The Duggars (and others like them)

[Amethyst Hunter]

Inspired by the recent news that #18 or 19 is on the way...

I can see why a lot of people regard them as freak shows at best, lowlifes at worst.

Personally, I think it's pretty sad and gross that the wife thinks her only purpose in life is to keep pushing out babies like a hen lays eggs. That many kids CAN'T be good for her body; a single pregnancy alone is hard enough even under the best of circumstances and to repeat that nearly 20 times (two words: prolapsed uterus!), with NO breaks in-between (as is recommended by doctors to women who want more than one child, so the body can recover from the physical stress)...? *shudder* And what happens to the wife once her fertility finally gives up its last gasp? Does she then automatically lose any value she might have had to her husband?

I also don't believe that all those kids are getting their emotional needs met, as they are essentially unpaid labor (all the kids have assigned chores at assigned times and are kept pretty busy rearing their own siblings, to say nothing of whatever formal education they're receiving) and I would lay odds that at least one or two of them are going to (if they haven't already) grow up with some serious resentment and/or other issues. Kids should be allowed to be kids (within reason of course), not workhorses. And they definitely should know that they are worth far more than their ability to reproduce on demand.

As far as the religion aspect goes, I also don't believe that the particular brand of religion - the "quiverfull" movement - the Duggars aspire to is healthy (physically AND mentally). For one thing, there's the obvious "must-make-babies-for-God's-Army-because-that's-women's-only-purpose" mentality. Women are not born to be walking uteri. And lady, trust me - God can make His own army, He doesn't need any help from us piddly humans. (Or do you not believe that God is that powerful enough, in which case, I'd say your faith isn't nearly as strong as you profess)

And last but not least, I definitely think that having that many kids by natural means IS selfish in the not-good way. Now, if you want a big family, that's one thing - there are plenty of ways to make a big family without necessarily doing it by breeding. Friends can be family too (and for some of us, they're more family than our actual blood relatives!), or there's always adoption (in which everybody wins). And as some folks who were born into big families might attest, bigger isn't always better - a lot depends on one's own personal circumstances.

I believe there is such a thing as overpopulation, and we as a collective whole need to reign ourselves in a little here before nature does it for us in some pretty unpleasant ways (and nature does not give a shit about our religious preferences; it just sees "too much stress" and does something about it). If having lots and lots of children is that important to people like the Duggars, I really think they should adopt rather than turn themselves in to what amounts to little more than a mass factory. *Quality* of life should mean more than *quantity* of life. (And by that, I am *not* talking about eugenics or crap like that; I mean that we should worry about meeting the needs of all the people who are already here rather than try to stuff all ends of the earth with people just for the sake of saying "our numbers are this big.")

HOWEVER -

(yes, there's a caveat to this)

I WILL give the Duggars credit for teaching their kids some useful life skills. The kids have chores - responsibilities - that they are expected to do, and the family lives modestly within their means (i.e., no wild shopping sprees or impractical purchases); they even apparently built their own house from scratch. And assuming that none of the kids are secretly acting out in ways that many modern teenagers do, they will hopefully have some inkling of personal respect and not fall prey to the pitfalls many of their peers do (I just worry that they might have been taught some ignorance in regards to things like important sexual information (i.e., what contraception is and how to correctly use it!), which, given the quiverfull thing, is quite likely, sadly).

And assuming that they aren't trying to impose their views on others, well, as much as I *vehemently* find those views repugnant and don't think that they should be encouraged at all...I have to admit that it's their lives and they can do as they please with 'em. I may not care for the media attention/glorification they're getting, but as long as they leave me alone I'm perfectly happy to do the same for them.

So that's my .02.

[Ree]

I think people are looking at this family with a skewed perception and projecting their own values and morals onto them.

They see this woman having all these children and automatically assume the husband only sees her as a vessel for his seed , or that she only sees herself as having any value if she is giving birth.

If I'm not mistaken, Mrs. Duggar is actually a well educated woman who chose to be a mother. She is a licensed real estate agent.

This couple does not see sexual intercourse in the way that modern society does. They do not see it as a recreational function, or a way of satisfying their hormonal urges.
For them, it is an expression of their love, and they understand that the chief purpose of sexual intercourse is for the procreation of the species. They welcome any children produced through their lovemaking, because they believe that all life is sacred, and if God did not want a child to come from that moment, He would not create a life.

Most people in modern society just do not understand that concept, and they see these people as freaks.

Early in their marriage, Michelle Duggar did use birth control in the form of the pill.
She got pregnant while on the pill and miscarried, and it was then that she learned pregnancy can still occur, but the pill can cause the fetus to abort.
Because they are pro-life, they felt a tremendous sense of guilt and could not justify allowing one of their babies to die so that they could have the freedom to have sex without fear of pregnancy.

I find it interesting that people always throw up that "overpopulation" argument as a way of claiming these people are being irresponsible.
More and more people are opting not to have children. Many are waiting until they have established careers, or until later in life, and in many cases, they are infertile by that time.

Families are getting smaller and smaller. The average family has only 1 or 2 children.

In light of that, I don't see how these families are going to ruin the planet, since they are in such a minority that their every action becomes a newsworthy issue.

There is the argument that children from large families like that are not getting their emotional needs met. That's an interesting argument, considering that there are thousands of people in therapy and on medication because they never had their emotional needs met, and the large majority of these people were not from large families. There are record numbers of children doing drugs and drinking, engaging in sex with random people as a way to meet their unfulfilled emotional needs, and most of these children are from small families as well.

Women were sold a story many years ago that they were being held back because of their uterus, and they were a slave to their ovaries.

One of my aunts had 8 children, and they adopted one more. She raised her children in a well maintained home, while helping her husband to run their farm. She served in municipal government, sat on various community committees, and even wrote a column for the local newspaper.

She had a pretty full life, and she certainly never saw herself as just a walking uterus.

People also claim that it's selfish to give birth to so many children when there are so many babies in need of adoption.

Ask anyone who has tried to adopt, just how easy is the whole process?
Where are all these warehouses full of babies just ripe for the picking?
Why are so many people choosing to go overseas and adopt babies there? Not everyone can afford to do that.

Many young women in this country are opting for abortions rather than carrying an unwanted child, and many other young women are keeping their babies to raise.

There are many children in the system, but they are not candidates for adoption as long as there are family members who are seen as potential parents for the children.

People also argue that women are not meant to pop out baby after baby.
In fact, in years past, before the pill and the women's movement, that is exactly what they did. That is exactly what their body is designed to do. It's only in recent years that the idea of pregnancy as a drain on the body, and a fetus as a parasite, has taken on any weight with society.

If a woman looks after her body during pregnancy and after, there is no reason why her body should give out on her.
In many cases of prolapsed uterus from having so many babies close together, the women did not get proper exercise, and did not maintain a proper diet. I am not saying that was a factor in all cases, but in many instances it was.

My Great Aunt had about 15 children, all with a very short span between them. She never had any problems with a prolapsed uterus. She worked hard on the farm and was in fantastic physical shape, often going back to the barn to do chores within days of giving birth.

My mother did have a prolapsed uterus, but she was also in very poor health, was overweight, and was in lousy physical shape. She also had pretty lousy prenatal care for her first 2 pregnancies.
She never got any type of exercise and never worked to get her body toned between babies.
The moment she became pregnant, she practically took to her bed and stayed there. Of course her body rebelled after 7 births (one set of twins) and 2 or 3 miscarriages.

In the case of Michelle Duggar, the average length of time between each birth is about 18 months, so she isn't exactly getting pregnant right on top of the previous pregnancy.
Also, there are two sets of twins.

I just find it odd that people say we have no business peeking into the bedrooms of the nation, yet everyone has an opinion on this family and feels free to pass judgment on them for their choice to have all the children that God will allow.

[AFPheonix]

Does that mean that they shouldn't foster or try to take in other kids rather than have a bazillion of their own? I still feel that it was irresponsible to have that many, simply because they are a bigger drain on the environment by having more kids. Just because fewer people are having kids doesn't mean that one or more families have license to pop out more to make up for it.

People miscarry while not on birth control. Since she was not in a closed system when she miscarried, we cannot say for certain that it was the birth control that caused it. There may have been other factors involved, too.

Their children are all home-schooled. I wonder when they find the time to teach that many grades all the information that they need? Their eldest son couldn't even get into university. So no, I don't think all their needs are being met.

I am also under the impression that the quiverful movement aren't all that fond of the Duggars, either, since they feel that she weans her babies off too early.

As far as women being meant to have that many babies, we did so when frankly not as many children survived into adulthood. From an evolutionary standpoint, it makes more sense to have far fewer children and put more resources into them as they are more likely to survive. Also, we didn't have the lifespans that we have now. We just wore out faster. She most likely will have physical issues that wouldn't have been a problem even a few generations ago simply because she would have died before they manifested.

[Amethyst Hunter]

I find it interesting that people always throw up that "overpopulation" argument as a way of claiming these people are being irresponsible.
More and more people are opting not to have children. Many are waiting until they have established careers, or until later in life, and in many cases, they are infertile by that time.
Families are getting smaller and smaller. The average family has only 1 or 2 children.

In light of that, I don't see how these families are going to ruin the planet, since they are in such a minority that their every action becomes a newsworthy issue.

The difference comes in when you look at the average consuming habits of a First-World country (like the States) versus a Third-World country (say, Burma, for example). I don't think many people would argue that we can be a very wasteful country - look at how many roads are littered with trash, or the growing landfills - some areas are having trouble finding new places to dump all their garbage because they've run out of room to keep it, so they either have to find new areas or truck the trash to another location. I think that's one of the reasons "going green" is the big thing right now. People are starting to finally understand that we need to look after our environment if we expect it to continue to be there for us.

There is the argument that children from large families like that are not getting their emotional needs met. That's an interesting argument, considering that there are thousands of people in therapy and on medication because they never had their emotional needs met, and the large majority of these people were not from large families. There are record numbers of children doing drugs and drinking, engaging in sex with random people as a way to meet their unfulfilled emotional needs, and most of these children are from small families as well.

Very true; however, I would add that there are more factors than just the size of the family involved for the increase in risky behaviors. Concerning the Duggars, with all the systems they've got set in place to maintain their home, and assuming that whatever work they do takes up a goodly portion of time, where do they find the time to actually deal with their kids as individuals? I see a setup that huge, and I don't think it has much (if anything) to do with godliness; I think it's more along the lines of making drones for God. But I don't think that's exactly what God wants.

Ask anyone who has tried to adopt, just how easy is the whole process?
Where are all these warehouses full of babies just ripe for the picking?
Why are so many people choosing to go overseas and adopt babies there? Not everyone can afford to do that....There are many children in the system, but they are not candidates for adoption as long as there are family members who are seen as potential parents for the children.

No, they can't. Because the adoption system in the US badly needs fixing (but that's a whole 'nother post). People who go overseas do it for the simple fact that 1) it's cheaper, and 2) less red tape involved (and even that is nothing to sneeze at, considering all the hoops one has to jump through for overseas adoptions).

There are a LOT of kids in this country that need a good home - but their chances of getting it are practically nil due to any one or more of these factors, none of which the kids can help having:

- bureaucracy - A lot of people who would make excellent parents and want to adopt get weeded out for minor BS technicalities. If you have a chronic health condition like, say, diabetes, be prepared to get turned down almost immediately.
- physical or mental disabilities
- abusive histories (meaning, they were abused in some way and require special attention to cope with the aftermath)
- age (Cold truth: people want babies, not kids and not teenagers. Once they're past that "cute" stage, they're all but considered damaged goods)
- race (Another dirty little secret nobody wants to 'fess up to. White babies are most in demand, and any prospective parents whose race differs from that of the child are automatically viewed with suspicion because of popular cultural assumptions)

As to the kids with family members, even that's no guarantee, because a lot of those family members aren't capable of doing it for one reason or another (drug users, disabilities that would prevent them from being able to take on full-time childrearing even if they wanted to, etc.), and some just don't want the responsibility at all for their own reasons.

I frequent another board where one of the regular posters works in child services, and some of the stories she's shared are just heartbreaking. She posted once that a lot of people are going the foster-family route, because the restrictions on that are a little more lax than the ones for full-out adoption.

People also argue that women are not meant to pop out baby after baby.
In fact, in years past, before the pill and the women's movement, that is exactly what they did. That is exactly what their body is designed to do. It's only in recent years that the idea of pregnancy as a drain on the body, and a fetus as a parasite, has taken on any weight with society.

This happened for several reasons:

1) Women literally had no choice. Before we had women's rights, it was considered perfectly OK to beat, even rape, one's wife as a means of discipline. (I'd argue that in some instances this mentality still pervades society, but that's for another time...) Girls were married off young whether they wanted to or not (and whether they approved of the suitor or not), and further education was a rarity. Just about everything was ruled by men, and when you've got somebody who is physically more powerful than you calling the shots, you pretty much have no choice but to obey.

2) Most people were farmers or thereabouts, and large numbers of people were required for the operation of such; childhood was actually a luxury back then because the kids were put to work almost as soon as they started crawling - deplorable factory conditions in the early stages of the 21st century are how child labor laws came to be.

3) Before sanitation and healthcare improved, childbirth was THE number-one cause of death in women and the infant mortality rate was sky-high. Often the women didn't even really get to grieve over the loss - the mindset was 'well, try, try again' till you got one that lived. Planned Parenthood came to exist because its founder had worked with her mother as a midwife, and Margaret Sanger got tired of seeing so many women and their children suffer and die needlessly due to such practices. (As an aside, there is controversy regarding certain of Sanger's alleged ideological beliefs; discussion of those aside, her goal of helping women was, at the very least, respectable)

4) Strictly from a technical standpoint, the fetus IS a parasite. A parasite is defined as a life form that requires a host body to survive (an example would be viruses, which need host bodies in order to replicate themselves). A fetus requires a host body to survive until viability and draws all its nutrition from the host's body, often leading to such things as calcium losses - it's not uncommon for women who've had kids to report getting dental cavities for the first time, or an increase in cavities. That's why doctors recommend spacing pregnancies out, so the body has time not only to recover from the stress of giving birth but also to replenish those lost nutrients.

Granted, the shape that the body is in does account for a portion of whatever happens, but there's just no getting around the fact that pregnancy alters the body permanently in some way or another. If the person already has existing conditions prior to becoming pregnant, it's likely that health can be even further affected. Do this often enough, and I would wager that there are long-term effects that are going to crop up sooner or later.

I just find it odd that people say we have no business peeking into the bedrooms of the nation, yet everyone has an opinion on this family and feels free to pass judgment on them for their choice to have all the children that God will allow.

Well, most people - even Christians - also don't subscribe to the type of beliefs that the Duggars do (i.e., that one has to have as many kids as possible no matter what). Any time someone does something outside the norm, it's going to draw attention. Whether or not this is a good or bad thing depends on the motives of the individuals in question - I personally suspect that it isn't as innocent as it's presented. But then I'm cynical like that.

Just because fewer people are having kids doesn't mean that one or more families have license to pop out more to make up for it.

This has been cited as one of the arguments against childfree people. One of the bingoes that CF folks commonly get is the attempt at guilt-tripping: "If everyone thought like that, there wouldn't be any more people!" Nope, doesn't work. Barring extreme disasters, the world is not going to stop simply because of a slowing or stalling in birth rates. There will always be people having kids, and if you're looking at immigration, there will always be an influx of people from somewhere.

Some people who use this cite countries like Japan as an example - Japan's elders are outpacing the younger ones by quite a bit, to the point where there are significant dropoffs in the country's overall population, as women are choosing either not to have kids or to put it off for a while. But they forget that Japan also has one of the strictest immigration policies on the planet, and Japanese society as a whole is not enamoured of foreigners except as tourists. So of course they're going to have a slowing/decreasing population rate. (Minus places like Tokyo, which - at 12+ million residents, domestic and foreign - are in no danger of population busts)

People miscarry while not on birth control. Since she was not in a closed system when she miscarried, we cannot say for certain that it was the birth control that caused it. There may have been other factors involved, too.

This is the chief argument behind anti-choicers who want to see all birth control banned and who are actively working towards denying its access to women. They claim that it's a "chemical abortion" - and to date there is NO proof that the pill does this. (Technically, miscarriage itself is an abortion - it just happens naturally rather than being physically induced.) I see red every time people try to blame the pill for things like this. By all means, don't take it if you don't like it, but that doesn't give anyone the right to spread lies and misinformation about it or try to keep women who actually DO need it (PCOS and screwy cycles) from having it.

Their children are all home-schooled. I wonder when they find the time to teach that many grades all the information that they need? Their eldest son couldn't even get into university. So no, I don't think all their needs are being met.

I also read that the girls are *not* being encouraged to go to college, which, if that's true, is very disturbing, especially if the boys are being nudged in that direction at the same time. Granted, college is not a must for everyone, but people should at least have that option open to them. If the girls really are being discouraged from further education, I daresay it's because they're being set up as future broodmares, not because their parents are necessarily concerned about the high cost of secondary schooling.

[Rapscallion]

There are some very amusing jokes to make about the situation. I've been known to pass a few of them around, and yes I do laugh about them. Life's like that.

On the serious side, however, I tend to take the view that they are supporting their children and are able to do so, and they aren't non-raising a bunch of delinquents. Were this a case of a family such as seen in Idiocracy, breeding more because they forgot birth control or just didn't care.

The downside is that they are pretty much doing this because of a select phrase in a bronze age book that was designed to perpetuate a nomadic tribe.

Rapscallion

[Zyanya]

She got pregnant while on the pill and miscarried, and it was then that she learned pregnancy can still occur, but the pill can cause the fetus to abort.

So she was spoonfed misinformation and bought it hook, line, and sinker.

I just find it odd that people say we have no business peeking into the bedrooms of the nation, yet everyone has an opinion on this family and feels free to pass judgment on them for their choice to have all the children that God will allow.

If they don't want people to look into their bedrooms, maybe they should stop inviting them in by giving interviews?

There is the argument that children from large families like that are not getting their emotional needs met.

Which is a factual argument. These children are not allowed to have lives outside the family and the girls take on the roles of mother for their younger siblings early because their mother simply doesn't have the time. The female children are being 'trained' differently than the male children, such as encouraging them away from higher education.

They follow the teachings of Bill Gothard, the man who thinks cabbage patch kids should be banned because they can cause problems in childbirth. He is a classic dominist who is of the belief if he can't control the world by convincing people to believe his way he will then breed people to believe his way.

The reason they don't adopt is that Gothard teaches that adopted children inherit the severe sins of their natural parents and must be properly brainwashed. He demands that adult children get their parent's permission to marry and that married children should continue to obey and be dependent on their parents. Women are to obey men and should not work outside the home.

And he is trying to make his bullcrap implemented in public schools under 'Character Education Legislation'. Any disagreement with him is the 'sin of witchcraft'.

Oh, yeah, you better believe there is concern for the emotional wellbeing of those children.

In fact, in years past, before the pill and the women's movement, that is exactly what they did. That is exactly what their body is designed to do.

One of the major reasons for the woman's movement is that is NOT what the body is designed to do. Even today, worldwide, 1 in 74 women DIE in childbirth. In some areas, it is still common for a mother to bid her existing children farewell when she gets pregnant again, the chances of death are that high for her.

I am incapable of natural childbirth. If it was not for a C-section, both myself and my son would be dead. My body is NOT designed for multiple children, my doctor has in fact advised me NOT to attempt to have more children. I am by no means unique. Many women are not even capable of getting pregnant. So no, a woman's body is NOT designed to breed child after child.

Ecoptic pregnancy, eclampsia, placenta previa, gestational diabetes, embolism, blah blah so on so forth - http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/004.htm. If pregnancy is what we were designed to do, then the designer is a cruel idiot.

[Greenday]

I'm still a firm believer of the world is becoming over-populated. Anything more than two kids is pushing it in my opinion. Two kids replace the two parents and the total population when the parents die doesn't change. I know my girlfriend wants to adopt if and when we get married. I'm fine with that. I'd rather adopt a kid and give them the love they deserve instead of knowing that there could have been one less homeless kid out there.

[Ree]

Does that mean that they shouldn't foster or try to take in other kids rather than have a bazillion of their own?

Because we all know that fostering is so easy. Many of the children in care have major issues arising from their reasons for being in care. There are attachment disorders and extreme behaviours that not everyone is strong enough to handle, and not everyone wants to take the necessary time required to learn the skills for coping with troubled children. Fostering children is not some warm, fuzzy, Hallmark moment like they show on the recruiting posters and TV ads.

I still feel that it was irresponsible to have that many, simply because they are a bigger drain on the environment by having more kids. Just because fewer people are having kids doesn't mean that one or more families have license to pop out more to make up for it.

That's true, to a degree, but there is also the fact that this family, by its very size, contributes to the economy of the country. Look at their average grocery bill, not to mention the taxes they pay, and the costs of furnishing their home. Each member of that household will, in theory, go on to become a working member of society, who will in turn, continue to contribute through their income taxes and living expenses.

People miscarry while not on birth control. Since she was not in a closed system when she miscarried, we cannot say for certain that it was the birth control that caused it. There may have been other factors involved, too.

True, it's not conclusive evidence, but she was on the pill and miscarried, but has had no other miscarriages in the other 17 pregnancies. The information given to her at that time by medical professionals, as well as by reading up on information provided by the manufacturer of her particular oral contraceptive was that there was a risk of miscarriage while on the pill, and so, she concluded that the miscarriage was caused by the pill. Not hard scientific fact, but certainly an interesting coincidence.

Their children are all home-schooled. I wonder when they find the time to teach that many grades all the information that they need? Their eldest son couldn't even get into university. So no, I don't think all their needs are being met.

That's interesting, since they live in a state where homeschooling is recognized and regulated, and all homeschooled children must pass state-mandated tests or risk being charged with truancy.
I wonder how he managed to fall through the cracks.
We all know that never happens in a public school system.
Also, it's only recently that colleges and universities have begun to accept homeschooled students, so perhaps it isn't that he doesn't have the necessary background or requirements for higher education, but was not accepted because of a bias on the part of the schools he applied to.

As far as women being meant to have that many babies, we did so when frankly not as many children survived into adulthood.

We also did not have the technology or medical knowledge and scientific advances for prolonging life and healing that we have now, as you have acknowledged.

Also, we didn't have the lifespans that we have now. We just wore out faster. She most likely will have physical issues that wouldn't have been a problem even a few generations ago simply because she would have died before they manifested.

Granted, the shape that the body is in does account for a portion of whatever happens, but there's just no getting around the fact that pregnancy alters the body permanently in some way or another. If the person already has existing conditions prior to becoming pregnant, it's likely that health can be even further affected. Do this often enough, and I would wager that there are long-term effects that are going to crop up sooner or later.

That is an assumption, not really based on facts currently in evidence. We have no idea of the state of her health, or the steps she takes to ensure proper nutrition and exercise.
It may well be that having that many children has put her at risk for osteoporosis or some other issues, but is it a higher risk than for any other percentage of the population? Wouldn't that be her personal choice, then, to accept that risk and the consequences arising from it?

Concerning the Duggars, with all the systems they've got set in place to maintain their home, and assuming that whatever work they do takes up a goodly portion of time, where do they find the time to actually deal with their kids as individuals?

The same can be said of many families with both parents working outside the home. Where is the time for one on one with the children after working an 8-12 hour day and needing to get meals on the table and maintain a home with even basic standards of cleanliness.
We only see the pictures on the internet and in the magazine spreads, or the TV clips showing small glimpses into their life. In anything I have read, these parents seem to me to be very aware of each child's unique ambitions and talents.

One of the major reasons for the woman's movement is that is NOT what the body is designed to do.

The ovaries and uterus are not like tonsils, appendix and wisdom teeth, serving no real purpose in the body and so, becoming redundant through evolution. They are parts of the female anatomy meant specifically for procreation, and the ovaries are filled with thousands of eggs, so it seems odd to say the female body was not designed to bear multiple children.

I am incapable of natural childbirth. If it was not for a C-section, both myself and my son would be dead. My body is NOT designed for multiple children, my doctor has in fact advised me NOT to attempt to have more children. I am by no means unique. Many women are not even capable of getting pregnant. So no, a woman's body is NOT designed to breed child after child.

I am sorry for your own personal circumstances, but why should this woman be vilified just because she has been able to have multiple births without consequences so far? As I said, if there are health consequences, shouldn't that be her choice?

If they don't want people to look into their bedrooms, maybe they should stop inviting them in by giving interviews?

They are not the ones contacting the press. The press is coming to them. They see it as an opportunity to try to show the world that they really are not freaks to be feared. Unfortunately, people will choose to believe what they wish. I just find it so funny that the world is so threatened by the choices this family has made.

It's not that I don't see the points raised. There are some interesting and valid points that have been raised.
I just don't see how some of it is anyone's business. It's about personal choice.

In the same way that this couple is free to use methods of birth control, or even abort unplanned pregnancies, I really don't see why there is such venom directed at them for opting not to choose those things.

So what if they are raising a brood of Christian soldiers? What is the worst thing that can come of it? We have an army of children who have been raised with respect for the law and country and with an attitude of respect for others.
So what if they subscribe to the credo of "JOY" (Jesus, Others, You)? what's the worst that can happen with putting God and others before yourself? Heaven forbid we end up with a gaggle of kids who are putting others first.

I just feel that there is way too much negative criticism aimed at things that really are this family's own personal choice.

[XCashier]

... deplorable factory conditions in the early stages of the 21st century are how child labor laws came to be.

20th century. We're currently in the early stages of the 21st century.

I think those who want children should take a good look at themselves and ask themselves seriously how many children they can handle. Take plenty of time to consider all the facets of childcare: the physical, mental, emotional and financial. Pregnancy is a big stress on a woman's body, post-partum depression is real and horrible, and they both tend to get worse with each successive pregnancy. Kids are muy expensive, even if you manage to luck out and get a low-maintenance child. But when raised right, children are truly a blessing, giving as much love as they receive and bringing joy to their families and friends.

If you can only handle one or two children, it would be wise to limit yourself. Just because someone says you should have a "quiver full" doesn't mean you have to follow that person. You know what is best for you. I know for a fact that I can only handle one child right now, which is why I haven't had more.

As far as the Duggars are concerned, if they can handle all of those children, physically, mentally, emotionally and financially, God bless them.

Just my 2¢, YMMV.

[daleduke17]

Here's my thoughts on this:

- Are they paying their own way? Yes.
- Are they on any sort of government assistance (other than the dad being a former legislator)? No.
- Are all of the kids adequately taken care of? Yes.
- Are all of the members of the family healthy? Yes.
- Are the parents doing this by their own free will? Yes.

Then the rest of us should just leave them alone. I'm tired of hearing the lines "they shouldn't have this many kids of their own" or "oh, they should adopt if they want that many" or "what about the kids who need foster care". So what? It is their choice to do this. Now, if it comes out that Jim Bob (his actual name, IIRC) has raped his wife, that's a different story. Didn't there use to be a lot of families with a lot of kids? Granted, yes, infant mortality rates were higher in the past, but, that doesn't mean that this family currently should be chastised just because they want a large family.

they even apparently built their own house from scratch.

I think that is a given. I'd really like to see the blueprints for their house, just for personal curiousity. Hell, their kitchen would almost have to be bigger than my dad's *house*.

[MystyGlyttyr]

I don't see the point in getting all uptight about it, myself. Like I said over on CS.com, I've actually run across these people before they got all famous. And honestly, they did kind of creep me out for whatever reason. BUT...they were very nice, polite individuals, their children were well-behaved and not running, screaming, acting up, and being a nuisance, and from studying them both from our brief interactions and from the internet, word of mouth, and TV, I don't see any signs of resentment from the older children thus far. (Does that mean it's not boiling just beneath the surface? No...but the oldest boy is legal. If he really wanted to leave his family, he would, I think.)

Frankly, I'd rather deal with one family of 18 well-behaved kids who are loved and taught to act like human beings than a family with two or three snotty little shits who might be "well-educated" but are complete PITAs to deal with on a day-to-day basis.

The Duggars are nice to their waiter. 'Nuff said so far as I'm concerned.

Addendum: I'm one of those people not planning to have kids. It's not because of overpopulation concerns or whatever, it's because if I had them, I'm sure I'd screw them up royally. The potential for adoption doesn't affect that feeling.

[daleduke17]

Mysty, sorry if I seemed a bit uptight on it, I was reading a lot of less formal responses about the family and it carried over to here (there were a lot of similar arguments on the other site like the ones on here).

I do like how they handle the "jurisdicitons" and swap every so often.

I'll guess at least 9 bedrooms (2-3 per bedroom, except the two oldest kids who I'd give a seperate area to them). Five bathrooms (one for every two bedrooms. Parents can have their own). At LEAST an 20 foot long dinner table (10 people each side * 2 foot per person). Table width of 4 feet.

Ok, I'm slipping into "geek" mode now. :-p

[Boozy]

That's true, to a degree, but there is also the fact that this family, by its very size, contributes to the economy of the country. Look at their average grocery bill, not to mention the taxes they pay, and the costs of furnishing their home. Each member of that household will, in theory, go on to become a working member of society, who will in turn, continue to contribute through their income taxes and living expenses.

Thats a common economic fallacy. An increase in per capita consumption will often benefit the economy in the short term (a fact the Bush administration is banking on with their tax rebates). However, increased consumption due to population growth often has a net effect of zero on the overall health of an economy, all other factors remaining the same. GDP increases, but so does the population, ergo GDP per capita remains the same.

I just feel that there is way too much negative criticism aimed at things that really are this family's own personal choice.

That I entirely agree with.

Maybe these kids will be a drain on society. Maybe the 20th born into this family will be the next Einstein. We just don't know.

I don't judge.

[MystyGlyttyr]

It's no problem. Actually, I do know some of the layout of their house, let me see if I can recall properly.

I know that there's one bedroom for about four of the girls, possibly six of them. There's bunkbeds and the room isn't as large as you'd expect. I think there's two bedrooms for the boys (since there's more of them) and they're split something like six and four or some such thing to each room. The parents have their own room, of course, but there's a section in their room that's a nursery for the latest baby(s) that are born, so they're sharing space, too.

I also think their home doubles as a church meeting area for the Duggars and some of their family.

Their kitchen is HUGE, and I can't recall if the table is one long construction or just a few different tables pushed together, but the entire family is able to sit down together for meals. I remember also thinking the kitchen area was gorgeous, but I can't remember why I thought that.

There's also a full slide/swing-set thing inside the house for the younger kids. Their own playland, dude! I so want one! LOL

http://health.discovery.com/converge...slideshow.html

There's a few pictures in there of the innards of their home.

Personally, I would go NUTS if I didn't have my own bedroom. However, my family had three kids, so I did have a lot of time to myself and got used to that. If there'd been slews of other kids around, I suppose I'd have gotten used to that and would feel nuts if I were in a room by myself. It's all in the environment you're raised in.

[JuniorMintz]

Why in the hell do we all feel the need to criticize this family, anyway?!? They CHOSE to have this many kids. They are happy, debt free, and they live in a free country just as I do. That same freedom that allows me to stick my two cents in is the same freedom that allows them to have as many children as they like. Would I have that many kids myself? Not likely. I haven't had any luck getting even *one* to stick so far. I can only speak for myself, though. If the Duggars want to have a dozen kids on *top* of this, that is up to them.

On a semi related note, this is what I don't understand about my fellow pro-choicers. It's like, we're all for your right to choose, as long as you choose the type of lifestyle that the rest of us can all be proud of. Career mom who picks her 2 kids up from daycare at 6 30, rushes home to cook and clean, and is passed out exhausted in bed at 11? Great choice! A stay at home mom with more than 3 kids?!? You're an embarrassment to the woman's lib movement and you should be ashamed of your lifestyle.

I want to know when "pro choice" became "yay abortion!"

Now that I've put in *my* 2 cents, I'm out of here. But not before I say- Spawn on, Duggars, spawn on!