Michelle Duggar Pregnant with 18th Child

[saltymuffin]

I really don''t understand saying that these parents are selfish. How can two people who put so much time and devotion into their family possibly be described as selfish? This woman is willing to risk even her health and body for her children - that isn''t selfish. I agree that there is something weird and even a bit cult-like about this family. But I really don''t think they can be described as selfish. Selfish to me is a childless couple living in a 2000 sq ft house in the suburbs with two SUVs and all the latest tech toys and shiny gadgets, not a family of 19 living a very basic lifestyle.

I also question the environmental arguement, on a per person basis, this family uses far less resources than the average American.

My biggest problem with the family is probably the homeschooling. As has been stated, homeschooling 17 people, all of different ages isn''t going to be that efficient. Learning to socialise with other children who do not have the same beleifs and lifestyle is important, and it seems these kids miss out on that.

Having to raise younger siblings is a fact of life for kids in big families. Being lonely is a fact of life for only children. I don''t see how we can judge one way or another.

I don''t think they are selfish or an environmental disaster, and I applaud them for their stable financial situation, but there is something odd about them. The multiple TV stunts and the homes chooling are where it begins to seem like tele-valgelism or cult-like to me.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 5/27/2008 1:19:34 PM
Author: saltymuffin
I really don't understand saying that these parents are selfish. How can two people who put so much time and devotion into their family possibly be described as selfish? This woman is willing to risk even her health and body for her children - that isn't selfish. I agree that there is something weird and even a bit cult-like about this family. But I really don't think they can be described as selfish. Selfish to me is a childless couple living in a 2000 sq ft house in the suburbs with two SUVs and all the latest tech toys and shiny gadgets, not a family of 19 living a very basic lifestyle.

I also question the environmental arguement, on a per person basis, this family uses far less resources than the average American.

My biggest problem with the family is probably the homeschooling. As has been stated, homeschooling 17 people, all of different ages isn't going to be that efficient. Learning to socialise with other children who do not have the same beleifs and lifestyle is important, and it seems these kids miss out on that.

Having to raise younger siblings is a fact of life for kids in big families. Being lonely is a fact of life for only children. I don't see how we can judge one way or another.

I don't think they are selfish or an environmental disaster, and I applaud them for their stable financial situation, but there is something odd about them. The multiple TV stunts and the homes chooling are where it begins to seem like tele-valgelism or cult-like to me.

Why would that be selfish - if they choose to be child free and can afford and work hard for the lifestyle of their choice?

 

[rms]

Date: 5/27/2008 1:25:35 PM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 5/27/2008 1:19:34 PM
Author: saltymuffin
I really don''t understand saying that these parents are selfish. How can two people who put so much time and devotion into their family possibly be described as selfish? This woman is willing to risk even her health and body for her children - that isn''t selfish. I agree that there is something weird and even a bit cult-like about this family. But I really don''t think they can be described as selfish. Selfish to me is a childless couple living in a 2000 sq ft house in the suburbs with two SUVs and all the latest tech toys and shiny gadgets, not a family of 19 living a very basic lifestyle.

I also question the environmental arguement, on a per person basis, this family uses far less resources than the average American.

My biggest problem with the family is probably the homeschooling. As has been stated, homeschooling 17 people, all of different ages isn''t going to be that efficient. Learning to socialise with other children who do not have the same beleifs and lifestyle is important, and it seems these kids miss out on that.

Having to raise younger siblings is a fact of life for kids in big families. Being lonely is a fact of life for only children. I don''t see how we can judge one way or another.

I don''t think they are selfish or an environmental disaster, and I applaud them for their stable financial situation, but there is something odd about them. The multiple TV stunts and the homes chooling are where it begins to seem like tele-valgelism or cult-like to me.

Why would that be selfish - if they choose to be child free and can afford and work hard for the lifestyle of their choice?

Mind you, I personally would not categorize all people who don''t have children as "selfish". If you live an extravagant lifestyle and are not hurting others in the process it''s perfectly fine by me. But in trying to interpret saltymuffin''s statement, "selfish" indicates that one is concerned with their own advantages and welfare alone, without regard for others. I have heard MANY people who say that they don''t want to have kids say it because they admit that are selfish and don''t want to make sacrifices for the sake of a child.

 

[saltymuffin]

Rita, I agree with you, and that is how I had defined selfish.

Definition of selfish: "concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others".

I only meant selfish in the context of this conversation and in comparison with the Duggers. I didn't mean to imply that anyone who lives that way is a selfish person. DH and myself do not have children!

Two people in the big house/suburb/two SUV/fancy stuff situation that I described consume:

- a huge amount of space/land (big house on a large suburban lot),
- large amounts of resources to keep the big house lit and operating, as well as fuel (as you have to drive everywhere)
- a pile of consumer goods which get replaced every couple of years

This is certainly selfish and environmentally disaterous from a global standpoint, and more selfish than sharing your home with 16 kids and giving up the fancy extras just to keep everyone clothed and fed.

Many would even argue (although I won't go that far) that choosing a career or leisure-time over children, is selfish, as it is all about what YOU want, and "concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure or well-being".

The Duggers have not chosen an easy selfish lifestyle.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 5/27/2008 1:59:19 PM
Author: saltymuffin
Rita, I agree with you, and that is how I had defined selfish.

Definition of selfish: ''concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one''s own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others''.

I only meant selfish in the context of this conversation and in comparison with the Duggers. I didn''t mean to imply that anyone who lives that way is a selfish person. DH and myself do not have children!

Two people in the big house/suburb/two SUV/fancy stuff situation that I described consume:

- a huge amount of space/land (big house on a large suburban lot),
- large amounts of resources to keep the big house lit and operating, as well as fuel (as you have to drive everywhere)
- a pile of consumer goods which get replaced every couple of years

This is certainly selfish and environmentally disaterous from a global standpoint, and more selfish than sharing your home with 16 kids and giving up the fancy extras just to keep everyone clothed and fed.

Many would even argue (although I won''t go that far) that choosing a career or leisure-time over children, is selfish, as it is all about what YOU want, and ''concentrating on one''s own advantage, pleasure or well-being''.

The Duggers have not chosen an easy selfish lifestyle.

I would have to disagree with those who felt that choosing a career or leisure over children is selfish.

 

[brazen_irish_hussy]

Yes, but those 18 kids are each going to move away and have their own house, their own cars, their own kids. My parents have my brother and I and neither of us will have more than 2 kids, so 6 tops in two generations.
If each of those kids only has the standard 2, that is 32, plus the 18, meaning that in 2 generations, 2 people became 50. Even if they live very thrifty and my bro and I and our kids live well, our enviromental impact is still going to me much lower because you simply can''t house, feed and transport 50 without making a large enviromental impact.
If the kids follow their parents and each have 10, that''s 180 plus 18, almost 200 people from 2 in two generations. If they all have as many kids as their parents, that is between 300-400 people. That is an enviromental disaster, even if they are well raised

 

[FrekeChild]

FF and I plan on being childless for a few reasons. One, he was born with a heart birth defect. Two he has a family history of diabetes, cancer and heart disease (his mother passed away in 2005 from all three, he has had an aunt and uncle pass away from heart disease and diabetes since then). Three I am adopted, and don''t know any of my medical history, but with my own medical problems, I wouldn''t want to pass that on to a child. Four, environmental and population concerns. Five, his career as a professor is not exactly conducive to raising children because the scheduling is never consistent. Six, neither of us has ever felt that being a mother/father was something we needed to do. I have 7 nieces and nephews, and he has 2 nephews, and we''re ok with being aunts and uncles.

Having said all of that, if we do decide to have children in ten years or so when he gets tenure, we will adopt. There are plenty of children out there who don''t have homes, who need them.

Do all of those reasons make us selfish? I don''t really think so.

Now, after all of that, I would have to say that if the Duggars had adopted all of those children, I wouldn''t have as much of a problem with that number of children. That would make them far less selfish. Does that make sense?

 

[saltymuffin]

Like I said, I am not saying that choosing not to have children is selfish. But it certainly does seem more selfish than giving your life to a large family. Maybe people are defining selfish in a different way than me. We live in a very "me" driven society. Perhaps we don''t even know what selflessness is anymore? To me Mrs.Dugger is selfless, not selfish.

Environmental impact is not based on a shear number of people, but how those people live, and how much resources they each consume. Each of the Duggers consume far less resources than the childless couple I described. Where is the idea coming from that the US is over populated? It isn''t over populated, immigration is still encouraged. What Americans are doing wrong isn''t having too many babies but consuming too many resources per capita. The answer isn''t to decrease numbers, but to lessen our individual environmental impact.

Lets compare the Duggers not to a childless family, but instead to a wealthy family of 4 living in the same size of home, and owning the same number of cars. Who between them is selfish?

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 5/27/2008 3:21:35 PM
Author: saltymuffin
Like I said, I am not saying that choosing not to have children is selfish. But it certainly does seem more selfish than giving your life to a large family. Maybe people are defining selfish in a different way than me. We live in a very 'me' driven society. Perhaps we don't even know what selflessness is anymore? To me Mrs.Dugger is selfless, not selfish.

Environmental impact is not based on a shear number of people, but how those people live, and how much resources they each consume. Each of the Duggers consume far less resources than the childless couple I described. Where is the idea coming from that the US is over populated? It isn't over populated, immigration is still encouraged. What Americans are doing wrong isn't having too many babies but consuming too many resources per capita. The answer isn't to decrease numbers, but to lessen our individual environmental impact.

Lets compare the Duggers not to a childless family, but instead to a wealthy family of 4 living in the same size of home, and owning the same number of cars. Who between them is selfish?

Why is that? There are various reasons why we decided not to have children, and I do not think it was a selfish decision.

 

[FrekeChild]

I'm referring to the world's population. Not the United States.

We only get one world, and right now it's temperature is rising because it's infected with a parasite-us.

As for being selfish for not having kids-what about all the time and effort childless teachers give to their students? Are they selfish for spending their lives, giving what they have, to everyone else's children?

Having kids does not make you selfless. You need to meet my sister in law. I have never met a more selfish self-absorbed person and she's got 4 kids.

 

[saltymuffin]

Ack! I am NOT saying that having or not having children determines if you are selfish or selfless! Please don''t take this personally. I am saying that I don''t see how the Duggers can be labled as selfish - especially compared to some people who only think of themselves, and spend all their time and money pampering themselves. Mrs. Dugger obviously has given her whole life to her children, this is the opposite of selfishness.

When I speak of the environment, I too am speaking about the whole planet. Population is not the problem, how we live is! The US is one of the leading polluters and consumers of resources. If everyone on the planet were to live like the average american, we would have to have a MUCH smaller global population. Is the solution to reduce the number of Americans by 1/4 but continue to be as wasteful on a per capita basis?? Or is the solution for each american to consume 1/4 the amount of resources leaving enough for everyone else in the world to live to a similar standard?

 

[FrekeChild]

Oh I'm not taking anything personally, I'm playing devil's advocate and using my own situation as an example.

I think it's a huge combination of population and the way of life of most of that population. Honestly, I'm for everyone to start being at least environmentally conscious, and to cut down on population. But, I'm not in charge, and I know that there are plenty of people who disagree with me...

ETA: And the only reason I brought up the world is that you specifically said the United States.

 

[brazen_irish_hussy]

Date: 5/27/2008 3:21:35 PM
Author: saltymuffin
Like I said, I am not saying that choosing not to have children is selfish. But it certainly does seem more selfish than giving your life to a large family. Maybe people are defining selfish in a different way than me. We live in a very ''me'' driven society. Perhaps we don''t even know what selflessness is anymore? To me Mrs.Dugger is selfless, not selfish.

Environmental impact is not based on a shear number of people, but how those people live, and how much resources they each consume. Each of the Duggers consume far less resources than the childless couple I described. Where is the idea coming from that the US is over populated? It isn''t over populated, immigration is still encouraged. What Americans are doing wrong isn''t having too many babies but consuming too many resources per capita. The answer isn''t to decrease numbers, but to lessen our individual environmental impact.

Lets compare the Duggers not to a childless family, but instead to a wealthy family of 4 living in the same size of home, and owning the same number of cars. Who between them is selfish?

The Duggars are still selfish from an enviromental perspective. Even if none of them own a car in their lives and all live in crowded houses, which I doubt, the sheer amount they, eat, drink, excrete, wear, use in heating, etc, is still an enviromental disaster, especially when they move out.

I think it is selfish to make their children a freak show by putting them on tv to support their lifestyle. I think it is selfish to seriously reduce your kids chance of a good future because you are too religious to send your kids to regular school and too overburdened to teach them properly yourselves. I don''t mean without a proper education you are ruined, but looking at their website, the oldest two want to be an attorney and a midwife. It takes being accepted into a reputable school to do this and it isn''t going to happen or it would have by now. Instead, they are still at home, raising children that aren''t even theirs. To me, stiffling your kids dreams so they can help you live yours is selfish.

 

[saltymuffin]

Frekechild - Whew! I was beginning to think I was insulting people, and really hadn't meant to. I just wanted to hear why people think the Duggers are selfish.

Some parts of the world ARE over populated - but they generally aren't the areas causing the bulk of the environmental damage - yet. That is why I mentioned the US specifically asking why people felt the US was over populated, which is where the Duggers live.

 

[saltymuffin]

Date: 5/27/2008 4:55:03 PM
Author: brazen_irish_hussy

The Duggars are still selfish from an enviromental perspective. Even if none of them own a car in their lives and all live in crowded houses, which I doubt, the sheer amount they, eat, drink, excrete, wear, use in heating, etc, is still an enviromental disaster, especially when they move out.

I really don''t agree. Simply surviving and using only your share of the world''s resources is not selfish from an environmental stand point, or an "environmental disaster". How is 1 family of 20 worse than 10 families of 2 or 5 families of 5?

I think it is selfish to make their children a freak show by putting them on tv to support their lifestyle. I think it is selfish to seriously reduce your kids chance of a good future because you are too religious to send your kids to regular school and too overburdened to teach them properly yourselves. I don''t mean without a proper education you are ruined, but looking at their website, the oldest two want to be an attorney and a midwife. It takes being accepted into a reputable school to do this and it isn''t going to happen or it would have by now. Instead, they are still at home, raising children that aren''t even theirs. To me, stiffling your kids dreams so they can help you live yours is selfish.

I understand what you are saying, and even agree with you on some points. In my earlier post, I talked specifically about how the tv appearances and home-schooling seems sort of tele-vangelist and cultish. But I don''t think selfish is the word that describes what they are doing "wrong". Would you describe all people who home-school their children selfish? They don''t think they are stiffling their kids dreams, they feel that they encourage them and help them in any way they can. They might be naieve, but not selfish.

 

[FrekeChild]

No worries salty muffin (where did you come up with your SN by the way?) I''ve taken things personally before, but those days are in the past. And I have a nasty habit of trying to back people into corners-from being a lawyers daughter I''m sure.

I really do think that BIH has so very good and valid points. My father was very busy when I was young, and now as an adult, I understand why, but as a child I didn''t understand. My point is with that, that I''m pretty sure that having that many children will greatly reduce the one on one time with the parents. I wonder, if due to the scheduling conflicts that I''m sure arise, that a child goes without spending one on one time with either parent for a few days.

Truly, my heart goes out to those children, because they didn''t choose to be put into this situation.

 

[partgypsy]

Logically people (myself included) would view their actions as less selfish if they didn''t live in a first world country. As the Duggars are "first world" citizens in particular the US, the worst offender, they disproportionately consume more resources than individuals in developing countries, up to 32 times more!. Even if they let''s say consumed 50% less than the average American (which I''m not sure they do, reading about their laundry habits) each of their family members would still consume 16 times the resources of an average Bangladeshi. So when people say they are selfish, what they mean is that they are concerned with their family, to the exclusion of other people, meaning the rest of the world. The world is a finite space and even if their actions are not directly felt there is definitely an indirect impact in resources consumed. And I agree, that also means single people who don''t have children but consume bunches of resources according to this definition are also selfish. This is a free country so both groups are entitled to do what they wish but to call the Duggars actions "selfless" is a bit myopic.


http://webserve.govst.edu/pa/Advertising/Wrongs/jared_diamond.html

 

[TravelingGal]

I haven''t commented on this thread much because while I think the duggars are a bit weird, I don''t really have a problem with them.

But as for selfish...well...I was just thinking about this yesterday as I looked at my 8 week old daughter while she was sleeping. I''ve concluded it''s selfish to even have one child. I looked at her and thought...wow...she''s going to have to go to school. She''s going to have to find some way of making a living. She may fall in love. She may have a heartwrenching breakup. She''s going to (god willing) have to deal with burying two parents and the ache that goes along with that (I''m going through that currently with my dad). She may have kids and if she does she will have lifelong worry that they''ll be OK. She''ll lay there at night and realize that her life on this earth is limited and she won''t be able (again, god willing) to always be there for her kids and see what will happen to her grandkids.

She didn''t ask to be born, yet I''m so glad I had her. It''s so utterly selfish that my heart ached a bit from the weight of it.

 

[ladypirate]

Date: 5/27/2008 5:40:01 PM
Author: TravelingGal
I haven''t commented on this thread much because while I think the duggars are a bit weird, I don''t really have a problem with them.

But as for selfish...well...I was just thinking about this yesterday as I looked at my 8 week old daughter while she was sleeping. I''ve concluded it''s selfish to even have one child. I looked at her and thought...wow...she''s going to have to go to school. She''s going to have to find some way of making a living. She may fall in love. She may have a heartwrenching breakup. She''s going to (god willing) have to deal with burying two parents and the ache that goes along with that (I''m going through that currently with my dad). She may have kids and if she does she will have lifelong worry that they''ll be OK. She''ll lay there at night and realize that her life on this earth is limited and she won''t be able (again, god willing) to always be there for her kids and see what will happen to her grandkids.

She didn''t ask to be born, yet I''m so glad I had her. It''s so utterly selfish that my heart ached a bit from the weight of it.

TGal, that''s really beautifully written. I know you''re a no-nonsense kind of gal, but that post made me want to hug you, virtually at least.

 

[FrekeChild]

Ditto to LP. That was very beautifully said TGal. You even almost made me tear up a little bit at the burying her parents part (I''m watching my mom go through stage 4 cancer). And every word you said was true.

 

[somethingshiny]

TGal~ What you stated was so eloquent, but I have a completely different opinion. I thought all of those things when I first had my son, especially because we tried for so many years to carry a child. But, then I got to thinking a bit more.

First off, how can it be selfish to be responsible for putting a good, kind, intelligent, compassionate person into the world when we need them so badly?

Going to school, admissions letters, finding a career--those are wonderful adventures that a young person gets to have. Falling in love for the first time, well, there's nothing like it. Heartbreaks--without them would we ever know the depth of the love of which we're capable? Burying parents (I'm sorry you're going through this right now), knowing that you've made their life better by being in it and seeing them safely to eternity is a blessing. Knowing that life is limited is also a blessing. Without that knowledge, would we ever strive to meet our potential??

So, in my opinion, it's not selfish to have a child. You are spreading joy and blessings just from raising Amelia. She will spread joy and blessings throughout her life.

Maybe it's just because I'm a "glass is half full" kind of girl, but I also don't worry that my son will be okay. I KNOW he will be because he will have a solid structure to build a life on. He will know the depth of love and forgiveness, and to me, those are the two most important things in life, and, both are unselfish.


ETA- thanks freke, I don't know who I was thinking of...Tacori maybe...

 

[FrekeChild]

TGal's daughter's name is Amelia.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I keep telling myself that I won''t comment on this thread anymore, but I see one more thing I need to address. I am frankly astounded by the negative and uninformed comments about homeschooling! As a public school educator for 20+ years, I can tell you that public education just isn''t all that great!!! Truly, as a private educational specialist, I do consult with some homeschoolers and I have found their children to be articulate, well-mannered, and extremely well educated overall. The children are more comfortable talking with adults than any other children I know. Many of them have special classes on Fridays where experts in different areas work with groups of children on special projects. Some learn Latin and other languages. They recently had a public speaking event in our area where more than 500 children presented oral speeches. If you want to check, many years the national spelling and geography bees are won by homeschoolers. I have seen older ones go on to college with no problems whatsoever.

I dearly love the students I teach in public school. However, the regular classroom teachers deal with serious discipline problems on a daily basis, and plenty of instructional time is wasted. With a large percentage of American public school students reading below grade level, I would go so far as to say that homeschoolers overall probably beat out public school kids on achievement. My own child is gifted in art but has a learning disability (but above average in intelligence), and I am always considering the option of educating her at home so she can get an education suited for HER needs as opposed to the cookie-cutter education offered by the public schools. (She goes to a public charter school at the moment which is a pretty good school.)

There are good and bad public school teachers and there are good and bad homeschool teachers. I really hate to hear the negative stereotypes about homeschooling.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

One more thing. Those who are hung up on the number in that family, are you in favor of limits on the number of children a family can have? Sort of like China? I personally enjoy the freedoms we have in this country and hope people remain free to have 0 or 18 kids if they wish (and can take care of them).

 

[FrekeChild]

But DS, what about older children homeschooling their younger siblings? I don't agree with that part of it. I agree that homeschooling is advantageous (so long as there is some kind of social accommodation made) for children-but being taught by their older siblings?

ETA: I think that social consciousness that having more children is not good for the well being of the planet. I believe in self control for your health's sake. I think that most American couples want to give their children as much as they possibly can, and one way in doing so, is by not stretching their resources, mostly financial. Therefore having less children. Again, in most cases.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I know a family well who has the older ones help the younger ones while she is working one-on-one with another child. We even do that kind of thing in schools..having older kids be reading buddies for younger children. The teacher still checks and supervises the work. The child still has to demonstrate mastery of the material. The children I know of seem to be happy to do this because they are a close and loving family. Often it builds self-esteem in the older child who is helping the younger one. Again, when TV and video games are limited (which this family does), kids have time to do their own work and help others and still spend less time schooling than a public school child (who wasted lots of time waiting for the group throughout the day). Really, I wish my kids were as helpful to one another as these kids are. I sort of half jokingly tell their mother that I am going to send my daughter over to her to homeschool because their children are just very mature and seem to be so well adjusted.

I''m just really all for personal choice...to have a large family or no family; public school, private school or homeschool....what is best for one is not necessarily best for another, ya know?

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 5/27/2008 8:27:32 PM
Author: FrekeChild
But DS, what about older children homeschooling their younger siblings? I don''t agree with that part of it. I agree that homeschooling is advantageous (so long as there is some kind of social accommodation made) for children-but being taught by their older siblings?

ETA: I think that social consciousness that having more children is not good for the well being of the planet. I believe in self control for your health''s sake. I think that most American couples want to give their children as much as they possibly can, and one way in doing so, is by not stretching their resources, mostly financial. Therefore having less children. Again, in most cases.

This seems reasonable on the surface, but what I see in my low socio-economic school are teenage mothers having multiple babies and then those kids having babies as teenagers and about half are dropping out before getting a HS diploma. So you get about two generations of these kids compared to one generation from the college educated group. So I am always glad when I see relatively bright and educated people (speaking in general here) choosing to have a larger family as I think it will be beneficial to society.

 

[ljmorgan]

I find some of the posts on this thread BEYOND offensive -- the attacks on religion and homeschooling are absolutely ridiculous. I think that everyone should mind their own personal lives and not make unfounded statements about topics they''re obviously not experts on. I think it''s fine to share personal opinions, but I really find a lot of this offensive.

 

[partgypsy]

I don''t think homeschooling is good or bad. Like public school it can be really good or do just the bare minimum. I have friends that used to home school, stopped from the sheer workload of it, but their kids did very well with it and are continuing to do excell in school. The one good thing about public school is that, although we love our kids and our instinct is to protect and shield our kids from the real world, homeschooling can sometimes prolong that life in a bubble. Eventually they will have to live in that real world, and live alongside, work and deal with people of varying acheivements, backgrounds, and viewpoints.

 

[brazen_irish_hussy]

I have NO problem with home schooling in general. I have known many people who do well with it. The Duggars are different though. There are 18 kids at 18 different levels and to cover that, they cut short the education of the older kids so they can teach the younger ones, that I have a problem with. She simply cannot devote a full school''s day worth of time to each and she cannot teach the specifics to all since they are in vastly different places.