Wow!! Duggar news :)

[Georgiana Daniels]

Higher than 20.;)

 

The man who helped pour the concrete when we built our house in 2003 was one of 24. Yes, they were all from the same set of parents.

 

Oh, boy!

 

And girl...

 

and another boy...

 

JK :D

 

Parents with a lot of well cared for children amaze me. I have my hands full with three, and one of them has already moved out :tongue_smilie:

[mommaduck]

Wow! I really thought they might be done after what happened with the last one. By all appearances, they are great parents. As a sidenote--I wonder what the record is?

http://www.uvm.edu/~biology/Classes/271/Sexual_selection.pdf

 

Most children born to a woman

The most prolific mother in history was a Russian peasant who had 69 children in the 18th century, 67 of which survived infancy.Between 1725 and 1765, she endured 27 multiple births, which included 16 pairs of twins, seven sets of triplets, and four sets of quadruplets.The modern world record for giving birth is held by Leontina Albina from San Antonio, Chile. Now in her mid-sixties, she claims to be the mother of 64 children. Of these, 55 are documented, birth certificates apparently being something of a less-than-serious concern in Chile.

 

The most prolific father of all time is believed to be the last Sharifian Emperor of Morocco, Mulai Ismail(1646-1727). In 1703 he had at least 342 daughters and 525 sons and by 1721 he was reputed to have 700 male descendents.

[butterflymommy]

And the world's population continues to climb...7 billion and counting :glare:

 

Divorce is more harmful to the environment, by fracturing family groups into separate housing arrangements, than large families living together... google is your friend.

[Georgiana Daniels]

http://www.uvm.edu/~biology/Classes/271/Sexual_selection.pdf

 

My jaw just dropped! 69 births? She birthed an entire village. Even reading it exhausts me.

[Denisemomof4]

http://www.uvm.edu/~biology/Classes/271/Sexual_selection.pdf

 

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :scared: :svengo:

[Murphy101]

Admiring someone for working hard and staying off of welfare doesn't mean that everyone automatically assumes everyone who doesn't is a lazy bum. What the Duggars do financially is admirable. They sacrifice new for used, they are frugal, and they work hard. Why isn't that admirable?

 

On the #20 note, I fear that she will leave 20+ children motherless someday. I think those children need her alive more than she needs another baby. I would have loved more children, but my body started protesting and I think my duty is to the ones already here.

 

I just don't feel that essential to anyone.:confused: I think having a mother is awesome great good, but if I die I'm not leaving my kids alone in the world on some deserted island. They still have a father. They have NINE siblings. They have friends and a church and a mostly stable country. I'm just one person. I'm not the center of their world. I'm sure they will miss me and all that, but I don't think my death will mean some horrible existence for them either.

[Denisemomof4]

My jaw just dropped! 69 births? She birthed an entire village. Even reading it exhausts me.

 

your responses here are TOTALLY cracking me up!!!

[Koerarmoca]

While I'm not a fan of the Duggars, one couple having 20 kids isn't a problem. If it was a trend then, yes, it would be an issue. But I think it's a mistake to make overpopulation an individual issue.

 

We've got three kids, and may have a fourth one day, but I have one sibling who has no kids, and my DH is an only child. So we figure we could have four and still not be overpopulating the planet. ;)

I agree I hate the over population view, plenty if families with no kids or one kid I doubt their 20 leave that much of a carbon foot print.

Women have preeclampsia all the time. It is nothing to mess around with, but if anything, I suspect this pregnancy will go better because they know to be more vigilant this time. Many women who have a complicated due to preeclampsia pregnancy/delivery still continue to have a 2nd or 3rd baby and no one tells them they are wrong to do so. I don't see why it would be wrong for the Duggars either.

 

Yup I had preeclampsia 3x and they where all induced early 31,33 & 34 weeks. #4 was my only non preeclampsia pregnancy and she was my first term baby. No way of knowing it but, Michelle could have a perfectly normal 40+ weeks :D

[Stacia]

But I think it's a mistake to make overpopulation an individual issue.

 

:confused:

 

Seeing as how most births are single births & the world's population grows by leaps & bounds every day, how can it not be an 'individual' issue???

 

And, as each individual has more children (even one more), that increases the base numbers of the next generation, of which many will have a child or children, which increases the base numbers of the following generation.... You know, exponential increases. So, adding just one does actually exponentially increase the world's population over time. It most definitely is an individual issue. It's all well & good to want babies now (& it's easy to live in the 'now' & not consider the somewhat distant future), but a severely over-populated Earth may not be such a pretty place for our great-grandchildren & their children....

Edited November 8, 2011 by Stacia

[Nakia]

I just don't feel that essential to anyone.:confused: I think having a mother is awesome great good, but if I die I'm not leaving my kids alone in the world on some deserted island. They still have a father. They have NINE siblings. They have friends and a church and a mostly stable country. I'm just one person. I'm not the center of their world. I'm sure they will miss me and all that, but I don't think my death will mean some horrible existence for them either.

 

My husband lost his mother to breast cancer when he was 12. He certainly does not lead a "horrible existence", but his life was forever altered that day. He is very close to his dad, but he will tell you NOTHING takes the place of a mother. He has a huge chunk of his heart missing to this day. And to a child, their mother most certainly is the center of their world.

 

Martha, I'm not trying to argue with you, but rather present the other side of it. I know you are living the life you believe God wants for you, and I admire you for that. After all, what else can we do? :001_smile:

[Mommee & Baba]

:iagree: No matter what, they have the same 24 hours in a day that the rest of us do. Their children may get enough attention since many are older and can give attention to the younger ones, but that does not mean that they each get enough individual parental attention.

 

:iagree:

 

I use to watch the show. Until she made it perfectly clear that her older children help her care and nurture to the younger ones by using the "buddy system". The kids seem very happy and very well rounded from what we see on the show. But I don't support that so I stopped watching. Having an older child "help" is one thing but having an older child almost nearly "raise" their younger sibling...different, very different.

 

Happy for them for finding out about #20...and happy for a zillion other families finally able to find out about expecting baby #1....doesn't matter that they have so many kids, just that they are doing what is best for their family whether someone like me supports it or not. I don't support it so I don't give them my rating for their show.

[heartosunshine]

Have you heard??

 

Michelle is pregnant again!! That makes 20 for them :)

 

I always tell my husband I want to be her when I grow up, LOL! I so admire her patience and ability to parent so many children in such a calm and caring manner.

 

:svengo:

 

I also admire her patience. I struggle just parenting 2!

[AnnaM]

I just don't feel that essential to anyone.:confused: I think having a mother is awesome great good, but if I die I'm not leaving my kids alone in the world on some deserted island. They still have a father. They have NINE siblings. They have friends and a church and a mostly stable country. I'm just one person. I'm not the center of their world. I'm sure they will miss me and all that, but I don't think my death will mean some horrible existence for them either.

 

I just believe children were designed to need a mother and a father and the best circumstances are ones in which they are both there. I suspect if you ask most children whether they would want another sibbling if it meant their mother died and they would probably say no. My siblings never could have taken the place of my mother and as much as I love my dad, neither could he. I need(ed) my mom.

 

At some point the body just can't do it anymore and at that point I think it is the most responsible choice to choose to stop having children. I have no beef with how many she has. For her she is able to have 19 possibly 20, for my body it was 3.

[Murphy101]

I know. I do wonder how much worse they'd all feel if birthing babies killed her. I imagine it would be worse than usual if they believed God would protect her from biology. :(

 

What the heck? Who said God would protect her from biology? I haven't read that and I don't know anyone who believes that either.

 

Divorce is more harmful to the environment, by fracturing family groups into separate housing arrangements, than large families living together... google is your friend.

 

Amen.:glare:

 

My jaw just dropped! 69 births? She birthed an entire village. Even reading it exhausts me.

 

 

:lol: Ya'll are impressed by the births.

MY first thought was:

Wow and 57 survived infancy born to peasants in 1700s Russia!

And MY second thought was:

Wowza! And she survived 27 pregnancies of multiples during that time? Including triplets and quads?!?!

 

Good grief I wish I had her genetics!!! Or whatever got her through! Goodness she had better odds than most women today anywhere in the world!

[Heather in Neverland]

I think God is sovereign and he has a purpose for this baby and I am happy for them.

[Joanne]

I like the Duggars, and I agree with you 100%. But to them, they aren't playing the odds. They are honoring their very legalistic biblical views. I don't think they will stop having babies until it is physically impossible for Michelle to have them. I hope that it isn't made impossible by her death. Like a pp said, I would HATE to see all those children left motherless. That would be tragic.

 

I think it's beyond legalistic. I think it is a function of "group think", of cultishness. The competitiveness of (many of) the QF is part of the dynamic. I don't find being open to God's design to be Biblical. God gave us clear fertility signs for a reason, including making fertility choices according to family circumstances of health, provision, etc.

[Dianne-TX]

:party:Yay, Duggars! If you watch the show, you see the parents very much involved with everything. The family is very involved with each other. I've never seen Jim Bob and Michelle go off by themselves a lot, (or ever) nor have I seen the older ones overburdened with "raising" the youngers. I know parents who can't wait to get away from their two children or, if they are in school, can't wait for school to start when it's out. Very sad how "anti-life" much of our world is, including some Christians. I heard a great line by a pastor that said, "It seems that Christians aren't pro-life just anti-abortion, look at our birth rate." I see truth in that, even in myself. I admire the Duggars and they encourage me and my children so much.

[Aelwydd]

I agree with Verita's analysis of the risks posed by this pregnancy. Michelle's problems with Josie were quite possibly a dangerous variation of pre-eclampsia, HELLP syndrome. It poses a very high risk of mortality and morbidity to both mother and baby. Furthermore, having it once, greatly increases her risk of developing it again. It is an acute situation, and once it develops, there is no cure or treatment for it, except delivery of the baby, no matter how early.

 

I would agree with Nakia that losing one's mother is a significant, traumatic event in the life of a child, and no amount of siblings, friends, or other support people, can replace her loss. I know if something happened to me, or to his dad, my son would be traumatized.

 

Perhaps in Michelle's case, where the older siblings seem to be responsible for the greater portion of caring and raising the youngers, her loss would have less of an impact on their lives. But, I still don't think that her demise would be anything less than a terrible shock and wound.

 

If it wasn't, I'd say that's actually a very sad commentary on their relationship with their mother--that is, the possibility that they could find her absence to make little difference in their lives, because she wasn't that essential to their upbringing.

 

You know, reading that? Just makes me think that the quiverfull movement is really a terrible thing if it could reduce mothers and wives to the status of "expendable." I mean, really: birthing more babies is of greater import and impact, than being there to raise the children they already have?

 

I know I'm not the only one that finds that messed up!

[bbkaren]

It's very much their own business, not ours. They're not on the gov't dole, and their kids are turning out to be decent, respectful citizens.

 

Unlike many people I know who have only one kid, and somehow he/she winds up a bratty little monster.

 

That rotten kid adds more negativity to the universe than if the Duggars had 50.

[Murphy101]

My husband lost his mother to breast cancer when he was 12. He certainly does not lead a "horrible existence", but his life was forever altered that day. He is very close to his dad, but he will tell you NOTHING takes the place of a mother. He has a huge chunk of his heart missing to this day. And to a child, their mother most certainly is the center of their world.

 

This is not about replacement. I have 10 kids and yet if anything happened to any one of them, having 9 others wouldn't "replace" or remove that piece of our hearts. And that is how it should be, yes? Yes loss hurts and has an impact on us.

 

I'm just saying that the loss of a mother is not the end of the world or the worst thing that could ever happen to a kid.

 

Pregnancy by its very nature is risky business. Yet women everywhere undertake it every day without calculating the odds.

 

ETA: And no, I do not think mothers are expendable. I simply don't see it as an either or situation. *shrugs*

Edited November 8, 2011 by Martha

[unsinkable]

I agree with Verita's analysis of the risks posed by this pregnancy. Michelle's problems with Josie were quite possibly a dangerous variation of pre-eclampsia, HELLP syndrome. It poses a very high risk of mortality and morbidity to both mother and baby. Furthermore, having it once, greatly increases her risk of developing it again. It is an acute situation, and once it develops, there is no cure or treatment for it, except delivery of the baby, no matter how early.

 

I would agree with Nakia that losing one's mother is a significant, traumatic event in the life of a child, and no amount of siblings, friends, or other support people, can replace her loss. I know if something happened to me, or to his dad, my son would be traumatized.

 

Perhaps in Michelle's case, where the older siblings seem to be responsible for the greater portion of caring and raising the youngers, her loss would have less of an impact on their lives. But, I still don't think that her demise would be anything less than a terrible shock and wound.

 

If it wasn't, I'd say that's actually a very sad commentary on their relationship with their mother--that is, the possibility that they could find her absence to make little difference in their lives, because she wasn't that essential to their upbringing.

 

You know, reading that? Just makes me think that the quiverfull movement is really a terrible thing if it could reduce mothers and wives to the status of "expendable." I mean, really: birthing more babies is of greater import and impact, than being there to raise the children they already have?

 

I know I'm not the only one that finds that messed up!

 

The statement I bolded I disagree with.

 

Have you ever read the book Motherless Daughters? It has a chapter on losing a mom under less that perfect circumstances. Even daughters with moms who abandoned them have to deal with the loss of mom.

[Meriwether]

Divorce is more harmful to the environment, by fracturing family groups into separate housing arrangements, than large families living together... google is your friend.

 

 

Divorce is also more responsible for children being separated from a biological parent than death in childbirth.

 

I know parents who take their kids to daycare at 6:00 in the morning and pick them up at 6:00 at night. They eat supper and the kids are in bed by 8:00. I absolutely believe the Duggars give more time to their kids (all of them) than these parents do.

[LidiyaDawn]

A while back, I'd have been celebrating this and defending the Duggars from a biblical standpoint because I thought --- I don't know what I thought. I wanted to BE them… it's kinda funny for me to look at my 'meh' reaction now.

 

I don't watch it anymore and I'm glad I didn't turn us into them.

 

I do wish them nothing but the best though ~ they seem happy, following their path. :001_smile:

[Aelwydd]

The statement I bolded I disagree with.

 

Have you ever read the book Motherless Daughters? It has a chapter on losing a mom under less that perfect circumstances. Even daughters with moms who abandoned them have to deal with the loss of mom.

 

Well, I wasn't stating that as something I personally believe. I actually agree with you. I was stating that as the position some might believe, and while it might seem to make sense on the surface, I think the reality is much, much different.

[Ginevra]

Please let them go with "Julie" this time.

[Veritaserum]

What the heck? Who said God would protect her from biology? I haven't read that and I don't know anyone who believes that either.

 

*shrug* The God I believe in doesn't ask people to do things that they are incapable of. So it would stand to reason that the Duggars, in their belief that God wants them to have lots of babies, would have faith that God wouldn't keep her womb open if having a baby would kill her.

 

I don't believe God asks us to give birth to as many babies as biologically possible and I don't believe He expects us to deliberately get pregnant despite significant health risks. The Duggars do seem to believe those things, so in my attempt to understand them I have concluded that they must have faith that things will be ok.

 

I completely disagree with you about the effect losing a mother would have. Yes, my children would move on, but I am sure that losing me would be quite devastating for them and my husband.

[Joanne]

It's very much their own business, not ours. They're not on the gov't dole, and their kids are turning out to be decent, respectful citizens.

 

Unlike many people I know who have only one kid, and somehow he/she winds up a bratty little monster.

 

That rotten kid adds more negativity to the universe than if the Duggars had 50.

 

Their financial responsibility is one thing I have respected them for. The rest of the content, though, is poor logic. ;)

[Aelwydd]

Divorce is also more responsible for children being separated from a biological parent than death in childbirth.

 

I know parents who take their kids to daycare at 6:00 in the morning and pick them up at 6:00 at night. They eat supper and the kids are in bed by 8:00. I absolutely believe the Duggars give more time to their kids (all of them) than these parents do.

 

Sure, you can compare them to extremes. If you were to compare them to my family, however, I'd tell you straight out that they don't spend even a tenth of the time with each of their children, that my dh and I with our ds.

[jenncslp]

It always amazes me how up in arms the people get about the Duggars. It also amazes me how people act like they know everything about them, even if they don't watch their show or read their books. They have stated they are NOT part of the quiverfull movement! They are raising kids who follow the word of God, are law abiding citizens, and are not living off the government.

 

For Pete's sake, if you are going to get upset about parents and parenting, get upset about the woman who left her 2 year old in her car while she went to get gas, or the parents who beat their children every day...or the drug addict moms who have a kid a year born addicted to drugs and fighting to live. :confused:

[Halcyon]

:confused:

 

Seeing as how most births are single births & the world's population grows by leaps & bounds every day, how can it not be an 'individual' issue???

 

And, as each individual has more children (even one more), that increases the base numbers of the next generation, of which many will have a child or children, which increased the base numbers of the following generation.... You know, exponential increases. So, adding just one does actually exponentially increase the world's population over time. It most definitely is an individual issue. It's all well & good to want babies now (& it's easy to live in the 'now' & not consider the somewhat distant future), but a severely over-populated Earth may not be such a pretty place for our great-grandchildren & their children....

 

 

:iagree:. Wholeheartedly. How is the world's population exploding, if not because people are having more children? Seems pretty basic logic. More babies leads to exponentially more people. Whether it's the environment or the population, many people continue to think that individual actions don't matter. They do, but only if we all work together.

 

[Cammie]

:confused:

 

Seeing as how most births are single births & the world's population grows by leaps & bounds every day, how can it not be an 'individual' issue???

 

And, as each individual has more children (even one more), that increases the base numbers of the next generation, of which many will have a child or children, which increased the base numbers of the following generation.... You know, exponential increases. So, adding just one does actually exponentially increase the world's population over time. It most definitely is an individual issue. It's all well & good to want babies now (& it's easy to live in the 'now' & not consider the somewhat distant future), but a severely over-populated Earth may not be such a pretty place for our great-grandchildren & their children....

:iagree::iagree: Of course, I worked for an organization called ZPG (zero population growth) right out of college! It basically argued for simply limiting ourselves to replacement growth (two children for each couple.) You would not believe the hate mail that place used to get! And to say that their 20 probably don't have a large "carbon footprint" - the one made by your typical American is quite a bit more damaging than the one made by your typical resident of a developing nation.

[bbkaren]

...if you are going to get upset about parents and parenting, get upset about the woman who left her 2 year old in her car while she went to get gas, or the parents who beat their children every day...or the drug addict moms who have a kid a year born addicted to drugs and fighting to live. :confused:

 

...or the children of the octomoms! Now those will be productive citizens. :001_huh:

[Moxie]

I think it's beyond legalistic. I think it is a function of "group think", of cultishness. The competitiveness of (many of) the QF is part of the dynamic. I don't find being open to God's design to be Biblical. God gave us clear fertility signs for a reason, including making fertility choices according to family circumstances of health, provision, etc.

 

Her youngest is almost 2. Who is to say that they didn't use some form of NFP in the past 2 years until they felt called to have another child? I wouldn't assume this child just happened by accident.

[Denisemomof4]

 

I completely disagree with you about the effect losing a mother would have. Yes, my children would move on, but I am sure that losing me would be quite devastating for them and my husband.

 

:iagree:

 

I honestly don't know how dh and dd11 could cope without me. Dh can't even sleep well when I'm away for the evening, and dd11 and I have a relationship that words can't even begin to describe. I worry about HOW they will make it without me, but I do know they'll survive. It's not that I'm anything special, but to dh and dd11, I'm irreplaceable and their lives would forever negatively be impacted by my loss.

 

Then dd8 losing TWO mothers?

[danybug]

God Bless the Duggars! It is not our place to judge the decision that they made with the Lord. They should be commended for the "salt and light that their family is". I agree with whomever said the world needs more of their kids :001_smile:

 

Ironically for me, I watched "Tea with Michelle Duggar" yesterday. I just find her to be a truly amazing mother with the most admirable Christ oriented spirit.

[Aelwydd]

Pregnancy by its very nature is risky business. Yet women everywhere undertake it every day without calculating the odds.

 

ETA: And no, I do not think mothers are expendable. I simply don't see it as an either or situation. *shrugs*

 

Just because there are women out there who are disinclined to analyze the risks of a pregnancy, doesn't mean that that's the best way to approach such a decision. It's certainly now how I approach it. God put a brain in my head, not a uterus. So, when it comes to the heirarchy of things, I like reasoned consideration to reign, not unthinking biology and hormones.

 

What do you mean by "either/or" situation?

[Denisemomof4]

...or the children of the octomoms! Now those will be productive citizens. :001_huh:

 

come on. Lets not go there. NOBODY can predict how a child will do/be later in life. Good parents end up with screwed up kids. Screwed up parents somehow produce good, productive and happy children. I know the parents have a great influence, but to make sweeping statements of the octomom's kids (and I'm not a fan of hers!) is just unfair to those children.

[mommaduck]

It always amazes me how up in arms the people get about the Duggars. It also amazes me how people act like they know everything about them, even if they don't watch their show or read their books. They have stated they are NOT part of the quiverfull movement! They are raising kids who follow the word of God, are law abiding citizens, and are not living off the government.

 

For Pete's sake, if you are going to get upset about parents and parenting, get upset about the woman who left her 2 year old in her car while she went to get gas, or the parents who beat their children every day...or the drug addict moms who have a kid a year born addicted to drugs and fighting to live. :confused:

Good grief, if you know anything about Gothard, he is quiverful. They are following a quiverful mentality and belief system. Quiverful is a very broad and general term, not a specific group. She is an icon of those that are quiverful, whether it's her intent or not.

 

Dunno, I get tired of those that just rip her apart, but do not agree with her on everything. We have a couple of their early shows on DVD, because my kids can relate a little to their family (thriftiness, homeschooling, stocking up, etc).

[Hoggirl]

Have you heard??

 

Michelle is pregnant again!! That makes 20 for them :)

 

I always tell my husband I want to be her when I grow up, LOL! I so admire her patience and ability to parent so many children in such a calm and caring manner.

 

This is so funny to me. I just saw her out eating lunch last Friday and thought she looked pregnant. I feel quite smart now! :D

[danybug]

It always amazes me how up in arms the people get about the Duggars. It also amazes me how people act like they know everything about them, even if they don't watch their show or read their books. They have stated they are NOT part of the quiverfull movement! They are raising kids who follow the word of God, are law abiding citizens, and are not living off the government.

 

For Pete's sake, if you are going to get upset about parents and parenting, get upset about the woman who left her 2 year old in her car while she went to get gas, or the parents who beat their children every day...or the drug addict moms who have a kid a year born addicted to drugs and fighting to live. :confused:

 

:iagree:

[scrappyhappymama]

I think God is sovereign and he has a purpose for this baby and I am happy for them.

 

What a gracious and loving statement. One does not have to agree with another family's decision or necessarily believe they would make the same choice in their situation in order to rejoice in their blessings.

 

I am currently reading the Duggars most recent book, which revolves around their experience with Josie. Michelle shares that her rise in blood pressure was precipitated by a kidney infection and gallstone attack, and it eventually became preeclamptic. The summer after Josie's birth, Michelle has another gall bladder attack and her gall bladder was removed. So one contributing factor is eliminated and I am sure they will be keeping close watch on the other.

 

They also state in the book that they are not affiliated with or proponents of the Quiverfull Movement, but that their decision to have a large family is based upon their own personal conviction.

[bbkaren]

come on. Lets not go there. NOBODY can predict how a child will do/be later in life. Good parents end up with screwed up kids. Screwed up parents somehow produce good, productive and happy children. I know the parents have a great influence, but to make sweeping statements of the octomom's kids (and I'm not a fan of hers!) is just unfair to those children.

 

Agreed, in theory! But IMO, in both cases (Suleman and Gosselin), the kids have been deliberately placed at a disadvantage...for all the wrong reasons.

[Joanne]

God Bless the Duggars! It is not our place to judge the decision that they made with the Lord. They should be commended for the "salt and light that their family is". I agree with whomever said the world needs more of their kids :001_smile:

 

Ironically for me, I watched "Tea with Michelle Duggar" yesterday. I just find her to be a truly amazing mother with the most admirable Christ oriented spirit.

 

Actually, they *chose* to be in the limelight, to be a celebrity family, and to rely on viewership. With *that* comes scrutiny. They are a public family by choice (at least the adults are).

[Murphy101]

*shrug* The God I believe in doesn't ask people to do things that they are incapable of. So it would stand to reason that the Duggars, in their belief that God wants them to have lots of babies, would have faith that God wouldn't keep her womb open if having a baby would kill her.

 

Well. Hmm. Have they said that? We are all capable of dying, so if someone thinks death means god didn't protect that person... Wow. They are so screwed then because chances are they aren't immortal?

 

I don't believe God asks us to give birth to as many babies as biologically possible and I don't believe He expects us to deliberately get pregnant despite significant health risks. The Duggars do seem to believe those things, so in my attempt to understand them I have concluded that they must have faith that things will be ok.

 

One, have they said they deliberately try to have as many as possible? Letting nature take its course is not the same as deliberately trying to get pregnant, much less have as many as possible.

 

Two, having faith that things will be ok is not the same as thinking bad things won't happen. It's just as possible they have faith that things will be ok, even if Michelle were to die. Not the same. Not without heartache. But they will endure and work through it.

 

I completely disagree with you about the effect losing a mother would have. Yes, my children would move on, but I am sure that losing me would be quite devastating for them and my husband.

 

I didn't say it wouldn't be. Read my posts again.

[Joanne]

They also state in the book that they are not affiliated with or proponents of the Quiverfull Movement, but that their decision to have a large family is based upon their own personal conviction.

 

Their history, appearances, affiliations, and curriculum show differently. *shrug*. I don't care, really, but it's laughable that they are trying to deny quiverful affiliation.

[Meriwether]

Sure, you can compare them to extremes. If you were to compare them to my family, however, I'd tell you straight out that they don't spend even a tenth of the time with each of their children, that my dh and I with our ds.

 

:001_huh: Honestly, I don't even know how to respond to this. Many families where both parents work or single parent families only get a few hours in the evening and weekends with their children. It isn't an extreme example. I'm sure many (most) of those families love their kids and do the best they can by them. A family that homeschool's one child is much more extreme in a parent/child time ratio. I'm happy for you and your family. People do not have to emulate your chosen lifestyle to have a great family dynamic.

 

Even as a homeschooling, SAHM most of my time with the kids is shared. If Dh and I are playing Catan with the older two, the little two may be sitting on our laps or playing Playmobil at our feet. If I'm reading with the baby on my lap, the boys may be sitting on either side for a snuggle while Dd reads her own book close by. A whispered, "I love you, darling," might be the only interaction I have with one child doing independent work while I work with another. My kids are absolutely loved and cared for even if they don't have my undivided attention for hours on end.

[Aelwydd]

What a gracious and loving statement. One does not have to agree with another family's decision or necessarily believe they would make the same choice in their situation in order to rejoice in their blessings.

 

I am currently reading the Duggars most recent book, which revolves around their experience with Josie. Michelle shares that her rise in blood pressure was precipitated by a kidney infection and gallstone attack, and it eventually became preeclamptic. The summer after Josie's birth, Michelle has another gall bladder attack and her gall bladder was removed. So one contributing factor is eliminated and I am sure they will be keeping close watch on the other.

 

They also state in the book that they are not affiliated with or proponents of the Quiverfull Movement, but that their decision to have a large family is based upon their own personal conviction.

 

Being without a gall bladder means that there is more strain put upon her liver. HELLP is a condition of the liver. Having had serious pre-eclamsia puts her at additional risk for developing the condition.

[mommaduck]

Their history, appearances, affiliations, and curriculum show differently. *shrug*. I don't care, really, but it's laughable that they are trying to deny quiverful affiliation.

I have to agree with this. How are they not, other than by writing a blurb in the book saying they aren't?

[Stacia]

More babies leads to exponentially more people. Whether it's the environment or the population, many people continue to think that individual actions don't matter. They do, but only if we all work together.

 

It basically argued for simply limiting ourselves to replacement growth (two children for each couple.)

 

For anyone who wants a really simplistic understanding of 'the power of one', I'd highly recommend the children's book "One Grain of Rice" by Demi. :D

[unsinkable]

Anyone have a flowchart for this thread? :lol: