Michelle Duggars big announcement is....

[cathmom]

: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.

 

That's quite an assumption to make! What were the causes of her c-sections, do we know?

[unsinkable]

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"?

 

Renee!

 

I didn't know you changed your name! Nice to "see" you.

[caitlinsmom]

Oh, the romance of it!

 

 

"Honey, the ratings are fallling," he said in a low voice, the voice she couldn't resist.

 

"Show me," she replied, aware already of his wonderful strong presence beside her.

 

She flipped through the package of documents, scanning the charts. She felt his fingers gently stroking her shoulder, playing with her hair.

 

He moved closer to nuzzle her neck. "What do you say, babe?"

 

She pulled back. "Couldn't we have an argument? Renovation nightmare? How about we adopt a whole Haitian village?" Her voice faltered. His arms around her were distracting. She could not resist him and his lips claimed hers.

 

Emerging from their passionate embrace, he said, "You're so smart and beautiful. I'm so lucky. But the focus groups tried all those suggestions and none will bring the ratings up as high."

 

"Oh, darling!!!!"

 

:lol: Oh my side hurts from laughing!

[unsinkable]

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.

 

This is what I needed after my parents died when I was a teenager. I was "old enough" to be on my own but needed my mom for just the reasons you wrote.

 

You are a great mom! :grouphug:

[KingM]

That's quite an assumption to make! What were the causes of her c-sections, do we know?

 

Well, I guess I don't know, now that you mention it. I guess it might have been the life of the child that was at risk and she would have been fine.

 

But that doesn't change my point about doing unnatural things. Were humans meant to live in northern climates? Or do the Duggars put coats on their children in winter and shoes on their feet? Do they cook their food to kill pathogens? If their child were to suffer a serious injury, would they rush to the hospital or just pray for a speedy recovery?

 

The fact is that nobody just leaves matters of life and death in the hands of God. At some point we have to make a decision.

[katemary63]

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::iagree: I am a very conservative Christian and I simply don't get this whole thing about not giving any thought WHAT SO EVER to weather you have more kids or not. We never used any form of mechanical or chemical birth control. We don't believe in the ones that can cause abortions and DH didn't like the other kind. :D But we only had 4 children. We might have had more and that would have been fine. But we didn't because we were trying not to for many legitimate reasons, one of which was my health.

 

Do people really, honestly think that it would be wrong if a mother with terminal cancer were to TRY not to get pregnant????? Of course not. That would be a situation where God would expect you to use your BRAIN and not just your body. Saying, "Oh well, I have cancer and if I get pregnant, I might die and so might the baby, but it's all up to God...it's His choice. He won't let it happen if He doesn't want me to get pregnant.." is just the dumbest thought I can even imagine. So...follow me.....If you can choose to TRY not to get pregnant if the mother has cancer, then there have to be other legitimate circumstances in which it is okay to choose to try not to get pregnant. I would say being over 40 and already having 18 children is pretty much the most legitimate one I can think of!!!

 

It is rediculous to say that the ONLY Godly way to limit your family size is to keep doing "it" and leave it up to God. If I walk in front of a bus, I am going to get killed. If I have sex often enough, MOST of the time, I'm going to get pregnant, weather God wanted me to be at this time or not. It's just nature. It's the way it is set up. Every single time a sperm finds an egg, as beautiful and miraculous as that is, is not neccessarily God's best plan for that person at that time. JMHO!

[jayfromcleveland]

Scanning this thread, not sure why I want to chip in, being *only* a husband and a dad, but here goes...

 

My maternal great-great-grandmother was married at 14 and gave birth to 10 children in the 1870s through the 1890s. Only three survived infancy. Meanwhile, my paternal great-grandmother married her husband (a widower with seven children) and in the 1910s had five pregnancies between the ages of 40 and 45, three of whom survived childhood (which was the period of the Spanish Flu epidemic).

 

Anyway, for all 21 years of our marriage, my wife and I have practiced "natural family planning," (starting out with the "sympto-thermal method). Basically, my wife is very attuned to her monthly cycle and the accompanying signs of fertility. Using that, we have planned all five of our children and avoided pregnancy at the other times. We have never used any type of artificial contraception in 21 years.

 

We are Christians and trust the LORD for our family and its size, and any unplanned children are welcome, if He so deems. That being said, we are grateful that the LORD has given my wife clear signs by which she can discern her fertility. We've learned that pregnancy is not a random or indeterminate process. As the breadwinner, I think the LORD gave us brains because He expects us to use them. The arithmetic of making babies is not different from the arithmetic of feeding babies. Given my income, it is already a struggle to meet the needs of five kids, can't imagine what it would be like with twelve or even more. But the LORD has always given us our daily bread, and we are grateful. Anyway, this is how we've been led, what anyone else does is between them and God.

Edited September 2, 2009 by jayfromcleveland
addition

[catherine smith]

yes, having babies can be very draining on the body, but I believe God will honor her conviction and obedience and give her the stregnth she needs.

[Nestof3]

Of course, there's no way to give the necessary love and attention to 19 children, for the same reason that we often complain that our children don't get personal attention in a public school class with 18 other children. It's also clear to me that massive overpopulation, misery, and environmental collapse would visit our society if every family modeled the Duggars' lifestyle.

 

Having said that, this family is better for society and provides better for their children than the many thousands of women who have multiple children by multiple men, none of whom are their husbands, and then proceed to neglect these children and/or abandon them to the foster care system.

 

So yes, the Duggar family troubles me in some ways, but other things are more worthy of my attention and disapproval.

 

:iagree:

[BikeBookBread]

Scanning this thread, not sure why I want to chip in, being *only* a husband and a dad, but here goes...

 

My maternal great-great-grandmother was married at 14 and gave birth to 10 children in the 1870s through the 1890s. Only three survived infancy. Meanwhile, my paternal great-grandmother married her husband (a widower with seven children) and in the 1910s had five pregnancies between the ages of 40 and 45, three of whom survived childhood (which was the period of the Spanish Flu epidemic).

 

Anyway, for all 21 years of our marriage, my wife and I have practiced "natural family planning," (starting out with the "sympto-thermal method). Basically, my wife is very attuned to her monthly cycle and the accompanying signs of fertility. Using that, we have planned all five of our children and avoided pregnancy at the other times. We have never used any type of artificial contraception in 21 years.

 

We are Christians and trust the LORD for our family and its size, and any unplanned children are welcome, if He so deems. That being said, we are grateful that the LORD has given my wife clear signs by which she can discern her fertility. We've learned that pregnancy is not a random or indeterminate process. As the breadwinner, I think the LORD gave us brains because He expects us to use them. The arithmetic of making babies is not different from the arithmetic of feeding babies. Given my income, it is already a struggle to meet the needs of five kids, can't imagine what it would be like with twelve or even more. But the LORD has always given us our daily bread, and we are grateful.

 

Thanks for posting!

 

I used to be pretty judgmental about Christian women who dressed and wore their hair differently than I did (I'm more of a "modern" style). Then a very wise, seasoned and Godly woman called me on it. She said, "Stephanie, who are you to judge the conviction that the Lord may or may not have placed upon the heart of another family."

Edited September 2, 2009 by BikeBookBread

[M&M]

I have stayed out of this conversation, but I cannot stand it anymore. Michelle Duggar has never stated that she does this. I have 5dc and just lost one this past week and I have gotten pg with the last 3 while nursing. When does choosing not to use bc mean that you are trying to get pg? We really don't control conception, you can do everything right and still not be able to conceive. You can do everything to try to prevent a pg and still have it happen. Some choose to treat thier fertility as an illness or something to be counteracted and others choose to treat thier fertility as a natural part of thier life. Why is one choice superior to another?

 

It is painful to desire a child and not be able to have one. It is also painful to be happy about a new child and be told that you have too many children or that your blessing is a result of poor choices.

 

I find it interesting that on a hsing board there can be so much judgement and criticism about this issue. Haven't we all chosen a counter-cultural lifestyle? How many threads have there been on chores, children helping out more, taking on more responsibility, organizing our homes, and lives? How are we so different from the Duggars aside from the number of children they have? We make choices baised on our callings as hsers, parents, educators. My choices are different than yours, yet I still have respect for your choices.

[Nestof3]

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?

 

So what do her babies drink after the first few months? I have a hard time understanding this if she is all "into" what God's original plan for man was.

[cathmom]

Well, I guess I don't know, now that you mention it. I guess it might have been the life of the child that was at risk and she would have been fine.

 

But that doesn't change my point about doing unnatural things. Were humans meant to live in northern climates? Or do the Duggars put coats on their children in winter and shoes on their feet? Do they cook their food to kill pathogens? If their child were to suffer a serious injury, would they rush to the hospital or just pray for a speedy recovery?

 

The fact is that nobody just leaves matters of life and death in the hands of God. At some point we have to make a decision.

 

Hey, I'm on your side! :) You make good points. There is no other area in our lives that I can think of where people just say, "I'll let God handle it" and then do nothing.

 

I was thinking less dramatically than you. Her c-sections may have been unnecessary, as I think a large number of them in the US are done unnecessarily. I think she had twins by c-section? Many sets of twins are automatically sectioned when there's no reason they couldn't be born vaginally. Of course, they could both be lying transverse across the abdomen and then all three would die without a c-section. I don't know any of the details in her case.

 

My husband's and my beliefs pretty much align with jayfromcleveland, who just posted. We believe that all forms of birth control except NFP and abstinence are unacceptable, and that the couple should prayerfully discern with God whether or not they should have another child, keeping in mind that children are a blessing. I think in the Duggars' case, they do have things optimally set up for a large family and they see no reason not to have another child. In my situation with my current limitations, I cannot take on anymore. If somebody died and left me a good chunk of money, we might consider having another.

Edited September 2, 2009 by cathmom

[Dirtroad]

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..

 

Most didn't have it but it wasn't the SHOCKER it is today. I can look in my own family tree back into Europe & find large families... and some with only 1 child that survived. That wasn't the point. My point was we treat large famililes like a FREAK show. It is perfectly natural for a woman to have many births & yes for many of them to live.

 

Why is it so offensive for them to have & enjoy having a large family? As a society, shouldn't we wonder why so many don't have families & don't enjoy them? They are the sadder stories, arent' they?

 

I also wasn't saying they are the RIGHT model, but I see nothing wrong with it. I teased about having that many but I am too old. I worry about handling 3.. but God brought me to this & He will bring me through it. Duggars have more patience & strength than I do. However, with 1 child or 19.. they should be treated as blessings & I could care less about a "burden on the environment'.

 

I was also looking at how happy they seem to be & how healthy they all seem to be. Not like much of the families that I see modeled in my neighborhood.

Edited September 2, 2009 by Dirtroad

[HRAAB]

Scanning this thread, not sure why I want to chip in, being *only* a husband and a dad, but here goes...

 

My maternal great-great-grandmother was married at 14 and gave birth to 10 children in the 1870s through the 1890s. Only three survived infancy. Meanwhile, my paternal great-grandmother married her husband (a widower with seven children) and in the 1910s had five pregnancies between the ages of 40 and 45, three of whom survived childhood (which was the period of the Spanish Flu epidemic).

 

Anyway, for all 21 years of our marriage, my wife and I have practiced "natural family planning," (starting out with the "sympto-thermal method). Basically, my wife is very attuned to her monthly cycle and the accompanying signs of fertility. Using that, we have planned all five of our children and avoided pregnancy at the other times. We have never used any type of artificial contraception in 21 years.

 

We are Christians and trust the LORD for our family and its size, and any unplanned children are welcome, if He so deems. That being said, we are grateful that the LORD has given my wife clear signs by which she can discern her fertility. We've learned that pregnancy is not a random or indeterminate process. As the breadwinner, I think the LORD gave us brains because He expects us to use them. The arithmetic of making babies is not different from the arithmetic of feeding babies. Given my income, it is already a struggle to meet the needs of five kids, can't imagine what it would be like with twelve or even more. But the LORD has always given us our daily bread, and we are grateful. Anyway, this is how we've been led, what anyone else does is between them and God.

 

Beautiful post. We have 5 children also. We're pretty much on the same page.

 

Janet

[Veritaserum]

That's quite an assumption to make! What were the causes of her c-sections, do we know?

 

Her last baby was transverse during labor. I don't know about the others. She did have at least two home births, I think, but I don't know which number babies those were. HBAC (home birth after cesarean) is possible, but a woman's surgical history should be evaluated carefully (type of incision, number and frequency of c-sections, etc.).

 

It is rediculous to say that the ONLY Godly way to limit your family size is to keep doing "it" and leave it up to God. If I walk in front of a bus, I am going to get killed. If I have sex often enough, MOST of the time, I'm going to get pregnant, weather God wanted me to be at this time or not. It's just nature. It's the way it is set up. Every single time a sperm finds an egg, as beautiful and miraculous as that is, is not neccessarily God's best plan for that person at that time. JMHO!

 

:iagree:

 

We are Christians and trust the LORD for our family and its size, and any unplanned children are welcome, if He so deems. That being said, we are grateful that the LORD has given my wife clear signs by which she can discern her fertility. We've learned that pregnancy is not a random or indeterminate process. As the breadwinner, I think the LORD gave us brains because He expects us to use them.

 

:iagree:

[swellmomma]

Just to prove my weirdness and train of thought. Today while doing the dishes I was thinking about this thread and the comments made and suddenly had a certain Monty Python song in my head that I think fits in very well. (I had Youtubed Monty Python yesterday because I had other clips in my head which is why this came to mind)

 

For your viewing pleasure:

[nova147]

http://www.babygooroo.com/index.php/2009/03/30/after-18-children-breastfeeding-for-michelle-duggar-continues-to-be-a-learning-experience/

 

Mrs. Duggar does not wean in order to get pregnant. She has never been able to nurse past 9 months, but not for lack of trying. Breastfeeding has apparently been very difficult for her.

 

This article (blog post?) also addresses her first c-section, which was an emergency one with her first set of twins. She has had three total.

[Ginevra]

I'm rooting for a "Julia" this time. Seriously? All those J-kids and no "Julia" yet? Ridiculous!;)

[Lovedtodeath]

I am disturbed by the post that was wondering about tandem nursing. I certainly wouldn't be able to do that. I feel like now it is one more pressure put on women to be supermoms.

[Pamela H in Texas]

Julia is a beautiful name :) And it'd be nice for them to use a normal one rather than a knock-off of one of the other kids as they've done in the past.

 

I think they were silly to stick with the J names at kid 4, 5, or six, but I kinda think they have no choice now. Their fear of a kid being the last one and then the only one without the same first letter is getting more and more likely as Michelle ages.

[TXMary2]

I have stayed out of this conversation, but I cannot stand it anymore. Michelle Duggar has never stated that she does this. I have 5dc and just lost one this past week and I have gotten pg with the last 3 while nursing. When does choosing not to use bc mean that you are trying to get pg? We really don't control conception, you can do everything right and still not be able to conceive. You can do everything to try to prevent a pg and still have it happen. Some choose to treat thier fertility as an illness or something to be counteracted and others choose to treat thier fertility as a natural part of thier life. Why is one choice superior to another?

 

It is painful to desire a child and not be able to have one. It is also painful to be happy about a new child and be told that you have too many children or that your blessing is a result of poor choices.

 

I find it interesting that on a hsing board there can be so much judgement and criticism about this issue. Haven't we all chosen a counter-cultural lifestyle? How many threads have there been on chores, children helping out more, taking on more responsibility, organizing our homes, and lives? How are we so different from the Duggars aside from the number of children they have? We make choices baised on our callings as hsers, parents, educators. My choices are different than yours, yet I still have respect for your choices.

 

 

Thanks You!!:iagree:

[LaMere Academy]

Well I don't think they're doing it for show at all. They don't believe in using birth control. They believe in having as many babies as God gives them. I couldn't do it, but I can't fault them for it, especially since they support them on their own. They are obviously turning out great citizens and children of God, so more power to them!

[HRAAB]

I am disturbed by the post that was wondering about tandem nursing. I certainly wouldn't be able to do that. I feel like now it is one more pressure put on women to be supermoms.

 

I tandem nursed my twins. It wasn't easy, but it worked. If a mom wants to and can, good. No mom should feel pressure to do so, though. We can only do what we can.

 

Janet

[KingM]

Well I don't think they're doing it for show at all.

 

Actually, the show is called "18 Kids and Counting."

 

I couldn't do it, but I can't fault them for it, especially since they support them on their own.

 

TLC reportedly pays them $50,000 per episode. Last year there were 30 episodes.

[Dirtroad]

That is a nice chunk of change. I know they talk about having rental properties also. If they are smart (as they seem to be), they are investing more money in property & savings & business to have income for many years to come.

[fshinkevich]

TLC reportedly pays them $50,000 per episode. Last year there were 30 episodes.

 

 

Well, from what I understand (and I could be wrong) they were already practicing this style, and doing it debt free, before the show.

[Ginevra]

I think they were silly to stick with the J names at kid 4, 5, or six, but I kinda think they have no choice now.

 

Yeah, I think that, too. But I am freakishly interested in names. I would have to have 20 kids (or a lot of cats) to use up my current stock of great names. Sometimes, I think, "What would I name my kids if I had 18?" and then I have a ball. When I think of how it would be to stick with one initial...a travesty! All the lovely names she's missing out on! ;)

[LaxMom]

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.

 

In high school I worked for a waterman who was one of 18 (surviving siblings), those births would have spanned the 30s, 40s and 50s. I don't know if that has any great meaning, statistically, or whether it was unheard of or not for the area at the time. I don't believe they were particularly religious... Curious, though.

[stripe]

When does choosing not to use bc mean that you are trying to get pg? We really don't control conception, you can do everything right and still not be able to conceive.

I certainly never meant to be offensive to those who have trouble conceiving.

 

My point was that someone who has intercourse and does NOT use birth control cannot / should not say that they are "NOT trying to get pregnant," based SOLELY on the fact that they are not in the frame of mind of conceiving.

 

In other words, someone who is having intercourse without trying to stop pregnancy should not be surprised to be pregnant and then say, in a shocked tone that this was not an intended pregnancy. I know married people who say this each time they become pregnant, and I think it's just plain silly -- the egg and sperm don't check your intention before they start merging.

 

Of course, at the same time, simply wanting to become pregnant, as you rightly noted, does not make it so.

 

Anyway, I hope for the best for her. I still wish she'd write a book on pelvic strengthening exercises.

[Lovedtodeath]

I tandem nursed my twins. It wasn't easy, but it worked.

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.

If a mom wants to and can, good. No mom should feel pressure to do so, though. We can only do what we can.

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.

Edited September 3, 2009 by Lovedtodeath

[mycalling]

I'm sure poor health of women historically was the pain limit to conception. We have a lot of supplements and more nutritious food available to us now taht keep our fertility healthy.

Plus, some people look at children as a BLESSING and a gift.. .not a burden or challenge. They seem mighty happy to me.

Your entire post was great, but I wholeheartedly agree with this part. There came a point (mind you, I've only birthed 6, but those came in just 7yrs) that looking at a positive pregnancy test brought joy for the arrival of a new person joining our family and not just yummy baby smell and cute toothless grins. I understand how Michelle could be at that point and look forward to conceiving another little person to know and love who will impact their family positively.

 

I think the Duggers are great, even from an atheist's perspective. There's only been one issue I've had with them: they do not allow dancing.:glare: I find that odd. Besides that, they are great. Michelle is my inspiration for patience. I realize I can become that patient if I were to work at it. I fully believe in adapting with each added member or workload (now I'm adapting to sports, therapy, and speech 14+ times per week). That is the key to being successful with a large family and I'm sure Michelle's patience evolved out of necessary adaption to her ever-growing family. I no longer look at patient mothers as having some unattainable gift I was born without.

[tdeveson]

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.

 

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

[tdeveson]

 

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.

 

 

 

Call the Orkin man?

[Nestof3]

Plus, some people look at children as a BLESSING and a gift.. .not a burden or challenge.

 

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.

[Lovedtodeath]

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.

[Jami]

Call the Orkin man?

 

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

[tdeveson]

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.

 

I have to agree. The Duggars have placed their children in as close to an institutional setting as is possible and still call it "home." IMHO, having a wonderful family is about quality, not quantity. I can't, in my heart of hearts, believe for one second that the need of those children to have individual, undivided attention from their mother is even remotely met. I know how much individual attention a small child needs, and being handed off to a sibling that should be doing kid things instead of raising her mother's children is not how to do it. Just my opinion.

[KingM]

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

 

 

You could always move to Vermont. We have four kids and up here there are a lot of "Wow, four?!" comments directed our way.

[tdeveson]

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

 

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.

[BikeBookBread]

Call the Orkin man?

 

Wow. Not cool.

[fshinkevich]

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.

 

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?

[CookieMonster]

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.

 

 

 

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? (And using a prostitute/mistress counts as birth control measures, so many rich fellas are out of this equation.)

 

19 surviving children? - definitely above normal.

 

ten surviving children? - more normal and probably closer to average.

 

Just two surviving children? - way too low a number.

 

I happen to know the offspring of two different dirt poor women. Neither had access to birth control, neither was able to feed their children well, and both had over 10 surviving children. Their children never saw a doctor, they didn't give birth in a hospital. One had 16, with 15 surviving past infancy. Another had 14, with 11 surviving past infancy. Their sisters and mothers experienced the same.

[Rosie_0801]

Really, I am sick to death of people saying that we don't see our children as blessings and gifts.

 

Ha. The ability to get pregnant is a gift. The experience of it was the sort of gift I'd exchange for another if I had the choice! I think my children are blessings too, but I also think sleep is. I think a happy mother is a gift to my kids, and they won't get that if she's perpetually pregnant and/or up for night feeds! I think motherhood is a gift to be savoured and a small family means I can nibble my way through it, rather than having to bolt it down :) It obviously works well for some, but I'd choke!

 

Yay for families of whatever size :)

 

Rosie

[phathui5]

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.

 

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

[BikeBookBread]

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.

 

I know it's anecdotal, but my grandpa was one of 12 surviving siblings. He was born around 1900 in Kentucky.

Edited September 3, 2009 by BikeBookBread

[fshinkevich]

I know it's anecdotal, but my grandpa was one of 12 surviving siblings. He was born around 1900 in Kentucky.

 

My mom was 1 of 10, and she is in her early 50's

 

There is a family about two streets away from us that has 10 as well.

[Lovedtodeath]

My MIL is one of 10 and my mother is one of 7. MIL is early 50s. Mother early 60s.

[Lovedtodeath]

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

Not by a long shot. Especially considering that it was purely jest.

 

Call the Orkin man?

 

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.

After seeing the quote with all of the numbers it really seemed to go together. I snorted and laughed pretty good. I didn't reply because I figured that it would result in some wadded panties.

[KidsHappen]

I'd just have to point and snap. :lol:

 

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