Originally Posted By barboy You know something DVC, you entertain me. When I see your name pop up on topics I have no interest in I go ahead and open them up anyway just to read your stuff. Hey, don't worry about coming on too strong and being candid about your family-- you're fine dude. Keep it coming!
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<You asked for articles.>> Your links did not affirm your point of view as well as you might have thought. As with so many 'studies', you can make most of them say any danged thing you want them to by pulling out random quotes. <<However the advantages of growing up in a smaller family do not translate into higher levels of satisfaction with life.>> So... would you rather your kids be rich or happy? I'd take happy, myself. <<“Mother's age encapsulates many variables that could negatively effect the child-rearing environment. The younger a mother was at the birth of her first child, the lower we would expect intelligence scores to be within a family,†Wichman said. That's because younger mothers would tend to have less education, more children, lower income, and other factors that would negatively affect the intelligence of their children.>> They are taking mother's age at the birth of there first child, see that women who gave birth quite young tend to have a bunch of kids, and then extrapolate that to say (erroneously) that large families diminishes intelligence. That is a load of poo. What it says is that girls who are stupid enough to have a kid at 15 and then go on having MORE kids will probably produce stupid kids. Well DUH!!
Originally Posted By RoadTrip ^^^ There first child should be their first child. (And my parents only had four kids.) ;-)
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<I was striking out in frustration. And I apologize specifically to you Inspector for post #142.>> Wow. Thank you very much, DVC_dad. I truly appreciate that. I sincerely like your presence on LP and I was really sorry to read what felt like an uncharacteristic slur. I understand that some of the posts on this thread must have frustrated you. Thank you again. For what it's worth -- -- When I wrote that my concern about the Duggal family (and Duggal-like families) was about the attention that each child would receive, I was being up-front. I feel sorry for the kids. I have not dishonestly criticized the Duggals out of any hidden agenda. -- I recently read an essay in which the writer stated that anti-gay Fundamentalists have an advantage over gays in that they (the Fundamentalists) can reproduce like crazy to ensure that there will be more people with their beliefs to promote their cause. I suppose there's something to that. But that's not a reason for which I would oppose the Duggals' decisions to have numerous children. While I'm not a religious person, I respect people's right to practice and even promote their religions. (Besides, we gays don't need to be able to reproduce. Gayness just happens. Statistically, probably a couple of the Duggal kids are gay. Muh-waaaa-haaaa-haaaa!) -- I don't have an absolute number at which I'd say "too many!" about kids. But I know that 17 is above that number. I don't think that 6 is above that number in your case. My parents had four. They only wanted two. (PLEASE don't tell Karl [the world's coolest brother] or PJ [my favorite person in the world] that they were the result of contraceptive failures.) It worked out okay. Thanks again, DVC_dad, for your comment and for your original post. All the best to you and your family.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "I am that person and I say pumping out baby after baby is irresponsible and selfish today because we are overpopulated and more urban than before. Most resources are finite." So as it relates to Griswold, where do draw the line? Griswold already establishes that we shouldn't be in the bedroom of married people. The Libertarian in people would say the government has no right at all to interfere and tell people what to do or not do. How do you prevent this from becoming a slippery slope, especially if there's no standard of scrutiny that can constitutionally be applied here. Meaning, if these kids aren't a burden to society right now, and there's no evidence of that, then on what basis can we restrict them? A few years ago a Wisconsin court tried to get a guy castrated because he kept fathering kids and couldn't keep up with the child support. I believe it was their Supreme Court that said despite his lack of parenting ability, he had an inalienable right to re-produce if he desired. In a area where it doesn't matter in the long run, I think people are making moral judgments and/or decisions where they ultimately have no utility at all.
Originally Posted By barboy Pass, I alluded that Gov't should put a stop to bad parents and those who are producing say 17 kids but for the record I want Gov't out, all the way of reproduction and bedroom issues. It's just that 17, I say, is way too many but that couple (as much as I dislike it) must be allowed to have unlimited numbers children or as many as they want.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Pass, I alluded that Gov't should put a stop to bad parents and those who are producing say 17 kids but for the record I want Gov't out, all the way of reproduction and bedroom issues. It's just that 17, I say, is way too many but that couple (as much as I dislike it) must be allowed to have unlimited numbers children or as many as they want.<< This is how I feel as well. I'm honestly not sure where people (and there've been a few) have gotten the idea that some of us think government should regulate how many children someone could have. It might be in here somewhere (with 186 posts!) but it wasn't from me. I really liked SPPs post a while back. But I also agree with jonvn (but not the personal attacks) that I wouldn't think all that highly of someone who had 17 abortions, anymore than I think all that highly of someone who has 17 kids. For me it's the celebration that's troublesome, the publicity stunts, etc. I'll also reiterate that their comments about birth control, sinning, and God completely suck. I don't see how you can talk about these people and not bring that into the conversation. Teaching your children that you have to repent for using birth control is not my definition of creating great members of society. Are they crack addicts or car thieves? Nope, and that's just swell. Good for them getting the bare minimum. But teaching your kids something as archaic that God is essentially punishing you for using birth control ends up in the "con" part of my checklist for parenting.
Originally Posted By debtee <a href="http://www.people.com/people/article/0" target="_blank">http://www.people.com/people/a rticle/0</a>,,20049909,00.html Check this out...where are all the kids dressed the same with the same haircuts?
Originally Posted By debtee <a href="http://www.people.com/people/article/0" target="_blank">http://www.people.com/people/a rticle/0</a>,,20049909,00.html Sorry can't get the link to work. It's a picture on www.people.com and all the kids are dressed in different clothes welcoming the new baby, as per the shows I have watched!
Originally Posted By jonvn "Your links did not affirm your point of view as well as you might have thought." Those were a random few. There are dozens. I picked whatever came up quickly. "So... would you rather your kids be rich or happy?" That says they aren't happier, but it doesn't say they are less happy, either. But it does say they are more educated, and live a better life. "That is a load of poo." Well, no. It's what is going on. WHether you want to believe it or not. Somehow, you think that people with 10 kids all have a huge house and smart caring parents? It's not like that. "that couple (as much as I dislike it) must be allowed to have unlimited numbers children or as many as they want." Sure, until it actually becomes detrimental to the children involved. Which at 17 kids, and even a lot less, is what will happen to them. I'm surprised the woman has not had uteran prolapse yet. At what point DOES the state step in and tell these people to stop having kids? I think there is nothing wrong with that, if the children start becoming a burden to the public at large or are themselves endangered by the parents continuing to have more children. People are able to have this many children because prior to the 20th century, children died. You had disease and injury taking away the unfortunates. When farming came along, it was also helpful for that, but we died at young ages long before we did farming. We don't need to do that anymore. It is actually counterproductive and unhealthy. It is simply disgusting.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "It's just that 17, I say, is way too many but that couple (as much as I dislike it) must be allowed to have unlimited numbers children or as many as they want." Exactly right. I'm not saying I agree with 17 either, but it is absolutely useles in the end to kvetch about it, or call them names (not you), when it is their inherent right to do whatever they want.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad I'll conceded that 17 kids is beyond my comfort zone as a parent, but 7 is still doable. I think 7 is probably going to be my upper limit. As a foot note: It's good to see you back TDG.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad Oh and barboy, I'm not sure if entertaining you is a good thing or bad, but either way, I'm glad I can at least give you a laugh now and then. Sometimes I re-read my own post and think to myself, "You should have followed the "Orator's Golden Rule" on that one. Orator's Golden Rule: "It's better to keep your mouth shut, and let people think you an idiot than to open it and remove all doubt." *big deep sigh* Yep that'd be me alright.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Talk about overpopulation is nonsense. The great majority of the world has either a declining (1.0-1.99) or stable (2.0-2.99) birthrate. Most of the countries with an increasing birthrate are in African countries being ravaged by AIDS, so no need to worry. Most of them won't live very long anyway. :-( <a href="http://tinyurl.com/3cea6p" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/3cea6p</a>
Originally Posted By LVBelle Free Jinger! I've been following the Duggar's story for quite a while via the TV shows, articles and reading the forums at Television Without Pity (great place to read snark on them!). I totally agree that it is a women's right to raise as many children as she wants. However, I do take issue with some of the ways this family operates. Like the Inspector was saying, the quality time with parents is severely lacking. I believe it was in yesterday's Today Show interview that they said that they have a sign up form in their kitchen for one on one time with mom and dad. No child should have to sign up for quality time with a parent. One of my other criticisms is that the children are not prepared to live in today's society. Their social contact is mostly limited to other, similar homeschooled families. In addition, the education they are recieving does not seem sufficient. If you look at the oldest boy's website, it is filled with simple spelling and grammar issues. A while back I read profiles of the kids that included what they wanted to be when they grew up. The girls all had a typcially feminine occupation listed- midwife, mom, and hairstylist were all mentioned. No doctors, lawyers, or scientists among the girls! If you read their webpage, they post a typical day in their house. Guess who does all of the cooking? The teenage girls. In fact, it notes that one of the girls is responsible for cooking lunch for the entire rest of the family! Just so I'm not totally negative, I will say that Michelle Duggar is far more organized than I will ever be and she has tons more patience than me. And those kids are very polite and quite adorable!
Originally Posted By wahooskipper There are a lot of people on this website that seem to take great pleasure in judging others. I'm not sure where any of you get off doing so. I'm not picking on LVBelle as she just happens to be the most recent poster. But, are you criticizing ALL of homeschooling? I know many kids in my own community who are homeschooled and are doing great. Are you criticizing the occupations of "mom", midwife, hairstylist? What is wrong with those choices? My wife is extremely satisfied being a mother. There is no way in the world I would have 17 kids...heck, I don't want 7. But, if anyone else is inclined to do so, who am I to say otherwise? I'm not supporting those kids but I AM supporting plenty of one and two children families who can't get their act together.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<I think 7 is probably going to be my upper limit.>> Yea. Right. I fully expect another announcement in a year or two!! LOL ;-)
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Are you criticizing the occupations of "mom", midwife, hairstylist? What is wrong with those choices?<< Not a thing, so long as the girls have been exposed to other posibillities, too, and have made a conscious choice that that's what they want to be. I wonder about that, based on their curriculum. >>There are a lot of people on this website that seem to take great pleasure in judging others.<< Judge not unless a family launches themselves into the public eye via multiple cable programs, magazine articles and a family website.
Originally Posted By LVBelle I am certainly not criticizing all of homeschooling. I just have to wonder how effectively one person (who as far as I know does not have teaching credentials and all of the training that comes along with them) can teach that number of children at such varied levels. I know that I, as a classroom teacher, struggle every year with teaching all of the required curriculum to the varied levels of students that one classroom can contain. And this was a pretty basic first grade curriculum. I can't imagine trying to do that in addition to teaching the more advanced curriculum that the older Duggar children should be taught. And I am certainly not criticizing the choices of being a mother, midwife, or hairstylist. Heck, if it were feasible for our family, I would love to be a stay at home mom. This summer has been the best time of my life, home with my little one. However, growing up, I knew that I could be ANYTHING that I wanted to. While I knew I wanted to be a mom, I also wanted to be a marine biologist, artist, teacher, gardener, Broadway star etc. I just wonder if any of these choices have been presented to the Duggar girls. As for being judgmental, yup, I know I am. But when you parade your family around on various TV specials as they have, I kind of feel they have opened themselves up for judgment. But I will be the first to admit that things are possibly not as they are presented on the TV specials and I may be making incorrect judgments. I would love to spend a day with the family to learn what they are really like.
