Quiverfull is a movement among some conservative evangelical Protestant couples, chiefly in the United States, but with some adherents in Canada,[1] Australia, New Zealand, Britain and elsewhere.[2] It promotes procreation, and sees children as a blessing from God,[2][3][4] eschewing all forms of birth control, including natural family planning and sterilization.[5][6] Adherents are known as "quiver full", "full quiver", "quiverfull-minded", or simply "QF" Christians. Some refer to the Quiverfull position as Providentialism,[7] while other sources have referred to it as a manifestation of natalism.[8][9] Currently, several thousand Christians worldwide identify with this movement,[5] although entire Christian sects hold many beliefs correlative to those who self-identify as Quiverfull adherents.

Well

But that actually brings up another issue: very often abusers (especially young abusers) have been abused themselves. Where does this particular chain start, I wonder, and how far back does it go?

jbindc: "And while his behavior cannot be excused, the media reporting on this makes it was even creepier and suggest these things occurred while he was an adult, while in fact, he, too was underage (he was 14-15)."

FWIW, the story I read in the Los Angeles Times said right up front that Josh Duggar was not yet an adult at the time.

From what else I've read, apparently Daddy Duggar failed to report sonny boy's actions to the authorities for over a year, and the statute of limitations thus expired before they could finish their investigation and consider possible charges.

The actual history surrounding the Jacobite Rising (1745-46), which ended with the battle of Culloden, is quite fascinating because it was really more of a dynastic and religious quarrel, than it ever was about Scottish nationalism. The Jacobites never intended to seek Scotland's independence, but were instead desiring the restoration of the House of Stuart to the British throne in London.

Further, many Scots at the time of the rising supported the House of Hanover and rejected the claim of Charles Edward Stuart -- aka "Bonnie Prince Charlie" and "The Young Pretender" -- to the British throne on behalf of the House of Stuart. Further, while most of Stuart's support came from the Scottish Highlands, a fair number of people in northern England also supported the Stuart claim, and the English city of Manchester supported actually raised a regiment for his cause, which also fought on his behalf at Culloden.

A further bit of historical background is required here. The House of Stuart came to hold the thrones of England and Scotland at Queen Elizabeth I's death in 1603, because she died without an direct heir, which brought an end to the House of Tudor's often tumultuous and bloody reign in England.

King James VI of Scotland, a Stuart who was second cousin to Elizabeth I and her closest surviving relative, took the English throne as King James I. But while he held both thrones simultaneously, he also ruled each country independently from the other.

(Technically, England and Scotland would remain independent until the Act of Union in 1707, which combined the two thrones as one in the name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.)

But unfortunately for the Stuarts, many of them tended to remain faithful to Roman Catholicism, which proved to be an increasingly unsettling issue in 17th century Britain since most English and Scots were Protestant. And because of that, King Charles II -- who was Roman Catholic -- was forced from both thrones in the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688, whereupon he was succeeded by William III and his wife Queen Mary II, who ruled jointly on behalf of the House of Orange-Nassau, which was Dutch.

But William and Mary were not at all prolific in child-bearing, and because they produced no heirs themselves, Stuart rule was briefly restored in 1702 with Queen Mary II's death and the succession of Queen Anne, who formally combined the English and Scottish thrones as one in the aforementioned 1707 Act of Union.

But just like her immediate predecessor, Queen Anne also died without a direct heir in 1714. And because the English Parliament had earlier passed the Act of Settlement in 1701, which pointedly excludes Roman Catholics from the line of royal succession, the Stuarts were by and large aced out at that point.

Instead, George Louis of the House of Hanover in Bohemia was invited to take the throne as King George I, even though he spoke German and not English, and never bothered to learn his subjects' native language as Britain's monarch.

(Because the Act of Settlement has never been repealed, the heirs to the British throne to this very day are still legally forbidden from marrying someone of the Roman Catholic faith.)

The Jacobite rising was conveniently timed to occur during the War of Austrian Succession (1740), when most of the British Army was fighting on the European continent. Charles Edward Stuart, who had been living in exile in France with the other Stuarts, returned to Scotland in 1745 and raised an army in the Highlands with the announced intent of overthrowing King George II and the House of Hanover.

Stuart was initially successful in his campaign, seizing the then-former Scottish capital of Edinburgh after a brief battle at Prestonpans. But when his Jacobite forces entered northern England, where they began to gather for the march south to London, British regulars were recalled from the continent to counter the very real threat posed by "The Young Pretender."

As the returning British forces pressed north, Stuart and the Jacobites quickly retreated back into Scotland toward Inverness. The two sides met at the Battle of Culloden in April 1746, where the Jacobites were soundly beaten, and "Bonnie Prince Charlie" fled the country, never to return.

The House of Hanover remained as Britain's royal family until it was succeeded by the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha upon Queen Victoria's death in 1901. Even though King Edward VII was the queen's son, British law and custom dictated that he retain the dynastic name of his father Prince Albert, the queen's late consort who was originally from Germany.

The House of Windsor, which today reigns in the United Kingdom and throughout the British Commonwealth through the person of Queen Elizabeth II, is actually the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. But due to the extreme ill will engendered in Britain toward all things German during the First World War, King George V -- who actually was first cousin to the German emperor, Wilhelm II -- changed the name of the ruling house in 1917 to something that was much more appropriately British-sounding.

And should Elizabeth II be succeeded by her son Charles, the Prince of Wales, and should he choose to retain his given name as King Charles III, he will be the first British monarch with that name since the unfortunate Charles II, overthrown in 1688 and driven into exile.

There was also an earlier King Charles I of the House of Stuart, who ruled from 1625 to 1649. Whatever happened to him? Well, he was executed by Oliver Cromwell, following the triumph of parliamentary forces over the royalists in the English Civil War (1640-48), and the Stuarts did not regain the throne until 1660. So, monarchs named Charles or possessing the surname of Stuart haven't fared too well in Britain.

I looked up the California guidelines for police pursuit.  Unfortunately they are protected from my posting parts of them here by severe copyright threats.  Police are apparently protected from Vehicle Code regulations if they engage in "legitimate" pursuit.  Legitimate v. non-legitimate pursuit is not defined, or if it is I didn't see it.

They are not couched as requirements, but as "suggestions" for police departments.

In general they suggest that officers consider a number of factors before initiating such a pursuit, PRIMARILY the safety of everyone not involved in the pursuit.  

I assume they have a record of which firearm was used by which officer and the ability to fire test shots from them to get bullets for comparison of rifling marks.

Maybe the participants in every debate could be debating on behalf of a charity (a la Celebrity Apprentice).  Callers could vote for the hopefuls with donations via the same methods they use on The Voice and shows like that, and the winners would advance to something like the "League of Women Voters Round".

And frankly so far the media has done nothing but wet themselves with stupid questions and asked nothing relevant to voters.

"Do you believe those shoes make you look presidential?

"You are a grandmother.  Do you believe that makes you too old to be president?"