Home Michelle Duggar Pregnant with 18th Child

[rms]

I haven''t read every comment in this string, but I have read quite a bit. I don''t know everybody, I am really struggling to understand the problem here. There have been MULTIPLE people here comment about the large families that they are from, or that their parents/grandparents came from. Should those of you oppose to the Duggars turn around and tell all these fellow Pricescopers and their families that they have done something wrong or irresponsible too? Hmmmm, I haven''t seen anyone do that. Maybe the Duggars should join Pricescope?!?!

My mom was the oldest of 7, my dad was from a family of 6, my grandmother was from a family of 12, my grandfather a family of 9. I worked with a guy from a family of 13. A lady at my church has 10 children. It is less common today than in previous generations, but there are still a lot of big families. They are just not on TV so you just don''t know about them.

 

[brazen_irish_hussy]

Date: 5/17/2008 3:21:21 AM
Author: rms
I haven''t read every comment in this string, but I have read quite a bit. I don''t know everybody, I am really struggling to understand the problem here. There have been MULTIPLE people here comment about the large families that they are from, or that their parents/grandparents came from. Should those of you oppose to the Duggars turn around and tell all these fellow Pricescopers and their families that they have done something wrong or irresponsible too? Hmmmm, I haven''t seen anyone do that. Maybe the Duggars should join Pricescope?!?!

My mom was the oldest of 7, my dad was from a family of 6, my grandmother was from a family of 12, my grandfather a family of 9. I worked with a guy from a family of 13. A lady at my church has 10 children. It is less common today than in previous generations, but there are still a lot of big families. They are just not on TV so you just don''t know about them.

But you mention two big differences. First, they are from previous generations. In a time of food and fuel shortages around the world and serious global warming, it is simply much more obvious how irresponsible it is than generations ago. It isn''t fair to judge them with hindsight, but it is with modern people. I do know one family that has 12 kids and the oldest is my age and a lot of the problems I have with the Duggars come from what I learned from them. They were also a well scheduled family with the oldest handling the youngest. He was a nice guy, but he always had a crushing weight on his shoulders because he believe he was never allowed to let go because he had to be responsable for everyone and everything. It made him a good person to have a round, but an unhappy one.
Atleast he got an education so he had options, I fear that for the Duggars. Home schooling is fine, but doing it for 17 children doesn''t lend itself to a good education, especially when the older ones have to stop theirs to start teaching the younger ones.

Your second point is probably the reason I judge the Duggars more harshly than other large families. I knew a family with 12 kids, but they weren''t on TV. They didn''t try to push their beliefs onto others or preach their religious beliefs to the masses. I think calling the Duggar''s self sufficient when thy get plenty of income from TV specials is silly. I also think the TV coverage only encourages them. The family I knew stopped eventually, not just because the mother couldn''t have more. But why would the Duggars stop? Every time they have another one, they get press and TV for it, I think it sends exactly the wrong message.

 

[FrekeChild]

Well said BIH!

You said it much better than I could.

 

[surfgirl]

Date: 5/17/2008 1:29:16 PM
Author: FrekeChild
Well said BIH!

You said it much better than I could.

Word!

 

[rms]

All of the points made are just fine BIH et. al. But just a note that 2 of the families that I actually mentioned are of THIS GENERATION, and not previous generations. And I think there were a couple other families from this generation mentioned by others. But indeed, it is less common today than previously as I stated before. Additionally, there are a lot of people who end up on TV for reasons that plently of people in the world are against. Whether directly or indirectly, they are pushing their beliefs on others by doing so, AND the majority of those people are making money by doing it. Because people are very sensitive to topics on religion, in this case it might just feel more pushy because there are references to religion along with big families, so there are 2 reasons here that push people''s buttons.

 

[HollyS]

I''m not usually one to criticize, but . . .

I''m saying to them:

The world is already overpopulated.
Many children out there need a good home.
Family resources can only stretch so far.
Your older children are not built in babysitters/caretakers.
Your body cannot continually be pregnant without it resulting in health issues.
At some point in the near future, your eggs will be too old for a healthy normal baby.
The earth has limited resources; why be so cavalier in your choices?
This marriage has never been about two people ''cause you''ve never been alone!

 

[FrekeChild]

Very good and valid points Holly!

 

[miraclesrule]

I dunno IBH, I see this in families with only two children. Every time I see someone going door to door to preach their religion and they have their 12-yera old with them, all I can think of is "Wow, I bet this kid just wishes he was skateboarding with his friends".

In fact, one day my daughter''s friend was over at the house when one of these woman came to my door and my daughters friend took her to task, while my daughter hid in the bedroom under the covers. I had to intercede when the woman at my door starting to tear up as she looked at her son and he didn''t answer or defend his Mom against what my daughters friend was saying.

I am a "Live and Let Live" sort of gal, as long as one''s action don''t inflict intentional emotional or physical harm upon another. I truly belive that if the Duggars completely screw up their kids, it would come back to them when the kids are grown. I truly doubt that will happen in this case.

I am surprised that the "Little People, Big World" show isn''t sparking as much controversy.

If you had a choice, what would it be:

a) Only be allowed one child because of the resource issue, abide by the rule and belief, and then lose that child in a catastrophe, such as the earthquake in China and be unable to conceive again to replace them. (Which all parents know is futile...as you cannot replace a lost child).

or

b) Be allowed the freedom to do whatever you want and bring 20 fantastic children into the world who may become leaders and build unity in the community.

What do you do?

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 5/13/2008 4:32:29 PM
Author: Skippy123

Date: 5/10/2008 7:41:21 PM
Author: Kaleigh

Date: 5/10/2008 7:13:26 PM
Author: Skippy123

Date: 5/10/2008 6:10:56 PM
Author: miraclesrule
I think it''s odd, but when I see how loving and calm and cooperative that family is, I just feel happy.

I don''t know if I feel happy, because it isn''t me with 17 children, or that the parents don''t allow our ''normal'' society to define them. If they can create a happy, sustainable, more peaceful environment for themselves and their family, I am very happy for them.

I don''t necessarily believe that our society is ''normal''. I think it''s dysfunctional.

At least this family is spawned by a single loving Mother and Father, and not some wierd cult environment where they have to test the DNA on every adult and child to determine who the biological parents of a child actually turn out to be. That''s reprehensible in my opinion, even though they all seem as peaceful as the community on Stepford Wives.

Or worst yet, some madman that rapes his child, plans her future confinement as a hostage, and bears 7 children with her over the course of 24 years.

I''ll take the Duggar''s family any day.

Ditto, I completely agree w/Tacori, Monnie, SS and Miraclesrule. They don''t rely on the govt for help; they take care of themselves and don''t bother anyone so I really don''t see a problem. Plus think of how fun the family reunions would be!!!

I have 0 children but I figure whatever floats peoples boats. I always think it is interesting how judgemental people can be when they can''t identify w/others (not just with this family but in general).

Ditto. Well said.

Ditto to all of this!

What I see far too often today is a bunch of spoiled, lazy, self-centered kids who play video games and watch TV all the time. The Duggar kids are going to be assets to society because they are learning discipline, responsibility, character, honesty, the importance of family, the value of work, good manners, respect for authority, etc. We could use more families like them and fewer raising totally self-absorbed brats, or worse, those who are neglected or abused.

 

[brazen_irish_hussy]

Date: 5/24/2008 12:04:29 AM
Author: miraclesrule
I dunno IBH, I see this in families with only two children. Every time I see someone going door to door to preach their religion and they have their 12-yera old with them, all I can think of is 'Wow, I bet this kid just wishes he was skateboarding with his friends'.

In fact, one day my daughter's friend was over at the house when one of these woman came to my door and my daughters friend took her to task, while my daughter hid in the bedroom under the covers. I had to intercede when the woman at my door starting to tear up as she looked at her son and he didn't answer or defend his Mom against what my daughters friend was saying.

I am a 'Live and Let Live' sort of gal, as long as one's action don't inflict intentional emotional or physical harm upon another. I truly belive that if the Duggars completely screw up their kids, it would come back to them when the kids are grown. I truly doubt that will happen in this case.

I am surprised that the 'Little People, Big World' show isn't sparking as much controversy.

If you had a choice, what would it be:

a) Only be allowed one child because of the resource issue, abide by the rule and belief, and then lose that child in a catastrophe, such as the earthquake in China and be unable to conceive again to replace them. (Which all parents know is futile...as you cannot replace a lost child).

or

b) Be allowed the freedom to do whatever you want and bring 20 fantastic children into the world who may become leaders and build unity in the community.

What do you do?

A little off topic, but for about 20 years, the Chinese government has not enforced the 1 chld policy and even when they did, it only applied to the urban areas while most of the country was rural at the time. I have known many families that have 2 or three children in Bejing. There is a fee if the family has a second or third child in the city, but it is less then what the government gives families who keep their girls, so it really isn't a policy at all. The reason we are always told this is because of the US immigration policy. Chinese immagrants that come over tend to be highly educated and have money, so the government supports their coming. However, the law says that is not a good reason to give them a higher quota (The government deicdes how many people can enter every year and then breaks up the allowance by country). However, any country that has restrictive sexual practices, like a one child policy, is legally allowed to have a higher quota, so even though that isn't the reality in China, we are told that for political reasons.

On topic, I have a general question for people who support them. Would you feel the same way if they were agnostic? Muslim? Hindu? I see a lot of references to the fact that they it is ok because of religion, but what if they just wanted to do it for no religious reasons? I don't think being godly makes a bit of difference as I have known good and bad athiests and christians.

 

[somethingshiny]

BIH~ I do support the Duggars partly because of their religious beliefs. I don''t think anyone should be discriminated against because of what or how they believe. That includes being of the faith that to have many children is to have many blessings. That is why I also would not discriminate against any other religion, pseudo-religion, etc. As long as GOOD people are being raised, what''s the difference?

 

[Delster]

Date: 5/25/2008 4:10:55 AM
Author: brazen_irish_hussy
On topic, I have a general question for people who support them. Would you feel the same way if they were agnostic? Muslim? Hindu? I see a lot of references to the fact that they it is ok because of religion, but what if they just wanted to do it for no religious reasons? I don''t think being godly makes a bit of difference as I have known good and bad athiests and christians.

Yes I would.

 

[bee*]

Date: 5/25/2008 11:52:23 AM
Author: Delster

Date: 5/25/2008 4:10:55 AM

Author: brazen_irish_hussy

On topic, I have a general question for people who support them. Would you feel the same way if they were agnostic? Muslim? Hindu? I see a lot of references to the fact that they it is ok because of religion, but what if they just wanted to do it for no religious reasons? I don''t think being godly makes a bit of difference as I have known good and bad athiests and christians.

Yes I would.

ditto!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Having adopted a child from China and visited there, I realize that there are exceptions to the one child policy particularly in the rural areas. However, the one child policy certainly has been applied, and I have read the statistics on the greater number of boys. When the earthquake hit all those schools in the daytime, there was considerable coverage about the tragedy of so many parents losing their only children. So I think it is very misleading to suggest that the restrictive policies are just an imaginary facade for the US immigration policies.

This is America, and self-sufficient families that want to raise a large number of children who teach them to be responsible, honest, hardworking, good citizens should be able to do so regardless of religion. Those who choose to have none should be free to do so as well.

 

[brazen_irish_hussy]

Date: 5/25/2008 8:28:07 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
Having adopted a child from China and visited there, I realize that there are exceptions to the one child policy particularly in the rural areas. However, the one child policy certainly has been applied, and I have read the statistics on the greater number of boys. When the earthquake hit all those schools in the daytime, there was considerable coverage about the tragedy of so many parents losing their only children. So I think it is very misleading to suggest that the restrictive policies are just an imaginary facade for the US immigration policies.

This is America, and self-sufficient families that want to raise a large number of children who teach them to be responsible, honest, hardworking, good citizens should be able to do so regardless of religion. Those who choose to have none should be free to do so as well.

I have also been to China and my cousin was adopted there so I am familiar with the situation. The average family in china has 1.7 children. Lower than the US which has 2.1, mostly due to immagration, but higher than Arminia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungry, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thialand, Ukraine and UK among others. None of them have a one child policy, but they all have lower numbers, but you never hear about them being oppresed to get to that level. Even though the numbers are practically identical in Thailand for example,you didn''t hear about all the families who lost their only child in the cyclones because that is not the focus given to them, but the situation is the same.

As for the Duggars, I withold judgement on whether they will be good citizens until they have been out of the home for a few years. I have known as many people from strict religious backgrounds who stay withon the framework and are assets to society as I have seen ones who rebel once they get their first taste of freedom and end up being a drain on society.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

And there are kids raised with no religion whatsoever that turn out to be a drain on society, too. In fact, I work in a school where I see it everyday. You seem to be a little biased against people who are religious?

 

[brazen_irish_hussy]

Date: 5/25/2008 11:19:10 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
And there are kids raised with no religion whatsoever that turn out to be a drain on society, too. In fact, I work in a school where I see it everyday. You seem to be a little biased against people who are religious?

Not at all, my uncle is a Catholic priest and I pray every night. What I object to is how many people on here say that they are raising their kids well because of the religious beliefs and also that it is totally ok to be socially irresponsable because there is a religious reason for it. I won't quote, but I know I have seen at least three posters here who said they liked the Duggars specifically for religious reasons. Religion doesn't make a person good or bad, and so the assumption that they are religious and so must be good bothers me. It also bothers me, largely in life, not on PS how many people think not raising a child religious or christian will produce bad seeds.

My father was raised very religious and he is one of the nicest people you will ever meet. My mother was raised an athiest and is a wonderful, well adjusted person. I didn't realize I made it seem as though I was against one or the other.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Ok, thanks for clarifying! I can certainly affirm that there are no guarantees. I can''t really go into what I think about religion and raising children because of forum rules. But I will say that you are right that some children take a good path and some may take a bad path regardless of how well the parents have tried to raise them.

 

[HollyS]

Date: 5/25/2008 11:48:48 AM
Author: somethingshiny
BIH~ I do support the Duggars partly because of their religious beliefs. I don''t think anyone should be discriminated against because of what or how they believe. That includes being of the faith that to have many children is to have many blessings. That is why I also would not discriminate against any other religion, pseudo-religion, etc. As long as GOOD people are being raised, what''s the difference?

Religion has nothing to do with the practical and moral issues surrounding bringing 18 or more children into the world. The bottom line is: they are being selfish. It is not that they have the capacity to love that many children (they don''t , not equally, not individually -- they simply do not have the time), or that they can afford the children (they cannot send them all to college -- there is no way in h-e-double l they will have the money), or any other simplistic notiion that this is all okay because they are a ''lovely family''.

Someone is being shortchanged in this. I''m betting it''s a kid (or two, or three, or more).

 

[Miranda]

Well, 18 kids wouldn''t be my choice, but, it is theirs. I can''t help but think some of the older kids may feel resentful later on having not had a ''normal'' childhood. Then again who really has a ''normal'' childhood, haha.

I have to disagree a little bit, Holly, I firmly believe these people do have the capacity to love that many children. Having worked in a classroom (volunteering in my kids'' and volunteering in my sister''s class before they were born) I can honestly say that it is easy to love 30+ kids. And I wasn''t even with them every day and certainly not all day every day. Now I''m with you that they don''t have a lot of time to spend with every child individually, but, I don''t believe their love is diluted because of that reason or because of the number of kids. And I don''t think not having the money to send the kids to college means they can''t afford them. They can get student loans and put themselves through college like lots and lots and lots of people do.

Goddness, I just can''t believe someone would give birth 18 times. 3 times was enough for me, thank you very much!

 

[HollyS]

Date: 5/26/2008 4:59:47 PM
Author: Miranda
Well, 18 kids wouldn''t be my choice, but, it is theirs. I can''t help but think some of the older kids may feel resentful later on having not had a ''normal'' childhood. Then again who really has a ''normal'' childhood, haha.

I have to disagree a little bit, Holly, I firmly believe these people do have the capacity to love that many children. Having worked in a classroom (volunteering in my kids'' and volunteering in my sister''s class before they were born) I can honestly say that it is easy to love 30+ kids. And I wasn''t even with them every day and certainly not all day every day. Now I''m with you that they don''t have a lot of time to spend with every child individually, but, I don''t believe their love is diluted because of that reason or because of the number of kids. And I don''t think not having the money to send the kids to college means they can''t afford them. They can get student loans and put themselves through college like lots and lots and lots of people do.

Goddness, I just can''t believe someone would give birth 18 times. 3 times was enough for me, thank you very much!

Yes, you can be fond of 30+ children as a teacher. Being a mother takes more commitment per child. And, well, there are only 24 hours in a day. She isn''t getting much one-on-one time with each child after it''s weaned and out of the Pampers. She''s too busy with the next little bundle of joy.

 

[FrekeChild]

double post.

 

[FrekeChild]

Date: 5/26/2008 5:35:05 PM
Author: HollyS
She''s too busy with the next little bundle of joy.

Or making the next next bundle of joy...I wonder if thats one of the reasons the kids have to schedule alone time with mom and dad? The adults have to spend some time together after all, being that they have 17+ pieces of proof.

 

[Miranda]

Date: 5/26/2008 5:35:05 PM
Author: HollyS

Date: 5/26/2008 4:59:47 PM
Author: Miranda
Well, 18 kids wouldn''t be my choice, but, it is theirs. I can''t help but think some of the older kids may feel resentful later on having not had a ''normal'' childhood. Then again who really has a ''normal'' childhood, haha.

I have to disagree a little bit, Holly, I firmly believe these people do have the capacity to love that many children. Having worked in a classroom (volunteering in my kids'' and volunteering in my sister''s class before they were born) I can honestly say that it is easy to love 30+ kids. And I wasn''t even with them every day and certainly not all day every day. Now I''m with you that they don''t have a lot of time to spend with every child individually, but, I don''t believe their love is diluted because of that reason or because of the number of kids. And I don''t think not having the money to send the kids to college means they can''t afford them. They can get student loans and put themselves through college like lots and lots and lots of people do.

Goddness, I just can''t believe someone would give birth 18 times. 3 times was enough for me, thank you very much!

Yes, you can be fond of 30+ children as a teacher. Being a mother takes more commitment per child. And, well, there are only 24 hours in a day. She isn''t getting much one-on-one time with each child after it''s weaned and out of the Pampers. She''s too busy with the next little bundle of joy.

I dunno. I think you can be more than just fond of so many kids. I agree with you that time=commitment=love, but, would so many mothers that work constantly and spend less time with their kids than Michelle Duggar does?

I''m just not sure why her decision is so criticized when lots of mothers make the choice to spend little time with their kids and don''t get thrown under the bus for their choice. Maybe because she has so MANY kids she is raising this way? Hmmm...Interesting.

 

[FrekeChild]

I think that it has to do with the sheer number of children that she has. I'm sure other celebs spend little time with their children, but they aren't the star of a show about family. I'm thinking of Kimora Lee Simmons to be more specific. She's got her own show and she has her two daughters, but the show is about her life and how fabulous her life is-but from what I can tell she spends a lot of time with them-most meals and plenty of other time. She's not starring in a show based on how she raises her children or how many she has...

Don't get me wrong, I think those two little girls will have their own issues, but I think the Duggar children will as well. Only time will tell.

ETA: When I've watched the Duggar shows I can't recall a time when Michelle was spending one on one time with any of the kids. I remember a scene where she and Jim Bob were, I think, having a bible study with them-but it was all of the kids.

 

[iheartscience]

Can I just say that I think it''s hilarious that he goes by Jim Bob? Hahaha...makes me laugh just thinking about it!

 

[FrekeChild]

Me too thing2!!!!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I would agree that this mother probably spends as much or more time with her children than many fulltime career mothers do. And I think it is unbelievable to judge her as not being able to love that many children. Of course she can!!!

I also disagree with the idea that it is cheating the kids to not be able to foot the bill for college. I imagine only a small percentage of American children have parents who fully pay for college. Not everyone goes to college anyway, and for those that do, many use college loans and grants to pay the bills. The Duggar kids will qualify for all sorts of grants considering their family size. I''d bet any of them that wants to go to college certainly will be able to.

I certainly do not think I could come close to managing a large family like this. But as others have said, it wasn''t so long ago that large families were more common. And I doubt anyone was wondering if the kids were getting enough one-on-one time with the parents!

 

[Miranda]

Date: 5/26/2008 9:40:09 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
I would agree that this mother probably spends as much or more time with her children than many fulltime career mothers do. And I think it is unbelievable to judge her as not being able to love that many children. Of course she can!!!

I also disagree with the idea that it is cheating the kids to not be able to foot the bill for college. I imagine only a small percentage of American children have parents who fully pay for college. Not everyone goes to college anyway, and for those that do, many use college loans and grants to pay the bills. The Duggar kids will qualify for all sorts of grants considering their family size. I''d bet any of them that wants to go to college certainly will be able to.

I certainly do not think I could come close to managing a large family like this. But as others have said, it wasn''t so long ago that large families were more common. And I doubt anyone was wondering if the kids were getting enough one-on-one time with the parents!

I''ve got to agree with ya.

Honestly, I can''t believe how heated this thread is. Seriously, of all the mothers to be critical of I just don''t believe it is Micelle Duggar. For goodness sake, tune in to E! tonight to see the mess the Lohan mother is making of those girls. The two Lohan girls can probably do more harm to society than all 18 Duggar kids put together. Sheesh.

 

[brazen_irish_hussy]

Date: 5/26/2008 9:40:09 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
I would agree that this mother probably spends as much or more time with her children than many fulltime career mothers do. And I think it is unbelievable to judge her as not being able to love that many children. Of course she can!!!

I also disagree with the idea that it is cheating the kids to not be able to foot the bill for college. I imagine only a small percentage of American children have parents who fully pay for college. Not everyone goes to college anyway, and for those that do, many use college loans and grants to pay the bills. The Duggar kids will qualify for all sorts of grants considering their family size. I''d bet any of them that wants to go to college certainly will be able to.

I certainly do not think I could come close to managing a large family like this. But as others have said, it wasn''t so long ago that large families were more common. And I doubt anyone was wondering if the kids were getting enough one-on-one time with the parents!

I think it will be a non issue about paying for college since as far as I can tell, they are not going. They are all homeschooled by the mother, which is fine with a few kids, but with 17 at different levels, not terribly effective. To counter that, they cut short the older kids education to help teach the younger ones. At least two of the kids are college age now, but neither of them have left home and I have a lot of trouble believing any accredited university will take them. As so far none has, I don''t think I am wrong.