Michelle Duggar Pregnant with 18th Child

[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).

 

[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.

 

[KimberlyH]

I think it is irresponsible of them to have so many children for reasons which have already been mentioned. First, our responsibility to society as a whole and the taxing of resources, if not financial than natural, should cause anyone pause, and consider the local and global impact of two people having so many children (it is estimated that they have used 90,000 diapers to-date, they own 9 vehicles, including a bus, and do approximately 200 loads of laundry a month). Second, the ability of two people to truly raise 18 children without expecting help from either the older children or outside sources is simply not plausible and I believe that if two people choose to have a child(ren) they should be fully prepared to care for him/her/them without expecting anyone else to step in. This family has a buddy system in place and the older buddy is responsible for the younger and children must "sign up" to have one-on-one time with a parent.

Could the quite possibly be a nice family? Sure. But does that mean that I am wrong for believing the parents' choices are irrsponsible? No. And in judging them, and people like them, it has caused me to consider how many children my husband and I will have, if any, and what my responsbility is to both society and my own family. Judging others is often how we discern right from wrong and having an opinion about the choices people make, often guides us (the collective us) in making our own decisions about what is right for our lives. I don't think that's such a bad thing.

 

[LAJennifer]

Date: 5/10/2008 8:54:29 PM
Author: KimberlyH

I think it is irresponsible of them to have so many children for reasons which have already been mentioned. First, our responsibility to society as a whole and the taxing of resources, if not financial than natural, should cause anyone pause, and consider the local and global impact of two people having so many children (it is estimated that they have used 90,000 diapers to-date, they own 9 vehicles, including a bus, and do approximately 200 loads of laundry a month). Second, the ability of two people to truly raise 18 children without expecting help from either the older children or outside sources is simply not plausible and I believe that if two people choose to have a child(ren) they should be fully prepared to care for him/her/them without expecting anyone else to step in. This family has a buddy system in place and the older buddy is responsible for the younger and children must ''sign up'' to have one-on-one time with a parent.

Could the quite possibly be a nice family? Sure. But does that mean that I am wrong for believing the parents'' choices are irrsponsible? No. And in judging them, and people like them, it has caused me to consider how many children my husband and I will have, if any, and what my responsbility is to both society and my own family. Judging others is often how we discern right from wrong and having an opinion about the choices people make, often guides us (the collective us) in making our own decisions about what is right for our lives. I don''t think that''s such a bad thing.

Ban the nannies, daycare centers and working moms!

 

[LAJennifer]

How does anyone of us know that these kids are denied a childhood? My mother was one of thirteen and my father was one of nine. While they helped out with their siblings and took care of each other, both had wonderful childhoods (even though my mother lived in poverty) and still maintain strong emotional bonds with their brothers and sisters. On the other hand, my sister in law is one of two children. She WAS denied a childhood due to parental neglect.

 

[KimberlyH]

Date: 5/10/2008 9:38:46 PM
Author: LAJennifer

Date: 5/10/2008 8:54:29 PM
Author: KimberlyH

I think it is irresponsible of them to have so many children for reasons which have already been mentioned. First, our responsibility to society as a whole and the taxing of resources, if not financial than natural, should cause anyone pause, and consider the local and global impact of two people having so many children (it is estimated that they have used 90,000 diapers to-date, they own 9 vehicles, including a bus, and do approximately 200 loads of laundry a month). Second, the ability of two people to truly raise 18 children without expecting help from either the older children or outside sources is simply not plausible and I believe that if two people choose to have a child(ren) they should be fully prepared to care for him/her/them without expecting anyone else to step in. This family has a buddy system in place and the older buddy is responsible for the younger and children must 'sign up' to have one-on-one time with a parent.

Could the quite possibly be a nice family? Sure. But does that mean that I am wrong for believing the parents' choices are irrsponsible? No. And in judging them, and people like them, it has caused me to consider how many children my husband and I will have, if any, and what my responsbility is to both society and my own family. Judging others is often how we discern right from wrong and having an opinion about the choices people make, often guides us (the collective us) in making our own decisions about what is right for our lives. I don't think that's such a bad thing.

Ban the nannies, daycare centers and working moms!

Um, no, that's not at all what I said. Nannies and daycare centers are paid to provide a service, and if parents want/need such a service they should be prepared to pay for it rather than expecting siblings to provide such a service, as the Duggars have clearly expressed they require in their household in multiple interviews and in their own television show.

 

[LAJennifer]

Date: 5/10/2008 10:07:43 PM
Author: KimberlyH

Date: 5/10/2008 9:38:46 PM
Author: LAJennifer

Date: 5/10/2008 8:54:29 PM
Author: KimberlyH

I think it is irresponsible of them to have so many children for reasons which have already been mentioned. First, our responsibility to society as a whole and the taxing of resources, if not financial than natural, should cause anyone pause, and consider the local and global impact of two people having so many children (it is estimated that they have used 90,000 diapers to-date, they own 9 vehicles, including a bus, and do approximately 200 loads of laundry a month). Second, the ability of two people to truly raise 18 children without expecting help from either the older children or outside sources is simply not plausible and I believe that if two people choose to have a child(ren) they should be fully prepared to care for him/her/them without expecting anyone else to step in. This family has a buddy system in place and the older buddy is responsible for the younger and children must ''sign up'' to have one-on-one time with a parent.

Could the quite possibly be a nice family? Sure. But does that mean that I am wrong for believing the parents'' choices are irrsponsible? No. And in judging them, and people like them, it has caused me to consider how many children my husband and I will have, if any, and what my responsbility is to both society and my own family. Judging others is often how we discern right from wrong and having an opinion about the choices people make, often guides us (the collective us) in making our own decisions about what is right for our lives. I don''t think that''s such a bad thing.

Ban the nannies, daycare centers and working moms!

Um, no, that''s not at all what I said. Nannies and daycare centers are paid to provide a service, and if parents want/need such a service they should be prepared to pay for it rather than expecting siblings to provide such a service, as the Duggars have clearly expressed they require in their household in multiple interviews and in their own television show.

OK, I''m glad you clarified - but, umm, you DID say "they should be fully prepared to care for him/her/them without expecting anyone else to step in." And I took "anyone" to mean "anyone". And actually, I think society would benefit greatly if that were true.

 

[monarch64]

I guess I didn''t think about the insane amount of diapers 17 babies would use, 90,000 is a lot. Maybe they have their own private landfill?

I was thinking, though, that they built a house that is only 7,000 square feet for what, 19 people now? Compared to the many families who live in houses the same size or even larger but only have a couple kids maybe the Duggars aren''t totally overboard.

I think in many ways the Duggars have done a good job of managing a family that size, I think the kids have all learned that they each have their own responsibilities (jurisdictions, I think, is what they call their chores), and that seems pretty normal to me. As far as being expected to take care of or watch over their younger siblings, I don''t know of any family where there is more than one child where the oldest aren''t at least sometimes asked to take care of the younger ones when mom or dad need help. Having to sign up for time with mom and dad seems more like managing time effectively, not abusive...to me it''s kind of like scheduling "date nights" with your spouse when things are hectic and everyone has a different schedule to keep. Maybe it isn''t romantic or ideal, but it is an effort to keep every one happy and fulfill human needs.

 

[KimberlyH]

Date: 5/10/2008 10:59:43 PM
Author: LAJennifer

Date: 5/10/2008 10:07:43 PM
Author: KimberlyH

Date: 5/10/2008 9:38:46 PM
Author: LAJennifer

Date: 5/10/2008 8:54:29 PM
Author: KimberlyH

I think it is irresponsible of them to have so many children for reasons which have already been mentioned. First, our responsibility to society as a whole and the taxing of resources, if not financial than natural, should cause anyone pause, and consider the local and global impact of two people having so many children (it is estimated that they have used 90,000 diapers to-date, they own 9 vehicles, including a bus, and do approximately 200 loads of laundry a month). Second, the ability of two people to truly raise 18 children without expecting help from either the older children or outside sources is simply not plausible and I believe that if two people choose to have a child(ren) they should be fully prepared to care for him/her/them without expecting anyone else to step in. This family has a buddy system in place and the older buddy is responsible for the younger and children must 'sign up' to have one-on-one time with a parent.

Could the quite possibly be a nice family? Sure. But does that mean that I am wrong for believing the parents' choices are irrsponsible? No. And in judging them, and people like them, it has caused me to consider how many children my husband and I will have, if any, and what my responsbility is to both society and my own family. Judging others is often how we discern right from wrong and having an opinion about the choices people make, often guides us (the collective us) in making our own decisions about what is right for our lives. I don't think that's such a bad thing.

Ban the nannies, daycare centers and working moms!

Um, no, that's not at all what I said. Nannies and daycare centers are paid to provide a service, and if parents want/need such a service they should be prepared to pay for it rather than expecting siblings to provide such a service, as the Duggars have clearly expressed they require in their household in multiple interviews and in their own television show.

OK, I'm glad you clarified - but, umm, you DID say 'they should be fully prepared to care for him/her/them without expecting anyone else to step in.' And I took 'anyone' to mean 'anyone'. And actually, I think society would benefit greatly if that were true.

. One would not call providing child care at a cost an expectation of another person to step in, it would be an exchange of services for a fee.

 

[KimberlyH]

Date: 5/10/2008 11:13:51 PM
Author: monarch64
I guess I didn't think about the insane amount of diapers 17 babies would use, 90,000 is a lot. Maybe they have their own private landfill?

I was thinking, though, that they built a house that is only 7,000 square feet for what, 19 people now? Compared to the many families who live in houses the same size or even larger but only have a couple kids maybe the Duggars aren't totally overboard.

I think in many ways the Duggars have done a good job of managing a family that size, I think the kids have all learned that they each have their own responsibilities (jurisdictions, I think, is what they call their chores), and that seems pretty normal to me. As far as being expected to take care of or watch over their younger siblings, I don't know of any family where there is more than one child where the oldest aren't at least sometimes asked to take care of the younger ones when mom or dad need help. Having to sign up for time with mom and dad seems more like managing time effectively, not abusive...to me it's kind of like scheduling 'date nights' with your spouse when things are hectic and everyone has a different schedule to keep. Maybe it isn't romantic or ideal, but it is an effort to keep every one happy and fulfill human needs.

I am the younger of two, and my parents never expected my sister to watch me without being paid. There's a big difference between doing chores, cleaning, dishes, etc., to be a contributing member of a family and being buddied with a younger sibling for whom you are responsible.

I also never called them "abusive", I simply believe there is something wrong with having to sign up to spend time alone with a parent. If they had less children they could "fulfill human needs" in a much less regimented way, and a lot more often.

ETA: And the size of the house alone doesn't take into consideration the amount of water and electricity used to sustain a family of that size. If 4 people live in a 7,000 ft house they will still produce a lot less garbage, waste, etc. and use a lot less energy and water than a family of 20 will (unless they are insanely wasteful, which could very well be).
You know I love ya, Monnie, this subject just makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up.

 

[moremoremore]

Not to comment on the above posts bc I honestly didn''t read them...but thinking about having my first....I honestly think she has mental problems and I''m totally serious.....AND ON A LIGHTER (and slightly vulgar note), I"m reminded of a favorite scene from FAMILY GUY....for you fans, Stewie and Brian discussing Lois and Stewie''s birth:


Stewie: "Well look Brian, as your friend, I should tell you that that vagina is ground zero man. I mean I just wrecked that thing on the way out, and just to be a jerk, I carved "Brooks was here" in the wall. Did you see that? Did you see "Brooks was here."

Brian: We didn''t have sex.

Stewie: Of course with Chris going before me I pretty much just walked outta there. Didn''t even have to stoop over. There was even room to twirl a cane as I strolled.

LOLOLOL

 

[monarch64]

Gotcha, Kimi! I totally understand your points, and there is nothing wrong with your opinions at all! Love ya too, no worries.

I know you didn''t use the word "abusive," I was just responding in general, not specifically to your posts, sorry for the confusion.

 

[FrekeChild]

lol moremoremore

 

[KimberlyH]

Date: 5/10/2008 11:26:37 PM
Author: monarch64
Gotcha, Kimi! I totally understand your points, and there is nothing wrong with your opinions at all! Love ya too, no worries.

I know you didn''t use the word ''abusive,'' I was just responding in general, not specifically to your posts, sorry for the confusion.

I knew you''d understand, Monnie, and there''s no need to apologize!

The more time I spend with children the more bothered I am by the crazy things parents do to their families.

 

[moremoremore]

Freke....I don't post much anymore, but just can't resist throwing in a Stewie quote when the opportunity is there

And now that I have babies on the brain, 30Rock had a great line.....
"I know what prenatal means...Pre as in before...and Natal as in wrecked" LOLOL

 

[monarch64]

Date: 5/10/2008 11:29:22 PM
Author: KimberlyH

Date: 5/10/2008 11:26:37 PM
Author: monarch64
Gotcha, Kimi! I totally understand your points, and there is nothing wrong with your opinions at all! Love ya too, no worries.

I know you didn''t use the word ''abusive,'' I was just responding in general, not specifically to your posts, sorry for the confusion.

I knew you''d understand, Monnie, and there''s no need to apologize!

The more time I spend with children the more bothered I am by the crazy things parents do to their families.

LOL!

I figured there was a reason this subject was raising your hairs!!!

 

[ljmorgan]

Some of the comments here really surprised me... with all of the terrible parents in the world, I''m not sure how I can complain about the Duggers. They fully believe in their lifestyle and work hard to support themselves. Since when is having to care for your siblings child abuse? I cared for my younger sister at an early age. When did children become entitled to 24/7 attention from parents? Honestly I think people have become SO focused on their children, that children are becoming less self-reliant and more self-absorbed. In this country until more recently in our history, children were absolutely expected to look after their siblings -- just because that isn''t a popular idea today doesn''t mean this family is doing anything wrong.

If you don''t want to have 18 kids, don''t. If you''re offended by how terribly this family is taxing our natural resources, perhaps you should limit yourself to one child so as not to increase your own carbon foot print. With all of the terrible things that go on in the world, I can''t believe that this family is getting negative attention.

 

[pennquaker09]

Okay, so I have to say that I agree with Kimberly and moremoremore. Moreover, I think the dad has basically decided that this was going to be and the wife just goes along with it. I don''t want to offend anyone, but the religious undertones of their lifestyle is the part that bothers me. And I know that''s not my place, but it''s just plain WEIRD. I''m all for children having chores, but I''m definitely more for kids being kids. If I were one of the older ones, I would seriously have some objections to having to practically raise my younger brothers and sisters. And I''m not saying it''s the mom''s job to cook for everyone, but I mean I sure don''t think it''s right for kids to cook dinner for the entire family. However, I get the feeling that they don''t get a say. And I imagine they really don''t know the concept of being able to think for oneself. I imagine they don''t really have a concept of what it would be like in the real world . . . where one will encounter people other than their family.

 

[FrekeChild]

I agree with you pennquaker. I have watched their shows before-the ones where they built their house, a special about having 16 and expecting another, one where they go to disney land-and the thing that bothers me most is that the children never really speak to the camera and are rarely seen being kids. I''m sure the parents are wonderful people as far as morals and whatever else makes a person inherently "good" but their lifestyle is hard for me to swallow. They are putting a strain on natural resources, they are making money by the mom pushing out almost 20 kids and getting publicity for it, they are sponsored by companies because they are on tv, and yes our insatiably curious society is to blame for that, but I really don''t know that fame means they work hard for their money. I do think its weird to have to sign up for time to spend with mom and dad. I mean, if a kid gets hurt, do they wait until their scheduled time at 6pm for a hug and kiss to make it all better? Or are the older siblings supposed to kind of take over those roles? And where are the kids going to find mates who have the same beliefs as they do? Because knowing modern society, most children haven''t been raised with the Quiverfull ideologies and will reject it fully, and there aren''t exactly a lot of them running around (wiki said in the low tens of thousands).

This Quiverfull Christianity is fascinating stuff as I read more about it.

I don''t really care what they do or don''t do, I''m just curious as to how these kids will turn out in the long run. For the most part society will reject them, and that sucks for them. I''m not saying that they are a bad family. I''m not saying anything of the sort, just that its an interesting social experiment.

I really hope each child doesn''t have 18 kids each.

BTW we don''t plan on having biological children, and if we ever decide to take on parenthood, it''ll be by adoption.

 

[iheartscience]

Date: 5/10/2008 8:54:29 PM
Author: KimberlyH

I think it is irresponsible of them to have so many children for reasons which have already been mentioned. First, our responsibility to society as a whole and the taxing of resources, if not financial than natural, should cause anyone pause, and consider the local and global impact of two people having so many children (it is estimated that they have used 90,000 diapers to-date, they own 9 vehicles, including a bus, and do approximately 200 loads of laundry a month). Second, the ability of two people to truly raise 18 children without expecting help from either the older children or outside sources is simply not plausible and I believe that if two people choose to have a child(ren) they should be fully prepared to care for him/her/them without expecting anyone else to step in. This family has a buddy system in place and the older buddy is responsible for the younger and children must ''sign up'' to have one-on-one time with a parent.

Could the quite possibly be a nice family? Sure. But does that mean that I am wrong for believing the parents'' choices are irrsponsible? No. And in judging them, and people like them, it has caused me to consider how many children my husband and I will have, if any, and what my responsbility is to both society and my own family. Judging others is often how we discern right from wrong and having an opinion about the choices people make, often guides us (the collective us) in making our own decisions about what is right for our lives. I don''t think that''s such a bad thing.

I can''t say it better than KimberlyH, so I will simply offer a big fat DITTO.

That family really disturbs me. Of course there are worse things in the world, but that''s always the case. Is that a good reason to not believe that what they''re doing is wrong?

I feel sorry for those children. I''d be out the door the second I turned 18 if I was one of them.

 

[monarch64]

For the record, I just want to say that I am not religious at all...I feel like my responsibility as a human being is to be accepting and respectful of everyone else''s opinions and differences from my own thoughts and takes on every issue. I thoroughly enjoy hearing everyone''s points of view on the Duggar family. It is always a learning experience for me when I read threads like this, I feel like I gain a new perspective every time I do so. You PSr''s are a smart lot and never cease to enlighten me somehow.

 

[miraclesrule]

I also think it''s a huge assumption to assume the woman will use 90,000 diapers. I bet that woman uses cloth diapers and diaper pins and rubber pants when she can (most of the disposable ones are donated to the family.) She robably tosses them in the wash like my Mamma did. I even used them for a while but that was before the first disposable diapers, Luvs and Huggies, and they didn''t have the elastic legs, so you still had to put rubber pants over them or risk baby poop all over your waist. Yeah, I know, I sound like a dinosaur. But trust me, many parents are opting for the former method as it is enviromentally responsible. Maybe I should start up an eco-friendly diaper service like the good ole days. I''m sure it would beat working with all the s**ts in my office.

 

[bee*]

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

 

[studyer83]

On a (neutral) note -
Their lifestyle (children, children, and more children) was the norm until 2-3 generations ago. Unfortunately, with matnernal/fetal death rates, many women simply didn''t survive until the 18th or so child. Many children died as well.

While their children use lots of resources, they seem to live a pretty natural/healthy lifestyle, so a few of their children might actually use less than an average suburbia child. Just a thought. I do understand that their children/grandchildren are likely to grow exponentially though

 

[KimberlyH]

Date: 5/11/2008 3:17:24 AM
Author: miraclesrule
I also think it''s a huge assumption to assume the woman will use 90,000 diapers. I bet that woman uses cloth diapers and diaper pins and rubber pants when she can (most of the disposable ones are donated to the family.) She robably tosses them in the wash like my Mamma did. I even used them for a while but that was before the first disposable diapers, Luvs and Huggies, and they didn''t have the elastic legs, so you still had to put rubber pants over them or risk baby poop all over your waist. Yeah, I know, I sound like a dinosaur. But trust me, many parents are opting for the former method as it is enviromentally responsible. Maybe I should start up an eco-friendly diaper service like the good ole days. I''m sure it would beat working with all the s**ts in my office.

I actually pulled this information from a list of "Fun Facts" about the Duggars from Discovery''s website(http://health.discovery.com/convergence/duggars/funfacts.html). And I used the lower number presented for the laundry "fun" fact. An interview on the Today Show stated they do 63 loads a week, which would be at least 252 loads a month, in February, most months have more than 28 days. And if she is tossing them in the wash she is still using up large amounts of resources to care for all of her brood, which goes back to my original point about our collective responsibility to society as a whole.

 

[KimberlyH]

Date: 5/10/2008 11:52:19 PM
Author: *Lindsey*
Some of the comments here really surprised me... with all of the terrible parents in the world, I'm not sure how I can complain about the Duggers. They fully believe in their lifestyle and work hard to support themselves. Since when is having to care for your siblings child abuse? I cared for my younger sister at an early age. When did children become entitled to 24/7 attention from parents? Honestly I think people have become SO focused on their children, that children are becoming less self-reliant and more self-absorbed. In this country until more recently in our history, children were absolutely expected to look after their siblings -- just because that isn't a popular idea today doesn't mean this family is doing anything wrong.

If you don't want to have 18 kids, don't. If you're offended by how terribly this family is taxing our natural resources, perhaps you should limit yourself to one child so as not to increase your own carbon foot print. With all of the terrible things that go on in the world, I can't believe that this family is getting negative attention.

Lindsay, I'm not sure if your post is directed at me or not, but in case it is I thought I'd respond. I never said caring for siblings is "abuse" I said I think it's wrong that a child is being expected to fulfill the role of caretaker for a younger sibling. There's a difference between babysitting and being responsible for another child in your family. I am also not a proponent of children recieving constant attention from their parents, I believe in living a balanced life, and neither of these situations, the Duggars or the constant attention some children recieve from their parents, is. Until our more recent history people had lots of children due to high mortality rates and the need for children to help work the family land. Our culture has changed drastically, in both terrible and wonderful ways, and I think we need to use current standards to determine right from wrong, not base our ideas on what life was like 50 years ago and more. You are absolutely entitled to believe this isn't wrong, just as I am entitled to believe the opposite.

I certainly wouldn't ever have 18 children. I think it is all our responsibility to leave this earth with as little impact as possible, not just mine.

I think this family offends people so much because they use their size as a means of earning money. I'm sure they aren't the only family in this country to have 18 children, but they use it to create a media frenzy by announcing pregnancies on the Today Show and having televsion shows made. Of course there are much worse things occuring in the world today, but that doesn't mean that people can't be bothered by a family that seems, to some, so socially irresponsible.

 

[diamondsrock]

Wow, seems like there are two distinct sides to this issue. Maybe we can all agree to disagree? We''ve all got a right to our opinions, and by expressing mine, I"m certainly not trying to judge them. If it works for them, great. My main concern is about the kids having so much responsiblity for their buddy sibling. Every child deserves a childhood. Not saying they shouldn''t have chores, but there is a limit to what you can expect from a child in regards to running the household.
I believe one of the older girls makes lunch everyday for the whole crowd, and one of the other ones makes dinner every day for them as well. Can you imagine every day preparing dinner for this many people? I would imagine they have other chores as well. I think sometimes people take this opposition as some sort of mean-spirited judgemental talk, when in reality, I think a lot of people concerned about this are mainly concerned for the children. They have a right to whatever lifestyle they want (aside from the environmental standpoint - I do hope they recycle!). Hopefully they have some free time away from their structured day of chores, school, etc. where they can just be kids.
And yes, there are more important things to worry about in society besides the Duggars, that''s for sure.

 

[somethingshiny]

Just as a side note, I grew up with 3 siblings. I am the oldest girl and I had MANY responsibilities including laundry, cooking, scrubbing, etc. So, if you''re judging this family with 18 children according to what they "have to do" for their family, you''re also judging pretty much every family with 4 or more children.

I find it irresponsible to not believe that God knows what it best, but that''s just me.

I agree with the "agree to disagree" statement. This is a topic that has no center ground. Those whose faith outweighs their environmentalism are on one side and those whose environmentalism outweighs their faith is on the other side.

 

[KimberlyH]

Date: 5/11/2008 1:32:41 PM
Author: somethingshiny
Just as a side note, I grew up with 3 siblings. I am the oldest girl and I had MANY responsibilities including laundry, cooking, scrubbing, etc. So, if you''re judging this family with 18 children according to what they ''have to do'' for their family, you''re also judging pretty much every family with 4 or more children.

I find it irresponsible to not believe that God knows what it best, but that''s just me.

I agree with the ''agree to disagree'' statement. This is a topic that has no center ground. Those whose faith outweighs their environmentalism are on one side and those whose environmentalism outweighs their faith is on the other side.

Interesting viewpoint, SS. I grew up with one sibling and I had responsibilites, not enough actually, but some, and I don''t think the number of children should have bearing on the amount of responsibility each child has in a family (yes there would be more dishes to do, that''s very different then telling a child he/she is responsible for another). I left my faith out of the discussion because it is against forum rules to discuss and I don''t want to violate policy. Neither, in my world, outweighs the other, though, they are intertwined.

 

[diamondsrock]

Date: 5/11/2008 1:32:41 PM
Author: somethingshiny
Just as a side note, I grew up with 3 siblings. I am the oldest girl and I had MANY responsibilities including laundry, cooking, scrubbing, etc. So, if you're judging this family with 18 children according to what they 'have to do' for their family, you're also judging pretty much every family with 4 or more children.

I find it irresponsible to not believe that God knows what it best, but that's just me.

I agree with the 'agree to disagree' statement. This is a topic that has no center ground. Those whose faith outweighs their environmentalism are on one side and those whose environmentalism outweighs their faith is on the other side.

I"m sorry but there is a lot of differnce between helping out with chores (which every child should do no matter how many children are in the family) and cooking dinner every night, every day for 19 people, on top of your other household chores, plus the child you are responsible for by buddying. All families, large and small, should help each other out with household duties. I would never judge anyone for asking their children to help out around the house. It is absolutely expected and important for their personal growth into adulthood to teach them responsiblity. There is a limit however to what you can expect from one person.
I have a very strong faith in God, but it's against rules to discuss religion here so I won't. Also, this isn't about environmentalism for me, it's about the kids.