and produce as many offspring as possible. I see a movement like that a negative one for women.

Yes, I dislike the movement, I dislike everything it stands for. But I will never fight to legislate against it.

I believe that people should only bring as many children as they can physically care for into this world. Children that they can adequately give their time to. I think it's wrong to bring so many children into the world that your younger children end up being forced to care for them. I also dislike any family that exploits their children and uses them as TV gimmicks to make money, that can go for the Duggars, Jon and Kate Plus 8, Super Nanny, etc.

But once again. To each his own.

I accept that it is their right to do these things and do not wish to legislate against their freedoms. I do however strongly disagree with it as I can see how it would have a negative impact on the family as a whole.

Does that better clear up my view on life?

 

it just confirms that I had you pegged correctly. You are being hypocritical, claiming rights for yourself but condemning other women for choosing to do something different. You want consideration for your beliefs while treating other women as being stupid and 'animal' for their beliefs.

I find that attitude to be worse than the worst of the male chauvinists.

 

Wow. Way to ignore everything I said. I disagree with one movement and the way it treats women. But I have no interest in legislating against it.

Did you miss that part?

 

no I didn't miss that but it means little to me that your contempt hasn't reached the level you feel the need to pursue legislation...you are spreading hate toward your sisters. That depresses me. It means we havent' really gotten that far toward equality, we have just swapped one set of prejudices for another...true equality would open it's arms to ALL women, including both women that didn't want children and women that wanted a dozen...

and it would include future generations of women who are being aborted at such a great rate in some countries that statiscians (sp) predict in twenty years there may well be one woman to every twenty men. We are aborting our sisters into extinction.

 

I dislike the movement because it oppresses women's rights to equality! It is indoctrinating women from early on to believe their only purpose in life is to make a family.

Yes, some countries have a serious problem with women and will not realize the detriment to their society until some years later when there are more men than women. But there is nothing I can do about those countries. I live in the US where as far as I know women aren't generally aborting girls over boys so I don't see it as becoming much of a problem here.

It is unfortunate that countries treat women as second class citizens and do not value them. Similar to the quiverfull movement, they only value a women's fertility and ability to reproduce. And it's going to spread fast since they have as many children as they do. Perhaps, given enough time, my country really won't value women anymore either.

 

I dunno, we are indoctrinating our little girls that they can have babies, abort an inconvenience, have a career, send their kids off to daycare and to be just like little boys. Frankly that seems like oppression as well.

In those countries, men are quite expendable as well.

Islam is the reason for most of that as it is the world's largest religion and many sects denigrate women as a tradition. Christianity used to do that but Islam is still in the 16th century in their thinking that way.

I don't see that happening.

 

What would be the point of entering into a relationship if you cannot enjoy the physical part of it that millions of other couples enjoy?

 

companionship, love, security, shared values....there are many couples that live very happy lifes without the ability to enjoy sex together, by your reasoning, paraplegics or impotent men should be alone too? Relationships based on sex generally don't last anyway. Are you implying that if you are married to someone that becomes unable to perform sexually that you should get rid of that person and move on?

I enjoy my husband very much but if something happened to him today that made him unable to perform, I would still thank God every day for the chance to be his wife. I could not imagine leaving him or cheating on him for any reason.

 

Most relationships have those, in fact are based around those, but they also include sex!

Just because a couple enjoys sex together does not mean their relationship is based on that alone. It obviously takes much more than just sex to keep a relationship going, however, sex is an important part of it as well. It is good to be intimate and bond with your partner physically. It can be very romantic and loving. Sexual repression and sexual frustration do not make for a healthy relationship either.

However people may choose to engage in non-sexual relationships if they would like to as well, but not everyone should be expected to simply because they don't want children or anymore children.

People imply and insinuate a lot on these forums don't they? But I suppose we can only take them word for word and not look deeper into what they are really saying. Or can we?

You are a very honorable person in my view. And I feel the same way about my boyfriend whom I plan to marry someday soon. If he were to become impotent I would stick with him no matter what. I could find other means to relieve my sexual desire if need be, but that doesn't mean that I wouldn't still have the wonderful memories of our intimate bonding anymore either. I would be very glad that we had an intimate relationship for as long as we did, cherish the memories, reminisce with him, etc.

 

Then focus on a career and don't enter a relationship.

What's wrong with just friendships?

How much time in a person's life is wasted on the drama of relationships that end
anyway?

There's just as much satisfaction focusing on a career and not a relationship and
you get far more back in return.