Arkansas Parents have 17 Kids

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sat Aug 04, 2007 10:32 pm

I'd like to know how they support 17 kids in Arkansas.

Arkansas couple welcome their 17th child

Story Highlights

Jim Bob and Michelle Duggars are proud parents of 17 children.

Youngest, Jennifer Danielle, was born Thursday

All told, mother Michelle Duggar has been pregnant for 10.5 years

She says family would love to have more childrenLITTLE ROCK, Arkansas (AP) -- It's a girl -- again -- for Jim Bob and Michelle Duggars, the proud parents of 17 children.

And after Jennifer Danielle was born Thursday morning, her parents already were talking about having more children.

"We'd love to have more," Michelle Duggar said, adding that the girls are outnumbered seven to 10 in the family. "We love the ruffles and lace."

The family's home in the northwest Arkansas town of Tontitown includes dormitory-style bedrooms for the boys and girls, nine bathrooms, a commercial kitchen, four washing machines and four dryers.

The children are home-schooled by Michelle Duggar, 40. The oldest is 19 and the youngest, before Jennifer, is almost 2 years old. The family includes two sets of twins.

"We are just so grateful to God for another gift from him," said Jim Bob Duggar, 42, a former state representative who sells real estate. "We are just so thankful to him that everything went just very well."

All of Jennifer's siblings also have names that start with J. They are: Joshua, 19; John David, 17; Janna, 17; Jill, 16; Jessa, 14; Jinger, 13; Joseph, 12; Josiah, 11; Joy-Anna, 9; Jedidiah, 8; Jeremiah, 8; Jason 7; James 6; Justin, 4; Jackson, 3; Johannah, almost 2.

The Duggars have been featured on several programs on cable's Discovery Health Network.

Among the "fun facts" listed on Discovery Health's Web page devoted to the Duggars: A baby has been born in every month except June; the family has gone through about 90,000 diapers, and Michelle Duggar has been pregnant for 126 months -- or 10.5 years -- of her life.

Attached files

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » Sat Aug 04, 2007 11:08 pm

Well the article does say the husband is a former State Representative and sells real estate.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sat Aug 04, 2007 11:36 pm

Sheryl;674095 wrote: Well the article does say the husband is a former State Representative and sells real estate.

Oops! Missed that whole line. Still...dang man. That's just too many offspring.

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 12:03 am

The kids are being educated and obviously loved. I see no harm!

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 12:10 am

I don't doubt at all that they're loved and I think homeschooling is great. But I think if you want that many kids, then adopt some. We already have too many people in the world as it is. My opinion.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 12:55 am

Damg Sheryl, I thought for a sec that you were going to help make this a discussion! Come on back!

Post by **spot** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 1:16 am

RedGlitter;674105 wrote: I don't doubt at all that they're loved and I think homeschooling is great. But I think if you want that many kids, then adopt some. We already have too many people in the world as it is. My opinion.

Some children are an asset to the planet, some are a liability. What makes you think these seventeen aren't a bonus?

Adopted-at-birth children are, I thought, practically guaranteed a family. I'd be surprised if any couple could acquire seventeen of them. Do you think it could be done? I don't. Or was that not what you meant by adoption?

Carl44 · Post by **Carl44** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 1:18 am

spot;674129 wrote: Some children are an asset to the planet, some are a liability. What makes you think these seventeen aren't a bonus?

Adopted-at-birth children are, I thought, practically guaranteed a family. I'd be surprised if any couple could acquire seventeen of them. Do you think it could be done? I don't. Or was that not what you meant by adoption?

you mean me dont you spock :p:p

Post by **spot** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 1:27 am

jimbo;674131 wrote: you mean me dont you spock :p:pYou're a product of society, Jimbo. In your case, William Whitelaw's short sharp shock.

He was such an evil bugger, may he rot in the more unsalubrious parts of eternal torment. He did actually use that phrase when discussing youth detention centres. It was a quote from Gilbert and Sullivan:

To sit in solemn silence in a dull, dark dock,

In a pestilential prison with a life-long lock

Awaiting the sensation of a short, sharp shock

From a cheap and chippy chopper on a big, black block.

That was, you'll find it hard to believe, an attempt at humour on Whitelaw's part. The Conservative Annual Conference has equally bizarre examples.

Carl44 · Post by **Carl44** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 1:35 am

spot;674133 wrote: You're a product of society, Jimbo. In your case, William Whitelaw's short sharp shock.

He was such an evil bugger, may he rot in the more unsalubrious parts of eternal torment. He did actually use that phrase when discussing youth detention centres. It was a quote from Gilbert and Sullivan:

To sit in solemn silence in a dull, dark dock,

In a pestilential prison with a life-long lock

Awaiting the sensation of a short, sharp shock

From a cheap and chippy chopper on a big, black block.

That was, you'll find it hard to believe, an attempt at humour on Whitelaw's part. The Conservative Annual Conference has equally bizarre examples.

good grief :wah::wah:

it was even more Vulcan than I'd expected ,maybe my friend society is the product of men like you ever thought of that :rolleyes:

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 1:40 am

spot;674129 wrote: Some children are an asset to the planet, some are a liability. What makes you think these seventeen aren't a bonus?

Adopted-at-birth children are, I thought, practically guaranteed a family. I'd be surprised if any couple could acquire seventeen of them. Do you think it could be done? I don't. Or was that not what you meant by adoption?

I don't know if they're a liability or an asset; I wasn't thinking much in that context but rather in the form of these two adults cranking out all these kids who are going to be responsible for all the resources they use. Starting with the 90,000 diapers. I hope those were cloth. Otherwise they're in a landfill somewhere waiting to biodegrade. It goes from there. I'm trying to avoid using the term "carbon footprint" but that's where I'm going. All the trash they're going to create, they're contribution to the ozone problem. Of course this all sounds absurd at first but it adds up. I can't quite place my finger on the word I'm looking for but it's something along the lines of greed and selfishness to have 17 children, IMO. I certainly don't admire or envy them. I see them as a problem. With about 12 kids more than necessary. Get some birth control.

Regarding adoption, I don't know...is it too far fetched to assume they could adopt 17 kids? If so, why not open their house to foster children if they have so much love and money to spare?

Post by **spot** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 1:51 am

RedGlitter;674136 wrote: Regarding adoption, I don't know...is it too far fetched to assume they could adopt 17 kids? If so, why not open their house to foster children if they have so much love and money to spare?You see, you're changing your suggestion each time a reason's given about your previous one. A foster family has entirely different dynamics to one which has grown together from the start. I think an adopted-at-birth family has different dynamics to one with genetic identity but that's a different matter again and it's less obvious why it might be true.

If I had to guess, a family with seventeen children has a far smaller carbon footprint than seventeen families with one each. If you want to stabilize the number of children and reduce the carbon footprint you should aim for all children to be in families with seventeen, and the vast majority of couples to be childless.

Carl44 · Post by **Carl44** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 1:54 am

you totally missed my post spot :wah:

sorry buddy i must be little more than an annoyance to you :wah:

keep up the good work :-6

i'll leave you in peace nice talking to you :rolleyes:

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 1:57 am

I'm not sure how you mean I'm changing my suggestion....although I am kind of trying to dance around to avoid being too offensive in case anyone here has or comes from a large family. Ok, I'll be out with it: I think it's pure selfishness to have so many kids. I don't know who could draw the proper line but 17 is just too many.

While it might be true about fosters/adopted children having different dynamics than a birth child, I don't know that and I'm not willing to say I do. I see it's probable but I sure couldn't say firsthand.

I will have to give some thought to the rest of what you said...I'll think about it but I'm not sure I can agree. But I'll mull it over.

Post by **spot** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 2:16 am

jimbo;674142 wrote: you totally missed my post spot :wah:

sorry buddy i must be little more than an annoyance to you :wah:

keep up the good work :-6

i'll leave you in peace nice talking to you :rolleyes:No, I didn't miss it. I was puzzled by it, I'm still trying to work out what "men like you" in a post about William Whitelaw means. I'd have put a reply up eventually but I don't know what it would have said.

neffy · Post by **neffy** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 2:21 am

i think red if that is what they wanted that is fair play,all i can say is that she is so bloody brave to have 17 kids :wah: i think if they have had that many to adopt a child would be just a drop in the ocean for them.

They could round it off to 20 by adopting 3 kiddies

Post by **spot** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 2:23 am

RedGlitter;674143 wrote: I'm not sure how you mean I'm changing my suggestion....although I am kind of trying to dance around to avoid being too offensive in case anyone here has or comes from a large family. Ok, I'll be out with it: I think it's pure selfishness to have so many kids. I don't know who could draw the proper line but 17 is just too many.

While it might be true about fosters/adopted children having different dynamics than a birth child, I don't know that and I'm not willing to say I do. I see it's probable but I sure couldn't say firsthand.

I will have to give some thought to the rest of what you said...I'll think about it but I'm not sure I can agree. But I'll mull it over.

Either you think children should have as low a carbon footprint as reasonably possible or you don't. Large families reduce the footprint per child.

Perhaps you want fairness within a fixed limit to the number of children born? That's what the Chinese brought in - a cap on the number of children per couple. By all means do that in the US as well if you like.

An alternative is to recognise that only one family in a million might have seventeen children and that families that size have absolutely no overall impact on consumption, there are so few of them. It takes an effort of will to craft a family like that and keep it on course, bring them all up to be good, educated, productive citizens. The two of them wouldn't be a role-model in many eyes, but they're living life the way they've chosen to live it. I'm delighted with their success.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 2:31 am

I'm glad we're finally having a real discussion here! I've been fluffed to death lately. :wah:

Neffy, Spot, thanks for the input,. I mean that.

No, I sure don't encourage anything like what China does. I do not feel anyone has a right to get into someone else's reproductive lives- I feel okay commenting on it but that's not the same as recommending enforced child limitations.

I would like to see people limit themselves.

How does one family with 17 children leave a lesser impact than 17 families with one child? Are we counting the 17 sets of parents, is that it?

On an emotional/personal basis I still feel it's selfish to have that many kids. I can't quite narrow down why i feel that way but when I do I will try to explain.

neffy · Post by **neffy** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 2:36 am

Red why do you think it is selfish to have so many children,surely if they are been well looked after and the family are supporting there selfs ,i cant see a prob really.

I am selfish with my time and i love my owns things and that is why i only had one child,but am i also being selfish just having one

If you know what i mean maybe shelley was lonely has a child who knows

Post by **spot** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 2:38 am

RedGlitter;674157 wrote: How does one family with 17 children leave a lesser impact than 17 families with one child? Are we counting the 17 sets of parents, is that it?No, not at all.

If you take 17 couples you can make two measurements from that starting point.

Put one child with each and see how the total carbon footprint increases.

Then, alternatively, put all seventeen with one couple instead and see how the total carbon footprint increases.

I suggest that the second picture uses less energy. More children get ferried around together in fewer larger cars. Fewer clothes and toys get bought. There's more sharing, and sharing's footprint-free.

By all means try to explain your inherent disapproval of a family that size, so far I haven't grasped what you're getting at. If you're not interested in capping the number of babies in the country then I don't see a reason.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 3:07 am

neffy;674163 wrote: Red why do you think it is selfish to have so many children,surely if they are been well looked after and the family are supporting there selfs ,i cant see a prob really.

I am selfish with my time and i love my owns things and that is why i only had one child,but am i also being selfish just having one

If you know what i mean maybe shelley was lonely has a child who knows

I don't know, Neffers, why I feel the way I do. I'm trying to work that out as we talk. One thing for sure is if these people were on the dole rather than providing for their own, I would be livid. But since that seems to not be the case, I'm just unable so far to pinpoint what it is.

Maybe it's the rescuer in me talking, but one thing I keep returning to is if you have enough to give 17 kids, why not help somebody else's kids? Kids who have crappy or nonexistent home lives and need a family of sorts, a place to belong. They're in every neighborhood just about. Take some in. That's what I'm thinking.

Now this IS the rescuer in me talking here- I always say to potential breeders "why do you wanna make more puppies/kittens when there's nothing wrong withe the ones who are already here?" And that's the feeling that keeps cropping up in me.

Neffy, I couldn't speak for Shelley of course but I don't think having just one child is selfish. I'm an only myself. I don't know any different. Things may have been easier if I'd had a brother or a sister or maybe not. No way to tell.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 3:09 am

spot;674164 wrote: No, not at all.

If you take 17 couples you can make two measurements from that starting point.

Put one child with each and see how the total carbon footprint increases.

Then, alternatively, put all seventeen with one couple instead and see how the total carbon footprint increases.

I suggest that the second picture uses less energy. More children get ferried around together in fewer larger cars. Fewer clothes and toys get bought. There's more sharing, and sharing's footprint-free.

By all means try to explain your inherent disapproval of a family that size, so far I haven't grasped what you're getting at. If you're not interested in capping the number of babies in the country then I don't see a reason.

You make good points here. I suppose those are all things to be considered and now I see what you mean.

Post by **spot** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 3:16 am

In terms of the fun 17 children can have while growing up, I'm sure they're having a great time. I expect I would have enjoyed growing up in that family. Isn't the enjoyment of the children one of the main aspects in deciding whether the family works or not? What makes you think they'd get on so well if they'd all been brought into that setting as foster children? That seems unlikely to me.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 3:32 am

spot;674178 wrote: In terms of the fun 17 children can have while growing up, I'm sure they're having a great time. I expect I would have enjoyed growing up in that family. Isn't the enjoyment of the children one of the main aspects in deciding whether the family works or not? What makes you think they'd get on so well if they'd all been brought into that setting as foster children? That seems unlikely to me.

Yes, the kids' enjoyment and happiness are definite things to consider.

The 17 might get along or maybe some don't...I don't see why foster kids couldn't get along just as well though. I think it would be more about personal dynamics than anything else. I don't know from experience, I just think it's plausible.

Post by **Betty Boop** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 3:36 am

RedGlitter;674181 wrote: Yes, the kids' enjoyment and happiness are definite things to consider.

The 17 might get along or maybe some don't...I don't see why foster kids couldn't get along just as well though. I think it would be more about personal dynamics than anything else. I don't know from experience, I just think it's plausible.

Personal dynamics would be the least of their problems, not all foster children, but the majority of them come with issues, some with huge issues, they generally need smaller families to take care of them as they need more nurturing.

Yikes, do I really want to get involved in this discussion :wah:

Post by **Betty Boop** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 3:38 am

I have no opinion on the couple with seventeen, good luck to them, I wish I had enough love in me to spread it around seventeen! :-6

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 3:50 am

Betty Boop;674184 wrote: Personal dynamics would be the least of their problems, not all foster children, but the majority of them come with issues, some with huge issues, they generally need smaller families to take care of them as they need more nurturing.

Yikes, do I really want to get involved in this discussion :wah:

Sure you do Betty Boop!

We're not arguing or anything. For me personally, it's a nice change from the fluffy threads.

Yeah I don't wish ill on this family, this is just my opinion and how I feel about it. Still can't properly explain why though.

Post by **Betty Boop** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 3:53 am

RedGlitter;674195 wrote: Sure you do Betty Boop!

We're not arguing or anything. For me personally, it's a nice change from the fluffy threads.

Yeah I don't wish ill on this family, this is just my opinion and how I feel about it. Still can't properly explain why though.

Would you possibly feel left out with that amount of people around?

I have two children and it can be hard enough sometimes to spend good, one on one quality time with each of them. If I had any more I'm sure I would feel huge guilt that I wasn't giving each of them enough time, energy and love of course.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 4:03 am

Betty Boop;674199 wrote: Would you possibly feel left out with that amount of people around?

I have two children and it can be hard enough sometimes to spend good, one on one quality time with each of them. If I had any more I'm sure I would feel huge guilt that I wasn't giving each of them enough time, energy and love of course.

That's definitely something to think about. I guess maybe if they're used to a big family that they may be used to sharing their parents' love or maybe they don't feel that way after all...and of course they have each other. I think that aspect is nice. I don't mind being an only but it would be nice to have a connection with someone...most of my close family are gone and I have only one cousin I talk to, we grew up together.

Other aspects of this is even if the kids help out, can you imagine doing all that laundry? And the cooking! Their grocery bill has to be astronomical!

buttercup · Post by **buttercup** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 4:19 am

RedGlitter;674195 wrote:

Yeah I don't wish ill on this family, this is just my opinion and how I feel about it. Still can't properly explain why though.

Perhaps your a little jealous? Your an only child & as yet you dont have any children of your own.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 4:22 am

buttercup;674214 wrote: Perhaps your a little jealous? Your an only child & as yet you dont have any children of your own.

Oh no, not in the remotest fashion.

I've always liked being an only, when it was an issue at all and I chose not to have children.

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 4:22 am

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.

buttercup · Post by **buttercup** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 4:26 am

Red why do you feel this woman should adopt rather than have her own children? Would you feel the same way if say i chose to have another child, would you want me me to adopt rather than have my own? Why would i do that?

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 4:33 am

buttercup;674221 wrote: Red why do you feel this woman should adopt rather than have her own children? Would you feel the same way if say i chose to have another child, would you want me me to adopt rather than have my own? Why would i do that?

Because of someone's going to have that many children, we have some already here that could use the love and security of a real home. I think also that we already have too many people in our world.

If you chose to have another child, I wouldn't have a preference as to them being biological or adopted because you probably don't have many children at this point. But if you had say, 12 or 15 and wanted more I may not say anything because I don't know you but I would sure be thinking "Ok, Buttercup, that's pushing it." That's my honest feeling.

buttercup · Post by **buttercup** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 4:38 am

Just because there are 'spare' children in the world does not mean people capable of having thier own should adopt them. There are many couples unable to concieve, its those people who should have the opportunity.

Also if your so concerned about these spare children why are you not giving one a home?

Interesting thread Red.

Peg · Post by **Peg** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 4:41 am

The thing with that many children is what happens if the father suddenly dies? Is the mother going to be able to support them all? If the mother should suddenly die, is the father going to be able to supoort them, home school them, and do it all? If they both would die, who is going to take on that many children and raise them at least decently?

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 4:41 am

buttercup;674230 wrote: Just because there are 'spare' children in the world does not mean people capable of having thier own should adopt them. There are many couples unable to concieve, its those people who should have the opportunity.

Also if your so concerned about these spare children why are you not giving one a home?

Interesting thread Red.

I can't really explain it I guess. I just think having 17 children is not something to be crowing about but something rather obnoxious.

I'm not giving kids a home because I don't want any children. Mine or anyone else's.

Thanks- it is interesting- it's got people talking anyway.

buttercup · Post by **buttercup** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 4:44 am

I think if you wouldent have one yourself its wrong of you to expect others too.

buttercup · Post by **buttercup** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 4:47 am

Peg;674231 wrote: The thing with that many children is what happens if the father suddenly dies? Is the mother going to be able to support them all? If the mother should suddenly die, is the father going to be able to supoort them, home school them, and do it all? If they both would die, who is going to take on that many children and raise them at least decently?

The same can be said of any family situation Peg, you just cope as a family best as you can with what circumstances life throws at you.

If people feel 17 is wrong, what actually is an acceptable number for a large family? 7, 10, 12?

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 4:49 am

buttercup;674236 wrote: I think if you wouldent have one yourself its wrong of you to expect others too.

You mean if I wouldn't adopt a child?

Why?

These parents obviously want kids where I don't...

If I were going to have a child but insisted on having my own and refused to consider adoption, that would seem wrong to me. But I don't see the connection between me and someone who wants children...?

Post by **spot** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 4:50 am

Is life insurance not commonplace for both partners where the upbringing of children is concerned?

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 4:51 am

Peg;674231 wrote: The thing with that many children is what happens if the father suddenly dies? Is the mother going to be able to support them all? If the mother should suddenly die, is the father going to be able to supoort them, home school them, and do it all? If they both would die, who is going to take on that many children and raise them at least decently?
That's a good point. It's hard enough raising one or two kids as a single person (so I hear) what would you do with 17?!

buttercup;674237 wrote: The same can be said of any family situation Peg, you just cope as a family best as you can with what circumstances life throws at you.

If people feel 17 is wrong, what actually is an acceptable number for a large family? 7, 10, 12?

That I couldn't say. Maybe it's a gut feeling type thing. 7 seems like a reasonable number to me.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 4:52 am

spot;674239 wrote: Is life insurance not commonplace for both partners where the upbringing of children is concerned?

Yes, but that doesn't buy the groceries and emergency incidentals that crop up.

buttercup · Post by **buttercup** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 4:59 am

RedGlitter;674238 wrote: You mean if I wouldn't adopt a child?

Why?

These parents obviously want kids where I don't...

If I were going to have a child but insisted on having my own and refused to consider adoption, that would seem wrong to me. But I don't see the connection between me and someone who wants children...?

Well lets say these people dont want adopted children, neither do you so if they should have one, so should you.

Peg · Post by **Peg** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 5:00 am

That was one of my first thoughts Spot. I hope they have a LOT of life insurance but with 17 children, can they afford to pay the premiums that would support a family that large? Another thought is, in the case of both parents death, would someone take 17 children on? Some may do it for the money, but would they do it out of love?

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

It was quite common in my grandparents era to have a large family, i dont think there were any more kids up for adoption back then than there is now. Spot do you have any figures on that?

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

buttercup;674244 wrote: Well lets say these people dont want adopted children, neither do you so if they should have one, so should you.
Ok...if I want kids that's fair. But since I don't, that argument doesn't really work.

buttercup · Post by **buttercup** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 5:09 am

Its not an argument, its a question about why you feel people should take on something you wouldent be prepared to do yourself. You dont want kids, fair enough but that does not mean people who do should have an adopted one just because you think they should.

Post by **spot** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 5:11 am

Peg;674245 wrote: That was one of my first thoughts Spot. I hope they have a LOT of life insurance but with 17 children, can they afford to pay the premiums that would support a family that large? Another thought is, in the case of both parents death, would someone take 17 children on? Some may do it for the money, but would they do it out of love?

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.

Post by **spot** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 5:16 am

buttercup;674249 wrote: Its not an argument, its a question about why you feel people should take on something you wouldent be prepared to do yourself. You dont want kids, fair enough but that does not mean people who do should have an adopted one just because you think they should.

None of this is relevant to the motivation of a family to do as this family has done. This is a demonstration of obedience to the will of God. One can mock it from outside, but it's daft to pretend that fostering or adoption would or would not have any attraction whatever to such a family. It's nothing to do with what they're doing. They're being fruitful and multiplying because that's how they read their bible. If you want to bring alternative family structures into the discussion fine, but not while talking about this particular family which has informed the OP.

On a political level, just so people realize such ideas exist, it also involves increasing the number of Republican activists in the next generation. Go on, now tell me I'm a paranoid idiot.