The Duggar Family

[Aymerlu 3]

What I don't get is that the mom told us herself that her doctor tells her NOT to have any more babies because it's making her uterus very thin and she could rupture her uterus.

God's will?

God needs to give her the will to stop while she's ahead.

or at the least, god can keep her legs together.

Obviously she can't do that Charles

[Miranda&James 8]

Well, I still must say I vehemently disagree with a lot of what people are saying and find it highly disrespectful and immature. They seem to be responsible, good people to me bringing up GOOD children (yes, children will rebel, that is life, but at least they are trying to teach their children to be good people) that may actually do something good in the world. They have love and respect for one another and is that not something that seems to be missing in so much that is currently on tv and in so many families? Whether or not you agree with their reproductive choices, I cannot see anything offensive or negative about their show and so what if they make money from it - good for them, they believe their beliefs strongly and maybe they see this as a way to share them and if they financially benefit then that is a smart financial choice for them. I kind of doubt they set out on their journey to have 17 children thinking they can get a tv show out of it. If you don't like them or disagree with them then you have every right to not watch the show or watch it and not agree with them but I certainly cannot see any harm or negativity in what they, specifically, are doing or see why they deserve such vitriol.

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

Well, I still must say I vehemently disagree with a lot of what people are saying and find it highly disrespectful and immature. They seem to be responsible, good people to me bringing up GOOD children (yes, children will rebel, that is life, but at least they are trying to teach their children to be good people) that may actually do something good in the world. They have love and respect for one another and is that not something that seems to be missing in so much that is currently on tv and in so many families? Whether or not you agree with their reproductive choices, I cannot see anything offensive or negative about their show and so what if they make money from it - good for them, they believe their beliefs strongly and maybe they see this as a way to share them and if they financially benefit then that is a smart financial choice for them. I kind of doubt they set out on their journey to have 17 children thinking they can get a tv show out of it. If you don't like them or disagree with them then you have every right to not watch the show or watch it and not agree with them but I certainly cannot see any harm or negativity in what they, specifically, are doing or see why they deserve such vitriol.

I find it highly offensive that they choose to procreate like fools while half the world is starving to death.

[Peikko 1,575]

No, they don't deserve vitriol, no one does. However, to not recognise what's wrong with the picture they present to the world, however nice they may be as people or individuals, is to be niave. Their way of life is based on restrictive practices, however benevolent the chains are. Maybe some accept this patriarchal family model without a qualm because oh, they are only following christian dogma, but personally I find it repugnant and highly retrospective.

[Donna A 4]

i just dont understand how they can afford them plus a 6,000 sq. foot house. i see how she takes care of them..they take care of eachother is how that works.

[Miranda&James 8]

Well, I still must say I vehemently disagree with a lot of what people are saying and find it highly disrespectful and immature. They seem to be responsible, good people to me bringing up GOOD children (yes, children will rebel, that is life, but at least they are trying to teach their children to be good people) that may actually do something good in the world. They have love and respect for one another and is that not something that seems to be missing in so much that is currently on tv and in so many families? Whether or not you agree with their reproductive choices, I cannot see anything offensive or negative about their show and so what if they make money from it - good for them, they believe their beliefs strongly and maybe they see this as a way to share them and if they financially benefit then that is a smart financial choice for them. I kind of doubt they set out on their journey to have 17 children thinking they can get a tv show out of it. If you don't like them or disagree with them then you have every right to not watch the show or watch it and not agree with them but I certainly cannot see any harm or negativity in what they, specifically, are doing or see why they deserve such vitriol.

I find it highly offensive that they choose to procreate like fools while half the world is starving to death.

What, so we should stop having children in our country? Should we be like China and say people have only 1 child? Should we lower our standard of living and have a world where everyone gets an equal amount? I think they've tried that before and it didn't exactly work out. Reality is things will never be equal, they chose to have above the normal average of children and are NOT on welfare, are NOT in debt, and are raising responsible members of society. We have plenty of families that have 1 child and cannot support that single child and are on welfare so I think the preaching should be done to them and tell them to not have children they can support, not a family that actually ensured that it could support the children it created. I mean, honestly, this is ONE FREAKING FAMILY. How are there 17 children doing anything. It isn't like the whole USA is seeing them on tv and thinking oh man that is a great idea.

[Miranda&James 8]

No, they don't deserve vitriol, no one does. However, to not recognise what's wrong with the picture they present to the world, however nice they may be as people or individuals, is to be niave. Their way of life is based on restrictive practices, however benevolent the chains are. Maybe some accept this patriarchal family model without a qualm because oh, they are only following christian dogma, but personally I find it repugnant and highly retrospective.

Then you have the wonderful option of not subscribing to that dogma, just like everyone else. They believe that way, it works for them and they are happy, so finding them highly repugnant seems a bit silly when they are happy in their beliefs and not harming anyone along the way, merely sharing these beliefs on tv where people can choose to agree or disagree. I think if you did a bit of research you would find that these practices aren't exactly as restrictive as they may appear on the surface - the main idea of the submissive wife also goes along with the idea that the husband equally respects the wife and is willing to lay down his life for her. It is naive to think that people should automatically disagree with them - you might, and that is fine, but people can belief whatever what they choose and I think that if someone has taken the time to think about their beliefs and research what is behind them that they are not being naive, regardless of what you personally think about them.

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

What, so we should stop having children in our country? Should we be like China and say people have only 1 child? Should we lower our standard of living and have a world where everyone gets an equal amount? I think they've tried that before and it didn't exactly work out. Reality is things will never be equal, they chose to have above the normal average of children and are NOT on welfare, are NOT in debt, and are raising responsible members of society. We have plenty of families that have 1 child and cannot support that single child and are on welfare so I think the preaching should be done to them and tell them to not have children they can support, not a family that actually ensured that it could support the children it created. I mean, honestly, this is ONE FREAKING FAMILY. How are there 17 children doing anything. It isn't like the whole USA is seeing them on tv and thinking oh man that is a great idea.

Did I say or even imply any of that? Big fat no.

I have just evolved to a point where I realize that the good of the whole must be a serious consideration. Again, I'm not saying that they can't have 17 kids, I just think they're senseless for doing it.

How about they have 3 kids of their own and adopt 14 orphans? I think that is a much more godly response.

[Amby 490]

There's a lady who lives one street over from us in England that kept having children as the others turned 16 or 18 so she could continue getting money from the government and not work. Last we knew she had 15 kids. I agree with the person above in that AT LEAST they're not expecting us to pay for their children.

What, so we should stop having children in our country? Should we be like China and say people have only 1 child? Should we lower our standard of living and have a world where everyone gets an equal amount? I think they've tried that before and it didn't exactly work out. Reality is things will never be equal, they chose to have above the normal average of children and are NOT on welfare, are NOT in debt, and are raising responsible members of society. We have plenty of families that have 1 child and cannot support that single child and are on welfare so I think the preaching should be done to them and tell them to not have children they can support, not a family that actually ensured that it could support the children it created. I mean, honestly, this is ONE FREAKING FAMILY. How are there 17 children doing anything. It isn't like the whole USA is seeing them on tv and thinking oh man that is a great idea.

Did I say or even imply any of that? Big fat no.

I have just evolved to a point where I realize that the good of the whole must be a serious consideration. Again, I'm not saying that they can't have 17 kids, I just think they're senseless for doing it.

How about they have 3 kids of their own and adopt 14 orphans? I think that is a much more godly response.

I agree I would rather adopt kids that people don't want than have more of my own. There's so many kids out there that need families. Then again, adoption is quite expensive maybe they couldn't afford to adopt that many children and take care of them. I think if they wanted to do that their church would raise money for them. That's how my friend adopted a baby from ethiopia

[one...two...tree 2,762]

They increase the overall world demand for food, where the supply isn't even capable of meeting current demands.

That's a complete falsehood.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

i just dont understand how they can afford them plus a 6,000 sq. foot house. i see how she takes care of them..they take care of eachother is how that works.

The article says that they own several properties and the dad made a run for US Senate.

I'm guessing they're not short of a bob or two.

They increase the overall world demand for food, where the supply isn't even capable of meeting current demands.

That's a complete falsehood.

Yeah I can't see that either to be honest. If they can afford the kids - then where's the problem?

[Miranda&James 8]

What, so we should stop having children in our country? Should we be like China and say people have only 1 child? Should we lower our standard of living and have a world where everyone gets an equal amount? I think they've tried that before and it didn't exactly work out. Reality is things will never be equal, they chose to have above the normal average of children and are NOT on welfare, are NOT in debt, and are raising responsible members of society. We have plenty of families that have 1 child and cannot support that single child and are on welfare so I think the preaching should be done to them and tell them to not have children they can support, not a family that actually ensured that it could support the children it created. I mean, honestly, this is ONE FREAKING FAMILY. How are there 17 children doing anything. It isn't like the whole USA is seeing them on tv and thinking oh man that is a great idea.

Did I say or even imply any of that? Big fat no.

I have just evolved to a point where I realize that the good of the whole must be a serious consideration. Again, I'm not saying that they can't have 17 kids, I just think they're senseless for doing it.

How about they have 3 kids of their own and adopt 14 orphans? I think that is a much more godly response.

Well, you certainly gave the impression that there was some arbitrary number that must exist in your mind at which point having children above that number is senseless. Adopting children is great, no arguments, but I think that if you are looking at the whole as you mentioned their individual family means nothing in the scheme of things - they are a rarity and they support themselves fully, so at least they are an example of someone who has a belief system (no contraception) but also ensures that they can support those children. Who knows, maybe they will adopt.

[Miranda&James 8]

They increase the overall world demand for food, where the supply isn't even capable of meeting current demands.

That's a complete falsehood.

Yeah, I mean, I think there are enough people in the world that are not having children that the entire thing balances itself out in the end and using their case specifically is not logical - they are one family and one of very few families that has multiple children. The fact is that people will always have sex and there will always be people that are poor - it's been like that I'm fairly sure since the dawn of civilization, so blaming the lack of food supply on one family doesn't really work.

i just dont understand how they can afford them plus a 6,000 sq. foot house. i see how she takes care of them..they take care of eachother is how that works.

The article says that they own several properties and the dad made a run for US Senate.

I'm guessing they're not short of a bob or two.

They also say that they are very frugal - they buy from secondhand stores (which often support the poor, so hey, they are doing good for society) and I'm sure don't go out for steak dinners and only buy things they can afford. They say they have zero debt and paid for everything in that house up front.

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

Well, you certainly gave the impression that there was some arbitrary number that must exist in your mind at which point having children above that number is senseless. Adopting children is great, no arguments, but I think that if you are looking at the whole as you mentioned their individual family means nothing in the scheme of things - they are a rarity and they support themselves fully, so at least they are an example of someone who has a belief system (no contraception) but also ensures that they can support those children. Who knows, maybe they will adopt.

They do mean something in the scheme of things. Everyone does. So do the axolotls. Everything matters in the grand scheme.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

They increase the overall world demand for food, where the supply isn't even capable of meeting current demands.

That's a complete falsehood.

Yeah, I mean, I think there are enough people in the world that are not having children that the entire thing balances itself out in the end and using their case specifically is not logical - they are one family and one of very few families that has multiple children. The fact is that people will always have sex and there will always be people that are poor - it's been like that I'm fairly sure since the dawn of civilization, so blaming the lack of food supply on one family doesn't really work.

It might be a more valid point in relation to some 3rd world countries where people don't have enough food to feed themselves as is, but then you've also got to imagine that in countries like that people have more children because they don't anticipate all of them to survive into adulthood. Isn't this the reason people in the US used to have similarly large families (5, 6, 7 children etc)?