Arkansas Parents have 17 Kids

buttercup · Post by **buttercup** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 5:17 am

spot;674250 wrote: This does seem to be getting personally intrusive rather than discussing the question of large families in general.

Apologies for going off topic. :-6

Peg · Post by **Peg** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 5:38 am

spot;674250 wrote: This question of can they afford groceries is easily answered - the guy is rich. There's more than enough money to bring up that number of children comfortably, and to insure each life. This does seem to be getting personally intrusive rather than discussing the question of large families in general.

Asking what might happen if both parents die is a long long way from a likely event. You want a guess? I'd guess that there's enough extended family relations that yes, a couple would move in as a loving reaction and keep the family intact. Their background is conservative fundamentalist christian, I'd be surprised if that weren't likely.

I personally do not know if the guy is rich, if he made great investments or poor investments, etc. Both parents dying is an unlikely event but unfortunately, it DOES happen. Everyone expects to live to see their children grow but sometimes, it doesn't happen. I would hope, that before having such a large family, or even with a small one, all the bases are covered.

Post by **spot** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 6:02 am

I cheated, Peg, I looked him up before I joined the thread.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 7:13 am

buttercup;674253 wrote: Apologies for going off topic. :-6

Why apologize? It's how a conversation often goes.

WonderWendy3 · Post by **WonderWendy3** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 7:26 am

chonsigirl;674218 wrote: They are able to support 17 children and give them the love that they need to growing up. I see nothing wrong with it. I came from a family of six, and have four children myself. There is a definite advantage to having lots of siblings, growing up is always an adventure.

Very well said Chonsi...I agree...I think its wonderful if she is healthy enough and SAIN enough to have these children and raise them in a nice home with good morals and beliefs. I would've loved to have more children and home-schooled them all!!:-4:-4

I don't think 17 though.....but maybe 4-6, if I had a supportive husband and knew that we would have electricity the next month...yep I'd have more sweet children!!

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 8:51 am

I just don't feel I have the right to judge this family for the number of children. Heck in my eyes she's supermom and I'd love to talk to her and get some tips for handling just two. :wah:

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 9:31 am

Glad you came back Sheryl! I had thought I ran you off earlier.

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 9:37 am

no it was 2:30 in the morning and i wanted sleep! :wah:

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 9:38 am

:wah:

valerie · Post by **valerie** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 1:34 pm

I saw a program on this family, think it was the Discovery channel, they

were building a house. I must say I was very impressed by how well

behaved all those children were. The exact opposite of one of those

nanny shows.

But I think there is something in this story that maybe people are

dancing around, and that is the church that these people belong

to, that encourages large numbers of children. And the sexist

aspect of that particular faith. The program I saw, the mom and the

daughters did the cooking and laundry. The father and sons, of

course, did the MANLY chores. (To be fair, it wasn't all cut and dried,

I think maybe younger boys might have helped fold clothes). In

that faith, the women are virtually oppressed, they are baby factories

and not much else. Wear long hair and skirts.

I would be angry if I was an older daughter responsible for all that

child care after the mom weaned babies. The narrow minded scope

of what the future would be like is appalling to consider.

That many pregnancies are EXTREMELY hard on a woman's body.

She's been pregnant for 10.5 YEARS? Please.

100 years ago, have a lot of kids due to the high incidence of early

childhood death. We don't need to do that any more!

I have to go with my gut on this one. If they can afford it, and that's

what they want to do, okay. But I have to say I think it's wrong.

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 3:03 pm

This family has TV shows they are raking in the money on the size of their family. They know exactly what they are doing.

Giving birth to 17 kids, she has been pregnant all her life. Nah better her than me..!!

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 3:35 pm

Three points :-

Spot - your seventeen in one family better than one in seventeen families does not stack up, those born into large families tend to have large families, think of the exponent.

Betty - the family becomes self supporting as the elder children grow. In a larger family the care comes as much from the elder siblings as from the parents and the younger siblings tend to be smothered with care. Even with just four at home our youngest could not even look unhappy without one of the older ones cuddling her better - not always a good thing but that's life.

Peg - Again, if both parents were to die over the next couple of years it's likely that the elder children would take up the slack and support the younger. In a close family you look after your own.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 3:46 pm

I think Valerie may have lit upon the problem- the baby factory aspect. That's close to what it is that I find so distasteful. As she says, 100 years ago there was high infant mortality (and women themselves often died in childbirth!) and people had many kids to help them out on the farm. That's no longer necessary. When I read about them being gifts from God, I grumbled. Not because I may disagree with that but because of everything that's been said about that. I understand it's their religion, their life, etc but I don't cotton to it. And I too think it's unfair to expect the older kids to help raise the younger ones. It may be good experience for them, but if the parents need help with all those kids then it's time to stop having them.

neffy · Post by **neffy** » Mon Aug 06, 2007 1:32 am

i just think she is brave,i buggered if iwould go through again,just call be a coward:wah::wah:

valerie · Post by **valerie** » Fri May 09, 2008 5:38 pm

Hang on to your hats... Report out today...

Baby number 18 due January 2009.

Arkansas

Peg · Post by **Peg** » Fri May 09, 2008 5:46 pm

How in the heck do they have the time or energy for sex?!!:wah:

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri May 09, 2008 6:09 pm

The first few are old enough to babysit.

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Fri May 09, 2008 6:37 pm

:wah:Peg;861812 wrote: How in the heck do they have the time or energy for sex?!!:wah:

Dweedle Dee · Post by **Dweedle Dee** » Sat May 10, 2008 3:02 pm

I originally found this topic rather distasteful, but after doing a little googling and seeing a brief vid from their TV show, I'm actually sort of in awe of this family. Granted, I only caught a brief glimpse of their lives, but they seem like a well balanced, loving family that can financially support their large family.

I say why not? They're not on welfare, and they're all healthy, clean and apparently happy. What does it take away from us? Why would the rest of us even feel the need to comment on it?

Chezzie · Post by **Chezzie** » Sat May 10, 2008 3:10 pm

Fun Facts on The Duggars

*

Michelle’s been pregnant for 135 months of her life.

*

Average number of months between Duggar births is 18.

*

Estimated number of Duggar diapers to date is 90,000.

*

The Duggars do approximately 200 loads of laundry each month.

*

The Duggars feed their entire brood for less than $2,000 per month.

*

The only person in the Duggar family whose name doesn’t start with "J" is Mom — Michelle.

*

Every Duggar child learns to play both violin and piano.

*

The family organizes their household chores by assigning "jurisdictions," so everyone knows exactly what their daily responsibilities are.

*

The Duggars estimate all the family members combined have worked approximately 39,000 total hours building their new house.

*

The Duggars are debt free.

Im with Dweedle, they seem level headed and love each and every one of their kids, they are clean, well fed and polite. Debt free and built their own house..Hell I wanna give them a medal:-4:-6

valerie · Post by **valerie** » Sat May 10, 2008 3:17 pm

I just read back through this thread and realized most of the

following is me repeating myself. My apologies.

Would you still say why not if you knew they had their home declared

a church and they don't pay taxes?

The "Quiverfulls" are another of those "males are Gods" type sects

that I just think is wrong. If they are in fact having the kids swap

"jurisdictions"... fine. But the programs I saw, there was a definite

"Women do women's work" mentality. And the mom apparently

talked about one morning doing laundry at 1 a.m. (!!!!) and asking

God for guidance.

Andrea Yates was a member of the Quiverfull sect.

I do think that it is very impressive seeing how well-behaved those

kids are. Sit down and watch one of those Super Nanny programs

and then watch a program about these people. BIG difference.

I wonder how those kids will do when they get in the real world.

As far as I could tell, the dad is the only one who has any access

to a computer. I'm sure they want to protect the kids from all

the horrible things "out there" but they are also limiting them.

It almost seems like an out of control thing to me. And that poor

mother's body is just wearing out.

Personally, I hated when I had to do so much work for my 2 younger

sisters and brother. It was like, hey, you guys wanted these kids

not ME.

Anyway, rant over. Sorry Dweedle, and welcome to FG!

:-6

Dweedle Dee · Post by **Dweedle Dee** » Sat May 10, 2008 3:34 pm

Thanks Val.

I dunno, I haven't dug deep enough to know about their wacky religious preferences, but the brief clip I saw made the parents look like happy, normal adults that were thrilled with the fact they were having another child.

It's certainly not my cup of tea, but for all the American adults that opt not to have children, such as myself, there are these people that more than make up for it.

On a side note, anyone see "Idiocracy"? Hee

Post by **spot** » Sun May 31, 2015 5:16 am

Rather than start a new thread, would anyone like to bring the Duggar story up to date? They appear to be in the news again. Attempting to out-breed the Democrats seems to have taken a nose-dive, and every Republican politician who ever sat for a group photo has taken to his command bunker for the time being.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun May 31, 2015 7:27 am

spot;1479989 wrote: Rather than start a new thread, would anyone like to bring the Duggar story up to date? They appear to be in the news again. Attempting to out-breed the Democrats seems to have taken a nose-dive, and every Republican politician who ever sat for a group photo has taken to his command bunker for the time being.

I think they are up to 19, now. The news of late seems to be around the eldest son, who had a moment of poor judgement when he was in his teens. Not sure how that happened, (Teens exhibiting poor judgement, that is) but the matter was dealt with at the time. The media recently got wind of the nearly ten year old events, and began given the fellow the Cosby treatment. The police, after the news was dug up, expunged the records (Also perfectly legal) which caused the media hounds to start baying even more ferociously.

Seems to me to be a lot of silliness over the misadventures of a 14-year-old.

Though, if every 14er was to know that his antics would become public, might reconsider their temptations.

Post by **spot** » Sun May 31, 2015 7:33 am

Perhaps cultists tend not to be aware of societal norms.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun May 31, 2015 7:39 am

While they may be a little weird, I do not see them qualifying as cultists.

Post by **spot** » Sun May 31, 2015 7:57 am

LarsMac;1480007 wrote: While they may be a little weird, I do not see them qualifying as cultists.

Friday's Washington Post raised an eyebrow - A quarter of Americans are evangelical Christians, but only a small fraction of them are like the Duggars. Only 3 percent of American kids are home-schooled, as the Duggars are. Only 7 percent of Americans think using birth control is morally objectionable, as the Duggars do. As for the percentage of Americans who favor arranged-in-all-but-name marriages? The answer is so obvious there’s no need to ask the question.

Why did Republicans embrace the Duggars in the first place? - The Washington Post

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who refuses to allow their children to be educated with their peers beyond home schooling and also uses the entire Bible as an inerrant guide to morality is a cultist. I think most of the world's adult population would agree with me.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun May 31, 2015 10:30 am

Well, I have to take issue with the statistic quoted there.

I think a much larger percentage of those idiots believe birth control is morally objectionable.

I have no idea how many believe in arranged marriages, but With the steady increase of Hindu and Muslim families, I believe that number is rising, with no real increase from Christian types.

And for home schooling, the HS community is addressing the issue of education and social interaction with some very positive results.

Now, as to the bible reference, you may be on to something. I would venture then that this cult you speak of is frighteningly large. (like half the Republican Party?)

Still, all of this new-found attention, due to adolescent behavior some ten years ago, seems unwarranted.

I am sure we have much more important matters to be brought to the fore in this coming year.

These people should just be ignored.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sun May 31, 2015 1:50 pm

"These people should just be ignored."

How? Especially if their candidates keep winning elections? Getting their own TV shows also makes them hard to ignore. The media is complicit.

valerie · Post by **valerie** » Sun May 31, 2015 2:27 pm

A "moment of poor judgement" wow Lars. He sexually abused

five little girls, 3-4 of them his own sisters, it was not reported

for at least a year, the family friend who took the report is now

in prison for 56 years for child pornography? You can't make

this stuff up. Apparently the only 'counseling' the guy had was

a couple of months with a friend in the construction business.

Josh Duggar has given many speeches against the LGBTQ

community, how morally wrong they are, and yet there was

this in his past? Hypocrisy, much?

His sisters and maybe a cousin have to see him and interact

with him at family functions? Now this guy has a young

daughter of his own, and maybe more to come? When he

molested them... fondled their breasts and genitals. I'm

not saying allegedly because he's admitted to it.

He was raised in a society that devalues girls and women.

The only small thing I will give him is that apparently he did

tell his wife what he'd done, before their engagement. If

she is telling the truth about that.

If it had been done lawfully back all those years ago, he

would have been a juvenile offender and put on a

sexual predator list. And maybe gotten some REAL help.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun May 31, 2015 2:33 pm

Their candidates?

aHAH. You nailed it.

The people that pay attention to these clowns are scary. They are the same ones that listen to The Donald, and the Duck Dynasty crew. My GOD!, how did we let these nitwits into our government?

And, here we are, talking about these people, ourselves.

The Zombie apocalypse is upon us, already.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sun May 31, 2015 2:43 pm

"how did we let these nitwits into our government?"

It's called Democracy in Action, aka, The Vote.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun May 31, 2015 3:17 pm

AnneBoleyn;1480041 wrote: "how did we let these nitwits into our government?"

It's called Democracy in Action, aka, The Vote.

Oh, yeah. I forget.

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Aug 26, 2015 7:08 am

Well recent news reports expose evidence that I was horribly wrong in my defense of the young Mr Duggar in this thread.

It seems that he has been "outed" as one of the clients of the Cheating Website, "Ashley Madison"

I'm sure that his family must be proud of him.

I do try to find the good in people, but sometimes, it proves to have been a wasted venture.

Post by **spot** » Wed Aug 26, 2015 7:36 am

Ashley Madison did absolutely no verification at all, any wag could have posted Mother Teresa onto it, much less Master Duggar.

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Aug 26, 2015 6:58 pm

spot;1484801 wrote: Ashley Madison did absolutely no verification at all, any wag could have posted Mother Teresa onto it, much less Master Duggar.

True, but it seems his nibs has confessed and apologized to his family.

Post by **spot** » Thu Aug 27, 2015 12:14 am

Addicted to wrong-doing, that chap. No doubt there's a thrill in doing what you've been ordered not to.