Holy Moley! The expanding Duggar family [Archive]

December27JJB

10-08-2005, 10:18 AM

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/06/17/arkansas_family_expecting_16th_child?mode=PF

Arkansas family expecting 16th child :eek:
June 17, 2005

TONTITOWN, Ark. --Arkansas' best-known big family will be getting bigger in the fall. Michelle Duggar and her husband, former state Rep. Jim Bob Duggar, say they're expecting their 16th child.

Michelle Duggar was honored in April 2004 with the state's Young Mother award. At the time, she was pregnant with young Duggar No. 15, a boy named Jackson born May 23, 2004.

The next child, a girl, is expected in October.

"We love children," Jim Bob Duggar says. "We consider each one a blessing from the Lord and we would both love to have some more."

Michelle adds, "They're a gift."

Baby girl Duggar will join her family in a new, 7,000-square-foot house that the Duggars have been building for the last two years. When it's complete, the home will have a commercial kitchen, 10 bathrooms, master and guest bedrooms, a laundry room with four washers and eight dryers, and two dormitory-style bedrooms -- one for the boys and one for the girls.

The Duggars say No. 16 might not be their last.

Family website: www.duggarfamily.com

karina

10-08-2005, 11:34 AM

Yikes

twinnyme

10-08-2005, 12:08 PM

Wow - is all I can say - and that I think I saw part of the Discovery Health Channel documentary on them.... Yes, god bless them. I have trouble enough with learning to parent one child right now!

Asha

10-08-2005, 12:17 PM

wowza!!!

Scooter

10-09-2005, 07:00 PM

I have trouble enough with learning to parent one child right now! This family has been discussed before, on the old boards. Part of the deal with them is that they do not fully parent each child. Each of the older ones is assigned a younger one to take care of (dress, feed, bathe, wake up and put to bed), teach them schoolwork, & generally watch over. It would be impossible for the mother & father to fully parent each one! **doing my best to hold back commentary**

Columbo

10-09-2005, 07:50 PM

I've been lurking here for a while, but haven't posted yet. I had to come out for this one.

My dad has 14 brothers and sisters. 15 children total. And I've heard that my grandmother went through 17 full-term pregnancies. Two babies died at birth.

And they only had a 3-bedroom house!!!

Needless to say, my dad has a nephew that is a few months older than him.

I don't know how they did it. My parents stuck to two kids. :rolleyes:

beachlvr

10-09-2005, 08:36 PM

I read some of the stuff on their website last night. I found it interesting that they teach the little ones to sit quietly on a blanket with a basket of toys, and the kids stay like that for a long time. And that the 14 year old makes dinner every night, and they have someone who comes in to do the family laundry.

More power to them, I guess, but I have a hard time giving each of my 3 kids enough attention. I can't imagine having 16 and trying to spread myself around!

AusMarchBride

10-09-2005, 08:41 PM

Scooter said
**doing my best to hold back commentary**

Yep, me too.

I looked at their website, and I can say that I feel sorry for "Jill (age 13)" who prepares lunch every day, and "Jana (Age 14)" who prepares dinner every day.

That's one 13 year old preparing lunch every day for about 20 people and one 14 year old preparing dinner every day for about 20 people. That's a huge amount of work. And I have a bit of an issue with the fact that this seems to be done only by the two girls. I believe there are older brothers (but I could be wrong) and it seems like the cooking is women's work. I hope I'm wrong.

Scooter

10-09-2005, 10:48 PM

And I have a bit of an issue with the fact that this seems to be done only by the two girls. I believe there are older brothers (but I could be wrong) and it seems like the cooking is women's work. I hope I'm wrong.
I don't think you're completely wrong. Looks like their two oldest children are boys, if you check out their early family portrait (http://www.duggarfamily.com/images/history.jpg). The next 4 were girls, then two boys, then a girl. (lost track after that.) So it does make you wonder what the differences in chores for boys vs girls.

I will say that the "blanket time" concerns me because toddlers need to explore and run around. It's part of their development, it's how they learn, grow, and how their brain develops. Although it is nice that they're teaching them to play and self-soothe, that natural toddler behavior sounds very discouraged.

batgirl

10-10-2005, 05:19 AM

Gross!
This is a good example of why sex education including discussions of birth control needs to be in public school. These poor girls are going to grow up thinking they need to be barefoot and pregnant (all the time, apparently).

Funny, too, that they have their own website. Do they accept donations? A little voyeuristic, but that's just my opinion.

juliemag

10-10-2005, 05:26 AM

I personally admire that family. Yes, it's odd and out of the ordinary, but I think they are raising their family very well. Every one of those kids is learning the value of hard work and responsibility at a young age. They are all respectful to their parents and siblings. There's nothing that I see as physically or emotionally harmful in their situation.

More power to them. :)

Sha259

10-10-2005, 07:08 AM

I went to their website and read through a day in their life, and I was soo ready to be negative, but I found myself admiring the way they handle their children. It seems to me that even though they have so many kids, they have found a way to keep things as orderly as possible, while giving their children the opportunity to take some responsibility for themselves and a sibling. I personally thing this is a good way to build bonds between family members as well as allow the children to mature while still being able to have fun. Its funny, but my mother did something similar with my siblings and I (she only had 4 kids). I think because I was responsible in some ways for myself and my little brothers we have a very strong bond, even though we differ by 6 and 9 years in age. My sister and I could not be any closer than we are. :) So I think that it can all work out if you have the right frame of mind.

katmg

10-10-2005, 07:33 AM

After reading the website, the thing that concerns me is how often the word "training" shows up. It seems like they are very concerned about training their children to be a certain way. I'm just not sure that should be the most important thing for small children.

kimthebride

10-10-2005, 07:38 AM

DH & I have ONE baby and have a hard time finding the opportunity for "alone ;) time". How the HELL do they keep getting preggo with all those kids in the house!!?? How does she even have the energy??
By the 11th kid I think she earned the right to fake headaches anytime she wants....

dionysia

10-10-2005, 08:33 AM

I will refrain from most commentary. ;)

However:

Batgirl: from what I understand, the Duggars are of a Christian denomination that does not believe in birth control.

All the kids have names beginning with J:
Joshua, Jana, John-David, Jill, Jessa, Jinger (prn like Ginger I think), Joseph, Josiah, Joy-Anna, Jeremiah, Jedidiah, Jason, James, Justin, and Jackson.

Taking bets for the next J name???

Di

LittleFredPunkinHead

10-10-2005, 08:39 AM

No Jennifer yet?

paiger

10-10-2005, 08:45 AM

I watched the Discovery Channel Documentary that was replayed maybe a month or so ago. It was filmed at the time that they learned the sex of this child due in October. They do have a system for how they do everything. The boys aren't cooking b/c they were building the house w/ the dad. However, when it showed them cooking it showed that everyone was helping. The girls are just 'in charge'. It also showed the kids running around and playing quite a bit.

They also don't take donations as the parents had a successful company early (they got married in high school), and they have enough savings and money to take care of the family. I would imagine that comes from doing most everything on their own. I'm not sure why they do the website/documentary publicity unless it is to show that this is a viable way to live if you want it to be.

I do agree that it is a shame that the children all want this type of life for themselves. It's not that I look down on that, but what if that isn't the right path for them. They don't know any other way (like college, etc), so they would just get married in high school and start a big family.

Aimee

10-10-2005, 08:57 AM

I was surprised that they'd skipped a lot of the more common J-names: Jessica, Jennifer and Jason, for example.

Whether or not they believe in birth control, there's always NFP. I suspect that they actually know a lot about it, considering their uncanny ability to get PG so much. By now, they must have figured out when the right time is, which would mean they could avoid if they didn't want to concieve.

paiger

10-10-2005, 09:04 AM

katmg

10-10-2005, 09:08 AM

Yeah, after watching the documentary and reading the website - even if they knew about NFP, I don't think they would use it to have or not have children. They believe that it is up to God to decide how many children they should have. Any mindset of preventing or trying would be the same mindset as using birth control pills - to them.

As for J names - what about Judith? That's a Biblical name, right? Or Julia/Julie?

kugrrly

10-10-2005, 09:14 AM

Jaime??

batgirl

10-10-2005, 09:14 AM

Batgirl: from what I understand, the Duggars are of a Christian denomination that does not believe in birth control.

Yeah, I think that's pretty obvious (even without looking at the website). That's why I said that the kids need sex ed in public school (or are they home schooled?) Poor kids.

Quartercentury

10-10-2005, 09:54 AM

What creeps me out about the whole thing is the number of times Velveeta is listed as an ingredient in a recipe. ;)

batgirl

10-10-2005, 10:07 AM

Hopefully they believe in drugs used to lower cholesterol!

dionysia

10-10-2005, 10:14 AM

Yeah, I think that's pretty obvious (even without looking at the website). That's why I said that the kids need sex ed in public school (or are they home schooled?) Poor kids.Afaik they are homeschooled.

In the interest of the shoe being on the other foot, I'm going to say that despite what I personally believe, it's really none of our business what sex ed they do or don't receive.

Di

batgirl

10-10-2005, 10:18 AM

But aren't they kind of asking for it since they are parading themselves around on the internet and tv shows?

sue-bert

10-10-2005, 12:39 PM

Eh? Doing TV interviews means they're asking for sex ed? (I must have misunderstood...?)

sue-bert

LittleFredPunkinHead

10-10-2005, 12:41 PM

My interpretation: plastering your life on the internet and tv means you're pretty much asking people to get into your business.

maxandmolly

10-10-2005, 12:52 PM

I guess, if they can find a way to care for them without being a drain on the welfare system (which it sounds like they have), well, better them than me! You couldn't pay me enough money to have that many children.

laurenc

10-11-2005, 07:01 AM

yowsers.

after that many kids, can you even FEEL the lower half of your body? i guess that would certainly make it easier to have more children if you're just numb from the waist down from so much, er, activity...

Jaycee

10-11-2005, 07:20 AM

What creeps me out about the whole thing is the number of times Velveeta is listed as an ingredient in a recipe. ;)
Hee hee..I was thinking the EXACT same thing!! It's one thing to have a lot of children, but for crying out loud at least make sure you can feed them healthy food and spend quality time with each one of them. It seems like this is more of a factory than a family. "Quantity over quality" should be this families motto.

dionysia

10-12-2005, 12:42 PM

Baby Johannah Faith has arrived!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051012/ap_on_re_us/sixteen_kids

Di

Jaycee

10-12-2005, 12:47 PM

Baby Johannah Faith has arrived!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051012/ap_on_re_us/sixteen_kids

Di
Hopefully they'll wait a while before putting her on the Velveeta diet.

msnicolea

10-12-2005, 12:52 PM

I would have thought she would have had a sponsor as a name like "Comcast Renee" or "Verizon Ruth".

BethElena

10-12-2005, 01:05 PM

so at this point, does she just get admitted to the hospital, read a magazine, and the baby just pops out?? :D

Jaycee

10-12-2005, 01:29 PM

so at this point, does she just get admitted to the hospital, read a magazine, and the baby just pops out?? :D
at this point I was thinking it would be easier and more cost effective to do it right in her own bathroom. Hey, after so many times I'm sure they've got the drill down pretty pat. :)

LyLMyssChaos

10-12-2005, 02:25 PM

I say Congrats to the Duggar Family!!! They aren't draining my pocketbook any, so more power to em. If they want to have 25 kids, it's none of my business as long as they can take care of them appropriately. But I guess, that is what is in dispute. What exactly is considered, appropriate care?

villanelle75

10-12-2005, 02:29 PM

I suppose one (but not me, cuz I know better than to do something like this 'round these here parts ;) ) could make the argument that while they aren't draining our wallets directly, they certainly are draining the world's resources by having so many kids who all have to eat, who require a freakin huge home that has to be heated in the winter, who probably require a non-fuel efficent bus to be taken any place, etc.

So really, the number of children a family has in a way, is other people's business, or at least one could make that argument. ;)

LyLMyssChaos

10-12-2005, 02:38 PM

Yeah, I guess. But I figure, the earth was put here for us to use, so might as well use it. I'm not of the "save our resources" variety of thinker. If I want to have a whole soccer team and then some of children? And I can take care of them, there is nobody that will convince me that it is anything but ok. I'm not saying I intend to have that many because I know that financially I cannot afford that many children, we are very strapped with the two we have, but I know that if our financial situation were to improve, that DH and I would have more children in a heartbeat. I feel that if a family can provide love, shelter, necessities and a few wants, then that's all that a child needs.

katmg

10-12-2005, 02:44 PM

I'm wondering when Joshua is going to settle down and start his own football team, I mean, family. He's already 17 - shouldn't he be getting married soon?! Poor Janna's gonna be an old maid too - 15 and unwed. What she's waiting for? ;)

Scooter

10-12-2005, 02:57 PM

But I guess, that is what is in dispute. What exactly is considered, appropriate care?I think that's exactly what many of us are concerned about. It seems like after a certain number of kids, there's only so much attention you can give them. Sure, you may have plenty of love, but if they're not getting their emotional needs met, then that's a real problem.

LyLMyssChaos

10-12-2005, 03:05 PM

I think that's exactly what many of us are concerned about. It seems like after a certain number of kids, there's only so much attention you can give them. Sure, you may have plenty of love, but if they're not getting their emotional needs met, then that's a real problem.

I can totally see that concern. Believe me, I spend all day with 5 children, and I am burned out by the end of the day and I am so thankful that 3 of them go home around 6 p.m. because I do not think I have it in me to give them what they need/deserve any longer than that. I am also glad that I get weekends off, but when they are your kids, you don't get that choice. I guess the only ones that know what goes on in their home is them. I can only hope that they are getting what they need on all fronts.

Hangin'in

10-13-2005, 08:17 AM

The Dugger's used BCP when they first got married, that's why they didn't have their first child until they had been married for 4 years. They went off of birth control to have their first child, then went back on BCP after the birth of that child. They got PG a second time, but it ended in miscarriage, and the doctor told them that BCP can cause some women to have recurrant miscarriage. They never went on BC again, and decided that God would not give them more children than they can handle... Mr. and Mrs. Dugger discussed this exact conversation in a live interview from the hospital yesterday. They are of the opinion that *God opens the womb, and He closes it when He sees fit*.

This was a heated discussion *over there*. Living in AR, I guess we have a little more info than the rest of the world. They have very sexist roles in their family. The girls do all of the cooking and cleaning and sewing. The boys work on the house, and hunt. The older children are assigned a younger sibling to take care of completely, from the time they get up, until the time they go to bed. They are completely home schooled. They are supposedly debt free now, but they did not use to be, and we all helped support the family.

Alot of people here say they don't know how she (and I'm assuming they mean Mrs. Dugger) does it... that they can't keep up with the children they have (different numbers here). Mrs. Dugger is NOT doing it, and I don't think it is right to require children to raise their siblings, while mom and dad keep popping them out.

I tried to keep my opinion to myself... but it just popped out. I realize that there are many people who admire and respect their ability to *raise* such a large family. I am not one of them.

LittleFredPunkinHead

10-13-2005, 08:23 AM

My opinion on it is that it's environmentally very irresponsible.

dionysia

10-13-2005, 08:26 AM

But I figure, the earth was put here for us to use, so might as well use it. I'm not of the "save our resources" variety of thinker.Fine, but don't expect Mother Earth to be around for your descendants then.

Di

jh124

10-13-2005, 08:33 AM

My opinion on it is that it's environmentally very irresponsible.
Yes, but they cloth diaper. Surely that must count for something?;)

greenbunny

10-13-2005, 08:37 AM

Fine, but don't expect Mother Earth to be around for your descendants then.

Di

ITA. But that affects other people's descendants, too. So it's hardly fair.

JamBray

10-13-2005, 08:41 AM

My opinion on it is that it's environmentally very irresponsible.
I totally agree.

msnicolea

10-13-2005, 08:43 AM

My opinion on it is that it's environmentally very irresponsible.

Absolutely right!

hub1176

10-13-2005, 08:47 AM

But does she breastfeed? :)

LittleFredPunkinHead

10-13-2005, 09:06 AM

Yes, but they cloth diaper. Surely that must count for something?;)
Oh, good point! Never mind then. ;) :D

dionysia

10-13-2005, 09:48 AM

ITA. But that affects other people's descendants, too. So it's hardly fair.Oh, I agree, but I was trying to tailor my response to LMC's 'it doesn't affect ME' sentiment. ;)

Di

pullbuoy

10-13-2005, 12:37 PM

Yes, but they cloth diaper. Surely that must count for something?;)

Actually, it's far from clear that cloth diapering is more environmentally sound. But god I hope they breastfeed. Can you imagine how many cans would be leftover from the formula??? And the energy spent heating all those bottles?

I am really curious to see what kind of people these kids grow up to be. I'm also pretty sure they are on food stamps, or were for quite some time, even after talking up "getting out of debt" so much. I think you can make something like 80K for that size family and still be eligible. I remember seeing on at least one of the shows that they were taking advantage of that.

Txfish

10-13-2005, 12:53 PM

You know what's making me the saddest about this is, two of the girls' names are almost identical: Joy-Anna and Johanna. Think they'll be buddied up?

I have had mixed opinions on them since I first saw the Discovery show almost a year ago, when they were having Jackson. I mean, they seem to be very responsible people, not burdening the system monetarily. The children do seem well-spoken, and reasonably educated. The household does seem to run well, albeit with the afore-mentioned velveeta dependency.

I cannot imagine a family that size; I cannot imagine not having more choice of what I will do with my time than care for my toddler sibling constantly. But I do think there are worse things, and in truth they are fed, clothed, housed, taught, and loved. I just wish the kids had a little more choice in their own future lives -- I mean, the oldest two girls both said they hope for 14 kids themselves? What a choice to make at 13.

As for whether they are environmentally friendly, why not? It's not like they are any worse than any other family, they just constitute the size of 3 or 4 other families. They're not proportionally using any more resources per person, unlike some wealthy people who truly are living in and heating/cooling enormous homes for 2 people. Are they using more gas/crating more smog with their one bus than the 3 or 4 other families would use with their 1 or 2 cars apiece? I'm not finding that a valid argument.

On a side note, even if she doesn't breastfeed (which I'm betting she does, for a few months but no more) that woman has had leaking boobs for 18 years. Seriously, that's a lot of breast pads. :eek:

Hangin'in

10-13-2005, 12:55 PM

They take advantage of many government funded social programs, not just food stamps. In AR, if a child does not have insurance, they are automatically covered by the state (until they turn 18, I think).

LittleFredPunkinHead

10-13-2005, 01:03 PM

As for whether they are environmentally friendly, why not? It's not like they are any worse than any other family, they just constitute the size of 3 or 4 other families. They're not proportionally using any more resources per person, unlike some wealthy people who truly are living in and heating/cooling enormous homes for 2 people. Are they using more gas/crating more smog with their one bus than the 3 or 4 other families would use with their 1 or 2 cars apiece? I'm not finding that a valid argument.
The point being that by bringing all those kids into the world, they're using as many resources are 3, 4 or 5 families.

msnicolea

10-13-2005, 01:38 PM

One family should not use the resources of Five families--that's the point.

Txfish

10-13-2005, 01:55 PM

And my point is, does it offend you less if 5 more families move into town? How does it make any difference how the numbers are grouped?

dionysia

10-13-2005, 02:28 PM

Don't forget about how much it's going to cost and resources it will drain to heat their 7000 square foot home.

Di

Boopy

10-13-2005, 02:51 PM

Don't forget about how much it's going to cost and resources it will drain to heat their 7000 square foot home.

Di

I've been reading along with this thread and wanted to respond to the issue of them using up too many resources. Earlier it was said that they make up 4 to 5 regular families. Let's say it's five families. An average house is what, 1500 square feet? (I don't know house measurements very well) That would be a total of 7500 square feet for all five families houses. So I don't think their 7000 square foot home is a greater burden then if they were five different families.

Smillow

10-13-2005, 02:58 PM

Being the middle child of three, I cannot imagine being 12th of 16! I just can't imagine being able to establish an identity w/ all those people around! They are building a house with 9 bathrooms - I hope they allow the kids to lock the doors & be by themselves!

kat

10-13-2005, 03:10 PM

I don't have the right to tell them how many children to have (just as no one could tell me how many I could have!) but that doesn't mean I can't talk about it. :) Now, if I was trying to pass legislation outlawing families greater than x number of kids, or forcing women to give birth to x number of kids....that'd be another story. But I don't see anything wrong with commenting on their family.

I forgot to clip the quote, but I think it was Scooter who said that this family seems so concerned about "quantity," and that's sort of what bugs me about this whole thing.

There is something about what I've read that seems like they treat babies the way my niece used to treat her toys: once she played with it a few times, she didn't find it as fascinating and wanted another (new) one again. Sure, these parents don't throw their kids aside the way my niece threw aside her toys, but there is just something about them that says "We just want numbers" to me. Maybe it's the fact that they're already talking about having more kids within the first few hours after the newest one was born. It just seems like a "more, more, more" addiction to me.

And I agree that while instilling responsibity in a teenager is great, I think that has to be balanced against allowing the teenager a life of his or her own -- to go out and explore the world (and have some fun doing so). I can't see how these teenagers can do that if they have a younger sibling to take care of ('course, from what I've read about the family, I doubt they share my "allow your kids to explore the world" opinion).

villanelle75

10-13-2005, 03:14 PM

I don't think anyone is arguign that 5 families wouldn't take up just as many resources. The point in question is that these two people have chosen to bring 16 more people into the world. Sixteen epoepel that all need resoures. So by having so many resources users, they are putting more strain on resrouces than if they had two or three or four.

It's not about 5 other families equalling this large one. It's about one family choosing to expand to the point that they use the resources of 5 regular sized families.

amew

10-13-2005, 03:26 PM

It's not about 5 other families equalling this large one. It's about one family choosing to expand to the point that they use the resources of 5 regular sized families.

Exactly. Five couples with 1 or 2 kids each will not ultimately contribute to population growth, and hence over-population, as they have (at most) "replaced" themselves. One couple with 16 kids has contibuted to overpopulation and resource depletion fairly dramatically.

Scooter

10-13-2005, 03:31 PM

Actually, it's far from clear that cloth diapering is more environmentally sound. (I sure don't mean to start a CD debate, really!) If this family is not hiring a service to clean the CDs with the environmentally harmful chemicals, if they are instead cleaning them by hand with regular home supplies, then I think the effects are clearly better for the environment than disposables. And because the family seems to be so DIY and frugal, I'd guess they're cleaning them at home.

Kat, it was someone else who said quantity over quality, but I do agree. ;)

Hangin'In, ITA with your whole opinion post a page or so back. That's exactly why it bothers me to praise this family, the parents are NOT raising their children. And having known through work literally hundreds of people like her children who didn't get to have "a childhood" or who raised siblings/worked/acted like an adult from an early age---well I can see the ramifications affecting generations to come. Just because the parents are making this choice. And this is different than in older times when women didn't always have options of birth control and had large familes--there is no larger community context here in the way there used to be.

Boopy

10-13-2005, 03:31 PM

I guess I would have to ask then at point does a family get so large that they begin to put too much strain on the world's resources? Is it 5 people? or 10? :confused:

What about the case of a couple who does not have any children, but chose to live in a large house and own two or more cars? I would argue that they are an even greater waste of resources, like the fuel it would take to heat their large home.

villanelle75

10-13-2005, 03:51 PM

I agree that two people can be over consumers as well. Heck, I'm sure I'll get reamed for this, but I think nearly all SUV drivers are also wasteful of resources. However, since this thread is about a family with 16 kids, that's the over consumption I was higlighting and I dont' see how other types of waste or strain on resources has anything to do with whether this family is in fact causing a strain on resources themselves. Just because there are other ways to be wasteful and to strain resources doesn't mean this one is somehow okay.

amew

10-13-2005, 03:52 PM

In addition to straining resources in the present, a large family will continue to have a big impact on the environment into the future as the descendants of that family multiply. So while a childless couple that lives in a giant house with 2 gas guzzling cars is certainly wasting resources unnecessarily, at least the resource consumption ends with them --they haven't produced 16 other little resource users, who will probably each produce several resource users of their own, etc. As for when a family becomes too large from an environmental standpoint, I think many environmentalists would say that anything beyond self-replacement (2 kids for 2 parents) is potentially problematic, as it contributes to population growth. But obviously 3 is better than 5 is better than 10 is better than 16, environmentally speaking (I fully realize that there are factors other than population growth that should go into determing the ideal family size for any given individual).

msnicolea

10-13-2005, 05:01 PM

They aren't having 16 children INSTEAD of 4 families having 4 each--they are having them in ADDITION to those other families. Of course it's a drain on resources.

Kanga

10-13-2005, 05:10 PM

ITA with it being a drain on resources. Sure the couple with no kids and oversized house is too and same with the SUV drivers but each of these 16 kids will go on to each have whoknowshowmany more kids and so will their kids, so on and so forth. Whereas the SUV isn't going to multiply itself any time soon.

udsweetpea

10-13-2005, 05:21 PM

I can't even handle my three Sim children on The Sims! I don't know how I'd even do with 3 real kids, let alone 16!

I'm holding back my own personal commentary, but I just think they're crazy.

Natasha

10-13-2005, 05:37 PM

As the oldest of 4, I helped out with my younger siblings, but I wasn't wholly RESPONSIBLE for any of them. I don't think thats fair. And, I think 16+ kids is NUTS! How can you possibly be a good parent to that many children? I am stressing about how I will spread myself between my son and baby #2. And the J names...Oh, come on..... If you have a few kids, i can see it being kind of neat, but sheesh, 16 J names. These kids already have almost no chance at indiviuality, lets make them as much the same as possible. Ugh.

Scooter

10-13-2005, 07:22 PM

These kids already have almost no chance at indiviuality, lets make them as much the same as possible. Ugh.
Heh. Have you seen photos of them? They dress the children alike, as well. And in a style that is a bit outdated. (Tyring to find a nice way of saying that...)

2004 kids' portrait (http://www.jimbob.info/images/2004family__duggar.jpg)

2002 family portrait (http://www.jimbob.info/images/2001family__duggar.jpg)

It's not just for the photos, that is how they dressed daily in the tv documentary as well.

(ETA: the boys don't wear the jacket and ties daily, didn't mean to imply that!)

Natasha

10-13-2005, 07:33 PM

Scooter--I KNOW! Bad enough they all start with J, but you can't even say "Jill's the one in yellow". I read on their website, they color code the days of the week, ie, Monday, everyone wears red, Tuesday is blue, etc...

mrstim

10-13-2005, 08:36 PM

You know,I think the bottom line is not just the drain on society/resources etc. Besides that fact, what bothers me is the reliance on the children to help raise additional children. THAT's the point to me. There's no way those children get personal attention from the mother that they should get. Not a chance! My FIL was one of 14, my Grandfather was one of 25 :eek: so I do have some experience and personal feedback on this one. Plus to homeschool all of them? My mom only homeschooled the three of us, and she was run ragged 1/2 of the time. Plus there's the fact that because of their religion, the women are to grow up, marry, produce children. There's simply not a whole lot of individual growth promoted.

Not to mention the last I heard the discovery channel was doing a second documentary of the finishing of the house - paid for by the Discovery Channel. I'll try to find the article on that one. THAT'S what irritates me.

I don't normally step into debates, but couldn't help myself on this one!

mrstim

10-13-2005, 08:47 PM

Several Articles on the DC helping finish their home:

http://www.kfsm.com/Global/story.asp?S=3487503
http://www.kfsm.com/Global/story.asp?S=3482878

Natasha

10-13-2005, 11:13 PM

I totally agree, mrstim. I am not one to tell people how to parent, to each their own, but I felt the need to weigh in, as well.

TX Sweetheart

10-14-2005, 01:05 AM

I can't even handle my three Sim children on The Sims! I don't know how I'd even do with 3 real kids, let alone 16!

I'm holding back my own personal commentary, but I just think they're crazy.

no kidding...

I babysit 5 kids by myself once a week... I can't even begin to imagine having even those 5 kids 24/7... though from what I've read, I'm guessing the Dugger kids are a lot more well-behaved than the 5 I babysit...

sue-bert

10-14-2005, 03:07 AM

I say: If they have the resources, the will, and organizational abilities to rear 16 kids, more power to them. It seems like they're raising these kids to be responsible, caring adults.

As for all the people who compain about them wasting resources: Seems they are using their resources very wisely and efficiently. The population density in their one home (even their new larger one) is much higher than that of 5 families with 1-2 kids each in 5 separate homes. Unlike all the two-child SUV-driving families, the Duggar's could actually justify driving this large vehicle (or bus for that matter!).

Plus, by homeschooling, they save their fellow Arkansas taxpayers $6482 per school-age child each year (figure found here: http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/pubs/npefs03/findings.asp#3). Figure 16 kids and 13 years of public education ... heck, they're saving Arkansas taxpayers $1.35 million.

I think the main resource they consume too much of is Velveeta. :eek:

FWIW, I know many families with 10+ kids. I grew up in a neighborhood with many observant Catholic families with 7-12 children each. My husband's side of the family contains some large family units as well (one of his cousins just had his thirteenth child two weeks ago). We see them several times a year at bar- and bat-mitzvahs, brisses, etc.

So far, I don't see any evidence of the kids being any worse for the experience. Quite the contrary; they are actually all well-behaved and genuinely caring kids, each with unique talents and personalities.

sue-bert

Zherbus

10-14-2005, 06:59 AM

It's too bad the discovery channel has dibs on that family. If TLC did, they'd get ratings through the roof for TLC's What Not To Wear. The mother alone would be a three-part episode.

I was surprised that they'd skipped a lot of the more common J-names: Jessica, Jennifer and Jason, for example.

I think they go for the more biblical names, which sort of make them sound amish.

"Momma, what's television?"

That said, the only issue I have with their family is that each of the kids are so far removed from society. I think it's great that they can do stuff without costing me another tax-cent, don't get me wrong. However, I cannot help but feel sorry for these kids who will reach the age where things should be apparent to them, but aren't.

Perhaps it's an incorrect assumption, but based off of what I saw, once those kids are forced to become members of society, they will be so far behind that it'll have some serious side-effects. Like it or not, everything in our society revolves around a persons charisma.

Without key socialization skills, one would not easily make friends, which mean one would not easily meet a mate. Also, the business world frowns on the socially inept. Maybe I'm looking too much into it, but I feel that the mere structure of the family is hurting the childrens chance at a normal future.

Then again, I could be wrong. I've never lived soley on the company of my family and a diet of velveeta.

sophiapb

10-14-2005, 07:04 AM

Not to mention the last I heard the discovery channel was doing a second documentary of the finishing of the house - paid for by the Discovery Channel.

"Last year the Discovery Channel did a story on us called '14 Children and Pregnant again.'" Michelle Duggar said.
The Duggar documentary turned out to be the highest rated show Discovery has ever aired.
"TLC is going to supply plumbers, electricians and all the people and we're going to apprentice under them to help in the building and finish out the house," Jim Bob Duggar said.

Glad to hear it! The Discovery Channel is making a pretty penny by parading this family around like a side show exhibit so I'm glad to see the Duggars are getting SOMETHING out of it. Does anyone know if they were compensated in any other way? I was thinking about that when I watched the original show, wondering why anyone would open up their lives to a tv show without the opportunity to win a million dollars or a position as Martha's assistant.

Also, someone had said that this family uses food stamps and yet everything I've seen and read seems to indicate that they are doing it on their own without an form of government assistance. Is the food stamps claim just an urban myth like the panhandler who drives a Mercedes or is there proof somewhere?

I actually envy these kids being members of this family. They are loved by their parents AND their siblings. They are not planted in front of a TV or videogame and left to fend for themselves. They play kickball outside, have a playscape, their parents treated them to new bikes and helmets on the last show, they go out to dinner as a family (that part blew me away!) and go on field trips in the family bus. They contribute to the well being of their family and receive it in turn. Their mom is home all day with them as is their dad for the most part. They dress conservatively as opposed to the belly baring, shoulder exposing clothing my 9 year old cousin wears so she can "fit in" at school.

More power to the Duggars. Now let's deal with teenagers that dump their newborns in the trash, politicians who use government funds for stripper parties and CEOs who cut jobs to collect an eight figure annual bonus.

SingleWhiteFemale

10-14-2005, 07:22 AM

sue-bert

10-14-2005, 07:49 AM

sue-bert

10-14-2005, 07:53 AM

sophiapb:

Great post.

sue-bert

hub1176

10-14-2005, 07:57 AM

I hardly think they will suffer unduly in the business world or in university because they didn't sit in front of "the idiot box" for 3+ hours/week like a typical American child

I don't think it's the lack of tv as much as the homeschooling and the fact their children seem to have no social life.
One of the problems with the "old" way of homeschooling was that educators found that those who were homeschooled had higher IUQ's, better grades etc. However they also saw that these children were lacking in social IQ because they really didn't get out much (the main exception being church since at the time most homeschooled due to religious reasons) and were emotionally unprepared to deal with the rigiours of college life (dealing with roommates etc) I read this a while back in my DH's Educator's magazine and have dial up otherwise I'd link ( plus I"m typing with baby in my arms :)) The new way of homeschooling seems to be more the norm -homeschool familes getting together for outings/field trips and trading teaching services. So at least there is some social interaction out of the family.

mrstim

10-14-2005, 08:16 AM

I'll out myself for this one :

I grew up homeschooled & without a tv. BUT my mom's METHOD of homeschooling was what made the difference - I graduated with a 4.0 from High School at 16, college with a 3.99 at 19 - Plus I got a job in corporate america and did FINE until I resigned when I got married and moved. (Please understand I'm not bragging - just stating this to help my point.)

You HAVE to have social interaction of some kind. For the Duggars, this way of life is the only one they know - so they're fine with it. As long as the kids are fine with it, I don't care. I'm just stating what I feel for this particular thread.

;) :)

JenniferEC

10-14-2005, 08:48 AM

Quick question. On the original show, it seemed like they were part of their own church and there was one other family (maybe two) that went to each others houses for service. I'm guessing when it's time to date or find their life partners, they have to choose from people in their own church. So, do they have to pick from those families they go to church with or is another religion acceptable. For instance, would the oldest boy be allowed to date a practicing Mormon or Catholic?

mrstim

10-14-2005, 09:26 AM

I seriously doubt it. They do "home church." As for the marriage - the boys are raised with the belief that the woman is to marry, stay at home, and have children. With their faith, the man is in authority, and the woman is to submit no matter what - kind of the man is in charge, no matter what. (the woman has no say in the matter, either, whatever the man decides is what happens.) Plus they are expected to dress modestly, homeschool the children, etc. So I think that if they went outside of their religion, they would have a tough time finding a life partner who would abide within their rules.

:D

edited to add: Even though I'm a practicing Christian, I am NOT of their religion, and didn't want to confuse anyone by insinuating that I am. I do have family that practice a lot of weird beliefs, though!

Zherbus

10-14-2005, 09:38 AM

Why do you think these children are socially inept or lacking in charisma?

I did not see the Discovery Channel program that featured this family, so I don't know if you are saying this because of something you observed there, or if you are assuming this based on the fact that they are home-schooled and don't watch TV.

Well, you might do good to watch the show and see how obviously apparent it is that these 'golly-gee mrs. cleaver' kids are way out of touch.

I know many large families without TVs. Some of them have a TV that they only use to view (parent-approved) videos. I think their lives are richer because they spend their spare time reading or interacting with each other instead of passively watching an CRT screen for hours on end.

I hardly think they will suffer unduly in the business world or in university because they didn't sit in front of "the idiot box" for 3+ hours/week like a typical American child.

3 Hours a week? You mean a day? That's probably more close to typical. And no, I would be a fool to equate 'kids watching lots of TV = well rounded'. There's a happy medium between removing your children from society all together and forcing them to watch 20+ hours of TV a week. In fact, TV doesn't help much with socialization either. I would assume that a couch potato kid would have just as hard of a time socializing with the world as these kids.

You were quick to shelter my entire post with the blanket of 'TV', when I only said 'Momma, What's Television?' to illustrate how far removed these kids are. Would "Momma, what's the internet?" help you understand my point any better?

Like it or not, one's children should at least live in the same world as his/her peers. That doesn't mean we all need to rush out to McDonalds for dinner, come home in time for Jerry Springer, then provide further excellent examples by bringing our kids shopping at Limited Too. I just mean that people need to be mindful of the detriments of being overly sheltering to your children.

Oh, come on. I know you all want your daughters wearing the mothers super-fly homemade dress.

Astara

10-14-2005, 09:45 AM

Oh, come on. I know you all want your daughters wearing the mothers super-fly homemade dress.

LOL that is just too funny.

Secret_Squirrel

10-14-2005, 11:02 AM

My midwife's family was a lot like this. Her clinic was in her home, so during my prenatal check-ups (2 pregnancies over 3 years) I saw a lot of the family interaction. They were all home-schooled. The girls wore the apron dresses with little hats and leggings, so the skin of the leg didn't show. She was a kind, competant woman and her husband supported her business (he did the books). She never discussed her particular religious views with her clients, and I never felt judgment from her because I lived differently. Despite the old-fashioned wear, she was a really cool woman.

I know she didn't always live that way because she'd talk about her former life from time to time. They had 8 kids when I met her and were up to 11 or 12 a few years ago, but I know she planned to just keep going.

The saddest thing was that her and her husband did not mesh well genetically. Out of the last four pregnancies, only one was healthy. One was delayed, one had Down's Syndrome and another little girl was born with congenital heart defects and died shortly after birth.

They took it all in stride. But if I were them, I'd probably take that as a sign from God that I should stop reproducing.

One things: this family was totally self-dependent and did not take governement assistance. They owned their house outright, "gleaned" their food and made their own clothes.

It's not a choice I would make, but it's their choice. One of their kid's "rebelled" but they didn't "ex-communicate" him, it was more like he was just finding his own path.

Sadly, the last I heard their marriage was on the rocks because her husband had an online-porn addiction.

PinkMartini

10-17-2005, 07:03 PM

kmmommy

10-17-2005, 07:22 PM

She's nuts!

Scooter

10-18-2005, 12:02 AM

(quote by Txfish)
ITA!
Interesting. More people=more resources used. So a large family, like the 18 Duggars, is using up that many more resources in the world. It's a very valid argument if you stop to think about it. Overpopulation is causing us to use up too many resources, because there are too many people for what we have--the way we're currently utilizing our resources. Increasing the population by such a big amount therefore does have an environmental impact.

msnicolea

10-18-2005, 06:45 AM

Those of you making the argument that they don't use "proportionately more resources" are missing the point. They are contributing to overpopulation--and the fact that they are having this many children in no way impacts other families having children--it's not as if they are having 16 kids so 4 other families are deciding against having 4 kids each. They are having these children IN ADDITION TO other families having children. Clearly, this family is using an excessive amount of resources, which has a significant environmental impact.

wendalah

10-18-2005, 10:41 AM

laurenc

10-18-2005, 02:04 PM

I'm reading through this thread and when I got to the part about resources for their 7000-sq-ft home I instantly thought of Cribs. And then I thought of the birthday party Kimora Lee threw for her 2-year-old. :)

now there's a hybrid i'd like to see.

MTV Cribs presents: The Duggars! I wonder if he'll say, "This is where the magic happens!" like everyone else does when he shows off his bedroom.

msnicolea

10-20-2005, 08:41 AM

This about sums it up for me (exerpted from Mark Moford's latest) :

Let us be clear: I don't care what sort of God you believe in, it's a safe bet that hysterical breeding does not top her list of desirables. God does not want more children per acre than there are ants or mice or garter snakes or repressed pedophilic priests. We already have three billion humans on the planet who subsist on less than two dollars a day. Every other child in the world (one billion of them) lives in abject poverty. We are burning through the planet's resources faster than a Republican can eat an endangered caribou stew. Note to Michelle Duggar: If God wanted you to have a massive pile of children, she'd have given your uterus a hydraulic pump and a revolving door. Stop it now.

Ah, but this is America, yes? People should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want with their families if they can afford it and if it's within the law and so long as they aren't gay or deviant or happily flouting Good Christian Values, right? Shouldn't they? Hell, gay couples still can't openly adopt a baby in most states (they either lie, or one adopts and the other must apply as "co-parent"), but Michelle Duggar can pop out 16 kids and no one says, oh my freaking God, stop it, stop it now, you thoughtless, selfish, baby-drunk people.

No, no one says that. That would be mean.

JamBray

10-20-2005, 09:33 AM

Great post msnicolea.

sue-bert

10-20-2005, 11:37 AM

Ho hum. It seems that this Mark Moford fellow is just looking for an excuse to insult religious Christians. What does the legality of gay adoption have to do with the Duggars' right to give birth to and rear as many children as they want and can afford? What's with the totally irrelevant "pedophillic priests" jab?

Or is he just annoyed when believing Christians happily live according to the principles they espouse?

Sounds like he has some serious issues with religion. Perhaps he should visit a therapist.

gizzyntaz

10-20-2005, 11:48 AM

Jaycee

10-20-2005, 11:50 AM

I actually thought it was pretty right on!

hockeybrat

10-20-2005, 11:51 AM

I think Mark Moford read my mind. Thanks for the article!

dionysia

10-20-2005, 01:41 PM

That is exactly Mark Morford: rude, irreverent ranting that many people (myself included) wish they had the balls to say.

Di

krbb

02-25-2007, 12:22 PM

Number 17 :eek: .

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/144556/michelle_duggar_is_pregnant_with_baby.html

maxandmolly

02-25-2007, 12:26 PM

Jeez. Can you imagine?

Niobe

02-25-2007, 02:00 PM

So, have any of the older children run away screaming on their 18th birthday? Or gone off to start their own small cities?

Or are there going to be 17 children in the house at the same time? :eek:

tgray99

02-25-2007, 02:14 PM

I guess when the older kids do all the raising of the younger kids you have plenty of energy to have sex and make more babies. :rolleyes:

Anyone ever read about Margaret Sanger? She funded research on the Pill because her mother died of exhaustion from being pregnant the majority of her life. She stated that women were not designed to be baby making machines.

maxandmolly

02-25-2007, 03:28 PM

At least one of them has hit 18 by now. Are they sticking around or going to college? I mean, there has to be some goal in bringing all those children into the world, other than raising their siblings..........Right?

gayle

02-25-2007, 03:37 PM

I'm sorry but this is just over the top.

I'm glad they have a "system" and I am glad they seem to be able to manage it, but really, how much parental time can any one of those children ever get?

This would be like growing up at a boarding school, rather than in the intimacy of a family.

I could and would say alot more, but I am really working on my tendency to be judgemental.

SingleWhiteFemale

02-25-2007, 03:43 PM

At least one of them has hit 18 by now. Are they sticking around or going to college?Joshua (born 1988), twins Jana and John-David (born 1990), Jill (1991), Jessa (1993), Jinger (1994) (pronounced "Ginger"), Joseph (1995), Josiah (1996), Joy-Anna (1997), twins Jeremiah and Jedidiah (December 1998), Jason (2000), James (2001), Justin (2002), Jackson (May 25, 2004), and Johanna Faith (October 11, 2005).

They take advantage of many government funded social programs, not just food stamps. In AR, if a child does not have insurance, they are automatically covered by the state (until they turn 18, I think).I've heard the exact same thing--they gladly use government money on food. Considering that as a family of 18, they need to make less than $80,000 to qualify, which sounds as if they probably would qualify. That is my issue with the whole situation.

Niobe

02-25-2007, 05:19 PM

I think it's terrible that the older children are forced to give up their own lives to raise their younger siblings. My half-brother was born when I was 13 and I spent the next 4 years watching him constantly (my mom was so excited to have a "built-in babysitter"). Honestly, I think the whole situation is just horrible. This is America, this is the 21st century. Young girls should be brought up with the idea that they can go to college, have a career, do whatever they want. It's so wrong that these girls are being brought up with no future imagined for them beyond marrying as a teen and bearing 14 children. Haven't we progressed beyond that as a society?

No, there is nothing wrong with being a SAHM. That's what I want to do in a few years. But I wasn't raised with that being the only idea of what a woman does.

I don't buy this "it's not my place to judge their family". Do you say that when children are being beaten? Molested? No, you judge those actions as wrong. I judge that forcing children to be 24/7 caregivers to other children is wrong. To raise your children in ignorance of the multitude of opportunities available to them is wrong.

thedoorchick

02-25-2007, 09:04 PM

I think it's terrible that the older children are forced to give up their own lives to raise their younger siblings. My half-brother was born when I was 13 and I spent the next 4 years watching him constantly (my mom was so excited to have a "built-in babysitter"). Honestly, I think the whole situation is just horrible. This is America, this is the 21st century. Young girls should be brought up with the idea that they can go to college, have a career, do whatever they want. It's so wrong that these girls are being brought up with no future imagined for them beyond marrying as a teen and bearing 14 children. Haven't we progressed beyond that as a society?

I'm sorry if I'm being dense, but I see a big disconnect here. Since when does older siblings helping with younger ones equate to teaching young girls that the only future they have is that of a teenage mother? I imagine that young girls who have some responsibility at home probably are better equipped to handle any number of choices for their future. I have only two siblings, but one is eight years younger, and I spent a fair amount of time watching him when I was growing up, not to mention the other responsibilities I had around the house. That didn't stop me from getting a master's degree and having a great career.

I am not necessarily defending this family's choices (though I'm not vilifying them either), but I am questioning the conclusion leap I'm seeing.

Niobe

02-26-2007, 12:26 AM

I'm sorry if I'm being dense, but I see a big disconnect here. Since when does older siblings helping with younger ones equate to teaching young girls that the only future they have is that of a teenage mother? I imagine that young girls who have some responsibility at home probably are better equipped to handle any number of choices for their future. I have only two siblings, but one is eight years younger, and I spent a fair amount of time watching him when I was growing up, not to mention the other responsibilities I had around the house. That didn't stop me from getting a master's degree and having a great career.

I am not necessarily defending this family's choices (though I'm not vilifying them either), but I am questioning the conclusion leap I'm seeing.

I suck with segues. The overall impression I've gotten of the older girls, from all the articles I've read on the family, is that they really are being raised to continue the way of life they've grown up in. That a woman's place is in the home, bearing endless children and homeschooling them. The option of becoming a career woman and having a life beyond husband, children, and church just isn't even presented to them. The family follows the teachings of Bill Gothard, who teaches that children should not leave the home until they are married and that the courtship leading up to marriage must be with a person approved by both parents of the girl.

Again, I see no problem with having children and staying home to home school them. Or with living at home until you are married. All fine and dandy decisions for a person to make. But the environment these girls are being raised in gives them no opportunity for choices. They aren't being encouraged to be their own person, to live their own life, to go to college or see the world and just find their own way. They're being raised at home, taught at home, forced to cook and clean and be caregivers for their younger siblings until such time as they are courted by an approved suitor and married. Do these girls get any semblance of a modern, liberated woman's life? Or are they being raised like 19th century farm wives, chattel to their fathers and husbands?

On the surface, it all seems like such a picturesque little life. So old-fashioned and homey. But remember what life was really like for women in time of old. Women have fought so hard to have opportunities in this world. It's sad that these girls have such a tiny little existence when the whole world has been opened up for them.

sue-bert

02-26-2007, 02:53 AM

I'm glad they have a "system" and I am glad they seem to be able to manage it, but really, how much parental time can any one of those children ever get?
Well, they homeschool their kids, so they might actually get more quality time together with their kids than a working parent (working outside the home, that is) with, say, 2 kids.

jnettie

02-26-2007, 04:48 PM

With 17 kids? I severly doubt it. Besides, certain kids are the exclusive responsability of one of the older daughters, so mom never parents some of the little ones.

dionysia

02-27-2007, 10:00 AM

Niobe

02-27-2007, 11:00 AM

Taking bets on the next "J" name!!!

As a recap, here are the already taken names:
Joshua, Jana, John-David, Jill, Jessa, Jinger (I will always read this as rhyming with 'Ringer'), Joseph, Josiah, Joy-Anna, Jeremiah, Jedidiah, Jason, James, Justin, Jackson, and Johanna.

My predictions:
Jonah
Jemima

Di

Let's see...
Jebediah
Joel
Judith
Julia (I don't think it's biblical, but is Justin or Jackson?)

So, how do you pronounce Jinger if it doesn't rhyme with Ringer?

SiValleySteph

02-27-2007, 11:04 AM

Well, they homeschool their kids, so they might actually get more quality time together with their kids than a working parent (working outside the home, that is) with, say, 2 kids.

I can't believe this at all. I guess "quality time" is subjective, however.

Asha

02-27-2007, 11:10 AM

i think women who do this are addicted to being pregnant and having babies. they get extreme pleasure from being pregnant and mothering a baby, but get tired of them when they grow older.

thedoorchick

02-27-2007, 11:37 AM

So, how do you pronounce Jinger if it doesn't rhyme with Ringer?

I assume it's "ginger."

December27JJB

02-27-2007, 11:52 AM

Pregnant for a total of 144 months! :eek:

When are they going to stop having babies? When the mother is 85?

MLA

02-27-2007, 11:58 AM

So, how do you pronounce Jinger if it doesn't rhyme with Ringer?

I imagine it's pronounced like ginger.

mgrace

02-27-2007, 12:10 PM

Name predictions: Joel, Jonah, Judith, Julia, Jordan.

dionysia

02-27-2007, 12:27 PM

From Bloggingbaby.com:
"Michelle is due around July 25th and that they don't know what it is yet -but she's hoping for twin girls. I asked if they had any names picked out and she said they had been tossing around the idea of Jubilee for a girl."

:eek:

Comments from another board I frequent:
Poster 1: "I support the use of Jubilee but only if the other twin is named Cherries." ;)
Poster 2: "It would have to be spelled Jherries, of course. Or maybe Joy-Cherries."

*falls over laughing*

Di

December27JJB

02-27-2007, 12:31 PM

From Bloggingbaby.com:
""Michelle is due around July 25th and that they don't know what it is yet -but she's hoping for twin girls. I asked if they had any names picked out and she said they had been tossing around the idea of Jubilee for a girl."

:eek:

Comments from another board I frequent:
Poster 1: "I support the use of Jubilee but only if the other twin is named Cherries." ;)
Poster 2: "It would have to be spelled Jherries, of course. Or maybe Joy-Cherries."

*falls over laughing*

Di

LMAO!!!!

She is hoping for twin girls? So is she pregnant with twins? Wouldnt they know by now whether or not there are 1 or 2 babies?

Niobe

02-27-2007, 12:50 PM

LMAO!!!!

She is hoping for twin girls? So is she pregnant with twins? Wouldnt they know by now whether or not there are 1 or 2 babies?

Does she get ultrasounds and typical pre-natal care? While I read a bit about their religious beliefs, I didn't see any mention of medicine, pro or con.

I would have never connected "Jinger" and "Ginger". That's so bizarre. Are there not enough J names in the world? It's not like that was even one of the last kids born, they've come up with plenty more J's since then. So Jinger is a girl then? I was thinking it was an obscure biblical boy's name. :rolleyes:

ETA: Honestly, Jubilee beats the hell out of Jinger. And at least it doesn't sound exactly like another kid's name. Here's hoping the baby is a boy though. The boys seem to be getting far better names.

Asha

02-27-2007, 12:52 PM

jesus

i think they are holding out for the second coming of christ.

****
she does get ultrasounds. i saw in on their tlc show.

EJH

02-27-2007, 12:59 PM

Good. Grief. Obviously it was only a matter of time before she was knocked up again, but....well....good grief.

:rolleyes:

lml41981

02-27-2007, 03:52 PM

I've heard the exact same thing--they gladly use government money on food. Considering that as a family of 18, they need to make less than $80,000 to qualify, which sounds as if they probably would qualify. That is my issue with the whole situation.

Where did you hear that, if I may ask?

imagirliegirl

02-27-2007, 06:02 PM

I saw them on the Discovery Channel. I actually feel really bad for the kids. The young ones don't get close time with their parents and the older kids are forced to be parents rather than kids.

So, how do you pronounce Jinger if it doesn't rhyme with Ringer?

They pronounce it Ginger. They just want the kids to all have J names.

jnettie

02-27-2007, 07:16 PM

Where did you hear that, if I may ask?
I think that they said it themselves on TLC, IIRC.

i think women who do this are addicted to being pregnant and having babies. they get extreme pleasure from being pregnant and mothering a baby, but get tired of them when they grow older.
That's an interesting idea, and would kind of make sense, in a way. Though, they do have that whole religious thing going for them.

jesus

i think they are holding out for the second coming of christ.

LOL!

sue-bert

02-27-2007, 08:48 PM

Does she get ultrasounds and typical pre-natal care? While I read a bit about their religious beliefs, I didn't see any mention of medicine, pro or con.
Why would you think she doesn't get pre-natal care? :confused:

Niobe

02-27-2007, 11:42 PM

Why would you think she doesn't get pre-natal care? :confused:

I wasn't thinking she didn't get any pre-natal care at all, just not the whole American doctor type. I wasn't sure if she believed in Western medical practices as a whole. It seems like she would have had an ultrasound by now from a regular doctor, right? So there wouldn't be that question of whether she was having twins. I just figured that with the conservative family practices, they might use a midwife or someone who doesn't do ultrasounds. I know my friend who used a midwife never had one.

But even without an ultrasound, by the fourth month, shouldn't the heartbeats be detected by some sort of monitor? Or a stethoscope?

LoveandLaw

02-28-2007, 12:15 AM

The Duggars need to go on Wife Swap.

sue-bert

02-28-2007, 01:36 AM

I wasn't thinking she didn't get any pre-natal care at all, just not the whole American doctor type. I wasn't sure if she believed in Western medical practices as a whole. It seems like she would have had an ultrasound by now from a regular doctor, right? So there wouldn't be that question of whether she was having twins. I just figured that with the conservative family practices, they might use a midwife or someone who doesn't do ultrasounds. I know my friend who used a midwife never had one.

But even without an ultrasound, by the fourth month, shouldn't the heartbeats be detected by some sort of monitor? Or a stethoscope?

I assumed her comment meant that she knew she was having twins, but she didn't know their gender yet.

Jenyfer9

02-28-2007, 06:04 AM

I seem to remember that she did have a regular hospital birth (I watched the show) but I can't believe that there's a doctor out there who thinks that having 17 kids is a good thing for a woman's body.

She should work on getting a new 'do before she should think about having more kids. :p

lml41981

02-28-2007, 10:04 AM

Thanks, jnettie...I mentioned on another board that some folks here (and on a couple other boards I've run across online) said they were on food stamps and state-funded health insurance...but that I didn't have anything to back that up. They said that they watched the show, too, and the Duggars don't receive any assistance.

I dunno...assistance from the government vs. slick methods of getting other people to pay for your shit...I still don't think the family is being 100% honest. I don't believe they are entirely self-sufficient.

twinnyme

02-28-2007, 10:58 AM

I'm surprised they haven't named a kid Job yet. ;)

Niobe

02-28-2007, 11:22 AM

The Duggars need to go on Wife Swap.

LOL! Wow, the mom that got swapped with them would just faint. She wouldn't be there long enough to learn everyone's names.

So wait, she's currently pregnant with numbers 18 and 19? Okay, they just surpassed having their own basketball team. They can now have their own Final Four playoffs.

dionysia

02-28-2007, 01:06 PM

She is pregnant with #17.

Di

Surftraitor

02-28-2007, 01:18 PM

camberne

02-28-2007, 01:20 PM

Man, I remember this from a year or so ago... I can't believe they're doing it again!! That's like my worst nightmare!! :eek:

jesseybell

02-28-2007, 01:31 PM

She really does need a new hairdo!

It will be interesting to see on their next tv special what the oldest boy is up to. He should just run, run far away! He was interestd in tv, so he should move to LA.

I always felt bad for the girls having to wear skirts all the time while the boys got to wear jeans - I know it is part of their religion, but it still seems unfair.

Money - they seemed to glaze over the whole issue of money in the first tv special - I forget if it was when they decided to build the new house (the one with only 3 bedrooms - I am sorry, if I am an 18 year old boy, why do I have to share a room with my 1 year old brother??) or before they decided to have so many kids, they said they were set for $. But then again they got all that stuff for free for the new house.

I find myself watching all the shows, but it really is sad. There is no way that those parents can really get to know any of their kids, especially the little ones.

isign

02-28-2007, 01:35 PM

I skimmed this thread briefly and am completely stunned. 17 kids? That's nuts!! Many argue that having more than four kids in this day is socially irresponsible. There are too many people on this planet. Kids are competing for admissions from pre-schools to universities. Homelessness is worsening. Both of my parents come from large families--my dad is one of 7 and mom is one of 6. Both were raised in farm families, where it was typical to have larger families. I'm still not sure if ththis family is getting government assistance, but if so then why are American's forced to pay for their "God's Gifts"? This is absurd.

Not trying to pick or be snarky, just playing devil's advocate. American's paying for those riding the system, so how is this any different?
IMO having big families doesn't make the number of homeless people increase. I don't think you (not specific, just general) can blame the world's problems on having big families.

SiValleySteph

02-28-2007, 01:41 PM

I don't think you (not specific, just general) can blame the world's problems on having big families.

I do think a lot of the world's problems are tied to increasing population. I believe there are BIG problems in store for the next 50 years or so in reguards to global warming, environmental disasters, etc. More people use more resources. Of course, the US is using a disproportionate share of the world's resources. We shall see how it pans out, but the way we are today and the way we are headed is unsustainable. Food & water are going to be major issues.

Surftraitor

02-28-2007, 01:59 PM

SiValleySteph conveyed my thoughts exactly.

Niobe

02-28-2007, 05:21 PM

She is pregnant with #17.

Di

and possibly #18? That's going to be 20 people in one house. :eek:

December27JJB

02-28-2007, 06:08 PM

Ok. When she gets pregnant with #20. Any bets they're gonna let the highest bidder on ebay name #20....under one condition, it must start with a J. :D

imagirliegirl

02-28-2007, 06:46 PM

Ok. When she gets pregnant with #20. Any bets they're gonna let the highest bidder on ebay name #20....under one condition, it must start with a J. :D

Jesus? :p

LeighW

03-01-2007, 04:59 AM

J Name vote: Jethro

:)

Txfish

03-01-2007, 09:06 AM

I saw the mom address the J names on one of the shows -- she said they started out picking some of their favorite names, that just happened to both be J names. And then once there were 2 or 3 with J names, they didn't want to choose another initial in case the next one was their last, and so it's continued, so as not to leave their eventual (we hope) last child out.

LyLMyssChaos

03-01-2007, 09:39 AM

Women have fought so hard to have opportunities in this world. It's sad that these girls have such a tiny little existence when the whole world has been opened up for them.

As a stay at home mother and a parent that home schools, this phrase bothers me quite a bit. Being a mother and a wife is not a "tiny little existence." I am shaping our future. I am nurturing my children, that is in no way tiny. I don't know if you meant it to be, but that phrase is very degrading and diminishing to those of that have chosen to make being a mother and wife our primary occupation.

Niobe

03-01-2007, 11:51 AM

As a stay at home mother and a parent that home schools, this phrase bothers me quite a bit. Being a mother and a wife is not a "tiny little existence." I am shaping our future. I am nurturing my children, that is in no way tiny. I don't know if you meant it to be, but that phrase is very degrading and diminishing to those of that have chosen to make being a mother and wife our primary occupation.

I'm glad you only read the last sentence of my post. Earlier in the same post, I said flat out

Again, I see no problem with having children and staying home to home school them. Or with living at home until you are married. All fine and dandy decisions for a person to make. But the environment these girls are being raised in gives them no opportunity for choices.

I even said in my post before that one that I myself plan to be a stay at home mom when I have children. My point was that these girls have a tiny existence in that they don't go to school, they aren't being encouraged to go to college, they aren't being taught that woman can CHOOSE to be a stay at home mom or they can CHOOSE not to be. They are being shown a tiny sliver of the world.

I, and I'm betting you as well, have been given choices in life. You have chosen, as I hope I am able to, to stay home and be with your children. But we had choices.

Also, we're both online, talking from completely different parts of the country. Do the Duggar children have internet access and computers? I remember that they don't watch TV, so I have some doubt. Just getting online and talking to people around the world opens up our own worlds.

According to the beliefs of the religious leader the family follows, the girls will only be courted for marriage by young men approved by their parents. They aren't even get the freedom to go find a spouse. I have a feeling you went out and dated people for a while before finding your DH.

Choosing to be a stay at home mom, knowing that all the other options are out there, should you choose to pursue them instead, is great. It's an educated decision that was made based on what you and your DH have decided is the *best* choice for your family. Being raised that a woman's work is *only* to stay home and bear children, and never being allowed to go live your own life and make your own choices is completely different. And it IS a small existence.

Jenyfer9

03-01-2007, 11:55 AM

I don't know if you meant it to be, but that phrase is very degrading and diminishing to those of that have chosen to make being a mother and wife our primary occupation.
Coming from the standpoint of a SAHM (but not one who homeschools), I can see the poster's point that the girls in this family may percieve their mom to be a baby making machine and not much else... seeing as the older children take on many of the responsibilities that a mother or father might typically do (that's not saying that siblings taking on responsibility is a bad thing, but I think that these parents have put an unfair burden on their children). More importantly, when I watched the show about this family, I got the sense that the boys got to do a lot more than the girls, and THAT is unfortunate.

sparkle&shine

03-01-2007, 02:13 PM

Gosh this is the weirdest thing. On Monday I was driving home and I was wondering to myself if she was PG again by now and it looks like she is. I wonder if there will be another TV show....

Secret_Squirrel

03-01-2007, 06:57 PM

Her poor uterus.

chrisinluv

03-01-2007, 10:34 PM

It's a relief to see that this mass baby production is being perceived as somewhat of a novelty today. 100 years ago, it would have been commonplace for a poor farm wife in the Duggars' part of the country to have been pregnant this many times, if she hadn't died first. My own grandmother had 13 children, even though she insists to this day that she didn't know a baby was the result of intercourse until she was well into diapering her third child. Before that time, babies were God's Blessings. Lucy Stone is probably turning over in her grave right now.

But every time I hear about women having children upon children, I wonder if we have really come as far as we thought we had. Why must a woman put her life at risk over and over again? What is the point??? To perpetuate the Duggar name? To spread Duggar Goodness throughout the land? To massage the ego of Senior Duggar or Grande Dame Duggar? Or is it the large white elephant that has always graced the bedrooms of pre-birth controlled houses; the sexual prowess of the head of the household? Does our maker truly want us to destroy this world by overpopulating it? I just don't think it's safe or responsible for these people to have SO MANY kids! But, I guess if one truly believes that baby production is what she was put on this earth to do, she must do it with the dedication that I commit to my own job. Oh, who am I kidding, she's far more dedicated than I will ever be. :rolleyes:

sue-bert

03-02-2007, 03:21 AM

But every time I hear about women having children upon children, I wonder if we have really come as far as we thought we had. Why must a woman put her life at risk over and over again? What is the point??? To perpetuate the Duggar name? To spread Duggar Goodness throughout the land? To massage the ego of Senior Duggar or Grande Dame Duggar? ...
And every time I hear women mock women who CHOOSE of their own free will to have many children, I wonder if we really come as far as we thought we had.

Michelle Duggar is not a reproductive slave of her husband. She and her husband decided together to have all these children, and they support them and raise them. Why you have decided that she must be oppressed because she does not choose the lifestyle you do is beyond me.

Asha

03-02-2007, 04:09 AM

Michelle Duggar is not a reproductive slave of her husband. She and her husband decided together to have all these children, and they support them and raise them. Why you have decided that she must be oppressed because she does not choose the lifestyle you do is beyond me.

i think the point is that the children are the ones without much of a choice not the mother.

kindermom

03-02-2007, 04:29 AM

I went to scholl with children who were part of families with 10+ children where the norm was 2-4 kids per family. I can not think of one of them who was unhappy about the size of their family. I think that if it is what you know and the environment that you are in is a loving and nurturing one, it is not going to be perceived as some sort of horrible punishment to the children to have many siblings.

If you watch the shows, yes the girls seem to have a been presented with a limited view of what they will be able to aspire to. But at the same time, I know that is the case for many many of the fundamental Christians I know (namely some of DH's cousins). It is not something that is unique to the Duggar family by any stretch. But you know what, most of the cousins are happy in his family. They like staying home and watching the children. They like caring for their house.

I can think of many analogies to adapting to how you are raised. Some people may pity those who are brought up really crunchy, if they were brought up shopping at the suburban mall. And vice versa.

What I do like about the Duggar family is that they are debt free and supporting themselves through hard work. They are instilling their children with a deep moral code. Those are all admirable things.

Is the family turned into a circus because of their TV show? Quite possibly.

Leilynne

03-02-2007, 05:10 AM

According to the beliefs of the religious leader the family follows, the girls will only be courted for marriage by young men approved by their parents. They aren't even get the freedom to go find a spouse. I have a feeling you went out and dated people for a while before finding your DH.

The girls will still choose who they marry, just because their parents will first approve who they date doesn't mean the girls don't have the choice to marry that person or not. Wasn't it important to you for your family to approve of who you married? It was important to me. Thousands of people around the world let their parents choose their mate. I know several people who have had arranged marraiges and they are very happy. Just because their parents chose their mate doesn't mean they didn't have a choice.

Asha

03-02-2007, 05:19 AM

i think arranged marriages can fail or succeed just as much as any other typical marriage. yes, arranged marriages have a much lower rate of divorce, but the point of marriage is not to avoid divorce. the point of marriage is to have a happy marriage. my dh is part of a culture with arranged marriages. from what i've seen it can work or not work. i've seen couples who still admire and love each other, but i have also seen horrible examples of failure. i've seen examples of physical, verbal abuse, addiction, infidelity, mental disease, etc. the same problems that exist in non-arranged marriages, but they just suffer in these marriages bc divorce is unthinkable to them.

jnettie

03-02-2007, 05:45 AM

ITA with Asha. My DH also comes from a culture where arranged marriage is not uncommon, and his oldest uncle did have an arranged marriage. They now hate each other, but because divorce is not an option, they suffer.

And, I beg to differ - being able to turn down the men your parents present to you as acceptable for marriage is NOT choice. Being able to meet and date whom YOU choose is having choice. If I had to wait for my parents to pick my mate, I would have never married my DH.

Finally, for every "but they really are happy" story out there, there is the counter story. My Jr. High friend was the oldest daugher of somthing like 8 kids. So many times she couldn't do things with us because her mom made her babysit. She missed out on so much and you could see how sad she was every time. Additionally, she had an older brother who was not held to the same standards. It was her responsability to babysit, never his.

Hello Kitty

03-02-2007, 06:39 AM

Going off what Leilynne said, I know families who have the same Christian ideals about courtship and marriage. Girls definitely have a say in who they end up marrying - it's not simply arranged - but at the same time, it's done with the guidance and approval of their parents.

Also, dating is not just for fun or something to do - it's supposed to be reserved for when you are of marriagable age, and it is encouraged to do it in groups - for good reasons. And these aren't skirt-wearing, no-TV watching fundamentalists - they're 'normal' people who go to public school, participate in a life outside the home, etc...

Niobe

03-02-2007, 12:45 PM

Wasn't it important to you for your family to approve of who you married?

Actually, no. It was important to me that I found someone who made me happy and who I wanted to share my life with. If my parents had hated him, it would not have made one bit of difference to me. I have made a lot of choices for my life that my parents didn't approve of and I'm glad I've had that freedom.

jnettie

03-02-2007, 03:14 PM

Also, dating is not just for fun or something to do - it's supposed to be reserved for when you are of marriagable age, and it is encouraged to do it in groups - for good reasons.

Well, this is slightly insulting. Those of us without "Christian ideals" don't all go around serial dating for a "good time, wink wink." Most of us date with the intent to find a mate. We just want to do it on our terms, not our parents' terms.

kindermom

03-02-2007, 03:30 PM

Most of us date with the intent to find a mate. We just want to do it on our terms, not our parents' terms.
If you listen to focus on the family or family life today, this is what they highly suggest - to date in groups etc. I personally dated a bit and can not imagine dating in the manner they sugget. But it is suggested by these groups. I do not think that this is the norm for most Christians, I would venture to guess (at least not for about 90% of the Christians I know). But it is the norm for the Christians I know who have the more extreme ideals. I do not think there is a one-size fits all view of Christianity at all. This is just one more reason why.

hockeybrat

03-02-2007, 05:06 PM

Oh my...

Secret_Squirrel

03-04-2007, 02:33 PM

Well, this is slightly insulting. Those of us without "Christian ideals" don't all go around serial dating for a "good time, wink wink." Most of us date with the intent to find a mate. We just want to do it on our terms, not our parents' terms.

Speak for yourself. ;) ;) That's exactly how I stumbled across my DH.

jnettie

03-04-2007, 09:29 PM

Speak for yourself. ;) ;) That's exactly how I stumbled across my DH.

Well, good thing I wasn't drinking anything, because I've already spent too much money fixing this laptop from spraying soda!

sue-bert

03-05-2007, 05:12 AM

The concept of dating with the specific purpose of finding someone to marry is not foreign to me.

I am not Christian, but this practice is also common among Orthodox Jews. Dates are usually arranged not through the family, but through mutual friends. Usually one tells one's friends what they are looking for in a mate, and the friends set you up accordingly.

On the dates, the couple meets in a public place (hotel lobby, restaurant) to first sort of interview/screen each other about what they want out of life (how many children they would like to have, what sort of lifestyle they forsee, who would work, who would take care of the kids, who would continue studying, etc.). They make decisions about whether it's worthwhile to see each other again based on their compatibility (and, of course, mutual attraction).

I know lots of couples who are happily married who met this way.

It was important to me that I found someone who made me happy and who I wanted to share my life with. If my parents had hated him, it would not have made one bit of difference to me. I have made a lot of choices for my life that my parents didn't approve of and I'm glad I've had that freedom.

For most people I know, parental approval is an important factor because marriage is seen not just as the joining of 2 individuals, but also as the joining of two families. Of course, oncve I was above the legal age, no one could stop you from marrying whomever I wanted, but it sure makes life more pleasant, especially in the long-term, that families get along on some basic level.

Hello Kitty

03-05-2007, 05:14 AM

sue-bert

03-05-2007, 08:39 AM

I didn't think that you were insulting at all.

jnettie

03-05-2007, 05:23 PM

Oh my, I wasn't trying to insult anyone at all. I didn't date that way, either. So my second paragraph wasn't my personal opinion, but it was a carry over from my 'I know some Christians who...' Sorry for any confusion!

I was the one that was insulted. Sorry I took it the wrong way, and thank you for the clarification. It just seemed like the conversation turned from a good natured discussion to finger pointing. Thank you. :)

Now, to return to that good natured discussion.

Sue-bert, I think there is a difference between what you discribe and what some of the more conservative Christian groups do. I really don't see being presented with options of proper men to marry from your parents only as choice. And while I am glad that my parents like my DH, and would certainly give it thought if they had expressed valid concerns about him, their opinion would not be the be all end all of our marriage.

Possibly because I love to learn about other cultures and view my life as my own, I do not see what the Dunger family does as good for their kids, nor as presenting any sort of choice in their lives. I doubt their daughters will go to college or ever meet any man outside their brothers and the approved suitor. More than anything, this makes me very sad for them.

mgrace

05-08-2007, 01:45 PM

Baby # 17's name will be.... (http://www.celebrity-babies.com/2007/05/the_duggars_exp.html)

Sarah

05-08-2007, 04:44 PM

Sue-bert, I think there is a difference between what you discribe and what some of the more conservative Christian groups do. I really don't see being presented with options of proper men to marry from your parents only as choice. And while I am glad that my parents like my DH, and would certainly give it thought if they had expressed valid concerns about him, their opinion would not be the be all end all of our marriage.
Speaking as someone from one of those conservative Christian groups where dating is often done the way you are speaking about- it's not as limiting as you'd think. While many people or families choose (or choose for their kids, I admit) to do traditional courting- it's usually the kid's choice whom to date, and when and if to continue dating. I run in some very conservative circles and I have never heard or anyone forcing their kid to keep dating someone (or even pressuring them) or pressuring them to break up with someone.

Also, I've never heard of parents "presenting" their kids with someone to date- dates are usually large group outings and then kids/youung adults who like each other make overtures through friends or parents, etc.

But I guess they might be doing something even more strict, I dunno.

kindermom

05-08-2007, 06:34 PM

17 kids in 19 years. Wow.

kris97

05-08-2007, 06:58 PM

I'm surprised that it took 17 kids before they got to Jennifer. :)

jnettie

05-08-2007, 07:10 PM

Sarah, I'm trying to remember what I was posting about (as opposed to going back and reading) and I don't think what you are saying is what I was getting at. Dating from a group of your acquaintances is kinda what we all do, Christian or no. I was talking about the most strict of strict - like the Dungers - who practically arrange marriage for their daughters. There's no choice there, especially if you are not allowed to go out and live your own life.

Aimee

05-08-2007, 07:17 PM

I'm surprised that it took 17 kids before they got to Jennifer. :)

That's exactly what I said. If I were Jinger or Joy-Anna, I'd be hella pissed.

sue-bert

05-09-2007, 01:00 AM

Mazal tov to the Duggars!

dionysia

05-09-2007, 07:23 AM

Yay for Jennifer! An earlier rumor was that it was going to be Jubilee.

Thank goodness that was not the case. ;)

Di

sea74

05-09-2007, 10:18 AM

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I almost like Jubilee. Well, maybe for a middle name ...

imagirliegirl

05-11-2007, 04:49 PM

That's exactly what I said. If I were Jinger or Joy-Anna, I'd be hella pissed.

For sure.

BethIrish

08-03-2007, 10:21 AM

Baby Jennifer has arrived! (http://www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_21295704.shtml)

salysaturn

08-03-2007, 10:33 AM

I was thinking the same thing with Jennifer, you would have thought that one would have been used...

Lizard

08-03-2007, 11:00 AM

Regardless of everything else, I think it's awesome that she's had so many VBACs! She must have a great OB. I think I had read that she's had 2 or 3 C-sections (maybe her twin births, I don't know) and the rest have been vaginal. That's really cool and more doctors should take notice of that.

LittleFredPunkinHead

08-03-2007, 12:37 PM

Delta

08-03-2007, 12:42 PM

They don't use cloth diapers? Weird.

I think in their minds they are simply putting more good people out into the world, not overpopulating it. I think for some people the former is more important than concerns about the latter. (I am saying this as someone who does feel a bit of a responsibility to keep it to two kids.)

kari

08-03-2007, 01:12 PM

westamp

08-03-2007, 01:22 PM

Yea. I am trying to think of something positive to say, but I can't.

Plus the fact that if Jim Bob raised his kids "right," each and every one will try to have 17+ kids themselves. So multiply 17 kids with 17 kids and what do you get? Your own nation.:rolleyes:

No I can't be positive about this either. Especially Jimmy Bob raising the boys as neanderthals and making those gals do everything....

BerBer

08-03-2007, 02:15 PM

In a thread about this on Chit Chat that got closed, someone brought up the fact that the Duggars are probably going to be using about 90,000 diapers for their kids, and another person objected to "judging" them for being environmentally unfriendly by having 16 kids.

Well, I am totally going to judge them for that. One of the things a person should consider before having a child is whether they can provide that child a good life, and IMO- if you are so actively contributing to environmental waste and overpopulation, you are not at all working to give your kids a good life.

This statement seems a bit over the top.

They are taking good care of all of their children and providing a safe and healthy environment for them to grow up in as far as I can tell. I also really doubt that one family of 16 is contributing to the worlds over population issues. What would you have us do... start setting limits on families like they do in China...:rolleyes:

If I were really concerned with the worlds population I think pointing fingers at this family would not be at the top of my 'to do' list.

wendalah

08-03-2007, 02:38 PM

If the Duggars were responsible for starting a national trend, I'd be annoyed. But it seems most people are responding to them with, uh, a sense of shock. Not admiration. :)

Scooter

08-03-2007, 02:40 PM

This statement seems a bit over the top.

They are taking good care of all of their children and providing a safe and healthy environment for them to grow up in as far as I can tell. I also really doubt that one family of 16 is contributing to the worlds over population issues.

Well, this was discussed a bit further back in this thread, but the parents are not actually raising all 17 kids, really. They have the older ones being responsible for their younger "buddies." Which includes feeding, clothing, teaching, playing with them, and then putting them to bed.

And they're not helping them have a safe environment--they're actively contributing to a worse environment for their children by using for example 90,000 non-biodegradable, plastic diapers.

What would you have us do... start setting limits on families like they do in China...:rolleyes:

I think this is a huge exaggeration. Isn't there any middle ground between 17 kids and the government restricting you to only 1?

BerBer

08-03-2007, 02:52 PM

Well, this was discussed a bit further back in this thread, but the parents are not actually raising all 17 kids, really. They have the older ones being responsible for their younger "buddies." Which includes feeding, clothing, teaching, playing with them, and then putting them to bed.

This is what all large families do for each other. And from what I saw on their TV special both parents were very involved in raising the children and making sure they are all healthy and happy. It isn't like she is popping kids out and sitting on the coach eating bon-bon's ordering her other kids around like slaves.

I don't think it is asking too much of older brothers and sisters to help out... family chores anyone?

nd they're not helping them have a safe environment--they're actively contributing to a worse environment for their children by using for example 90,000 non-biodegradable, plastic diapers.

I am all for using cloth diapers but many many people don't use them so singleing out this family is extremely unfair. If you are going to use this example you should tell EVERY family using plastic diapers that they are not raising their children in a safe environment.

Rosebud

08-03-2007, 03:40 PM

I disagree. I do think the Duggars should be held responsible for the choices they are making. Those choices include adding 16 children to an overpopulated planet and stressing the environment by not making Earth-friendly choices in raising those children. Raising one or two kids on plastic diapers is different than raising 16. Sure, this is a free country and the Duggars can do whatever they want-- but I also have the right to say that their choices are very selfish.

Fortunately, people seem to think they are freaks, for the most part. What they are doing is just not really acceptable in this day and age. And I say that as someone who comes from an Irish family where just two or three generations ago, having 8 kids was commonplace. Not anymore, thankfully.

pixielou

08-03-2007, 08:20 PM

just to add to the environmental impact. . .i read on discovery channel web site that the family does 200 loads of laundry a month. i know they are 19 people, but it still seems excessive to me. that's 6 or 7 loads a day. my family of 3 - i do 4 or 5 loads a week. which means i'd do about 125 loads a month if we were a family of 19.

and the 90,000 diapers is only to date. still counting. . .

overall, i'm not sure how i feel about this family. part of me feels like michelle is damn lucky to be able to get pregnant so easily, and apparently has had realatively easy pregnancies. granted i haven't read a whole lot of the details, but i've seen no mention of pregnancy loss, birth defects, or pregnancy complications. she's 40 now. i hope her luck continues.

Niobe

08-03-2007, 09:14 PM

200 loads of laundry a month? Maybe they ARE cloth diapering. That's a lot of laundry otherwise. It just seems ridiculous financially (not to mention environmentally) to not cloth diaper with that many children. What would the cost of 90,000 diapers be anyway?

Natasha

08-04-2007, 12:20 AM

What would the cost of 90,000 diapers be anyway?

Approximatley $16,000, if you shop at Costco and buy Kirkland brand.

LittleFredPunkinHead

08-04-2007, 06:43 AM

I am all for using cloth diapers but many many people don't use them so singleing out this family is extremely unfair. If you are going to use this example you should tell EVERY family using plastic diapers that they are not raising their children in a safe environment.
Well, if it's feasible, I think people should use cloth diapers. However, I don't think something done in moderation rates the same criticism that something done excessively does.

Sophia

08-04-2007, 07:00 AM

You know, if they're doing that much laundry I'd be very surprised if they weren't CDing. Also, they seem to be very frugal when it comes to most things, so that would be another reason to give them the benefit of the doubt as far as what kind of diapers they use.

The 90,000 diapers figure comes from the Discovery Health "Duggar Fun Facts" page here (http://health.discovery.com/convergence/duggars/funfacts.html), with the original wording:

Estimated number of Duggar diapers to date is 90,000.

That could be the number of disposible diapers used, but it could also be the number of dirty diapers / diaper changes so far, in which case it could be CDs instead of disposibles. It seems like the point of the stats is to show how extreme their situation is, so the large the number the better, you now?

Sophia

08-04-2007, 07:37 AM

Or not. I just found this. :cool:

The monthly grocery bill runs from $1,500 to $2,000, including diapers and paper products.

source (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/121805dntexbigfamily.2bb5559.html)

Niobe

08-04-2007, 07:42 AM

You know, if they're doing that much laundry I'd be very surprised if they weren't CDing. Also, they seem to be very frugal when it comes to most things, so that would be another reason to give them the benefit of the doubt as far as what kind of diapers they use.

Are they really that frugal? I thought I read that Michelle stops breastfeeding after a couple months and switches to formula so that her fertility returns sooner (and probably so the child's new big sibling "helper" can feed the child as well as raise them :rolleyes: ). All those receiving 6 months of formula each would really add up.

ETA: I really hope they have a nice vegetable garden out back, because $1,500 a month, including diapers, doesn't leave much room for healthy, fresh fruits and veggies for 19 people.

Sophia

08-04-2007, 07:45 AM

I thought I had seen/read about their frugality, but I could be wrong. I haven't followed them as closely as some others have.

Niobe

08-04-2007, 07:53 AM

Well, I'd expect that a family that large would be fairly frugal too. I just remember the breastfeeding thing because it seemed very telling that she actively chooses to rid herself of the natural birth control benefits of breastfeeding in order to make more babies more quickly.

LyLMyssChaos

08-04-2007, 02:25 PM

tlew12778

08-04-2007, 03:30 PM

ETA: I really hope they have a nice vegetable garden out back, because $1,500 a month, including diapers, doesn't leave much room for healthy, fresh fruits and veggies for 19 people.
I don't think they do. Their favorite recipes are listed on their old website (http://www.jimbob.info/recipes.html). It won't load for me right now but I found this one (http://www.parentdish.com/2005/10/26/duggar-family-recipes-makes-cooking-for-16-kids-seem-easy/) on a different site.

young lioness

08-04-2007, 05:13 PM

I don't understand how someone could think it was all right to criticize someone for being so blessed.

Different people have different ideas as to what constitutes a "blessing". I would personally prefer to never have any children (and for us, we would like to have 1 or 2 maybe someday) than have 17.

Jaycee

08-04-2007, 05:15 PM

I really hope they have a nice vegetable garden out back
Not unless it grows Velveeta.

LittleFredPunkinHead

08-05-2007, 05:21 AM

I say congrats to the Duggars! May they continue to be blessed with such joys as long as they wish to continue having children. There are so many people that cannot have children, I don't understand how someone could think it was all right to criticize someone for being so blessed.
If they truly were just being blessed- that their babies were popping out with no choice made by them to have more children- I wouldn't criticize them. But let's face it, we're not talking about multiple immaculate conceptions here. The Duggars are choosing to have children. They are actively making those babies. They aren't just sitting back and "being blessed."

I really admire them for having the ambition to do what they feel is right despite so much outside criticism. If I was able to financially, physically and emotionally do so, I would have continued having babies for many years to come.
And yet, they aren't financially able to do so. They aren't supporting those kids all by themselves. They're relying on outside assistance.

I think it is a very fine line to try and tell someone(that is able to care for them) they are wrong for choosing to have more children.
A fine line between what and what?

LyLMyssChaos

08-05-2007, 07:12 AM

A fine line between what and what?

Don't you think it's a bad idea to start telling people that they can't have as many children as they'd like? If you start limiting people's choice in that area, what's to say that choices wouldn't be limited in other areas?

To have a child or not have a child is an EXTREMELY personal decision. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't like someone else telling me that I cannot have more children if I wanted to.

TwnklToes80

08-05-2007, 07:58 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFredPunkinHead View Post
A fine line between what and what?
Don't you think it's a bad idea to start telling people that they can't have as many children as they'd like? If you start limiting people's choice in that area, what's to say that choices wouldn't be limited in other areas?

To have a child or not have a child is an EXTREMELY personal decision. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't like someone else telling me that I cannot have more children if I wanted to.

I understand what you are saying, but when a family begins to rely on outside assistance to raise their family, i think it's time to stop having children. If I could have 15 kids, trust me, I would. And DH makes a good living, But we probably won't be able to afford more than 2 kids. we've talked about it and crunched the numbers, especially because I want to be a stay at home mom and homeschool my kids.

Once a person has reached a point where someone else is helping to raise their children (I.E. the taxpayers) I think that is a good place to stop having children.

ETA: I have NOTHING against those who take advantage of public assistance, that is what it is there for. All of us have had times when we needed a little help in life. But don't keep having babies just because it's available.

Niobe

08-05-2007, 09:28 AM

If they truly were just being blessed- that their babies were popping out with no choice made by them to have more children- I wouldn't criticize them. But let's face it, we're not talking about multiple immaculate conceptions here. The Duggars are choosing to have children. They are actively making those babies. They aren't just sitting back and "being blessed."

And beyond that, I find their motivations suspect as they claim to feel it's God's will they have so many children - but wouldn't the child spacing benefits provided by breastfeeding also be part of that same God's will? Why, if she's doing what is natural, is she actively seeking to rid herself of the natural birth control? They're acting more like it's a race - see how fast she can keep popping them out.

I don't think there should be laws governing the number of children you have, as I don't feel that's any of the government's business. But just because something is legal doesn't mean I personally have to believe it's right. I think the family makes seriously poor choices regarding both the environment and the needs of their children.

LittleFredPunkinHead

08-05-2007, 10:36 AM

Don't you think it's a bad idea to start telling people that they can't have as many children as they'd like? If you start limiting people's choice in that area, what's to say that choices wouldn't be limited in other areas?

To have a child or not have a child is an EXTREMELY personal decision. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't like someone else telling me that I cannot have more children if I wanted to.
Like Niobe said, I'm not about to tell someone they can't have more children if they want- I'm prochoice, all the way. However, I'm sure as heck going to criticize what I think is wrong.

By the way, I thought you were prolife?

Asha

08-05-2007, 12:07 PM

the way this thread is going it would seem like there could be a spin off, "give us your opinion on people having children when they aren't financially secure." you know that wouldn't go well at all. millions of people in america have children when they are not financially secure and end up on welfare, medicaid, etc. i'd venture to say those same families who have a smaller number of children are more of a burden on our taxes than families like the duggars since there aren't too many people popping out 10 plus kids. i understand why we are intrigued by this family and debate about it, but really in the grand scheme of things its not families like these that are a large burden on taxes. this mom stays drug/alcohol free during pregnancy, involved in education (however extreme we may think her curriculum may be), and teaches children responsiblity and compassion by having children help care for each other. having taught in the inner city, i would say that a lot of parents reliant on welfare to raise their kids don't even have these basic parenting skills in place. yet we aren't really debating that bc it would seem politically incorrect to criticize the mothers/families in the inner city.

colz85

08-05-2007, 12:18 PM

Asha

08-05-2007, 12:20 PM

jajacobsen

08-05-2007, 01:40 PM

My mother, a single parent, raised 5 children, looked after an invalid mother, and we had three dogs, five cats, various rodents and outdoor birds (pheasants/chickens). She did a wonderful job. However, from age ten onwards, her older three daughters (of which I was one) had to assume responsibilty for a significant amount of cleaning, caring for animals, babysitting, cooking and laundry. She did it without welfare and food stamps. We had a garden for fresh vegetables. We also ate a lot of velveeta and box dinners because that is what a 14 year old will cook when she has to prepare supper for 7 people and do homework and other chores. We didn't have a dishwasher, air conditioning, or dryer. So in that sense, the Duggars kids have a lot of technological advantages in their commercial kitchen and laundry facilities which make their life easier.

Oh, and we wore outdated clothes as well. It really hasn't hurt my fashion sense as an adult. In fact it helped because I knwo how to sew and can altar my own clothign to get a really tailored fit. We often did not have a working television. Somehow that didn't hurt me in college but being well read did help. I was not allowed to date anyone except boys my mother pre-approved. So basically I did not date.

OTOH, my little sister can't even care for one child without DFACS becoming involved. I think it really depends upon the individuals involved.

While the Duggars numbers are extreme, and certainly not what I would choose, it's not like this is a growing national trend and I would rather let one family exercise their right to "life, liberty and oursuit f happiness" than end up in a state where the numberof children are rationed, possibly based upon income.

So wealthy can have kids but poor cannot? People who are on welfare should have forced birth control/sterilization? Because that is effectively what the people who are arguing against the family size based upon financial dependency on social programs are actually saying. They may not like it said so bluntly, but that is the substance of their argument.

Asha

08-05-2007, 01:44 PM

not to mention there are a bunch of wealthy parents out there who don't know how to parent either.

jajacobsen

08-05-2007, 02:05 PM

Yeah, but they don't cost the taxpayer anything directly so I guess they're all okay.

msnicolea

08-05-2007, 03:09 PM

To have a child or not have a child is an EXTREMELY personal decision.

Really? Because you seem to think it's ok to tell someone they can't have an abortion. Where's your respect for their personal decision?

I find MANY things wrong with their choices, partucularly as they pertain to the environment and what I fear will not be a very high QOL for those children, but they've already been discussed here.

ejs

08-05-2007, 03:16 PM

So wealthy can have kids but poor cannot? People who are on welfare should have forced birth control/sterilization? Because that is effectively what the people who are arguing against the family size based upon financial dependency on social programs are actually saying. They may not like it said so bluntly, but that is the substance of their argument.
So do you think it's ok for people to keep having children when they need social programs to help provide for those kids? IMO, social programs should be used as an aid in tough times, not a lifestyle.

I'm not mandating forced sterilization. But I think something needs to be done to discourage people from continuing to have children when they can't afford it. Frustratingly, I don't know what the answer is.

j*east

08-05-2007, 03:33 PM

When it comes to really large families, I just wonder how someone who parents many children...6, 8, 9, 17......can give those kids what they need. And I don't even mean financially. I mean....knowing that this one hates beans, that one likes the color red, and this one loves green peppers. Just KNOWING their children.

Yeah, I dunno. I'm one of seven, and both of my parents WOH full time. The Duggars and this thread bring up such conflicting feelings for me. On the one hand, I love my siblings, they're the biggest gift my parents could ever give me, and I think being raised in a big family did a lot to make me the responsible person and good worker I am today. Yup, we had a similar division of labor to the Duggars. I started changing diapers ~age 6. I remember my younger sister doing it at age 4. I did all of the family laundry as my job--I can't even remember how many loads per week that was, but it was a lot. We kids basically ran the house, though my mom did a fair amount of the cooking, and we did have various kinds of help along the way. Growing up the way I did gave me a lot more consideration for others, because you couldn't live in our family without taking the other eight people into account. Not to mention everything my parents/family gave me that has nothing to do with the number of kids: education, a love of reading, etc.

OTOH, I'm not 100% pleased with the way my parents parented us. I can think of exactly two times in my childhood (plus one more time in college) that I had both parents to myself. Those were two incredible times! But how sad for any kid to have so little one-on-one time with her parents. My parents also divorced after 30 years of marriage, so clearly, there were problems in their relationship, which was neglected in part due to all the kids they had.

I would love to have a houseful of kids myself some day. But to me that means 3 or 4, maybe 5. I guess I look at the Duggars much more as a family psychology issue than an economic or environmental one.

jajacobsen

08-05-2007, 03:38 PM

Well I agree that we shoudl try to discourage people from having children when they an't afford it, I think it is overly simplistic to say that welfare shoudl be a short term fix, only. There are many third and fiourth generation families on welfare, safe to say all of whom have smaller family sizes than the Duggars, yet that is okay or at least not worthy of suc criticsm?

I am being realistic and I see healthy, responsible, educated children. The family's values may not align with many CC members (nor my own) yet it is tehir right to raise their children according to their values, and I honestly think the parents are doing a better job for them than parents of many, many more priveledged children.

I taught college for 2 years and honestly, the helicopter parents were insane! The parents were literally crippling the children's adult development. yes, this is the opposite extreme but why any less acceptable?

No - I would prefer that all family had sufficient resources an dtehre was no need for government aid of any sort, but I am uncomfortable with an arbitrary decison as to "cutting off" welfare based upon the number of children. I mean, who would suffer the most there? Clearly, the children.

At teh age of 18, the children can ake their own decisions. They are probably not quite as sheltered as depicted - reality TV and all the manipulations thereof - as I would imagine exposure to film crews and publicity related to the show has had a large impact.

kindermom

08-05-2007, 04:09 PM

The funny thing about criticizing the Duggars for having the older children help raise the younger children is that this happens in smaller families as well. I had a few friends growing up who had to do the family laudry, regularly cook meals, and care for younger siblings. They were from families with 2 and 3 children total. Were they bitter, at least when they were in HS? Not that they ever expressed.

In my own family, my oldest sister was greatly responsible for helping raise us while my single mother worked FT with OT to pay the bills. The bond the 2 youngest have with the oldest is huge as she was like a second mother. There are times she hated to have to babysit. But there were also the joys which she talks about and those joys are what she focused on. In addition to caring for one another, we all had to help keep the house running, care for the pets, maintain the garden and large yard, and work our PT jobs. I had mine when I was 9. My take home message was to work hard.

I would not want 17 children. I would not even want 4 children in the small house they lived in for so long (and boy was it small). I would not want to build my own home from scratch. I would not want most of the lifestyle they live. But it is their life, not mine. And one family living in a smallish house (until recently), not on public funds, who may choose to use disposable diapers, who may choose to eat somewhat unhealthy processed foods, is not going to destroy the Earth.

Heck, I doubt if there were 10,000 Duggar families in the US, there would be a noticeable difference in the ecological footprint. At least I do not think so while there are the weatlhy who live in houses which are enormous and take alot of energy to maintain, there are people who choose to drive cars with low mpg, and there are people who choose to eat a diet rich in meats (just to name a few examples).

It is about personal choice. The best thing about the US is that we can make the choices we do. We are a country that makes wasteful choices as a whole. The Duggar's just choose to be wasteful in a way that not many would do.

I could say that I think their choices are poor ones but then again, I would open the door to alot of criticism about my lifestyle as well.

LittleFredPunkinHead

08-05-2007, 05:38 PM

You know, if someone who knows anything about it chooses to criticize my life and choices, fine.

And I would assume, if I put my life out there on national TV, I would be inviting criticism as well as interest and applause.

Niobe

08-05-2007, 05:50 PM

So wealthy can have kids but poor cannot? People who are on welfare should have forced birth control/sterilization? Because that is effectively what the people who are arguing against the family size based upon financial dependency on social programs are actually saying. They may not like it said so bluntly, but that is the substance of their argument.

I don't think there should be forced sterilization, but I don't think people who can't support children should seek to have them. I'm completely in support of welfare for people who, for whatever reason, end up in a situation where they can't support their children. But I do not support any person having a child that they PLAN to raise with welfare money.

But my problems with the Duggars aren't really about welfare. I actually thought they weren't receiving any public assistance anymore as a result of the money from the Discovery Channel program.

jajacobsen

08-05-2007, 06:01 PM

There seems to be some questions as to whether they have received some forms of assistance - whether in the past or the present. I would theorize they probably did receive some assistance in the past but likely no longer do so due to teh money they have reaned from teh TV shows.

I would be very careful in my arguments for limiting public assistance to those ewho continue to have children, as any public policy which does so will, by an overwhelming degree, target women and minorities. Yes, one Duggars family would be knocked off the benefit list, but many, many other historically disadvanted persons - and their innocent childrn - would be as well.

I don't think we even want to go there.

One benefit might be to the lifestyle is that it really educates the children as to what it takes to raise a family. I know for me and my two older sisters, since we saw how hard it was to "be a grown up", we were in no hurry to get married and have babies. No - all of us put ourselves through college and pursued careers.

Out of my mother's 5 children - a large family by many respects - there are only four grandchildren to date. Due to our age and other factors - that is likely all there will be. So it may turn out that the Duggars girls decide they do NOT want to repeat their parent's lifestyle. I mean honestly, are any of us just like our parents?

LittleFredPunkinHead

08-05-2007, 06:51 PM

I don't think families who have more kids than they can provide for should have public assistance limited. But I'm certainly not going to praise them for having more kids than they can provide for.

As far as their kids benefiting because it educates kids as to what it takes to raise a family, so maybe they'll put themselves through college and pursue careers... Well, my mom has 7 brothers and 1 sister. She's the only who went to college and she didn't go until after she got married and had my sister and me. And on the other hand, my mom and dad had just the two of us. We both went to college, and were established in our careers before getting married in our late 20s.

So, I don't think the fact of growing up in a large family will make a child any more likely to pursue an education and career than growing up in a small family will.

Personally, my concern with large families is not about whether the parents can be effective or not- whether they can raise their kids to be good people or not. My concern is the selfishness of it. We know that overpopulation is one of the biggest environmental issues out there. And, as I said, I would never advocate for limiting public assistance, but I'm not going to respect someone for choosing to have more children than they can support.

jesseybell

08-05-2007, 06:58 PM

I haven't had time to read back too far, though I plan to because they've always fascinated me, but does anyone know what the oldest son is doing? I heard on the news that he is 19, so is he going to college?

jesvet

08-05-2007, 09:27 PM

I'm SO confused about the discussion about Duggar money. I thought they had made a huge point about saying their money was the result of investments and they never, ever relied on public assistance? Did someone find information otherwise?

jnettie

08-05-2007, 10:05 PM

To have a child or not have a child is an EXTREMELY personal decision. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't like someone else telling me that I cannot have more children if I wanted to.

And I would assume, if I put my life out there on national TV, I would be inviting criticism as well as interest and applause.
What she said. They gave all of us the right to say our piece the moment they signed that contract with Discovery Channel.

One benefit might be to the lifestyle is that it really educates the children as to what it takes to raise a family. I know for me and my two older sisters, since we saw how hard it was to "be a grown up", we were in no hurry to get married and have babies. No - all of us put ourselves through college and pursued careers.

Out of my mother's 5 children - a large family by many respects - there are only four grandchildren to date. Due to our age and other factors - that is likely all there will be. So it may turn out that the Duggars girls decide they do NOT want to repeat their parent's lifestyle. I mean honestly, are any of us just like our parents?
You know, my MIL is one of 7 kids, and only 4 of the 7 got married, and none of them have more than 2 kids. And 2 of the sons didn't marry until late in life. My MIL is all about DH and I waiting to have kids until we are more financially ready, and I can't help but think it's because she was the oldest girl of the 7 and much of the care of the younger kids fell on her while her parents both worked to provide.

Personally, I just think it's a bad idea to force your body to have so many children. This is no "blessing from God" when you make a conscious decision to cease breast feeding early so you can get pregnant again. And that they have a website and did a Discovery Channel documentary says to me that they want everyone to look at them in awe about how many children they can have. It's a sideshow.

jajacobsen

08-06-2007, 03:47 AM

So, I don't think the fact of growing up in a large family will make a child any more likely to pursue an education and career than growing up in a small family will.

Personally, my concern with large families is not about whether the parents can be effective or not- whether they can raise their kids to be good people or not. My concern is the selfishness of it. We know that overpopulation is one of the biggest environmental issues out there. And, as I said, I would never advocate for limiting public assistance, but I'm not going to respect someone for choosing to have more children than they can support.

My point was that growing up in a large family will not necessarily incline the children of said families to repeat the choice to have a large family OR limit their educational chances. Maybe 100 years ago it would but not today. With the notoriety all of those children have received - as long as theiy have decent ACTs or SATs, I feel certain they could get pretty much a full ride from many colleges, especially small, liberal arts colleges. I'm thinking Berea, Middlebury, etc....

And seriously, overpopulation in the world is a real issue, but honestly not here in the midwestern US. So berating one family in the US is going to do nothing about overpopulation in Africa, India or China. It's sorta pointless.

LittleFredPunkinHead

08-06-2007, 08:13 AM

My point was that growing up in a large family will not necessarily incline the children of said families to repeat the choice to have a large family OR limit their educational chances. Maybe 100 years ago it would but not today. With the notoriety all of those children have received - as long as theiy have decent ACTs or SATs, I feel certain they could get pretty much a full ride from many colleges, especially small, liberal arts colleges. I'm thinking Berea, Middlebury, etc....
Okay, but what you said was maybe it'll make them more likely to pursue higher education and a career. I was just saying I didn't think so.

And seriously, overpopulation in the world is a real issue, but honestly not here in the midwestern US. So berating one family in the US is going to do nothing about overpopulation in Africa, India or China. It's sorta pointless.
Have you actually looked into the issue of overpopulation? It isn't a problem in the U.S. at this very moment in time. But the U.S. Census projects that our population will grow by nearly 50% in the next 50 years. That's a lot of people.

As far as it being "sorta pointless"... I hate to break it to you, but nothing we're typing out here is going to bring world peace, fix poverty or cure cancer. Me opining that the Duggars are selfish is as pointless as you saying they shouldn't be criticized.

msnicolea

08-06-2007, 08:43 AM

jajacobsen

08-06-2007, 08:53 AM

I have no problem with your critcizing the Duggars as as you say, they put themselves out there with a TV program (and TV show appearances, such as the TODAY show this morning). Just as have no problem with some of us defending them. That's what these threads are about!

As far as overpopulation, yes, I have some general knowlege of the problem. I believe the 50% growth in 50 years is inflated. I would still argue that in the US, with say a 20-30% growth factor in the next 50 years, we stil have adequate land, resources and productivity gains to provide sufficient food resources. This is only one family - and not a national trend. Their actions make no difference in teh population growth.

As for pursuing a career and forestalling birthing babaies - I said maybe it will make them more likely to do so. Maybe it won't. I never said it will. But it seemd liek so many posters were saying what a life teh Duggars daughters were doomed to, and i just wanted to point out that it MIGHT have teh opposite effect.

And I well know that nothing we're posting here will save the world -did I ever say it would? But it is interesting to discuss an ddebate such topics.

jajacobsen

08-06-2007, 09:02 AM

I hate the idea that since over-population isn't currently a problem in the US, we shouldn't be concerned about it for the future. Lots of things aren't a problem right now--but shouldn't we think about potential long-term impacts, and the future? And again, this idea that how one family lives their lives doesn't effect anyone else is bogus--this same argument is used in re; to people buying and driving gigantic SUVs. We are a community and our actions affect others. No, I would never legislate to restrict reproductive choice--but that doesn't mean that I shouldn't think about how my choices impact others, and how my choices impact the planet.

I actually agree with this but my point was that this was ONE family - not a national trend. One SUV - no problem. Many SUVs - big problem. So in that case, it is a worthwhile exercise to try to put limits on usage of such vehicles - either by luxury taxes, poor mileage taxes, etc....

We are a community and our actions do affect others - to an extent. National trends of public behavior affect all of us more than the individual choices of, admittedly, "freak" families. I just really have a hard time believing that there would be a huge national trend of women having ten+ babies. But then, that's just my opinion; I could be wrong.

Now if there were such a trend, well then we as a society might want to think about how such behavior impacts us as a society. But I see no more impact of that bus or 7000 square foot house than the actions of tons of wealthy people around us, with much smaller familties, who drive huge SUVs and live in similar sized houses. Should every person who uses disposable diapers be criticized? Where do you draw the line? If I recycle and compost my brother's family who does neither (but only has three children) - should I criticize them? Or just try to educate the children by example?

My point is that we all could criticize how others live. I just don't think this one, strange family is dooming the world due to overpopuation and landfill usage of diapers.

jajacobsen

08-06-2007, 09:55 AM

I saw them on the Today show and honestly, Michelle Duggars scared me on how she was saying she was okay to more children! I do totally think they're freaks, but then I also support their right to be so.

Matt Lauer spoke breifly to the children, and the older ones seemed quite articulate. Of course, I am no fool and I believe their answers to pretty much any reasonably anticipated question have been somewhat scripted. Their father was a politician at one time, after all!

The boys were dressed in khakis and pique polo shirts, so they looked pretty normal. The girls had long hair and were wearing modest jumpers which looked pretty long. Not really fashionable but honestly, so much better than most of the crap I saw today on the teenage girls kids waiting for school busses. Can you say Rated R? Today was the first day of school here and so many of the young girls looked like their were dressed to make an MTV video or go clubbing.

I know I sound like a fundamentalist Christian here but honestly I really am not. I am actually much more liberal/libertarian and definitely agnostic. Not that there is anything wrong with being fundamentalist Christian; I support everyone's right to choice.

LittleFredPunkinHead

08-06-2007, 10:12 AM

I just don't think the Duggars should be held up as role models. They're equivalent to Paris Hilton, in my mind. We're not in any real danger of having young girls turning into Paris Hilton because hardly any have the money to do so, but she sure doesn't need to be held up as a role model. Same with the Duggars. Maybe we're not in danger of tons of families having 17 kids, but even if a bunch of families start having five or six kids- that's a problem.

(About the Census numbers, those are actually starting from 2000, and per the U.S. Census website, their projections are on track so far, so I personally don't see any reason to believe the 50 year number is inflated.)

One thing I wonder about with the Duggars- and this is probably because its a hot topic lately- how are they paying for health insurance? I googled the Duggars and health insurance, and all I could find was 1) that they said the times they've been in debt were for medical services, and 2) the suggestion that they may have health insurance for life because Jim was in the state legislature. (I know Michigan has had health insurance for life for state legislators, which they're looking at discontinuing to help balance the state budget, so it's feasible that the Duggar's could have something similar, I guess, but I'm not sure whether Arkansas has that sort of set-up.)

villanelle75

08-06-2007, 10:21 AM

I support everyone' right to choice. I don't think it should be illegal to have more than x kids, whether you can afford to support them or not. But I can certainly think it's wrong choice to make!

Even if it is just one family, it's still a model (albeit, thankfully, a rarely adopted one) that isn't environmentally sustainable. It's not illegal to waste water here in SoCal, but as we are on the brink of a serious drought, I still judge my neighbor for housing down his walkways, rather than sweeping them. His actions alone aren't going to suddenly force rationing, but it still certainly wasteful. Or someone who, during peak usage hours, sets her thermostat to 68. That one woman isn't going to cause a brown out, nor is she going to make other people think that's a good idea, but that doesn't then mean that there are no moral implications or value to that decision. And the Duggar's diapers in a landfill aren't going to singlehandedly cause us to drown in trash, but IMO, it still a decision that has a moral "value" attached to it.

For me, a decision is right or wrong (or a million variations in between),not just because of how it does or does not affect others, but also because somethings are just wrong. It's selfish to use so much more than your "fair share" of limited resources. And even when just one family's use won't make a real difference, and when it won't lead to a larger trend that will make a difference, that's enough in my book to make it a bad decision.

jajacobsen

08-06-2007, 10:35 AM

We may have to agree to disagree.

In 50 years we will see who was right about the US population. And if it is a problem.

I, for one, seriously doubt the Duggars are role models and will have the same influence as Paris Hilton. A lot of young girls do look at Paris in the Simple Life and want to be like her. Super skinny; super blonde; super cool. Always going out to night clubs and living a cool life. And sexually profigate. Which is certainly her right. But I would not want my daughters to watch her on TV or be influence by her at all.

Which is one of the reasons I have a lot of respect for the Duggars in taking such a stand against such influences. Those kids are clearly much more intelligent and better educated than Miss Hilton! But while their actions may give me, an adult, food for thought, I would find it hard to believe that they are influencing any young people to aspire to 17 children, any more than the HBO show Big Love, influences people t choose polygamy as a lifestyle. The Duggars simply aren't cool enough. Now maybe if Michelle Duggars looked like Paris...

As far as health insurance. I bet for a while they were uninsured. That's where the medical debt came from -probably from pregnancies. The children will be covered under a joint state/federal program until they are 18, if the fall below certain income/asset criteria. But during teh lean times, the parents would have been uninsured. Probably now they have a private policy.

LittleFredPunkinHead

08-06-2007, 10:46 AM

In 50 years we will see who was right about the US population. And if it is a problem.
Sure. Just remember. It's not "we'll see who was right about the U.S. population- jajacobsen or littlefred, it's jajacobsen or the U.S. Census Bureau.

Which is one of the reasons I have a lot of respect for the Duggars in taking such a stand against such influences. Those kids are clearly much more intelligent and better educated than Miss Hilton! But while their actions may give me, an adult, food for thought, I would find it hard to believe that they are influencing any young people to aspire to 17 children, any more than the HBO show Big Love, influences people t choose polygamy as a lifestyle. The Duggars simply aren't cool enough. Now maybe if Michelle Duggars looked like Paris...
I agree. I doubt that the Duggars are influencing any 14 year old girls. But they sure could be influencing 20-something and 30-something-year-olds, who've had a couple kids and start getting the baby bug again. And that, IMO, would be a bad thing.

As far as health insurance. I bet for a while they were uninsured. That's where the medical debt came from -probably from pregnancies. The children will be covered under a joint state/federal program until they are 18, if the fall below certain income/asset criteria. But during teh lean times, the parents would have been uninsured. Probably now they have a private policy.
The only thing is... If they had more than a couple uninsured pregnancies, I don't see how they could be debt-free today. And I don't know how the kids could be covered under a state/federal program if per the Discovery channel, the family isn't on any kind of public assistance.

jnettie

08-06-2007, 10:55 AM

As for pursuing a career and forestalling birthing babaies - I said maybe it will make them more likely to do so. Maybe it won't. I never said it will. But it seemd liek so many posters were saying what a life teh Duggars daughters were doomed to, and i just wanted to point out that it MIGHT have teh opposite effect.

But will the daughters be allowed to do this? The sons, sure, they might go to college, but the choice to have lots of kids really doesn't impact their health and life in quite the same way as the daughters.

I live in a predominately Orthodox Jewish neighborhood in Brooklyn. On my block alone, most families have 5 to 7 kids, easy. The wives SAH. The children all go to Yeshivas and Menshivas, so they have limited interaction with the outside world. The children will likely marry other Orthodox Jews and have a similar life to their parents. The daughters will have their husbands chosen for them and most likely won't ever go to college.

The Duggers are part of a similar type of community. They are home schooled and mostly interact with other families like their own. And any group that thinks that the highest purpose for a wife is to birth babies over and over is not going to send their daughters to college. And I'm sure the daughers don't even think that they need college. And like the girls in my neighborhood, they probably don't even consider breaking away. It would be extremely difficult.

The Duggers may just be one freakish family, but they are not the only family, nor the only group that feel that women should birth babies as much as possible. This is a serious issue, IMO, and a woman's rights issue! This is not a matter of choice when you are raised to believe this is the life you are supposed to have!

jajacobsen

08-06-2007, 11:03 AM

Sure. Just remember. It's not "we'll see who was right about the U.S. population- jajacobsen or littlefred, it's jajacobsen or the U.S. Census Bureau.

I agree. I doubt that the Duggars are influencing any 14 year old girls. But they sure could be influencing 20-something and 30-something-year-olds, who've had a couple kids and start getting the baby bug again. And that, IMO, would be a bad thing.

The only thing is... If they had more than a couple uninsured pregnancies, I don't see how they could be debt-free today. And I don't know how the kids could be covered under a state/federal program if per the Discovery channel, the family isn't on any kind of public assistance.

Census - whatever - I think it is often erroneous to take one fact outof many, many paragraphs from te e2000 census and use it out of context. Additionally, the US census is prepared by our government, which means it could be wrong. Other sources have projected lower rates. In any case, The Duggars are responsible for ZERO percent of any gorwth as their impact on population is infinitesimal.

General call to all 20-30 something CCers who now want to have 10 plus babies after watching the Duggars: Anyone? Anyone? Again, I think there is a certain amount of credibility in saying their actions will statistically have NO INFLUENCE on the birthrates of others.

As far as the health insurance, many people don't consider the state/federal program for children's health insurance as public assistance. They look at it like Medicare, which is granted as a right. The kids would no longer qualify if the family is above a certain income. There are many children who qualify for such health insurance but whose families receive no benefits like food stamps, housing support, etc. Honestly, unless we looked at the Duggars tax returns, we will never know and I don't think it really matters. I do think the parents could have had uninsured costs which caused debt, but be debt free now. I don't see how that is not possible?

I will not be able to post more here today due to meetings, etc.

LittleFredPunkinHead

08-06-2007, 11:56 AM

Census - whatever - I think it is often erroneous to take one fact outof many, many paragraphs from te e2000 census and use it out of context. Additionally, the US census is prepared by our government, which means it could be wrong. Other sources have projected lower rates. In any case, The Duggars are responsible for ZERO percent of any gorwth as their impact on population is infinitesimal.
Out of context? Seriously, what are you talking about? The context is, based on information gathered by the U.S. Census and as projected by the department. I didn't go looking for numbers that looked good- I looked for what the federal government was projecting. Sheesh!

General call to all 20-30 something CCers who now want to have 10 plus babies after watching the Duggars: Anyone? Anyone? Again, I think there is a certain amount of credibility in saying their actions will statistically have NO INFLUENCE on the birthrates of others.
Cute. Are you tight with any very religious rightwingers? Because this isn't exactly a good forum to get that demographic. Actually, are you friends with anyone with more than three kids who homeschools?

As far as the health insurance, many people don't consider the state/federal program for children's health insurance as public assistance. They look at it like Medicare, which is granted as a right. The kids would no longer qualify if the family is above a certain income. There are many children who qualify for such health insurance but whose families receive no benefits like food stamps, housing support, etc. Honestly, unless we looked at the Duggars tax returns, we will never know and I don't think it really matters.
Many people may not consider it public assistance, but I'd guess that's mostly because they just plain haven't considered it. It's definitely an expense that comes with having children though and if the Duggars aren't covering their children's medical care and instead are relying on the state or federal government for it, I'd bet most people would think that was irresponsible.

I do think the parents could have had uninsured costs which caused debt, but be debt free now. I don't see how that is not possible?
It's possible, but it seems unlikely. Pregnancy and delivery are expensive.

jajacobsen

08-06-2007, 12:17 PM

Out of context? Seriously, what are you talking about? The context is, based on information gathered by the U.S. Census and as projected by the department. I didn't go looking for numbers that looked good- I looked for what the federal government was projecting. Sheesh!ive.

Out of my meeting, soI'm back. I spent a admittedly very short time at lunch googling the US 200 Census and other population growth sources. While I did not find any remarks quite as convenint as "50% growth in 50 years" (which could be in there - it is a big document) I did find an intersting fact that most of the projected US population growth (whether 20% or 50%) is from immigration. The native US population is mutiplying at replacement. So apparently, for each family of Duggars there are many individuals and couples who have one or no children. So we can't blame the population growth on the Duggars after all.

I guess that's what I meant about interpreting facts out of context.

jajacobsen

08-06-2007, 12:22 PM

Cute. Are you tight with any very religious rightwingers? Because this isn't exactly a good forum to get that demographic. Actually, are you friends with anyone with more than three kids who homeschools?

I'm not friends with anyone with more than three kids, regardless of homeschooling. And I was raised Catholic! That's my point. They're not going to start a trend because their behavior is so freaky.

Niobe

08-06-2007, 12:27 PM

With the notoriety all of those children have received - as long as theiy have decent ACTs or SATs, I feel certain they could get pretty much a full ride from many colleges, especially small, liberal arts colleges. I'm thinking Berea, Middlebury, etc....

All 17 children are being home schooled by mom, using a religious-oriented curriculum (this one (http://ati.iblp.org/ati/) - which states "The Bible is the main textbook." I wonder what their science classes look like). I'd actually LOVE to see how those kids perform on SAT tests. Home schooling two or three children is one thing, but I'm questioning the ability to effectively teach 17 children of different ages, with apparently no formal training.

I think the births are all at home, which would greatly reduce the medical costs. But the parents are both real estate agents, which pretty much never provides medical insurance, right? I'd be rather surprised if they were really carrying a private insurance policy for a family of 19.

jajacobsen

08-06-2007, 12:29 PM

Many people may not consider it public assistance, but I'd guess that's mostly because they just plain haven't considered it. It's definitely an expense that comes with having children though and if the Duggars aren't covering their children's medical care and instead are relying on the state or federal government for it, I'd bet most people would think that was irresponsible.

It's possible, but it seems unlikely. Pregnancy and delivery are expensive.

I wouldn't share that philosphy with too many people on Medicare, then. You might consider it public assistance. The program is completely separate from say foodstamps or housing support. Many people who are self employed use this for their children. You may not like it, but I think when we say public assistance or "welfare", most people do think of food stamps or housing support.

I think any family who can take on the challenges this family has done so, would probably exhibit the discipline and foresight to work out a payment plan with the OB and hospital and pay the debt off. People pay off medical bills this way all the time. Why is that so hard to believe? It's not like it was, say, and $250,000 heart operation. Probably $5000 or so for each delivery and another $2-4k to the OB. Not undoable.