Mom delivers 16th child, thinking of more

[Shine]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/parenting/10/12/sixteen.kids.ap/index.html

I just posted this in GD, but had to share it with the Lounge, as well...

This is disturbing on so many levels....

Thoughts?

[underpants]

1. I have no idea NO CLUE whatsoever about why a person would

have any problem with this.

[Spider Jerusalem]

2. Besides the fact that it's selfish and irresponsible?

Or the fact that an ever-increasing number of people using limited resources means a generally bleak future for humanity in general, and this sort of careless breeding doesn't help in the least? The planet's already overpopulated.

[underpants]

5. Okay so what's next LIMITNG the number of children you can have?

seriously.

[matcom]

6. YES

but only in fancy restaurants

carry on :popcorn:

[underpants]

12. SEE I knew matcom agreed with me

(tip toes away...puts on head phones.....start Laura Branigan tape)

[dolo amber]

32. Oh dear...you went there

:D

[rbnyc]

158. We will ADOPT our second child.

We decided we wanted to have a genetically related child and I wanted the experience of pregnancy. We agonized over it, because we knew it was selfish of us, given the vast number of children who need loving homes, and tremendous over-population. But we gave ourselves the wonderful gift of our son, and I'm so thankful.

When we're ready for a second child, we will adopt.

Having thought so carefully about bringing just one extra person onto this planet, it's UNIMAGINABLE to me to have 16.

And why am I not surprised that they're hyper-religious?

EDIT: Meant to reply to main post.

[Gormy Cuss]

14. With due respect, one can find a lot wrong with their choice

without desiring to codify limitations for them or anyone else.

If their children average 8 children each (possible, since they are raising them to think having children as frequently as they can is keeping with God's wishes) the next generation will have 128 kids. I think that's irresponsible in a time when most think our planet is overpopulated.

Would I legislate away their choice? Heck no. I also would not celebrate it.

[Debi]

19. The planet will be cramped

but mom and dad's Social Security will be fully funded!

[Jamastiene]

65. Just like pet overpopulation.

Are we going to have to deal with overpopulation killing our species? Even a good conservationist will tell you that overpopulation is not in keeping with the laws of Nature.

[ikojo]

115. A middle class american kid does more damage to the

environment than is done by a family of similar size in other parts of the world. For the most part middle class kids are going to have a car when they grow up (maybe not when they are 16 but shortly thereafter), they will have a house and if things keep up the way they are going that house will not be small.

US is 5% of the world's population but we use more of its resources. For this reason alone I find having 16 kids and looking forward to more extremely irresponsible.

FYI: I come from a family of seven kids and my dad came from a family of 13 kids.

[LynneSin]

122. 128 future republican voters

The father is a republican who ran for US Senate a few years ago.

No wonder we're losing the south - we progressives are being outbred!

[Nikia]

151. People don't necessarily follow their parents on this

For example, my great grandmother and grandmother hadthe same number of grandchildren, 15. My great grandmother only had 2 children though, while my grandmother had 6. Each of my grandmother's children had 3 or less children.

[Gormy Cuss]

152. If they adhere to their parents' beliefs, they will have large families

I assumed only 8 children each, half of what their mother has had so far. If they stay in the faith they will marry at a young age and thus have a long time to have children within the sanctions of their church. Eight children over a reproductive period of 20 years is quite possible for people who do not believe in birth control.

Even if one assumes they reproduce closer to the rate of average families these days, say 3 children each, that's nearly 50 grandchildren. The only way the Duggars may have fewer grandchildren than their own parents did is if the Duggar children average one child each.

I know the pattern of overreplacement isn't always there. I have a similar pattern to your family on one side of mine. :)

[Debi]

16. YOU can only have one! n/t

[underpants]

21. I've only GOT one

One little one

[Debi]

22. I know....now you must stop (and stop practicing too!) n/t

[grace0418]

38. No, I would never force a limit on the number of children

people can have. But I will tell them that it's selfish, irresponsible, and incredibly unfair to their children and the planet. Even if you don't agree it's a horribly irresponsible thing to inflict on our overburdened planet, I can tell you from experience it's not a good thing for the children.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

90. Why the fuck not?

I seriously think it should be harder to have kids than to drive a car. Far too many kids are killed every year by stupid people allowed to breed indiscriminately. And I'm not going to apologize for saying it. Forced sterilization might have kept our idiot president from ever being born!
Duckie

[tyedyeto]

99. Not LIMITING but educating everyone about Zero Population Growth

In this day and age, with so many people on this planet, global warming, resource depletion...why would anyone WANT to have that many children? It's not a question of limiting but education.

[Tallison]

137. Exactly. This is ultimately an education issue.

Statistically, the better-educated one is, the lower their reproductive rate, controlling for other factors. Even if these parents have a post high-school education, I doubt it was very liberal-arts and science (READ: quality) based. And yes, I'm making a statistically supported judgment call here.

Ed for punc

[Debi]

13. careless breeding?

Where does it say in the story this couple isn't providing for all of their children?

[Spider Jerusalem]

25. That's not the point;

The point is that, with the planet already overpopulated and natural resources dwindling at an ever-increasing rate, it's careless and irresponsible to have that many children regardless of whether one can provide for them or not (which these parents evidently can't, not on their own...the article also says they get help from their church). It's irresponsible, and also selfish, because it's ultimately detrimental to the greater good (i.e., a sustainable future for humanity in general).

[Debi]

34. So all the baby boomers having less children helped ?

Don't people die? Aren't we going to have several people die in the next 20some years (baby boomers). Seems more a circle of life thing to me.

But I'm no expert on over or under population. I came from a family of two children and my husband and I only have one. so this family can have credit for the ones I didn't have.

On edit:

Please show me in the article where it says the family's church helped them, I can't find it.

[Spider Jerusalem]

36. Okay...

that's not in the article; mentioned on a thread in GD by someone who knew something of these people from prior media exposure. My mistake.

[Debi]

45. I just checked their website and it says nothing about

their church helping them. In fact they write about debt-free living and how they make all their purchases with cash.

We're only a family of three and can't seem to firgure THAT out.

Agree or disagree with their life choices, seems they are taking responsibility for themselves.

[RPM]

93. he owns car dealerships

capitalism - good to be capital, sux to be labor...

[Debi]

112. car dealerships?

I thought the article and their web site said he sold real estate...whatever, does he sell American?

[friesianrider]

144. Oh for heaven's sake...it's their WEBSITE, not the Bible...

Sheesh. "I checked the website," "their website says," etc etc means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

If you think their choices are to be defended then that is great, but please...I beg you...stop with the "the family's website says" nonsense in every post. It holds no weight at all in terms of a fair look at this issue.

[Debi]

155. Don't you think you're going a little too far?

Really, why would they lie about what the father does for a living?

Isn't that an easily verifiable fact? The guy used that information funning for office (that he sold real estate).

Do you just assume the whole web site is a lie? Because if it is...maybe they don't really have all those kids. :eyes:

All you want to do is point your finger and yell, "liar, liar, liar". With no justification for your anger against these people. What is your problem with them other than they're not like you?

[friesianrider]

161. *sigh* No, I don't.

Every friggin' post you have is "the family website says!" "but the family website says so!"

I'm sorry, but to respond to you again with your absurd and little and loud arguments is beneath me.

[Debi]

164. You just want to argue because you want to argue

In looking at all the posts on this site I'm the only one you are arguing with, it's like you had a bad day and found a target. Now you don't want to let it go so you'll just keep arguing. blah, blah, blah, blah.

No way could these people be for real because I said so. Good argument. Hope your day gets brighter :hi:

[Debi]

11. Agreed. If they are supporting themselves and taking proper

care of thier family (and teaching the children to be good citizens) what is wrong with it?

[grace0418]

52. Because kids need more than money, food and clothes. Sixteen kids

simply cannot get the kind of individual attention they need from two parents. It's just not possible. The older kids get forced to care for the younger kids and lose their childhood. The younger kids get raised by their immature siblings, never a good idea. And all of them have a lifelong struggle to be individuals any sort of identity, feeling lost in the crowd and not special in any way. There are two people on this thread (I'm one of them) who are children of enormous families. It's the children who lose.

[Debi]

54. Since I'm only one of two I can't relate to your life

but I can try as my dad was the oldest of six born over a 20 year span. I am one of 38 grandkids and have the honor of having the first great-grandchild. I've heard stories about all working together and grandma raising three on her own when grandpa went off to war (WWII) both grandma and grandpa came from families of 11 kids each. I also heard stories of the two middle children raising the last two. But I didn't hear that any of them were messed up. (Granted, their were five fewer than in your family).

I know that both my folks decided to 'get lives' when my brother and I hit 10 and 11 and they didn't go to my school functions, weren't around after school and on weekends and even though I was only one of two I felt that after I got to old enough to stay home alone (in mom's mind) they forgot they had kids. I'd rather have had ANYONE home (even an older sibling or three or five or whatever) instead I was alone. Maybe it's not the size of the family that creates that problem.

[Momgonepostal]

57. To me, 6 in 20 years is still a lot BUT...

these people had 16 in about 18 years. Good grief. That's a whole 'nother thing.

[Debi]

59. I wonder if the 'got it right' each time

or if they just have sex non-stop! That woman must ovulate 20 times a month!

[grace0418]

60. I agree that plenty of small families are totally dysfunctional but

families *that* large have virtually zero chance of being functional, no matter what the intentions of the parents. Six is certainly a lot of kids, but eleven is a helluva lot more, and sixteen more still. Six still within the bounds of sanity, and I can imagine the kids doing alright. Eight and above? Not so much.

I suppose it's a grass is always greener thing to say I'd rather have some siblings taking care of me than being alone or vice versa. But having resentful, damaged, immature siblings being your only source of authority is really not good for the psyche. I preferred being alone when I got the chance.

[ikojo]

118. My mom had seven kids over a ten year period...

My older sisters bore a lot of responsibiility in tending to the younger ones (me). After my mom and dad were divorced and my mom had to go to work, we pretty much raised ourselves. There was little supervision because my mom simply was not there, she was trying to earn enough to feed all of us. Sometimes she worked two jobs.

Not all big families are like the Waltons or the folks on 8 is Enough. My experience tells me that by the time my mom got to having me and my now deceased younger brother (suicide) she was TIRED and EXHAUSTED.

Looking back on my childhood I think of the show Survivor, if we could have voted some of us off it surely would have been done. Today we have fun when we get together but we don't really seek one another out. For instance, I have lived in the St Louis area for 18 years and in that time members of my family have been down to visit me less than ten times (and they live 90 miles away). Siblings have come to St Louis for baseball games and not called me to let me know they were in town.

I would be willing to bet that some of these 16 kids are just itching to get out of that situation and become their own person.

[woo me with science]

121. it's quality time, not quantity.

hmmm...what does this argument remind me of?

[grace0418]

129. It's not quality or quantity in this case.

Being raised by your older siblings isn't quite the same.

[ikojo]

150. It also isn't fair to the older sibling to raise the younger ones.

Most often, especially in fundie families, the FEMALE children are asked to forsake their childhood and "help" mom.


I worked with a woman from a family of 13 (a younger brother ended up murdering her parents and is now serving time for that). She was not allowed to take part in school activities because she had to help mom with the younger kids. She was planning MEALS and doing laundry from the age of EIGHT.

It should not be surprising that this person moved from small town MO to St Louis and became WILD and is wild to this day.

[Tallison]

138. I can see plenty wrong with it, though nothing to a degree or of a

nature that would merit legal proscription of biological family size. What it does merit is bringing more liberal arts and sciences into public classroom. This is ultimately an education issue. In developed countries, only very ignorant people have families that large anymore.

[xmas74]

18. I'm more upset w/ the ideas that they are giving their children.

Sounds like mom gets to breed and nothing else. Also, if they wanted that many children they could have adopted quite a few of them. There are too many children out there w/o decent homes(and I know we both agree w/ that).
They want 16 children, that's their right. My question is why couldn't they have had three biologically and the rest by adoption/foster care? My best friend wants a big family. She and her husband have three right now (the oldest from a previous relationship and the other two are w/ her husband. Two boys and one girl). They are saving money for a bigger house right now. They plan to begin foster care once they find a place w/ more room.
She and her husband want to adopt five more(not kidding at all!). She says that they both want a big family but that it would be wrong for them to have so many of their own when other children need their love even more.

[XemaSab]

3. Wow!

Does it say anywhere if they are "quiverfull" or some other freaky-deaky fundie sect?

[matcom]

4. OOOOO THANK YOU!

:popcorn:

[Midlodemocrat]

7. Between this and the spanking thread, the lounge

will probably self destruct.


:popcorn:

[matcom]

9. bet you wish you were still in charge

don't you? :D

[Midlodemocrat]

10. No thanks.

I'm leaving it in Big's very capable hands.

[Shine]

27. Jeez, you really think so? I had no idea this story would touch

such a nerve....

I just thought it was so wacky and therefore deserved lounge attention...

Whatever.
:eyes:

[LaraMN]

8. Gah! I wouldn't want to be her uterus!

:scared:

[Shine]

29. Yeah, the poor, ragged thing....ewww... n/t

[miss_kitty]

15. "The baby's father, Jim Bob Duggar...."

'Jim Bob' Why am I not surpised?

[AirmensMom]

17. Ouch!

I thought I wanted 4 until I had ONE. Compromised and went for 2 ... can't imagine going through that 16 times! Then you get to look forward to the terrible teens 16 times? No thanks. My husband comes from a big family (10 kids) and I thought THAT was a lot!

[CanuckAmok]

23. oh, please. After the fifth one, they basically fall out when you stand up

"Can you get that for me, Dierdra?"

[AirmensMom]

24. That's true, but there's still 9 months of being huge.

Being pregnant was no fun for me AT ALL, from about the 2nd week on. Some women get extremely sick -- I almost died.

[djeseru]

31. Sounds like my experience with pregnancy.

Sick, sick, sick. My husband got so scared that I couldn't hold any food down for months...

So, we only have one child. Plenty enough for us... =)

[Shine]

30. Exactly! Either that, or they CRAWL out on their own....

;)

[XNASA]

20. Hey! Betcha she's barefoot and in the kitchen too.

I wonder how those 16 kids will turn out. It would be interesting to see what each of them is doing in 20 years.

Jim Bob????????

[Shine]

33. They'll probably each have at least 3 kids apiece...

exponential growth...

Ugh.

[deadparrot]

26. They have a website...

http://www.duggarfamily.com/

And Jim Bob ran as a Republican for the Senate. :eyes:

[Debi]

42. Say what you want about them, this soup sounds yummy!

DUGGAR’S TACO SOUP
3 lbs ground turkey
1 med. onion, chopped
3 (4oz.) cans green chilies, chopped
3 tsp. salt
1 1/2 tsp. pepper
3 pkg. taco seasoning
3 pkg. ranch or 1 c. liquid ranch dressing
3 cans hominy, undrained
9 (14 1/2 oz.) cans diced tomatoes, undrained
3 (15oz.) cans kidney beans, undrained
6 (15oz.) cans pinto beans, undrained
5 c. water
Brown ground turkey w/ onion. stir in remaining ingr. Bring to boil. Simmer 30 min. Serve w/ Tortilla chips, grated ched. cheese & sour cream. Yum! Yum! Triple batch

[MN ChimpH8R]

28. They're some kind of crackpot fundies

The parallel thread in GD said they home-school, limit their kids' interactions only to other fundies, etc. Wack-job loonies.

[grace0418]

35. As the youngest of eleven children I can say that there is NO WAY

that the children of families this large can get the kind of care and attention they need. It's just not physically possible for two people, no matter how much money they have, how much they love their kids and how well-meaning they are, to care for that many children and give them the proper guidance and attention each child needs.

My mom's sole purpose in life was to have children. She wanted to have a dozen (if my twin had survived she would've succeeded). But I can tell you that we paid the price, especially the younger kids. My parents were just freaking tired by the time I was in grade school. They really had no interest in attending any more open houses, recitals, etc. and it showed. I was an excellent student, so that helped, but I never got an ounce of encouragement to pursue any interests, so I just didn't. I was usually scared to ask for much because my mom would say something like "We bought your brother a guitar and paid for lessons, then he quit," or "That outfit your sister gave you looks fine, it's just a little snug," and that was the end of the discussion. It's taken me YEARS to overcome my fear of trying new things or asking for what I need, and I still have problems with it.

By the time I was in high school it was clear they were counting the minutes until I graduated (so was I, truth be told). Every time I asked for a ride somewhere, or had a friend over, or wanted to do anything, it was met with eye rolls, sighs, passive aggression, like I was such a cramp on their lives.

When I went to college, I had to take everything I owned with me or throw it out because my parents immediately sold the house to travel. Good for them, right? Well, it sucked for me a little bit, not having a home to go to on Thanksgiving, or Christmas, ever.

I'm sure you could guess this, but of course they were too broke to help me pay for college. And I can accept that, lots of people don't have that kind of money. I worked, got scholarships, grants and loans. But I really wish they could've spent at least a few minutes helping me work out how to do all that stuff. I was eighteen, I knew nothing, I'd never even had a checking account before. I screwed up so many times- in ways that could've really been avoided if I'd had any kind of adult guidance. My parents just couldn't be bothered.

This is why I get REALLY pissed off when people ask about some really childish thing my mom has done, and I say because she's really mentally screwed up, and they respond "Well of course. Having eleven kids will drive anyone crazy!" GRRRRRRRR. As if it's somehow our fault that my mom decided having that many kids was a good idea. If my mom somehow got pregnant with, and gave birth to, eleven children at once, I can understand the sympathy. But anyone who chooses to burden her body, her family, and the world with that many births doesn't deserve it.

Sorry, I'll stop ranting now.



P.S. As you can imagine, life for a chubby smart girl with hand-me-down clothes was not too rosy in school. In fact, high school was an absolute nightmare. Yet, when I recently wrote about the election and likened it to my horrible high school years when the mean, rich people always won even if they had to cheat, my mother was completely surprised. She had NO IDEA high school had been so horrible for me. Gee, what a surprise, Ma. Maybe if you'd been paying one tiny little bit of attention to me...

OKAY, I REALLY AM STOPPING MY RANT NOW... :)

[geniph]

43. Emphatic agreement, Grace. I'm the youngest of 13.

This is no kindness to the children. The older children will be horribly overburdened with responsibilities a child should never have - my oldest sister married at 15 because having sex with a 30-year-old man who liked young girls was better than taking care of a litter of younger siblings - and the youngest kids will be basically ignored, and beaten senseless by the older kids.

And that's without even discussing the impact on the environment or on their neighborhood.

I liked the way one person put it in GD - "is that a vagina or a Klown Kar?"

If you want litters of children, more power to ya - but there are millions of deserving youngsters in dire need of homes. Can't you have two, and then adopt??? Wouldn't that be the really Christian thing to do?

Jim-Bob should learn to keep his dick in his pants.

[grace0418]

47. "is that a vagina or a Klown Kar?" LOL!

My oldest sister married young too, and had two kids right away, just to get away from my mom. She still really resents my mom for forcing her to spend her childhood taking care of the middle kids.

[grace0418]

50. And I fully agree, why not adopt some needy children rather than

overburdening the planet with more births? Of course, we all know how Christian these fundies really all. All talk, no action in many cases.

There should be a support group for children of gimungous families.

[Momgonepostal]

53. Love how this one is Johannah, and they already have...

a Joy-anna.

It's their decision, of course, but it seems to me when you have so many kids you have to start practically reusing the same name over again, it's time to stop.

[Shine]

51. Wow, amazing story. I can't even imagine being in a family

that big and I totally agree with you, in terms of the lack of attention the parents give to all those kids. It's sad and unfair for the older ones, who end up taking care of the younger ones.

[grace0418]

86. Thanks Shine.

I guess I didn't realize what a sore subject this is for me.

[geniph]

91. It's unfair to the youngest, too

They get virtually zero parental attention, they get bullied and beaten up by the older kids, they never ever get anything the older kids didn't already reject, and their parents are old and worn out by the time they're born. Plus the younger kids get dragooned into taking care of all the damned nieces and nephews. At least, that was my experience as the youngest of 13.

[woo me with science]

123. Maybe your parents were just lousy at giving attention.

My parents both came from very large families and speak/spoke adoringly of their parents and siblings.

The idea that YOU can decide how many children is too many for somebody ELSE, because YOU feel the kids won't get enough attention reminds me an awful lot of people who argue that women shouldn't work outside the home for the same reason.

Figure the number of minutes a single mother working a full-time job has in the evening to attend to her children. Now multiply that by the extra hours in the day this woman, who chooses to stay home, has available to her multiple children. Your argument doesn't hold.

[grace0418]

127. Please, who WOULD be good at giving attention to that many

kids? Seriously. You honestly mean to tell me that you think a woman who stays at home to raise 16 kids can give them as much attention as a working mom with one or two kids? Unless she is an android who doesn't need to sleep or eat, never gets sick or worn out from pregnancy, and also has a time machine at her disposal, I highly doubt that. Read the article yourself. The older kids bear an incredible amount of responsibility for the younger kids. Clearly this mom is not individually caring for each child, she's just birthed herself a bunch of nannies. How would you like to be forced into a life of servitude from the time you could walk?

Ask anyone who has more than one kid (or maybe you have two kids yourself). Two kids does not double the amount of work, it sometimes triples or quadruples it. But what you're suggesting is that this woman who has chosen to stay home with her sixteen kids has at least 16-20 times more free time than the average working mom with one child. Give me a break. I think it's your argument that needs some work.

It has nothing to do with the argument for women to work outside the home. Nine out of the eleven women in my section at work have kids. None of them have more than three. I hear their stories about baseball games, recitals, play groups, family outings, homework help, etc. It's not easy being a working mom, for sure, but these women get it done. Even my friend who is a single mom of three is able to give her daughters more attention than any of my siblings got.

Maybe your parents were lucky. Or maybe in a generation or so back, where large families were more common, people didn't realize how difficult it is to be a member of a large family because everyone was from one. But please don't suggest to me that my case is an anomaly unless you've lived it. My sister-in-law is from a family of fourteen and she has the same tale to tell. As do a few people in this thread. And please don't suggest that I don't love my family. I love all my siblings very much, and my parents too. I know they tried their best, they just made stupid and irresponsible choices. I love my family despite this, but that doesn't mean I want to see it happen to other people.

Lastly, like others have said, if they love kids so much why didn't they have a few then adopt the rest? That would at take some of the burden off this planet.

[woo me with science]

134. You make many points

about the challenges of large families that I agree with completely. I agree that large families pose challenges. My point is that I don't believe that living in a large family is *automatically* more harmful or worthy of disapproval than other challenging lifestyle situations, such as living with a single parent. Yet many people here seem ready to condemn one choice when they would never question the other. Can large families be harmful to children? Sure. But I'm not convinced that they all are. And from where I sit it can be just as hard on a kid being in daycare all day and seeing your mom for just an hour or two before bed, when she is busy making dinner and really tired from a long day at work.

They are both challenging setups. Clearly many single mothers make it work beautifully, but there are others who really struggle. I think the same is probably true of large families. You make a lot of good points here, and, frankly, I would not choose a large family myself for many of the reasons you mention. But I also wouldn't choose to be a single mother. I also would not feel comfortable condemning or becoming accusatory toward anyone else who made *either* choice.

Large families and single motherhood are both options, and in America we are supposed to be all about tolerance for options. I am uncomfortable when I see the kind of "piling on" and derision in some of these threads toward certain choices, but not others.

[ikojo]

125. Grace, your story sounds like mine

My mom had seven kids in ten years. She and my dad were divorced when I was six and my youngest brother was five. She had to go to work so we were left at the mercy of our older teenage siblings. Needless to say they were none too eager to watch us, so we basically raised ourselves.

I read a lot so that helped me stay away from drugs and alcohol. That and the lifestyle my mom led for a few years following her divorce. I didn't like those folks when I was a kid and did not want to associate with people like them when I was older.

My mom moved three weeks into my freshman year in college. I had
never been away from home and was freaked out. I had nowhere to go on breaks. My older sister let me stay with her but then I slept on a couch and had no privacy.

As a result of my childhood and upbringing I have always viewed kids as a burden and NEVER wanted any of my own. I remain childfree to this day.

[NYdemocrat089]

37. I really don't see what's wrong with this.

It isn't like everyone is having 16 kids.

[grace0418]

40. No, but that's sixteen kids who will not get the kind of individual

attention they need to be confident, responsible adults. I know this from experience.

[friesianrider]

44. I agree.

Even if you're a billionaire with an enormous house and all the money in the world there's no way children can grow up the way they should with this many kids fighting for the mother and father's attention and time.

One of my best friends from when I was little was the 9th child of 13 kids. They were religious nuts like these people are and boy...you've never met 13 more fucked up kids in your life.

[grace0418]

46. I'm the youngest of eleven.

I turned out okay despite everything. Although I'm pretty damaged. And some of my sibs are really lost.

[Missy Vixen]

83. Media attention = "gosh, we could do that, too!"

After reading Grace's comments, I submit that it's impossible for two parents to care for 18 children equally. They may be fed and clothed, but that's about it.

I also believe that there are people who will do this type of thing for fame or financial motivation. The "Seven From Heaven" sure got a lot of press and financial benefit in their day, didn't they? It quickly dried up when at least two of the kids exhibited significant birth defects. They weren't quite so photogenic anymore.

I feel sorry for these kids. I hope that there are other family members or friends in these kids' lives that will help, on more than a superficial level.

Julie

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

101. No, but they set an example. A false "success story"...

...that rings harmoniously with right-wing ideology. It is, therefore, harmful.

[friesianrider]

39. USE A CONDOM!

Jesus Christmas, how did I know the Dad's name would be Jim Bob :eyes:

She had her first kid at 21, four years after they got married!?!?

[Mutley]

41. Why, oh why would someone want that many kids?!?

[Jara sang]

48. Jim Bob Duggar has Dick Clark syndrome

Checkout their website. http://www.duggarfamily.com He doesn't age. Maybe he is the anti-Christ. Explains all the kids, he is actually breeding minions.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

49. dear god...why?

is she illiterate..cos in other poorer countries only illiterate women have so many children

[RedstDem]

55. That's About 64 Months Worth Of

Waddling Around Like A Duck

Ha Jim-Bob ...lol
On Edit, I Think The Fifth & Ninth Ones Look Like The Mailman !

[thinkingwoman]

56. If they're not on welfare

then it's none of my business.

I certainly wouldn't have that many children. But again, not my business.

I personally enjoy living in a country that grants adults the freedom to make their own decisions...even when they make decisions I don't agree with.

Peace.

[Debi]

58. Not only are they not on welfare

They have NO debt and don't rely on outside assistance (except manual labor help)

I don't agree with their life-style. But I can't find why they shouldn't be allowed to live it. :shrug:

[thinkingwoman]

63. I had put on my flame retardant underwear

because I figured I'd get flamed for posting live and let live.

Thanks for surprising me! I get to cynical sometimes. :eyes:

[Debi]

72. Do not fear - there are plenty of flames on this thread

I'd rather see a family that works together in harmony (which on the surface seems to be the case here) pays their bills and provides for each other than a one or two-child family living in a McMansion (with an interest only mortgage) driving an SUV and a Suburban (both financed) and cashing in on some fraudulent stock option or two then shopping at Wal-Mart to 'save money'and putting in on Daddy's credit card then filing for bankruptcy five years down the road cuz it's just too much to deal with.

But hey, who am I to judge :shrug: ?

[grace0418]

74. I'm not going to flame you but I think that public discourse on the

subject is warranted. Would you be as non-plussed after reading an article about a family of four where the kids got, at best, about 30 seconds of their parents' attention per day? If you read that the parents provided food, clean clothes, and lunch money for the kids but then left them to fend for themselves? Assuming that the family wasn't on welfare and provided for all their children's physical needs, would you be okay saying "live and let live" in that case? Or would you say the parents are selfish and irresponsible, neglectful even?

Being part of a family that large is pretty much like having absentee parents. It's not fair to the kids, and that is why it upsets me.

Add to that scenario a mother who is almost constantly pregnant, either throwing up or sleeping or waddling around. It's not fun for a kid. So everyone had to wait on her, and tiptoe around so as to not anger her. I remember people coming to our house and telling my mother what a saint she was for having all those kids and I would think "I didn't ask to be born, but I'm stuck living in this insanity. My mom had a choice, I didn't. Why does that make her a saint and me a burden she must endure?"

[thinkingwoman]

79. not every pregnant woman throws up

damn them!

Yes, I am a live and let live person. I also don't subscribe to the knee-jerk believe that kids are neglected by growing up in large families. But that's just me.

I had a horrific childhood--survived real abuse. I had only one sibling that lived with me (and a few step siblings that did not). I'd have given anything to ONLY get 30 seconds of my parents time each day. In fact, 30 seconds would have been too much.

Yes, I am a live and let live person.

[grace0418]

85. C'mon, no pregnant woman operates at 100% her entire pregnancy.

Most people who have younger siblings only have to deal with this a few times in their lives. My older siblings had to deal with this constantly. And, believe me, my mom was not a fun person to deal with in the best of health. I also survived real physical and mental abuse, if we're trading war scars, and was told to cut my mother slack because she was overburdened with so many kids. It's because of this that I feel so strongly about this issue.

I'm a live and let live person too, but I draw the line when I know that innocent people are suffering or at risk of abuse. I would've done anything to have someone intervene in my family instead of being told my mother was a saint and I was a burden.

Not that I'm automatically suggesting that this woman is physically abusing her kids, there's no way for me to know that. But neglect is "real" abuse. It can be just as damaging as physical abuse. And I know from experience that neglect is a REAL issue in a family this large. When I see abuse or the genuine risk, I speak out.

edited to add: It's not a knee-jerk belief that children from really big families get neglected. It's reality. There are 24 hours in a day and 2 parents. Subtract sleeping, cooking, cleaning, shopping, and other chores. Then divide the time left by the number of children. It's just not physically possible to give 16 kids enough attention.

[CanuckAmok]

68. Not on welfare, per se.

But you can be sure they're benefiting unfairly from the resources of the welfare state.

Unless they're paying four times the taxes for schools, city infrastructure, etc, of a family with four kids, they're exploiting the welfare state.

[Debi]

69. They homeschool n/t

[thinkingwoman]

80. that's Enron accounting

seriously.

[friesianrider]

73. Are you sure they have no debt?

I was watching the TLC show they were on and they BARELY could pay their bills according to the mother...she said money was extremely tight....yet she still keeps popping kids out.

[Debi]

78. according to their website they live debt-free and pay cash for everything

And are building their house on their own.

[thinkingwoman]

81. They're doing far better than my family of four

My two teens are eating me out of house and home...and I've got a mortgage for that house!

[Debi]

113. Yup! I have one child and two dogs

Yet I find myself pulling out the plastic at least once a month for clothing or school supplies or holiday stuff. We definately spend more than we should!

[friesianrider]

84. Ha!

Well, then it must be true, lol. They have their own website?

I can guarantee that in more than one way they are sponging off the system because they have so many kids - and even in the unlikely event that they aren't doing it now, they will in the future.

[Debi]

114. In as much as they say they're debt free on their web site

so it must be true, you saying they're not must be true. I can't find an article or any coverage that they live off of mortgages, loans, credit cards, welfare assistance or their church. Maybe you can find that information for me.

Is it because you don't agree with their lifestyle or politics that you have to demonize them? Or is it just good old cynicism?

[friesianrider]

131. It is neither, it is called common sense....

Of course I don't agree with their lifestyle, but you cannot tell me that a 40-year-old couple - unless they're independently wealthy - can afford a house mortgage, household bills, medical bills, clothing costs, car costs, AND 16 kids, PLUS themselves, AND afford to be building a 7,000 sq.ft. house with 9 bathrooms on ONE income, because you know the broodmare doesn't work. If you believe that one imcone can support that kind of living and lifestyle without the help of anyone or any other agency, well...

And I'm not sure how their website is such a valid source for information...like they'd advertise the fact they were getting government assistance? God knows if it is on the internet(s) site of a family with 16 kids, it MUST be true :eyes:

[Debi]

135. Common sense made me do further research on the family

and it looks like they are independently wealthy. Maybe you can find and article or court filing somewhere that will refute what has been written in newspapers, said on TV news programs and on the internet (I know not the most reliable source) I am going to believe that people CAN live within their means.

Sounds more like you can't believe it only because you can't envision it.

[friesianrider]

142. Yeah, and?

I don't see you offering anything but the family website and CNN - which is practically verbatim off the family's website. You keep demanding proof from me and I never claimed that I had proof they were receiving government aid - just saying that it sure seems suspicious that they can live like that all on one income. And offering the family website as proof isn't swaying me, sorry.

Perhaps they are independently wealthy - but it sure doesn't sound like it to me. Even if they are it is morally, ethically, and environmentally irresponsible, IMHO, to do what they are doing.

The fact is neither of us can prove one way or the other that they are or aren't receiving some kind of assistance, so you may as well just give up asking me. You can't prove they aren't and I can't prove they are. Even if you give them the benefit of the doubt, you have to admit that it sounds just a wee bit fishy that on one income they can afford to feed 18 people, carry a mortgage, pay their countless bills, AND be affording the construction of a brand new 7,000 sf, 9 bathroom house. Possible? I suppose so, in la-la land, but possible nonetheless. Likely? You've got to be kidding me.

[Debi]

145. Here's a few stories - maybe you could look for some yourself

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/04/earlyshow/contributors/melindamurphy/main615586.shtml

http://www.usatoday.com/news/offbeat/2004-04-07-bigbrood_x.htm

http://www.parents.com/articles/family_time/5432.jsp?page=2

Like I've said time and again, you might disagree with their lifestyle - now you've even said what they are doing is morally, ethically and environmentally irresponsible - that doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not they support themselves financially - which was your first complaint.

I think no matter what is said about these people you just don't like it ... so there. And that's your prerogative. So say it rather than giving the :eyes: when they say we live debt free.

I'm wondering how many children Mia Farrow has and how she supports them on only one income (and as a single mother at that! *gasp*) Oh, here it is http://mia-farrow.com/bio.html she has 14 children - raising them on ONE INCOME - how could she?! I wonder if there are any other examples out there? Anyone?

[friesianrider]

148. WOW! Verbatum off the family website.

Impressive. :sarcasm:

Those sites prove absolutely, undoubtedly nothing. NOTHING. There is no "we saying they're debt free" there's just you repeating the utter bullshit on their website which isn't swaying me, I'm sorry.

And Mia Farrow is wealthy beyond belief - of course SHE can afford it! How in God's name do you see a comparison here? She also ADOPTED her kids - she wasn't a broodmare like this woman.

With all due respect, the fact is you can't prove they receive no government assistance any more than I can prove they do receive it...so why not just agree to disagree and give it up?

[Debi]

153. I was thinking the same thing

You don't have proof that these people are not independently wealthy, but you take tabloid fodder that Mia Farrow is (You haven't seen HER tax returns have you?) And, although Mia Farrow adopted SOME of her children, she gave birth to seven of them...WAAAAY above the national average and therefore morally and ethically irresponsible by the standards you yourself set.

You'd think a pissy neighbor or cheated debtor would have dissed these folks if they were lying, yet not a single negative story about them except for doubters with their, "I can't live debt free so I KNOW these people can't". So maybe....just maybe they're NOT lying.

I do agree to disagree, I also still believe giving someone the benefit of the doubt before making accusations and doing a little research before knee-jerking to conclusions.

[friesianrider]

160. Once again...

Read a line and then stopped. I already know it's the same BS over again...because God knows it's common and accessible knowledge who has debt and how much of it, right? We all know how much debt our neighbors have, don't we? :eyes: So SURELY because we can't google and find any dirt on these people, it means they are DEFINITELY living debt-free, right?! 99.999% of the American population can't manage to do it for a family of 3 or 4, but these people must be exceptional friggin' geniuses if they can figure it out for 18 people! Yeah, I buy that. :eyes: Possible? Sure. Likely? Please.

Again, it's obvious you have nothing substantive to offer about this issue despite the ever-informative and reliable family website and vicious defense of this family despite what is so painfully obvious to anyone with common sense. So I'm going to be the bigger person here and walk away, and leave you to talk to yourself about this, ok?

[Debi]

162. Thank you and enjoy living in your bubble of cinicism

Where nobody could do anything unless you approve. :hi:

[friesianrider]

98. You've got to be kidding me...building a 7,000 sq ft house on their own?

With 9 bathrooms? All while raising 16 kids and feeding and clothing themselves?

[Debi]

116. Why not? n/t

[friesianrider]

133. Well, let's see...

One 40-year-old man with the only income for the family. 16 mouths to feed, plus the parents, so 18 mouths to feed. Plus 18 people to clothe, 18 people to get medical, 18 people to get dental care for, plus a mortgage, plus food bills, plus electric bills, plus any of the other gazillion household bills we all have. Oh, and they're building a 7,000 square foot house (in addition to doing all of the aforementioned) with 9 bathrooms. All on one income. But they're not getting a dime from the government.

I wish we had an "bullshit" smiley.

[Debi]

136. Please, rather than sarcasm, show me where they aren't doing it

without government assistance.

Again, just because you may not be able to see that a family could live on a cash-only basis doesn't mean they can't. I have yet to find an article, letter to the editor, tv story, bitching neighbor, bill collector, mortgage holder, credit card company or ANYONE who says they aren't doing.

Just you saying, "Can't be done" :eyes: who should I believe?

[friesianrider]

143. Show me where they are doing it...

without government assistance. And the family website and CNN or MSNBC or whatever reporting on her umpteenth birth doesn't count either, and so far that's all you keep pointing to as if it's the family's credit report or something.

Do you truly expect me to find you PROOF that they are receiving welfare or some kind of government aid? You must be joking. That's like asking me to find proof my neighbor 6 houses down is receiving disability checks. :eyes:

The fact is neither of us can prove one way or the other that they are or aren't receiving some kind of assistance, so you may as well just give up asking me. You can't prove they aren't and I can't prove they are. Even if you give them the benefit of the doubt, you have to admit that it sounds just a wee bit fishy that on one income they can afford to feed 18 people, carry a mortgage, pay their countless bills, AND be affording the construction of a brand new 7,000 sf, 9 bathroom house. Possible? I suppose so, in la-la land, but possible nonetheless. Likely? You've got to be kidding me.

[Debi]

146. Is that the best you can do?

You can't find a bad story about these people but you KNOW there's just gotta be one out there.

Fine, think poorly of them because they're not like you, don't think like you, don't raise their family like you, don't spend money like you.

I checked them out and couldn't find a story to contradict theirs, so I'm going to take them at face value.

I don't agree with their lifestyle, but I'm not going to condemn them because I can't find where they aren't paying their bills, I can't find where they aren't providing for their children, I can't find where they're abusing the system.

I'm not going to condemn them because I can't find any thing to condemn them for.

[friesianrider]

149. Is the family website the best you can do?

Every single post you've had here has been "the family wehsite says, the family website says." It's not swaying anyone. Sorry.

"Fine, think poorly of them because they're not like you, don't think like you, don't raise their family like you, don't spend money like you."

You know NOTHING about me whatsoever, so you need to quit making assumptions about me and how I spend my money and raise my family. It's offensive. And I could care less what they do - but when I have to start subsidizing them fucking constantly and having litter after litter, then I start to care. I think it's repulsive and disgusting because I can guarantee that in some way, they are getting the system to pay for their moral, ethical, and environmental irresponsibility.

"I checked them out and couldn't find a story to contradict theirs, so I'm going to take them at face value."

Oh yes, you've done a thorough job. LOL...you act like you hired a PI and spent months researching them! You googled them on the internet and read the family website for heaven's sake! :rofl: You "checked them out"...yeah. You've got to be kidding.

"I don't agree with their lifestyle, but I'm not going to condemn them because I can't find where they aren't paying their bills, I can't find where they aren't providing for their children, I can't find where they're abusing the system."

Oh right. So because you can't find where they're abusing the system, that means they aren't, right?

The fact is Debi, there is no website that tells you the name and address of every person and family receiving welfare or government assistance, or church assistance. You really need to give it up. You cannot prove to me that they are not receiving any assistance any more than I can prove they are.

You think they aren't for some absurd reason, I am using common sense and saying they ARE abusing the system in some way, shape or form. I would bet my own home on the fact that in some way they are receiving help to raise their litter and build a 7,000 sf house with 14 washers and dryers in it. Don't believe it if you don't want to - trust me, I really don't care one way or the other.

[Debi]

154. I can tell you don't care one way or the other, that's why you keep

responding to these posts.

In this age of 'gotcha' television news entertainment reporting don't you think that one person would have checked government records and done an expose on this family?(You'd think Jim Bob's political opponents would have - and elected official abusing the government's resources would have made for a great campaign scandal). But no, not a single item. You keep telling me all I did was read the family web site, but I also read posts on the home schooling web site and all the local tv and news paper sites that I could get in the internet. Again, you say that that's not good enough.

What? only positive stories end up on the internet? Don't you think that negative stories would have ended up on the internet had they been written? Don't you think an anti-Duggar web site would have been started up if they were lying or cheating the government or their church?

I'm sorry if I offended you if you thought I implied I knew how you spent your money or how you raised your family. I don't know if you have a mortgage on your home or if you even own your home. I don't know if you use credit cards or lines of credit with the bank. I don't know if you owe money on your vehicle (or if you even have one). I don't know if you pay your bills on time or if you have ever filed for bankruptcy and I don't know if you are on government assistance nor do I know if you have any children or how many you may have. Since I don't know anything about you it would be improper for me to make any judgments about you....Hmmmmm.

[friesianrider]

159. Ok...

"...responding to these posts."

I stopped reading there. It's obvious you have nothing substantive to offer about this issue despite the ever-informative and reliable family website. So I'm going to be the bigger person here and walk away, and leave you to talk to yourself about this, ok?

[Debi]

163. You said that in your last post....so why do you keep posting? n/t

[friesianrider]

165. I seem to have to repeat myself with you...

Before you seem to understand what it is I'm saying. Just want to make sure you comprehend.

I'm really going now, though :hi:

[Debi]

166. I thought you were going to be the grown up and walk away....

I guess you just MUST have the last word *sigh*

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

102. THE FATHER IS A REPUKE POLITICIAN!

You can bet YOU are paying for his litter.

[Tallison]

139. Maybe their way of trying to breed us out?

Given the average fundie family size, you gotta wonder. :shrug:

[Jamastiene]

61. Utterly irresponsible. Someone needs to put a sock in

the woman's... Well, someone needs to spay or neuter her and her husband/boyfriends/the stork/whoever is making her breed like a freaking rat. In his book, Billions & Billions, Carl Sagan said overpopulation of the human species is one of the biggest problems facing every species on the planet and the planet itself. All someone needs to do is sit down and think about it for 2.2 nanoseconds. There aren't supposed to be more humans than insects. It's just not right to keep the ecosystem off balance like this. The balance of nature is off because of the human species in all its vain arrogance. MOther Nature is pissed. She's having to do some nasty things because some people won't be more responsible. Don't even get me started on the "fertility" litters. Damn, I don't plan on having any kids, but if these litter producers and overpopulators keep it up, I'm going to have to find a way to have a negative number of children to make up for them. What else is a girl to do? :mad:

[MissB]

62. Another snippet from an article:

We both just love children and we consider each a blessing from the Lord. I have asked Michelle if she wants me to pound her with my spoiling rod and she said yes, if the Lord wants me to spill my tater-tot casserole inside her for the billionth time, she will make room in her stretched-out blob of a uterus once more," he said.

[Debi]

75. Now that's good journalism!

:rofl:

[CanuckAmok]

64. I don't know if anyone mentioned this, but...

The other people in this scenario, the kids, don't get a fair deal out of this.

For one thing, none of them are going to get a reasonable amount of individual attention.

And another thing is that the older kids end up being "assistant mommies" to the younger kids. While that may be fine, I know a family of ten kids, and the two eldest daughters (who are now in their late 20s/early 30s) are resentful of spending their teens carting a bunch of toddlers around everywhere they went.

[Shine]

66. Yeah, it's been mentioned...read the thread.

and you're absolutely right, it's totally unfair to the kids.

[CanuckAmok]

82. No! Can't someone read it for me? I'm busy.

n/t

[friesianrider]

76. This is an excellent poist...

I know a family of 13 and the oldest three kids were constant babysitters/assistant mommies for their parents. They majorly resent that as well - they were rarely able to go out anywhere because the mother always "needed their help."

[grace0418]

87. Read thread #35

My personal account.

[Withywindle]

67. I would never want to legally restrict their reproductive freedom...

...but that doesn't mean I can't think it's fucking disgusting. And say so. And be horrified. And make fun of them.

[JimmyJazz]

71. Agreed.

And, I think it's irresponsible on their part to have so many children when the world is already overpopulated. I felt guilty for having more than one because of overpopulation of the planet.

[grace0418]

89. Thank you!

From a kid who spent a lot of my childhood wishing someone had confronted my mom.

[Withywindle]

111. No, thank you!

Your story is haunting and I really appreciate you sharing it. I'm coming from the other end of the spectrum -- I'm an only child, which has its own drawbacks but still IMO better than this--but my mother was from a pretty large family (8 kids), and her mother died young, so she had too much responsibility too young and no real parental attention at all. (Probably WHY I'm an only right there) It's not just what you can afford in terms of money. It's what you can afford in time and attention, and I don't see how anybody could do a good job with that many.

[Deja Q]

70. Dang, she gets it more than I do!

:wow:

[ThatsMyBarack]

77. Every time this family has *yet another kid*....

....all this Christian/Bible stuff gets rubbed in our faces. That can be tough to deal with if you're Jewish (okay, so I'll look away now).

[Orsino]

88. Thinking of more what? England? n/t

[Arugula Latte]

92. Remember that scene from "The Meaning of Life"

when the Irish Catholic mother has her umpteenth baby and lets it plop on the floor as she's standing up. "Oh, would you get that, dear?"

[the_spectator]

94. Maybe she's just going for the world record.

What is the world record in children anyway? And I wouldn't include serial adopters like Mia Farrow or Angelina Jolie in the statistics. That's just cheating. You have to pop them out yourself. So does anyone know? I hope this lady wins. Go for the gold! USA! USA! :patriot:

[LisaL]

96. She is not even close to the world record of how many children

one woman can have. And of course she is nowhere close to how many children one man can have, considering in some cultures men are allowed multiple wives.

[the_spectator]

97. Well of course she would be going for the WOMEN's record -

but I think she stands a good chance. She has 16 children at this point, at age 39. What with fertility treatments and whatnot that modern medical science has provided to us, she could keep up her child-bearing rate for 10, 15, maybe 20 years yet. Striving for excellence! The sky's the limit!

[LisaL]

157. She got ways and ways to go if she wants to beat a record.

Most children by one woman is 69. No way she is going to beat that.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0553578952/103-6556994-9305411?v=glance&n=283155&v=glance

[khashka]

103. I'm not sure what the current record is but

a few years back there was a documentary about a woman who had 64 children. (We're talking lots of twins and triplets, etc.) It was un-fucking-believable! They had a big reunion. The parents couldn't even remember half the kids' names or who they were. Many of the siblings had never even met. Real close knit family.

It was appalling.

Khash.

[fortyfeetunder]

105. 69 was the world record

but this woman had mostly multiple births...

will edit I have to dig up the link.

[AussieDave]

95. I know a family with 18 children

and they all turned out just fine - the younger children were even in the same grade as their nieces and nephews so it's unusual, but perfectly OK.

King George III and Queen Charlotte of Great Britain had 15 children, just as an example.

[grace0418]

106. Most people outside my family would say we all turned

out fine. But we are all extremely damaged in different ways. Dysfunction can happen in any size family but with that many kids something is going to get lost.

[AussieDave]

109. You're right of course

only those inside large families actually know such things.

[ikojo]

126. I agree Grace. Large does not mean close and

loving. There was much competition for scarce resources in my family. I had to teach myself to eat slowly as an adult and to train my mind that I have control over my food, that I will not go hungry.

I don't care that some historical figure had a bunch of kids, in 2005 it is just an irresponsible use of scarce planetary resources.

I just wonder what folks would say if the family wasn't so Aryan? Would I wrong to assume that the reaction just might be a bit different?

[grace0418]

128. Thanks. Of course, some people will try to tell you that

in 2005 it's still a perfectly reasonable choice to make. Akin to a woman deciding to work outside the home.

I agree with you about the racial element to the story. I don't think you're wrong to assume that at all. Most people, when they hear I'm from a big family, assume I'm hispanic.

[hickman1937]

100. Wonder if they'll start trying right there at the hospital.

Hopefully they'll send the kids home first.

[XemaSab]

104. These people are quiverfull

and if anyone reading this thread doesn't know what that is, it's putting the Lord in charge of the family planning.

Seriously.

No family planning whatsoever. Period.

[Gormy Cuss]

117. I think they're working on the second quiver... n/t

[XemaSab]

107. Everything that people are saying about the big girls

doing the parenting is right on.

http://www.jimbob.info/faq.html

Our daily routine begins with personal hygiene (get dressed, brush teeth, comb hair, etc…).

Each older child has a younger buddy or two that they help. We eat breakfast & read Proverbs at 8:00a.m., then we ‘quick clean’ the house (older child & their buddy work together to clean their jurisdictions). Throughout the day we try to pickup as we go along, but naturally things tend toward disorder. So, it is a constant training process with ‘quick clean’ times throughout the day.

At 9:00a.m., the older children help their buddies with their studies in phonics, math, violin & piano (J-O-Y- Jesus first, Others second, & Yourself last!). Then the older children start their music & individual studies- math, English, spelling & typing. We break for lunch at 12:00pm.

Jill (age 13) prepares lunch & we all help cleanup. After lunch we work to finish individual studies. At 1:30p.m. the little ones go down for naps (4 & under). Momma & older children are around the table at 2:00p.m. for Wisdom Booklet group studies - science, history, law, medicine. We work on one subject until we complete the study. We also review & memorize scripture, hymns & operational definitions of character qualities. The children especially enjoy this because they make up motions to help with memorization. At 4:00p.m., we break from group study to complete individual studies, otherwise this is free time. We have dinner at 5:00p.m.

Jana (Age 14) prepares dinner & everyone helps cleanup. We do another ‘quick clean’ of the house after dinner & then have free time. Some may still be finishing up music, seeing we have to take turns with one piano to 11 students! 8:00p.m.is snack time. Then we get ready for bed (baths, brush teeth, pick out clothes for next day). 9:00p.m. is Bible time with Daddy. This is probably our favorite time of day. Daddy reads the Bible & we discuss the passage together. We talk about the day & bring out points of how to apply what we have learned. We enjoy making up skits & acting out examples of right responses & wrong responses. Often our little ones will fall asleep as Daddy begins Bible time, still they love to be with us at this special time. Bedtime is 10:00p.m.

[grace0418]

108. *shudder*

That's all I can respond to that.

[XemaSab]

110. *and* in the 7000 square foot house

they will have a master bedroom, a guest bedroom, a sewing room....and 2 dorms, one for the boys, one for the girls.

Like, :wtf:?

If I were a sixteen year old boy, no bleeping WAY would I want to share a room with 6 kids under the age of 6. No bleeping WAY.

7000 square feet and all the kids STILL have to stay in 2 rooms? Like they are in their 1300 square foot house, or whatever they're in now?

That's messed up.

[MountainLaurel]

119. A case here in the DC area

A few years ago in a family of 13. One of the younger children cooked to death in the minivan because dad forgot he was in there and the teen who was supposed to be "responsible" for the younger child didn't remind him. Could you imagine the guilt trip that child had, because he was a typical scatter-brained teenager?

The real kicker was that the mother and older sister were in Ireland visiting a sick family member. The sister had just gotten out of an in-patient mental facility after having a NERVOUS BREAKDOWN because the stress of caring for 12 siblings was too much for a fucking 17-year-old.

[samdogmom]

120. Gee, why do I flash to Andrea Yates when I read this?

from the family web site:

"It was 1:00 AM in the morning as I stood folding laundry with tears streaming down my cheeks. Feelings of being overwhelmed flooded my mind. I cried aloud, ”LORD I NEED YOUR HELP, I can’t do it all! I feel so inadequate! Diapers, dishes, laundry, meals, cleanup, school lessons, baths, hugs, kisses, correction…” My list seemed to go on and on.

"Then it was as if a still small voice said, ”Michelle, it’s easy to praise ME when things are going good, but are you willing to praise ME now?” Immediately the scripture that says, “Offer up a sacrifice of praise”, came to mind.

"I said, “OK Lord, I will praise you even now! It really is a sacrifice!” So through the tears I began to sing, “The joy of the Lord is my strength”. In my heart there was a release as if a burden had been lifted. I finished the laundry at 2 AM and went to bed."

(snip)

Are things really as rosy as they try to paint them?

[XemaSab]

124. I got the same vibe

when I read that...

Sounds like nervous breakdown land to me....

[Shine]

130. "nervous breakdown land", indeed!

It's hard enough raising two kids, speaking from experience....

I can't even begin to imagine the craziness factor of raising 16, let alone trying to do it well. :shrug:

Whatever.

[LisaL]

156. Oh lord. I feel sorry for the woman.

Sounds like her husband is busy prancing around, selling real estate, running for senate, etc. While she is stuck at home with 16 kids. One of those days-who knows what God is going to tell her?

[ScreamingMeemie]

132. If they're happy...and the kids are well cared for, then more power

to them. It's their life. :hi:

[Debi]

140. Are you cold today and just want some flames to warm up?

:hi:

I agree, they are supporting themselves and their family.

Seems better to me than the rich bastards who live in a McMansion, drive a Humvee and have their kid on Prozac by the time they're twelve because Mommy and Daddy are too busy attending charity balls and being coked up to be their parents.

Other than that I have no opinion.

[ScreamingMeemie]

141. Ha! And you are absolutely right.

A good friend of mine has 12 children and they are well adjusted, delightful kids. All the way from a newborn to a college senior. :hi:

[Debi]

147. I give up today

I'm going home to my one child - I'll be driving in the car that I still owe money on (that I used a credit card to buy gas for) to my home that has a mortgage on it...wish I could learn to be more like the Duggars (in the money sense - not the fundie-babymaking-machine sense!) :hi: have fun.