Jump to content

Menu

Wow!! Duggar news :)


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 285
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Ok, I'll remember this statement as food, energy, and every thing else continues to rise in cost, while fisheries continue to decline, soil continues to be depleted, and climate changes increase the numbers of places and area affected by drought and flooding.

 

I mean, you can continue to maintain the belief that there is no difference in the resources consumed between a planet with 7 billion, and one with 15 billion. Certainly, there's nothing stopping us all from reproducing without thought, but I don't think it's a particularly sustainable plan.

 

It's just simple math. Less food because of decreasing arable land and temperate climate, minus less resources to water and transport that food (and other things) equals increased competition, and hardship among greater numbers of people.

 

So, when hamburger goes up to $6 lb this winter, thanks to Texas' and OK's droughts, and the flooding throughout much of the east, along with huge increases in the cost of many other foods, what will you chalk that up to, if not the result of too much demand for a dwindling food supply (thanks to terrible climate conditions)?

 

 

Oh please. that is just ridiculous. The reason there's not enough food is because Big Ag is the main farmer in our country.

 

If the Amazonians had enough food for people to not have to work for it, in some of the worst land in the world, then there's enough land on this earth to produce enough food for all of us and then some. We're not starving because there's not enough land, we're starving because people are greedy. It's not climate change, it's corporate greed.

 

Not to mention there are countries who are going to be in a bind in not so many years because they weren't child friendly, they were elitist, and now there'll be no one to care for their aging population.

 

 

Actually the reason meat prices are going up is due to corn(grains) are now part of fueling up our cars. ;) It is not the people or overpopulation doing this. Corn is being used in everything so corn prices are going up. That is why we got rid of our chickens as we couldn't afford to feed them anymore. 7 years ago one big bag of feed was around $7.00. When we got rid of the chickens same bag of feed costs $45 a bag. When they started using corn for part of fuel combo the feed cost went up drastically.

 

I am tired of people blaming population for problems in this country.

 

And let's not even bring up the point that corn is not cow food. :glare::glare: And how corn is being used a a fuel so that the gov can subsidize it in another way.

 

So, which one of my kids should I sacrifice on the altar of global warming and overpopulation? Perhaps two would appease the gods?

 

I don't ascribe to patriarchy, and the right number of kids looks different for each family, but the Duggars can support their kids financially and emotionally so that # is right for them.

 

I don't think Michelle is a good enough actress to feign such peace about her life. It would ahve been all over the tabloids by now if it were a big show and the Enquirer would have pictures of her having a melt down somewhere. She seems to be the perfect person for the job God's given her.

Edited by justamouse
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I find it offensive to assume that eveyone with a big family has no consideration for the world and it's resources. I also take offense to the idea that people who disagree with your fatalistic point of view are uneducated to very basic facts.

 

 

I never made the statement that a big family has no consideration for the world. I have said that as a society, we need to either reduce our overall consumption of resources, or reduce our population.

 

And these are basic facts. It is fact that the U.S. consumes a fourth of the world's resources. It is fact that the rate of extinction of species is at a feverish pace, fisheries are decline, drought and flooding and destructive weather are depleting the area of land suitable for growing, and that we are even depleting the resources, such as phosphorous, that we have been using in modern farming to increase production. That is fact.

 

 

It amazes me that there are people out there who will defy the truth, even as the situation inevitably brings to bear its consequences on our own society and our economy. It's not about being fatalistic or optimistic--it's about being realistic. But it's impossible to have a rational discussion about it whenever making such statements, serves provoke attacks from others in a defensive, "how dare you think that" way. Or, a "you are hateful, you want to kill everybody" response.

 

That's not fair, and that's not reasonable.

Edited by Aelwydd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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:

 

Hi Nakia! :)

 

I just wanted to add to this. My dh's mom also died from cancer when he was 12. When I read what you said, I immediately thought, "Should she have not had him (and his twin sister) since she was going to die and leave them motherless?" That was a horrible thought!

 

I do understand what you are saying, as my husband is still grieved by the loss of his mother, BUT I'm glad that there isn't some rule saying if the mother isn't going to stay alive then they shouldn't have children.

 

Anyway, I love the Duggars! I think they are wonderful people and they have made wise life decisions (i.e. their financial situation) and I 100% believe that God is in control of their lives. If He doesn't want them to have more children, they will not. They are following Him, not the world. They put their faith and trust into Him and that is all that matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's simple math. I'm not categorically against the family size. But the insistence of some Duggar fans that the amount of parental time available to 19 vs. 3 is comparible is silly.

 

The quality of parental time can't be ascertained by the amount of time available, but availability *is* dictated by number.

 

I agree, I think the question is, how necessary do we believe constant parental availability is in order for a child to be socially allowed to exist peacefully? There are many happy, well-adjusted adults who got very little from their parents growing up (think kids growing up in the Bronx with single, working moms who have gone on to do amazing things) and there are many spoiled, unhappy, depressed people who grew up with loads of parental attention.

 

How long is this show? Half hour? Hourly? Edited... Once per week?

 

I can present a perfect family once a week for half an hour too!!! Especially if I have makeup artists and producers. :001_smile:

 

I agree they can edit these things out. But I think we'd get a *glimpse* of that if these children were truly suffering and lacking attention, even if Discovery (a very liberal channel) made it come off as a funny thing. I have not seen the slightest glimpse of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I remember reading their website years ago. She actually said they weaned early so she could get pregnant again. I remember discussions here about how they removed stuff from their site. Off topic, but I also remember some of her lunch/dinner recipes made me gag from the amount of cr@ppy food items she used.

 

It's her own body to use as she pleases...but I think she's addicted to being pregnant, and will end eventually in extreme grief. I also predict in several years one of her grown kids will write a very interesting book in the vein of Mommy Dearest.

 

 

I agree with the bold.

 

I believe that she in on the continuum of a process addiction regarding pregnancy/babies/big family:

 

Symptoms of process addiction:

 

As with substance addiction, there are recognizable behaviors that help identify process addiction. They include

 

 

  • An exhibiting of emotions and motivations that places a significant or obsessive/pathological importance on the behavior, resulting in a perceived compulsion to constantly repeat or participate in the activity.

  • Continuing to participate in the activity, despite any resulting negative physical, financial, social, or psychological consequences.

  • The sufferer believes that he or she has lost control and no longer has the will power and strength to moderate or stop the identified activity.

  • Reliance on a number of defense mechanisms to hide, mask, or cover up the behavior, or in order to justify or excuse it.

  • A psychological reward is received that creates a heightened sense of well-being, accomplishment, or self- worth that fuels the habitual participation in the activity or process.

  • Development of tolerance Ă¢â‚¬â€œ as time passes, the sufferer needs to increase the frequency or other aspect of the behavior in order to maintain the desired effect.

  • Withdrawal Symptoms Ă¢â‚¬â€œ When the activity is stopped, sufferers experiences physical ailments, anxiety, depression, anger, and other conditions that interfere with what is considered normal functioning in society.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh please. that is just ridiculous. The reason there's not enough food is because Big Ag is the main farmer in our country.

 

 

 

I didn't say there wouldn't be enough food for us. I said that what we'd have to pay for the decreased supply of several staples would be considerably more.

 

Even if we did suffer a failure of the majority of our crops, we would have our corporate and military arm to assure a supply from other countries. We already claim a significant percentage of global resources. Most Americans would not starve (unless there was a total collapse of the U.S. government--then, it'd be different).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

:iagree: 100%. They are with their children more than many of people in this country are with theirs. Yay for homeschooling! :tongue_smilie:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I agree they can edit these things out. But I think we'd get a *glimpse* of that if these children were truly suffering and lacking attention, even if Discovery (a very liberal channel) made it come off as a funny thing. I have not seen the slightest glimpse of that.

 

But again, if there are TWENTY children and it's a half hour - hour show that is heavily edited, how would you get a "glimpse?"

 

Wait. This is on Discovery? Ack. I'm so sick of "reality TV." Isn't this fad over yet!?!??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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:

 

 

Well said!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:iagree: They have their schedule posted on their website, and if you read through the whole thing, it explicitly says that the older siblings are getting the youngers ready in the morning, doing their homeschooling, making dinner, and it sounds like doing the baths in the evening, as well (because there's no way one woman could bathe that many young kids by herself). Between that and their own education, they have basically no time for themselves. That's not right. It's entirely appropriate to have older kids help. Not to have them each doing more of the parenting than the actual parents.

 

And yes, to the pps I offended, in a family of that size, where it would be so easy for a quiet child to get lost in the shuffle, I do think each kid needs more one-on-one time with mom. Sue me.

 

Exactly my point!

 

If she were really mothering the kids, she wouldn't have time to spend an hour working out on her elliptical every day.

 

And to be held up as a mothering ideal?? I think not.

 

Now, some may put a celebrity mom up to the same spotlight, who can afford a nanny while they're at the spa, etc.

 

Paying hired help is one thing. Forcing your children to parent their siblings (and are they really able to say no??) is another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that she in on the continuum of a process addiction regarding pregnancy/babies/big family:

 

Symptoms of process addiction:

 

As with substance addiction, there are recognizable behaviors that help identify process addiction. They include

 

  • An exhibiting of emotions and motivations that places a significant or obsessive/pathological importance on the behavior, resulting in a perceived compulsion to constantly repeat or participate in the activity.
  • Continuing to participate in the activity, despite any resulting negative physical, financial, social, or psychological consequences.
  • The sufferer believes that he or she has lost control and no longer has the will power and strength to moderate or stop the identified activity.
  • Reliance on a number of defense mechanisms to hide, mask, or cover up the behavior, or in order to justify or excuse it.
  • A psychological reward is received that creates a heightened sense of well-being, accomplishment, or self- worth that fuels the habitual participation in the activity or process.
  • Development of tolerance Ă¢â‚¬â€œ as time passes, the sufferer needs to increase the frequency or other aspect of the behavior in order to maintain the desired effect.
  • Withdrawal Symptoms Ă¢â‚¬â€œ When the activity is stopped, sufferers experiences physical ailments, anxiety, depression, anger, and other conditions that interfere with what is considered normal functioning in society.

 

Really? :confused: :rolleyes: :glare:

 

Both of my parents are psychologists, so I hear this kind of thing a lot (they diagnose people in line at the grocery store and talk about it in the car, that kind of thing) I just think it's a bit silly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say there wouldn't be enough food for us. I said that what we'd have to pay for the decreased supply of several staples would be considerably more.

 

Even if we did suffer a failure of the majority of our crops, we would have our corporate and military arm to assure a supply from other countries. We already claim a significant percentage of global resources. Most Americans would not starve (unless there was a total collapse of the U.S. government--then, it'd be different).

 

And, if there were sustainable farming practices in this country, then we wouldn't have to worry about decreased supply. We claim a lot of global resources because we're huge! Yes, stuff needs to change, but this fatalistic tone you sometimes take isn't problem solving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

I agree. Plus, no one even said Michelle has this, right? The person who started saying this said it "sounds like" HELLP, right? So this isn't even an issue unless I am mistaken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? :confused: :rolleyes: :glare:

 

Both of my parents are psychologists, so I hear this kind of thing a lot (they diagnose people in line at the grocery store and talk about it in the car, that kind of thing) I just think it's a bit silly.

 

Her observations about Michelle are just as valid as anybody else's here, based on what we're shown.

 

I think it's silly to believe that someone with 19 kids, including one who was extremely premature and with vulnerable health, and now pregnant with another, spends as much time and attention on each of her kids as the average family with 2-3 kids. Especially since, as I've said before, I haven't seen her being particularly affectionate with any of her kids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I agree they can edit these things out. But I think we'd get a *glimpse* of that if these children were truly suffering and lacking attention, even if Discovery (a very liberal channel) made it come off as a funny thing. I have not seen the slightest glimpse of that.

 

 

There was a recent show in which a newsman from Good Morning America visited the family and became a Duggar for a day. He seemed impressed with the kindness of the family and fascinated by the home life. But I thought it extremely interesting when he stated at one point that most parents he knows are cognizant of where their (young) children are and what they are up to all of the time and the Duggar kids are just running wild and free with no supervision. He didn't seem judgmental but just surprised at how little oversight JimBob and Michelle provide.

 

The kids may be happy enough but I am not sure that is entirely the point. JB and Michelle go to bed each night without knowing what a large majority of their children did that day - accomplishments, hurts, how they spent their time in general and I'm not talking about the big kids - the 10 and under crowd. And so, yes, I do think the children are losing out in some way.

 

With that said, there are so many families in this country that are so much more unhealthy in both structure and parenting so I am not necessarily finger pointing that they are failing. However, their family life and parenting choices are not ones I would make for my own children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tinbar, your polemical argument only serves to offend, and does nothing to address the problem. I am not in favor of genocide, and frankly, I think it's incredibly mean of you to imply that I am. The hostility in your post is totally uncalled for.

 

There is zero connection between your accusations and what I said to Winter. I point out to Blessed Winter that her disgust regarding environmentalists and her belief that they are all just making it up, would not jive with the very real economical and practical issues facing us, and this equals me wanting to go out and kill masses of people?

 

I'm a person who believes that there are enough resources to share on this planet, if only we would all be willing to do so, and were willing to cooperate and make some sacrifices.

 

And of the two of us, if someone were to get put to death, I'd probably be the one to worry. I'm less likely to owe or use a gun than most folks here.

 

Well, I have zero debt and no gun. I live in a very frugal, resourceful, and environmentally-conscious manner (except for two of my children, who are replacing a childless couple I know instead of DH and myself). We even recycle. We are low-income, working class people who receive not one thin dime of government aid. We give to many charities and sacrifice for others who are worse off than ourselves. I usually vote Libertarian. You'll have to take me out of that box you assumed I was in when I disagreed with you.

 

Having clarified that, now back to the point:

 

According to my worldview, anytime an elite group makes decisions about reproduction or continuance of life for others who have less access to information and less power, that's a problem. Anytime an elite group sits back and judges who should bear children and who shouldn't (and/or how many children others should have)...the world has seen that ideology played out to its bitter end.

 

ZPG is genocide in the egg. It is not an idea that I like to allow to hatch unchallenged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're on the internet more than an hour a day (or I am). Don't judge. :tongue_smilie:

 

But I don't have 19 children! :lol:

 

Seen a picture of Bill the Cat from the old Bloom County cartoon? That would be me if I had 19 kids.

 

I just think it's wrong to have the older ones doing so much parenting of the younger ones. Babysitting, helping out, feeding the baby while mom folds laundry. That's great and instructional and part of being in a family. But day in and day out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

That's right! This is exactly why people should fling statements around. If you aren't sure, either don't say it or make it clear that you aren't sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. Plus, no one even said Michelle has this, right? The person who started saying this said it "sounds like" HELLP, right? So this isn't even an issue unless I am mistaken.

 

Yes, I was the one who brought it up, because I'd read in a couple of accounts that what Michelle had was actually HELLP, because it was so severe. HELLP is rare, but for someone like Michelle, the chances of it are much higher, since she had severe pre-eclampsia, so severe that she had to deliver Josie extremely early. Also, she is missing her gall bladder-that puts more strain on her liver.

 

That doesn't mean she will get it. It means that she has a better-than-decent chance of getting it, since she meets pretty much all the risk factors for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

A lot of people don't believe in birth control or not having sex with your spouse. They answer to God, not to you. You are entitled to your opinions, but that doesn't mean everyone else has to agree/follow them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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:: )

 

 

I was just going to ask how often everyone on here spends INDIVIDUAL time with each of their children. I am with my children all day long everyday unless I go shopping or something. But we are all together. I don't send two away to spend time with one. I teach them individually, so I guess we can count that, lol.

 

I think the individual time idea is a recent one (maybe a little spoiled). I believe in family time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never made the statement that a big family has no consideration for the world. I have said that as a society, we need to either reduce our overall consumption of resources, or reduce our population.

 

And these are basic facts. It is fact that the U.S. consumes a fourth of the world's resources. It is fact that the rate of extinction of species is at a feverish pace, fisheries are decline, drought and flooding and destructive weather are depleting the area of land suitable for growing, and that we are even depleting the resources, such as phosphorous, that we have been using in modern farming to increase production. That is fact.

 

It amazes me that there are people out there who will defy the truth, even as the situation inevitably brings to bear its consequences on our own society and our economy. It's not about being fatalistic or optimistic--it's about being realistic. But it's impossible to have a rational discussion about it whenever making such statements, serves provoke attacks from others in a defensive, "how dare you think that" way. Or, a "you are hateful, you want to kill everybody" response.

 

That's not fair, and that's not reasonable.

 

Again, I totally agree -- esp. w/ the statement, "But it's impossible to have a rational discussion about it whenever making such statements, serves provoke attacks from others in a defensive, "how dare you think that" way. Or, a "you are hateful, you want to kill everybody" response."

 

The level of defensiveness & vitrol & assumption is so completely over-the-top & rude that I'm :confused:.

 

Assuming the world isn't planning to go all 'Star Trek' in the next generation & populate the cosmos, we have a lot of people on one planet. The world population has doubled in the past 50 years. As the population increases, the amount of resources must be shared among more & more people. These seem like pretty basic, true facts, imo. I think these are things people should think about. As humans, I think we should be thinking longer term that we currently seem to be doing. There are no easy answers, nor is there one answer that is correct while all others are wrong. Increasing population is an issue now, though, and will continue to be an issue for many generations to come....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently saw Michelle Duggar speak at a friend's Bible study. She was impressive. A much better speaker than I would have guessed, and I would have guessed that she would have been good. She definitely has it together. A very competent executive personality in my opinion.

 

I'm all for them having as many children as possible. They seem to do a great job with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's something their general parenting style seems to indicate. Like I said, you are free to disagree, but you absolutely will not change my mind about it.

 

I don't think she's lying, I think the article doesn't tell the full story. Several different statements have been made. With as many kids as they have, all of the statements could be true and still conflict. She's conceived 19 times in 23 years. That is unlikely for someone who doesn't nurse at all. Again, I'm not judging their choices, I just don't think they are simply following nature.

 

eta: My mom will tell you that her period returned 8 weeks after birth and she was breastfeeding. But, she absolutely was supplementing with bottles and rice cereal and used pacifiers. She doesn't think that matters. Science says it does. She's not lying, she's sharing her experience as she sees it.

 

I breastfed all three of my children from 12-14 months (they refused bottles even if they had breast milk in them) each and I had a period within two months postpartum each time.

Edited by Jinnah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I have zero debt and no gun. I live in a very frugal, resourceful, and environmentally-conscious manner (except for two of my children, who are replacing a childless couple I know instead of DH and myself). We even recycle. We are low-income, working class people who receive not one thin dime of government aid. We give to many charities and sacrifice for others who are worse off than ourselves. I usually vote Libertarian. You'll have to take me out of that box you assumed I was in when I disagreed with you.

 

I didn't put you into any box, although I maintain that those who generally hold your views and agree with you, would generally be more likely than me to own a gun.

 

You put me into a box--by assuming I would be in favor or espouse something so horrible as mass killings of people.

 

That aside, I think it's awesome you do all those things. My family has a lot in common with yours. We're definitely working class (my dh got laid off a few months ago--so, less emphasis on the working, though I'm still employed thank goodness!). We recycle, live frugally, donate, and try to be non-jerks. ;)

 

Having clarified that, now back to the point:

 

According to my worldview, anytime an elite group makes decisions about reproduction or continuance of life for others who have less access to information and less power, that's a problem. Anytime an elite group sits back and judges who should bear children and who shouldn't (and/or how many children others should have)...the world has seen that ideology played out to its bitter end.

 

ZPG is genocide in the egg. It is not an idea that I like to allow to hatch unchallenged.

 

But, I'm not part of any elite group. I live in a decent two-bedroom apartment in Texas, and don't enjoy any sort of connections of power. I'm the only one in my immediate family who would even vote for a non-Republican.

 

In short, I don't have any special resources. I have the same access to information that you or anyone else here does. But, I can still analyze and recognize trends, apart from any nefarious or sinister ZPG influences. I don't get what you mean by "genocide in the egg." I don't believe that eggs are people. If they were, I'd be guilty of until thousands and thousands of deaths, since I have only ever allowed one of my eggs to be fertilized.

 

I don't believe that giving biology control of how many times I reproduce is either moral, nor responsible. It's definitely not financially feasible for my family. I doubt most people here would appreciate me having several more kids, anyway, since it'd mean I'd have to go on welfare to support them, until dh can find another job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I caught the announcement on the Today Show while making breakfast.

 

They asked her what she's doing to keep fit, since she's 45 now.

 

She said that she works out for an hour on the elliptical just about every day.

 

:001_huh:

 

If I had 20 kids, I wouldn't have time to take a shower or pee, let alone work out for an hour!!

 

Makes me wonder if she's raising the kids or if the siblings are. :glare:

 

So now she doesn't have a right to exercise?! :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll also say this for the Duggars:

 

I live in the area where they live. It's common to see them shopping at the store or attending local events. I've yet to hear a single bad thing about them, and it isn't as though this area doesn't have any gossips. As famous and controversial as they are, I think that speaks volumes. They are exceptionally nice people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly my point!

 

If she were really mothering the kids, she wouldn't have time to spend an hour working out on her elliptical every day.

.

 

 

What? I guess all mothers who find time to exercise are neglecting their kids. Further, many of us here spend more than an hour online per day. I guess we are all bad mothers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, I totally agree -- esp. w/ the statement, "But it's impossible to have a rational discussion about it whenever making such statements, serves provoke attacks from others in a defensive, "how dare you think that" way. Or, a "you are hateful, you want to kill everybody" response."

 

The level of defensiveness & vitrol & assumption is so completely over-the-top & rude that I'm :confused:.

 

Assuming the world isn't planning to go all 'Star Trek' in the next generation & populate the cosmos, we have a lot of people on one planet. The world population has doubled in the past 50 years. As the population increases, the amount of resources must be shared among more & more people. These seem like pretty basic, true facts, imo. I think these are things people should think about. As humans, I think we should be thinking longer term that we currently seem to be doing. There are no easy answers, nor is there one answer that is correct while all others are wrong. Increasing population is an issue now, though, and will continue to be an issue for many generations to come....

 

 

Stacia, I heart your post! Especially about there being no easy answers. There's no easy answer, but we should at least be able to discuss it. :thumbup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What? I guess all mothers who find time to exercise are neglecting their kids. Further, many of us here spend more than an hour online per day. I guess we are all bad mothers.

 

How about those of us who used our exercise time to make chocolate covered cherries instead? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a recent show in which a newsman from Good Morning America visited the family and became a Duggar for a day. He seemed impressed with the kindness of the family and fascinated by the home life. But I thought it extremely interesting when he stated at one point that most parents he knows are cognizant of where their (young) children are and what they are up to all of the time and the Duggar kids are just running wild and free with no supervision. He didn't seem judgmental but just surprised at how little oversight JimBob and Michelle provide.

 

The kids may be happy enough but I am not sure that is entirely the point. JB and Michelle go to bed each night without knowing what a large majority of their children did that day - accomplishments, hurts, how they spent their time in general and I'm not talking about the big kids - the 10 and under crowd. And so, yes, I do think the children are losing out in some way.

 

With that said, there are so many families in this country that are so much more unhealthy in both structure and parenting so I am not necessarily finger pointing that they are failing. However, their family life and parenting choices are not ones I would make for my own children.

 

 

I watched that show and did not hear the guys say what you are saying he said. Did that make sense?

 

As far as the part in bold, did they tell you that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll also say this for the Duggars:

 

I live in the area where they live. It's common to see them shopping at the store or attending local events. I've yet to hear a single bad thing about them, and it isn't as though this area doesn't have any gossips. As famous and controversial as they are, I think that speaks volumes. They are exceptionally nice people.

I don't think anyone would question that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That makes you a terrific mom, if you share them. :D. Of course, I think all chocolate makes me a better mom.

 

Woot! I have attained the "terrfic mom" label for the day. We all indeed did get one to eat.

 

I am now going to bed. Let the "Lord of the Flies" reign for the rest of the day!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't read all of the many pages of posts...skipped around reading here and there.

 

The first thing I thought of after reading this news, is just that it's more work for the older children. She can keep having babies because her children do alot of the "mothering" work for her. I actually feel sad for the older girls who have to take on so much responsibility for their younger siblings. Almost like their own childhood is taken from them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't put you into any box, although I maintain that those who generally hold your views and agree with you, would generally be more likely than me to own a gun.

 

You put me into a box--by assuming I would be in favor or espouse something so horrible as mass killings of people.

 

That aside, I think it's awesome you do all those things. My family has a lot in common with yours. We're definitely working class (my dh got laid off a few months ago--so, less emphasis on the working, though I'm still employed thank goodness!). We recycle, live frugally, donate, and try to be non-jerks. ;)

 

I didn't think you would be 'for' genocide. Certainly my 'polemic' upped the ante, going farther than anything that had been said. I just wanted to point out where I believe that thinking eventually leads. I'm afraid I do believe it is a continuum, not necessarily for an individual but for a society that begins to embrace such ideals.

 

But, I'm not part of any elite group. I live in a decent two-bedroom apartment in Texas, and don't enjoy any sort of connections of power. I'm the only one in my immediate family who would even vote for a non-Republican.

 

In short, I don't have any special resources. I have the same access to information that you or anyone else here does. But, I can still analyze and recognize trends, apart from any nefarious or sinister ZPG influences.

 

Every literate American is part of an elite group because we have access to information, the internet, and free speech. People like us might not have any money or personal political clout, but we can join organizations that do have power. We can make them stronger when we volunteer time, money, or preaching efforts toward the cause. As a matter of fact, that is how ideas grow in the West. Free people band together and drive group thinking, and the 1% (so-called) infuse the ideas that benefit them with huge amounts of cash. (Is my cynical side showing?) That's why words matter. We think we don't have power, but we do.

 

I don't get what you mean by "genocide in the egg." I don't believe that eggs are people. If they were, I'd be guilty of until thousands and thousands of deaths, since I have only ever allowed one of my eggs to be fertilized.

 

Oops, sorry. I was using a bit of a colloquialism, there. To say that ZPG is genocide in the egg is to say that it is the embryonic thought that will grow to something much bigger. Nothing to do with human ovum.

 

I don't believe that giving biology control of how many times I reproduce is either moral, nor responsible. It's definitely not financially feasible for my family. I doubt most people here would appreciate me having several more kids, anyway, since it'd mean I'd have to go on welfare to support them, until dh can find another job.

 

I've obviously reached similar conclusions for myself. We stopped at the number of children we can truly support, and we stopped when my health worsened.

 

Still, I have to believe that judging the reproductive choices of others is the wrong path.

Edited by Tibbie Dunbar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I was the one who brought it up, because I'd read in a couple of accounts that what Michelle had was actually HELLP, because it was so severe. HELLP is rare, but for someone like Michelle, the chances of it are much higher, since she had severe pre-eclampsia, so severe that she had to deliver Josie extremely early. Also, she is missing her gall bladder-that puts more strain on her liver.

 

That doesn't mean she will get it. It means that she has a better-than-decent chance of getting it, since she meets pretty much all the risk factors for it.

 

Do you have links to where you read she had HELLP? I am very active in the "HELLP community" and I have not heard that she had it and if someone of her "status" had HELLP, we would suss that out, lol. Anyway, HELLP isn't a severity of pre-e. It is a variation of pre-e. You can have both or one but HELLP isn't severe pre-e nor do all who have severe pre-e develop HELLP nor do all who develop HELLP have any pre-e. Half of one percent of pregnancies end in HELLP.

 

Many people will have all the risk factors and never develop it. And I can't tell you how many HELLP survivors have gone on to have healthy pregnancies. I have had one and am carefully and prayerfully planning my next.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a recent show in which a newsman from Good Morning America visited the family and became a Duggar for a day. He seemed impressed with the kindness of the family and fascinated by the home life. But I thought it extremely interesting when he stated at one point that most parents he knows are cognizant of where their (young) children are and what they are up to all of the time and the Duggar kids are just running wild and free with no supervision. He didn't seem judgmental but just surprised at how little oversight JimBob and Michelle provide.

 

The kids may be happy enough but I am not sure that is entirely the point. JB and Michelle go to bed each night without knowing what a large majority of their children did that day - accomplishments, hurts, how they spent their time in general and I'm not talking about the big kids - the 10 and under crowd. And so, yes, I do think the children are losing out in some way.

 

With that said, there are so many families in this country that are so much more unhealthy in both structure and parenting so I am not necessarily finger pointing that they are failing. However, their family life and parenting choices are not ones I would make for my own children.

 

You know, that episode is the only Dugger episode I've ever seen, and that comment actually really endeared them to me, whatever I might think about some of their other family choices.

 

The kind of letting kids do their own thing was common in parenting a generation ago, and it was probably good for kids.

 

I was talking to some acquaintances recently and a woman who had recently moved here who had opened up a kids gym. Some of the other moms were recommending it. It was billed a way for kids to get exercise and learn skills when they thought they were just having fun, under direction from trained facilitators. There was a one-way window so parents could "enjoy watching their kids develop".

 

I can't help but think that is a lot weirder than the way the Duggers do things.

Edited by Bluegoat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? :confused: :rolleyes: :glare:

 

Both of my parents are psychologists, so I hear this kind of thing a lot (they diagnose people in line at the grocery store and talk about it in the car, that kind of thing) I just think it's a bit silly.

 

Yes, really. I think it is reasonable to wonder if there is a psychological component involved when a person has an extreme/counter cultural lifestyle. I'd apply that wonder to unschoolers/unparenting types, taking children seriously types, peta members, patriarchy, unassisted birthers, .........

 

Having 20 children is extreme. I believe that, in context of their history, and the company they keep (and have kept), it is reasonable to consider that there are factors involved in the "quiver full" decision that transcend "letting God decide".

 

I've read many stories of people from the movement the Duggars have recently stripped themselves of affiliation with. I find more than a bit of reason to wonder about aspects of mental health.

 

I'm far too busy at a grocery store to worry about Dx people, but I guess it would make my wait in line less boring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I don't have 19 children! :lol:

 

Seen a picture of Bill the Cat from the old Bloom County cartoon? That would be me if I had 19 kids.

 

I just think it's wrong to have the older ones doing so much parenting of the younger ones. Babysitting, helping out, feeding the baby while mom folds laundry. That's great and instructional and part of being in a family. But day in and day out?

 

Well what is the cut off point? If she only had 10 children would she be allowed to exercise 30 minutes a day?

 

Of course if she didn't exercise at all she would be accused of not taking care of herself and increasing the chances of leaving her childrlen motherless.

 

She can't win with the public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...