Wow!! Duggar news :)

[cindergretta]

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.

 

This is true but, HELLP Syndrome is extremely rare. It is rare enough that it is generally misdiagnosed and many in the medical field don't even know what it is. So I doubt many women go into a pg decision weighing their odds of developing HELLP. I had pre-e with my first and my third. I had Class I HELLP with my 5th. I had a basically healthy (extremely monitored, partially hospitalized) pregnancy with my sixth. I know too many people who have had pre-e, even early and severely, who go on to have healthy, normal pgs, that I cannot and will not judge their choices or decisions.

[mommaduck]

Interesting read:

 

http://nolongerquivering.com/2010/03/08/nlq-faq-are-jim-bob-michelle-duggar-quiverfull/

[Mrs Mungo]

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.

 

They used to be more open about this than they are now. It used to explicitly state on their website that Michelle weans to bottles fairly early so that she can get pregnant again. That indicates trying to have as a many babies as possible rather than letting nature take its course.

[Murphy101]

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?

 

Yep. That's me alright. No brains, just a uterus.:glare:

 

Pregnancy is risky. There is no exception. The only question is how risky it might be that particular day for that woman.

 

To you, any risk might not be acceptable.

 

But that doesn't mean another woman willing to accept a much higher risk is an idiot thinking with her uterus.

[sassenach]

I think you can only participate in the over-population angle if you have no kids. If you birthed any kids, world over-population obviously didn't matter that much to you. I don't think you get to say 2 is ok, but 20 isn't. The world isn't being over populated by bunches of people having 20 kids, it's happening 1, 2, 3 at a time.

 

I really don't get the vitriol that gets directed towards these people. Yes, I think it's weird that they have this many kids. I also think it's weird that they do the TV show thing. Those are definitely not choices I would make. But seriously, in a world where we hear stories of abuse every. single. day. how can you people pick this family apart? You find their beliefs cultish? Is that really all you have? So what.

 

As for the health choices thing, people make health decisions every single day that go against the tide. Cancer patients choose alternative routes. People choose chiropractic instead of mainstream. They take garlic instead of antibiotics. In the childbearing realm they do in vitro, they choose to vbac, they use a midwife, or have a home birth. They also choose to have another child after suffering a stillbirth, a miscarriage, a child with a birth defect (me!) or any number of bad outcomes, yes, including pre eclamsia.

 

So while the Duggar's are a little strange in my book, I can't see any reason to conjure up the disgust and hate that other people seem to feel about them. Other than having almost 20 (seemingly well-provided for) children, there is nothing they are doing that is outside the norm of what most of us do.

[Aelwydd]

: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.

 

What's extreme is using the Duggars as an example of a large family's dynamics, when most large families do not have a real estate business, and a T.V. show, to support them. That necessitates having at least one parent working consistently outside of the home, usually for many hours. That places the brunt of child rearing on the other parent. If she is home schooling, and cooking and cleaning, I'd think that a few hours in the each day, and on the weekends, would be a very generous estimate of how much time she spends with each of her kids, or even just two at a time. To say nothing of her working spouse.

 

 

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.[/Quote]I never said they did. You were the one who introduced comparisons between different types of family and how much time was spent on each child. My post was to make a point: if it's a contest, then the Duggars will never best families like mine in the category of time spent with a child.

 

That's not the issue here. Just because they might spend more time per child than a family that has two working parents, doesn't excuse certain negative dynamics in their family. In other words, they're not a family to emulate just because they possibly perform better than certain other families in this one regard. I certainly don't think they should considered an example, since the specific circumstances that afford them more time with each other (having a show, being wealthy enough to not require long hours working), is not something most people can reproduce.

 

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.[/Quote]I don't doubt that. But, I assume you do give them undivided attention at times. Perhaps there are even families out there that work from 6 to 6, and still manage to give their kids more one-on-one time. It depends on the family.

 

Furthermore, given how many people are out of jobs these days, there's a lot more parents staying home anyway.

[Murphy101]

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

 

 

Hmmm.

 

Idk.

 

By all appearances we are Roman Catholic. We go to mass. We use catholic curriculum. We have a large family.

 

But my dh is not religious, much less catholic.

 

And NONE of that has anything to do with our large family. Neither of us were religious when we married. We had 5 kids before I became joined the RCC.

 

So if they say they aren't affiliated with the QF movement, then I presume they are telling the truth bc only they would know their spiritual motivations.

 

Otherwise, would you say that whether my dh says it or not, he must be Catholic because according to your perception he looks/lives like one?

[ktgrok]

They used to be more open about this than they are now. It used to explicitly state on their website that Michelle weans to bottles fairly early so that she can get pregnant again. That indicates trying to have as a many babies as possible rather than letting nature take its course.

 

That is directly opposite to interviews I've hard with Michelle. She said she nurses exclusively, but when she gets pregnant again she loses her supply, and THEN she starts supplementing/switches to bottles. NOt the other way around.

[Unicorn.]

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.

 

I seriously doubt this child was an accident. I feel positive it was planned. JMHO. What I really feel is sorry for their older daughters. From everything I have seen of these people, they thrust the majority of the work on them. My heart goes out to those girls. I hope they can someday escape "the cult" of that family.

ducking and :leaving:

[Murphy101]

As for over population.

 

I could not care less about it.

[KristenR]

I'm not going to fault anybody for needing public assistance. Being poor is not a reason for shame, and having been fortunate enough to be able to provide for a large family is not a point of pride.

 

And I'm most certainly not going to write off the children of people on welfare or in poverty. I don't shudder to think what the children of people on welfare will grow up to be like, and I'm saddened anybody would.

 

It's this kind of smug self-righteousness that the Duggars seem to inspire in people that makes me dislike them. They may be great people. But the fact that so many people look at them and think "If they can have 20 people and not take public assistance, then anybody who does rely on public assistance must be a lazy irresponsible bum who doesn't deserve kids or will ruin their kids!" really bothers me.

 

I agree with the hive members who already responded to your "smug" comments by stating that I never painted a broad stroke against anyone on public assistance. In today's economy it would be pretty much impossible not to know someone who needs or needed the assistance of welfare or unemployment to get back on their feet and I do not begrudge anyone that. I begrudge the people like the woman I mentioned- who I know are not in the majority but seem to be the most vocal about everyone else.

 

I most definitely do shudder to think what the children who grow up in the house of the person I stated will be when they grow up because I KNOW THIS WOMAN. I am glad that I shudder because it keeps me up at night and convinces me to keep her in my life for the sake of her children. Again, it's why I stated her specifically and not lumped everyone on welfare into the comment.

[Scarlett]

I think you can only participate in the over-population angle if you have no kids. If you birthed any kids, world over-population obviously didn't matter that much to you. I don't think you get to say 2 is ok, but 20 isn't. The world isn't being over populated by bunches of people having 20 kids, it's happening 1, 2, 3 at a time.

 

I really don't get the vitriol that gets directed towards these people. Yes, I think it's weird that they have this many kids. I also think it's weird that they do the TV show thing. Those are definitely not choices I would make. But seriously, in a world where we hear stories of abuse every. single. day. how can you people pick this family apart? You find their beliefs cultish? Is that really all you have? So what.

 

As for the health choices thing, people make health decisions every single day that go against the tide. Cancer patients choose alternative routes. People choose chiropractic instead of mainstream. They take garlic instead of antibiotics. In the childbearing realm they do in vitro, they choose to vbac, they use a midwife, or have a home birth. They also choose to have another child after suffering a stillbirth, a miscarriage, a child with a birth defect (me!) or any number of bad outcomes, yes, including pre eclamsia.

 

So while the Duggar's are a little strange in my book, I can't see any reason to conjure up the disgust and hate that other people seem to feel about them. Other than having almost 20 (seemingly well-provided for) children, there is nothing they are doing that is outside the norm of what most of us do.

 

Thank you! Well said.

[KristenR]

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?

.

 

:iagree::iagree:

[Scarlett]

Interesting read:

 

http://nolongerquivering.com/2010/03/08/nlq-faq-are-jim-bob-michelle-duggar-quiverfull/

 

I skimmed it. Definitely slanted against them.

[Murphy101]

And I should disclaim:

 

I have never seen a single episode of the Duggars. No cable and don't like reality shows.

 

But the harsh judgements based on their family size is just not something I understand. And obviously I have too much IRL experience with it to see any kindness in it.

[KristenR]

I think you can only participate in the over-population angle if you have no kids. If you birthed any kids, world over-population obviously didn't matter that much to you. I don't think you get to say 2 is ok, but 20 isn't. The world isn't being over populated by bunches of people having 20 kids, it's happening 1, 2, 3 at a time.

 

I really don't get the vitriol that gets directed towards these people. Yes, I think it's weird that they have this many kids. I also think it's weird that they do the TV show thing. Those are definitely not choices I would make. But seriously, in a world where we hear stories of abuse every. single. day. how can you people pick this family apart? You find their beliefs cultish? Is that really all you have? So what.

 

As for the health choices thing, people make health decisions every single day that go against the tide. Cancer patients choose alternative routes. People choose chiropractic instead of mainstream. They take garlic instead of antibiotics. In the childbearing realm they do in vitro, they choose to vbac, they use a midwife, or have a home birth. They also choose to have another child after suffering a stillbirth, a miscarriage, a child with a birth defect (me!) or any number of bad outcomes, yes, including pre eclamsia.

 

So while the Duggar's are a little strange in my book, I can't see any reason to conjure up the disgust and hate that other people seem to feel about them. Other than having almost 20 (seemingly well-provided for) children, there is nothing they are doing that is outside the norm of what most of us do.

 

 

:iagree:

 

Perfectly worded.

[Aelwydd]

I think you can only participate in the over-population angle if you have no kids. If you birthed any kids, world over-population obviously didn't matter that much to you. I don't think you get to say 2 is ok, but 20 isn't. The world isn't being over populated by bunches of people having 20 kids, it's happening 1, 2, 3 at a time.

 

That's incorrect. There's such a thing as replacement rate, and if rates of reproduction were to fall to an overall average of 2-3 kids per family, that would ensure the survival of the species, while reducing over population.

 

It's simple: my husband and I have one child; so while two of us will die, we only have one child to replace us. That represents a decline. Multiply that scenario on a large scale. That equals population decline, or if you increase that to, as a said, 2-3 kids, population stabilization.

 

 

As for the health choices thing, people make health decisions every single day that go against the tide. Cancer patients choose alternative routes. People choose chiropractic instead of mainstream. They take garlic instead of antibiotics. In the childbearing realm they do in vitro, they choose to vbac, they use a midwife, or have a home birth. They also choose to have another child after suffering a stillbirth, a miscarriage, a child with a birth defect (me!) or any number of bad outcomes, yes, including pre eclamsia.[/Quote]And? I'm aware that people make reasoned, and less-reasoned choices, every day. Some of those choices involve a considerably increased risk. I'm not arguing the Duggars' right to make a risky choice. What I'm arguing is that what happened before does present an increased risk. Some people seem to believe that this pregnancy represents no particular cause for concern. I disagree.

 

So while the Duggar's are a little strange in my book, I can't see any reason to conjure up the disgust and hate that other people seem to feel about them. Other than having almost 20 (seemingly well-provided for) children, there is nothing they are doing that is outside the norm of what most of us do.

 

I know I haven't said anything about disgust or hate about the Duggars. None at all. I should be able to comment about a public story, without having it conflated into an issue of personal hate. I don't know them, personally, and I certainly don't hate them. However, I do feel that some of the messages they send to the public are neither healthy, nor true.

[Scarlett]

As for over population.

 

I could not care less about it.

 

Exactly. There are so many problems in this world---we could all chew each other up and spit them out for how their choices are affecting the world conditions.

 

Everyone has to do the best they can and as far as big 'problems' go, I think having many children is very low on that list and very high on the list of blessings.

[mommaduck]

I skimmed it. Definitely slanted against them.

Yes, there is always bias one way or another, but the blogger makes some good points. I like to presume that people here are intelligent enough to understand the points being made regardless of bias.

[melissad2]

I'm happy for them and I wish them a happy and healthy pregnancy!

:party:

[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.

 

 

I wanted to add, also, that you are comparing the time you spend with one child to the time they spend with each child but that isn't the whole picture. Your child gets your individual attention, and their children get attention from parents and siblings. There are advantages to being an only child, but there are also advantages to having siblings. My mom was the oldest daughter of ten kids. She often refers to her youngest sibling (18 years her junior) as "her baby" when talking about her childhood and remembers with extreme fondness his cuteness, his sweetness, etc. My aunt (#6) stopped by on a trip last week, and heard my Dd1 say "all gone". She then told me how she would give that same little brother his bottle and would always say "all gone" when he was done. Fifty years later she still remembers and is so pleased that the first words that "her baby" put together were "all gone". Although his sisters helped raise him, my uncle loves and is devoted to Grammy. He also loves his big sisters. Older siblings helping with younger siblings was a way of life for many, many families. It is a normal, healthy dynamic.

[Holly IN]

Interesting read:

 

http://nolongerquivering.com/2010/03/08/nlq-faq-are-jim-bob-michelle-duggar-quiverfull/

 

I read this article. Mary Pride have made several statements that she is not quiverfull or part of Patricarchial movements. So I have to take what they say with a grain of salt. I do agree that quiverfull and patriarchial movements are dangerous however multiple children do not equal quiverful. If I could have 10 children I would do it but not because of quiverfull movement. It would be due to scripture teaching to leave family size up to God.

[livingnlearning]

My husband is the sixth of eight kids and he was admittedly by all of them raised by his oldest sister. His mom was an overwhelmed SAHM with not a lot of money, stressed and crabby and super busy and the older kids took care of the younger. THey had a lot of difficulties but they all remember an idyllic childhood. THey had limited "quality parental time" but tons of family time and now are all very close to their parents and each other.

 

I can't imagine having more than two kids for myself but I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing to have one big happy close family. They're turning out some quality people.

[Veritaserum]

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?

 

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

 

No, we aren't screwed for being mortal, but I do think it's pretty messed up to think you can cheat death when engaging in risky behavior. It is especially messed up if you think God is going to prevent your death despite your risky choices.

 

Letting nature take its course means biology dictates the number and spacing of children. Letting nature take its course when another pregnancy presents real danger to the mother is the same thing as deliberately getting pregnant. If you don't want to get pregnant, you use birth control or don't have sex. If you know another pregnancy has a greatly increased chance of killing you and/or the baby, you use birth control or don't have sex.

 

Faith is admirable, but I do find it foolish to deliberately put oneself in harm's way and still have faith that things will be ok.

[Mrs Mungo]

That is directly opposite to interviews I've hard with Michelle. She said she nurses exclusively, but when she gets pregnant again she loses her supply, and THEN she starts supplementing/switches to bottles. NOt the other way around.

 

Maybe that is what she has done with the last few. But, that isn't what their website said before. I think they are more careful now about what they say than they used to be. And trying to breastfeed as long as she can while trying to get pregnant is not the same as nursing on demand. I'm not placing any judgment on them, I'm only saying that it isn't the same as letting nature take its course.

[mommaduck]

I read this article. Mary Pride have made several statements that she is not quiverfull or part of Patricarchial movements. So I have to take what they say with a grain of salt. I do agree that quiverfull and patriarchial movements are dangerous however multiple children do not equal quiverful. If I could have 10 children I would do it but not because of quiverfull movement. It would be due to scripture teaching to leave family size up to God.

Quiverful is a broad general term. Those that are quiverful believe exactly as you stated you believe. How does quiverful NOT describe you?

 

btw, though I believe the patriarchial movement is dangerous, I believe only those that take quiverful to the extreme are.

[Aelwydd]

I wanted to add, also, that you are comparing the time you spend with one child to the time they spend with each child but that isn't the whole picture. Your child gets your individual attention, and their children get attention from parents and siblings. There are advantages to being an only child, but there are also advantages to having siblings. My mom was the oldest daughter of ten kids. She often refers to her youngest sibling (18 years her junior) as "her baby" when talking about her childhood and remembers with extreme fondness his cuteness, his sweetness, etc. My aunt (#6) stopped by on a trip last week, and heard my Dd1 say "all gone". She then told me how she would give that same little brother his bottle and would always say "all gone" when he was done. Fifty years later she still remembers and is so pleased that the first words that "her baby" put together were "all gone". Although his sisters helped raise him, my uncle loves and is devoted to Grammy. He also loves his big sisters. Older siblings helping with younger siblings was a way of life for many, many families. It is a normal, healthy dynamic.

 

Yes, I know all that. Which is why I pitted my family against theirs to show how your original comparison of the Duggars vs. average American family is fairly ridiculous. As I said in my last post, the time they spend, or don't spend, with each child is merely one aspect of the whole dynamic.

 

What I think is unhealthy is having older siblings assume parenting responsibilities to such a degree, that they actually know the child, and bond with the child, more than the child does with his or her parents. Especially if both parents have the luxury, as Michelle and Jim-Bob do, of being home so much of the time. If having that many kids really does not impede the quality of their individual relationships with each child, why is it that I see younger children often crying for their older sister (Jan), but never for their mother? Why did Michelle and Jim Bob leave Josie, when she was still quite young, in the care of their older children, to go on a trip, instead of waiting?

 

It's not even about having trustworthy people. I would not leave my baby (who was healthy and full-term, but had serious asthma attacks that could happen at any time) to the care of my mother, sister, friend, or anyone else, and to leave the country and go on a trip.

 

To be clear, there are parents with only one or two kids who would leave a vulnerable baby with an older sibling, or other relative, and go overseas. I know that, and my reaction to them is the same: poor judgment, and also, WTH?!

 

That's why I don't get excited when these two keep having more children. They are nice enough folks, and they have good kids. But, I'm not going to sit here and talk about how wonderful parents they must be, when I keep noticing stuff like this in their show. From my perspective, they don't seem to be super involved, emotionally, with their kids. I can't remember one instance of seeing Michelle hug her kids, kiss them on the cheeks, and tell them, "I love you." She honestly seems rather remote to me, and not emotionally available to them.

 

So, whether she and Jim Bob are at home all the time, or gone, it doesn't seem to make a difference in how much time they spend focusing on each child. Perhaps they did that with the older ones, and now that the olders are able to care for the youngers, they don't have to invest so much of their time on that. They can just focus on having more babies, even while Josie remains at risk for delays and other complications.

 

If Michelle was the single mom of 10 kids, with a preemie crack baby, and depending on the older kids to care for her younger ones, I doubt most people would laud her. But, she's married, she and Jim Bob have a show, and they're the icon for a particular religious segment, so they're pretty much unassailable. Even when pointing out the obvious, people get defensive of them, and it's really wearisome.

[Mergath]

It says on their website:

 

The hardest thing about raising any number of children is purposing to keep up with their hearts. With as many as we have that is a fulltime job. We try to have regular talks with each one individually on a weekly basis.

 

I'm sorry, but if you only have enough time to have a one-on-one talk with each kid once a WEEK, you have too many.

[ktgrok]

Maybe that is what she has done with the last few. But, that isn't what their website said before. I think they are more careful now about what they say than they used to be. And trying to breastfeed as long as she can while trying to get pregnant is not the same as nursing on demand. I'm not placing any judgment on them, I'm only saying that it isn't the same as letting nature take its course.

 

It was actually an old interview. http://babygooroo.com/2009/03/after-18-children-breastfeeding-for-michelle-duggar-continues-to-be-a-learning-experience/#comment-46549 Not something recent. And what do you mean that nursing while not using birth control isn't the same as letting nature takes its course. It seems to be exactly what nature would do.

Edited November 8, 2011 by ktgrok

[Aelwydd]

It says on their website:

 

 

 

I'm sorry, but if you only have enough time to have a one-on-one talk with each kid once a WEEK, you have too many.

 

 

I don't think it's as much about fostering individual relationships (and the individual child), as it is about ensuring orthodox thinking among the group.

[Mrs Mungo]

It was actually a very old interview. Not something recent. And what do you mean that nursing while not using birth control isn't the same as letting nature takes its course. It seems to be exactly what nature would do.

 

If you've watched the show or read any of the stuff by them, then you know they do not nurse on demand, they supplement, use pacifiers, etc from the beginning. That will contribute to earlier return of fertility. Therefore, it is not, imo, letting nature take its course. You're free to feel differently, but it won't change my mind.

[vonfirmath]

That's incorrect. There's such a thing as replacement rate, and if rates of reproduction were to fall to an overall average of 2-3 kids per family, that would ensure the survival of the species, while reducing over population.

 

It's simple: my husband and I have one child; so while two of us will die, we only have one child to replace us. That represents a decline. Multiply that scenario on a large scale. That equals population decline, or if you increase that to, as a said, 2-3 kids, population stabilization.

 

The United States dropped below replacement rates in 2008.

 

CIA World Factbook Total Fertility Rates as of 2011 (US is 122. Canada is 176): http://geography.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=geography&cdn=education&tm=84&f=10&su=p284.12.336.ip_&tt=2&bt=1&bts=1&st=11&zu=https%3A//www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html

[Meriwether]

What's extreme is using the Duggars as an example of a large family's dynamics, when most large families do not have a real estate business, and a T.V. show, to support them. Well, we are discussing the Duggars in particular. I didn't just pull their name out of a hat. That necessitates having at least one parent working consistently outside of the home, usually for many hours. Most families have at least one parent working outside of the home, usually for many hours. Not just families with many kids. That places the brunt of child rearing on the other parent. Yes, in most families one parent or the other bears most of the brunt of childrearing. If she is home schooling, and cooking and cleaning, I'd think that a few hours in the each day, and on the weekends, would be a very generous estimate of how much time she spends with each of her kids, or even just two at a time. To say nothing of her working spouse. Okay.:confused: People have said that kids in large families don't get enough time from the parents. I said I believe the Duggars in particular spend more time with their kids than some dual-income families I know. You seem to be assuming that homeschooling, cooking, and cleaning take time away from children. Homeschooling, at least in my house, requires time spent with the kids. The kids like to be involved with cooking. They'd pass on cleaning but that is family time, too.

 

 

I never said they did. You were the one who introduced comparisons between different types of family and how much time was spent on each child. I don't believe I did introduce the topic. I did make a statement about it. My post was to make a point: if it's a contest, then the Duggars will never best families like mine in the category of time spent with a child. Okay. You win.:lol:

 

That's not the issue here. Just because they might spend more time per child than a family that has two working parents, doesn't excuse certain negative dynamics in their family. You see some negative dynamics. No everyone would agree with you. In other words, they're not a family to emulate just because they possibly perform better than certain other families in this one regard. Who said anyone had to emulate them. I certainly don't think they should considered an example, since the specific circumstances that afford them more time with each other (having a show, being wealthy enough to not require long hours working), is not something most people can reproduce. I know very little about the Duggers, but I believe they spent time with their kids before they had money.

 

I don't doubt that. But, I assume you do give them undivided attention at times. Perhaps there are even families out there that work from 6 to 6, and still manage to give their kids more one-on-one time. It depends on the family. Yep, and my first comment was directly referencing the Duggers and families I know.

 

Furthermore, given how many people are out of jobs these days, there's a lot more parents staying home anyway.:001_huh:

.

[Moxie]

It says on their website:

 

 

 

I'm sorry, but if you only have enough time to have a one-on-one talk with each kid once a WEEK, you have too many.

 

 

I'm sorry, I don't get this. I've seen the Duggar's show a few times. Their kids seem happy, healthy and normal. Just because they don't get as much snuggle time with Mommy as an only child doesn't mean that they shouldn't have been born. Would it be the absolute ideal childhood to have 19 siblings? I have no idea. How many of us have ideal families though? We all have different issues. Theirs is lack of one-on-one time. Not a big deal IMHO.

[cindergretta]

It says on their website:

 

 

 

I'm sorry, but if you only have enough time to have a one-on-one talk with each kid once a WEEK, you have too many.

 

Thank you. I wasn't aware I had too many dc until you just now pointed it out to me. :glare: (Yeah, literally once a week, I have a one on one with one of the dc while driving to/from their individual activity. But daily, we have tons of conversations involving 1, 2, 3, or more of the dc with me and sometimes even with dh! ::sigh:: )

Edited November 8, 2011 by cindergretta

[Scarlett]

If Michelle was the single mom of 10 kids, with a preemie crack baby, and depending on the older kids to care for her younger ones, I doubt most people would laud her. But, she's married, she and Jim Bob have a show, and they're the icon for a particular religious segment, so they're pretty much unassailable. Even when pointing out the obvious, people get defensive of them, and it's really wearisome.

 

I admire them for their calmness (which by all accounts seems to be REAL and not contrived), their financial responsibility (which came LONG before the TV show) and how nice all their kids appear to be. I admire big families but not just for the sake of being big....

 

I could care less if they have a TV show....I actually watch it very seldom.

 

I also do not think they are perfect. I also don't think everyone is cut out for 20 kids.

[Aelwydd]

The United States dropped below replacement rates in 2008.

 

CIA World Factbook Total Fertility Rates as of 2011 (US is 122. Canada is 176): http://geography.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=geography&cdn=education&tm=84&f=10&su=p284.12.336.ip_&tt=2&bt=1&bts=1&st=11&zu=https%3A//www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html

 

Yes, but the United States also consumes 25% of the world's total resources. Our population of 300 million equals a significant reduction of resources available for other countries.

 

Obviously, the US does not constitute the whole world. But, what it does definitely has a global effect.

[Scarlett]

I'm sorry, I don't get this. I've seen the Duggar's show a few times. Their kids seem happy, healthy and normal. Just because they don't get as much snuggle time with Mommy as an only child doesn't mean that they shouldn't have been born. Would it be the absolute ideal childhood to have 19 siblings? I have no idea. How many of us have ideal families though? We all have different issues. Theirs is lack of one-on-one time. Not a big deal IMHO.

 

 

I agree. I am amused by that comment considering I've been told more than once that too much one on one time with my son has made him too dependent upon me. I don't agree with that assessment, but the point is people will always have something to say...oddly enough it is almost always negative.

[Aelwydd]

I admire them for their calmness (which by all accounts seems to be REAL and not contrived), their financial responsibility (which came LONG before the TV show) and how nice all their kids appear to be. I admire big families but not just for the sake of being big....

 

I could care less if they have a TV show....I actually watch it very seldom.

 

I also do not think they are perfect. I also don't think everyone is cut out for 20 kids.

 

I admire families based upon their overall qualities, not based upon whether they are big or small.

 

I agree with you that they are patient and calm, and those are positives. I don't know that they outweigh the negatives.

 

I'm waiting for the books that some of the kids will eventually write to settle that question. And for Jinger to come out, lol.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

How beautiful it is on the boards today. I've read all the well-wishes, prayers, and interest concerning the babies of our friends, Impish, Pencil Pusher, and Wishbone Dawn.

 

And then there's this thread. Thank God for the well-wishes, prayers and interest concerning Duggar Baby #20, because without them there would only be the following:

 

Duggar Baby #20 will grow up to be a Gothardite. Duggar Baby #20 won't have any time with his parents, who aren't good parents anyway. Duggar Baby #20 will make the Duggar Family carbon footprint even worse. Duggar Baby #20 will be raised by an indifferent older sister and never know his mother, who will probably die because she was too stupid to prevent his conception.

 

Duggar Baby #20 shouldn't have been conceived, and the world is a worse place because Duggar Baby #20 will probably be born alive in April.

 

Woe to Duggar Baby #20 and Woe to Mother Earth because of him.

 

Michelle Duggar is stupid. Not for having babies, but for exposing them to the world as she has. I never did that, so nobody ever felt they had a right to curse my unborn children.

[CAMom]

I don't think it's as much about fostering individual relationships (and the individual child), as it is about ensuring orthodox thinking among the group.

 

Wow! That's extremely uncharitable!:glare:

 

It says on their website:

 

 

 

I'm sorry, but if you only have enough time to have a one-on-one talk with each kid once a WEEK, you have too many.

 

OK. I guess my three are too many. I do purpose to have one on one time with them but it's not really more than once a week. Organically, however, I end up spending one on one time with them a lot.

 

I think it's admirable that they purpose one on one time at least once a week. That doesn't mean the kids don't get more than that. It means they don't get less! Somehow I doubt that if one of their kids needs some one on one time, the parents consult their calendar and say, "Oh, I'm so sorry. Your issues will have to wait until 2pm on Thursday. That's your appointment time."

 

And guess what? Some kids don't pursue or even feel like they need that one on one time. My oldest is case in point. So, I had to purpose to arrange that time so he didn't fall through the cracks.

 

I definitely could not handle 20 kids but it's not my job to judge the Duggar's parenting. It's more profitable for me to take a look at my own and make sure I'm taking care of my own kids and their needs. Not deciding what other people's kids need.

[Aelwydd]

I'm sorry, I don't get this. I've seen the Duggar's show a few times. Their kids seem happy, healthy and normal. Just because they don't get as much snuggle time with Mommy as an only child doesn't mean that they shouldn't have been born. Would it be the absolute ideal childhood to have 19 siblings? I have no idea. How many of us have ideal families though? We all have different issues. Theirs is lack of one-on-one time. Not a big deal IMHO.

 

 

I've watched many, if not most, of their shows. I'm trying very hard to recall a single case where Michelle snuggled any of her kids (I don't count holding a baby and feeding it or toting it around as snuggling).

 

Please correct me, because I'd prefer to be wrong in this.

 

But, if I'm not, you seriously dismiss a total lack of affection as being equivalent to just some, and as being better than the case with "as much snuggle time as a only child?"

 

See, I see a huge range between those two end points. I don't think it's healthy for a child to grow up not having a Mommy to hold, snuggle, or show warm affection. I think it's sad, actually.

[vonfirmath]

Yes, but the United States also consumes 25% of the world's total resources. Our population of 300 million equals a significant reduction of resources available for other countries.

 

Obviously, the US does not constitute the whole world. But, what it does definitely has a global effect.

 

Which has WhAT to do with anything? I responded to a comment about "when we drop below the replacement rate" to point out that we have already.

 

I said NOTHING to do with consumption of resources, etc. So why did you mention this?

[Runningmom80]

I think she is being careless with her health and the health of her unborn baby.

 

 

I won't go into the whole quiverful thing, because it's not my place to judge.

[FriedClams]

I'm excited for them and I agree with the earlier poster who said we need more of Michelle's kids. :001_smile:

 

For the carbon footprint - they rarely buy new clothes, cars, or anything else. I am sure they do buy some new things - but the vast majority of what they buy is used. I am sure whatever clothes that aren't worn out are handed down. I would guess that their abilty to reuse and reduce is amazing. It's not like they have all the kids buying new everything every year. Their birthdays and holidays are simple and focus on others - not all the stuff. In one of the books they talk about each kid having a box for their treasures. Not rooms and closets and storage - a box. Not much footprint there. Traveling by car - well the price per person per mile is probably pretty small. I'm sure its less than when my two kids ride around with me.

 

I thought I read that Michelle had preeclamsia with her first twins - and then what - 15 normal pregnancies? In her case, it doesn't seem that it's a done deal that it will return.

 

Whatever the details are - she strikes me as very concerned, dedicated mother with a good head on her shoulders. I am sure the decision was made with prayer and lots of information. I wish them the very best and will be praying for a healthy pregnancy for Michelle and their new baby.

[Stacia]

I think you can only participate in the over-population angle if you have no kids. If you birthed any kids, world over-population obviously didn't matter that much to you. I don't think you get to say 2 is ok, but 20 isn't. The world isn't being over populated by bunches of people having 20 kids, it's happening 1, 2, 3 at a time.

 

Not so, as has been pointed out by others also (see quotes below)....

 

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.)

 

That's incorrect. There's such a thing as replacement rate, and if rates of reproduction were to fall to an overall average of 2-3 kids per family, that would ensure the survival of the species, while reducing over population.

 

It's simple: my husband and I have one child; so while two of us will die, we only have one child to replace us. That represents a decline. Multiply that scenario on a large scale. That equals population decline, or if you increase that to, as a said, 2-3 kids, population stabilization.

 

Some have said they don't care about population growth &/or seem to think they have no impact on it. I find that sadly short-sighted & feel sorry for our future generations. They will have some severe problems to deal with because of our selfishness & our inability to plan for the future.

 

And, yes, I lump the Duggars into that category of those (along w/ many others on Earth) being unwilling to help the future because they are focusing on satisifying their own needs now (regardless of the future impact/ripple effect), continuing to grow an already large family....

[ktgrok]

If you've watched the show or read any of the stuff by them, then you know they do not nurse on demand, they supplement, use pacifiers, etc from the beginning. That will contribute to earlier return of fertility. Therefore, it is not, imo, letting nature take its course. You're free to feel differently, but it won't change my mind.

 

How on earth can you tell how often they breastfeed based on watching the show? And the only pacifier I noticed was for the one she didn't nurse, the preemie.

 

Did you read the article linked? Are you saying she was lying in that interview, where she specifically says she gets her period back at 6 weeks even if she doesn't use pacifiers or supplement? I know someone like this, it does happen.

[amey311]

I dislike "purpose" being used as verb. I think i dislike that more than "task" used as a verb.

[Murphy101]

What I think is unhealthy is having older siblings assume parenting responsibilities to such a degree, that they actually know the child, and bond with the child, more than the child does with his or her parents.

 

But that doesntseemto be the case even from those critical of the Duggars. All their children seem to be close to each other and their parents. Have any of the children, especially the grown ones, expressed a closer parental bond to siblings than their actual parents? That's a pretty big assumption to make otherwise, isn't it?

 

Tho from all I've read, they give more care if the babies to their olders than I would ever come near to being comfortable with. But it's not my family, and my family isn't theirs, so it doesn't matter.

 

why is it that I see younger children often crying for their older sister (Jan), but never for their mother? Why did Michelle and Jim Bob leave Josie, when she was still quite young, in the care of their older children, to go on a trip, instead of waiting?

 

Maybe bc the little stinker knows Jan is a better target? My 9th born always asks for her Kbub (ds15) instead of me. Why? Bc Kbub is a total pushover and she has known that since she was 6 months old. For current baby boy it is ds9. By 4 months old, he has already caught on that this particular dear brother has an extra wide soft spot for him. Toy out of reach? Shoot the baby smolder at brother and problem solved. Fussing in car? Who ever is next to him knows they better switch seats with the preferred sibling or baby boy is going to scream his head off. None of them change diapers, dress baby, nurse him, sleep with him, babysit or otherwise parent him. But yeah, he knows exactly who to cry for to get anything he wants. LOL

 

It's not even about having trustworthy people. I would not leave my baby (who was healthy and full-term, but had serious asthma attacks that could happen at any time) to the care of my mother, sister, friend, or anyone else, and to leave the country and go on a trip.

 

Neither would I. But these aren't our kids to parent. My mil had no problem doing that within month of her only child being dx with type 1 diabetes at age 6. Gives me heart palpating just thinking about it. But her? Nope. No problem. And dh is a mighty fine man

 

I can't remember one instance of seeing Michelle hug her kids, kiss them on the cheeks, and tell them, "I love you." She honestly seems rather remote to me, and not emotionally available to them.

 

Again, nothing more than different parenting or personality. Many people don't do PDA. It's just not who they are or what they feel comfortable doing and it has nothing whatsoever to do with how emotional available they are or he much they love their family.

 

If Michelle was the single mom of 10 kids, with a preemie crack baby, and depending on the older kids to care for her younger ones, I doubt most people would laud her. But, she's married, she and Jim Bob have a show, and they're the icon for a particular religious segment, so they're pretty much unassailable. Even when pointing out the obvious, people get defensive of them, and it's really wearisome.

 

Um. Yeah. Mostly because I don't find much laudable about being a slutty crack addict? Really? What is obvious is that they parent different than I or you do. Big whoop. I don't really laud them for it either. But I sure as heck don't put them on par with slutty crack addicts for it either.:confused:

 

I'm sorry, but if you only have enough time to have a one-on-one talk with each kid once a WEEK, you have too many.

 

That isn't what the site said though. It said they make an effort to have a regular talk once a week. That doesn't mean they ONLY talk then, it means they recognize the need to schedule into their lives a time for purposeful discussion. Personally, I think parents of even 1-3 kids could benefit from doing that too.

[cindergretta]

I've watched many, if not most, of their shows. I'm trying very hard to recall a single case where Michelle snuggled any of her kids (I don't count holding a baby and feeding it or toting it around as snuggling).

 

Please correct me, because I'd prefer to be wrong in this.

 

But, if I'm not, you seriously dismiss a total lack of affection as being equivalent to just some, and as being better than the case with "as much snuggle time as a only child?"

 

See, I see a huge range between those two end points. I don't think it's healthy for a child to grow up not having a Mommy to hold, snuggle, or show warm affection. I think it's sad, actually.

 

Oh for heaven's sake! I know tons of families who just aren't snuggly at all. My mother was NOT someone with whom you could cuddle. My dad certainly wasn't raised in a family with *any* snuggling or cuddling. My dh's mother is a very hands - off Asian mother. (I grew up in a family with 2, dad in a family with 3, dh in a family with 3...) This is really grasping at straws, IMO.

 

Honestly, Pollyanna said it all, "When you look for the good in people, that is what you will find." The flip side being.... :glare: