The Duggar Family Welcomes 18th Child!!!

[catzmeow]

1) I don't see how it is pathetic
2) Humans don't have litters.. they have children not animals... they have families
3) It is inherently HARDER to raise more kids... but with commitment, strong values, etc a parent of 10 can be as good to their children as a parent of 1 can be to their single child
4) I do applaud ones who have more kids and do a good job raising them to be good adults. I would not approve ones that have multiple children or huge families and do not have the commitment necessary to that family. Ones who abuse their kids, ones that have them for additional entitlement benefits etc, those are the ones to withhold applause from. Not just simply because a couple choose to have a large family that they love and enjoy.

I lived and worked in Utah for 10 years. Utah has the largest average family sizes in the nation. I'd like to say that every family that large is functional, but we also had the highest rate of prescription drug abuse in the country. We used to refer to Prozac as "Sandy Candy," (Sandy was a well-to-do suburban area known for large mormon families), because so many of the moms of these big families were using prescription drugs to cope.

Would I ever force someone to limit the size of their family? NO. HOwever, I do believe that if families want to have this many children, they should be prepared to pay for the commensurate expenses of educating them, and the corresponding societal requirements. Our tax system is not set up to fund families of this size, for the most part, and everyone else ends up paying the financial cost of educating these children. It's hardly fair to the neighbors who choose to limit their family size. And frankly, I don't WANT to pay the expense of someone else's religious beliefs about having a big family. If you're doing it, you should be prepared for ALL of the expense it entails, including societal costs that normal families pay for through taxes. So, instead of claiming eighteen deductions, you should be PAYING an additional amount. We should not be subsidizing these kinds of decisions. Nor would it be a good thing if many families started following this trend.

In utah, I routinely worked with families of 10-12-15. Most were quite religious. Some of these families were poor and paid almost no taxes. Further, I saw quite a few that were in chaos, with the kids raising the kids. Certainly, not all of these parents were cut out for raising children, as was evidenced by the fact that their children were involved in gangs (hence, my involvement with the family).

Things may work okay for the Duggars, but as a rule, I would suggest that having this many children is not necessarily a positive for the kids. I saw the global experience of living in a society overwhelmed with huge families, and it has it's negative elements.

 

[AllieBaba]

says the person who's dumb as toast but thinks she has the moral answers for everyone else....

go drool elsewhere.

I can drool right here, thanks.
But anyone who thinks that the life of one of 18 children is "cheaper" than the life of an only child is as sick as her friend Pederastate.

 

[Steerpike]

I don't think anyone said it was "child abuse". If I recall correctly, people thought it was pretty pathetic, though. I don't think humans should have litters... but that's just me.

I think there were also many of us who said there was no way in hell one could be a good parent to that many kids.

I stand by that and I don't see any reason to applaud someone for being nothing but a breeder. I felt the same way when I got the email the other day that my husband's cousin had something like her 11th child.

This is the kind of comment that makes people look like nuts. You don't even know these people, so reducing someone you don't know to 'nothing but a breeder' says more about your own prejudices than anything about the person. I mean, you've not no basis for anything you've said here as it pertains to this family.

 

[AllieBaba]

maybe not every day but my father died taking a shit. he had a massive heart attack so it does happen. Just sayin

I'm glad this thread was shit before I joined, now i can't be blamed

I watch the Duggars show on television. they seem like a very loving and functional family, however, they are too. They actually believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old and that man and dinosaurs were living at the same time. They teach their children this AS FACT too and claim evolution is nonsense.

Unless those children remain on the family compound all their lives they are going to be confronted with some very harsh realities at some point in their lives and I have to wonder if some of them won't feel betrayed by the teaching their parents instilled in them.

Now, do I see anything wrong with having 18 kids? personally I wouldn't do it but hey if that's what Mrs. Duggar thinks her calling in life is, then so be it. Her children are seemingly clean, healthy and happy so who am I to pass judgement.

Hey, Elvis died that way too.
And I have a friend whose father in law succumbed to carbon monoxide poisoning in the crapper.

So it must be pretty common.

 

[Shogun]

Do you need me to spell it out for you?

um, sure?

 

[jillian]

This is the kind of comment that makes people look like nuts. You don't even know these people, so reducing someone you don't know to 'nothing but a breeder' says more about your own prejudices than anything about the person. I mean, you've not no basis for anything you've said here as it pertains to this family.

Not nuts at all, honey. This woman spent about 18 years of her life pregnant. I'd say that's being a breeder. Mostly, I'm entitled to MY opinion, right? I stated my opinion. Didn't advocate that they should be prohibited from doing their thing. But I certainly am entitled to think what I'd like.

 

[Steerpike]

Not nuts at all, honey. This woman spent about 18 years of her life pregnant. I'd say that's being a breeder. Mostly, I'm entitled to MY opinion, right? I stated my opinion. Didn't advocate that they should be prohibited from doing their thing. But I certainly am entitled to think what I'd like.

Sure, you're entitled to it. But to feel it so necessary to develop such an opinion about someone simply because they value thing differently from you makes it look like you have issues (e.g. insecurities) to address. Otherwise, there is no rational reason you would feel the need to present such an opinion unless you know something about these people apart from what was reported. From that the reports say, they seem to be doing well, and that seems to bother you. Why do you need external validation?

 

[jillian]

Sure, you're entitled to it. But to feel it so necessary to develop such an opinion about someone simply because they value thing differently from you makes it look like you have issues (e.g. insecurities) to address. Otherwise, there is no rational reason you would feel the need to present such an opinion unless you know something about these people apart from what was reported. From that the reports say, they seem to be doing well, and that seems to bother you. Why do you need external validation?

You do understand that my feelings on this subject aren't earthshaking... I'm not overly vested in this subject. I will tell you that regardless of what the article says, I cannot imagine how one can be a good parent to 18 children. Perhaps one can keep a home running... with the kids taking care of each other. But there is no way someone with 18 children is parenting them properly.

 

[AllieBaba]

I lived and worked in Utah for 10 years. Utah has the largest average family sizes in the nation. I'd like to say that every family that large is functional, but we also had the highest rate of prescription drug abuse in the country. We used to refer to Prozac as "Sandy Candy," (Sandy was a well-to-do suburban area known for large mormon families), because so many of the moms of these big families were using prescription drugs to cope.

Would I ever force someone to limit the size of their family? NO. HOwever, I do believe that if families want to have this many children, they should be prepared to pay for the commensurate expenses of educating them, and the corresponding societal requirements. Our tax system is not set up to fund families of this size, for the most part, and everyone else ends up paying the financial cost of educating these children. It's hardly fair to the neighbors who choose to limit their family size. And frankly, I don't WANT to pay the expense of someone else's religious beliefs about having a big family. If you're doing it, you should be prepared for ALL of the expense it entails, including societal costs that normal families pay for through taxes. So, instead of claiming eighteen deductions, you should be PAYING an additional amount. We should not be subsidizing these kinds of decisions. Nor would it be a good thing if many families started following this trend.

In utah, I routinely worked with families of 10-12-15. Most were quite religious. Some of these families were poor and paid almost no taxes. Further, I saw quite a few that were in chaos, with the kids raising the kids. Certainly, not all of these parents were cut out for raising children, as was evidenced by the fact that their children were involved in gangs (hence, my involvement with the family).

Things may work okay for the Duggars, but as a rule, I would suggest that having this many children is not necessarily a positive for the kids. I saw the global experience of living in a society overwhelmed with huge families, and it has it's negative elements.

But really that can be said of anyone having any number of children. Having children, whether it's one or 20 is no guarantee of a happy carefree life (HA! HAHAHA!) and some are better equipped to handle it than others.

But I have to say...I see nothing wrong with older kids helping out with siblings. I've never seen it have anything but a positive effect on the older siblings who are required to do it. They may feel they miss out on a lot of "fun" that other kids get to enjoy...but every person I've known who was responsible for assisting with (or essentially being the parent) younger siblings became remarkable, goal-oriented, solid citizens with their feet firmly on the ground and an excellent value system.

My sister helped to raise me...there were four kids in our family, and she was 9-1/2 years older than me and believe me she wasn't particularly happy about it most of the time (my mom worked 2-3 jobs until I was in my teens) but she graduated from high school at 16 (she was highly motivated to get the hell out of the house) and graduated from law school at 22. She continues to be my touchstone...and as we've aged, I like to think I'm hers, too (we have different strengths and different ways of looking at things, it's wonderful). She was a wonderful mother, a wonderful wife, and talk about a worker (that actually comes in part from our mom).

I have another friend who was essentially deserted by her useless parents to raise her 4 younger sisters when she was something like 10. I can't say her life has been wildly successful, she's had her bouts with substance abuse (which was her parents' problem as well) but she managed to raise her sisters, 4 kids of her own (one set of twins, for Pete's sakes) on her own, and they all turned out well. At least they're self-sufficient. Given what her parents were like, they should have turned out much, much worse. But she took charge and by golly she kept them together and safe.

It seems like the kids who get to take on that responsibility at that age gain an ability to keep their eye on the ball, and I can't see that missing out on teen-age partying is such a negative trade off.

So I guess what I'm saying is yeah, kids are a royal pain any way you cut it, and there are of course situations where people shouldn't have any children, let alone dozens, and there are situations where women are pressured into popping them out by controlling husbands or off-kilter religious beliefs.

But I've read the story of the family with the 18 kids, how they tried and then lost a baby, and made a committment to take whatever God handed them, whether that meant no children or dozens. And it looks like God is giving them dozens. I think it's sort of neat.

But there's another moral...there's a reason we in the know never ask God to teach us patience...because how do you learn patience? By being sorely tried...over and over again.

Likewise, it's not really a good idea to bargain or make promises to God assuming it will work out one way (hey, God, we'll take as many or as few as you throw at us) thinking you know exactly what you're going to get.

And the more kids you have, the greater the heartache you'll end up enduring, there's just no way around it. But the more you have the more joy you'll have, too..there's no way around that, either.

 

[Steerpike]

You do understand that my feelings on this subject aren't earthshaking... I'm not overly vested in this subject. I will tell you that regardless of what the article says, I cannot imagine how one can be a good parent to 18 children. Perhaps one can keep a home running... with the kids taking care of each other. But there is no way someone with 18 children is parenting them properly.

Says you. Based, again, on no objective evidence. Sounds to me like it is important to you to maintain that belief, your protestations aside.

 

[AllieBaba]

Jillian's full of shit, as usual.

Just because someone doesn't parent the way you choose to parent doesn't make their parenting any less valid or successful.

 

[Steerpike]

Jillian's full of shit, as usual.

Just because someone doesn't parent the way you choose to parent doesn't make their parenting any less valid or successful.

People tend to be bigoted and/or intolerant of views differing from their own. I don't care for it, and it makes no difference to me whether the bigotry or intolerance is coming from the left or right.

Jillian demonstrates it in this thread. In another thread, I'm sure we'd see the same sort of thing coming from other people if we were talking about a gay couple raising a child (for example).

It's nonsense. People deal in generalities and caricatures rather than specifics and people.

 

[strollingbones]

having 18 kids is just egotistical...there is no way they are supporting their family without help...figure out the food bill for 20 people a day? and the falling real estate market

 

[PoliticalChic]

having 18 kids is just egotistical...there is no way they are supporting their family without help...figure out the food bill for 20 people a day? and the falling real estate market

The family does not take welfare. They are self-sufficient in many ways. Does that change your viewpoint?

 

[catzmeow]

The family does not take welfare. They are self-sufficient in many ways. Does that change your viewpoint?

Do they pay the actual cost for the services they take out of the system, i.e., attending local schools? If not, they are indeed being subsidized by the rest of us.

 

[del]

Do they pay the actual cost for the services they take out of the system, i.e., attending local schools? If not, they are indeed being subsidized by the rest of us.

even if you have only one or two kids, you're not paying in taxes what you receive in services.

it just feels that way.

 

[xsited1]

Do they pay the actual cost for the services they take out of the system, i.e., attending local schools? If not, they are indeed being subsidized by the rest of us.

They homeschool their children. More here:

The Jim Bob & Michelle Duggar Family | Official Website

 

[Lycurgus]

Jillian's full of shit, as usual.

Just because someone doesn't parent the way you choose to parent doesn't make their parenting any less valid or successful.

Exactly!

I've yet to see a blueprint for perfect parenting!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Do they pay the actual cost for the services they take out of the system, i.e., attending local schools? If not, they are indeed being subsidized by the rest of us.

As I mentioned before, they are homeschooled. So they are actually paying into the system if they have local, city taxes. My husband and I pay into the system, and my kids never attended a brick & morter school. Does that mean I should get a tax rebate?

Lots of people seem to have their back up about families with lots of kids. Why?

 

[Ravi]

Do they pay the actual cost for the services they take out of the system, i.e., attending local schools? If not, they are indeed being subsidized by the rest of us.

Imagine for a minute the size of their tax break with that many kids. I'm not sure how it works, but don't many poor people actually get a refund check larger than the amount they paid in?