Michelle Duggars big announcement is....

[KidsHappen]

:iagree:

 

Wanting a large family is one thing, but 19 kids is ABNORMAL.

 

Well, by definition all of us here are ABNORMAL. Normal Americans send their children to school.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

I have resorted to this followed by, "Hey you, whoever you are".

I have an easy solution in my house: every family member can be called "honey". Then by the time they ask me who I was talking to I have figured it out, or I can point and say "you".:lol:

[plain jane]

I have resorted to this followed by, "Hey you, whoever you are".

 

:ohmy: You don't know how many times I've resorted to that around here. :blushing: And I've only got 4 so far. :tongue_smilie: I can only imagine how it would go if and when there are more of them. :001_huh::lol:

[KidsHappen]

I just don't know how she does it. My patience is stretched with 3. Plus, I must say, the thought of that many makes my uterus hurt.

 

How many more "J" names are there?

 

You know this question occupied my thoughts the other night when I couldn't get to sleep. I easily came up with 19. I didn't come up with 19 of each sex but I probably could if I put some more thought into it. But I'll bet they are wishing at this point that they hadn't started with the whole "J" thing. ;)

[swellmomma]

:ohmy: You don't know how many times I've resorted to that around here. :blushing: And I've only got 4 so far. :tongue_smilie: I can only imagine how it would go if and when there are more of them. :001_huh::lol:

 

 

I never realized how often I did the snap and point until I caught my almost 2 year old "snapping" (while making a click noise with her tongue) and pointing at someone when she wants them. THe worst is when I am mad, I can not get teh names straight to save my life and it comes out like "Au-Ce-Hun-GET OVER HERE!" with the snap and point. WIth 19 it would tkae me 5 minutes just to spit out the dang name lol

[Mrs Mungo]

I have 3 younger sisters and we were all Js. It was like a stutter. Je-Je-Jo-YOU!

[Mrs Mungo]

gah wrong thread! d'oh!

Edited September 3, 2009 by Mrs Mungo

[Dirtroad]

You know, I am really tired of hearing this. Do you know how many people have said this to me in regard to our only having three children? Really, I am sick to death of people saying that we don't see our children as blessings and gifts.

 

Yes, we do see them as such. We also see them as a big responsibility (and even a challenge) on many different levels, and I know my own limitations to provide the attention, education and training they each deserve. I respect the amount of energy my husband has at 13 years my senior as well.

 

Why do people accuse those of us who limit our family size as not seeing our children as gifts? I find this so rude.

 

I actually had a lady say that limiting our family size was the spirit of abortion. Great, now we are abortionists as well.

 

Whoa Nestof3...didn't mean it like you took it.... I only have 2 and 1 coming in October... I am right in the same family size as ya'll. I just don't think people should think this family is strange or irresponsible for wanting more & thinking it wonderful. So many seem (not just here) but hostile these days to large families & I just don' t get it. I have had friends with only 5... approached in stores and ask if they know how to get birth control. Our society looks at children as a burden.... as do many parents that I meet in daily life... that is sad.

 

They are a blessing... 1, 2, or 19. Not the family size at all... but the attitude about children. Sorry if it seemed that way.

 

Abortion comment was just as mean as the lady asking my friend if she knew about birth control... completely rude & uncalled for... and none of their business!

Edited September 3, 2009 by Dirtroad

[Dirtroad]

Well, by definition all of us here are ABNORMAL. Normal Americans send their children to school.

 

Yep!

 

:iagree:

[KidsHappen]

In our immediate and extended family is was normal for families to work together to help raise children. It's just the way it was done. I was the oldest and helped raise my brothers. I was over seas for six years so I had to manage the oldest two by myself but when I came back my mother helped with the middle two and then the oldest two helped with the youngest two. Now the middle two help with my grandbaby (their nephew). I am sure that by the time the youngest two are old enough to help there will be some babies available. And we are all very close so it doesn't strike me as all that unusual for the olders to be helping with the youngers.

[katemary63]

In our immediate and extended family is was normal for families to work together to help raise children. It's just the way it was done. I was the oldest and helped raise my brothers. I was over seas for six years so I had to manage the oldest two by myself but when I came back my mother helped with the middle two and then the oldest two helped with the youngest two. Now the middle two help with my grandbaby (their nephew). I am sure that by the time the youngest two are old enough to help there will be some babies available. And we are all very close so it doesn't strike me as all that unusual for the olders to be helping with the youngers.

 

This is certainly wonderful. I wonder, though, if you are talking about the same degree of "help" that is obviously needed in the Dugger household where clearly olders have primary responsibility for youngers. I don't thinking the average person thinking about siblings helping out is including dressing, bathing, and teaching a "buddy" every. single. day.

[KingM]

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.

 

Dude, I so think you're wrong. Where in the world did you come up with an average of two surviving offspring among people who use no birth control?

 

Math, CookieMonster. Math does not lie. To get from the global population of an estimated 200 million people in the year 1 to 1,000 million in the year 1800 means that the growth rate of human populations for 1700 years was a mere .09% per year.

 

To reach that rate of growth, a woman would average 2.13 surviving children (assuming a 30 year generation period). Of course there were many ups and downs to get to that point. Times when fewer or more people survived to pass their genes to the next generation.

 

However, recent studies show that in London between 1730 and 1749, 74.5% of all children died before the age of 5. So it's not that women weren't having children, but they weren't surviving.

 

Once we practically eliminated early childhood death, we had two choices. Either reduce the birthrate or eventually overwhelm the capacity of the earth to support human life. The earth is finite, but exponential growth is not.

[Scarlett]

Whew. This thread makes me tired. :tongue_smilie:

[LaxMom]

You know, I am really tired of hearing this. Do you know how many people have said this to me in regard to our only having three children? Really, I am sick to death of people saying that we don't see our children as blessings and gifts.

 

Yes, we do see them as such. We also see them as a big responsibility (and even a challenge) on many different levels, and I know my own limitations to provide the attention, education and training they each deserve. I respect the amount of energy my husband has at 13 years my senior as well.

 

Why do people accuse those of us who limit our family size as not seeing our children as gifts? I find this so rude.

 

I actually had a lady say that limiting our family size was the spirit of abortion. Great, now we are abortionists as well.

 

It is rude. I do find some comfort in it, though, having been told, among other things, that I was "done", that "we know what causes pregnancy now", and whatnot by people who would accost me in the grocery store with my *whopping* four children. (The result of three pregnancies... the last one being twins)

 

On some level, it's nice to know that it's not just those of us with "abnormally large" families who are judged rudely by the idiot passerby. :glare:

 

Honestly. What is WRONG with people?

[inactive]

Wow. That is quite possibly the most horrifying thing I've read on this board. :001_huh:

 

:iagree:

[katemary63]

it's nice to know that it's not just those of us with "abnormally large" families who are judged rudely by the idiot passerby. :glare: Honestly. What is WRONG with people?

 

I had a close friend say to me after I told her that DH and I were considering a 4th baby when my youngest was 9, "Lisa, that part of your life is over. You need to move on and find another passion." She was dead serious and thought that she was giving me good advice. I was shocked. How on EARTH would she know if THAT part of MY life was over? I found it very rude. She is, however, one of my best friends and we got over it.

 

Of course, I was only 37 and only had 3 kids to that date, but it is funny that I find myself thinking those exact words about the Duggers. Hmmmmm...........I'm still gonna think it though. :D

[PiCO]

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.

 

I don't have a problem with the size of the Duggar's family in general. But to stop nursing at 6 months so you're fertile sooner than you would normally be is not "giving over the size of their family to God." IMO they are interfering in God's plan for spacing babies.

[PiCO]

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.

 

I did pretty much the same thing with gymnastics, and I only have 2 kids.

[KingM]

I have some childless friends who tease me about my family size sometimes. They prefer cats to children and never spare the opportunity to explain why they love their cats "just like children" on the one hand, but why cats are superior to children in other ways.

 

These are scientifically inclined people, so when they tease me about children, I usually respond with something like, "You do realize that cats are brood parasites, don't you?"

 

Or maybe, "So, after millions and millions of years of evolution, this is the generation where you have decided your line will go extinct?"

 

And occasionally, "So if my friends aren't reproducing, who will be my children's friends when they're adults and paying your social security?"

 

For every snotty remark, there is a snotty comeback. It keeps things friendly. :)

[ariasmommy]

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.

Thank you for this clarification - the idea that she would wean her babies in order to try for another was quite disturbing to me. But I know my periods come back at 6 or 7 months even when I was still nursing frequently and at night. And I've nursed through some pretty painful plugged ducts, so I feel her pain and admire her for persevering that long. :)

[Renee in NC]

Years ago, there was a picture in Mothering magazine of a lady and her 21 children.

 

The man who did the concrete on our old house was 1 of 24. I don't think it was all that unusual in the rural south in the past. I don't know how many survived childhood, but one of his sisters had 17 and he had 7.

[Prudent]

I know large families were common in the past, but I really wonder how many of them were all born from the same mother. Didn't plenty of women die in childbirth after a couple babies, and the husband remarried almost immediately out of necessity?

[ariasmommy]

Yes, we do see them as such. We also see them as a big responsibility (and even a challenge) on many different levels, and I know my own limitations to provide the attention, education and training they each deserve.

:iagree:

[stripe]

I know large families were common in the past, but I really wonder how many of them were all born from the same mother. Didn't plenty of women die in childbirth after a couple babies, and the husband remarried almost immediately out of necessity?

That's a good point. I have a friend who's one of 25 or something, between the two wives.

[stripe]

Once we practically eliminated early childhood death, we had two choices. Either reduce the birthrate or eventually overwhelm the capacity of the earth to support human life. The earth is finite, but exponential growth is not.

I'm sorry, but I'd hardly say that we have eliminated early childhood death, even in the US, but certainly around the world.

 

Baltimore and Detroit have abnormally high infant mortality rates.

[Scarlett]

I know large families were common in the past, but I really wonder how many of them were all born from the same mother. Didn't plenty of women die in childbirth after a couple babies, and the husband remarried almost immediately out of necessity?

 

This did happen a lot...my own grandfather had 3 wifes. 13 children total.

He didn't have the wives at the same time. Just thought I'd clarify that. ;)

[KingM]

I'm sorry, but I'd hardly say that we have eliminated early childhood death, even in the US, but certainly around the world.

 

Baltimore and Detroit have abnormally high infant mortality rates.

 

I said practically eliminated. The child mortality rate (0-5) in the Middle Ages was 300/1,000 live births. It is currently around 5/1,000 in the United States.

 

We have eliminated 98.5% of all childhood deaths compared to the Middle Ages. So yes, it is practically eliminated, at least in terms of population growth, family size, and other demographic measures, which is what this thread is about.

 

Some poor countries still have high childhood mortality, but in most countries, it is only a fraction of what it was even fifty or a hundred years ago, let alone the pre-1800 period which is about when population growth started to explode.

[cathmom]

I still don't think it was common to have nearly 20 children even if most of them died.

[HRAAB]

I don't want this to seem like I am picking on you. :) I think it is amazing feet that you breastfed your twins. I know many wouldn't even try. I am a stickler, however. Nursing twins is not tandem nursing. Tandem nursing is continuing to nurse one child while having another and nursing that one also.

Thank you. That was what I was trying to convey. Pregnancy and breastfeeding require a lot from a woman as it is. I feel like expecting a woman to go beyond that and breastfeed while pregnant then breastfeed two just isn't right. But, I do think that someone choosing to do so is wonderful.

 

Totally off topic but... You know sometimes we get so caught up in breastfeeding and how good it is for the baby that we frown when we see a bottle. I know I sometimes forget that there are women with babies who might have digestive problems, cancer, conditions that require medication that babies can't handle, some unkown problem while breastfeeding in which the child doesn't thrive... and adoptive mothers of course... who will pull out a bottle and feed their babies.

 

All the classes offered at the hospital that I attended with my twins called it tandem nursing, so that's where I was coming from. I am a big proponent of breastfeeding - obviously - but wanted to let you know that I agree with the bolded part. I've been there myself.

 

Janet

[Melinda in VT]

All the classes offered at the hospital that I attended with my twins called it tandem nursing, so that's where I was coming from. I am a big proponent of breastfeeding - obviously - but wanted to let you know that I agree with the bolded part. I've been there myself.

 

Janet

 

:iagree: In all the twin literature, having both babies latched on at the same time is called tandem nursing.

 

Mine, of course, refused to do it.:glare:

[Scarlett]

:iagree: In all the twin literature, having both babies latched on at the same time is called tandem nursing.

 

Mine, of course, refused to do it.:glare:

 

My friend that has twins was able to nurse both at the same time. That is a precious sight let me tell you!

[Reya]

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.

 

Of COURSE she does, since she schedules the babies from birth. *rolls eyes*

 

"Oh, dear! I don't know HOW I keep getting my period back so soon! I nurse, of course. Well, mostly, when the schedule tells me to."

[Lovedtodeath]

 

I don't have a problem with the size of the Duggar's family in general. But to stop nursing at 6 months so you're fertile sooner than you would normally be is not "giving over the size of their family to God." IMO they are interfering in God's plan for spacing babies.

Her fertility returns while she is nursing.

[Lovedtodeath]

Of COURSE she does, since she schedules the babies from birth. *rolls eyes*

 

"Oh, dear! I don't know HOW I keep getting my period back so soon! I nurse, of course. Well, mostly, when the schedule tells me to."

Of course. Breastfeeding exclusively on demand is what keeps your fertility from returning.

[fshinkevich]

Of course. Breastfeeding exclusively on demand is what keeps your fertility from returning.

 

I was full time breastfeeding on demand and got pregnant when my daughter was 6 months old.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

I was full time breastfeeding on demand and got pregnant when my daughter was 6 months old.

Well, that is possible too. ;) Lots of possibilities.

[Audrey]

Of course. Breastfeeding exclusively on demand is what keeps your fertility from returning.

 

It's also what keeps the milk coming. Feeding on a schedule reduces your supply. That's probably a small part of why she weans them at 6 months. The larger reasons is likely because Gothard says to do just that, and they are strict Gothardites. ;)

[HayesW]

I bought and read their book and thoroughly enjoyed it.

 

C-sections were for transverse baby, and twins as well.

 

Michelle had 2 homebirths. Complications after the 2nd birth caused the family to decide that a hospital was a safer environment for future births.

 

Michelle endured excrutiating pain while nursing all of her children, until at least 9 months old, including two sets of twins. She stated that this seems to have been primarily a problem with yeast. With her last baby and MUCH assistance from friends and LLL, she was able to breastfeed pain free.

 

They have paid cash for every thing for many years, not just since TLC began filming them.

 

They almost never watch television. So what.

 

They follow their conviction to not try to prevent pregnancy in anyway, I believe this also includes NFP or the "rhythm method."

 

I think they are a shining example. I've never seen either of them raise their voice, get angry, or be terrible people, more than I can say for most folks on TV. I know we aren't getting a complete picture. They have chosen to raise their family in a very conservative manner. Good for them.

 

Oh, and I have gotten pregnant while nursing exclusicely AND taking the minipill, TWICE so breastfeeding alone is NOT a perfect birth control method.

[abbeyej]

It's a joke, silly. Nobody is going to actually call them. And by the way, the Duggars are public figures. They are paid very handsomely to be in the public eye and be praised and criticized.

 

Perhaps it was intended as a joke, but it was in *extremely* poor taste. Add me to the list of those offended.

[Peek a Boo]

Call the Orkin man?

 

wow.

[Peek a Boo]

Math, CookieMonster. Math does not lie. To get from the global population of an estimated 200 million people in the year 1 to 1,000 million in the year 1800 means that the growth rate of human populations for 1700 years was a mere .09% per year.

 

To reach that rate of growth, a woman would average 2.13 surviving children (assuming a 30 year generation period). Of course there were many ups and downs to get to that point. Times when fewer or more people survived to pass their genes to the next generation.

 

However, recent studies show that in London between 1730 and 1749, 74.5% of all children died before the age of 5. So it's not that women weren't having children, but they weren't surviving.

 

Once we practically eliminated early childhood death, we had two choices. Either reduce the birthrate or eventually overwhelm the capacity of the earth to support human life. The earth is finite, but exponential growth is not.

 

Part of those ups and downs were natural disasters. I don't think we'll be able to eliminate those ;)

 

we're also a long Long LONG way from truly overpopulating the earth. I do agree that we have a resource USE problem.

math doesn't lie, but it's not always the way to get the right answer.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation#Carrying_capacity

 

There is wide variability both in the definition and in the proposed size of the Earth's carrying capacity, with estimates ranging from 1 to 1000 billion.[14] Around two-thirds of the estimates fall in the range of 4 billion to 16 billion, with a median of about 10 billion.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population#Forecast

 

In the long run, the future population growth of the world is difficult to predict and the UN and US Census Bureau give different estimates. Birth rates are declining slightly on average, but vary greatly between developed countries (where birth rates are often at or below replacement levels), developing countries, and different ethnicities. Death rates can change unexpectedly due to disease, wars and catastrophes, or advances in medicine. The UN itself has issued multiple projections of future world population, based on different assumptions.

[Lovedtodeath]

I bought and read their book and thoroughly enjoyed it.

 

C-sections were for transverse baby, and twins as well.

 

Michelle had 2 homebirths. Complications after the 2nd birth caused the family to decide that a hospital was a safer environment for future births.

 

Michelle endured excrutiating pain while nursing all of her children, until at least 9 months old, including two sets of twins. She stated that this seems to have been primarily a problem with yeast. With her last baby and MUCH assistance from friends and LLL, she was able to breastfeed pain free.

 

They have paid cash for every thing for many years, not just since TLC began filming them.

 

They almost never watch television. So what.

 

They follow their conviction to not try to prevent pregnancy in anyway, I believe this also includes NFP or the "rhythm method."

 

I think they are a shining example. I've never seen either of them raise their voice, get angry, or be terrible people, more than I can say for most folks on TV. I know we aren't getting a complete picture. They have chosen to raise their family in a very conservative manner. Good for them.

 

Oh, and I have gotten pregnant while nursing exclusicely AND taking the minipill, TWICE so breastfeeding alone is NOT a perfect birth control method.

Wow. I had extreme pain from yeast. I can't believe it took them so long to figure it out. I had my own research done and demanding treatment for yeast within a couple of weeks. It feels like shards of glass coming out of your nipple. Poor woman.

 

I agree about breastfeeding not being a birth control method.

 

I think it is great if they avoid TV and other electronics. I was asking if they did. Everyone goes on about how peaceful their life is and I was wondering if it was a contributing factor.

[HRAAB]

Please. For $50,000 an episode, you'd manage.

 

While I admit the Duggars leave me scratching my head, I will say that I've always thought their primary reason, or original reason perhaps, for the TV show was to spread their understanding of God's word. Maybe I'm very naive and simplistic, but I can believe they believe they are evangelizing through their show. I'm also not naive enough to believe the money with the size of their family doesn't enter into it. I guess I'm saying I think they're sincere - whether I agree with their lifestyle or not.

 

Janet

Edited September 3, 2009 by Ishki
typo

[swellmomma]

I was full time breastfeeding on demand and got pregnant when my daughter was 6 months old.

 

My period always returns 1 month after giving birth even when I am nursing on demand exclusively. Given that I got got pregnant with my 2nd when my 1st was only 5.5 weeks old I can see having babies one right after the other if I was not using a bc method (in my case that method is abstinence since I am on my own). Some women are fertile enough to have it return immediately after birth even with breastfeeding. I am one of those women, and it sounds like Michelle Duggar is too.

[Tap]

My goodness, I must live in some weird twilight zone or I'm completely oblivious. I have never had negative comments, to my face lol, about the size of my family (5 kids, although I occasionally get the "you must be so busy!"), my choice to home school (I've even had numerous POSITIVE comments regarding this), and I LOVE my MIL :lol:

 

What makes someone think they have a right to make a comment like that, regarding abortion?

 

I think some people are just more sensitive than others, and personalize general comments of strangers. A lot of the time when people come on here and complain about the horribly insensitive things that people have said to them... I don't find the comment to be all that offensive. After they explain why they are upset I can understand why someone might get offended, but my nature isn't that way.

[Meriwether]

Of my grandparents, only my paternal grandmother was one of less than 10 kids. She was one of eight. My grandfather was one of 14. My mother was one of 10. Each of those 10 felt loved and cared for by their parents. It is possible to love and nuture a large family. My mother was the oldest daughter, and she worked really hard helping with the housework, but much of the housework can be done more easily now with dishwashers, wrinkle-free clothes, etc.

[Nestof3]

I think some people are just more sensitive than others, and personalize general comments of strangers. A lot of the time when people come on here and complain about the horribly insensitive things that people have said to them... I don't find the comment to be all that offensive. After they explain why they are upset I can understand why someone might get offended, but my nature isn't that way.

 

I, for one, am not actually easily offended, but I have had many people actually say to me that if I saw children as a blessing, I would have more. I could not live like they do, though. Seriously, I need to have a cleaner house, and I cannot accept the fact that I am too busy caring for so many others that I have no time to teach my ten-year old how to read (even when she asks me to).

 

I am one person.

 

I do all of the paperwork for my husband's business, manager all of the personal finances, clean and cook without outside help, and am the computer guru around here (which can eat up a lot of time).

 

I have homeschooled our eldest from 4th through high school (starting less than a year after I married his dad), who still lives at home and attends college. He still likes a lot of my attention.

 

And, I am now currently homeschooling a third and fourth grader, which takes a ton of time.

 

Oh, and I try to exercise daily because I think my health is important.

 

That is truly all I can handle right now.

Edited September 4, 2009 by nestof3

[LaxMom]

I, for one, am not actually easily offended, but I have had many people actually say to me that if I saw children as a blessing, I would have more. I could not live like they do, though. Seriously, I need to have a cleaner house, and I cannot accept the fact that I am too busy caring for so many others that I have no time to teach my ten-year old how to read (even when she asks me to).

 

I am one person.

 

I do all of the paperwork for my husband's business, manager all of the personal finances, clean and cook without outside help, and am the computer guru around here (which can eat up a lot of time).

 

I have homeschooled our eldest from 4th through high school (starting less than a year after I married his dad), who still lives at home and attends college. He still likes a lot of my attention.

 

And, I am now currently homeschooling a third and fourth grader, which takes a ton of time.

 

Oh, and I try to exercise daily because I think my health is important.

 

That is truly all I can handle right now.

I think it's horrible you feel like you have to justify the size of your family, Dawn. There is a difference between taking offense a some general comment and having offensive comments lobbed at you. Anything that starts out "If you REALLY..." is just.plain.rude. Some things, you can't write off as being overly sensitive.

 

Let me illustrate in a non-"values" context:

Lady at Giant: Oh, what beautiful little girls you have! (annoying comment from stranger)

Me: The twins are boys

LaG: Well they *LOOK* like girls! (rude. Rude, rude, rude!)

 

(If you mistake someone's gender, right out loud, don't you make SOME sort of attempt to atone for the gaffe - Gee, it must be those gorgeous eyelashes that made me think that! Oh, my, what was *I* thinking?! - rather than defend your "position"? I don't dress the boys ambiguously and I have corrected the misconception. Pound sand, lady.)

 

You're not being overly sensitive. Those comments are offensive.

[mommaduck]

Call the Orkin man?

 

Nice...sick joke. I guess we know where you stand.

 

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.

 

 

That would be presuming too much:

*that they and their spouses are all fertile

*that they are all as fertile as she is

*that they follow the same methods she does or ovulates the same time she does (Gothard teaches not to have relations for 14 days from the start of each menses...this would miss some women's ovulation time).

*that they all live long enough to have as many children (illness, disease, accidents, etc WILL befall a percentage of them)

*that they all believe as she does

 

 

And let's not forget, that it's likely Michelle Duggar has done the math. One idea is the hope of outpopulating non-likethem-believers.

[Dirtroad]

I don't have a problem with the size of the Duggar's family in general. But to stop nursing at 6 months so you're fertile sooner than you would normally be is not "giving over the size of their family to God." IMO they are interfering in God's plan for spacing babies.

 

Not sure she does this b/c some have posted that she doesn't. But, on another point about nursing for 6 months.... that is all the pedicatricians recommend for maximum benefit. After 6 months, they say the benefits aren't that much & it is not harmful to stop. (I nursed through 15 mos... so not scolding) Just something that popped in my head when I read your post.