Originally Posted By sherrytodd OK, I will admit that this family creeps me out. But I do not feel that this crosses the line into child abuse. There are truely abused children out there who would dream of being part of this family. But on a bigger note, that people suggest that the government should have a say in whether or not we have children and how many we are alloted is a far scarier notion. We've seen the results of that in history and in other nations and it's always resulted in barbaric practices. That's a road I'd prefer to not travel.
Originally Posted By Ursula I agree with Inspector on all points, especially on his points that is it possible that the children are not getting a fair shake. I've seen their TV specials and shows, so it is not like I am uneduacted on their family dynamic and true to TV form, I've only seen what they wanted me to see. I had said earlier on in this thread that something wasn't settling right with me, and it was on their ability to use their home as a tax-break as a church. I think that everyne else should be able to do this then, regardless of the number of children they have. What really bothers me is math: 17 x 17 x 17= 4,913 I do believe that the US is overcrowded and it is getting worse as I grow older.
Originally Posted By x Pirate_Princess x But are all 17 of these kids going to have 17 kids, and in turn all those kids have 17 kids? Doubt it. The boys don't have to use "birth control" so there is no "selfish action" there. And the girls may want to take a different route, not get married right away, start a career first, whatever. Saying that each off spring will in turn have 17 kids who will all in turn have 17 kids is not reasonable at all.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I sacrifice a great deal of my "personal time" to spend it with my children in a quality time, individually." You have six children. Let's assume you work 8 hours a day. And that you leave for work before they get up, allowing you to get home, say about 5pm. Say they have bedtime at 8pm. Not unreasonable, I don't think. You also eat dinner, assume that takes about oh, an hour. That leaves about 2 hours for you to give individual attention to 6 kids. What is that about 15 minutes per child? I guess that's plenty. Say I'm off a bit, up to maybe double. That is 15 to 30 minutes of individual attention per child. But that is if you do nothing but devote individual attention to each child. If you do anything else, like look online, that time is reduced. If you think that's enough, that's up to you. I don't think it is, personally. "My children all go to private schools" "They each have their own bedroom." Obviously, you are much better off than the average person, who can not afford a 7 bedroom house. "you who are condemning them, you really don't care about their kids or them; nay, your protests come from something far deeper than your bogus outward concern for their children" Actually, I do care a lot about kids. I probably care more about them than you seem to, in that you keep producing them oblivious to their individual needs and how it may affect them. My bogus outward concern comes from not wanting children to live in bad conditions. I've seen it personally, and the utter disinterest of the parents in how they are raising these children, whom I would say at a certain point should start to be taken away from the mother and father. Six is a lot of kids. If you can handle them, fine. But don't expect me to believe you are somehow more caring than I am or for others who express the same ideas. Because as far as I'm concerned, you are far less caring and far less moral than people who have fewer kids.
Originally Posted By Ursula <<<But are all 17 of these kids going to have 17 kids, and in turn all those kids have 17 kids? Doubt it. The boys don't have to use "birth control" so there is no "selfish action" there. And the girls may want to take a different route, not get married right away, start a career first, whatever. Saying that each off spring will in turn have 17 kids who will all in turn have 17 kids is not reasonable at all.>>> They are teaching their children what they believe, so time will tell. True, boys don't need birth control...what about their wives?
Originally Posted By jonvn "if you believe that an effective teacher can give each individual student in her classroom of 20-30 individual attention" They are there to teach a classroom. It's better to have smaller classrooms, go pay more taxes for them. But it is the parent's job to provide individual and caring attention to each child. "Each child gets "his" night with mom and/or dad." That's absolutely terrible. "Oh, it's tuesday, I get to talk to dad." "I'm sure, after 5 kids, the mother in this story has the instincts of ... I dunno what." Or not. Maybe it's simply neglectful.
Originally Posted By jonvn "But I do not feel that this crosses the line into child abuse." Just because some forms of abuse are worse than others does not mean it is not all abuse.
Originally Posted By sherrytodd If I did and believed everything my parents taught me, I sure wouldn't be the person I am today. In a family of three, with ample individual time for parental brainwashing, my sisters and I are about as different as people can get. They aren't producing 17 carbon-copies. These are humans who are going to ultimately take their own route in life.
Originally Posted By Ursula I just got the image of Jinger as a punk rocker with full facial piercings! Thanks for the laugh!
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<You have six children. Let's assume you work 8 hours a day. And that you leave for work before they get up, allowing you to get home, say about 5pm. Say they have bedtime at 8pm. Not unreasonable, I don't think. You also eat dinner, assume that takes about oh, an hour. That leaves about 2 hours for you to give individual attention to 6 kids.>> Talk about out of touch!! I can't believe that anyone who visits LP regularly would not know that DVC_dad is a full-time stay-at-home dad. << Because as far as I'm concerned, you are far less caring and far less moral than people who have fewer kids.>> That is the most asinine comment I’ve ever read on LP.
Originally Posted By sherrytodd <<I just got the image of Jinger as a punk rocker with full facial piercings! Thanks for the laugh!>> OK, I do think that naming a child Jinger Duggar does qualify as abuse. It's a good thing that kid is home schooled. =P
Originally Posted By jonvn "I can't believe that anyone who visits LP regularly would not know that DVC_dad is a full-time stay-at-home dad." And you didn't know I had children, either. So, let's see who is out of touch...hmm. So, he has a 7 bedroom house (at least) and sends his kids to private school, and does not work. Yes, that's absolutely typical. I think what is far more typical is that people don't have houses this large, both parents have to work, and the kids live in squalor while getting little if any attention from their parents. Yes, I'd say that's probably far more how it is in families like this. "That is the most asinine comment I’ve ever read on LP." No. The fact that you don't understand this is not surprising, though.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I keep going back to this idea that the tipping point in this couple's lives was the "selfish act" of using birth control. That somehow a miscarriage is a message from God. It's up to everyone to interpret these things as they wish, but to me, this isn't healthy, and it is likely one of the 'lessons' they are instilling in their kids as well. That's the part that disturbs me far more than whatever total of children they produce, because I believe it is an unhealthy mindset.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Still up to your old tricks? As for 17 kids...more power to them. I'm exhausted each night after the 4 year old and the 1 year old finally get to bed. 15 more? No thanks. Those weddings aren't going to be much fun...that is for sure. Although, each sibling could invite only family and still get a ton of gifts!
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<And you didn't know I had children, either. So, let's see who is out of touch...hmm.>><< <<"Who knew? You've never mentioned them" I have, in passing.>> By your own statement you indicate that you don’t mention your kids very often. DVC_dad regularly mentions the fact that he is a stay-at-home dad. <<"That is the most asinine comment I’ve ever read on LP." No. The fact that you don't understand this is not surprising, though.>> I stand by my assessment. Many people on LP have commented on what a great dad they think DVC_dad is. If you want to say you think he is nuts for having that many kids, fine. But to say that he is "far less caring and far less moral than people who have fewer kids" is, well, asinine.
Originally Posted By imadisneygal I think it's great that DVC_Dad is able to instill in his children tolerance for all people and the differences between them. I have absolutely no reason to disbelieve him and every reason to believe him because he's a regular on here and devotes lots of time to talking about how important his family is to him and how he feels about his responsibility as a father. I do NOT think, however, that it's typical of an evangelical Christian family to teach this. It has been my personal experience in the families I have encountered that not only is tolerance not preached (except tolerance and love for those who believe the same way you do) but that outright intolerance is preached. I know a family who lived down the street from us for 5 years who are evangelical Christians. They go to church every week, tell others that they're going to hell if they don't, and they regularly use the word "flamer" to describe someone who is homosexual. The kids, as well as the adults, do this. It's just one big happy "We're better than you are and we know what God really wants from the world - and you would too if you'd just listen to us" party. This is just one example, but in my experience with evangelical Christianity there is far more judgment and intolerance than there is tolerance and acceptance. Just look at the huge mega-churches of people like Ted Haggard, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, etc. These guys have humongous followings and they're not preaching tolerance and love for all people. I know it's a generalization and that not all evangelical Christians are intolerant - there are no absolutes in life.
Originally Posted By jonvn "By your own statement you indicate that you don’t mention your kids very often." I mention them when there is reason to. Like when discussing kids. "DVC_dad regularly mentions the fact that he is a stay-at-home dad." Perhaps we should be creating charts about everyone, so we are all up to the minute on everyone's personal details. "But to say that he is "far less caring and far less moral than people who have fewer kids" is, well, asinine." Then it was as asinine as his statement saying my care is "bogus." That is both asinine and pompous. Having that many children is no indication of anything other than having a lot of children.
