Michelle Duggars big announcement is....

[angela in ohio]

I am hoping that with more birthing experience than any obstetrician around, she might choose to have this baby at home.

 

Jim Bob and the boys are resourceful, but I can't see them doing a C-section. ;)

[phathui5]

How can a kid with a problem really expect to get individualized attention for any significant period of time?

 

Well, they do homeschool and Mom does the teaching. So the kids are with their family all day. From what I've seen on their show, they have lots of family togetherness.

[phathui5]

2) and I can't get over nursing for only a couple months because getting pregnant again is more important than the baby who could benefit from nursing another 6-18months. The "old" baby get "substandard" (standard is breastmilk so anything under is below standard even if it's "good enough") so they can fulfill whatever this is? Why not give each baby what they should have and however many kids you have, you do?

 

She covers this in her book. She nurses for at least six months and then as long after that as she can bring herself to do it. Nursing is very painful for her. She has inverted nipples that no lactation consultant has been able to help her with and nursing for her means cracked and bleeding nipples and hurting. But she does it anyway.

[IsabelC]

Jim Bob and the boys are resourceful, but I can't see them doing a C-section. ;)

I heard she had been talking about a VBAC?

[KidsHappen]

Exactly. I have two children. I already feel like the second gets the shaft in comparison to my first. By the time I got to the 19th I wonder if I would even remember his or her name.

 

I only have six and I frequently use the wrong name. At least she would know it started with a J.

[Scarlett]

I'm just glad Michelle dumped the bangs poof and got highlights.

 

I also really like the child-like curls on her daughters.

 

Woot, you guys!

 

I'm thinking Queer Eye for the Straight Quiverfull Family played a role?

 

 

 

I thought she looked different! Good for her!

[Mad Jenny Flint]

Jiminy.

[thescrappyhomeschooler]

I'm thinking Queer Eye for the Straight Quiverfull Family played a role?

 

:lol:

 

Seriously, though, I'm feeling bad for having criticized their choices even though I don't agree with them. I apologize.

[IsabelC]

I suspect that they can handle a bit of criticism. After all, they have chosen to put themselves up for public scrutiny with their television appearances, website, book, etc so it is to be expected that some responses will be less than positive.

 

I would never presume to proclaim some arbitrary limit on the amount of children a couple should have and raise, but personally I am very happy with my smallish family of three kids.

[lynn]

Jim Bob and the boys are resourceful, but I can't see them doing a C-section. ;)

 

 

Didn't she have a c-section with baby 18. Isn't it dangerous for her to even be preg now if she did just have a c-section less than a year ago?

[amy g.]

I only had 2 siblings, and I had to raise my little brother due to my mother's mental illness. I had to take him with me on dates, and only go to high school part time so I could pick him up from school.

 

I told him recently that reading out loud to him in the bed, walking down the street to get pizza together, cleaning up his toys together with the music shaking the house are the absolute highlights of my life.I would not trade our relationship for anything.

 

My older children are extremely close to my 2 year old. In fact, she often tells me, "I don't want YOU! Where is my sister?" I'm happy that they love each other so much. I feel like they will reap the rewards of their hard work for the rest of their lives.

 

It is such an individual decision. I tend to be an OVER involved mother. I remember when Miss Good was a baby, and she had 8 adults sitting around watching her play. I thought, "I need to give this kid a sibling to take some of the focus off of her, or else I'm going to make her completely neurotic!"

 

I can see how a more detached mother might not do as well with an extra large family. It's great that we all have choices and the freedom to create the kids of family that we value the most.

[katemary63]

My great-grandmother was the 1st of 12, and that's why she was an early proponent and user of birth control. She believed that children are entitled to a childhood.

 

My MIL and FIL are from families of 12 and 13 respectively. They are both nuts. Niether was close with their parents. Neither are genuinly close with their siblings. My FIL hasn't seen or talked to most of his siblings in 25 years. He is a completely unnurtured soul who, to me, seems numb to the fact that he is human. He was number nine. I have no doubt, from conversations I've heard, that his parents had very little to do with him. They were too busy. My MIL was the youngest girl and was raised by an older sister. She is NPD to the nines, so what does that say? That's my experience with huge families.

 

I have 4 children. It is about all I can do to keep up with their emotional and spiritual needs. My oldest is 23 and lives in another state. She NEEDS me. We are close and she relies on me to help her make her way in this crazy world. I'm talking about encouragement, advice, (such as with a co-worker or boyfriend), spiritual accountability. ( This is not an un-cut apron strings type thing, it's a mentoring/ friendship relationship.) We talk or email daily and I can't imagine if I had to tell her I couldn't participate in our relationship because I was too busy, which is what the case would be if I had very many more children.

 

How do people with such huge families meet the spiritual and emotional needs of their kids? How do the parents KNOW EACH child's heart if you can't spend at least a little one-on-one time. I know it would not be acceptable to me to let my oldest kids raise my younger kids. Never, never could I do that. It has nothing to do with getting them bathed and dressed. It has to do with being an emotional and spiritual nurturer. All kids need to be nurtured by MOM AND DAD. And each child's needs are individual. A blanket, "We love you all!" doesn't cut it. This thing about siblings raising siblings is NOT acceptable to me at all.

 

With all this said, I have no negative feelings for the Duggers or others with VERY large families. I simply don't understand it. I also ackowlege that I may just be a very limited human and some mothers must be much, much more capable then I. I KNOW I could NOT meet all the emotional needs of 19 kids to any standard that I would even consider minimal. But I do think the Duggers are doing as good a job as possible. I honestly just don't understand the whole situtation and the thought, "Why????" comes to my mind often when I think of them. But....they are nice, sincere people and I'm sure their kid's are going to turn out at least a lot better then my MIL and FIL (:D). So...live and let live, I guess.

[KingM]

I suspect that they can handle a bit of criticism. After all, they have chosen to put themselves up for public scrutiny with their television appearances, website, book, etc so it is to be expected that some responses will be less than positive.

 

Exactly. This is not a large family quietly going about their lives, this is a couple who put their lifestyle out there as a way of making money. They know good and well that the reason people tune in to watch their show, read their books, etc., is because of their freakishly large family.

 

This is a separate issue as to whether or not they deserve criticism, but they certainly aren't mere private citizens who are above criticism.

[Dianne-TX]

I haven't read all the responses, so I apologize if this is a repeat. But, I think the type of family closeness that is there makes a world of difference. It doesn't matter if a family has one child or 19 children, the closeness and what they are centered around makes the difference. You can tell from watching the Duggars that they are close and centered around something other than themselves. I've known only children who grew up to be messed up and I've known large families that all grew up and weren't messed up. And, I've known the opposite. The difference, though, was the family relationship, not the number. You can't make an argument that says the large number of children caused them to grow up nuts, it was the parents and what they lacked in teaching their children and how they lived their life.

[swellmomma]

While I do not agree with siblings raising siblings (we use the buddy system to go for walks not for one to raise/teach another child), I am happy for them. In fact I am a little jealous, I would love to be debt free, financially stable, in a loving relationship/family, with a large number of kids who are all neurotypical and so gentle towards each other. If I had the financial ability, an involved husband, her level of patience and kids who were as well behaved as their's I would totally have more.

 

I only have 4, and between their fighting, their issues, and their extra curricular's I am drained most days.

 

Of course with that many kids they do not participate in all the things my kids do, it would simply be impossible to a)afford(we just did cheer registration last night, when all is said and done it will be over $800 for the year, and that is only 1 activity for 1 child) and b) chauffeur them all. We already run into scheduling conflicts between my meetings(support group, running science fair, sewing circle) and the kids activities and making sure everyone gets to and from their things as smoothing as possible. I can see how kids in uber large families doo not get the opportunity to try new activities because you simply can't logistically do it. The Duggars do music lessons at home but the kids don't have much say in their instruments, they can't join the baseball team, or soccer, or cheer, scouts or rockclimbing etc. My oldest kids participate in 10-15 activities per year(some are only for 1 out of 3 terms), my 3rd in line does 6-10 and my littlest one does 2-3 per year. They would not have those chances if I had 19 kids.

 

I think from what I remember when I used to watch the show they only use textbooks for learning (or maybe I am confusing that part with the Maxwell's) they do not individualize curric for each child. I know in other large families like the Maxwell's they have the older kids teach the lessons like phonics and math to the little kids. I do not agree with that at all.

 

I don't care if you have 1 kids or 30 it is up to the parents to raise and teach that child not a sibling or cousin or whatever. I believe kids should have chores and even look out for each other (I pay dd to be a mother's helper with little dd at times when I need her for more than 20 minutes), but they should still be kids themselves not little parents. I was only the oldest of 3, and I was in charge of a lot for my little brother, plus a good majority of the household chores etc from the age of 9. By 11 I was working daily in a daycare center, and babysitting other kids over night. I was not raising all those kids, but I spent more of my hours doing childcare than playing and feel I missed out on a lot looking back.

[JudyJudyJudy]

Originally Posted by Hotdrink

I suspect that they can handle a bit of criticism. After all, they have chosen to put themselves up for public scrutiny with their television appearances, website, book, etc so it is to be expected that some responses will be less than positive.

Exactly. This is not a large family quietly going about their lives, this is a couple who put their lifestyle out there as a way of making money. They know good and well that the reason people tune in to watch their show, read their books, etc., is because of their freakishly large family.

 

This is a separate issue as to whether or not they deserve criticism, but they certainly aren't mere private citizens who are above criticism.

I totally agree.

[OnTheBrink]

I only have six and I frequently use the wrong name. At least she would know it started with a J.

 

I only have two, both with A names, spaced 10 years apart, and I still call them by the wrong names. My son is even rarely here (he's an adult). If I had 19? I'd just have to point and snap. :lol:

 

The Duggars were at a home school conference in St. Louis two years ago; I didn't meet Michelle or Jim-Bob, but I did see several of the kids. They were all well-behaved, but not drones. The little boys were walking around the vendor hall, talking, acting like little boys, but not misbehaving. Two of the daughters were at their booth with two of the babies, acting like regular people. There was nothing weird about them, from what I saw. I spoke with one of the daughters (Jana? Jessa? I dunno) and she was polite and cordial.

 

A large family is not my thing personally, but it looks to me like they're doing well with their many children.

[Tabrett]

She did answer it. I think I saw the piece on YouTube before we had satellite. It's just the basics of stopping nursing the "old" baby and knowing her cycle and such. But it is intentional.

 

I don't have an issue with people TRYING to get pregnant. *I* have tried many times, most cycles the last 14.5 years!

 

But there are a few things I wonder....

 

1) why do they feel the need to TRY to have an extreme number of children? They'd have many even if they just let whatever happened happen. And the scriptures don't point to setting up the situation to have A LOT of kids. So what IS it that motivates them to this extreme?

 

2) and I can't get over nursing for only a couple months because getting pregnant again is more important than the baby who could benefit from nursing another 6-18months. The "old" baby get "substandard" (standard is breastmilk so anything under is below standard even if it's "good enough") so they can fulfill whatever this is? Why not give each baby what they should have and however many kids you have, you do?

I think I remember her saying that she has her period the first month after each baby is born even though she is nursing.

She stops nursing when she gets pregnant. She wants to nurse longer, but gets pregnant and stops. I don't think she is trying to get pregnant. I just don't think she does anything to prevent getting pregnant and her body starts ovulating the month after each baby.

[nova147]

Congrats to the Duggars.

 

I think God gives each of us the tools to handle the family He has planned for us. Given the posts about large families that didn't work well, posts about large families that did, small families that didn't, and small families that did, it's clear to me that some of us use those tools well and others don't. But I don't think number of children is the primary factor in determining the success of our families. We also have to remember that each of us defines a successful family in a different way. I don't personally feel good about asking older kids to be overly involved in care for younger ones (not that I have any experience with that!), but I'm sure some parents choose to do so for a variety of reasons. As long as the children are physically and emotionally cared for, I have no problem with it. (Now those stories you hear about kids found in filthy homes with no food and no parents . . . those people I have a BIG problem with.)

[Impish]

I didn't know they had a book! *hangs head in shame*

 

As for the olders teaching the younger school, Diva does that. She loves to get the Littles together and 'teach'. She reads, does math, etc.

[6packofun]

Well, the key word in your post is "on my own"...LOL The Duggar household is run almost entirely by children.

[Lovedtodeath]

I heard she had been talking about a VBAC?

You can't do that at home. They have to be prepared for an emergency. From what I know, they would never allow a V-bac so soon.

 

Didn't she have a c-section with baby 18. Isn't it dangerous for her to even be preg now if she did just have a c-section less than a year ago?

Yes.

[Lovedtodeath]

I also ackowlege that I may just be a very limited human and some mothers must be much, much more capable then I.

Yes. I feel that way all of the time.

 

I think from what I remember when I used to watch the show they only use textbooks for learning (or maybe I am confusing that part with the Maxwell's) they do not individualize curric for each child. I know in other large families like the Maxwell's they have the older kids teach the lessons like phonics and math to the little kids. I do not agree with that at all.

I have no problem with textbooks or older children teaching the youngers. I also think that our modern lifestyle keeps children younger than they need to be for longer than they need to be.

[kdeno]

I only had 2 siblings, and I had to raise my little brother due to my mother's mental illness. I had to take him with me on dates, and only go to high school part time so I could pick him up from school.

 

I told him recently that reading out loud to him in the bed, walking down the street to get pizza together, cleaning up his toys together with the music shaking the house are the absolute highlights of my life.I would not trade our relationship for anything.

 

My older children are extremely close to my 2 year old. In fact, she often tells me, "I don't want YOU! Where is my sister?" I'm happy that they love each other so much. I feel like they will reap the rewards of their hard work for the rest of their lives.

 

It is such an individual decision. I tend to be an OVER involved mother. I remember when Miss Good was a baby, and she had 8 adults sitting around watching her play. I thought, "I need to give this kid a sibling to take some of the focus off of her, or else I'm going to make her completely neurotic!"

 

I can see how a more detached mother might not do as well with an extra large family. It's great that we all have choices and the freedom to create the kids of family that we value the most.

 

 

Thank you for sharing.:grouphug::001_smile:

[Tenaj]

Well, the key word in your post is "on my own"...LOL The Duggar household is run almost entirely by children.

 

I believe that many here are making more of this buddy system that the Duggar's use than is necessary. Saying that the Duggar household is run by the children is an interesting assessment. I have only seven children right now and I would say that they do a LOT of the household chores. From about age 2 we start training them to do simple tasks and as they get older those tasks grow more complicated. I still do most of the cooking but I certainly don't feel guilty in asking my three oldest to pitch in when my hands are needed to tend to someone else.

 

If I had as many children as the Duggar's do, I'm sure the household chores would be mainly done by the children. Let's say my kidlets have 6 chores a day to do, as an example. Add in 10 more kidlets and give them each six chores and you do pretty much have the household chores done.

 

What I have noticed as our family grows larger, is that we have a "team" spirit. We are a family, each member is important, and in order for our family to function as God wants us to, we work together constantly to reach our goals. That's also what I see as I watch and read the Duggar's shows and book. They are a family, working together. The buddy system they use allows them to work together to function as a family.

 

This morning my fifteen yodd dressed my 19 month old son. That's a version of the buddy system -is that wrong because I wasn't personally caring for him myself? I was putting a crock pot supper together because of a busy afternoon. I'm sure that Michelle Duggar is not sitting in front of the TV all day while her older kids deal with household chores and child rearing. When you are a member of a family, whether you are two years old or the father, you are important and should share in responsibilities that enable your family to function.

 

Sorry if this is rambling but I've been following this thread with a sense of disbelief at some of the comments that have been made. Of course, I'm also an overdue preggo woman and may be a tad bit sensitive because of that :lol:

[mommaduck]

At what point does this start? I have 7 and this is definitely not true for my family (nor the other post about not having a childhood - I don't expect my olders to raise my youngers.) I doubt we will ever have more, but I was curious as to when "square pegs" have to be "rounded off"?

I think she means that more of our raw edges are rubbed off...like polishing a stone. A large family can't handle as much "selfishness" or "me" as a small family. You HAVE to work more as a unit. This doesn't mean that individual tastes and personalities are left out...simply that they are rounded to benefit everyone more.

 

Though I have seen smaller families where they appear to have done the same...so I'm certain there are other factors at play ;)

[Renee in NC]

I think she means that more of our raw edges are rubbed off...like polishing a stone. A large family can't handle as much "selfishness" or "me" as a small family. You HAVE to work more as a unit. This doesn't mean that individual tastes and personalities are left out...simply that they are rounded to benefit everyone more.

 

Though I have seen smaller families where they appear to have done the same...so I'm certain there are other factors at play ;)

 

That is totally different than what I thought she was saying. It seemed to me that she was saying that in large families a child cannot be different - he or she has to assimilate and comform into the family.

[Lovedtodeath]

I believe that many here are making more of this buddy system that the Duggar's use than is necessary. Saying that the Duggar household is run by the children is an interesting assessment. I have only seven children right now and I would say that they do a LOT of the household chores. From about age 2 we start training them to do simple tasks and as they get older those tasks grow more complicated. I still do most of the cooking but I certainly don't feel guilty in asking my three oldest to pitch in when my hands are needed to tend to someone else.

 

If I had as many children as the Duggar's do, I'm sure the household chores would be mainly done by the children. Let's say my kidlets have 6 chores a day to do, as an example. Add in 10 more kidlets and give them each six chores and you do pretty much have the household chores done.

 

What I have noticed as our family grows larger, is that we have a "team" spirit. We are a family, each member is important, and in order for our family to function as God wants us to, we work together constantly to reach our goals. That's also what I see as I watch and read the Duggar's shows and book. They are a family, working together. The buddy system they use allows them to work together to function as a family.

 

This morning my fifteen yodd dressed my 19 month old son. That's a version of the buddy system -is that wrong because I wasn't personally caring for him myself? I was putting a crock pot supper together because of a busy afternoon. I'm sure that Michelle Duggar is not sitting in front of the TV all day while her older kids deal with household chores and child rearing. When you are a member of a family, whether you are two years old or the father, you are important and should share in responsibilities that enable your family to function.

 

Sorry if this is rambling but I've been following this thread with a sense of disbelief at some of the comments that have been made. Of course, I'm also an overdue preggo woman and may be a tad bit sensitive because of that :lol:

I thought this was a beautiful post.

[angela in ohio]

Well, the key word in your post is "on my own"...LOL The Duggar household is run almost entirely by children.

 

I don't have a problem with that (not that they asked my opinion.) :001_smile:

 

I only have three, and my household is run largely by children.

 

I agree with PP that children today stay childish longer than necessary. A sense that I wasn't truly contributing to my family or the world made me restless and defiant as a teen. My children know they are capable and necessary, and this makes them happy and peaceful. I have seen that same sense of belonging and fulfilment in my limited viewing of the Duggar children.

[Lovedtodeath]

In very large families, the kids must conform to the families, the families don't alter for the children. So "meeting their needs" means "making sure they take their place."

 

There's no searching for just the right curriculum for a child. Kids get in step. That's it. No options. No square pegs, because you're rubbed round.

So kids shouldn't have their different needs addressed? Or they should and large families don't do it? Or when you have one special needs kid you tend to stop having more? (that's me lol)

[ThatCyndiGirl]

I think that it's getting to be a sick, sick obsession. It makes me wonder what is going on with her psychologicially if she can't be happy with the ones she already has and feels the need to keep having more and more and more babies.

 

:(

 

 

I find it sad.

[Jen500]

I think that it's getting to be a sick, sick obsession. It makes me wonder what is going on with her psychologicially if she can't be happy with the ones she already has and feels the need to keep having more and more and more babies.

 

:(

 

 

I find it sad.

 

:iagree:

 

Wanting a large family is one thing, but 19 kids is ABNORMAL. It reminds me of individuals who collect cats....they just can't stop, and can't see why it's not healthy for the cats overall.

I know nothing about the Duggars (except what I've read here).

[Tenaj]

I think that it's getting to be a sick, sick obsession. It makes me wonder what is going on with her psychologicially if she can't be happy with the ones she already has and feels the need to keep having more and more and more babies.

 

:(

 

 

I find it sad.

 

That's really not the point with the Duggars. They have given over the size of their family over to God. They believe that their reproduction is in God's hands, not theirs and have surrendered their will to God's Higher Authority. We've made the same decision and, believe it or not, it's a very free place to be because we no longer have a say in those matters. No agonizing over family size, no decisions about birth control, no agonizing over knowing this is the last baby with all the emotions that go along with that.

 

Someone pointed out about the danger to Michele because of her C-section last year, but I'm sure that she's not concerned because they've laid that in God's hands, trusting Him for her safety and the baby's.

[Dirtroad]

She has 18 & is pregnant at/over 40... and looks 10 years younger & 1000x healthier than I do!:001_huh: Maybe I needed to have 15 more... but I am 41, too late!!!:) I wil only have #3 in Oct.

 

It was the NORM for thousands of years! It is the natural way fo life. We have developed drugs and devices to stop it. That is not the natural way, really. I think we have worked hard to STOP the normal process of our bodies... to stop nature.

 

Many families today are just too tired to even attempt to "create a baby" or work different jobs & are never together... that is sadder to me than 18 kids!

 

Plus, some people look at children as a BLESSING and a gift.. .not a burden or challenge. They seem mighty happy to me. I know many 2.3 kid households who almost hate each other b/c they live in the rat race & actually ignore their kids (toss them a game or DVD to keep them quiet).

 

I think this family has great things to teach us!

Edited September 2, 2009 by Dirtroad

[ThatCyndiGirl]

That's really not the point with the Duggars. They have given over the size of their family over to God. They believe that their reproduction is in God's hands, not theirs and have surrendered their will to God's Higher Authority. We've made the same decision and, believe it or not, it's a very free place to be because we no longer have a say in those matters. No agonizing over family size, no decisions about birth control, no agonizing over knowing this is the last baby with all the emotions that go along with that.

 

Someone pointed out about the danger to Michele because of her C-section last year, but I'm sure that she's not concerned because they've laid that in God's hands, trusting Him for her safety and the baby's.

 

 

NO.

 

 

Weaning early so you can hurry up and get pregnant again is most certainly NOT "putting it in God's hands". No, sir, not at all. That is actively attempting to conceive and birth as many babies as possible. Two VERY different ideals.

[PCA]

 

It was the NORM for thousands of years! It is the natural way fo life. We have developed drugs and devices to stop it. That is not the natural way, really. I think we have worked hard to STOP the normal process of our bodies... to stop nature.

 

Many families today are just too tired to even attempt to "create a baby" or work different jobs & are never together... that is sadder to me than 18 kids!

 

Plus, some people look at children as a BLESSING and a gift.. .not a burden or challenge. They seem mighty happy to me. I know many 2.3 kid households who almost hate each other b/c they live in the rat race & actually ignore their kids (toss them a game or DVD to keep them quiet).

 

I think this family has great things to teach us!

 

 

EXACTLY! Well said.

[cathmom]

I went to a session at a conference once on homeschooling a large family. At the time I only had 3 dc. The mother said, "In our family you can swim, or you can swim." That was their choice of activities! I think she had 7 dc. I have 7 now, and I would never tell them that they all had to do the same activity. And personally I hate swimming! :lol: That may have colored my reaction LOL.

[Moxie]

I think that it's getting to be a sick, sick obsession. It makes me wonder what is going on with her psychologicially if she can't be happy with the ones she already has and feels the need to keep having more and more and more babies.

 

:(

 

 

I find it sad.

 

:confused::confused::confused:

 

Has Michelle ever said anything that would make you think she is unbalanced?? Octomom, there is a woman who is unbalanced and obsessed and her words and actions show it. Michelle seems happy and normal to me.

[HRAAB]

After watching the show last night, I realized where my uneasy feeling stemmed from. Jealousy! Yeah. Any mother who can travel on a subway in Washington D.C., keep smiling, never yell, all kids safe and accounted for is beyond amazing.

 

During the show they showed previews for Toddlers and Tiaras; I'll take the Duggars any old day over that.

 

Janet

[Tenaj]

She has 18 & is pregnant at/over 40... and looks 10 years younger & 1000x healthier than I do!:001_huh: Maybe I needed to have 15 more... but I am 41, too late!!!:) I wil only have #3 in Oct.

 

It was the NORM for thousands of years! It is the natural way fo life. We have developed drugs and devices to stop it. That is not the natural way, really. I think we have worked hard to STOP the normal process of our bodies... to stop nature.

 

Many families today are just too tired to even attempt to "create a baby" or work different jobs & are never together... that is sadder to me than 18 kids!

 

Plus, some people look at children as a BLESSING and a gift.. .not a burden or challenge. They seem mighty happy to me. I know many 2.3 kid households who almost hate each other b/c they live in the rat race & actually ignore their kids (toss them a game or DVD to keep them quiet).

 

I think this family has great things to teach us!

 

:iagree:

[momto2Cs]

That is curious, but you can't exactly practice attachment parenting with all of your kids when you have that many.

 

I read somewhere that she nurses each baby for 6 months. Her pregnancies/births seem to be just far apart to allow for that!

[kmacnchs]

read some earlier posts...others have said that in the book she said that she nurses until she gets pg but then stops...she is in A LOT of pain while nursing but does it anyway...she gets her period back the 1st month after having a baby despite nursing...

 

that info is from another post...I haven't read the book, but that is what someone else said earlier.

 

God made everyone different...I am happy and blessed that for this child, I haven't "become a woman" yet...it has nothing to do with what I am doing or not doing...I just thank God...I would not want to be pg already!

 

NO.

 

 

Weaning early so you can hurry up and get pregnant again is most certainly NOT "putting it in God's hands". No, sir, not at all. That is actively attempting to conceive and birth as many babies as possible. Two VERY different ideals.

[momto2Cs]

Congrats to the Duggars.

 

I think God gives each of us the tools to handle the family He has planned for us. Given the posts about large families that didn't work well, posts about large families that did, small families that didn't, and small families that did, it's clear to me that some of us use those tools well and others don't. But I don't think number of children is the primary factor in determining the success of our families. We also have to remember that each of us defines a successful family in a different way. I don't personally feel good about asking older kids to be overly involved in care for younger ones (not that I have any experience with that!), but I'm sure some parents choose to do so for a variety of reasons. As long as the children are physically and emotionally cared for, I have no problem with it. (Now those stories you hear about kids found in filthy homes with no food and no parents . . . those people I have a BIG problem with.)

 

:iagree: Well said.

[Tenaj]

NO.

 

 

Weaning early so you can hurry up and get pregnant again is most certainly NOT "putting it in God's hands". No, sir, not at all. That is actively attempting to conceive and birth as many babies as possible. Two VERY different ideals.

 

Have you read the other posts regarding this issue. She has trouble breastfeeding - very painful - and her cycles return before she weans the baby. We have that situation here also. Not everyone's body functions in the same way. I was fulltime nursing my oldest (seven months old at that time) when I found out I was pregnant with #2. My cycles have always returned at about 7-8 months and it sounds like hers return earlier.

[KingM]

It was the NORM for thousands of years! It is the natural way fo life. We have developed drugs and devices to stop it. That is not the natural way, really. I think we have worked hard to STOP the normal process of our bodies... to stop nature.

 

 

No, actually it wasn't. How many women in the history of the world have had 19 living children? Fifty? A hundred? Impossible to know, but anything above eight or ten living children would have been extremely rare except for a brief, brief period between the advent of modern medicine and the falling birth rates of the last twenty or thirty years? 19? Unheard of.

 

We did go through a very brief period of time when it was common to have a lot of surviving children, but for most of human history, women averaged 2 surviving offspring.

 

Simple math can show this to be so. Averaging a mere 4 surviving offspring would double the population every generation and quadruple the number of descendants of any given woman. A single woman would have 4.5 billion descendants in 15 generations, which would be what? 450 years? That's only a little longer than the era of European settlement of North America.

 

For the sake of simplicity, let's assume she's almost done, but not quite, and that each of her children will follow her lead. If each of the Duggar children have twenty children every generation, there will be over 25 billion Duggars in just eight generations, or over 4 times the current population of the Earth.

 

20 X 20 X 20 X 20 X 20 X 20 X 20 X 20 = 25,600,000,000.

 

Even taking the shorter view, she would have 400 grandchildren, 8,000 great-grandchildren, and 160,000 great-great grandchildren. That's one big family reunion.

[newbie]

No, actually it wasn't. How many women in the history of the world have had 19 living children? Fifty? A hundred? Impossible to know, but anything above eight or ten living children would have been extremely rare except for a brief, brief period between the advent of modern medicine and the falling birth rates of the last twenty or thirty years? 19? Unheard of.

 

We did go through a very brief period of time when it was common to have a lot of surviving children, but for most of human history, women averaged 2 surviving offspring.

 

Simple math can show this to be so. Averaging a mere 4 surviving offspring would double the population every generation and quadruple the number of descendants of any given woman. A single woman would have 4.5 billion descendants in 15 generations, which would be what? 450 years? That's only a little longer than the era of European settlement of North America.

 

For the sake of simplicity, let's assume she's almost done, but not quite, and that each of her children will follow her lead. If each of the Duggar children have twenty children every generation, there will be over 25 billion Duggars in just eight generations, or over 4 times the current population of the Earth.

 

20 X 20 X 20 X 20 X 20 X 20 X 20 X 20 = 25,600,000,000.

 

Even taking the shorter view, she would have 400 grandchildren, 8,000 great-grandchildren, and 160,000 great-great grandchildren. That's one big family reunion.

 

Yikes, my head is spinning:willy_nilly::willy_nilly:

[Lovedtodeath]

She has 18 & is pregnant at/over 40... and looks 10 years younger & 1000x healthier than I do!:001_huh: Maybe I needed to have 15 more... but I am 41, too late!!!:) I wil only have #3 in Oct.

 

It was the NORM for thousands of years! It is the natural way fo life. We have developed drugs and devices to stop it. That is not the natural way, really. I think we have worked hard to STOP the normal process of our bodies... to stop nature.

 

Many families today are just too tired to even attempt to "create a baby" or work different jobs & are never together... that is sadder to me than 18 kids!

 

Plus, some people look at children as a BLESSING and a gift.. .not a burden or challenge. They seem mighty happy to me. I know many 2.3 kid households who almost hate each other b/c they live in the rat race & actually ignore their kids (toss them a game or DVD to keep them quiet).

 

I think this family has great things to teach us!

I thought this was a lovely post. I am curious... Do the duggers avoid electronic entertainment?

[cathmom]

I took the comment that "it was the norm" to mean that pregnancy and breastfeeding were the norm. Most people would not have babies that close together with exclusive breastfeeding. I have met women who had to wean a 3 year old who was nursing once or twice a day in order to start having cycles again to conceive. Obviously they are the other extreme!

 

But it certainly wasn't the norm to have 19 children. If you think of families in the Bible, very few had 10 plus, and many only had one or two. I have genealogy records for one branch of my family going back to 1640. Most of the families have 5 or 6 children.

[ereks mom]

let God control the whole person, especially the mind, and not just the reproductive organs? I believe that God gave humans intelligence because He wants us to think about these kinds of things and make wise choices.

[KingM]

let God control the whole person, especially the mind, and not just the reproductive organs? I believe that God gave humans intelligence because He wants us to think about these kinds of things and make wise choices.

 

:iagree:

 

No, birth control is not natural, but neither are hospitals or c-sections, yet without these things Michelle Duggar would have died giving birth.