Look, I find the Duggars decisions and lifestyle as mindboggling as anyone else here...

[SidneyCarton]

And certainly, I don't think we should subsidize this in anyway. That said, part of being pro-choice is accepting the right of people to do exactly what they are doing. Do I question their judgment? Absolutely. Do I feel for their children? Certainly. Am I disgusted at the fact that they are profiting off of the exploitation of their children? Yes. Do I find the Quiverfull movement to be creepier than all hell? Yeah.

That said, do I believe that they have the right to have as many children as they want? Yes.

Don't like that? Pass a law stipulating a maximum number of children, and enforce it with taxation.

Feel free to flame away, its a slow day and I'm wearing my asbestos underwear.

[Cronus Protagonist]

1. Ask yourself six questions in an OP?

Priceless.

[SidneyCarton]

2. Sometimes the internal dialog is more interesting.

But you're right, six self-asked questions in an OP is excessive, my apologies.

[Sal Minella]

37. I thought the style of the OP suitable for the points brought up.

But I'm a little mystified that anyone would take the time to COUNT the number of rhetorical questions in an OP.

And even more mystified that anyone would take the time to post a COMMENT on said enumeration. Some of us need to get a hobby. I think there's a crochet hook around here somewhere . . . :shrug:

[WeDidIt]

3. Child Abuse

End of discussion.

[SidneyCarton]

10. Then the proper authorities should be contacted.

[Rebubula]

12. How so?

They have a nice home, good education (OK...education loaded with Fundie crap), access to good health care etc.

How is this child abuse?

[anigbrowl]

126. -1

[cali]

193. hardly. you aren't the first or last word on what constitutes child abuse

and sorry, under the law, fundy beliefs are not de facto abuse.

[Ladyhawk]

279. As a fundy survivor, fundy beliefs should be categorized as abusive.

Telling a child those who don't believe in Jesus will be tortured forever is child abuse. And that's just the tip of the fundy iceberg.

[proteus_lives]

233. Not even close.

:thumbsdown:

[Beaverhausen]

4. They should adopt

Aren't the fundies always praising adoption over abortion? Let them put their money where their mouths are.

[Maru Kitteh]

14. You should tell everyone what they should do. That would be awesome.

[Beaverhausen]

46. the world would be a much better place if everyone did as I wished

:rofl:

but really, think of the thousands of children who need good homes.
I know it's judgemental, but if the Duggars 'love kids' so much, why not adopt?

And why should they be rewarded with a TV show and publicity when there are families out there who are adopting kids - many that are disabled.

[Maru Kitteh]

87. I wouldn't want the Duggars or anyone to adopt if their hearts were not in it.

I actually know one fundie who adopted from Romania before they shut down the "get your white kid here for cheap" thing they had going on because she thought it was important to "walk the walk" so to speak, but she treats her adopted daughter much differently and dwells often on her flaws and disadvantages. It's sad to see how she tears that poor kid down while holding herself on a pedestal for "saving" her.

I think how one comes to parenting is ultimately much less important than actually loving the children you have, and by all accounts the Duggars seem to be a very loving (if slightly alien) family.


p.s. - You tell everyone what they should do today. I'll take tomorrows shift and one on next Thursday, ok? :thumbsup:

[beyurslf]

89. As a single parent who has adopted 4 teenagers, I can say they should not adopt

unless they are completely committed to it. It is not something you do just because you love kids.

[JVS]

92. LOL!

[Tangerine LaBamba]

142. +100

Beautiful.............

[GhostOfMollyIvins]

295. rich from u

[grace0418]

245. Why isn't she allowed to have an opinion about a family who agrees to share their

wonderful "parenting" on national television? If they want people to stay out of their business, they shouldn't plaster their business all over the airwaves.

Personally, I don't think they should have any kids, adopted or otherwise, but it's their right to have them. It's just too bad they don't allow their daughters the same choice and force them to be surrogate mothers whether they want to be or not.

[YOY]

5. When your eldest kids are raising your youngest kids.

It's child abuse.

[Rebubula]

18. Hmmmm...

...I guess then I suffered child abuse.

My oldest brother was 14 years older than me (6 siblings - I was youngest) and took care of the younger ones when mom had to go to work.

Your lack of understanding does not make this child abuse. From what I see, all the kids seem to be happy and educated (granted...lot of fundie crap being taught).

[YOY]

20. Nonstop? I watched my little sister...but it wasn't nonstop.

My "lack of understanding" is not my lack of understanding...I just have to put in extra words to state the obvious.

But if you have to have the obvious spelled out. Put yourself in this position: You mom does not work. She home schools you. You and your 18 siblings (one is out the door now though). She is constantly pregnant. She barely holds a high school degree herself. You have to take care of the other kids. Nonstop. You have no social life save church and the occasional family outing in a minibus or a Pentecostal convention. Your entire young life is taking care of the other kids.

[Rebubula]

25. Yeah...

...pretty much nonstop. At least from after school until Mom got home from work around 11pm (waiting tables at local pub).

Anyway, from what I have seen, Mrs. Duggar is a stay at home type and home schools the kids. I do not see how she is leaving the kids to raise each other.

I am still not sure what is 'obvious' that is so horrible and that I am missing....

[YOY]

36. and you didn't go to school?

When there are 19 kids she cannot take care of all 19. Especially when she's constantly preggers. She may be tough but she's still preggers.

[grace0418]

254. The Duggars themselves have said, and it's been documented, that every time

a new baby is born one of the older girls (not the boys, apparently) is put in charge of that baby. All cooking, cleaning and child care is done by the girls of the family. Not for a few hours until mom gets home from work but ALL day EVERY day. They don't even get a break to go to school because they're home schooled.

And you know, I see how this happens in smaller families when circumstances arise that are beyond the control of the parents (like divorce, death in the family, unemployment, injuries, etc.). Each kid has to take on more responsibility than they probably should at such a young age. But this family has the choice and the means to stay home and care for their kids, but they keep choosing to have more and pass them off on their other kids rather than caring properly for the ones they already have. That's what I find egregious and incredibly selfish.

[SidneyCarton]

24. I think YOY is concerned with the degree to which the older children are involved.

I haven't watched the show, so I can't render judgment on this part of the situation. I knew girls from larger families who helped with the younger siblings, but there's helping, and there's being the surrogate mother to one of your younger siblings. I thing that is what worries YOY.

[YOY]

31. Got it in one.

THere is a point that a child becomes a surrogate mother and not a sibling.

[Rebubula]

61. OK...

...but how is that Child abuse?

Look...I find what they are doing silly and dangerous (I support population controls - enacting them is kind of hard though) and I find their religious leaning absurd (of course, I find all religions absurd). However, I cannot call raising a large family child abuse.

[SidneyCarton]

69. I don't know.

And in the end, my definition of Child Abuse is no more authoritative than yours or YOY's. The state of Arkansas would determine it under the circumstances.

[WildEyedLiberal]

122. And it's just the GIRL children, too. Boys get to be boys, girls get to be little adults

I am with the OP - they are 'allowed' to have as many kids as they want. Personal freedom and choice cuts both ways. I don't approve of any kind of legislation dictating any aspect of reproductive rights, including number of kids.

HOWEVER, you've hit on EXACTLY what squicks me about the Duggars. It's not that they have 7,000 kids, it's that the older GIRLS are expected to do it ALL while the hive queen mother lays around pregnant and popping out kids every year. The older BOYS aren't expected to do any of the cooking, cleaning, childrearing - they get to go play. It's complete servitude for the girls, and it's atrocious.

[SidneyCarton]

125. And that is precisely what I have against the Quiverfull movement.

n/t

[Raineyb]

235. The older BOYS aren't expected to do any of the cooking, cleaning, childrearing - they get to go

play. It's complete servitude for the girls, and it's atrocious."

And this in a nutshell is why some people would consider this setup abusive.

I can't say that I blame them one whit either. As to laws governing the size of families, there's nothing that would stop congress from passing a law limiting the number of exemptions for children allowed on the tax return. The Duggars are after all within their rights to do, as they've chosen, to treat the womb as a pez dispenser. We are also equally within our rights to not subsidize it via our tax system if our politicians had the courage to pass such a law. (Which of course they do not.)

[ejpoeta]

77. i don't watch the show either.... but i have to believe there is some degree of

older siblings probably helping out with the younger ones. there were six of us kids in my family...i was the second youngest. and my mom got sick after my little sister was born. my second oldest sister basically raised my little sister. she didn't get to do extracurricular activities at school and came home and made dinner and took care of us. though that was extenuating circumstances i guess... but i know my older sisters did end up having a lot of responsibilites with the younger ones. i remember my sister taught me how to read.

There is nothing wrong with siblings helping out. It's part of being a family. As long as the girls aren't chained to the kids while the boys go do boy stuff. I remember my brother didn't do dishes or anything like that.... that infuriated me!! I go out of my way to make sure that my ten year old isn't given too much in the way of responsibility regarding my 3 year old. I tell her I want her to have her childhood. The most I do is make her help clean up the living room and do dishes sometimes and keep her room clean. And maybe to make sure ashley doesn't hurt herself while I am in the shower.

[Hello_Kitty]

73. It was your brother who ws abused and exploited, not you.

No one asked him if he wanted to be a built in babysitter, did they?

[wickerwoman]

82. That's a couple hours a day though.

All the older girls (not boys) in this family have a younger "buddy". They are responsible for waking up, dressing, feeding, washing and supervising their "buddy" *all day long*. They wash their buddy's clothes, pick up all their stuff, make sure their buddy does homework, disciplines him/her almost entirely from the age of 6 months old.

One of the older girls is responsible for all of the cooking in the house (for 20 people!) Another one does all the dishes.

They spend a few hours a day taking online classes and *all* of the rest of their time is taking care of siblings and doing housework. They have absolutely no social life outside of their family.

That sucks when you're fourteen.

There's a great episode of Supernanny with the Chapman(?) family I think, which shows two "homeschooled" teenage girls basically raising their three little brothers while their parents worked. One of those girls literally fainted from exhaustion on the show (and that was with only three younger siblings).

How great do you think their education is and how well will they be able to make their way in the world when 90% of their schooling revolves around providing childcare?

I consider denial of quality education to be child abuse.

[ohheckyeah]

109. If all that is true, then it is child abuse in my opinion. n/t

[wickerwoman]

131. But here's the real child abuse:

http://www.duggarfamily.com/recipes.html

TATER TOT CASSEROLE
2 lb ground turkey cooked, seasoned, drained
3 2lb bags tater tots
2 cans cream of mushroom
2 cans evaporated milk
2 cans cream of chicken
Brown meat & place in large cass. dish.
Cover with tater tots. Mix soup & milk together.
Pour over top. Bake at 350 for 1 Hour.
(One of Daddy’s Favorites!) Makes 2- 9”X13” pans


BROCCOLI CASSEROLE
3/4 lb. Velveeta™ cheese, cubed
2 small boxes frozen chopped broccoli
1 cup cooked minute or brown rice
1 onion, chopped
1 stick butter
1 can cream of chicken soup
1/2 cup milk
Saute onions in butter. Cook broccoli as package directs,
drain. Cook rice, combine all ingredients; pour into 9x13 in.
dish. Bake at 350 for 45 minutes or until brown. Yum! Yum!

BROCCOLI CHEESE SOUP
7 lbs. frozen broccoli
2 lbs. Velveeta™
1 quart sweet whipping cream
enough water to cook broccoli
1 c. cornstarch w/ cold water to thicken after hot
Cook broccoli first. Add Velveeta™ & whipping cream.
Add corn starch to thicken. Enjoy!

[chatnoir]

185. Omg, that almost needs a Warning label

Those recipes are positively gag-inducing....

[Ms. Toad]

Pretty standard midwest farm fare.

It didn't kill me.

[mitchtv]

139. Sounds like planet abuse to me

19 kids times how much resources?

[SidneyCarton]

147. Then the planet will eventually fight back.

Planet Earth has proved itself more than adept at removing species that outlive their usefulness. If we're going to worry about the Duggars, I wouldn't worry about them destroying the planet, I would worry about their being a contributing factor to human extinction. But then again, if we are on the path to extinction, there may be nothing we can do to save ourselves by this point anyway.

[mitchtv]

290. the human element bugs me less

than contributing to the premature extinction of the other Vertebrates

[chatnoir]

192. For the girls at least....

That sounds like being born into indentured servitude.

How awful.

[Jennicut]

255. I saw that Supernanny show! The poor girls had to put the kids to bed at night

and do their homework with the 3 younger kids around. It WAS child abuse. I feel for the girls in the Duggar family, its not right. However, abuse would be hard to prove/make an argument for in a court.

[Posteritatis]

62. Not quite, but having to schedule meetings with your parents is getting there (nt)

[Richardo]

107. It's been done that way in large families for thousands of years

"Child abuse" Get a grip.

[YOY]

108. Thousands of years ago rape was considered foreplay.

Up to hundreds of years ago your only personal social obligation was making sure you don't die.

Decades ago you could get away with murder if you were the right color person and killed the right color person.

This isn't thousands of years ago...nor is it hundreds...nor is it decades. This is now.

[Richardo]

110. It's still not child abuse

You're the archetype of the hyperbolic, kneejerk liberal. Congratulations, you're doing us all proud.

[YOY]

113. HYSTERICAL!@#K!@#ONE!!!!1!!

Laughable...I'm as cool as a cucumber...glad you know that using the word on a male is acceptable here.

Willingly forcing your kids (the girls only) to raise your kids and not letting them have a childhood is abuse when you have the control in the situation. With the exception of the horrible, we control your ability to reproduce and the social consequences of reproduction to a point. Male and female. We all do. EOM.

Even if that doesn't breach ones definition of "abuse"...then the homeschooling alone counts as a great diservice to the children.
:smoke:

[Richardo]

114. You should take a look at kids who have had the shit beat out of them,

...or have been sexually assaulted. Having to watch your younger siblings does not rise to the level of child abuse, 'cool-as-a-cucumber'.

[YOY]

118. Abuse comes in different flavors. Congrats on not figuring that out.

Technically, not changing the kids diapers at all and leaving them alone and unfed without laying a hand on them is abuse. To make it one step lighter a parent ignoring child emotionally save feeding and changing them is abuse.

Neither sexual nor physical...but abuse.

Now for insulting someone who is prone to discussing things rationally repeatedly...I have to ask...have you been abused or are just feeling vindictive?

For someone accusing another of being 'hysterical' you are really going apeshit yourself.

[Richardo]

121. Still - no word on how the Duggar children are being abused by having to look after each other

Telling.

[YOY]

127. So very "telling"...{snicker}

Watch the show. Watch the girls. Watch the girls spend all their time taking care of the babies.

Once again...were you abused or are you just feeling vindictive that making your (female only) children raise (not babysit but actually RAISE) your other children could very well be a form of abuse?

[Richardo]

117. Yeah, it's now - I can read a calendar

And you still haven't supported your inane proposition that babysitting is child abuse.

[YOY]

120. You can reply to me in the main thread.

and you can stop pulling things out of your ass.

[Hello_Kitty]

189. So you're okay with the girls being saddled with all the work?

Really?

[Hannah Bell]

143. history of the world = child abuse, then.

[benEzra]

144. Then a whole lot of working class children are victims of "child abuse" as you term it.

Be careful about generalizing to the broader non-fundy population.

[YOY]

161. Well if you want to take what I said at face value sure...

If you want to look at the Duggars then you're looking at a little more detail.

[benEzra]

234. Quite so. (n/t)

[Dappleganger]

173. Not abusive

Neglectful if it's done for extended periods of time, but definitely not abusive. I grew up in an abusive home and KNOW what abuse is like.

[grace0418]

247. Yep.

Been there. Lived it.

[Schema Thing]

6. Don?

[TransitJohn]

7. Yeah they're free to burnden the Earth

and the commons we all share with their progeny, same as I'm free to bitch, whine about, and disagree with them on a public internet message board. Have a nice day.

[SidneyCarton]

8. I'm not saying you're wrong.

But until it's illegal, it's just distasteful.

[Maru Kitteh]

9. I agree with you. Plus, so very few women would even want more than a dozen kids that it's

really not rationally arguable as an issue of impact.

More and more couples and individuals are exercising their choice and option to remain childless all the time. The growing contingent of childless by choice, an option previously not very practical in history, more than offsets the few families who choose to have many children.

I do not disparage reproductive choice, period.



I would also add that this particular family appears not to have taken any kind of welfare or other subsidy.

[bamacrat]

11. They actually as crazy as they seem dont exploit their kids.

The show is mainly about them, you rarely see the young kids much. They are uber religious and that makes me cringe but they arent like Jon and Kate. The Duggar dad used to be in the Arkansas Senate and they are very frugal but own many commercial proerties and are financially secure. I thinks its crazy to have that many kids but they all seem like decent hardworking kids. Of course their son didnt kiss his wife until they were married and they immediately got pregnant, so they may be a bit socially stunted but most homeschooled kids are.

[cbdo2007]

111. Agree with you. I think most people here have the wrong impression of them.

I wasn't much of a fun of the Duggars and had a lot of misconceptions as well. Then a few weeks ago my wife and I visited some friends in Arkansas and went to this Demolition Derby (cause that's what you do for fun in Arkansas) and sure enough the whole Duggar clan was there and came and sat right smack behind us! They were filming and they actually seemed like decent people. We weren't in some special VIP section, in fact we were sitting near the back. They went out and bought their own snacks and bought their own entry tickets to the event even.

I went home and looked up about them on the internet and found out what you are stating. Sure they are strange and *different* from me but I really don't see anything wrong with them at all after seeing them in person and how they operate and handle themselves and then reading more about them.

Like I said in a different thread...there are WAY worse people in the U.S. that we need to be scared of than some family that has too many kids. They are hardworking and I think they donate much of the money from their show cause they're financially secure already. They aren't teaching them to steal from people or to use guns or hate other people...so really I don't see what the problem is.

[redqueen]

133. Read this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6437953&mesg_id=6439077

It might give you some insight into at least one of the problems.

[cbdo2007]

137. Is there a source for that???

I didn't see one listed.

With a house and family that big I'm sure everyone's got their share of the chores.

Still, it isn't harmful to anyone. Their lifestyle is just different than other peoples but they aren't out robbing banks or selling drugs. There are millions of people in the world who run their household *differently* than I do. Doesn't mean it's wrong or evil or whatever...just means it's wrong for me. No disrespect to them, they're on their own path.

[redqueen]

141. I saw it on a show about them.

Not their series, but some show about the family that was on, where they were being interviewed.

The boys do outside work which is more than just playing of course, but the division of work did not seem at all equal. And of course this is hardly rare, I understand. It's wrong when any family does it IMO, but the burden on these particular children, due to the high number of other children they have to care for, makes it an exceptional situation.

[redqueen]

132. They are exploiting their kids... at least the female ones.

You apparently don't notice it, but it is happening, make no mistake.

[snooper2]

13. And I'll reserve my right to laugh, point fingers and ridicule...

The fucking idiot quiver parents...


Oh, and FREE JINGER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[SidneyCarton]

16. Fair enough, that right is yours to reserve.

[Mystayya]

15. If they are good parents- then I have no issues with their CHOICE

My brother has 6. Would I do it? No way ! But he and his wife are terrific at it.

[SidneyCarton]

19. Having never watched the show, I can't speak to that either way.

I disagree with the parents both ideologically and doctrinally, but I would imagine that many here on DU would disagree with the way Mrs. Carton and I raise our daughter.

That said, even if they are bad parents, there is currently no legal precident that I know of (and I am open to correction on this point, so if one exists, please let me know) that can force them to stop having children if they are.

[Mystayya]

85. True- nor should there be

Choice has to mean choice, not just "my choice". Sometimes even people on the left forget that.

[eeyore]

17. I think there should be tax consequences for them

Every child after the 4th should incur negative tax incentive. Call me crazy, but currently people are being given a tax incentive to have children. I don't see any reason to reward people for that kind of irresponsible behavior.

[SidneyCarton]

21. Call your congressman.

I would prefer after six (just an arbitrary reason, I doubt Mrs. Carton and I will even end up with 4), but by the time Congress gets through with it it will be likely after 5.5 children, with exceptions for children born on every third thursday, but go figure.

[brendan120678]

22. What's irresponsible about having more than 4 kids? (nt)

[SidneyCarton]

26. If you can provide for them physically, emotionally, and educationally?

I don't know.

[Inuca]

27. Overpopulation? n/t

[SidneyCarton]

35. Do we currently have a limit to the number of children any single couple is allowed to have?

Until it exists, it is not illegal, merely bad judgment. You have a problem with RWers interfering on what you do in your bedroom? Such courtesy should be extended to these people too.

[Inuca]

159. I absolutely agree

I think I meant to reply to the message above yours. I don't want to interfere, but personally I think that having too many children is just not right.

[SidneyCarton]

162. Don't get me wrong, I don't disagree.

I frankly find having 19 kids both excessive and ridiculous. I just see the Duggars as a bizarre abberation, and therefore more a matter of curiosity than an awful harbinger of doom.

[PA Democrat]

40. Large families are more apt to get hit with the alternative minimum tax.

http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=KdJQ1Pmy1jD9vW0LtThT14qvFH1T10nlpCytycg301C8VwSvTlJb!1208746416!766828861?docId=5001388111

The Klaassens were members of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America. They believed that a large family was a blessing and they opposed birth control and abortion measures. On their joint 1994 itemized return, the Klaassens reported adjusted gross income of $83,056; claimed 12 personal and dependency (10 children) exemptions; and deducted $4,767 in medical and dental expenses and $3,264 in state and local taxes.

Upon audit, the IRS determined that the Klaassens were subject to the AMT, despite the fact that they had no tax preference items for regular income tax purposes.

Following the letter of the law as outlined in form 6251, the IRS adjusted the Klaassens' personal exemptions downward, disallowed their deduction for state and local taxes and limited their medical deductions to 10% of adjusted gross income instead of the 7.5% allowed for regular tax purposes. It then calculated their AMT taxable income at $68,832, substantially higher than t...

[ejpoeta]

80. i don't like that idea. maybe have the child credit only go to so many, but to

penalize people for having kids?? as much as I don't personally agree with just having an unending number of kids, i do believe they should have every right to do so if they wish to. and i don't think they should be penalized for it.

[Mystayya]

86. No one is basing the decision to have or not have more children on tax credits

If you think that then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you!

[ejpoeta]

149. i'm not saying they are. what i am saying is that we shouldn't be penaizing people for

how many kids they have.

[Mystayya]

178. Doh- I was at work and totally misread your post

please accept my apology.

[Raineyb]

236. We do it all the time

Only we penalize people for the kids they DON'T have.

[Lorien]

262. Over 6 billion "Miracles" are enough

the planet can't take much more. Ask yourself; how many people could I feed right now with the food I have in my kitchen and what I could grow on my land? 10? 20? 200? 200,000? At what point will you run out of resources? People don't think of it this way, but that's exactly the situation we face.

And no, we can't turn every scrap of wilderness into farm land. The planet operates like a finely tuned machine. Start taking parts out and it will no longer operate. The loss of bees or bats, for example, would destroy our species and most other mammals

[bluestateguy]

23. It's a lifestyle choice

I don't think it's a good choice, but I would oppose any effort by the state to prevent them making that choice.

[Bluerthanblue]

79. I agree- well said.

freedom of choice includes more than one choice-

:hi:

[Warpy]

28. I have a great memory of an extremely fertile Irish Catholic auntie

with her eighth a baby in her arms. My mother asked if that were the last (latest?) one and knew she'd stuck her foot in her mouth. My auntie replied, "It better be!"

She had two more after that and then managed to talk her OB-Gyn into a hysterectomy, over the howls of protest from the parish priest.

Her brood has produced a total of two grandchildren. Growing up in a huge family looks like fun unless you actually did it, I guess.

Some of Ma Duggar's quiverful will undoubtedly be propagandized into producing another. My guess is that the majority will be a little more sanguine about it, especially the girls who spent their childhoods caring for siblings because Mom was overwhelmed and constantly pregnant.

[diane in sf]

123. I agree, those older Duggar girtls will probably contracept assiduously.

[grace0418]

256. If they ever even have time to meet boys much less have sex.

They're too busy raising their younger siblings. So much for their reproductive "choice."

[onehandle]

29. I applaud them!

We need all the bodies we can get for the production of Soylent Green after their brood have used up the world's resources.

[cleverusername]

30. Girls without any opportunties

The patriarch Duggar said that his daughters won't have any post-secondary education or other training. Apparently, the girls are destined to be brood mares. Free Jinger indeed!

[SidneyCarton]

38. Like I said, I have serious issues with the Quiverfull movement.

And I think Mr. Duggar is a fool for denying his daughters a post-secondary education. If they really want it, they're going to have to break away, sad and unfair, but not illegal.

[reflection]

47. +1. n/t

[Doremus]

32. How many future kleptos, pyros, alcoholics and depressives are they raising?

Or not raising as the case may be?

Self-serve parenting usually is a boon to the medical profession.

[SidneyCarton]

41. Hard to say?

A little early to be passing judgment on the future lives of these children, isn't it? Maybe we should let them live some if it first?

[blueamy66]

140. Why? The daughters won't be able to "live it".

They will be married off and made to procreate like their mother did.

[SidneyCarton]

145. Maybe.

Or they might decide to leave, a painful, wrenching and awful decision to have to make, I agree, but still possible. Nothing is certain.

[MilesColtrane]

268. I wonder about the psychological dynamic of extremely large families like that.

It seems as though part of growing up for adolescents is rebelling against their parents and challenging their beliefs in order to begin to define themselves as individuals.

A compound of twenty would exert an enormous amount of pressure on one single person to conform to the shared Weltanschauung, especially if that person has a limited opportunity to meet and interact with persons outside of the group.

If they weren't related they would be accurately defined as a cult.

[Doremus]

168. Time will tell, friend.

Time will tell.

In the meantime, I will discuss the subject because discussion is the purpose of a discussion board.

Is that okay with you?

:hi:

[SidneyCarton]

172. Suits me.

That's why I posted this thread.

:hi:

[redqueen]

33. So in your opinion... people can either pass a law about stuff they find distasteful, or else STFU?

That's... interesting.

[SidneyCarton]

44. No, but I think we should think before we attack.

I disagree vehemently with what the Duggars are doing, but is we are really pro-choice, then we respect the Duggars reproductive rights (overexercised as they might be) as much as we respect the rights of any woman who should choose not to give birth.

Rant all you want, its a free country, just realize that we have no more right to meddle in their bedrooms than they do to meddle in ours.

[redqueen]

48. Who's meddling?

Ranting is not meddling. Even distasteful ranting about a distasteful subject.

If someone was wishing death on them, I could see the reason to repond negatively to that... but a whole new thread because people were ranting?

Maybe it's just me... but I sure don't get it.

[SidneyCarton]

67. And yet I think you'd rightfully take offense if someone ranted about your sex life

in an online forum.

People have every right to criticize the Duggars for their decisions and their lifestyle, but in doing so I feel it's important to remember their right to live that way. Maybe it's just me.

[redqueen]

68. Ranting about their sex life is distasetful, sure.

But although the amount of children a family has is related to one's sex life, it is not the same thing at all.

[Hello_Kitty]

223. Exactly.

I couldn't care less what kind of sex the Duggars are having. Honestly. I do think they are colossal narcissistic assholes for creating 19 children.

[Pangolin2]

112. If I sleep with my boyfriend it impacts nobody else. Replacing 2 humans with 18

affects, to some degree, everyone else. I don't know what is wrong with those people's heads but there is no rationale sufficient to excuse such insane behavior.

[grace0418]

283. If my sex life were plastered all over television I don't think I'd have much right to

get offended if people discussed on an online forum. The Duggars take every opportunity to exalt themselves in public, from their reality show, to interviews with Meredith Viera every time they have a new "miracle" to announce, to their charming website that they chock full of vomit-inducing recipes. I think they even have a book. Sure seems to me that they *want* people talking about them.

[reflection]

34. I agree with you. The Duggars creep me out also,

but the level of vitriol leveled at them is laughable. I have found that DU, as a whole, doesn't generally don't get too worked up about overpopulation unless there is a Christian "quiver full" element involved.

[redqueen]

39. And the reason for that...

is that it involves religious insanity.

When people have large families due to love and all that, I can see why that wouldn't raise an eyebrow.

When it's done as a means to "out breed" the "others"... well... yeah...

[YOY]

42. Many organized religions keep an "out breed" policy in text but in so much nicer words.

Little things like "no birth control" and "no abortions" as well as "educate women little or none" in so many different situations and beyond the simple "be fruitful and mulitply."

[reflection]

43. Love is a subjective thing

and we can't tell if the Duggars don't love their children. They are indeed uber-religious, but that doesn't really affect their ability to love or care for their kids. Not the way I'd do it, but like a poster upthread said, until it's illegal, it's legal, and therefore their business. :shrug:

[redqueen]

51. So is wearing fur, or eating veal... and people have the right to criticize that as well.

And I will have to disagree with you about the "quiverfull" movement being centered around love. IMO it is most certainly not.

[reflection]

59. I don't think I said that.

I'll go back and check after I pen this. I am not familiar with the 'quiverfull' movement and will educate myself on it in my spare time. What I meant to say, albeit ham-handedly, is that we can't know that the Duggars don't love their children.

And yes, we are all certainly able to opine about wearing fur or eating veal. But if some right-thinking person strolled in here and espoused viewpoints which would restrict bedroom activities, he or she would be rightly excoriated for it. So I'm not a big fan of bedroom restrictions coming from the other side as well. To each his/her own though. The Duggars are going to multiply like Superman during a math test anyway, no matter what we say.

[redqueen]

65. Sorry, I surely did not mean to imply that they don't love their kids.

My point was that it is not love which inspired them to keep having so many of them.

It was that movement, and it is that movement which I find the most repulsive thing about the whole non-issue.

[reflection]

184. I did some reading at lunch today about the Quiverfull movement.

Your point is well taken about the concept. It seems very anti-woman and misguided. It certainly does lower my opinion of the Duggars. I wouldn't change my stance on their rights to breed, but yeah, it's pretty ugly stuff from what I can tell.

[PDJane]

49. Thank you.

That's one of my problems with the Duggars.

Of course, I believe that God gave me a brain to make decisions with.....and I decided, after the fourth miscarriage, that God was telling me that more children wasn't a good idea, and had a tubal ligation.

[SidneyCarton]

50. So, your crimson majesty, what do you suggest?

Shall we set a limit to the number of children one can legally bear?

Perhaps just a piece of limited legislation to forcibly sterilize Mr. Duggar?

Maybe we should ban the Quiverfull movement?

If we cannot live and let live, then what to we do?

[redqueen]

52. "If we cannot live and let live, then what to we do?"

Oh, the irony.

[SidneyCarton]

57. Ironic maybe, but still a valid question I think?

You have said that I want you to STFU, I don't. You obviously disagree with my evaluation of the Duggars, and I'm fine with that, so I'm asking you, what ought to be done?

How do we deal with what even I will admit is a problem, without ending up on the slippery slope of either undermining the first amendment, or advocating eugenics?

Far from wanting you to STFU, I want your opinion.

[redqueen]

63. What do you mean "what ought to be done"? Have they committed a crime?

:wtf:

It's not an epidemic, is it? Are there thousands of these freakshow families out there that I don't know about?

Furthermore, how many posts were in the thread which inspired this one, claiming that something must be done to stop it?

[Initech]

45. I actually kind of agree that they have a right to have as many as they want.

Is it moral? Debatable. Is it unethical? Absolutely. If you want to advocate about population control, however, I advise you to look at mainland China, which has that law in effect. And it is massively fucked up.

[SidneyCarton]

54. Precisely.

If we are going to advocate for population control in the US (and I'm frankly ambivalent on that topic) we need a better system than China. So until we have something useful to bring to the table this is all just hot air.

[eShirl]

55. Now imagine how fucked up China would be if they had instituted a Quiverful policy instead. n/t

[Hello_Kitty]

75. They actually did have that policy prior to the one-child rule.

The reason they had to implement such a draconian policy was that during the Communist regime of the 50s and 60s, people were exhorted to have large families. It got to the point where China was facing massive famine if they didn't do something to curb their population.

[Berry Cool]

129. Um, China DID have a massive famine

and it wasn't just due to the population...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine

[Hello_Kitty]

135. They were facing another, population induced one.

Um, I don't know what your deal is but if you want to defend humans breeding themselves into extinction it's gonna fall on deaf ears here. We need to make fewer of us. Period.

[Hannah Bell]

146. funny, china had famines every ten years or so for the two hundred years prior to the revolution

when they had far fewer people -

but none post-60s, when they had far more.

[Hello_Kitty]

157. Funny, I'm still concerned about overpopulation and wish others would be too.

Infinite growth of human population + finite world = catastrophe

[SidneyCarton]

158. A catastrophe that may be inevitable anyway.

No one stays on top of the food chain forever, extinction is a part of nature too, maybe we're due.

[Hello_Kitty]

204. I think you are probably right. eom

[Hannah Bell]

277. population isn't growing infinitely. nor exponentially. growth rate has been

declining for more than thirty years.

global total fertility rate = something like 2.55 children per woman & declining.

meanwhile, people in the first world (average fertility rate below replacement) consume the majority of the world's resources.

china's famines had nothing to do with "overpopulation," but with economics & power; & in fact, it was less densely populated than some european countries - & still is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_density

[eShirl]

53. Her 19th child and she's only age 42?

What does she win if she makes it to two dozen before menopause?

[SidneyCarton]

58. A set of Ginsu knives.

[Hekate]

56. Stop tax deductions after 2 children. After 3 children, add taxes. Free contraception...

Mandatory sex education in public schools. Mandatory population studies in public schools -- it cuts across several disciplines (science, history, social studies, mathematics).

Regarding the taxation, of course this once again punishes the poor disproportionately, but with all that education and free contraception they will actually benefit from their smaller families.

>sigh< In America we don't get to do most of this. There'd be a revolt in streets for sure -- take away my Bill of Rights, but don't touch my guns or my right to breed.

I'm just saying, there are coercive measures that stop short of passing a law stipulating a maximum number of children. And there are definitely educational and social policy measures that we COULD do quite easily, but choose not to.

Hekate

[SidneyCarton]

60. Agreed, and your coercive measures are rational.

I wouldn't start punitive taxes at three kids, but I see where you're going.

As to sex ed, good luck, I agree with you on that. Mandatory population studies could be problematic (when to start it, what to emphasise?) Though I do think the multi-disciplinary approach is good.

[TexasObserver]

64. We need limits. No more than three births per parent.

I'd favor enforcement by economic or social incentives, rather than criminal sanctions, however. Incentives to comply. Disincentives for non compliance. It would be voluntary, but you might lose a tax deduction for every child beyond three, for example. You might not qualify for a student loan if you have more than three kids. Being a good citizen means knowing that your genes are not that damn special, and if you're breeding excessively, you're overloading our system with your DNA, which probably isn't a good thing.

Make the penalty of having more than three kids something meaningful, such as "no access to myspace, twitter or facebook." People who have too many children should be ostracized, not applauded.



Every time a child is born in this country, society writes a check for $200,000 to pay for that child through age 18, and it's more than that if the child and their parents are incredible screw ups. For all these kids being raised by kids, there will be a whole new round of the same hitting the ground in 15 years. We don't have the resources to endlessly supply needs for every child born because two idiots don't practice safe sex.

Forget pandemics. Overpopulation is the monster at the door.

[Gormy Cuss]

66. Their right to have as many children as they want doesn't silence my right to speak out against it.

While I would never say it to the face of someone who has made the wholly self-centered and irresponsible choice to have a quiverful of biological children I do think that it's important to counter the argument that it's somehow anti-choice to voice that opinion. IMHO it'd be anti-choice only to legislate against it.

[SidneyCarton]

70. Fair enough.

n/t

[Missy Vixen]

71. We do not have children

That being said, we discussed the subject repeatedly in the months after we met and before the wedding. I wanted to make sure that Mr. Missy Vixen knew my mind would not change, I was not having children, and if he wanted one, he needed to find someone else. I also had the unfair advantage of being a former nanny, which convinced me once and for all that unless I had no other ambition in life than to be a parent, perhaps I shouldn't embark on it.

It is mindboggling to me that anyone believes they have the capacity to adequately care for twenty children. If Mrs. Duggar wants to use her vagina as a clown car, that's her perfect right. At the same time, has she even stopped to consider the effect on her kids? I guess I'd also like to ask Mr. Duggar what he thinks the effects are on his wife from yearly pregnancies.

We won't even go into the discussion of any religious belief that turns women into nothing more than an incubator.

It's unfortunate.

[LeftyMom]

214. That's my concern. I love kids, I've worked with kids professionally and I'm a great mom,

if I do say so myself. On the few occasions where I've had to watch somebody else's kids in addition to my own son for a few hours, either at work or sitting for a friend, by the end of it I'm absolutely wiped out. That's with well behaved kids in much smaller numbers, and I'm more than a dozen years younger than Mrs. Duggar. I suppose it would be less exhausting of one were willing to just plop the kids down on the sofa or turn them out in the yard with instructions to come back at dinnertime, but if one is willing to actually engage and parent children there's a finite amount of time and energy which can be devoted to them, and at some point (which probably varies a great deal from parent to parent) having another child means that the existing children get less time, attention and expressed love than they need.

Even if for some crazy reason I wanted to take care of twenty kids at a time, I'd never dream of it because it's not fair to the kids to have to share that much responsibility and that little attention, and I'm unwilling to take on that sort of responsibility without the capability to do it well. It's not so much the expense or even the environmental impact, because I know a lot of that can be offset in large households by the things that do become more efficient, but there's a finite amount of parental attention involved and those kids simply can't get nearly enough of it because there just aren't enough hours in the day to make that happen. I'd be every bit as upset by a set of parents with a fairly small family and no more ability to give their children attention due to other commitments or whatever, so it's not exclusively a problem of large families, but even in ideal circumstances large families run the risk of having more kids than time.

[Missy Vixen]

265. Here's another thought

You lead a healthy lifestyle. You are more equipped to deal with high-speed, low-drag kids as a result.

From what I've read over the years, you are a very engaged and loving parent. Every kid should be so lucky.

I feel sorry for the Duggars' kids. Yeah, it's the Duggars' right to have as many as they want, but it's hard to imagine the effect on the body of having a pregnancy each year for the past 20 years or so. I also wonder when the last time was any of those kids had more than five or ten minutes with their mother.

[LeftyMom]

266. Yeah. She's not only a decade older than me, she's living on tater tots and mayo.

The kids sign up for alone time with a parent. They have a schedule. I'm not joking. "Thursday, 3:00! Jinger* it's time for mother-daughter bonding. Did you find somebody to watch your buddy**?"

*Actual Duggar child name. Pronounced "Ginger." Poor girl.

** The older girls each get a younger child assigned to them as a "buddy." It's their job to wake up, dress, feed, clothe, diaper, clean up after, etc this child until the child is old enough to do so for themselves. Presumably if the child is a girl she'll then get her own "buddy."

[ejpoeta]

72. i believe that they have every right to have all the kids they want. i don't know why

they have to be all over the media for it. Every time they are pregnant, it's a big story on the today show. yech.

btw... asbestos underwear?? that can't be healthy.

[SidneyCarton]

74. But it keeps the important parts from getting singed.

I agree with you about the publicity, they should not be celebrated for this either. If a man can drink an entire keg of beer in 20 minutes... No, he'd probably end up on the news anyway, for any number of reasons.

We live in a sick culture, and bad, or unwise behavior has always gotten press.

[parasearchers]

76. Whats a Duggar?

[frogmarch]

78. And stupid people, like the Duggars,

shall inherit the Earth, because sane, intelligent people don't reproduce like flies.

The Duggars disgust me. It sickens me to think that people like them will govern the future.

[SidneyCarton]

88. Sadly that's natural selection for you.

Those who breed, succeed. Darwin never said it was fair.

[City Lights]

81. I agree that they have the right to live their lives as they choose.

I also believe that anyone has the right to voice their opinion about the lifestyle the Duggars have chosen. They've got a teevee show. If they don't want people voicing an opposing opinion, they should step out of the public eye.

I've not heard of anyone trying to take away their right to free-will breeding.

[pipi_k]

83. For me, Pro Choice means the choice NOT to have children...

but doesn't include the choice to singlehandedly populate a small city with one's offspring.

Pro Choice incorporates things like responsibility toward the environment. That's part of it, and it's why some Pro Choice people might choose not to have children. Responsibility for our world and its resources. It would be nice if everyone could assume that responsibility whether they're Pro Choice or not...but some people must think they're entitled to do what they want as if it's their right.

Sort of reminds me of those "take one, please samples" we see in stores. If 20 people look at the display and don't take one, does that mean someone else can come along and take the 20 those other people didn't take?

Seems rather piggish to me.

[SidneyCarton]

90. Certainly it's piggish.

But reproductive freedom is reproductive freedom. The same freedoms that allow a woman access to contraception and abortion (the right not to concieve or reproduce) also protects the Duggar's right to over-exercise their right to reproduction. You certainly don't want anyone deciding how you should your uterus, why should anyone else tell Mrs. Duggar how do use hers?

[pipi_k]

99. Reproductive freedom also comes with the assumption...perhaps

wrong...that people will exercise a little responsibility.

Adults are given lots of freedoms in our lives, but most of us don't do some pretty piggish things because we have a conscience to answer to.


The Duggars remind me of a couple of little kids who say "I do it because I CAN"...with no apparent thought to how it may affect others.


Freedom doesn't come without responsibility. They are not being responsible.

[SidneyCarton]

101. And when responsibility is abused, it must be addressed with coercive measures.

If you are comfortable with laws regulating reproduction, then by all means, call your Congressman. But I for one, think that the womb is already over-regulated.

[pipi_k]

209. I'm not calling for regulation of anyone's womb

All I said is that I find them, and their decision to have that many kids, irresponsible and piggish.

In fact, someone down below makes a good point about how parents with litters of kids end up imposing parenthood on their older kids. Where are the rights of those kids to grow up without having to be miniature parents?

Oh, right...they're kids. They don't have any rights...and what rights they do have are overshadowed by the rights of their parents to keep pumping out kid after kid after kid with no thoughts as to how it might affect the lives of the other children.

Even though I'm a very strong advocate for women's right to have abortions, it still makes me cringe when I hear about women using abortions like birth control because they can.

Choice is a good thing, but it involves, as I've said repeatedly, responsibility.


"Because I can" is never a good answer to anything, and it sounds like the answer a seven year old kid would give.

[Hannah Bell]

278. apply that logic to the us v. the third world.

[sinkingfeeling]

84. I just wish they paid some taxes to the feds and state. With that many exemptions, doubt that they

paid anything until the TV show made them rich. He was in real estate in Benton County.

[SidneyCarton]

91. Indeed, I take serious issue with anyone having such a lifestyle subsidized by the rest of us.

If one can provide for a multitude of children, by all means, but if not... the rest of us should not be called upon to finance it.

[SoCalDem]

93. The Jackie Coogan Law needs more teeth

If the families had to "set aside" 90% of the children's share of the money, people would be less likely to produce "show children" for the amusement of the public.
If the money was in a trust , not to be touched until the child was 18, many of theses tv-freakshow-families would think twice.

[SidneyCarton]

94. Indeed, I see no problem with that.

The way the children on Jon & Kate and these other shows have been exploited is truly disgusting.

[SoCalDem]

96. These parents see their kids as the "family income", and it's disgusting.

The kids are too little to "consent" to having their childhoods broadcast and saved in perpetuity on you tube.. the law is behind the times..

[wuushew]

95. The Duggars are murdering the Earth

Massively over-optimistic one child scenario.



How many generations will it take to get back to the environmental impact of Duggar generation 0? Nobody in the history of the world has regulated their fertility across multiple generations and taking how many offspring their sibblings spawned.

Even if most of the children have the "normal" number it is still an absolute increase and an environmental tragedy.

[SidneyCarton]

98. I think the Earth can deal with overpopulation.

Famine, plague and natural disaster tend to be particularly effective against the densely populated. Sucks to live through, I would agree, but the Earth will survive the Duggars.

[wuushew]

102. Famine sucks who wants that?

The filling up of America literally has paved over paradise with a parking lot and sent many speices to extinction.

Japan has the right idea, an advanced sustainble civilization has fewer people not more. Why do you want more people?

[SidneyCarton]

103. I don't necessarily want more people.

But I'm a little leery of "womb regulation"

And forgive me if I have my doubts to how truly sustainable Japan's civilization really is. A bad enough breakdown of the global market would make a mess out of the Japanese Megalopolises too.

[wuushew]

106. Japan had a period of ZPG centuries ago

Jared Diamond had a whole chapter on in his book "Collapse".

Countries don't necessarily disappear after population declines. Ireland is very a viable nation today after the famine. Why are quick die offs prefable to a greying civillization?

[SidneyCarton]

116. That's not my point.

I don't worry that Japan will fall off the face of the earth because of ZPG, but Tokyo-Yokohama is the largest, most densely populated urban center on the planet. Such places don't tend to be very resiliant in the face of disaster.

[Hello_Kitty]

136. It's a rather odd paradox

People will ignore the threat of overbreeding and comfort themselves that technology and innovation will solve the problems of too many people. But when presented with the inverse scenario, a decline in population, they're all "ZOMG WE'RE DOOOOOOOOOMED!! WHO WILL TAKE CARE OF THE OLD PEEEEEEEEOPLLLLLLE!!! It's bizarre how they can't even conceive that the kind of ingenuity that will enable to Earth to sustain 20 billion people will be not be available to figure out how to fund retirements and care for the elderly in a population that is contracting.

[The Stranger]

258. What kind of Earth will live through climate change, pollution, toxic land, water, and air.

Saying there will be a big lifeless rock still floating here in space is not really saying anything.

[yodoobo]

115. The Earth can handle 19 children

Even if the furniture cannot.

[Nye Bevan]

97. Those kids' taxes will be paying for my social security

I don't have a problem with them.

[SidneyCarton]

100. Now we just have to hope they don't all end up tax cheats...

But silver linings are nice.

[maxpower]

104. Irresponsible on an already over burdened planet

That's how I see it. But I'm just dumb 'ol Max.



Peace,
Max

[SidneyCarton]

105. The planet will take care of itself. Mass extinction is nature's way of starting over.

The Earth will persist, it's our species you should worry about.

[maxpower]

246. I am

I completely agree.

[earth mom]

119. And it's MY right to tell you & people like them that they are selfish assholes who don't give a

damn that the planet is being destroyed by overpopulation because of stupid fuckwits like them.

Tax the hell out of em-that's the ONLY thing that rethugs like them understand! :puke:

[SidneyCarton]

124. How exactly does my arguing for reproductive freedom make me a selfish asshole?

As to the planet, spare me your hyperbole, the planet can deal with overpopulation quite effectively, the Earth will survive, humanity might not.

[earth mom]

128. Wake the hell up. You are part of the problem too. nt

[SidneyCarton]

130. As we are both human (at least I hope we are) you would seem to be too.

Does that make you a selfish asshole too?

[earth mom]

285. What's selfish is people like you & the Duggers using up more resources than others.

Talk about selfish assholes! :eyes:

[reflection]

138. What kind of tax are you proposing?

And how many children can a family have before the tax goes into effect?

I want to see what kind of numbers we're dealing with here.

[earth mom]

286. Anything to wake these people up to the destruction they are causing! nt

[reflection]

288. I ask again.

What's the max number of kids allowed before punitive measures are applied? And what's the tax?

Surely you have thought of an answer to at least the first question.

[Dogtown]

134. Can't find fault with your logic.

It's hypocritical to rationalize limiting their choice.

I'm sure I wouldn't care to keep company with the Duggars, nor will I watch their show, but they should have the ability to make as many bad choices as they like.


That said, that must be one wrecked chunk of gut she's sporting there.

[nini]

148. I wouldn't have a problem with limiting the number of kids people can have

I don't give a shit what that sounds like either. Too many people are going overboard on family size while the earth is running out of resources to sustain all of them. I love kids as much as the next guy which is exactly why I believe this. I do NOT want my grandson's later years to be on an earth suffering the ravages of global warming, not enough food, crowding, disease etc.. from just too many fucking people on the planet.

When people like the duggars can't seem to get it then they need to be controlled. Use God to get through to them - God gave them free will but that does not include endangering the beautiful planet he gave them. Use their religion against them. (I'm dreaming - I know)

People absolutely should have families if they want them but responsibly. People should not have multiple litters just because they can either.

Sometimes common sense needs to be dictated to the idiots.

[SidneyCarton]

150. How many people are having litters of children though?

Sure we got Jon & Kate the Octomom and some others, but I doubt that we're facing an epidemic of giga-families in the country. Also, there are a fair number of childless couples in our nation too, surely this helps balance things a little?

If you're going to balance family size, what would you limit it at?

[nini]

153. Democrats can have 4 - Republicans 1

:evilgrin:

I don't know what the limit should be. I also know the normal person does not have 12+ kids. I do know the species is outgrowing the planet regardless if Octomom and the Duggars are the exception rather than the rule. I do know there are plenty of families with 5, 6, 7, 8 + kids. Too much for the state of the planet.

I'm hard core over overpopulation and people having kids they abuse. Fuck 'em- their rights to have kids stops when it has an effect on other human beings.

[reflection]

154. And more importantly,

how do you *enforce* it? Because you're never going to stop people from having sex. So the only answer is forced sterilization or forced abortion. Neither policy would make it out of the legislative gate here.

[nini]

170. I KNOW this will not happen here.

I KNOW the enforcement is a nightmare. I KNOW there will always be exceptions like the death of child leaving none.


I KNOW all this - I also know the planet needs to wake the fuck up and start to help people understand what they're doing and help them avoid pregnancy they may not want but have happen.

How about making birth control free?

How about offering tubal ligation and vasectomies for those who would have them but can't afford them?

How about educating people to the consequence of out-of-control population growth so they are aware of the bigger picture?

How about let's start telling people to try and limit families to 2 kids - 1 to replace each parent?

[SidneyCarton]

171. Laudable goals, I heartily support them.

[reflection]

176. All that sounds great.

But you brought up "limiting the number of kids people can have". Which begs the question of how. Unless you were saying that education alone will eventually change behavior to accomplish this goal. In which case I would say you are probably more of an optimist than me.

[nini]

227. we can start by educating and providing birth control - that will help

IF it gets to the point where the planet is ready to explode - limit the number of kids people can have - I don't know how the best way to do this is - I'm saying it will need to be done. I am for limiting the number of kids someone can have to stop overpopulation to the point the species borders on extinction - how this gets done is a whole other story.

[reflection]

151. The problem, if you subscribe to this theory,

is enforcement. How do you do it? Forced sterilization? That's not gonna fly. Every now and then a bill pops up which provides financial "incentives" (which is a carrot/stick approach, not a forced approach) for women on welfare to get Norplant implants. Those always fly like a lead balloon.

Really, I don't see any alternative other than what we have now, which is letting people's own common sense dictate the size of their families, and having to suffer with the occasional Duggar family.

[nini]

174. Famine and disease will take care of things eventually

So, I guess we should let people's 'common sense' get us there.


The occasional Duggar family isn't the entire problem though. It's the 5, 6, 7, 8+ kids for people too stupid to learn about birth control or think God wants them to have as many as they can pump out. Poor people get pregnant because they can't afford birth control only adding to their poverty issues. There are many people who would limit their families if they were informed and had the access to birth control etc.. Let's start there before we are forced into mandatory measures.

[reflection]

177. Agreed. n/t

[walldude]

152. Hmmm... I find it hard to believe that this is a "lifestyle" choice.

Frankly if you can find me one single woman that is truly willing to spend the next 20 years pregnant and raising anywhere from 1-20 children, I'll eat my shoes. 20 years of bloat, morning sickness, aches, pains, diapers, poop, baby food, yelling, screaming, arguing... not to mention birthing 20 kids, no woman "wants" that. And none should, raising just a couple kids these days is a full time job.

[wuushew]

156. delete

n/t

[SidneyCarton]

160. Do religious fanatics count?

People nail themselves to crosses every Easter in the Philippines. People strap bombs to their chest and blow themselves to hell and gone. etc. etc. Never underestimate the power of fanaticism, this woman thinks she's fighting the good fight and creating a legion of "christian soldiers" to add to an eventual majority that will vote in a theocracy, she's miserable but she's building a better world.

And don't eat your shoes, that's just gross.

[walldude]

166. Exactly my point about "truly willing" this woman is brainwashed.

She's not doing this because she wants to, she has been brainwashed into believing that she is saving Christianity. I'm telling you, no sane woman wants to be pregnant for 20 years.

[SidneyCarton]

167. One man's choice is another man's brainwashing.

We see it as brainwashing because it's wholly irrational, but that doesn't necessarily make it so. People make utterly irrational choices on any number of things, from their choice of mate, to what they eat for lunch. Sure, none of it is as risky as childbirth, but we only want to characterize it as brainwashing because it is religious in nature.

[WinkyDink]

197. Sez you.

[Mystayya]

180. My brother and his wife have 6

She wants more. He said he didn't, mostly out of concern for her. They are liberal, democrats, no zealously religious. They are raising a wonderful group of smart and talented kids. She came from a large family and wanted her own kids to have the same positive experiences. He earns a very good salary so they are not taking money from the state to support any of them.

Now I had 3 children, although I had meant to only have 2. That was MY choice. She made her CHOICE. This is why we as women fight for the right to CHOOSE what we do with our own bodies. Even if others might not approve.

[WinkyDink]

195. Um, wouldn't Mrs. Duggar make you eat those Thom McCanns?

Unless you know her frame of mind, of course.

[Liquorice]

155. I agree, as strange and disgusting as what they're doing is to me, it's still her choice. nt

[The Straight Story]

163. Most folks (left/right) are not really pro-choice, they just like to pretend they are

See it here all the time - people wanting to tell others how to live (based on Jesus or Money Or Mother Earth, etc and so on).

My body/My Choice is not something most take serious, unless it IS THEIR BODY and someone else wants to take away a right they like (if it is one you like, too bad).

[SidneyCarton]

165. Sadly, that would seem to be the case.

As I've said above, I find the Duggars disturbing and ridiculous and the Quiverfull movement to be bizarre and problematic, but how can we protect a woman's right to choose, when we only want to protect her right to choose the way we want her to?

[The Straight Story]

169. Not just a woman's right

But the value judgment we walk way with from such.

YOUR body (man or woman's) your choice. A choice to go to a bar that allows smoking (or to work there), a choice of where to work, to live, to eat (or what to eat) --- folks are now mapping your life to theirs and how it affects them (like christians saying abortion angers god, therefore if we as a country we all will suffer - so they map your decisions to how it could affect their life).

Your health care costs them money, so you forfeit freedom for cash. You having kids will be mapped to how it affects them, therefore they want to control your ability to do so.

Freedom has been sold - sometimes to the religious right, sometimes to the left.

I am against it either way (but get called a libertarian for it because it is easier to label someone than to actually admit that you want to limit their freedoms for money).

[nini]

175. Oh they can do what they want

and I can slam them for not giving a shit about the rest of the planet and using their kids as some kind of circus sideshow.

[wickerwoman]

181. There's a difference between judgment and legislation.

I think almost no one here would support state-enforced sterilization or mandatory abortion or any other kind of heavy-handed government based restrictions on fertility (stronger than tax disincentives). I hope.

But most people are willing to judge this family as irresponsible because their behavior is having a negative impact on the planet (and almost certainly their kids).

I'm pro-choice. That means I'm happy to let you have any opinion you want about abortion. You're welcome to judge me as a terrible, irresponsible, promiscuous, hell-bound she-witch for having one. But you are not allowed to use the government to legally prevent me from having one.

Likewise, in reverse. I think we're all welcome to judge the Duggars while being consistently pro-choice, right up to the point where we try to create legislation preventing them from making their terrible choices.

[SidneyCarton]

183. "right up to the point where we try to create legislation...

...preventing them from making their terrible choices."

A quote worthy of Pat Robertson, James Dobson or Randall Terry himself.

[redqueen]

186. The very important difference being that neither that poster ...

nor anyone else in this thread or the other one I'd wager ... is actively involved in any campaign to change the law so as to prevent that woman from doing with her body as she sees fit.

Why you or TSS can't see that hugely important distinction, I haven't a clue.

[Hello_Kitty]

196. It's similar to guys here that can't stand any criticism of porn

Immediately it's "ZOMG WTFBBQ!!1!ELEVENTY! UR TRYING TO BAN PORN YOU CENSORING SEX-HATING PRUDE!!1!" Um, no, I said that a lot of the porn that's out there is problematic for a variety of reasons. Never once did I call for a ban.

Criticizing something isn't the same as trying to legislate against it.

[redqueen]

281. LOL... yes, excellent analogy.

Quite bizarre, isn't it? :crazy:

[grace0418]

202. ...up to but not INCLUDING legislation. That is her point, which I don't

think you get.

[wickerwoman]

228. If taken completely out of context

and tortured to the point of complete nonsense.

:eyes:

Show me one person in any of these threads who is seriously and sincerely advocating a government intervention to curb population more intrusive than removing tax incentives or introducing tax disincentives.

Suggesting the government enforce mandatory abortions is analogous to the anti-choice movement. Saying "tsk, tsk, how irresponsible" about the Duggars is not.

Can we agree on that much at least?

[SidneyCarton]

264. Look, I read your post and that's what it looked like.

My mistake.

[Mystayya]

182. I am stunned by the amount of posts I see that are against a woman's right to control her own body.

[grace0418]

205. I'm stunned by the number of people who seem to forget that her daughters have

rights, too. And maybe they don't want to be full-time mothers to their younger siblings. But apparently that doesn't matter to many of you.

[nini]

237. I'm stunned that people can't see they're making a mockery out of their kids

She can do whatever she wants - but as long as her vagina is her source of attention and reality show she's open to judgment. My judgment is not that she is having kids but that she is having so many on a planet that is over crowded, there are thousands of kids who need to be adopted, the kids she already has simply cannot get the attention they need from their parents, etc. etc..

So, she can squirt out 10 more - it's her right. It's our right to have a fucking opinion about her choice if she makes it a source of attention on herself.

[Beaverhausen]

187. choice comes with responsibility

you can't tell me every one of these 19 kids is getting the care and attention he/she needs and deserves.

[grace0418]

208. Amen to that.

There is no way, I assure you. I'm the youngest of eleven.

[Hello_Kitty]

190. Supporting the right of people to have choices doesn't mean I have to approve of them

Particularly where bringing more children into an overcrowded world is concerned.

[The Straight Story]

213. I would agree with you on that

I don't really approve of it either, but it is their life, and their choices. I am not sure what is to be gained by railing against them though - do we want to pressure others to make choices we approve of?

Women make reproductive choices and I don't feel the need to badger them about it like the fundies do.

[Hello_Kitty]

219. I'm not for railing against people for their choices

But I do wish there was social pressure on people to be thoughtful about when or whether to reproduce. What's wrong with pressure? Most of the positive changes that have been wrought in humanity happened because a previously accepted behavior became socially unacceptable.

[grace0418]

199. So where do the daughters come in? What about their choice to perhaps be children

instead of mothers to their younger siblings? How does that factor into the equation? Because it seems to me that Mom's right to have more kids ended when she stopped being able to care for them without forcing her older daughters into indentured servitude.

And yes, the family has stated that each time a new kid is born, one of the older daughters is tasked with their care. Mom is too busy making the next one.

[The Straight Story]

210. And this is new?

Families have done such for a very long time. Older kids helping raise younger kids. Something called family. Even extended out to taking care of your parents as they aged.

kids have chores and responsibilities - and hell I am not even saying I think it is right, or wrong, just not my place to force my beliefs on others.

We are a melting pot not only of race but ideals and lifestyles in this country, which is why so many value the whole freedom thing: you be you, I'll be me, and we will respect our differences in culture/religion/etc.

Remember 'It Takes a Village'? In a family setting like this they feel 'It takes a family'.

I don't agree with it all, think it is a damned shame to shoulder the other kids with such responsibility, but then I am not them. What is good for me might be different than what is good for them.

[grace0418]

221. Families used to send their children off to work in factories, too. Doesn't mean

they should still do it, or be applauded for it.

There is a difference between chores and being forced to care for younger siblings full-time.

There is also a difference between stating an opinion about a situation you think is wrong and harmful to the children involved and forcing your beliefs on others. The Duggars and their supporters are free to think they are the best parents around. And I am free to think they are selfish and narcissistic.

[wickerwoman]

230. Exactly!

And there's a huge difference between doing some chores after school and being taken out of school so you can spend 95% of your day being "home-schooled" in home ec: raising half a dozen toddlers, cooking meals for 20, doing laundry, etc. with no expectation that you should be prepared for tertiary education because you're just going to get married at 18 and start the cycle all over again. Hell, it's better if you aren't prepared for any kind of job because they you'll never leave the husband your parents picked out for you because you'll know good and well you can never make it in the outside world.

This is how women around the globe become trapped in cycles of poverty, ignorance, abuse and exploitation.

But I guess that's just not a big deal for some around here.

[Hello_Kitty]

293. Of course not. It's just women so it's romanticized. eom

[Beaverhausen]

215. I have never watched the TV show- are the daughters all doing mommy's work?

what is the dynamic there?

I think I read above none of the daughters get secondary education...do the sons?

[grace0418]

220. The sons seem to do relatively okay, except for the fact that they are raised by

pre-teen and teenage girls not mature enough to be parents. But the girls are in charge of all the cooking, cleaning and child care for the family. No time to be children, certainly no time for secondary education.

[treestar]

164. I agree

Not worth arguing against or doing anything. The reason they make the news is because they are rare - they can't have enough children to turn the country Christian, that's hopeless on their part. Not to mention that with that many kids, some of them are going to rebel and have few or no children and because godless libruls. It's bound to be that some of them will feel neglected.

They can't have enough children to hurt the environment either. That's a much bigger picture - even without the Duggers, this problem would exist.

[AnnieBW]

179. Who's paying for all of those kids?

What health care plan is she on?

[WinkyDink]

198. They have books and a TV show. And a website for the curious:

http://www.duggarfamily.com/

"Both Jim Bob and Michelle are licensed real estate agents.They often host and facilitate the Jim Sammon’s Financial Freedom Seminar. Jim Bob served in the Arkansas House of Representatives from 1999 to 2003 and was a candidate for the U.S. Senate in 2002."

[XemaSab]

188. Thank you for this... Pro-choice means

PRO-CHOICE.

Michelle Duggar has the freedom to have 20 abortions, 20 kids, 3 kids, no kids.... it's all down to her.

[Hello_Kitty]

238. Doesn't mean you get to be free from having your choices criticized

Not all choices are equal or value-neutral. And when you choose to bring a child into the world, you are involving other people in your choice, not the least of whom is the child.

[grace0418]

191. I'm pro-choice for *ALL* the women in the family, including the minors who now

are forced into parenthood with no CHOICE in the matter. Mrs. Duggar's right to pump out children ends when it infringes on the rights of her daughters to decide for themselves if they want to raise those children.

I would never advocate for any kind of legislation, but I will sure as hell speak out on the selfishness of a woman who has more children than she and her husband can raise themselves.

Children being raised by children is not good for either end of that equation.

Flame away. I was raised in a family of eleven and I know how such a family works.

[redqueen]

194. Well said... it amazes me that some are trying to equate criticism

with a movement to change the law to limit the rights of others.

:crazy:

[grace0418]

200. Thanks. No one seems to think about those kids when they applaud mom and dad

for pumping out another kid who's going to get next to zero adult attention.

[pipi_k]

217. thank you for pointing this out

I already had to state somewhere up above that I'm not trying to regulate anyone's womb, and I don't know how criticism/opinions on the whole deal somehow translates to wanting to do that.

I dunno... I just never understand it...people ask for opinions, and when they get them, some of them will not be what they wanted to hear. Those opinions are then used as ammunition against the opinion holder to accuse him or her of wanting to take away someone else's rights.

[pipi_k]

201. something that people either forget, or don't know...

and it's exactly like you pointed out.

Unless a family has the means to hire a bunch of nannies for taking care of the multiple kids, the older ones are going to be left with the task of being surrogate parents to the younger ones.

And they don't have a choice in the matter, and that's that.

Which was exactly the point I tried to make up above when I said these Duggars (and others like them) are being irresponsible and piggish, not caring how their "rights" infringe on the rights of kids to grow up without being a miniature mom or dad at the age of six or seven.

[WinkyDink]

203. I don't think they are alone in having older children help with the younger.

Do people here draw the line at Ethel Kennedy's 11, or just at the Duggars' number?

[treestar]

206. Being Catholic and back in that day

Is different, though. The social pressures are entirely different.

[WinkyDink]

218. I'm 59 and Catholic; I know all about "back in the day."

[treestar]

284. Then why not admit the difference?

The Kennedys would have had a lot of children because the social pressure was there not to use birth control.

Whereas the Duggars have complete access to it and just about no one wants them to do this.

[grace0418]

207. Helping and full-time care are different things.

Chores and baby-sitting are okay. Full time child care, cooking and cleaning are child abuse in my opinion.

Although I personally was from a family of eleven and think that was more than any parents can properly raise. I also think that the times are different now.

[pipi_k]

211. Ethel Kennedy doesn't even escape

my opinion that a certain number of kids is irresponsible.

[Hello_Kitty]

222. Thank you.

It's especially annoying to see ostensibly progressive DUers play the culture/tradition card to defend this exploitation. The reasons most people had large families back in the day no longer exist, for the most part.

[asksam]

212. A Q for those who bring up the overpopulation argument...

... and say that the Duggars should be prevented from having more children due to overpopulation effects...

Suppose we lived in a society that was *underpopulated* and society desperately needed more people to survive and function, would you consider outlawing abortion and mandating that every woman have X number of children?

My guess is that (like me) you would not. As such, the desire of society to achieve an ideal poplation for the planet (whatever that number is) should not be a factor in the decision to allow or not allow the Duggars (or anyone else) to have any number of children that they want (provided, of course, they can care for them).

[Hello_Kitty]

225. I reject your entire premise

We will never have an "underpopulated" society. It is impossible. What we have is a global corporate consumer-driven economy that depends on endless growth and new consumers to "survive and function". It isn't an inevitibility that the economy has to be that way, though people can't seem to imagine anything else.

My concern with overpopulation does not stem from a desire to achieve an ideal population. Nor am I interested in legislating Michelle Duggar's, or anyone else's reproductive choices. Frankly, I'd be happy at this point if we could mention overpopulation without people immediately freaking the fuck out and conjuring up all sorts of dystopic fantasy scenarios.

[ThatsMyBarack]

216. The Duggars are Republicans....

And they keep breeding MORE! :yoiks:

[progressoid]

224. Asbestos underwear? Are you a Mormon?

[Odin2005]

226. The daughters are being treated as servants, denied opportunities.

That's child abuse as far as I'm concerned.

[Skittles]

229. think about it next time you're in rush hour traffic

[Hello_Kitty]

231. Or at the mall. eom

[shimmergal]

232. Something to think about--

Our city-county school system, despite its funding and overcrowded problems, thinks individual attention is important enough to limit grades 1 - 3 classes to 17 children each. This is for teachers who're professionally trained, and only in charge of the children 5 to 6 hours a day (they also usually have parent volunteers to assist.) If there's anything to this argument that adult attention shouldn't be spread too thin, how can the Duggars to give it to 20 kids, round-the-clock, and with almost constant pregnancy too?

I worry about their teenage daughters who're drafted into being substitute mothers, and about all the kids being viewed at least partly as "weapons for a cause" rather than precious individuals in their own right. And no, I'm not saying they don't have the right to live as they choose. Although I wonder if an equivalent family WITHOUT the backing of a religious movement or TV audience (and perhaps in another state) wouldn't draw some very close looks from both social services and education departments?

[grace0418]

248. Very well said.

"how can the Duggars to give it to 20 kids, round-the-clock, and with almost constant pregnancy too? " The answer is they can't.

And I can almost guarantee you that the constant glorification of their reproductive decisions is probably very weird for the kids.

I am the youngest of eleven and I remember other adults constantly talking about what a "saint" my mother must be. It always made me feel like I must be doing something very wrong because my supposedly saintly, wonderful mother was a stressed out, exhausted, crabby crazy woman most of the time (and asleep the rest of the time) who barely had any time to pay attention to me.

[Texasgal]

239. I agree.. forced sterilization

Is not cool and not a right I am willing to give up...pro choice means just that... CHOICE.

Do I agree with them? NO! Do they have the right? YES!

[Hello_Kitty]

240. Who has argued for forced sterilization here? Anyone?

Try addressing what's actually being said and not the strawman you created.

[Texasgal]

241. relax kitty

Just saying that while many of us disagree with what they are doing there REALLY is no rights issue to prevent them from doing so.

I never said anyone was advocating it, I am just posting an opinion.

Relax.

[Hello_Kitty]

242. And others are posting their opinions as well.

Pro-choice doesn't mean you get to have everyone's approval for the choice you make.

[Texasgal]

243. I don't disagree with that

at all.

I am just posting MY opinion on how I feel about being able to bear multiple children.

It's MY right. MY uterus.

MY opinion. Okay?

[Hello_Kitty]

244. It's your right, but it's not all about YOU.

If you use your uterus to bring children into the world that you cannot properly care for you are infringing on their rights. That's just MHO. Not all choices are equal or morally neutral.

[Texasgal]

249. Actually... when It is

about ME and MY uterus... sorry.. it IS about me.

How else would you like to deal with that?

[Hello_Kitty]

269. Yeah, it's all about you.

There's a lot of that attitude going around in the world. Which is why there will never be a shortage of people who had fucked up childhoods, courtesy of their narcissistic asshole parents.

[The Stranger]

259. Bizarre how your mind flew into "forced sterlization" when responsibility and morality would do.

[LisaL]

250. You have some strange logic.

Being pro-choice doesn't mean you can't be critical of someone's choice.
By the way Mrs. Duggars is getting up in years.
She also had a number of c-sections.
I fail to see the need for her to have more children, considering she already had so many.

[Texasgal]

251. No one ever SAID you cannot be critical.

Did you read my post?

I SAID that while I do not agree with her multible births, it is indeed HER CHOICE.

[LisaL]

252. Yea I've read your post. What is your point?

I don't think there is a single poster here that argued for mandatory limits on how many children someone can have.
So what are you arguing about.
By the way, this woman, at her age, will not even do prenatal testing.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,545163,00.html??test=faces

[Texasgal]

253. Goodness.

I stated MY opinion.

I accused no one of agreeing with sterization.

I was simply making a point that may or may not been raised.

Is that okay?

[moriah]

272. If they're not going to abort, why would they do pre-natal testing?

At least, that's what some said about Palin getting tested before Trig's birth.

Several argued that Ms. Duggar should be stopped somehow from continuing to get preggers. As for me, I just hope she survives this delivery and any future deliveries if she goes for #20 -- I would hate to see all of those kids without a mom.

[The Stranger]

257. Let's go over it one more time: There are too many human beings on the planet.

It is beyond irresponsible to have as many children as you can conceive. Given the ecological and environmental circumstances, it is ignorant. It is immoral.

[Liquorice]

260. Anti-choice people say the same thing--they don't believe in choice because it is "immoral." nt

[grace0418]

261. Anti-choice people want laws changed. Pro-choice people want minds changed.

No one here is advocating laws be changed as far as I can see. But societal pressure can be used for good, and I think everyone who sees this as an abuse of the responsibilities that come along with having choices should speak up. As I said upthread, Mrs. Duggar's right to pump out children ends when it infringes on the rights of her daughters to decide for themselves if they want to raise those children for her.

[Liquorice]

263. You don't know that she is forcing her daughters to raise her children. nt

[Hello_Kitty]

271. Sure looks like she and her husband are forcing them.

If it's totally voluntary I find it odd that ONLY the girls would be volunteering to do it and ALL of them, to boot. You'd think out of 18 kids at least one boy would take an interest in helping out around the house and at least one girl would be like "hell no". There are many ways to coerce people into doing things, short of using threats or physical force. It's probably a very clear expectation that this is what the girls are to do.

[Liquorice]

273. If the daughters are being abused, they should be taken away

from that family, but I think you know they're not being abused. My older brother was "forced" to take care of me when he would have rather been playing when we were growing up. He wasn't being abused either, but yeah, it did kind of suck for him. As for raising girls differently than boys, if that's abuse, then hundreds of thousands of daughters would have to be taken away due to their sexist upbringings.

[Hello_Kitty]

274. I think they should be taken away from those fundie lunatics. eom

[grace0418]

275. Actually, I do. The family has said so.

And really, is there any other way it would be possible for two adults to care for 19 children unless they had the older kids caring for the younger kids (or they hired a team of nannies)?

[wickerwoman]

276. Nobody is bombing maternity wards

to prevent women from having too many children.

Nobody is lobbying congress to introduce legislation mandating birth control, forced abortions or sterilization for women with more than three children.

Nobody is standing outside hospitals harassing pregnant women into having abortions with graphic signs of drowned polar bears and starving Brazilian children.

I'm sorry, but that analogy is offensive and is *really* starting to piss me off now.

There's a difference between expressing an opinion and lobbying the government to make laws based on that opinion.

There's a difference between thinking something is wrong and killing, threatening and coercing people through laws that invade their privacy into doing what you want.

Why is that a difficult concept to grasp?

[ZombieHorde]

267. Who are the Duggars and what have they done?

[Dreamer Tatum]

282. They've committed the dual sins of being very religious and having lots of children

...so we're devising retroactive rules to distinguish our inalienable reproductive rights from theirs.

[Hello_Kitty]

294. Right. Because criticizing someone means you want to take their rights away.

The truth is that I do respect Michelle Duggar's right to choose. She doesn't respect mine, though.

[reflection]

296. So you would accept, without complaint, someone who says,

"I don't like abortion at all, I think it's wrong, but I support a woman's right to choose?"

Because I see those types dragged through the mud around here quite a bit.

[agentS]

270. The main problem isn't numbers- it is the purpose.

The Duggars may be an example of it working, but for many others, it's not working. It's a disaster.
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2009/03/14/joyce_quiverfull/

More required reading here.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/189763

Key part of the article here.

Often, children of the movement are also called "arrows." Quiverfull takes its name from Psalm 127: "Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are sons born in one's youth. Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them. They will not be put to shame when they contend with their enemies in the gate." A wealth of military metaphors follows from this namesake, as Pride and her fellow advocates urge women toward militant fecundity in the service of religious rebirth: creating what they bluntly refer to as an army of devout children to wage spiritual battle against God's enemies. As Quiverfull author Rachel Scott writes in her 2004 movement book, "Birthing God's Mighty Warriors," "Children are our ammunition in the spiritual realm to whip the enemy! These special arrows were handcrafted by the warrior himself and were carefully fashioned to achieve the purpose of annihilating the enemy."

Now this is where I have a problem with the whole movement. They're not birthing and raising kids because they love kids or some altruistic principle; they're raising kids to fight the culture wars. Specifically to fight and kill people like us. The George Tiller murder was just the start.

"So Much More: The Remarkable Influence of Visionary Daughters on the Kingdom of God," instruct their young peers to view motherhood to as women's "final secret weapon in the battle for progressive dominion." "Too many women forget that the hand that rocks the cradle really does rule the world," they write. "We should think ahead, not only to our children, but to our grandchildren and great-grandchildren, aspiring to be a mother of thousands of millions, and aspiring to see our children possess the gates of their enemies for the glory of God."

The Reich-Wing Christianofascist is having a hard time convincing people to believe their bullcrap, so they're brainwashing children to carry the torch. Specifically, to carry the torch against the values, beliefs, and changes we fought so hard to validate in the public square.

make no mistake- the kids and grandkids of this movement will be the Pastor Hagees and Scott Roeders and Lee Harvey Oswalts of tmw. Unless the kids are actually the Ted Haggards, Billy Graham jrs, and in-the-closet Governors/Senators of tmw, which could happen as well.

Banning births would be useful but it's too labor/resource intensive. Instead, we should keep the pace and change more hearts and minds than they can. Mrs. Duggar can have 20 children but that can't beat our 62 million strong Obama voters. Who most in turn will have kids and raise them according to some of our principles, etc.

[verdalaven]

280. I read about them and wonder....

what kind of relationship the mother and father will have with their children later in life. My mother was made to drop out of HS to help raise her younger siblings and her relationship with her mother once she grew up was cold - she never forgave her parents for taking away her youth and that feeling was accentuated after she had children and realized what she had missed.

It might be interesting to see how some of the kids turn out later in life. For the time being, however, I won't watch the show because I know it would just piss me off (life is too short).

[redqueen]

287. I knew many people who were raised in households like that...

and none of them seemed glad to have been forced to take on their parents' responsibilities as children.

[grace0418]

291. My older sisters sure weren't.

The three of them only have 4 kids between them, and two of them were born when my sisters were much older. Frankly, I'm surprised they wanted any. My oldest sister was affected the most. She's never been able to forgive my parents for what they forced on her.

[Hello_Kitty]

292. About 20 years ago a girl sent a letter to Ann Landers

She was the oldest in a large family and complained how she was always expected to take care of her younger siblings and had no life of her own. Ann responded by lecturing her that she should help her parents without complaining, family responsibilities blah blah blah. A few weeks later Ann said she was bombarded with letters from adults defending the girl. Several of them described being deprived of their childhood by parents who expected them to be surrogate parents to their siblings. One woman said that after raising all her brothers and sisters she had no interest in having a family of her own. It was quite eye-opening for Ann, and her readers. I've noticed that most of the people defending the practice were either the younger siblings of large families who were on the receiving end of care (and thus got to have their childhood) or they have some romantic image of large poor families in 'traditional' ethnic cultures.

[AngryOldDem]

289. I guess what rankled me was the big announcement on Today.

Number 19 is on the way. Good for them. But to make it a national scene is disgusting.

That's my only real beef with this family -- every birth announcement is right on par with the angel visiting Mary.

I wonder if 20 will be the limit -- nice, round number. But the kid whose expecting with his wife is still relatively young, so if they're going for some kind of record it may not stand.

I salute that woman. I truly do. To spend most of the past 20 years either pregnant or recovering from a pregancy is a feat of Herculean proportions. Guess it saves on the Kotex bill.