Pro-life blog buzz 5-22-15
by Susie Allen, host of the blog, Pro-Life in TN, and Kelli
- Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL) calls out the World Health Organization for falsely associating high maternal mortality rates to legal restrictions on abortion:
… WHO states in its report that “treaty monitoring bodies have … linked elevated rates of maternal mortality to … restrictive abortion laws [and] unsafe or illegal abortion.” But WHO cites only old, and flawed, country reviews. The truth is that maternal mortality depends on the quality of maternal health care, not the legal status of abortion. Some countries prohibit abortion and have very low MMRs; others permit abortion and have very high MMRs. Legalizing abortion is demonstrably unnecessary to improve maternal health and save women’s lives.
- The Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust Blog addresses questions on abortion like, “Isn’t the world already overpopulated?” and “Isn’t it better not to bring a child into the world if there aren’t enough resources?” Answers to these questions often get people on college campuses to re-think their position on abortion.
- Secular Pro-Life wonders why the group calling itself 4000 Years for Choice would try to “make abortion appear to be something innately human, by highlighting how long women have sought out abortions and abortion inducing concoctions.” After all, lots of things – not all of them good – have been around for a very long time:
You know what else was popular in the time of ancient Rome? Slavery, human sacrifice, and mass infanticide. A real hotbed for morality. So what on earth would prompt this organization to promote ancient practices of abortion as proof that abortion is good?
- At the Daily Caller, Michael New says pro-lifers have good reason to oppose Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion:
The federal Hyde Amendment limits the extent to which federal Medicaid funds pay for abortion. However, 17 U.S. states fund elective abortions though Medicaid with their own tax dollars. There is a considerable body of research which shows that Medicaid funding of abortion increases state abortion rates. In 2009, the Guttmacher Institute published a comprehensive review of the research on Medicaid funding of abortion. Of the 18 studies included in the literature review, 15 found that public funding of abortion through Medicaid resulted in statistically significant increases in the incidence of abortion. Additionally, in many states, the percentage of abortions funded by Medicaid is dramatically rising. For instance, between 1990 and 2010 the percentage of abortions performed in Washington state that were paid for by Medicaid increased from 24 percent to over 67 percent.
- Wesley J. Smith is not surprised that the California Medical Association has changed its position on assisted suicide, now claiming to be “neutral” on the issue:
I am not surprised at this downward turn. The CMA has been seriously courting the culture of death for more than forty years. Here’s a quote from a California Medicine editorial from 1970 – published by the CMA – supporting “death selection.” From, “A New Ethic for Medicine and Society”:
The traditional Western ethic has always placed great emphasis on the intrinsic worth and equal value of every human life regardless of its stage or condition . … This traditional ethic is… being eroded at its core and may eventually be abandoned…. [H]ard choices will have to be made… that will of necessity violate and ultimately destroy the traditional Western ethic with all that portends. It will become necessary and acceptable to place relative rather than absolute values on such things as human lives…. One may anticipate… death selection and death control whether by the individual or by society.
- Pregnancy Help News features the story of a heroic teen who chose an open adoption plan against many obstacles, including temporary opposition from the birth father, the baby’s deafness and unfeeling remarks from school friends. Kudos to the pregnancy resource center that ministered to her during this time:
In light of the fact that fewer than 1 percent of teen births end in adoption, Jess, Zoe and Brandi’s story is an important reminder of the great love and sacrifice that birth moms demonstrate when they choose adoption….
[T]he adoption process was fraught “with hope, love heartache, grief and, ultimately, sacrifice.” The first adoptive family she chose “returned” the baby when they was discovered she had incurred significant hearing loss due to an infection Urban had contracted while pregnant. While in the foster care system, however, little “Zoe” learned sign language.
The second set of adoptive parents Urban chose were a gift from God. Both deaf, the Rarus family had three boys and had diligently prayed for a little girl for years. To them, Zoe’s hearing loss turned out to be an added blessing.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Legalizing abortion is demonstrably unnecessary to improve maternal health and save women’s lives. – that simply isn’t true. The death rate for abortion is significantly lower than for full gestation and delivery. If a thousand women who would otherwise have aborted are forced to complete gestation and deliver more of them will die than otherwise would have.
Looks like SPL finally did something about all those horrible trolls. About time.
“Looks like SPL finally did something about all those horrible trolls.”
Yeah, they had a major clean-up just after Christmas.
http://blog.secularprolife.org/2014/12/racism-reproductive-justice-and-right.html#comment-1765023913
Reality wants to kill a thousand children to save the lives of two mothers. He’s funny, that way.
The best environment for the survival and happiness of the most persons is to have good maternal and neonatal healthcare available — and protection against elective abortions.
They’re whining about it here. Clearly they can’t see the irony in complaining about being banned from a blog while insulting the moderator on the same thread (or the same post).
I’m just glad they haven’t come here yet. Hoping that won’t jinx it…
“I’m just glad they haven’t come here yet. Hoping that won’t jinx it…”
Well, I think we have very good mods here who would likely take something less than six months to respond to a major trolling problem.
Secular Pro-Life wonders why the group calling itself 4000 Years for Choice would try to “make abortion appear to be something innately human, by highlighting how long women have sought out abortions and abortion inducing concoctions.” After all, lots of things – not all of them good – have been around for a very long time
Lots of all sorts of things have been around for a long time – the last sentence, there, is meaningless.
“An innately human thing” – how many other species do you see having abortions due to their own desires?
Doug says:
“An innately human thing” – how many other species do you see having abortions due to their own desires?
Yes. Infanticide is the mark of human exceptionalism.
Why didn’t the father who objected to the “heroic” adoption get the mother to sign custody over to him and do what pregnant women and girls are told to do. Take responsibility, apparently for their own rape pregnancies and even if they are 11. He could have raised the child as a single father if she couldn’t or didn’t think she could care for the child.
Since this isn’t mentioned but the Duggars are frequently praised for family values but rarely criticized for not raising their brood, why has no one mentioned that Josh Duggar was molesting small children when he was 12? The girls get to raise the kids so I would suspect a lack of parental supervision played a role here. I would suspect Josh was abused as a child himself (not saying Daddy Duggar did it), but all anybody cared about was covering it up, cranking out more babies to dump on the older daughters to raise and covering up secrets that didn’t bring in those television checks.
Since this isn’t mentioned but the Duggars are frequently praised for family values but rarely criticized for not raising their brood, why has no one mentioned that Josh Duggar was molesting small children when he was 12?
That’s abhorrent, and I’m glad the show has been cancelled. I wish they would do the same with Lena Dunham, who did the exact same thing.
I Object and Navi,
What I can’s understand is how access was obtained to juvenile records. I thought those were closed.
I can’t say I’m shocked just very unpleasantly surprised. I long suspected sexual abuse going on and had heard rumors about Josh. The parents had the responsibility to see to it Josh and the girls got credentialed therapy ASAP. Instead appearances were more important.
You make many good points I Object, ones I have argued a long time. I have been troubled by the rigid control of every aspect of those children’s lives and the parents’ callous indifference to Josie and her needs. The parents are totally self absorbed. I don’t think this happened from lack of supervision, I think its innate sexual deviancy manifesting itself early. My cousin was a pre teen when he attempted to assault his female cousin. She told me about it years later at which time he was a sociopathic oversexed tomcat.
Also we all have skeletons in the closet and when you are a public figure, people start searching. Daddy D should have kept that thought in mind. For this reason I will stay as anonymous as possible!
Hi Navi,
Double standards indeed. Consider the case of Roman Polanski, who raped a 13 year old girl and fled to Europe to avoid prosecution.
http://dailysignal.com/2009/09/29/hollywoods-selective-values-where-is-the-liberal-outrage/
I Object: Since this isn’t mentioned but the Duggars are frequently praised for family values but rarely criticized for not raising their brood, why has no one mentioned that Josh Duggar was molesting small children when he was 12? The girls get to raise the kids so I would suspect a lack of parental supervision played a role here. I would suspect Josh was abused as a child himself (not saying Daddy Duggar did it), but all anybody cared about was covering it up, cranking out more babies to dump on the older daughters to raise and covering up secrets that didn’t bring in those television checks.
Josh is a tortured soul. I saw Jim Bob on TV, giving a transparent and lame obfuscation about Josh’s story.
Not sure about who all is involved, but have heard that some of the Duggar girls are getting free of the family, opting out due to seeing what their future has in store, otherwise.
“An innately human thing” – how many other species do you see having abortions due to their own desires?”
Del: Yes. Infanticide is the mark of human exceptionalism.
Well, no, Del. Infanticide is observed over a huge range of species on earth. My point is that it’s silly for ‘Secular Pro-Life’ (regardless of their opinion about it) to be doubting that abortion is innately human.
Hi Doug,
Little Josie recently had a prolonged seizure and was rushed to the hospital. She was in the care of the chief nanny and house drudge, Jana, when it happened. Mom and dad were in Chicago but no need to rush home until the next day, Jana had things under control.
The hounds of hell couldn’t stop me from getting to one of my children during a medical crisis and I know that holds true for every parent on this blog.
For some reason it doesn’t register with Mama and Daddy D that this child has an extensive medical history and they belong at home with her, not dumping her on an older sibling. Jana acknowledged being very frightened by the whole incident(who wouldn’t be?!) and was immensely relieved where her parents finally got home.
This situation with Josh and their daughters is just another example of their callous indifference to their children’s needs.
Doug says:
Well, no, Del. Infanticide is observed over a huge range of species on earth. My point is that it’s silly for ‘Secular Pro-Life’ (regardless of their opinion about it) to be doubting that abortion is innately human.
I guess I need to spell it out:
Yes, brute infanticide is common enough. Lions kill the cubs fathered by other males so that the females will come into heat quickly.
And human males can be just as brutish… Brutal and fatal abuse by step-fathers is too common in our modern culture of divided families, as well as sexual abuse of young girls by mom’s latest boyfriend.
But the truly disordered thing of modern human culture — not found in nature or even in human history — is the pressure that pro-borts put on mothers to kill their own children. Then they force the mother to blame herself, even praising her for the murder, by insisting that it was “her choice.” Pro-borts urge her to celebrate her desperate choice.
Infanticide has been with humanity since the beginning…. like murder and war, slavery and rape. This is Secular Pro-Life’s point: ancient evils are still evil. But at least the ancient infanticides were imposed by oppressive patriarchies, or brutal military-religious regimes. The children were wrenched from their mothers’ arms by strong men.
This modern disorder is the first time in which women are pushing women to kill their own children. It is a very new sort of insanity. It is not “4000 Years of Choice.”
“That’s abhorrent, and I’m glad the show has been cancelled. I wish they would do the same with Lena Dunham, who did the exact same thing.”
At least Josh has expressed remorse (whether or not it is sincere remains to be seen, he had FIVE victims). Dunham, on the other hand, apparently believes she’s done nothing wrong and freaks out when people point out, hey, you sexually abused your little sister then wrote a book bragging about it. Apparently it’s misogyny to not be cool with a female molesting their siblings. Who knew? I don’t think people who commit sex crimes should either be working for so-called “family values” organizations like FRC or being lauded as some feminist icon.
“Why didn’t the father who objected to the “heroic” adoption get the mother to sign custody over to him and do what pregnant women and girls are told to do. Take responsibility, apparently for their own rape pregnancies and even if they are 11. He could have raised the child as a single father if she couldn’t or didn’t think she could care for the child.”
He attempted to get legal custody as he objected to the adoption, but eventually agreed with her wishes and allowed the adoption to proceed.
And there are exactly zero pro-lifers who think “taking responsibility” for your children involves raising them if you are unable. Adoption or other arrangements that put the child’s health and safety first and perfectly acceptable if the mother (and/or father) is unable or unwilling to care for the baby.
Mary – “What I can’s understand is how access was obtained to juvenile records. I thought those were closed.”
I believe it was a Freedom of Information Act thing.
There sure seems to be a lot of sexual abuse claims regarding various people in the relatively closed-off world that the Duggars are part of. That guy at ATI, the cop that Mr. Duggar went to for a chat about Josh molesting four of his sisters (one of whom I believe was around 5 at the time?), etc. It makes me very sad for the girls who were abused, who I worry may have felt that there was no one they could talk to who would do…well, anything more than their parents did. Please note that I am not saying that the girls necessarily WANTED anyone to do more than their parents did. But if they did want that, they may very well have felt that they had no one to go to. And that is a really sad thing. I mean, lots of abused children feel alone or isolated in their trauma, but most have access to a teacher or guidance counselor etc who is a mandated reporter, who will contact authorities if a child gives any hint of abuse. These girls didn’t have that. And without knowing any more about the situation, that makes me sad.
Hi Alexandra,
Thank you. Its always so good to see you here.
But aren’t juvenile records sealed from everything, including FOIA? I was under the impression that sealed meant just that.
It would be helpful to get some input from poster CT on this and I hope we will.
I heard about the police officer, who was a friend of JB’s. I also have concerns the girls had no where to turn. Did this officer report this to protective services? Apparently he only gave Josh a firm talking to. Sorry, but that doesn’t solve Josh’s issues.
The whole thing is so tragic Alexandra. If the Duggars had taken immediate steps to get Josh and his sisters the help they needed, and I mean professional credentialed help, and Josh turned his life around, I would agree the past is the past. But not the way it was handled. Its a complete betrayal of everything the Duggars say they stand for.
“But aren’t juvenile records sealed from everything, including FOIA? I was under the impression that sealed meant just that.”
No. It depends on the crime and future criminal involvement, among other things.
“It makes me very sad for the girls who were abused, who I worry may have felt that there was no one they could talk to who would do…well, anything more than their parents did”
Yep. It’s one of the reasons I am wary of people homeschooling, especially when the children are as rigidly controlled as the Duggar kids. I had nowhere to go when I was being abused, because literally every adult I knew was interested in keeping it covered up. I hope the Duggar children who are still minors are not being harmed, and I really hope that child services has investigated. And I hope the girls who were abused are able to find proper help now, if they feel they need it.
Thank you DLPL,
That’s news to me. I had always thought sealed meant sealed.
Homeschooling isn’t an issue to me. Its the social isolation and rigid control of every aspect of the children’s lives that is. Our religious neighbors homeschooled, yet their children had normal social interactions with other neighborhood children, including mine.
I am so sorry to hear of how you were abused.
Del: But the truly disordered thing of modern human culture — not found in nature or even in human history — is the pressure that pro-borts put on mothers to kill their own children.
Del, the point remains that it’s silly for ‘Secular Pro-Life’ to be pretending about abortion.
Not sure what all you consider “modern,” but women have had unwanted pregnancies for many thousands of years. If somebody is putting pressure on a woman to act against her will, that is one thing. In the overwhelming majority of cases, an abortion is chosen because the woman wants one.
It is entirely unnatural for a mother of any species to desire the death of her child.
If a human mother wants to end a pregnancy, it is because of some external fear or pressure that assaults her before she has the opportunity to bond with the new life in her womb.
Our job is to protect her through that fear, and to help her and her child with whatever assistance they need.
Hi Del,
Its not entirely unnatural. Mother animals will abandon their young, often for reasons not understood. A form of natural selection? The maternal instinct wasn’t triggered? A matter of survival? Maternal immaturity?
Also, males will eat the young to establish or maintain their dominance.
Nature is very cruel and a brutal struggle for survival.
Sharks will eat their young if they don’t swim away fast enough after they’re born.
But sharks don’t have a whole lot of reasoning skills, you know.
Pretty sure humans are supposed to have higher reasoning capabilities. Supposed to.
That’s my point Kel,
Its not about any “desire” for the death of their young on the part of the animals. They act out of instinct, self preservation, or for reasons unknown to humans.
They act out of instinct, self preservation, or for reasons unknown to humans. – and one of those unknown reasons could be that they simply do not want young at that point in time.
Reality,
Possible. But who knows what the animals think or want?
Horse-whisperers?
Good to see you too, Mary!
I agree with you that professional, credentialed help is the least that the girls deserved. I do not know what resources they were given access to but I did see a pamphlet about counseling abuse from the ATI curriculum they seem to follow and it was insulting, to say the least. I sincerely hope that they received more supportive counseling than what I read in that pamphlet.
I believe that it takes a village to raise healthy, happy children – by that I mean, a supportive, caring, nurturing society will only add to and complement even the absolute best parenting. The flip side of that is that even if a child is not fortunate enough to have “the best parenting,” there will be other adults who care enough to make sure help is given. A church community can be a wonderful example of this. It is stunning to me that the Duggars reported their son’s abuse of their daughters to their church and no one seems to have done much of anything.
I think that at absolute minimum, an abusive sibling should not be allowed back in the house until his victims state, unprompted, that they are comfortable having him back in the house. I am not sure but I think that at least one of the abused girls was quite young at the time this happened and I do not believe capable of making such important decisions. A child needs her parents to ensure not just her safety but also her security – her feeling of being secure and truly safe in her own home. I don’t know. I do not want to pry into anything that is private for these women but I desperately hope that their needs were respected and everything I have read makes me concerned that they were not.
I saw a recent episode of the TV show where Michelle Duggar was talking about love and appropriate contexts and lectured, “If we stir up desires in someone else that cannot be righteously fulfilled, then we’re responsible for that.” That to me is a nearly unfathomable thing to say to your own daughters who have been abused, at young ages, by their brother.
Del: It is entirely unnatural for a mother of any species to desire the death of her child.
Del, on one hand, I think that sounds like a bumper-sticker or something. On the other hand, your usage of “child” is so broad that it really does not address the abortion issue for many women.
If a human mother wants to end a pregnancy, it is because of some external fear or pressure that assaults her before she has the opportunity to bond with the new life in her womb.
Here I have to say that you’re just mostly wrong. Most abortions are had because the woman doesn’t want to be pregnant, doesn’t want to have a kid/have kids at the time. It’s internal to her.
Alexandra: I saw a recent episode of the TV show where Michelle Duggar was talking about love and appropriate contexts and lectured, “If we stir up desires in someone else that cannot be righteously fulfilled, then we’re responsible for that.” That to me is a nearly unfathomable thing to say to your own daughters who have been abused, at young ages, by their brother.
I don’t think anybody who was being honest and had their eyes open, so to speak, could have thought that the Duggars were “okay.” There has been a real creepiness, some real pathologies going on, all along.
Hi Alexandra,
So Michelle is saying that if a man is very attracted to you and he has certain desires as a result, then this is YOUR fault. Maybe he shouldn’t be putting his eyeballs where they don’t belong.
Knowing her daughters have been victims of incestuous abuse, she tells them this? As if it isn’t bad enough they did nothing to protect those girls or help Josh when he was desperately in need of help.
I find it appalling as well the church community did nothing for 3 months. They should have advised JB that if he didn’t report this immediately, they would. And then do it.
“It is stunning to me that the Duggars reported their son’s abuse of their daughters to their church and no one seems to have done much of anything.”
It does not surprise me even the tiniest bit, Alexandra. I have talked about my experiences in the cult I grew up in (and I believe the Quiverfull movement is cult-like, and the Duggars fit the bill in many ways as cult members), and it’s always worried me that something could happen to the Duggar kids and it would be covered up. Cults are insular and handle things “in house”. Actually, I think most organizations (such as the Catholic Church, Penn State, and the Boy Scouts, etc.) will handle things “in house” to avoid public condemnation and such. In my case they kept it secret by blaming me, among other really traumatic, damaging things. I really, really hope that the Duggar girls didn’t experience this cult abuse to the extent I did, but it has worried me for years how their church and family operates. Too many similarities to my family (to an extent) and other families in our cult.
“I think that at absolute minimum, an abusive sibling should not be allowed back in the house until his victims state, unprompted, that they are comfortable having him back in the house.”
I don’t even think this is going far enough. Victims of sexual abuse, especially in insular, oppressive environments like the Duggar kids, are often shamed, blamed, and coerced to “forgive” the abuser and accept him/her back into their lives. Whether the victim is ready or not, or the abuser has changed or is going to stop the behavior or not. Especially since the girls were so young and vulnerable to this blaming and coercion (and new kids were being born every few years), I don’t think the situation was ever going to be safe enough and supportive enough for Josh to live with his sisters. I know it sounds like I’m making a lot of assumptions, and I kinda am because it reminds me of my experiences, but I think the least the church “family” could have done was to invite Josh into a house with no young and vulnerable children for him to have access to. The girls were not old enough, imo, to make the decision to have him back in the house. And I highly doubt they had any choice in the matter anyway, which disgusts me. Josh had FIVE victims. Five! I’m glad he has taken responsibility and seems to have shown at least some remorse now (though who knows if it’s sincere), but I don’t believe it was ever going to be appropriate to put him back into the house with his victims and I worry about his children now.
“I saw a recent episode of the TV show where Michelle Duggar was talking about love and appropriate contexts and lectured, “If we stir up desires in someone else that cannot be righteously fulfilled, then we’re responsible for that.” That to me is a nearly unfathomable thing to say to your own daughters who have been abused, at young ages, by their brother.”
Yep, my mother told me the same thing. It’s a pretty pathetic thing to say in general, imo, and becomes even more abhorrent when you add the Duggar girls’ trauma in there. I find it offensive, as a sexual abuse victim, that anyone is held responsible for someone being attracted to them. People are responsible for their own actions, whether or not they are attracted to someone. Michelle Duggar is at the very least a thoughtless mother, at the worst a callous and emotionally abusive one, imo.
“That’s news to me. I had always thought sealed meant sealed.”
Juvenile records don’t always automatically seal at eighteen, at least in Florida. I don’t know about other states. It was surprising to me too! I thought my extensive record was sealed automatically when I turned eighteen. Imagine my surprise when I was involved in an incident with cops involved one day and the cop told me he could not only see my felonies I got as a kid (I assumed law enforcement could see it, that wasn’t the surprising part), but he told me that they didn’t automatically get expunged! I think in Florida you automatically qualify for expunging your juvey record at 26 (for habitual offenders, which I definitely was), but don’t quote me on that. I’ve never bothered to check up on it, mine could still be open for all I know. I don’t know other states rules. All I know is juvey records are not necessarily expunged or sealed (I don’t know the difference if there is one, lol) when you’re an adult.
“A New Ethic for Medicine and Society.”
Here is the way I see a great deal of these issues: the underlying basis comes down to one of two justifications: utilitarianism or morality.
I am aware of well-recognized, well-placed intellectuals who believe there is no such thing as morality. How the rest of us perceive or recognize “morality” can be argued away in any of several ways, such as that the sense of “morality” is just some evolutionarily gained feature of our species.”
“Utilitarianism” has a very solid history to explore. You simply do a web search and begin reading.
Utilitarianism is the idea that a choice can be made by determining how much overall good results from one action versus another. Bad outcomes and good outcomes should be included in the calculation.
So, for decisions or actions, it is not so much whether the action is “good,” or preferred, but can only be “good” in light of the outcomes.
At political policy levels, you end up with the communist ideal: political decisions are guided by what yields the most benefit for “the state,” or “the people.”
This ends up giving totalitarian leaders, and abortion advocates, excuses to kill individual human beings.
In the end, there is almost nothing that cannot be justified by a “utilitarian” view.
The contrast is morality: we save and preserve lives, at great cost, because each life has inherent value, and is equal to other lives, and because it is morally right to do this.
So, when you hear an argument, if you can recognize that it is a utilitarian argument, you can usually illustrate how weak the argument is by following it to its logical conclusions, or by pointing out similar analyses that sound obviously bad.
An example is: if the baby will cause so much trouble, why not kill it after delivery? This reduces the likelihood of harm to the mom from the abortion, and so is better, in a utilitarian analysis. A moral argument says that the child ought not be killed in either case,
TheLastDemocrat: I am aware of well-recognized, well-placed intellectuals who believe there is no such thing as morality.
TLD, at the least, I don’t think you are stating this correctly. You are saying those people have no moral thoughts, themselves? You are saying they are truly amoral?
Hi DLPL,
Thank you for the input on the juvenile records. Also, thank you for your insight into sexual abuse, these cults and their mindset.
A few years back you and I both expressed concern about the cult like nature of the Duggar family.
Personally I doubt those girls had any choice concerning forgiveness or if they felt safe with Josh around. Their parents certainly were not going to take the necessary steps to protect them. If the girls took any action it could blow apart their family. They had to keep smiling.
Had the Duggars taken immediate steps to report this to law enforcement and got Josh into a credentialed treatment program, as well as therapy for the daughters and professional guidance for the family, and as a result Josh turned his life around, then I would agree that the past is the past. This can happen to any family. Ironically if they had taken this course, I would think it less likely the public would have found out.
Instead when Josh needed help, his parents failed him miserably, as they did his sisters. Now the entire family pays the price.
Doug says:
May 26, 2015 at 12:18 pm
TheLastDemocrat: I am aware of well-recognized, well-placed intellectuals who believe there is no such thing as morality.
TLD, at the least, I don’t think you are stating this correctly. You are saying those people have no moral thoughts, themselves? You are saying they are truly amoral?
I am saying they do not believe there is such a thing as “morals.” They may feel moral passions, but they would argue that way as weepy sentiment developed by evolutionary processes for us to be compelled to contribute to the survival of our species.
So, they can discount moral arguments. They have to go to something because the alternative is frank anarchy and chaos. That would leave the elitist intellectuals with no grounds to rule over us. So, “utilitarianism.”
Doug, and others:
These people believe that “morality” is just some concept in our heads that evolved to be evolutionarily adaptive.
There are similar arguments about whether anyone can ever truly perform an “altruistic” act. Any such act would serve to propagate the species, or make our ego feel good, or both.
Also, there are those who argue that our consciousness is just an epiphenomenon of our intellect, developed by evolution; this idea makes it possible to discount any arguments based on any sort of first principles, awareness, consciousness, etc. – all of your beliefs or ideas or morals are simply artifacts of evolution, and they evolved simply because they contributed to reproductive success; and your belief that you are a spiritual being in a physical body is wrong; you are a physical body that happens to have accrued an awareness as an artifact of evolution.
Anything but “morality.” Why? Because “morality” requires some fundamental basis, and that takes you to God.
There were a number of way the story could have come out. Given that the cop who handled the case is doing 57 years in jail for child porn, I would say that all his records were pulled to be audited for midconduct.
AS far as St. Josh goes, the girls he molested are free to name names and they should. They were denied justice while Josh got paid big bucks for spouting morality. What I want to know is why the younger sister or Josh were not removed from the home to protect them. Young offenders were often abused themselves so that should have been looked into as well.
Regardless a formal report with the police (not a fellow church member who would hush it up and Josh should have spent at least a year in inpatient treatment for sex offenders. I don’t know what Momma Duggar knew but any adults who allowed their children to be around a sex offener and lied should go to jail or at least lose custody of their minor parent.
I never got Duggar worship anyway. They isolate their kids, make the girls into unpaid nannies and in no way preparetheir children to be adults. I hope people will stop fawning over them now and I hope both Josh and the girls he hurt get real belp, not just to to pray harder. I also hope the girls are not shamed for being “impure” but a cult obsessed with female virginity.
Hi I Object,
I understand the officer never followed up, just gave Josh a stern lecture. A police officer knows better. He’s to file the report and take the appropriate action, not give lectures, even if he is daddy’s good friend. They may have pulled his records, but I don’t think they could make them public.
As I pointed out had they followed the proper channels, confidentiality would have been better protected. Police, courts, and social services handle situations like this all the time. They understand confidentiality. The church elders might not. The remodeling contractor Josh was sent to work for as “therapy” might not. BTW, my husband was a remodeling contractor and any suggestion that he provided “therapy” is positively laughable.
The harder the Duggars tried to cover it up, the more likely people were to get wind of it.
I couldn’t agree more. Josh should have been placed in a treatment program, the girls should have received therapy, and the family put under the supervision of protective services. Josh should have been allowed home only when cleared by his therapist, and the conditions specified by the therapist and the court, i.e. a parent must always be present, outpatient therapy.
Mama Duggar knew. She just concerned herself more with producing children than she did with protecting them.
You’re preaching to the choir when it comes to the Duggars. I have long suspected some sort of abuse going on. I find it rather odd in a family obsessed with “purity” that Daddy D likes to talk about the fun he and Mama D are having trying to make another baby. Maybe its me but I consider that a totally inappropriate comment in front of their children.
TheLastDemocrat: I am saying they do not believe there is such a thing as “morals.” They may feel moral passions, but they would argue that way as weepy sentiment developed by evolutionary processes for us to be compelled to contribute to the survival of our species.
I’d say it ends up being all the same thing, regardless of what we may ascribe it to.
So, they can discount moral arguments. They have to go to something because the alternative is frank anarchy and chaos. That would leave the elitist intellectuals with no grounds to rule over us. So, “utilitarianism.”
They may discount your moral argument, just as you might discount theirs – all that’s needed is a disagreement. There are some things about which there is little disagreement, the world over, and then there are things about which we are very divided.
These people believe that “morality” is just some concept in our heads that evolved to be evolutionarily adaptive.
Well, if we look at all the groups of “these people,” then we find endless wackiness. Yes, there is evolution, and there are biological imperatives, and some behavior and desire can be explained thereunder. But again – it’s fact, today, it’s what we have, regardless about how people would explain it.
There are similar arguments about whether anyone can ever truly perform an “altruistic” act. Any such act would serve to propagate the species, or make our ego feel good, or both.
From among our available options, we choose to do that which we want the most, or that for which we have the least distaste. That’s it – if it’s a conscious decision, it all goes to desire, once again regardless of what we may or may not try to ascribe it to.
If somebody wants others to be happy, and acts in their interest, doing things for their welfare, then how can that not be called an “altruistic act”? I’m not sure how much the ego would be involved, but yet again it would not matter all that much, certainly not enough to make or break, here. Mother Theresa, in general, got up each day and did what she wanted to do – do we say it was all for the benefit of her own ego, that she really wasn’t altruistic?
Also, there are those who argue that our consciousness is just an epiphenomenon of our intellect, developed by evolution; this idea makes it possible to discount any arguments based on any sort of first principles, awareness, consciousness, etc. – all of your beliefs or ideas or morals are simply artifacts of evolution, and they evolved simply because they contributed to reproductive success; and your belief that you are a spiritual being in a physical body is wrong; you are a physical body that happens to have accrued an awareness as an artifact of evolution.
All a consciousness really has – as far as “first principles” – is the knowledge of its being, i.e. “I think therefore I am,” and so forth. If we accept that we’re 7 billion+ separate consciousnesses and that our physical world is as most of us perceive it, then yes – there is certainly evolution and some things stemming from it. Still, we have our desires, and it really does not matter where they are coming from. No mumbo-jumbo is required.
Anything but “morality.” Why? Because “morality” requires some fundamental basis, and that takes you to God.
There is no such “fundamental basis,” there. Again, a consciousness starts making unprovable assumptions at a very basic level. By the time we get to religion, it can’t be proven that it’s anything more than myth, fantasy, and unfounded superstition. Furthermore, it can be proven that some religion is necessarily false.
I wish they would do the same with Lena Dunham, who did the exact same thing.
Lena Dunham, according to news accounts, touched her sister’s genitals once when she was 7 years old and the sister was 1. Josh Duggar groped five different girls when he was 15 (not 12), the youngest of whom was apparently 5. A seven-year-old doesn’t understand right and wrong, and a one-year-old doesn’t recognize bodily violation. A fifteen-year-old does understand right and wrong, and while a five-year-old may or may not be cognizant of violation, an older child certainly is. Saying that Dunham and Duggar did “the exact same thing” is disturbingly dismissive of the Duggar victims’ experiences.
Juvenile records don’t always automatically seal at eighteen
There was no serious police investigation until after the statute of limitations had passed, so there wasn’t even an actual criminal record to seal.
LisaC,
Well that makes sense. There was only a police report. Now would that be sealed? He was never charged or went to court. Apparently the statute of limitations had passed and the police could not go after him, but there was a report. Family members were spoken to, including the victims.
An e-mail was sent to Oprah who turned it over to social services. I think that’s when police investigated, as best as they could at that point. JB lawyered up, which was his right.
testing
Moderator,
Please take me out of moderation. Thank you.
Not so, LisaC. If it was only the incident when she was seven I would agree with you, but there was much more. Lena talks about bribing her sister to lay on her, kiss her, and masturbated with her sister in the bed with her at least once. There was a five year age difference, and this went on until Dunham was well into her teens. Dunham herself even describes her own behavior as something a child predator would do.
The incident at seven was normal childhood exploration (though I think it’s exaggerated greatly, I’ve never met a one year old with the dexterity that Dunham describes her sister having). Bribing your young sibling for physical favors well into your teens is not.
My comment is in moderation (help mods?). Lisa, Dunham had incidents well into her teens. I don’t think they are at the same level, but Dunham refuses to acknowledge any wrongdoing of her teenage self.
LOLLL, DLPL,
Seems like we’ve both been bad!!
A very informative and well balanced article concerning the Duggar case.
http://abovethelaw.com/2015/05/josh-duggar-is-not-the-only-one-who-escaped-prosecution/#disqus_thread