Wow!! Duggar news :)

[FlyingMOm]

: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 love this. I've always thought it baffling that the same people who will rip the Duggars apart b/c they assume their children don't get enough attention never have a word to say about children in daycare. I know a *few* mothers who truly don't have any other choice but the majority of them do it "for the extras". When I worked daycare I had 2yo's dropped off at 7:00am and picked up at 7pm. I doubt their parents spent more than 90 waking minutes with the child the entire day. And that was more the rule than the exception.

[TXMary2]

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

 

 

Ha, well, you are obviously worse since chocolate covered cherries aren't very nutritional.;):D

[Scarlett]

Ha, well, you are obviously worse since chocolate covered cherries aren't very nutritional.;):D

 

More nutritional than SPAM I think. :D

[Bluegoat]

Re overpopulation:

 

I am not sure that small family size is actually linked to overpopulation effects in a simple way. I think that culturally in the West we have chosen very small families for a lot of other reasons, but a lot of them come down to the ability to persue wealth individually, or production and economic growth on a national level. That is, we have few children because our social set up makes it hard for two parents to work outside the home with many kids; because our leaders (gov. and business) understand success and a healthy society in terms of GDP and so want as many adults working as possible; because we have become used to a very high standard of living; because our bizarre approach to education means we will have to pay out serious money to qualify our kids for jobs.

 

Wanting to be careful of overpopulation is, IMO, reasonable, both on a local and worldwide level. But I think part of the reason we see growth less than replacement in the West, and too much growth in other places, is because neither is functioning as a healthy community. One is addicted to material wealth and stealing it from the other, and those people are in a position where choosing fewer children is difficult or undesirable.

 

I tend to think that if we were all living in a way more directly tied to making our own living, in really locally living communities, we would see much more reasonable family sizes everywhere.

[Joanne]

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.

 

But she's there (in the public) by choice.

[Aelwydd]

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.

 

I don't buy the "slippery slope" fallacy. If I did, my two choices would be death of untold millions from starvation and disease, due to the eventual collapse of the environment from a burgeoning population, or systematic genocide.

 

I think there's definitely a middle ground there, and it's attainable through education, and by a responsible approach to the consumption and use of resources, both at the level of the individual, as well as society as a whole.

 

That doesn't mean that every individual family embraces the same practice. A family of six may be quite sustainable, based on the choices they make in terms of food, housing, feeding, etc. They may choose to forego some things (eating out 4 times a week), in favor of others (grow their own vegetable garden, use renewable energy to heat their home (to reduce the use of oil, which may in turn be used for things like plastics).

 

And overall, that each person takes responsibility for the way they live and consume.

 

 

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 agree that words matter. That's why I'm trying to be very clear about what I believe, and what I don't believe. I'm not particularly suited to be the parent of many kids, so I feel that my restraint from having that second (or third) child balances out the parent who does choose. Nobody made me, or had to convince me, to stop. It's a choice my dh and I arrived at, based upon what we know and perceive about the world.

 

So, it's not about trying to control people, but about ensuring that they have full disclosure, and all the facts, so they can make informed choices. I believe that if most people in the world were able to perceive the difficulties facing all of us, and if they had the power to make such a choice, that a majority of them would take steps of their own volition to try to bring about a better outcome down the road.

 

But that won't happen, so long as the discussion gets tripped up in angry accusations about whether or not we should even talk about these problems.

 

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'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.

 

Many women in the world don't even have a choice about how many kids they will have, and when. That's a harsh fact, and one that makes me very thankful to be in a place, where I do have that power of choice.

 

I don't simply judge a family based on its size. There are many, many small families out there that are extremely wasteful. Of the reasons I've listed for why I object to the Duggars, none of them have been ecological impact. In this case, my objection lies with the emotional dynamics of the family (as I've been engaging in a separate debate on in this same thread).

 

This debate about world population arose from another poster's observation, and I threw my lot in with my opinions on the subject. If the Duggars tried to tell everyone to have a family as large as theirs, then I would find that irresponsible. But they don't do that, and it's a good thing, because I don't think that having a large portion of the population have several kids is helpful.

[hsmamainva]

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.

 

:iagree: Exactly my point.

 

Free child labor.

[Scarlett]

But she's there (in the public) by choice.

 

Not my point. My point is no matter what she does someone is bound to judge her.

[Guest]

I love this. I've always thought it baffling that the same people who will rip the Duggars apart b/c they assume their children don't get enough attention never have a word to say about children in daycare. I know a *few* mothers who truly don't have any other choice but the majority of them do it "for the extras". When I worked daycare I had 2yo's dropped off at 7:00am and picked up at 7pm. I doubt their parents spent more than 90 waking minutes with the child the entire day. And that was more the rule than the exception.

 

Same here. I used to work as an aid (and then I got a job as a teacher) and I saw just how long those poor kids were left in daycare. Their parents rarely saw them. One baby was left in a crib all day, too, so when I was hired and realized what was going on, I had to step in.

 

The Duggars see their kids way more than these parents see theirs and a lot more than most public schoolers do.

[Aelwydd]

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.

 

 

Did you have HELLP? I had a friend in PA who had it when she was pregnant with her daughter. Her daughter had to be delivered at 24 weeks--and she survived! It nearly killed my friend though, because her liver had almost completely shut down. She can't have anymore children because of how serious it was.

 

I will definitely go looking for those articles! I had wondered if that was what she had, due to how urgent the situation was. Give me some time though, because I'm about to go to a doctor appointment, and I won't be back on for several hours.

[Scarlett]

Same here. I used to work as an aid (and then I got a job as a teacher) and I saw just how long those poor kids were left in daycare. Their parents rarely saw them. One baby was left in a crib all day, too, so when I was hired and realized what was going on, I had to step in.

 

The Duggars see their kids way more than these parents see theirs and a lot more than most public schoolers do.

 

I agree. And I also don't understand all of this outrage at the older kids helping so much. They don't look unhappy to me. My mom was the oldest of 6 and she helped with the youngest 3 A LOT. She isn't and never was unhappy about it. In fact, I think kids NEED to feel helpful---it makes them part of a bigger 'thing' and takes the focus off themselves--in a world full of selfish people I thinking helping others from a young age is a good thing.

 

As a side note, my ds11 (an only child) had the MOST wonderful time helping my friend with 3 kids this past weekend. She is staying in my parents guest house and he was with my parents all weekend (dh and I were on a weekend trip for our anniversary). The kids are 10 months, 4 and 6. He carted the baby around ALL weekend and kept up with the 4 year old a lot too. He loved it and missed them almost as soon as we picked him up.

[Aelwydd]

Not my point. My point is no matter what she does someone is bound to judge her.

 

Can't speak for Joanne, but judgment is just another word for valuation. Unless people stop having preferences, feelings, and opinions, then yes, everyone is bound to judge her.

 

Some judge her to be a very nice person, great mom, and example for other big family parents. Others judge her to be a nice person, but lacking in certain aspects. Still some judge her to be selfish, or self-centered, and take issue with pretty much all of her choices.

 

If Michelle ever finds public scrutiny to be too much, she can stop participating in the ritual exposure of her family life to outside eyes.

[Scarlett]

Can't speak for Joanne, but judgment is just another word for valuation. Unless people stop having preferences, feelings, and opinions, then yes, everyone is bound to judge her.

 

Some judge her to be a very nice person, great mom, and example for other big family parents. Others judge her to be a nice person, but lacking in certain aspects. Still some judge her to be selfish, or self-centered, and take issue with pretty much all of her choices.

 

If Michelle ever finds public scrutiny to be too much, she can stop participating in the ritual exposure of her family life to outside eyes.

 

Long before they had a tv show they were judged. Or valued. So it isn't just the show.

 

And of course I was using 'judged' in the negative sense. Very specifically about the exercise issue. She says she exercises an hour a day. Some posters were all GASP 'she doesn't have time to exercise!' I said if she didn't exercise there would be those saying, 'she should take better care of herself!' So yeah, I think those two extremes about something so simple as an hour a day of exercise shows that they just can't win. Darned if they do and darned if they don't. Fortunately, they don't need our approval either way. I just find it interesting.

[Nakia]

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.

 

I do understand your point. To be clear, I don't really care what the Duggars do. That's between them and God. If she wants to put her life at risk to have another baby, then that's her business. She can have 20 more for all I care. I don't really even get why people get so fired up about them.

 

Personally, if I were in her shoes, I would not have another baby. In my opinion, there is a huge difference between not having children because you MIGHT die while they are small (in a car wreck, for example) and choosing not to have children because you are at risk for serious medical complications that could kill you and/or your baby.

 

Anyway, in my post that you quoted, I was specifically speaking to a pp's opinion that being left motherless isn't the worst thing in the world. It might not seem that way to some, but to a child, there is probably nothing worse. I was just speaking about my husband's personal experience. I left this part out of my pp, but my dh's mother chose not to have any breast cancer treatment, and she died a horrific death with my dh at her side. So there is a certain amount of " blame" on her that he guiltily carries. He doesn't understand why she didn't try to live for him. This is intensely personal and since it is his story, I won't share more. But I have seen the damage this kind of thing can cause.

[Joanne]

I love this. I've always thought it baffling that the same people who will rip the Duggars apart b/c they assume their children don't get enough attention never have a word to say about children in daycare. I know a *few* mothers who truly don't have any other choice but the majority of them do it "for the extras". When I worked daycare I had 2yo's dropped off at 7:00am and picked up at 7pm. I doubt their parents spent more than 90 waking minutes with the child the entire day. And that was more the rule than the exception.

 

The ratios of adults to children are *better* in (compliant with state codes) daycares than the Duggar family.

 

Just sayin.

[SweetMissMagnolia]

I was hoping for a wedding too LOL....but will take a baby---have watched their show for years......

[Jennifer3141]

Not my point. My point is no matter what she does someone is bound to judge her.

 

Which is the price you pay when you invite reality TV into your life.

 

Or post about your life extensively on an internet message board. :)

[Scarlett]

Which is the price you pay when you invite reality TV into your life.

 

Or post about your life extensively on an internet message board. :)

 

Hmpf.

[Joanne]

Which is the price you pay when you invite reality TV into your life.

 

Or post about your life extensively on an internet message board. :)

 

 

Guilty as charged.:D

 

However, my point about the Duggars is that they make their *living* (in part) by this. It is a CHOICE to expose their lives to the public, and rely on viewers. The cries of their fan(atics) that "it is between them and God" or we "shouldn't judge" or other nonsense is that the Duggars engage with and rely on the public; they don't get the protection of positive only feedback.

[Nakia]

Which is the price you pay when you invite reality TV into your life.

 

Or post about your life extensively on an internet message board. :)

 

LOL, true story.

[Jennifer3141]

Hmpf.

 

I love you, grumpy pants!!! :lol::lol::lol:

[Scarlett]

I love you, grumpy pants!!! :lol::lol::lol:

 

:lol: Yeah, but if you will notice most of my threads with a lot of details about my life get deleted. So there.

[Scarlett]

Guilty as charged.:D

 

However, my point about the Duggars is that they make their *living* (in part) by this. It is a CHOICE to expose their lives to the public, and rely on viewers. The cries of their fan(atics) that "it is between them and God" or we "shouldn't judge" or other nonsense is that the Duggars engage with and rely on the public; they don't get the protection of positive only feedback.

 

Well, this is true. All the controversy keeps the viewers coming back.

[PeacefulChaos]

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

I agree, especially with the bolded. People can try to judge them as much as they want to, or try to be as logical as they want to (regarding her health, her age, they already have so many kids, etc) but that's not the point for them. So it really doesn't matter what anyone thinks. They are doing what they believe God wants from them.

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

:iagree:

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

 

The overpopulation thing is unimportant to me. Lots of people don't have many kids. Most people only have 2-4, right? So who cares? And who in the world can DARE to make requirements on how many children anyone should have except themselves?? :001_huh: The thought just shocks me.

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:

 

Thank you. I wasn't aware I had too many dc until you just now pointed it out to me. (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:: )

 

Wow! That's extremely uncharitable!

 

 

 

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.

:iagree:

I don't see anything wrong the once a week statement. TBH, most people I know don't even do that - and they don't have 19 kids.

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

 

 

 

 

 

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....

I wholeheartedly disagree.

 

No, it's the impression I'm given based on their own language about keeping hold of their "children's hearts."

 

I'm the product a conservative, evangelical upbringing. That language, referring to "keeping one's heart," is code for "ensuring no deviation of mind or emotion from the truth as laid before you." It means to remain firmly entrenched in one's belief.

 

That's why I believe their effort is more geared toward ensuring orthodox thinking and belief, than towards nurturing and fostering any emotional bond.

To me, keeping our children's hearts (whatever the wording was) does NOT mean any sort of indoctrination or anything like that. Being a Christian family, we know it is our job to guard our hearts - and we also believe that we should guard our children's hearts, as well, and make sure that they are tended to and taken care of. To me it is 100% a statement on making sure that they are thriving and that we are doing everything we can for them. Not something else.

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.

 

:iagree: bolded especially.

 

I have 3 children. I won't be giving birth to any more. We knew 3 was it for us, before we had any. However, we may still adopt (which still would not be us making the population any larger). Part of me would have as many children as humanly possible. But that isn't something that is for us - we don't have anything against birth control and the like, and so therefore have had our family the way we feel God wanted us to. Not trying to be over-spiritual for those who don't believe the same, it's just a fact. If God wanted us to have more kids, then we would.

So no, having 20 kids isn't for me for several reasons, the toll on my body and finances and the way I want to live my life being the main things! But not everyone has the same views or beliefs, and I can respect that. As others here have said, they are being responsible with their children, and are supporting them well, raising them well, etc.

I have no idea what the 'quiverfull' movement or patriarchal movement are, so I don't even know what the posts referring to those are talking about.

I hope everything goes well through this pregnancy for them. :)

Edited November 8, 2011 by PeacefulChaos

[Jennifer3141]

:lol: Yeah, but if you will notice most of my threads with a lot of details about my life get deleted. So there.

 

But we remember! Oh, do we remember!!! <insert evil giggle here>

 

P.S. PM me someday and tell me how your friend who's in the process of getting rid of her evil husband is doing. ;)

[Bluegoat]

The ratios of adults to children are *better* in (compliant with state codes) daycares than the Duggar family.

 

Just sayin.

 

A daycare is not the same as a family, even a big one. Daycare's typically have horrendous staff turnover, for example, in North America. It's composed of many small kids and adults, with none in between. And the caretakers, even dedicated ones, are not people who are going to be in your life in the long-term.

[Myeightkiddies]

Families, having more than one child, how ludicrous!

 

Oh wait... :tongue_smilie:

[Murphy101]

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.

 

But NO ONE, including the Duggars, have said they believe that! Your posts are based almost entirely on speculation and presumption! If you don't want to live like them - fine. Great! But to make negative presumptions about their reasons, expectations, or emotions is just nonsensical to me.

 

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.

 

Nature taking its course means accepting that sex can cause pregnancy and being okay with that or not having sex. Just because your bar for what constitutes too much risk is lower than her's doesn't make her foolish.

 

Nevermind that thousands of people get pregnant while on birth control every year.

 

:iagree: I followed them from their first special, and on their first website that hosted links to terribly punitive sites. They did use pacifiers, spaced nursing, and other interventions that hastened fertility. They've chosen to sanitize their brand Duggar from identifying markers of the QF movement, but their history is still their history.

 

:001_huh: so what? What about your history? You haven't made any effort in your life to sanitize the crap out and keep the good? Every parent does that! And thank goodness. I know I'm not the same mother I was 17 years ago.

 

And the vast majority of women use pacifers and such for reasons that have nothing to do with trying to hasten fertility.

 

Guilty as charged.:D

 

However, my point about the Duggars is that they make their *living* (in part) by this. It is a CHOICE to expose their lives to the public, and rely on viewers. The cries of their fan(atics) that "it is between them and God" or we "shouldn't judge" or other nonsense is that the Duggars engage with and rely on the public; they don't get the protection of positive only feedback.

 

Sure people are going to have opinions and likes or dislikes and they are welcome to their opinions.

 

I personally would never put my life on camera like that and I certainly would never allow my kids to be on camera like that.

 

But the truth is no matter what she does or doesn't do, someone is going to think something negative about it.

 

And none of it matters.

 

Bottomline is her kids seem to be turning out just fine. So whether it is as much attention as whoever thinks or not - it is obviously enough to get the job done better than many people with fewer kids. Same goes for what she knows abut the kids and all else. It might not be how some of us would do it - but it is obviously working for her kids, so whatever she is doing must be good enough for them.

[Scarlett]

But we remember! Oh, do we remember!!! <insert evil giggle here>

 

P.S. PM me someday and tell me how your friend who's in the process of getting rid of her evil husband is doing. ;)

 

You've got mail. ;)

[Veritaserum]

Really? This whole thread is a personal slam against those that have more than the acceptable amount of children.

 

As the mother of five with one on the way, I don't see the slamming. :confused: What I see is a desire that we (collectively, large and small families alike) wake up and take better care of our resources.

[TravelingChris]

Unlike Martha said, I do think I am difficult to replace in my family. I didn't lose a mother that early (23) but my father died when I had just turned 13 and that was extremely hard for me. I have ordered my life in a way to try to preserve my life until at least my youngest is in college. That has meant not taking some medications that are somewhat more dangerous and being extra vigilant about my health which is already somewhat compromised. So, no, I wouldn't be having a child after the problems she experienced with the 19th. But obviously she has different ideas.

 

With regards to overpopulation, one hostage taker went to the Discovery TV headquarters in suburban DC last September and part of his rant was against the show and that more people should die to save the environment. He called for a show to talk about what he termed 'parasitic infants'. He was shot dead by the police.