19 Kids And Counting (How High?)

Having a few more kids than the average seems fine, to me. Having a few more ~times~ the average? It's a wee bit much.

As someone who might some day be a parent, cost factors alone come into that decision: medical, education, clothing. Add in the emotional contributions, and I just don't see how I would be able to "give my all" to that many of my own children at once.

Well, I don't know anything about them beyond this post and the linked article. From what I can tell the parents are raising the kids well, they all seem to have some sort of musical instrument (doesn't matter if they have talent or not, being able to play is great) and the parents seem well-off so I think the large family is fine. Maybe a little freaky for my tastes, but whatever floats their boat (or in this case whatever floats their cruise ship- I wonder if they have a Julie on their Love Boat).

The only thing that DOES concern me is that the mother was surprised at the latest pregnancy. It's pretty obvious they do not use birth control. At this point the older she gets the more likely there will be complications. She has been blessed so far, but that won't last.

I can't help but wonder about the woman who married the oldest son and is about to have her first baby. Is she expecting to have a brood just as large? Can you imagine being a girlfriend to one of the guys? I'd be scared to death that I would be expected to have a large flock. If each of the kids has 19 kids that's 361 children. What a family reunion.

Anyway, such a large family is not for me but I wish them well.

Is it any of our business as long as they pay their own way?

Just remember one thing - I love everyone.

What a magnificent family, and, I will lay you any odds you wish that NONE of these kids turn out gay or lesbian.

The Duggars belong to the quiverfull movement, a Christian movement which believes they need to have as many children as possible, the reason being that more Christians being born will influence society when Christians dominate the population.

What a bizarre thing to say. As a parent, I'm worried about a lot of things my kids do. The person they end up being attracted to sexually and spending their life with is, of course, one of them...but the gender of that person is just not a big concern for me. I'm more worried about the quality of their character than how their plumbing operates.

@@Is it any of our business as long as they pay their own way?@@

dunno---you describe yourself as a socialist in a thread below, but if this is your kind of socialism.......where do I sign up?

Ordinarily, none of our business how large a family a couple chooses to have...except for in this case, they chose to put the family on a reality TV show. That part bothers me a lot more than the size of the family.

Duggar gets more back in tax credits for those kids than he makes in salary-Welfare!!!!!

I have a lot of problems with the quiverfull mind set, mostly in the way women are treated. I guess if this woman has chosen this sort of life and is happy with it (makes no sense to me, but different strokes 'n all), I certainly don't feel I can judge her for it. My personal feelings aside, I do recognize her own agency in her life. I feel sorry for the children, though, particularly the girls, who will grow up seeing their lives as worthy only in how well they serve the men of the house and in how many Christian soldiers they can grow in their womb.

"I will lay you any odds you wish that NONE of these kids turn out gay or lesbian."

All gay, all the time from you, dude. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'm sure: why are you so obsessed with gay people? How do you get anything about "gay" from this post? Get help.

Since we're on the topic though: I will lay odds that if one or more of these 19 are gay, they would run away and fake their death before ever admitting it to anyone. Something tells me that a quiverfull family is not the most conducive place toward following one's own path...

The celebrity or tabloid aspect of it is what is disgusting, as well as the whiff of anti-children radicalism here.

"if this is your kind of socialism ... where do I sign up?"

[chuckle] State Stud Farm

DLS wrote:

The celebrity or tabloid aspect of it is what is disgusting, as well as the whiff of anti-children radicalism here.

Far from it, actually. I adore children; that doesn't mean that I want to try to repopulate the earth within two family generations. Moderation. It's a good thing.

What a bizarre attitude, because gay/lesbian is not a gender. It is an abnormality. I certainly would not wish an abnormality on any child.

Oh, I bet you at LEAST one turn out to be gay!

"to try to repopulate the earth ... "

That is hyperbole. But it's not as bad as some "child-free" activism I've encountered (you can draw reasonable and predictable inferences from the term itself), as well as the long-discredited kinds of "population explosion" folks who "blame" the West for overgrowth, gluttonous lifestyle, etc. (And added to that is typical liberal or Democratic dislike of often-family-oriented GOP and religious conservatives.)

roro80

--[run away and fake their death]--

gays are not born they are made. 74% by sex abuse as a child. Some simply from parents were the father is emotionally detached or rejects the child and the mother generally overbearing. There is no "gay gene" or natural tendency. You are correct if you are assuming that suicide is very high among gay/lesbian people, because it sadly is. There is no indication or reasoning that giving into the gay rights activists political demands will change that sad fact at all. It’s not a matter of social acceptance it’s a matter of self acceptance. Social tolerance has already long past occurred, but suicide rates among gay people has not decreased.

My point here being that large loving families are statistically far less prone to producing gay or lesbian people.

Thanks for all the comments folks !

I would like to make it clear that I never suggested anyone should have the power to control how many kids this family has, merely that it was a subject for interesting discussion.

My main issues with the situation are 1) that they can't possibly give all of the kids sufficient attention, there is no way kid #19 gets as much care from Mom and Dad as kid #1. Remember she will have spent almost 12 years of her marriage pregnant, and as amazing as Mom's are the fact is that pregnancy is a major physical and emotional burden on a person and I can't see how she can care for these kids properly. and 2) that they force these kids to grow up on TV. Imagine being a young child or an awkward teenager and having the whole world watching.

Having said that it does seem they have raised a group of pretty amazing kids, and if it does indeed work for them then it's certainly not my place to say otherwise. But we have many years to see how well these kids will grow up. Josh (the oldest) has already said he doesn't plan to have as many kids, and I suspect part of that stems from his own upbringing (this doesn't mean he won't have a big family, just not as big).

And even if it does work for this family, the fact is for most large families (say over 10) this situation would be a disaster and that is I think the broader topic to consider. Not just if it works for them, but the broader issue of other families. Indeed I think the Duggar's themselves have said they don't know that it will work for most families.

But please continue the discussion, I find all this input interesting

"I feel sorry for the children, though, particularly the girls, who will grow up seeing their lives as worthy only in how well they serve the men of the house and in how many Christian soldiers they can grow in their womb."

Just before that, you said you recognize her agency and can't judge her for it. So which is it? Can adults come to their own decisions about what they value in life? What's the problem if this girls decide that they value having a lot of children (as for "serving the men", I don't see any reason to assume that's what's going on)?

1) I'm the youngest of 6 (yes, a lot fewer than 19 but more than most families). I think the experience of the youngest is certainly different that the experience of the oldest, but I wouldn't say that's it's a worse deal. The younger ones probably do get less attention than the older ones from their parents, but they also have benefits: they have more siblings to interact with than the older children did (and some would say that child to child interaction is important), and when they are older they will get the individual attention from their parents. Even though I was the youngest of 6, most of the time that I remember it was just me and my brother because the older ones had moved out. You could say that the older one's get a rough deal because when they are teenagers, mom and dad are fully occupied with the younger kids.

Anyway, bottom line is for me, there is a difference between the younger kids and the older kids, but it's not that one has it better than the other.

2) Yes, I agree putting your family on TV is questionable. At least it seems the whole duggar family is OK with it and it doesn't get too personal. At least on the surface they seem to have their act together. I worry a bit about the kids on Jon and Kate, however. They're already going through very personal issues with the whole world watching.

"Gays are not born they are made."

You may well be right, but I'm not sure what you're hoping to see happen. The "gay rights activists' political demands" are mostly harmless, and the ones that aren't can be opposed on basis of the harm they'd do, not on whether gays are "made" or "abnormal" or some other mean-spirited term.

What a bizarre attitude, because gay/lesbian is not a gender. It is an abnormality. I certainly would not wish an abnormality on any child.

Well, first of all, what exactly do you mean by "abnormality?"

Yo-Yo Ma's talent with a cello is abnormal. I wouldn't mind that for any of my kids. Nor Brett Favre's athleticism (despite the recent cheap shot). It would be kind of cool if my kid was an abnormally wonderful singer.

The thing is that we are all abnormal in at least one way. That's just the sad state of the human condition. "Normal" is a false average of various characteristics. No one, anywhere, should aspire to be normal. Be exceptional. Be wonderful. Be better than the crowd around you.

Secondly, who ever claimed for an instant that being gay was/is a gender? I've heard it referred to as a lifestyle or a choice, but that claim makes an abnormally small amount of sense. A gay male's gender is still male. A gay female's gender is still female. They may identify more strongly with the gender roles of the opposite sex, but that's another lesson entirely. There are some whose identity with the opposite gender is so strong that they seek surgical alteration to correct the body in which they live - they are called "transgendered." Perhaps that is what you mean? I don't know.

I have a sneaking suspicion that what you really mean is that homosexuality is "wrong" - which implies a moral judgment. You're entitled to your opinion on that, but you aren't going to get me to go along with it. (The God I worship is big enough to love humans no matter what other humans they happen to love. I'm sorry if yours isn't. There are few things sadder in life than a person who worships a small God. Of course, if you're an atheist then it's all superstition anyway, right?) You're even entitled to try and make your beliefs the basis of law...but I'll have to say that your argument lacks any real convincing power. By what standards is homosexuality abnormal? By what standards is it wrong? By what right should those particular belief be imposed on the rest of society? Your argument addresses none of these.

Perhaps you mean that homosexuality is "a sickness." That used to be a popular belief, but it has gone out with the tide of time, never to return. It's as outdated, and unsavory, as saying that blacks and whites shouldn't marry or that Jews should keep to their own kind. You may not like it - you don't have to (Lord, how would we make someone like it?) - but if you continue to demogogue the issue, the only thing you'll do is speak to an increasingly smaller chorus. That, of course, is your choice.

In my mind, seeking to be on the shrinking side of hatred and bitterness is an abnormality. And it is the type of abnormality that I certainly wouldn't wish on anyone. At any rate, I cannot read your mind, so this is all supposition.

I will close simply by saying that the only reason I would have to "wish" my children are not gay is that small-minded people would make their lives miserable when their paths had to cross. Other than that...well, when my sons were born I held them in my hands and told them, "Daddy will always love you, no matter what." I happened to mean that. I feel sorry for children who have not that kind of parent.

My point here being that large loving families are statistically far less prone to producing gay or lesbian people.

This is based on what statistical analysis? Actually the more older brothers a boy has the more likely he is to be gay. So...you're wrong.

gays are not born they are made. 74% by sex abuse as a child.

That's a very specific number. From where did you happen to get it?

There is no "gay gene" or natural tendency.

Sexual behavior is much too complex to have a single gene responsible for its sum total. Such an argument is ignorant. Homosexual behavior has been noted in more than 500 separate species. I'm not sure how your argument about bad parenting translates into other species. Perhaps it doesn't matter. I don't think you can show any conclusive research that would back up the "no natural tendency" theory.

You are correct if you are assuming that suicide is very high among gay/lesbian people, because it sadly is

Sources? There are no national statistics for suicide rates among gay people - because being gay isn't something that coroners tend to document. Self-reports of suicide ideation among gay youth tend to be higher than that for straight youth - but that doesn't necessarily translate directly into more suicide attempts or successes. This connection between suicide and gay-ness is even harder to explain when we notice that black men had a dramatic increase in suicide rates beginning in the 1980s - was this due to a sudden rise of gay-ness among black men? What would have caused that sudden shift in sexual orientation? Plus, the population with the highest suicide rate is white men over the age of 80 - are they suddenly becoming gay?

Perhaps I'm putting the cart before the horse - you're saying that being gay causes suicides. Yeah, I'm going to need some proof on that one.

There is no indication or reasoning that giving into the gay rights activists political demands will change that sad fact at all.

Actually, that isn't true. Men who are alone have a much higher suicide rate than those who have a family living with them. Giving gay couples the status of marriage would encourage them to stay together as a family. This is especially true around the holidays when the rate of suicide among gay men increases dramatically (honestly, wouldn't it suck to spend EVERY Christmas banned from the family gathering?).

It’s not a matter of social acceptance it’s a matter of self acceptance. Social tolerance has already long past occurred, but suicide rates among gay people has not decreased.

Of course, the two are intrinsically tied together, aren't they? One reason why most men don't wear hats these days is that most other men don't wear hats. This is especially true among young people, who tend to not want to stick out too badly.

I also find it interesting that someone who has elsewhere called homosexuality an "abnormality" is here saying that society has accepted it. Which is it? It can't be both abnormal and widely accepted. The two are mutually exclusive. In recent years, a large number of states have formally amended their Constitutions to prohibit gay couples from marrying the person they love - is that a symbol of acceptance?

Father_Time: Whatever. Your constant attacks on gays are not welcome. Please offer something constructive.

Father_Time -- You know I agree with StockBoy. You make every thread you reply to about gay people, even when the subject isn't remotely connected. You're full of crap statistics that are demonstrably false, you make broad stroke statements you can life from any homobigot website out there, and who even knows why you are doing this?

Hi adelinesdad: "Just before that, you said you recognize her agency and can't judge her for it. So which is it? Can adults come to their own decisions about what they value in life? What's the problem if this girls decide that they value having a lot of children (as for "serving the men", I don't see any reason to assume that's what's going on)?"

Adults have agency, kids, not so much. I've done a lot of reading on the quiverfulls, and frankly, it's a little scary. To me, anyway. Like I said, I don't have any problem with people having a lot of kids. I do have a problem with homeschooling these kids in such a way that the girls are basically only taught the skills needed to be a good and subservient wife and to take care of children, while the boys are taught more worldly things in addition to how to be one of God's soldiers. Don't get me wrong: I think wife and caretaker skills are wonderful and valuable things to have! I just think that out of 10 girls (or however many this family has), it's pretty likely one or more of them would like to be an English teacher, or an engineer, or an accountant, or an artist. All of this is pretty tough to do if your homeschooling doesn't include, say, literature or math. They're being set up to be baby makers, and that makes me feel sorry for them.

On the other hand, I've never seen this particular family's show. Maybe they're the awesome crazy feminist quiverfulls.

roro80,

True, the children don't have the agency that adults do. The contradiction I'm referring to is this:

On the one hand, you recognize that you can't judge the mother for what she chooses to value--in this case, a lot of children.

On the other hand, you say you fear for the daughters, that they will grow up and learn to value the same thing as the mom does. But once they are adults, wouldn't you consider them responsible for their own decisions? And if they decide to value having a lot of kids also, wouldn't you respect that life choice, just as you respect the mother's choice now? I don't know how the mother grew up, but it could have been in a family similar to the one she now has. So, to be consistent with your position, wouldn't you have to feel sorry for her that she didn't get a chance to become an accountant or whatever?

But anyway, I do think this brings up an interesting paradox in our culture. On the one hand, we value individual freedom, which includes the freedom to parent the way one chooses (within certain boundaries that our laws have set, of course--but historically we've decided those boundaries should be set as lax as possible without putting the child in immediate harm). But the paradox is that allowing that individual freedom actually affects the individual freedom of the child to choose his or her own way. There's no doubt that the decisions of the parents affects the future of the children. Of course, some would say, that anyone can pull themselves up after a difficult childhood and make something good of themselves. That is true, but it is much more difficult. When I think about some of the inner city schools in our country, it seems one really has to have a character of steel to come out of there with his head screwed on straight. Whereas those who grow up with silver spoons can be successful just by going with the flow.

So, in order to preserve the principle that individuals should be free to choose their own way, we actually have to give up some of that freedom as children. A balance has to be struck.

Hi adelinesdad -- I agree there's something of a contradiction; your points are well taken. I do, as you suggest, feel sorry that she may have grown up under a set of circumstances that were, per my values, extremely constricting. I have the same difficulty when I think of, for example, Muslim women who wear burkas. They don't necessarily have a viable choice, even though they may have agency, depending on where they come from. I realize that I cannot be some savior from the outside (in either case), and it is not my place to do so. It is not my place to tell a woman how many children to have, nor what to wear on her head. I don't know what I would do were I in their place; I can't, because I was priviledged enough to grow up the way I did. I do wish the circumstances were different, that these women were in a position to excersize their talents and wishes more freely, and that the children raised under these circumstances had more choices. So a contradiction? Yes. Recognition of agency, understanding that I really can't understand their culture, but a hope that if this is not, in fact, the life that these children wish to lead, that they would be able to fulfill whatever it is they do want.

"Yo-Yo Ma's talent with a cello is abnormal. I wouldn't mind that for any of my kids."

This was on my mind years and years ago.

Should Greg Louganis be stripped of his Olympic and other titles and awards because he's "abnormal"?

Even Jerry Falwell in the Eighties wouldn't have advocated that, I suspect.