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. :rolleyes:
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. :confused: 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/convergence/duggars/slideshow/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!" :confused:

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

[BlaqueKatt]

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 was a SAHM for the first two years of my son's life(then his father and I divorced and he got custody)-you would not believe how many women were just shocked that I didn't immediately return to work, and kept telling me I was making a horrible mistake. Thing is the women that were telling me this saw their children as a burden, they were quick to shuttle them off to daycare, never saw their first steps, or heard their first word, and were constantly hiring babysitters so they could pretend to still be single and go out partying every night.

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

about the same time they stopped releasing the morbidity and mortality rates for abortion-sure you can get the demographics, but how many deaths or injuries, latest figures released are from 1988(20 years old)-wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that the folks at the CDC responsible for tracking and releasing the data all work in the abortion industry(either owning or working in a clinic)-I highly recommend the book "lime 5-exploited by choice"---it actually changed me from pro-choice to pro-life(with a caveat for proper sex ed including how to prevent pregnancy), it's written by a man that assists women in abortion malpractice cases, and has some horrific stories-an entire section on women raped during abortion procedures, a girl who had her intestines removed during a suction abortion, and many others far worse. It is not the "totally safe and harmless" procedure women are led to believe.

[Zyanya]

:confused: 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.

Try reading the link and addressing all the information provided. 1 in 74 women DIE in childbirth. No, the female body was not designed to bear child after child. Each child puts considerable wear and tear on the female body, including permanent liver and kidney damage and loss of necessary vitamins and minerals.

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?

It is her choice. However, women like her are part of a movement that wishes to take the choice away from women such as myself. That is why I vilify their movement.

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.

I am threatened by the philosophy they espouse, as it involves me, a woman, being nothing other than a mother. Thank you, but I am capable of making my own decisions and do not need to be under a man's guiding hand.

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.

Who wish to enforce their beliefs in schools, ban birth control, prevent women from seeking higher education, etc...

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

Perhaps you should actually research the philosophy they subscribe to, because that certainly is not the whole of it. I discussed some of the BS they believe in my earlier post. They are dominist. They wish everyone in the US to have to follow their religious beliefs, and to that end are pushing to get their philosophy as part of school curriculum in violation of the separation of church and state. http://www.pfo.org/evol-fad.htm

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'.

[Zyanya]

I was a SAHM for the first two years of my son's life(then his father and I divorced and he got custody)-you would not believe how many women were just shocked that I didn't immediately return to work, and kept telling me I was making a horrible mistake. Thing is the women that were telling me this saw their children as a burden, they were quick to shuttle them off to daycare, never saw their first steps, or heard their first word, and were constantly hiring babysitters so they could pretend to still be single and go out partying every night.

I am a working mom, and you would not believe how many women are just shocked that I don't stay home with my kid and keep telling me I am making a horrible mistake. Thing is, these women who keep telling me this don't bother parenting their kids even if they do stay home with them all day. Their kids are some of the most over-indulged entitled brats I have ever seen. They let the TV raise their kids while they do their own thing.


about the same time they stopped releasing the morbidity and mortality rates for abortion-sure you can get the demographics, but how many deaths or injuries, latest figures released are from 1988(20 years old)-wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that the folks at the CDC responsible for tracking and releasing the data all work in the abortion industry(either owning or working in a clinic)-I highly recommend the book "lime 5-exploited by choice"---it actually changed me from pro-choice to pro-life(with a caveat for proper sex ed including how to prevent pregnancy), it's written by a man that assists women in abortion malpractice cases, and has some horrific stories-an entire section on women raped during abortion procedures, a girl who had her intestines removed during a suction abortion, and many others far worse. It is not the "totally safe and harmless" procedure women are led to believe.

Safer to get a first trimester abortion than it is to go through childbirth. And no one has ever called abortion totally safe and harmless. It's a medical procedure, and as any/all doctors will tell you, no medical procedure is perfectly safe. People die getting their teeth cleaned.

And the book you cited is a load of junk, it's made up entirely of fictional or severely dramatized stories by people out to make money by suing. The simple fact that it claims abortion centers are unregulated is proof enough that it is a load of hogwash. Gad, it actually cites the throughly disproven link between breast cancer and abortion and calls it a 'fact'.

www.imnotsorry.net

Try finding some real stories by women who have actually had abortions.

[Zyanya]

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.

Have as many kids as you want.

Don't raise them as part of a bullshit philosophical movement aimed at taking over and forcing your religious beliefs on the world.

That might just get folks like me to thinking you are an idiot.

[MadMike]

That might just get folks like me to thinking you are an idiot.

I'm not sure if this was directed to the person you replied to, or if you just mean "you" as people in general. If it's the former, I feel the need to point out that we don't attack other members, even on this board where the rules are a lot more relaxed. If it's the latter, then no worries. Still, if you could make things a little more clear in the future, we'd appreciate it.

[Amethyst Hunter]

So what if they are raising a brood of Christian soldiers? What is the worst thing that can come of it?

One word: THEOCRACY. (http://www.theocracywatch.org/)

Dominionists and their ilk DO NOT see it as raising a bunch of happy Godly people. This is not some friendly hymnal Onward Christian Soldiers deal. They literally want to raise armies that will take over this country and others, by force if necessary (and don't kid yourself that there aren't any out there who would love nothing more than to fire off a few rounds of ammo - or worse - at the groups of people they hate), and forcibly convert and/or kill those people they deem unfit. It's one thing to be uber-religious in one's chosen faith; it's quite another to use that religion in order to scheme your way into power for the express purpose of altering law and order to all but a select few's disadvantage. That is exactly what the Quiverfull movement is designed to do: overwhelm everyone by sheer numbers of brainwashed foot soldiers.

And for any Christians out there, don't kid yourself into thinking that you'd be spared in such a theocracy just because you call yourself Christian. If you aren't the "right" kind of Xtian by dominionist standards, you'd be lined up right on the firing block along with the rest of us.

[Ree]

Those ideals mentioned by several members may well be the ones espoused by some of the extreme fundamentalists and by Bill Gothard, and this family may well subscribe to some of those beliefs, but in any of the materials I have read about this family, or which have been written by this family, it has always been about their own personal choice as a couple and a family, and their own pro-life stance, rather than them trying to tell the rest of the world that they must do the same.

Why is it any better that those with pro-choice opinions are allowed to speak their piece unchecked, but someone with strong anti-choice opinions must stay silent?
The pro-choice people are saying she is wrong to be having all these children and are forcing their own beliefs of birth control and abortion onto them, yet when it is suggested that the reason they are having all these children is because they belong to a group who want to eliminate the choice of birth control and abortion, then that becomes a major invasion of your rights?:confused:

Double standard?

As Juniormintz said, and I paraphrase, it seems to be a freedom to choose as long as you don't choose on the side of pro-life.

[CancelMyService]

I mean, it's easy to say that they're just a nice little family that enjoys having babies or whatever, but there's just something so........cult-like about the family that creeps me out. The whole "we'll have as many babies as God wants" thing just shows an alarming level of brainwashing. No it won't be "as many as God wants", it will be as many times as you continue having unprotected sex with a woman who's spent 11 years of her life pregnant. Sure, it's their choice and it doesn't personally offend me, but seeing the vacant Stepford Wife glaze in her eyes hardly suggests a lot of clear thinking going on.

Also what kind of life are these kids living? Home schooling, made to be basically live in staff to their own home? Even if there wasn't any religious overtones just being one of 18 kids who's lives get put on TV has got to mess with their minds on some level. What's it like to be one of those kids who's nearing puberty/adolescence and want to talk about life with mom or dad only to have to take a number because you have like 5 siblings who need diaper changes. Imagine being a teenager and going around in those Little House on the Prarie outfits the whole family wears. We all know how mean kids can be, with that kind of ammo there's no way they can lead any substance of what anyone would consider a normal life.

People have mentioned the "well at least they aren't on government assistance". well other than the implied racism of that statement (the stereotype of the token black woman on welfare with zillions of kids just to get more money), is pimping your God-produced family on several Discovery Channel specials any better? I guess for some it is since it's not taxpayer funded.



The pro-choice people are saying she is wrong to be having all these children and are forcing their own beliefs of birth control and abortion onto them, yet when it is suggested that the reason they are having all these children is because they belong to a group who want to eliminate the choice of birth control and abortion, then that becomes a major invasion of your rights


This question wasn't directed at me but I'd wager it's seen as a major invasion of rights because anti-choice groups tend to want all women to become baby farms for Jesus like the Duggars?

[JuniorMintz]

That might just get folks like me to thinking you are an idiot.

Think what you want, I'm don't really want the approval of narrow minded, uptight people anyway.

I stand by what I said earlier. Pro Choice should mean you are pro CHOICE, not necessarily pro abortion. Make your own choices, and let the Duggars do the same.



People have mentioned the "well at least they aren't on government assistance". well other than the implied racism of that statement (the stereotype of the token black woman on welfare with zillions of kids just to get more money), is pimping your God-produced family on several Discovery Channel specials any better? I guess for some it is since it's not taxpayer funded.

What the hell? Are you serious?

Implied racism?!?

Please tell me that was some kind of weird joke. I'm genuinely not trying to be mean, but the bolded part of the above quote... I just don't get why you'd say that. It makes it sound like there's a chip on your shoulder that's bigger than my ass. :o

Did I miss something? Was there something posted in this thread that really came off as racist?

[CancelMyService]

Its just the comments made about them not being on welfare/government assistance seemed so out of place, like large families are incapable of supporting themselves. The only thing I could come up with are the tales of people on welfare (which despite being apocryphal always seem to involve minorities) having more kids to get more money from the government.

It came off as so "at least they aren't *those pepole*" to me.

[BlaqueKatt]

Safer to get a first trimester abortion than it is to go through childbirth.
and how do you know this the CDC has not released the morbidity and mortality rates for abortion in 20 years

Try finding some real stories by women who have actually had abortions.I don't have to I saw them every day volunteering in a crisis pregnancy center that also provided post-abortion counciling. Or I could just ask my 22 year old co-worker who required a hysterectomy after her first trimester abortion after the doctor perforated her uterus 4 times during the procedure, she nearly bled to death on the way to the hospital. Or my sister who can also never have children due to a bad abortion last year.

Don't assume things about people you don't know

and the breast cancer-abortion study was not just one study it was 17 different studies, from 17 different countries all with the same conclusion-the only one that disproved it was one done in the US by The CDC(who has something to gain by lying)

[CancelMyService]

Suggesting the CDC has something to gain by lying doesn't really lend credence to your argument (ie: what do they have to gain by lying?), but here's some non-CDC sources that disprove the link between abortions and breast cancer:

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_6x_Can_Having_an_Abortion_Cause_or_Contribut e_to_Breast_Cancer.asp
http://www.nci.nih.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/abortion-miscarriage

and finally http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-breast_cancer_hypothesis which pretty much illustrates that the "abortions lead to cancer" story is a scare tactic championed by pro-life groups trying to discourage abortions under the guise of informed consent. I guess that's similar to teaching creationism by calling it intelligent design.

There's certainly risks to abortions, just like any medical procedure. Opponents of it shouldn't have to resort to provably wrong FUD instead of providing legitimate counseling and alternatives.

[IDrinkaRum]

As a Catholic, I'm told to "go forth and multiply". I shouldn't be using birth control and my husband shouldn't get snipped. We're encouraged to have as many children we want/need/can economically support. Are Catholics kooks? And yes, there are those Catholics out there who believe they need to build a "Christian Army" too.

CancelMyService - the reason the welfare argument was mentioned is because most "welfairies" (and there are plenty of WHITE people who are welfairies - in my area, it's mainly the whites and Hispanics who are on welfare, not blacks) have large families, and it's not dependent upon race. These people, with a large family, are not on welfare, so those saying they're a drain to the economy isn't 100% correct because they're not taking tax $$ away from those who truly need it.

If the Duggars want more children, I say go for it. There is some research that suggests that women who have large families die younger than those who don't. However, this was done by studying families/women before the advent of "modern medicine" and the use of birth control and the legality of abortion.

[Ree]

They literally want to raise armies that will take over this country and others, by force if necessary (and don't kid yourself that there aren't any out there who would love nothing more than to fire off a few rounds of ammo - or worse - at the groups of people they hate), and forcibly convert and/or kill those people they deem unfit. It's one thing to be uber-religious in one's chosen faith; it's quite another to use that religion in order to scheme your way into power for the express purpose of altering law and order to all but a select few's disadvantage. That is exactly what the Quiverfull movement is designed to do: overwhelm everyone by sheer numbers of brainwashed foot soldiers. I don't know why people are so worried and getting bent out of shape about this. The likelihood of that happening is pretty darn slim, as evidenced by the huge public outcry against this family, in particular.

[Boozy]

To be fair, Ree, you and I live in a different country and culture than those in the US. There's a reason why people are getting bent out of shape by this.

People in America are right to be worried about the rise of a theocracy. 10 years ago the Christian right took over the Republican party and got Bush elected.

Bush appointed dominionist John Ashcroft as Attorney General, a key figure in the passage of the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act effectively gave the US government the power to strip any US citizen of several basic civil rights.

The Republican party is just now shaking off the theocratic takeover. The country itself may never pull out of the tailspin they're currently in.

US citizens are allowed to criticize the Duggars for being dominionist. That's a political opinion, and all political opinions should be challenged vigorously in a democracy. These opinions have the potential to affect all citizens.

However, while having that many children may be part of that philosophy, I'd leave their reproductive rights out of it. If we don't want the Christian right in our bedrooms, we should stay out of theirs.

[AFPheonix]

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 never claimed it was easy, but I still think it would be more worthwhile to help an existing person rather than make 18 extra people. I say this with the background that we are essentially fostering my 35 year old brother-in-law, who essentially hasn't had a stable home in 20 years or so and has some serious substance abuse issues.



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.
Like I said on the other thread, we don't know that she hasn't miscarried other times. She herself may not necessarily be aware that she's miscarried, and statistically, out of 17 successful pregnancies, I'm betting that she's had a few not get off the launchpad too.

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. :rolleyes:
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.
No one ever says that public school is perfect. It's not. At least he'd have the opportunity to be taught by people who would give him insight on things he wouldn't get from his parents.
It's possible that the schools were biased, but more possible that he just flat out wasn't qualified to get into their programs by the schooling he received.

This family can do as they like, but I'm equally as free to feel that it is irresponsible, especially in this point in time, to have that many kids. They may be able to afford them, and apparently they do so through the money he earns in his business, private donations, money they get from tv producers, and the fact that they pay no property taxes since their home is designated as a church.
But they can keep going on and having kids, I don't really care. I myself am the youngest of 6, a pretty large family. I am not advocating that they should be forced to stop. I am simply pointing out some of the reasons maybe that they should.

[Zyanya]

I'm not sure if this was directed to the person you replied to, or if you just mean "you" as people in general. If it's the former, I feel the need to point out that we don't attack other members, even on this board where the rules are a lot more relaxed. If it's the latter, then no worries. Still, if you could make things a little more clear in the future, we'd appreciate it.

The 'you' is directed at anyone who lives by that particular philosophy that I cited.

Anyone who thinks a woman 'needs' a husband to 'guide her through life' and subscribes to a philosophy that blames cabbage patch dolls for miscarriages is an idiot.

And if that makes me 'narrow-minded', I think I can live with that.

[Zyanya]

and how do you know this the CDC has not released the morbidity and mortality rates for abortion in 20 years

I pay attention.

I don't have to I saw them every day volunteering in a crisis pregnancy center that also provided post-abortion counciling. Or I could just ask my 22 year old co-worker who required a hysterectomy after her first trimester abortion after the doctor perforated her uterus 4 times during the procedure, she nearly bled to death on the way to the hospital. Or my sister who can also never have children due to a bad abortion last year.

Don't assume things about people you don't know

I know plenty about CPCs. They are havens of misinformation, dramatized horror stories, and sexist brainwashing.

and the breast cancer-abortion study was not just one study it was 17 different studies, from 17 different countries all with the same conclusion-the only one that disproved it was one done in the US by The CDC(who has something to gain by lying)

And conspiracy theories. Did I forget to mention that earlier? CPCs are all about the conspiracy theories. Which amuses me as they themselves are a conspiracy to spread misinformation and lies.

[Seshat]

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.
I was a SAHM for the first two years of my son's life(then his father and I divorced and he got custody)-you would not believe how many women were just shocked that I didn't immediately return to work, and kept telling me I was making a horrible mistake.

Allow me to join the chorus of pro-choicers who see being a stay at home mother as a perfectly valid choice.


about the same time they [the CDC] stopped releasing the morbidity and mortality rates for abortion
<snip>
It is not the "totally safe and harmless" procedure women are led to believe.

The CDC is not the only place in the world where that sort of information can be gained. I just did a quick Google search for 'abortion statistic .gov.au', and found several articles.

Admittedly, since our medical (and social) culture doesn't see abortion as such as huge issue as it is in some parts of the world, it seems that South Australia is the only state where abortions are reported separately from 'procedures which may result in abortion'. Still, in South Australia, 'less than one percent of women who had abortions experienced complications'.

Some Aussie abortion data (http://www.aph.gov.au/library/Pubs/RB/2004-05/05rb09.htm).

Australia is a very small place, however. A similar search on a more populous First World country should provide a wealth of information.

Oh, and by the way? If abortion - or any medical procedure - is being touted as "totally safe and harmless", that's a lie. And none of the pro-choicers I hang out with would say such a thing.

We may well say that it has a lower risk of complication than pregnancy, and a lower chance of permanently changing your body: those two things are true. But "totally safe and harmless"? Bah. Never.

Why is it any better that those with pro-choice opinions are allowed to speak their piece unchecked, but someone with strong anti-choice opinions must stay silent?

I would strongly disagree with anyone speaking - or behaving - this way. I will respect another's opinions, and ask only that they also respect mine.

Or at least, that's what I try to do. I don't always succeed. :o

The pro-choice people are saying she is wrong to be having all these children and are forcing their own beliefs of birth control and abortion onto them, yet when it is suggested that the reason they are having all these children is because they belong to a group who want to eliminate the choice of birth control and abortion, then that becomes a major invasion of your rights?:confused:

Okay, let me try to sort this out.

I do think she's making bad decisions. I am willing to say so. If I was a close personal friend of hers, I would tell her so, and back up my opinion with my reasons.

In addition, if she didn't already have it, I'd provide her with the information for all forms of modern birth control and offer to take her to the gentlest, most respectful (of her patients) doctor I could find.

And I would stop there.

Whatever she decided, provided she had the information, would be her decision. Whatever she decided, I wouldn't ever raise the subject with her again. (Though if the subject was raised independently, I'd feel free to say my piece about my own life and my own decisions.)

However, I'm not a close personal friend of hers. Her life is none of my business. I may (and do) talk about her and women like her in the abstract, on a message board. But she'll almost certainly never see this. And if she does, or if some woman with similar ideals does, I see no problem in them finding out that if I were their friend, I'd ensure they had the chance to make a fully informed decision.

I do not see this as "forcing [my] own beliefs of birth control and abortion onto them". I see this as enabling them to make a fully informed decision.

Now, you (Ree) probably weren't talking about me - I hadn't spoken up in this thread yet. But if what I see as 'enabling a fully informed decision' is perceived as 'forcing my beliefs on others', I really would like to know.


So. To the other half of this. "they belong to a group who want to eliminate the choice of birth control and abortion, then that becomes a major invasion of your rights"

Yes, it is. I am for the choice. Whether it be the choice to have zero children, one child, or - yes - eighteen children, I believe women (and men) should have the right to make an informed choice.

Whether it be to stay at home and raise children, or to work, I believe that women (and men) should have the right to make an informed choice. (Though I do believe that if both parents are healthy and present, the family should at least attempt to be independent of welfare.)

Anyway: the type of group I find offensive are those that seek to prevent choice.

Their plan is not to go to their friends and say 'hey, I think you need to know these things to make an informed choice'.

Their plan isn't even to go to strangers and say 'hey, I think you need to know these things'.

Their plan is to make my choice impossible.

So yeah. I don't like that kind of group much.

[BlaqueKatt]

I know plenty about CPCs. They are havens of misinformation, dramatized horror stories, and sexist brainwashing.



good to know considering I was completely pro-choice at the time I worked there(as were 90% of the volunteers)-also completely non-religious, and even assisted women with making appointments at clinics, finding childcare if they already had children-I was usually sent as a chaperone to fend off the pro-life protesters and get the woman to her appointment unmolested, and staying with them for several hours if there was no one else to take care of them. Our "jobs" were to give them support whatever decision they made, we were trained that 95% of the women that called or walked through our doors had already made their decision, and it was not allowed to question their decision-only to support them, and remind them it was their decision, as only they knew their situation. We were funded in part by private donations, and a very liberal church(one who saw the right to choose as part of God's gift of free will-and that exercising the right given by God was not wrong).


again don't assume things

[Zyanya]

good to know considering I was completely pro-choice at the time I worked there(as were 90% of the volunteers)-also completely non-religious, and even assisted women with making appointments at clinics, finding childcare if they already had children-I was usually sent as a chaperone to fend off the pro-life protesters and get the woman to her appointment unmolested, and staying with them for several hours if there was no one else to take care of them.

That was not a CPC. That was an abortion clinic. There is a difference. Abortion clinics do not call themselves CPCs, though some CPCs masquerade as abortion clinics in an attempt to scare women out of aborting. If you were pro-choice and had worked at a clinic, you would be aware of this information. You would also not be passing on the falsehoods that you have been, such as that pathetic book which is on the same 'factual' level as 'the silent scream'. http://www.silentscream.org/

For the hell of it, I have to ask. What exactly do you believe the CDC stands to "gain" by lying about abortions? Please, amuse me.

[Ree]

I'd ensure they had the chance to make a fully informed decision.

I do not see this as "forcing [my] own beliefs of birth control and abortion onto them". I see this as enabling them to make a fully informed decision.Who is to say these women need any education on the methods of birth control available just because we live in a society that has decided birth control is a necessity?

People go on about the "misogynist" husbands, and the "Stepford" mothers, all bowing to their whims, as if any sane or intelligent woman would not choose to actually give birth multiple times.

Everyone feels the need to educate them, but nobody wants to look at or validate their opinion that they do not need birth control in their life, as if they are ignorant just because they choose to procreate.

Who is to say they are not happy with their choice to have children and just be a mother?
Some women just love children and really do love all that comes along with motherhood.

I happen to be one of those women.

My reason for wanting children had nothing to do with my religion or anything else.
I just really love children.

Quite honestly, I had wanted a large family, myself. I was only blessed with one child, though.

I have chosen to be a mother in another way by providing a home to teen girls in the foster care system.
It's not the same as having my own children, and it is really hard and stressful much of the time, but I do have to say it has its moments.

[CancelMyService]

If this was a family with say, 6 or 8 or hell even 10 kids I can understand the whole "they choose to have a large family" argument but I would think most people find eighteen to be a bit excessive.

Also it's not as if they're taking a moral stand against birth control but more continuing the act of procreation and leaving the end result up to God rather than the usual biological result of two sets of naughty parts interacting.

That's what bothers me the most: folks who live their entire lives based on "God's will". What kind of education are their kids getting when they are being taught by people who seemingly don't realize that babies aren't wished into being by the Lord?

I grew up in an super religious family and the Duggars just send my spider sense off the charts. Having faith is one thing, being devoted to the point where you have your wife in a near constant state of pregnancy becase you believe God wills it is another.

[Amethyst Hunter]

Why is it any better that those with pro-choice opinions are allowed to speak their piece unchecked, but someone with strong anti-choice opinions must stay silent?

The pro-choice people are saying she is wrong to be having all these children and are forcing their own beliefs of birth control and abortion onto them, yet when it is suggested that the reason they are having all these children is because they belong to a group who want to eliminate the choice of birth control and abortion, then that becomes a major invasion of your rights?:confused:

...I don't know why people are so worried (re: theocracy)...


Last time I looked, it was *risky* to say you were pro-choice - depending on the area you live in - because sure as donuts come powdered someone is going to attack you for that. Perhaps not physically, but that, too, is always a possibility.

I'm sorry to say that I have met VERY few pro-life people who are willing to discuss the subject in calm and respectful terms (most of the PLs I know and can talk with are actually from this board; I know a lot less people IRL) - the minute the words "pro-choice" exit one's mouth, the accusations start flying.

Generally speaking (and not necessarily applicable to anyone here), pro-lifers are more than happy to spread outright lies and misinformation about certain subjects; when pro-choicers call them on that the pro-lifers get mad and try to shout them down. The big difference between pro-choice and pro-life is that pro-choice is NOT trying to force anything on anyone. NOWHERE has this been proven or shown to even exist. There is a reason why *no* self-proclaimed pro-choice groups are listed on government watch lists as bona fide domestic terrorists or hate groups.

Pro-life, on the other hand, has been obsessively throwing up roadblocks to choice every chance they get (and some of them also happily squash efforts that would actually help working families or childcare or such - so much for 'family values'), and part of the reason why there is such furor over this subject is because pro-life has been able to muddy the waters with their misinformation and deceptive tactics, thus confusing and disempowering people of their God-given ability to think for themselves. (Religious brainwashing doesn't count as thinking. There is a difference between practicing a faith faithfully and using that religion as an excuse for everything. And, frankly, given the record of abuse in ALL organized religions, I'm inclined to distrust claims of faith by people who say "God told us to do this/It's God's will" without evidence to back it up. In other words, 'faith without works is dead.')

Seshat (who said things much better than I could) pointed out that most of us pro-choicers don't have a problem with people living their own lives by their own beliefs, even if we think those beliefs are incredibly messed-up. We do, however, get very angry when the people with those beliefs try to forcibly extend them to the rest of us via ludicrous laws, harassment, and even outright violence.

No, the Duggars have not, to my knowledge, ever engaged in any of this type of behavior. But I don't believe that what they're doing is necessarily kosher, either - especially since the younger kids are basically being spoonfed something that they're not encouraged to question. My SIL is staunchly pro-life and even SHE thinks they're overboard. I'd say at the very least that their activities are at best questionable.

As for theocracy, Boozy summed it up well, but let me take it even further. The type of dominionists we're dealing with here are some of the very worst. These are the people who believe all that crap about those horrible "Left Behind" books and think that The Handmaid's Tale is a how-to-guide, and who would love nothing more than to make that hell-on-earth come true. The next POTUS will very likely get to choose a couple of Supreme Court Justices, which means an entire generation will grow up under the laws formulated by that batch of justices. Get malicious people in there, and the noose tightens that much more.

Worse, there is disturbing evidence that these dominionists have infiltrated the US military, and you put a bunch of literally trigger-happy dominionists together with a dominionist-friendly Commander-In-Chief...yes, this IS a recipe for a total, literal apocalypse. I have friends who literally had panic attacks in 2004 when Dictator II's camp snuck in for a second round. Hell, *I* was terrified and horrified that people allowed themselves to be snowballed by these scumbags. Now look at where we are. I honestly *pray* that we *can* get the current crop out come January '09, now that they've had nearly a decade to solidify their power...

So yes - anyone who's aware of it is absolutely right to be afraid of theocracy.

[Ree]

being devoted to the point where you have your wife in a near constant state of pregnancyOnce again assuming that the woman is just some mindless baby machine and the husband is the one making all the decisions.

Geez, people...either women are intelligent beings capable of making decisions regarding their body, or they are slaves to the will of men. Which is it?

The husband doesn't keep his wife pregnant. They choose together to have children.

I really am amazed by the assumption that the woman is a brainwashed piece of property owned by the man, and she has no say in anything, as if no rational woman would choose to have babies.

[Zyanya]

Once again assuming that the woman is just some mindless baby machine and the husband is the one making all the decisions.

Not an assumption.

That is what the philosopher they subscribe to constantly spouts and wants to enforce on the rest of the US. And is succeeding in getting his viewpoints added to the curriculum of PUBLIC schools under the guise of 'character education'.

THAT is why these folks concern us.

Because they teach "that the woman is a brainwashed piece of property owned by the man, and she has no say in anything".

You keep ignoring that part of it.

Everyone feels the need to educate them, but nobody wants to look at or validate their opinion that they do not need birth control in their life, as if they are ignorant just because they choose to procreate.

When she espouses the falsehood that she does - birth control is responsible for miscarriages and is a bad thing - then yes, she is ignorant and should be educated. Then, if she continues to make the decision that she does not wish to use birth control, that is her choice.

[blas87]

To me, this is not a family wherein the man forces the woman to have child after child. They agreed to have a large family. And a big KUDOS to them for staying out of debt and living comfortably. While 18 children is....quite a lot, ok, too many...if they can afford it, let's leave them alone.

Let's not jump the gun on how the husband and wife see each other until we get proof that she's been forced to have this many kids.

Just leave them be. Just remember, my child-free/anti-child/pro-choice friends.....they are not hurting anyone. We chose to be childfree or pro-choice and have to deal with being tormented and chastized for our opinons, so you know how it feels...why treat someone else that way? Especially when they are not forcing it on anyone else!

[Myra]

Okay the Duggars were not sought out by a few interveiwers because of this 18th child she is pregnant with. They have something like 4 or 5 specials on TLC and DiscoveryHealth, one of which features the finishing of the house they live in now which was paid for by TLC. So no, they don't live off the government.

But my point is this: If they didn't want me to snark on them, they wouldn't whore themselves and their children out on national television.

That being said: I DO NOT agree with the fact that the girls are basically the moms in this family. All Mom appears to do is be pregnant, give birth, nurse for a few months, then get pregnant again. Oh yeah, she also claims to homeschool the kids. The boys take the trash out or something, I don't know. All I know is on the shows, (I've watched each one) I never see a little J'Boy cleaning, fixing supper, or helping fold clothes. No, they're outside playing or the oldest boy is following dad around worshipping the ground he walks on.

OF COURSE the TV show and interviews are going to make them look rosy and perfect. Otherwise they'd never agree to the show or interview thus bringing in the ratings.

OF COURSE I think they are well-behaved. I have never heard anything differently from folks who've run into them. You'd be well-behaved too if you were brainwashed. But statistics generally prevail, so somebody's gonna flee the compound and hopefully write a book.

We are past the era where we needed 15 kids to help run the farm. I do agree that they have the freedom to procreate all day long, since this is the USA and that is Ma Duggar's choice. But if you put yourself on TV, I'm gonna have an opinion on ya. And I think the vapid look in her eyes creeps me the hell out.

[Rapscallion]

Not an assumption.

That is what the philosopher they subscribe to constantly spouts and wants to enforce on the rest of the US. And is succeeding in getting his viewpoints added to the curriculum of PUBLIC schools under the guise of 'character education'.


Interesting. Got a citation for that?

Rapscallion

[JuniorMintz]

All I know is on the shows, (I've watched each one) I never see a little J'Boy cleaning, fixing supper, or helping fold clothes.

I don't watch the show often but my mom is a big fan and I *do* remember seeing a few clips of the boys helping out- one that sticks out in my mind for some reason is of one of the little boys cooking biscuits and helping with breakfast.

(That's all. I didn't have much to add this time, did I? :D )

[Zyanya]

Interesting. Got a citation for that?

Rapscallion

Yes.

In fact, I already provided it in a previous post.

http://www.pfo.org/evol-fad.htm

Not only that, courts are making kids go to his facilities for 'rehabilitation'.

http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/gothard/general.htm

The man actually has a paramilitary school set up for his teachings.

He wants arranged marriages. In his seminar Gothard says, "I'm firmly convinced that God never intended girls to turn down dates. He intended for their father's [sic] to."

He wrote - Understanding the Biblical Foundations of Marriage. That's some scary cult shit for you.

http://billgothard.com/bill/

Essentially, he wants a return to the biblical principles of -

1 Corinthians 11:3
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

1 Corinthians 14:34-36
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Ephesians 5:22-24
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Colossians 3:18
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

1 Timothy 2:11-15
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing.

1 Peter 3:1
Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands.

[blas87]

While I am a Christian, I don't see any pastors chastizing women for speaking up at church. Some pastors do marriage counseling (it's cheaper). I don't hear of any pastors throwing the Bible at the wife and saying "You must BOW down to your husband and DO NOT disobey his orders!" or "Women are good for nothing but child bearing".

Those Bible verses are meaningless nowadays, please remember that.

And please remember, as I suggested before, respect!

We childfree folk get awful sick and tired of being chastized for our opinions and lifestyle choice, so why not show some respect and leave people who want large families alone?

Besides, even if Mrs. Duggar was being "forced" into having all these children, she could have gotten away from Mr. Duggar years ago. It's ultimately up to a woman to free herself. If she doesn't want to, then too bad. Obviously, she enjoys things the way they are, and there is no proof he makes her do anything like that.

[AFPheonix]

Maybe not in your denomination. The one I grew up in was apparently far more conservative, as they read the Bible literally and followed the example of the Acts church to the letter.
In some ways it was a good thing, in that people were very keyed into their faith, having communion every week.
In others, it was a shame as women were not to be in positions of authority over men, so women were not allowed to teach except in Sunday School or women's outreach. Even in those cases, women were overseen by a male deacon.
The first service consisted entirely of church members standing up, sharing observations they had during the week, praying with the congregation, and suggesting hymns to sing. Actually it was a really good service. However I as a female could not share any of my observations or request music or whatever, simply because of that one Pauline assertion that women must be silent in church.

Women weren't necessarily discouraged from doing things other than getting married and having kids, although anytime people would ask me what I was studying and I'd tell them, they'd get pretty glassy-eyed. None were interested in science, especially females. That's fine, I'll grant that I'm a nerd. However, there was always a little part of the service close to graduation where the graduates were brought up to say what their evil plans were. I was the only one who didn't say that I was going to get married and have babies. The only one. I suspect it was because my mom brought me up thinking a bit differently than those other girls.

[Myra]

My issue has never been about Michelle, or whatever flavor of Chrisitanity she and Jim Bob enjoy. My issue is with the kids. THEY did not choose to be born into a herd of a family. Through my own personal experience, big families CAN and DO work with the kids still getting to be KIDS. My best friend's parents were both from big (Catholic) families. Her dad was the 7th of 12, and her mom oldest of 8. YES the older ones were expected to help with the younger ones. But every single kid had a relationship with their parents and it remained that way until the parents passed a few years ago on her dad's side. Her mother and siblings all are still very close to their parents.

When I saw Michelle listing each kid on one special, she was trying to say something about each child. When it got to a younger one and she said something like "Well J'kid likes pickles..." it seemed pretty pathetic. Like she was reaching at straws to prove she knows each and every kid. I highly doubt she has much of a relationship with the majority of them. Everything is about her gushing about how children are "God's gift" and how she'll keep having them until God decides different. It's almost like her life revolves around being pregnant and having that baby and once the newness wears off, she passes the baby off to a "buddy" and prepares for another one.

I'm pro-choice. And if a woman chooses to have a bunch of kids, go for it. But think of the kids. What life are you giving them? Because I doubt the sugary depiction of the family that we see on Discovery Health is entirely truthful. I see a happy mom and dad, who get the notoriety they want. But the kids didn't ask for it.

I could be wrong, 90% of this post was speculation on my part. But it's a concern I have, and it's why this family disturbs me.

[Rapscallion]

Is being a sibling in a large family necessarily bad? Sure, the parental affection is spread thinner, but don't you get more from your peers?

Rapscallion

[Seshat]

Who is to say these women need any education on the methods of birth control available

Ouch. And thus, I am exposed as a hypocrite.

I resent and detest religious proselytising - as I tell people who ask, 'religion gets shoved down my throat every time I turn around. If I want to know, I'll go ask.' Besides which, I have done my own comparative religion study, and have found a form of spirituality which suits me.

Okay. Change of plan. If she were a personal friend, I'd make sure she knew birth control was available and where to go for information on it - and leave it at that. I wouldn't push the information on her.

I'd stop it the exact same point I'd want a personal friend to stop a religious discussion with me.

just because we live in a society that has decided birth control is a necessity?

I haven't. My belief is that birth control is a possibility, not a necessity. If someone wants to have as many children as physically possible I'd personally consider them extremely weird - but hey, their life. Their body.

As long as they could look after the children, of course. Since the children aren't party to the decision.

Everyone feels the need to educate them, but nobody wants to look at or validate their opinion that they do not need birth control in their life, as if they are ignorant just because they choose to procreate.

What I said in my post was: if she didn't already have it, I'd provide her with the information.

I have no information on whether she is or isn't ignorant on the topic of birth control; aside from the reported information that she believes the pill can/does cause miscarriage.

If she is deeply anti-abortion, to the point that even the possibility of an induced miscarriage offends her, then I support her choice not to use the pill or an IUD. Both may cause miscarriage. Neither do so as their primary method of birth control, but eggs and sperm are tenacious little sods and sometimes go ahead and ovulate and fertilise and try to implant despite anything we mere humans can do.

And - well, a ruddy great copper thing sitting in the middle of the playground can damage an implanted embryo. Or a hormone dose saying 'shed that uterine lining' can overrule a barely-begun placenta. So yeah. Might.

So even that one piece of information I have about her knowledge or ignorance of birth control just says that she knows the pill exists and is inappropriate for her with her particular religious beliefs.

Who is to say they are not happy with their choice to have children and just be a mother?
Some women just love children and really do love all that comes along with motherhood.

And that's fine. I'm just a bit fanatical about informed choice. I accept that.

(And, being who I am and so not liking the stuff involved in motherhood, I can't wrap my head around anyone liking it. But I can't understand people liking sushi or cross-country skiing either.)

I have chosen to be a mother in another way by providing a home to teen girls in the foster care system.
It's not the same as having my own children, and it is really hard and stressful much of the time, but I do have to say it has its moments.

Which is truly admirable. I bow to you and respect your work.

But if you put yourself on TV, I'm gonna have an opinion on ya. And I think the vapid look in her eyes creeps me the hell out.

Heh. Choosing to be a public figure does have its costs, and one of those costs is that people form opinions about you.

My issue is with the kids. THEY did not choose to be born into a herd of a family.

When I saw Michelle listing each kid on one special, she was trying to say something about each child. When it got to a younger one and she said something like "Well J'kid likes pickles..." it seemed pretty pathetic. Like she was reaching at straws to prove she knows each and every kid. I highly doubt she has much of a relationship with the majority of them.

<snip>

I could be wrong, 90% of this post was speculation on my part. But it's a concern I have, and it's why this family disturbs me.

And here you have a point I agree with.


There are some people, like Ree, who were born to be mothers. They love the process of child-rearing. Of taking this baby, this barely formed personality, and raising them through childhood to becoming an adult who is as healthy and happy and stable as is possible. And the work of being a parent isn't finished even then.

There are also some people who only like babies. Or only like toddlers. Or think babies are squalling and messy and toddlers unpredictable but love primary-school aged children. Or can't stand children until 'you can have a decent conversation with them' but love teenagers.

People who are focussed like that on one stage of childhood should be nurses or teachers or camp counsellors or some other such thing where they can have an endless stream of kids of the age they enjoy and work well with.

However, some people - especially ones who love babies or toddlers - will have kid after kid and essentially 'discard' them once they're past the golden age. Sometimes the older kids end up raising them, sometimes it's Grandma or an uncle or the foster care system. That behaviour is one I strongly disapprove of, for obvious reasons.

And (based solely on Myra's post) given what has been said here, Mrs Duggar might (MIGHT) be one of those people.

[kibbles]

Who is to say these women need any education on the methods of birth control available just because we live in a society that has decided birth control is a necessity?

What happens if the girls don't want to follow in their mother's footsteps; but, because of their upbringing they have no knowledge of birth control options? Don't they need and deserve education?

Any person who is in a sexual relationship and don't want children, birth control is most definitely a necessity.

As for my opinions on the Duggars, it just seems as if the older ones are raising the younger ones..not helping to raise; but, raising and not having a chance to be kids.

[Zyanya]

While I am a Christian, I don't see any pastors chastizing women for speaking up at church. Some pastors do marriage counseling (it's cheaper). I don't hear of any pastors throwing the Bible at the wife and saying "You must BOW down to your husband and DO NOT disobey his orders!" or "Women are good for nothing but child bearing".

In your faith, perhaps.

In other faiths however, well, look at what recently went down with that weird sub-branch of LDS, where the 15 year old girls were being given to 50+ year olds as 4th and 5th wives without having a say in the matter.

I once got stuck sitting next to a freak on an airplane who lectured me until I switched seats that 'women shouldn't be traveling without a male companion'. There are people who believe in those scriptures and Bill Gothard is one of them.

But more to the point...a simple question for you. How many pastors in your church are female?

[powerboy]

This is what is wrong with everybody. We all judge people, based on what the Media says. And no one can say that they have not judged somebody at some point in your life. So what if they want all those children. It is up to them.

[anriana]

This is what is wrong with everybody. We all judge people, based on what the Media says. And no one can say that they have not judged somebody at some point in your life. So what if they want all those children. It is up to them.

There is nothing wrong with having an opinion. And I haven't seen anyone in this thread who seems to have opinions they downloaded from CNN or Fox. The Duggars run a website. They consented to having multiple shows of their lives broadcast on television. That is first-hand evidence they provided the general public with.

[blas87]

To answer your question, there are a lot of female Lutheran pastors. My mother is one of them. Not the pastor of the church we attend, but she went to school for it and she can baptize children and marry people and substitute. I'm sure if the chance arose and a pastor was needed at a Lutheran church in our area, she'd hop on it.

Growing up, as I was forced to go to church and Sunday school every Sunday and we also visited a lot of other Lutheran churches with family and friends, I saw no less than 10 female pastors. Yes, there are more males but more females than any other religion.

I guess I come from a religion with more...leeway. Women are not oppressed, gays are not crucified, and birth control is not frowned upon.

[Princess-Snake]

I'm still a firm believer of the world is becoming over-populated. Anything more than two kids is pushing it in my opinion.

So, do you think that my aunt is "pushing it" because she has four children? Granted, one of them is an adult, but the other three are not even 8 years old yet. A friend of mine is the youngest of three children, so was his mom "pushing it?" My dad is the oldest of four children. So apparantly, Grandma was "pushing it" too. So, if I want to have three or four kids someday, (and I do) am I "pushing it?" I could continue with this list, but I'll stop here.

As for the Duggars, I don't really care how many children they have as long as the kids are healthy, happy, well-cared for, and have an education. (home school, public school, private school, whatever the parents choose) They could have 50 kids for all I care. It's not really anybody's business.

[Myra]

It's not really anybody's business.
That's just it. If these guys were my neighbors, I might say something, but I'd let it go. If they were normal people who valued their privacy, obviously then it wouldn't be my business. But these folks have had something like 5 TLC/Discovery Health specials showcasing the family, parading these children around like circus attractions. To me, that's inviting someone into your home, and inviting both critism and compliments. They probably know this and deal with this. They should, anyway.

That's my two cents.

[Dark-Star]

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

I've taken up that very issue with my parents! (background: As the oldest child I get the joy of being the first to hear "why don't you find a nice girl and where are my grandbabies?" :mad:)

My argument is simple. The exact instruction was "Be fruitful and multiply". Now what was the setting for this instruction? Oh yes - right after a worldwide disaster had reduced the entire human population to under 20 people.

Fast forward to 2008. World population 6 BILLION and no end in sight.

I think we can put following that command on the back burner for the time being. Don't have to disregard it...but humanity is in no danger of imminent extinction. One out of 100 people could grow up, get married and have kids and there would be plenty of us to go around. We'd even have more breathing room in more ways than one.

[Yfandes]

I have a cousin, raised in a fairly liberal household where her mom worked when the kids were in school. From the time she could talk, any time anybody would ask her what she wanted to be she would reply "A Mommy". She met her husband of 40 years now first when she was 8 (they married at 21). She only has two kids, and would have had more if circumstances allowed. Though I bet she makes fun of the Duggars, I don't know.

I really don't get complaints about how the older kids have to look after the younger kids. Some kids are expected to help look after the family farm, others the family business, others to be "latch-key" kids if the parents have to work. Some are born into single parent families, some into families with a disabled relative who needs looking after.

I'm sure they could all have something to complain about, and may choose differently when they are older, but I don't think every child feels that they are "getting what they need/want" all of the time. I just don't see it as abusive as some do.

Who has an ideal childhood and would that childhood be ideal for everyone?

My mother moved out of state to marry my stepfather when I was 16. I remained in the house alone (or with housemates) to continue high school, and work, look after the house and stuff like that. Years later my mother suffered endless guilt about it that I just don't understand. I learned a LOT of valuable skills in that time that have served me well. It may not have been a conventional choice, but it worked well for us.

Mrs Duggar went to college, I have to assume shes has examined the choices available to her, and chosen this life. Great!!

Now - sending the boys to college and not the girls? That bugs the heck out of me. Raising a tribe to take over so that my rights are legislated against? Wow, they must really love me as a neighbor (in the metaphorical sense of course). :o

[Greenday]

So, do you think that my aunt is "pushing it" because she has four children? Granted, one of them is an adult, but the other three are not even 8 years old yet. A friend of mine is the youngest of three children, so was his mom "pushing it?" My dad is the oldest of four children. So apparantly, Grandma was "pushing it" too. So, if I want to have three or four kids someday, (and I do) am I "pushing it?" I could continue with this list, but I'll stop here.

As for the Duggars, I don't really care how many children they have as long as the kids are healthy, happy, well-cared for, and have an education. (home school, public school, private school, whatever the parents choose) They could have 50 kids for all I care. It's not really anybody's business.

I'm sorry, but yes, I think everyone was "pushing it". The world is over-populated. The world does not have unlimited resources. The more children people have, the faster those resources become depleted.

[Lady_Foxfire]

Throwing in my two cents regarding the double standard about "pro-choice but not that choice": If I were, hypothetically, to have an abortion, I would have no problem with a pro-lifer telling me that they disapproved of my abortion. What I do have a problem with is pro-lifers attempting to pass legislation saying that it is illegal for me to have an abortion. As far as I can tell, nobody is saying that it should be illegal for the Duggars to do what they're doing. We're saying that we find it morally and ethically worrisome.

So no, it's not a double standard. Being pro-choice is not about personally approving of every conceivable choice a person could make about reproduction, it's about saying that the government shouldn't be allowed to make those choices for us.

[Shangri-laschild]

I had a friend who was the 14th child in his family. They were spread out a little bit more from the sounds of it. There were only about half at most still living at home when he was growing up. Honestly, it is going to depend on the parents. His did a good job. Some won't do so good of a job. But I don't think it's something we can judge as an over all thing.