The Duggars'' Announce baby #19....

[steph72276]

I need to borrow some of her energy....I get tired with just one and trying to prepare myself for number 2! That is more kids than were in my kindergarten classes and I only had them until 2 o'clock. Whew!

 

[atroop711]

Date: 9/2/2009 12:35:51 PM
Author: steph72276
I need to borrow some of her energy....I get tired with just one and trying to prepare myself for number 2! That is more kids than were in my kindergarten classes and I only had them until 2 o''clock. Whew!

yes I would LOVE to know her secret..I''m EXHAUSTED with 3 and find myself getting to bed before 9pm

 

[VegasAngel]

Date: 9/2/2009 12:48:33 PM
Author: atroop711

Date: 9/2/2009 12:35:51 PM
Author: steph72276
I need to borrow some of her energy....I get tired with just one and trying to prepare myself for number 2! That is more kids than were in my kindergarten classes and I only had them until 2 o''clock. Whew!

yes I would LOVE to know her secret..I''m EXHAUSTED with 3 and find myself getting to bed before 9pm

They have 17+ babysitters

 

[Sha]

There''s a lot I respect about this family. The parents seem responsbile, loving, patient and hard-working (apparently the family is debt-free - with 18 children!), and they make an effort to teach their children good values. The children all seem very well-adjusted, responsible, self-confident, and very well-mannered and well-behaved. It''s amazing to see that, especially in a family of their size. Clearly, they''re doing something right!

I''m also amazed that the parents, especially Mrs. Duggar, manage to look so young and stress-free with 18 children! I would think that would take a toll on you, physically and emotionally, but her face looks very young and glowing - hardly any wrinkles. I could imagine she doesn''t use any wrinkle creams/potions either. And she seems to have a very loving and patient spirit. I don''t think I''ve ever seen her get angry on the Show.

Personally, though, I feel that having 19 children is a bit much. I don''t think our bodies were meant to have every possible child we could technically have - but it seems as though that''s what they plan to do. With her kind of fertility, she could be having children well into her late 40''s, where her children could be a great risk for developmental problems. I also don''t think it''s healthy for her body to be practically having a child every year. I really wonder if she has any vaginal elasticity left after giving birth to so many children.

 

[beechezz]

Date: 9/1/2009 11:49:56 PM
Author: Miranda
I am in awe of her uterus!

This just cracked me up!

 

[Tacori E-ring]

My concern is for her medically. Are there any doctors on here who can explain the possible physical complications having so many children can do on a woman''s body?

 

[Ellen]

Date: 9/2/2009 1:14:38 PM
Author: VegasAngel

Date: 9/2/2009 12:48:33 PM
Author: atroop711

Date: 9/2/2009 12:35:51 PM
Author: steph72276
I need to borrow some of her energy....I get tired with just one and trying to prepare myself for number 2! That is more kids than were in my kindergarten classes and I only had them until 2 o''clock. Whew!

yes I would LOVE to know her secret..I''m EXHAUSTED with 3 and find myself getting to bed before 9pm

They have 17+ babysitters

 

[swingirl]

The Gosslin kids would be lucky to have been born into the Duggar family. No nasty mother, no cavorting father, no babysitters, no nannies, no public spankings (I don''t think the Duggars hit their kids) just married parents, lots of family support and used clothing.

 

[luv2sparkle]

What I am amazed at is that none of their kids have seemingly given them any trouble. No drama or rebellion. No drinking or drugs. No sneeking out of the
house. No crazy obsession with the right clothes, shoes, tatoo''s or piercings! No car accidents, DUI''s or arrests.

I might have 19 if that were the case. Maybe it''s because of the home schooling? Gosh I wish I knew!

 

[drk]

Forget artificial birth control - there''s always charting to avoid. I''m sure she has clockwork, obviously ovulatory cycles since she gets pg so easily.

As much as I can''t fault them for having so many kids (since they''re not living on welfare, and the kids seem well-behaved and well-adjusted), it makes my infertile-person''s blood boil to see families like them get pg by looking at each other, when we go through agonies to have one.

 

[Black Jade]

Date: 9/2/2009 2:36:59 PM
Author: Tacori E-ring
My concern is for her medically. Are there any doctors on here who can explain the possible physical complications having so many children can do on a woman''s body?

My great-grandma had 16 children and lived to be 100. She was walking around until age 98 and though in a wheelchair after that, kept a clear mind until the end. My one grandmother had 9 and lived to be 88, again with no issues and the other had a lot of children too and lived into her 90''s.
My father had uncles about his same age--I see nothing strange about this at all and certainly nothing ''gross''.
Women''s bodies were created to have children. there used to be high maternal mortality in the days before drs and midwives knew to wash their hands and keeps everything sterile (from puerperal fever) but since then, having children is one of the safest things you can do.
I have many friends who have a large number of children (and homeschool) though I myself only have 3 and do not homeschool. These women are intelligent, well-educated (you have to keep abreast of educational developments to homeschool), slender (they cook from scratch--it''s fast food and convenience food that make people fat) and have well-behaved and pleasant children. The vast majority of them, anyway (there are always some exceptions to everything). We respect each other, although we have made different choices. (As I said, I''ve never home-schooled and I was a working mother for 10-12 while my two oldest were young, though I am not at the moment. I may do it again before my youngest finishes high school, but at the moment I do not.)
I see that what they are doing works and find myself quite distressed at some of the comments on this thread which seem a bit (dare I say) intolerant?
A lot of the comments are not intolerant, and one has the right to have opinions and to discuss them up to a point--but does no else think its a little over the line to be wondering in public about the state of someone else''s vagina?
Intolerance does have consequences. I have been amazed, since becoming friends with many in the homeschool loop at the continual attempts all over the United States to outlaw homeschooling, or pass laws that would make homeschooling difficult to impossible, to claim that homeschoolers must by definition be awful parents and even that their children should be taken away. In other countries, such laws do exist. There was a case recently where some homeschoolers had to leave Germany because of the laws.
This seems problematic to me.
I should probably also reveal that my job, when I did work, was as a college professor. And even the professors who were against homeschooling in theory were forced to admit what a pleasure it was to teach the formerly home-schooled children, who were not only always at a very high level educationally (at home, you actually learn to read, write clear English and do mathematics and get critical thinking skills, something that is not always the case in crowded public school classes) but were polite, well-behaved, and in general, used to thinking on their own and doing independent work by high school age, so needed a lot less hand-handholding.
We started to get a large number of homeschooled college students at my college, probably around 2000, 2001. We had a had few before that, but after that date, it could often be as much as half the class.
Ending this post now because we have back to school night at my son''s public high school, which he has just started as a freshman and I need to meet the teachers, find out what the curriculum is, go home and google the teachers (you''d be surprised what you find sometimes), sign up to volunteer at the school and watch the preview of the family life curriculum.
Coming from a country where there was no public education system, I am reluctant to not support the one that we have here in the US--but ''support'' does not mean that I am going to blindly leave my children somewhere for eight hours every day and assume that overworked strangers in a bureauracracy that gets more peculiar every year are going to automatically have their best interests at heart.

 

[E B]

Date: 9/2/2009 2:36:59 PM
Author: Tacori E-ring
My concern is for her medically. Are there any doctors on here who can explain the possible physical complications having so many children can do on a woman''s body?

If I remember correctly, she has to have her cervix sewn shut with each new pregnancy.

 

[diamondsrock]

I feel badly for the older children. They have to take care of the young ones. Where is the childhood in that? Helping is one thing, but I think it goes way beyond that. I think they are indeed responsible for their younger siblings. I don't think that's fair to the older kids.

And there is absolutely no way in my mind one woman can homeschool all those children and have them receive a quality education. Each child is on a different education level due to the different ages. How can she possibly be qualified to each every single grade level imaginable? Also, there is no way each one can get individual attention. Unless the older ones are schooling them too, which is just wrong on so many levels. I am not against homeschooling kids, and I can see how homeschooling 2 or 3 kids or even 4 or 5 would work. But not the number of children she has.

I was kind of annoyed to start my morning the other day with the news of the "BIG ANNOUNCEMENT" on the Today show. I mean, come on, like we can't guess what it is? That's news? This woman will probably keep reproducing until her body gives out, and that's all there is to it. So long as her body can produce a baby, she will have one. I fear for her health, as she gets older, with the pregnancies. Sooner or later it will become dangerous if she continues.

 

[Tacori E-ring]

Black Jade, I feel like my question was not in judgement but in curiosity. I was not implying that she was shortening her life but I do *know* that there are certain health risks for having children too close together (before your body has enough time to rebuild its vitamins). I was simply asking if anyone in the medical profession could explain those risks (ex. prolapse bladder).

Ebree, that is interesting.

 

[Vancity]

Jim Bob, that ol'' horndog has gone and done it again...waved his magic pee-pee, and the baby factory is back in operation!

That''s some pretty potent sperm he''s shootin''. I''m afraid to visit Arkansas

 

[Italiahaircolor]

I understand and respect that her children are wholesome, moral individuals...but that's only part of it.

They, like the Gosslin's, make money per episode (E! estimates it's around $50,000 a pop) so I am not overly impressed that they are debt free. If everyone made that sort of money, my assumption would be that no one would be in debt. The children aren't raised with a ton of perks or extras...so my guess is that they literally spend their money to stay above the proverty line--19 children are expensive. It also worries me that they are setting this example for their children who will undoubtably go forward to reproduce at the same rate of speed. It's scary when you consider they all may not be as lucky as their parents when it comes to $$. This can't be an easy lifestyle to maintain...could you imagine doing it on a lesser salary? I can't, that's for sure.

She does, from what I've seen, appear to be very relaxed and comfortable with her family. But I guess you get to a certain point where you can either choose to mircomanage or you can choose to "breathe".

I think I feel badly for the children. They are siblings in a traditional sense, but born so far apart, what will their relationships with each other be? Not to mention the comments made about quality time with their parents.

And Blackjade...I respect your Grandmother very much. But I also know the world was a very different place back then. Children are expensive...parents are forking out more money now to create a lifestyle for their kids. It's just a different world and big families aren't the norm.

 

[D&T]

Date: 9/2/2009 3:13:40 PM
Author: swingirl
The Gosslin kids would be lucky to have been born into the Duggar family. No nasty mother, no cavorting father, no babysitters, no nannies, no public spankings (I don''t think the Duggars hit their kids) just married parents, lots of family support and used clothing.

agreed.

wow! am just amazed at their family!

 

[JSM]

Forget about everything else, I don't like how people are saying that it's "gross" to be pregnant at the same time as your MIL - in this case, she's only 42! Nowadays some women are only starting their families at 42.

The only thing I can think of when I think of the Duggars... I am one of four children. Sometimes my mom would go through 3 different names before she came to mine, or even the famous, "whatever your name is!". I have to laugh when I think of this happening in their household!

 

[cara]

Author: BlackJade
Women's bodies were created to have children. there used to be high maternal mortality in the days before drs and midwives knew to wash their hands and keeps everything sterile (from puerperal fever) but since then, having children is one of the safest things you can do.

There are several exaggerations here. *Some* women have an easy time getting pregnant, carrying babies, nursing their newborn and quickly getting pregnant again. Not all. Many women have a more difficult time with some part of that cycle, and her doctor alluded that Mrs. Duggar is far more suited than the average woman to childbearing. Even in days of yore with no birth-control and larger families, 19 kids was well above average family size and many women started having kids at a younger age than Mrs. D.

My aunt had seven kids in relatively quick succession before taking more serious measures to limit her fertility, and she has alluded to health effects from her pregnancies (varicose veins, low bone density, etc.) but probably has greater life expentancy than her husband now, as she is fit and healthy and female. That's the problem with anecdotes - you need statistics!

And to say that washing hands and keeping things sterile are the only reasons giving birth is safer in modern times, well, it ignores a lot of available evidence to the contrary. SKILLED BIRTH ATTENDENTS save lives, and do things besides just washing hands and preventing infection. Giving birth actually remains the most dangerous thing many women will do in their lives in many parts of the world today.

Even Mrs. Duggar has had several c-sections, if I remember correctly.

I will agree that there's nothing particularly gross about having a niece or nephew older than their aunt or uncle - but maybe that's cause there's an example of that in my own family. All it takes is two generations of early first childbirth and a later baby from the first parent. At least both Mrs. Duggar and her DIL were not teenagers for their first child, thought there are plenty of non-gross examples of that out there as well.

 

[pennquaker09]

"I cannot fathom wht the inside of her body must be like." - San Diego Lady

"I am in awe of her uterus!"

If I had the power to give out like, an Emmy for quote of the year, those would be in the running.

Personally, I believe that kids should be kids and parents should be parents. I don''t think it is the responsiblility of a child, even an 18 year old, to do the cooking and cleaning and whatever because mommy and daddy decided they were going to have as many kids as they could. And, I believe kids should have the chance to decide who they want to be or believe, not be indoctrinated.

 

[MissGotRocks]

I'm quite certain that she will continue to have children until she hits menopause and can just no longer conceive. I have known a couple of families like this but the highest kid count was 13. That's their belief and nothing that anyone else says makes a difference to them. I do applaud this particular family inasmuch as they are self sufficient and make it look quite easy.

All of those children (save the very youngest) have to take care of someone - in addition to themselves - all the time. They are born into that lifestyle and had no choice or say in it. I'm all for everyone in the family pitching in to help but that takes it to another level. I question the level of education they are receiving - it would be impossible to plan separate lessons each day for all of those children. From what I remember about watching the shows, they were home schooled and really only socialized with others within their own church. I guess their exposure is limited so maybe they aren't tempted to try so many things that other kids today do. I think they watch very limited television so they probably aren't acutely aware of all that goes on in the rest of the world.

It wouldn't be the life for me but as long as they are taking care of their own more power to them!

 

[Hudson_Hawk]

I''ve said it once and I''ll say it again. A vagina is NOT a clown car!

 

[tiffanytwisted]

Date: 9/2/2009 10:02:46 PM
Author: Hudson_Hawk
I''ve said it once and I''ll say it again. A vagina is NOT a clown car!

I find it extremely amusing that you''ve had the opportunity to say that more than once!

 

[Black Jade]

Date: 9/2/2009 5:41:08 PM
Author: Italiahaircolor
I understand and respect that her children are wholesome, moral individuals...but that''s only part of it.

They, like the Gosslin''s, make money per episode (E! estimates it''s around $50,000 a pop) so I am not overly impressed that they are debt free. If everyone made that sort of money, my assumption would be that no one would be in debt. The children aren''t raised with a ton of perks or extras...so my guess is that they literally spend their money to stay above the proverty line--19 children are expensive. It also worries me that they are setting this example for their children who will undoubtably go forward to reproduce at the same rate of speed. It''s scary when you consider they all may not be as lucky as their parents when it comes to $$. This can''t be an easy lifestyle to maintain...could you imagine doing it on a lesser salary? I can''t, that''s for sure.

She does, from what I''ve seen, appear to be very relaxed and comfortable with her family. But I guess you get to a certain point where you can either choose to mircomanage or you can choose to ''breathe''.

I think I feel badly for the children. They are siblings in a traditional sense, but born so far apart, what will their relationships with each other be? Not to mention the comments made about quality time with their parents.

And Blackjade...I respect your Grandmother very much. But I also know the world was a very different place back then. Children are expensive...parents are forking out more money now to create a lifestyle for their kids. It''s just a different world and big families aren''t the norm.

Thank you for respecting my grandmother.
I don''t understand the logic behind the rest of what you write to me, though.
I was talking about the health question and pointing out that women who have more than a few children can have very good health and live a long time in good condition. If my great-grandmothers and grandmothers could do so , having all had their many children at home in third world countries where medical care was substandard back at the beginning of the twentieth century and in the 1930''s, surely women who choose to have many children nowadays should do even better, since the world has become a different place in terms of sanitation and good health care.
Also-- I don''t see why big families not being ''the norm'' makes them problematic.
Some people choose to go against ''the norm''.
Not everyone feels that ''a lifestyle'' is the most important thing for their children to have.
Some feel that it is more important for their children to grow up learning how to be responsible, how to share, how to do without things that you don''t truly need, how to be helpful to others, how to be resourceful--the list goes on and on.
I wonder who is going to do better in the post economic crisis world--children from large families who have never been taught to value large t.v.s and plenty of video games and the most stylish clothes, too often bought on credit and too quicly thrown out--or the rest of us?
I repeat that I know a lot of these people. My two best friends have families of nine. Other friends have five to seven children and many are homeschooling. I don''t have the same life, but what I have seen, in person, I respect.
I can see that some of you on this thread have the same feelings and that others are willing to be open-minded, but there are few of you here who are--let''s just say, not willing to consider that someone whose choices are different from yours might be something other than a joke.
A writer that I respect a lot, his name is C.S.Lewis once said something to the effect that, it''s never a sufficient reason to write something off because someone tells you it''s old-fashioned or outdated. You should write it off only if there is actual proof that it doesn''t work.
I see no proof at all (certainly none has been brought up in this discussion) that the Duggar''s lifestyle does not work.
No one is addressing the point that keeps being brought up--how are these children worse off than the children in small families whose parents have no time for them because they both put career first and let them spend extensive amounts of time unsupervised in which they play endless video games alone in the house, eat junk food--or worse, get tired of being alone and start inviting friends over and getting into mischief with the internet and drugs?
Not all working parents end up with this situation, and I am NOT against moms working, because as I said, I did this myself for quite a while, but a lot of this goes on. Too much. There''s plenty of it in my (affluent) neighborhood right now and I think there might be something to be said for a situation in which you have plenty of siblings to watch you and chores to do to protect you from certain VERY PERVASIVE social problems.

 

[Italiahaircolor]

Black Jade, without copying the whole posting, I''m going to touch on a few points.

I didn''t address the health issue--because frankly, I''m pretty unware of the ins and outs caused by multiple pregnancies. However, I did respond to your comments about raising multiple children.

When I said "lifestyle" I wasn''t referring to just video games and what not. I was speaking about braces, college educations, tutors and so on. The things that used to be unheard of or considered luxuries that are now more along the lines of ordinary, but are still expensive for parents.

I think people "joke" about the Duggars and their situation because it''s over the top. Lets be honest...19 children? Thats a ton of kids. The things we "joke" about or say in jest are based off real feelings. The Duggars have opted to expose us to their lifes...and with that will come judgements.

 

[CNOS128]

Date: 9/2/2009 5:31:57 PM
Author: Tacori E-ring
I was simply asking if anyone in the medical profession could explain those risks (ex. prolapse bladder).

Or uterine prolapse!! The woman must have a cervix of steel!

 

[Apsara]

It is socially irresponsible to have 19 children in this day and age, no matter what their financial situation is.

I saw it and was disgusted and appalled.

 

[Burberrygirl]

Date: 9/3/2009 12:01:29 AM
Author: Apsara
It is socially irresponsible to have 19 children in this day and age, no matter what their financial situation is.

I saw it and was disgusted and appalled.

I agree, and anyways they''d still be having more children even if they weren''t on t.v. I don''t understand how they managed it before. I won''t have children unless I''m in a position to take care of them financially. To me that iincludes putting all my children through college without any debt, not to mention the thousands that is spent while they''re growing up. That''s just the kind of family I grew up in, and I wouldn''t want it any other way.

I feel bad for the older kids that have to take care of all the younger ones. It''s like they aren''t able to be children. I think it''s nice they get to learn to take care of children at a young age and help out with chores... but this is just too much. It just seems selfish, but at least they seem grounded. I definitely don''t agree with the choices they''ve made, but it is their life and I wish them all the luck in the world!

 

[Laila619]

Date: 9/2/2009 10:02:46 PM
Author: Hudson_Hawk
I've said it once and I'll say it again. A vagina is NOT a clown car!

Hee!

You will like this Hudson Hawk, I got this in an e-mail.

 

[LtlFirecracker]

So I will start this by saying the further away I get from medical school, the dumber I get about specialities outside of my own. So this is me more thinking as a lay person.

So, yes, women''s bodies are designed to carry many pregnancies. Actually when someone posed the questions I could make a long list of the the health risks that come from not having any children (and I am 30 now without any children so this scares me because I am now at increased risk for breast cancer which is the disease that took my mother''s life), but I really couldn''t think of many that come with having multiple children except pelvic floor weakness leading to loss of bladder control later on. I guess if the mother is not getting good nutrition, she could be at risk for osteopenia because the body sacrifices the mother''s bones for the babies.

Back before modern medicine, women did have multiple children. The thinking is that with breast feeding, pregnancies spaced about every 2 years. However, not all women do well with pregnancy, and many died. It was more than just doctors not washing hands after hanging out in the morgue (which did happen in the 1800''s). If the baby is too big and the pelvis is too small, that is a problem. There are also complications like placenta previa which is when the placenta implants over the cervix (which are now automatic c-sections to prevent hemorrhage), abruption (which still causes lots of problems in even modern medicine), pre-eclampsia, preterm labor and the list goes on. I have seen a lot of pregnancies go bad for reasons other than infection.

The babies also had a high mortality rate. Infection is a big problem in newborn babies and young children, and diseases that are typically harmless in an adult can kill or do long term brain damage to a baby. Women had lots of babies hoping a few would survive long enough to reproduce. With immunizations, antibiotics, good hospitals, and a good public sewer system, a lot of these problems have been reduced.

People did not live as long as they do no. Until the modern era, I think the average life expectancy was 40.

If Mrs Duggar did need her cervix closed, than I would expect her to be on bed rest. That is not a procedure that always works.

She is at risk for the birth problems that come with advanced maternal age.

As for her personal choices, that is what they are and I will live my opinions to myself.