shape
carat
color
clarity

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

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
Wow! My parents couldn''t afford to pay for my college education. I guess I should never have been born.
20.gif
 
Date: 9/2/2009 12:33:39 PM
Author: MC

It is irresponsible to have that many kids and we have EVERY right to judge because the family has made it a point to tell EVERYONE about it. If they kept a quiet life, than things would be different.
They kept a very quiet life before the show. They were approached by someone else to do the show, actually to do some short specials first, which turned into a show... not the other way around with the Duggars wanting to tell the world and trying to find a way to do that. They do the show to try to be a witness for their faith and be an inspiration to other families out there on how to raise a family. If you watch it, their narrations show that - they are always explaining the background behind why they do certain things and why their family believes what they do. They didn''t do the show to show the world how many kids they have.

Michelle has even explained about her body before. They are well aware of the fact that their last baby may have been their last, and they accept that. They don''t plan these things, and they believe that God will give them the baby at the proper time, and will let them know when her body is done.
 
Date: 9/3/2009 3:57:04 AM
Author: LAJennifer
Wow! My parents couldn''t afford to pay for my college education. I guess I should never have been born.
20.gif
Yeah, that''s an argument I don''t understand. It''s not a horrible thing to have to pay for your own college education, or to go without braces. Both are, honestly, not necessary in order to live and be able to pay your own way. Further, not all families value college and perfect teeth. It''s clear what the Duggars value - family, a strong marital relationship, and living within their means.

I also think it''s a very Western idea that kids should be able to "be kids," and while that''s nice, it''s also not necessary. It''s not necessary to play tag, or house, or anything like that. What is necessary in life is knowing how to provide for yourself and take care of yourself and your family, and I would say the Duggar kids have a head start on people like me - a spoilt brat who''s had a housekeeper since she was 7, and who didn''t really have to cook or clean until college (or after, as far as cooking goes).

They know they live a life outside of the "norm" and they''re happy with it. They (and many of us contributing to this conversation) live in a country where as long as they''re not breaking any laws, they''re free to do that.

We''re as entitled to have no kids (or only one or two) as they are to have 19 (or 20 or 21...), and we can all set our own limits on what constitutes being able to take care of our own kids. They don''t draw that line where I would (I would like to be able to get my kids braces and travel with them, not to mention at least help with college), but this works for them.

(Though, HH, I have to say that line has been burned into my brain and pops up every time I hear about them having a kid!)
 
I thought about something else. They don''t talk about this much, but when they were first married, Michelle was on birth control. I believe they had Josh first, then with the next baby they were pregnant with, she had a miscarriage. It devastated them, and I think that''s when they decided to let it be up to God when they have children. They believe it is up to him, and I think she''s even said that with as hard as the miscarriage was, they think that was God''s way of letting them know that they should leave it up to him and not try to control it themselves.

...Just some perspective on where they''re coming from. They''re not foreign to the concept of birth control, they just consciously choose not to use it and believe God will give them exactly what is right for them.

And I think so far, they''re doing perfect with the family they have and raising 18 kids that act a heck of a lot better and will be a much better addition to this world than a lot of kids running around rampant these days doing nothing but causing trouble, being irresponsible, and adding nothing good to the world.
 
Date: 9/2/2009 5:30:39 PM
Author: 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.

From what I''ve read, there''s a buddy system. The older kids teach or tutor the younger ones. Also, I don''t doubt the curriculum they use is vastly different from standard curriculum. They''re fundamentalists and teach/instruct according to their doctrinal beliefs.

She claims she was still breastfeeding when she got pregnant this time, but I wonder if she reduced certain feedings in hopes of her menses returning. Reducing night feedings will do that since the hormones that sustain milk production are most active at night. I also remember from the much earlier shows that the new baby is her ''buddy'' up to 6 months and then is paired with an older sibling. Gotta love that buddy system.
 
Have any of the kids mentioned whether they too want a big family, or not?
 
Date: 9/3/2009 10:44:05 AM
Author: VegasAngel
Have any of the kids mentioned whether they too want a big family, or not?
I believe Josh and his wife, Anna, have said that they will live the same life and have as many kids as God allows. Anna also comes from a large family with similar beliefs and seems really excited to be pregnant for the first time.
 
Date: 9/3/2009 10:02:37 AM
Author: princesss

Date: 9/3/2009 3:57:04 AM
Author: LAJennifer
Wow! My parents couldn''t afford to pay for my college education. I guess I should never have been born.
20.gif
Yeah, that''s an argument I don''t understand. It''s not a horrible thing to have to pay for your own college education, or to go without braces. Both are, honestly, not necessary in order to live and be able to pay your own way. Further, not all families value college and perfect teeth. It''s clear what the Duggars value - family, a strong marital relationship, and living within their means.

I also think it''s a very Western idea that kids should be able to ''be kids,'' and while that''s nice, it''s also not necessary. It''s not necessary to play tag, or house, or anything like that. What is necessary in life is knowing how to provide for yourself and take care of yourself and your family, and I would say the Duggar kids have a head start on people like me - a spoilt brat who''s had a housekeeper since she was 7, and who didn''t really have to cook or clean until college (or after, as far as cooking goes).

They know they live a life outside of the ''norm'' and they''re happy with it. They (and many of us contributing to this conversation) live in a country where as long as they''re not breaking any laws, they''re free to do that.

We''re as entitled to have no kids (or only one or two) as they are to have 19 (or 20 or 21...), and we can all set our own limits on what constitutes being able to take care of our own kids. They don''t draw that line where I would (I would like to be able to get my kids braces and travel with them, not to mention at least help with college), but this works for them.

(Though, HH, I have to say that line has been burned into my brain and pops up every time I hear about them having a kid!)
Thanks for the
20.gif
! In don''t think either of you understood my post. I simply said I would only feel comfortable having children under those circumstances, just like the Duggars are comfortable with having more children in their current situation. I never implied that everyone has to live that way or they''re wrong for not being like my family. I know I never said anyone shouldn''t have been born.

Princesss, clearly I had different experiences growing up. While I am also a "spoilt brat," I''m guessing a grew up in a much different household. While I was able to play as a child I also know how to take care of myself. My family stressed the importance of education, financial security and many other values that without I wouldn''t feel comfortable raising chidren. I never said the Duggars are horrible for their choices. I did say I don''t agree with them, but it''s their life and I wish them all the luck in the world. Similarly, you might not agree with my choices, but at the end of the day they''re mine and I don''t care if you don''t agree with them.
 
Date: 9/3/2009 1:17:58 PM
Author: Burberrygirl

Date: 9/3/2009 10:02:37 AM
Author: princesss


Date: 9/3/2009 3:57:04 AM
Author: LAJennifer
Wow! My parents couldn''t afford to pay for my college education. I guess I should never have been born.
20.gif
Yeah, that''s an argument I don''t understand. It''s not a horrible thing to have to pay for your own college education, or to go without braces. Both are, honestly, not necessary in order to live and be able to pay your own way. Further, not all families value college and perfect teeth. It''s clear what the Duggars value - family, a strong marital relationship, and living within their means.

I also think it''s a very Western idea that kids should be able to ''be kids,'' and while that''s nice, it''s also not necessary. It''s not necessary to play tag, or house, or anything like that. What is necessary in life is knowing how to provide for yourself and take care of yourself and your family, and I would say the Duggar kids have a head start on people like me - a spoilt brat who''s had a housekeeper since she was 7, and who didn''t really have to cook or clean until college (or after, as far as cooking goes).

They know they live a life outside of the ''norm'' and they''re happy with it. They (and many of us contributing to this conversation) live in a country where as long as they''re not breaking any laws, they''re free to do that.

We''re as entitled to have no kids (or only one or two) as they are to have 19 (or 20 or 21...), and we can all set our own limits on what constitutes being able to take care of our own kids. They don''t draw that line where I would (I would like to be able to get my kids braces and travel with them, not to mention at least help with college), but this works for them.

(Though, HH, I have to say that line has been burned into my brain and pops up every time I hear about them having a kid!)
Thanks for the
20.gif
! In don''t think either of you understood my post. I simply said I would only feel comfortable having children under those circumstances, just like the Duggars are comfortable with having more children in their current situation. I never implied that everyone has to live that way or they''re wrong for not being like my family. I know I never said anyone shouldn''t have been born.

Princesss, clearly I had different experiences growing up. While I am also a ''spoilt brat,'' I''m guessing a grew up in a much different household. While I was able to play as a child I also know how to take care of myself. My family stressed the importance of education, financial security and many other values that without I wouldn''t feel comfortable raising chidren. I never said the Duggars are horrible for their choices. I did say I don''t agree with them, but it''s their life and I wish them all the luck in the world. Similarly, you might not agree with my choices, but at the end of the day they''re mine and I don''t care if you don''t agree with them.
Wow, really not sure where that came from. I was actually referencing earlier posters who said they thought it was sad that the kids couldn''t just "be kids." So thanks for taking my joking self-deprication and making it about you, but next time calm down and don''t try to read between the lines for something that''s not there.
 
Date: 9/3/2009 1:25:28 PM
Author: princesss


Date: 9/3/2009 1:17:58 PM
Author: Burberrygirl



Date: 9/3/2009 10:02:37 AM
Author: princesss




Date: 9/3/2009 3:57:04 AM
Author: LAJennifer
Wow! My parents couldn't afford to pay for my college education. I guess I should never have been born.
20.gif
Yeah, that's an argument I don't understand. It's not a horrible thing to have to pay for your own college education, or to go without braces. Both are, honestly, not necessary in order to live and be able to pay your own way. Further, not all families value college and perfect teeth. It's clear what the Duggars value - family, a strong marital relationship, and living within their means.

I also think it's a very Western idea that kids should be able to 'be kids,' and while that's nice, it's also not necessary. It's not necessary to play tag, or house, or anything like that. What is necessary in life is knowing how to provide for yourself and take care of yourself and your family, and I would say the Duggar kids have a head start on people like me - a spoilt brat who's had a housekeeper since she was 7, and who didn't really have to cook or clean until college (or after, as far as cooking goes).

They know they live a life outside of the 'norm' and they're happy with it. They (and many of us contributing to this conversation) live in a country where as long as they're not breaking any laws, they're free to do that.

We're as entitled to have no kids (or only one or two) as they are to have 19 (or 20 or 21...), and we can all set our own limits on what constitutes being able to take care of our own kids. They don't draw that line where I would (I would like to be able to get my kids braces and travel with them, not to mention at least help with college), but this works for them.

(Though, HH, I have to say that line has been burned into my brain and pops up every time I hear about them having a kid!)
Thanks for the
20.gif
! In don't think either of you understood my post. I simply said I would only feel comfortable having children under those circumstances, just like the Duggars are comfortable with having more children in their current situation. I never implied that everyone has to live that way or they're wrong for not being like my family. I know I never said anyone shouldn't have been born.

Princesss, clearly I had different experiences growing up. While I am also a 'spoilt brat,' I'm guessing a grew up in a much different household. While I was able to play as a child I also know how to take care of myself. My family stressed the importance of education, financial security and many other values that without I wouldn't feel comfortable raising chidren. I never said the Duggars are horrible for their choices. I did say I don't agree with them, but it's their life and I wish them all the luck in the world. Similarly, you might not agree with my choices, but at the end of the day they're mine and I don't care if you don't agree with them.
Wow, really not sure where that came from. I was actually referencing earlier posters who said they thought it was sad that the kids couldn't just 'be kids.' So thanks for taking my joking self-deprication and making it about you, but next time calm down and don't try to read between the lines for something that's not there.
I don't know if you actually read my first post, but I said and agreed with others that said it was sad the kids couldn't be just kids. All I was trying to do was explain my first post better. I'm not upset, I was just trying to clarify. I have no need to calm down because your opinion doesn't really matter to me, I don't even know you. I wasn't reading between the lines, I never said you implied that I was a spoilt brat. I just said I was one and had different experiences than others that have led me to think the way I do. I was only explaining my position, not attacking anyone. I never mean't to upset you or anyone else!
1.gif
Sorry for the misunderstanding, I guess I need to work on the way I phrase things.
 
Date: 9/3/2009 1:58:45 AM
Author: 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.
Thanks for this post. I do appreciate posts that show that people are thinking about a subject even if we disagree.

I was myself going to mention the fact mentioned in your second paragraph, that there are many more health risks that come from possibly not having children than there are from having children, but it did not seem tactful to do on this particular message board.

I stand corrected about infection being the ''only'' cause of pregnancies going wrong--as you mention, there are others, but as a historian I do know that it is a fact that when in the 19th century the importance of cleanliness and keeping things sterile was realized, the rate of women dying in childbirth really, really dropped just from that one thing alone. I also know that, although infant mortality was high pre-midnineteenth century in the industrialized societies, and continues to be high in the third world (where I happen to have been born), women did not have a lot of children hoping only a few would survive. Women had a lot of children because it is useful in those kinds of societies to have a lot of children--there are more hands to do the work on the farm, so to speak and to help in the house. And helping in the house, before about 1950 even here in the US was dawn-to-dusk labor that was very difficult and time consuming. Many of you have grandmothers or mothers, depending on your age, who can tell you about this.

Life expectancy being only 40 in past times is something I hear a lot which is not borne out by the historical record at all.
Life expectancy has been at least 60 in the first world societies for a long long time and in the United States, so far as I know has never had a life expectancy of 40. You also have to be careful when you hear this kind of figure even for countries such as India and some of the African countries. If you look at ''average'' life expectancy in countries with a huge infant mortality rate, you can get this kind of number, but it''s not very meaningful. What you need to look at is how long people live if they live past the age of two. IN many third-world countries a brutal kind of ''survival of the fittest'' takes place. If you have any weaknesses at all, you are not going to live to be two--but if you live past that age, you very probably will go on to 70 or 80 because you are naturally very strong, and now have become immune to a great many things that would kill off most Americans quickly if they were forced to live in your circumstances (mostly things caused by poor sanitation and bad water).

It is true that Mrs. Duggar is now at risk for things that happen with advanced maternal age. But they may not necessarily happen. I had one great grandmother that continued to bear healthy children until she was age 52. Certainly, its by no means such a sure thing that she will now begin to have children who are ill that she has to be advised not to have children for that reason. Also, if Mrs. Duggar did have a child with Downs, or something of that nature.I can tell you something--it will be an extremely well-cared for child and will live the optimum kind of life that is possible, because she will believe it is as valuable as her other children, and so will every body else in her circle.
 
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.
???!!!
No comment.
 
Date: 9/2/2009 4:47:19 PM
Author: 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.
I felt sad when I read your post, drk. It must indeed be difficult to see this, and its only human to feel that this is unfair. I have had friends who are struggling with infertility express these kinds of feelings to me and while I can''t empathize, I do sympathize and I sincerely hope that you have the children that you long for and that they are a great blessing to you and your husband.
 
Date: 9/3/2009 1:37:26 PM
Author: Burberrygirl

Date: 9/3/2009 1:25:28 PM
Author: princesss



Date: 9/3/2009 1:17:58 PM
Author: Burberrygirl




Date: 9/3/2009 10:02:37 AM
Author: princesss





Date: 9/3/2009 3:57:04 AM
Author: LAJennifer
Wow! My parents couldn''t afford to pay for my college education. I guess I should never have been born.
20.gif
Yeah, that''s an argument I don''t understand. It''s not a horrible thing to have to pay for your own college education, or to go without braces. Both are, honestly, not necessary in order to live and be able to pay your own way. Further, not all families value college and perfect teeth. It''s clear what the Duggars value - family, a strong marital relationship, and living within their means.

I also think it''s a very Western idea that kids should be able to ''be kids,'' and while that''s nice, it''s also not necessary. It''s not necessary to play tag, or house, or anything like that. What is necessary in life is knowing how to provide for yourself and take care of yourself and your family, and I would say the Duggar kids have a head start on people like me - a spoilt brat who''s had a housekeeper since she was 7, and who didn''t really have to cook or clean until college (or after, as far as cooking goes).

They know they live a life outside of the ''norm'' and they''re happy with it. They (and many of us contributing to this conversation) live in a country where as long as they''re not breaking any laws, they''re free to do that.

We''re as entitled to have no kids (or only one or two) as they are to have 19 (or 20 or 21...), and we can all set our own limits on what constitutes being able to take care of our own kids. They don''t draw that line where I would (I would like to be able to get my kids braces and travel with them, not to mention at least help with college), but this works for them.

(Though, HH, I have to say that line has been burned into my brain and pops up every time I hear about them having a kid!)
Thanks for the
20.gif
! In don''t think either of you understood my post. I simply said I would only feel comfortable having children under those circumstances, just like the Duggars are comfortable with having more children in their current situation. I never implied that everyone has to live that way or they''re wrong for not being like my family. I know I never said anyone shouldn''t have been born.

Princesss, clearly I had different experiences growing up. While I am also a ''spoilt brat,'' I''m guessing a grew up in a much different household. While I was able to play as a child I also know how to take care of myself. My family stressed the importance of education, financial security and many other values that without I wouldn''t feel comfortable raising chidren. I never said the Duggars are horrible for their choices. I did say I don''t agree with them, but it''s their life and I wish them all the luck in the world. Similarly, you might not agree with my choices, but at the end of the day they''re mine and I don''t care if you don''t agree with them.
Wow, really not sure where that came from. I was actually referencing earlier posters who said they thought it was sad that the kids couldn''t just ''be kids.'' So thanks for taking my joking self-deprication and making it about you, but next time calm down and don''t try to read between the lines for something that''s not there.
I don''t know if you actually read my first post, but I said and agreed with others that said it was sad the kids couldn''t be just kids. All I was trying to do was explain my first post better. I''m not upset, I was just trying to clarify. I have no need to calm down because your opinion doesn''t really matter to me, I don''t even know you. I wasn''t reading between the lines, I never said you implied that I was a spoilt brat. I just said I was one and had different experiences than others that have led me to think the way I do. I was only explaining my position, not attacking anyone. I never mean''t to upset you or anyone else!
1.gif
Sorry for the misunderstanding, I guess I need to work on the way I phrase things.
I didn''t actually read your first post. I''ve mostly been browsing through this thread, but since I''m a total anthro dork, the "let kids be kids" generalization leapt out at me and practically begged to be commented on. It definitely wasn''t an attack on you or anybody that said that, it''s just me wanting to point out that it''s not something that everybody takes for granted, and neither is a college education.

I don''t think it''s wrong to want to provide those things for your kids (above all, I want to travel with my kids, of all things. That''s my criteria, and I''m sure that seems stupid to 99% of people, but if I can''t travel with them, I''m not having them), but I think we need to be careful when we assume that''s what everybody *should* do/want/believe.

I do think that when we decide we can only see having a family in one very defined way, we lose out on a lot of the joy and challenge in life, and it often makes us more judgemental of people who don''t choose to do it exactly the way we would. I''m a live-and-let-live type, and I tend to think people that *don''t* do it just the way I would are more interesting (again, it''s the anthro nerd in me).
 
Date: 9/3/2009 2:02:37 PM
Author: princesss

I didn''t actually read your first post. I''ve mostly been browsing through this thread, but since I''m a total anthro dork, the ''let kids be kids'' generalization leapt out at me and practically begged to be commented on. It definitely wasn''t an attack on you or anybody that said that, it''s just me wanting to point out that it''s not something that everybody takes for granted, and neither is a college education.

I don''t think it''s wrong to want to provide those things for your kids (above all, I want to travel with my kids, of all things. That''s my criteria, and I''m sure that seems stupid to 99% of people, but if I can''t travel with them, I''m not having them), but I think we need to be careful when we assume that''s what everybody *should* do/want/believe.

I do think that when we decide we can only see having a family in one very defined way, we lose out on a lot of the joy and challenge in life, and it often makes us more judgemental of people who don''t choose to do it exactly the way we would. I''m a live-and-let-live type, and I tend to think people that *don''t* do it just the way I would are more interesting (again, it''s the anthro nerd in me).
I understand you weren''t attacking me, and I know those are not things everyone takes for granted. To me wanting to travel with your kids isn''t stupid, I completely understand where you''re coming from. I agree with everything you said, we do need to be careful about assuming what everyone should do, want or believe. I really try not to pass judgements, and realize it isn''t my place to tell someone how they should live their life. I may not agree, but I respect their right to choose. Differences are great, they make life so much more interesting then if everyone acted, wanted and believed exactly the same.
 
Date: 9/3/2009 12:12:09 PM
Author: elrohwen

Date: 9/3/2009 10:44:05 AM
Author: VegasAngel
Have any of the kids mentioned whether they too want a big family, or not?
I believe Josh and his wife, Anna, have said that they will live the same life and have as many kids as God allows. Anna also comes from a large family with similar beliefs and seems really excited to be pregnant for the first time.
Gotcha. Thanks for answering
1.gif
 
I don''t watch the show but I have a vague idea of who they are. All I can say is good for them for supporting all those children. Also I can''t help but think "OW" for the poor mother...I cannot imagine having to go through childbirth that many times.
 
Date: 9/3/2009 1:31:08 AM
Author: 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.
23.gif
LMAO!!!
 
Date: 9/2/2009 10:26:03 PM
Author: 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!

For the record, I''ve only ever said it in reference to Mrs. Duggar.
 
Date: 9/3/2009 4:38:26 PM
Author: Hudson_Hawk
Date: 9/2/2009 10:26:03 PM

Author: 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!


For the record, I''ve only ever said it in reference to Mrs. Duggar.

Not Octomom?
3.gif
 
Date: 9/3/2009 1:42:02 PM
Author: Black Jade

Life expectancy being only 40 in past times is something I hear a lot which is not borne out by the historical record at all.

Life expectancy has been at least 60 in the first world societies for a long long time and in the United States, so far as I know has never had a life expectancy of 40. You also have to be careful when you hear this kind of figure even for countries such as India and some of the African countries. If you look at ''average'' life expectancy in countries with a huge infant mortality rate, you can get this kind of number, but it''s not very meaningful. What you need to look at is how long people live if they live past the age of two. IN many third-world countries a brutal kind of ''survival of the fittest'' takes place. If you have any weaknesses at all, you are not going to live to be two--but if you live past that age, you very probably will go on to 70 or 80 because you are naturally very strong, and now have become immune to a great many things that would kill off most Americans quickly if they were forced to live in your circumstances (mostly things caused by poor sanitation and bad water).

Found this in less than a second on google, along with over 350,000,000 sites holding LE to around 40 for women in colonial New England, MA is cited specifically. link (that generic website is meh, but the source is excellent) If you want to learn more about the growth in life expectancy from a more scholarly tome, this one seems well cited and reviewed link I can continue if you would like to learn more.
 
Date: 9/3/2009 6:09:45 PM
Author: swimmer
Date: 9/3/2009 1:42:02 PM

Author: Black Jade


Life expectancy being only 40 in past times is something I hear a lot which is not borne out by the historical record at all.


Life expectancy has been at least 60 in the first world societies for a long long time and in the United States, so far as I know has never had a life expectancy of 40. You also have to be careful when you hear this kind of figure even for countries such as India and some of the African countries. If you look at ''average'' life expectancy in countries with a huge infant mortality rate, you can get this kind of number, but it''s not very meaningful. What you need to look at is how long people live if they live past the age of two. IN many third-world countries a brutal kind of ''survival of the fittest'' takes place. If you have any weaknesses at all, you are not going to live to be two--but if you live past that age, you very probably will go on to 70 or 80 because you are naturally very strong, and now have become immune to a great many things that would kill off most Americans quickly if they were forced to live in your circumstances (mostly things caused by poor sanitation and bad water).


Found this in less than a second on google, along with over 350,000,000 sites holding LE to around 40 for women in colonial New England, MA is cited specifically. link (that generic website is meh, but the source is excellent) If you want to learn more about the growth in life expectancy from a more scholarly tome, this one seems well cited and reviewed link I can continue if you would like to learn more.

Swimmer, that makes a lot of sense given the high rate of death during childbirth for women.
 
Date: 9/3/2009 3:51:31 PM
Author: oddoneout
I don''t watch the show but I have a vague idea of who they are. All I can say is good for them for supporting all those children. Also I can''t help but think ''OW'' for the poor mother...I cannot imagine having to go through childbirth that many times.
Well at this point you''d think they''d walk right out swinging a cane! Or maybe it''s more like a slip n'' slide?
3.gif
 
Date: 9/3/2009 6:31:58 PM
Author: sunnyd

Date: 9/3/2009 3:51:31 PM
Author: oddoneout
I don''t watch the show but I have a vague idea of who they are. All I can say is good for them for supporting all those children. Also I can''t help but think ''OW'' for the poor mother...I cannot imagine having to go through childbirth that many times.
Well at this point you''d think they''d walk right out swinging a cane! Or maybe it''s more like a slip n'' slide?
3.gif
OMG now there is funny I dont care who you are
25.gif
 
Date: 9/3/2009 6:31:58 PM
Author: sunnyd
Date: 9/3/2009 3:51:31 PM

Author: oddoneout

I don't watch the show but I have a vague idea of who they are. All I can say is good for them for supporting all those children. Also I can't help but think 'OW' for the poor mother...I cannot imagine having to go through childbirth that many times.

Well at this point you'd think they'd walk right out swinging a cane! Or maybe it's more like a slip n' slide?
3.gif

HA! I vote slip n' slide!
 
I like this paper on reproductive mortality in a population without modern contraception or medicine. It shows that parental mortality increases with number of children for both mothers and fathers, though of course mothers bear more risk than fathers. Obviously if men are affected its not just a childbirth-related risk. This increased risk extends even for five years beyond the birth of the last child, suggesting it is not just a newborn thing either. For women, increased risks of high parity (lots of kids) persists even past 50, so well after her reproductive phase. Survivorship of babies is worse when they have more siblings, and worse for babies with higher birth-order number in the family (ie. later born in big families.) And close birth spacing increases parental mortality for both mothers and fathers.

All this to say... There are (or at least were) real risks to having lots of kids, especially for mothers. There are biological limits to fertility (menopause, lactation-related infertility, no sex drive with all the childrearing...) but there are also good evolutionary reasons not to have as many kids as biologically possible: by limiting family size, you can be more sure that you will be around to successfully raise the kids you do have and see them into adulthood as well as give those kids a larger share of family resources. Applies to families of yesteryear with a passel of kids; applies to many modern families with only one or two.

But even in a premodern society, an umpteenth pregnancy is not a death sentence. Mrs. Duggar is a healthy woman with modern medicine and substantial income to assist her, I don't fear for her life with this 19th child. It also seems clear that she is well-above average in her fertility; perhaps she is also above average in terms of the toll each pregnancy and newborn and child takes on her.

ETA: I did go to their website and flip through some pics. OMG, 19 kids is a lot!! It is really insane, they have a fleet of them! I can't imagine the organization structure required. So many kids and names and clothes and personalities to take care of. Its one thing to type about them on a website, living it must be just ridiculous...
 
Date: 9/1/2009 11:32:14 PM
Author: TravelingGal
I worship this woman. I want to know how one can have 18 kids and still manage to have sex. I want to know how one can have 18 kids and WANT to have sex.

They should be called the Diggers because they sure breed like rabbits.
LOL!!! Ditto!
 
Just wanted to clarify a couple points after reading Black Jades reply

Yes there are health risk associated with having no children, but just having one child reduces those risks, it is not a more is better type of deal when it comes the the risks I am talking about.

I realize that the ave life expectancy of 40 does not represent what was really going on, but I don''t think it is accurate to pull out all the kids less than 2 and quote a life expectancy of 60. They do need to be accounted for.

Many women did die from infection during child birth, but what you are referring was a study done in a a very specific time period when the midwife-OB transition was happening. A physician realized that all the mothers born to midwives had a much lower infection rate than the women born to OB''s. The physicians were coming from the morgue to deliver the babies. So he had the physicians wash their hands before touching the women and the death rate decreased significantly. It was later discovered that the physicians were carrying a bacteria from the bodies to the women. Doctors of course having a God complex could not accept those findings, so the physician was declared insane and locked up. When the germ theory was accepted later on, his study got the credit it deserved (although I am not sure he lived to see that). The infection rate of newborns has mainly been reduced by treating mothers with GBS and being very aggressive with any baby who has any signs suggestive of sepsis (fever, low temps, low blood sugars ect, maternal fever during delivery).

It makes since from an evolutionary standpoint to have multiple children not only because of the "extra hands" but because of the higher mortality rate of young children. The #1 cause of death in children in developing countries is dehydration secondary diarrhea. It is rare to have a kid in the US die from diarrhea, intact, that is a routine thing that can often be treated as an outpatient with a little bit of electrolyte solution.

Regardless, I don''t think too many women are able to raise 19 children to adulthood without the help of modern medicine, and I don''t think having that many children was something that normally happened even with the desire to have lots of children and lack of birth control.
 
Date: 9/3/2009 4:50:46 PM
Author: ladypirate
Date: 9/3/2009 4:38:26 PM

Author: Hudson_Hawk

Date: 9/2/2009 10:26:03 PM


Author: 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!



For the record, I''ve only ever said it in reference to Mrs. Duggar.


Not Octomom?
3.gif
Date: 9/3/2009 4:50:46 PM
Author: ladypirate
Date: 9/3/2009 4:38:26 PM

Author: Hudson_Hawk

Date: 9/2/2009 10:26:03 PM


Author: 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!



For the record, I''ve only ever said it in reference to Mrs. Duggar.


Not Octomom?
3.gif

Good point...I''ve most likely said it about her too...
 
The Duggars are outliers - they would be in just about any era. In our world of exponentially growing population, and diminishing resources, I hope like heck they remain so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Top