Couple Welcomes 17th Child, Wants More

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Barf.

I don't know if this has made it here yet, but it bears repeating...

clown_car_vagina.jpg
 
Barf.

I don't know if this has made it here yet, but it bears repeating...

clown_car_vagina.jpg

One of those boys has his hair parted on the right side instead of the left like all the other ones. The parents should crush that level of dissent before he grows up to be a troublemaker!
 
Of course it's their life, but I just can't understand-with all of the medical problems Josie has had and taking those kinds of risks possibly having another. Including Michelle's life-she would really take any sort of risk of leaving all of those kids without a mother?

people-cover-240.jpg




"Michelle and Jim Bob Duggar have always been open about their willingness to have children. But when the devout Baptists and stars of TLC's 19 Kids and Counting faced the catastrophic aftereffects of their 19th child's premature birth, many assumed they might be done.

But now the couple – who only recently brought baby Josie home after being hospitalized for six months as she recovered from a perforated bowel and rare digestive problems – say they are ready to consider a 20th child.

"Our family is stronger than ever," Jim Bob, 45, tells PEOPLE in its new issue. "We made it through the storm."

That's not to say that everything has been easy with baby Josie. Born early after Michelle developed preeclampsia (pregnancy-induced high blood pressure), Josie was just 8 days old when a perforated bowel threatened her life.

"When she first came home, I couldn't sleep at all," says Michelle, 43. "That was the scariest part for me, having the full responsibility of her care on my shoulders ... It was intimidating."

Similarly daunting are the very real medical risks Michelle could face with another pregnancy – particularly a return of preeclampsia, which can lead to a stroke or prove fatal. But despite the risk – and intense criticism – the pair vow to stick to their beliefs.

"People think we are overpopulating the world," says Jim Bob. "We are following our convictions."
 
They are against all birth-control options-they view contraception as a form of abortion and consider even natural family planning an attempt to control a realm that should be entrusted to God.
 
These people are insane. Like MrsS said, there are health risks for the mother and the risk of her dying with over a dozen kids motherless. Don't they get it? How can they be so blind?
 
Personally, I've come to believe that Jim-Bob is an egomaniac who's literally creating his own kingdom to rule over. :|
 
it's really great that some people are able to construct the lives and the families they want and are given the blessings and benefits of the state to be able to do so.
 
it's really great that some people are able to construct the lives and the families they want and are given the blessings and benefits of the state to be able to do so.

Gee, yeah, it is, isn't it?

I have not seen the TV show surrounding this family, 'cause, quite frankly, I really don't understand why having a big family makes you automatically worthy of a TV show and I really have no desire to watch their lives unfold. But I've certainly heard about them, and I freely admit that I honestly don't understand why they're doing what they do. That's WAY too many kids, the health issues are certainly of some serious concern (though I'm sure THEY'LL get great coverage...), and their ultra-strict religious beliefs obviously do not agree with mine whatsoever. I find the whole thing rather unnerving and really don't get it.

All that being said, it is their lives and they are free to live them as they so please. But giving them a reality show is pointless (but that can be said of many people who have one), and of course Irvine's point stands, too, and it's a very good point at that.

Also, that "clown car" picture on the previous page...ooooh. That's actually kinda funny, though...

Angela
 
I try really hard not to pass judgement on these guys, since I'm so gung ho about reproductive freedoms.

But hoo boy, it's a struggle.

I have to go do something else, rather than think about them any more.
 
They are against all birth-control options-they view contraception as a form of abortion and consider even natural family planning an attempt to control a realm that should be entrusted to God.

Then by my figuring. . .
to drive the family around in a large man made van is wrong. God gave us feet, not manufactured machines.
It just goes on and on, it's ridiculous.

Personally, I've come to believe that Jim-Bob is an egomaniac who's literally creating his own kingdom to rule over. :|

:yes:
If everyone did this the world would be ruined. The God they believe in did not make the world for this many people. Maybe it's only right for Quiverfull? folks to be on this earth and the rest of us don't deserve our place?

I'm all for free choice but to risk leaving that many children motherless is the height of irresponsiblity. It feels more like the leaders of a cult, the older children raise the smaller kids and do the chores. The parents sit back and repopulate in their image.
 
What could the mother do for these children that a father or aunt or concerned teacher couldn't?

Sure other people can do things for them, but she is their mother. You can't ever truly replace that bond when the mother has been there physically and in every other motherly way in their lives, just like their father- same deal. You honestly think it's ok for them to risk having another child because their father or aunt or teacher could do what she did for them?

It would be a completely different thing if she had some sort of disease or something similar that she had no control over and no choice. They have a choice to not take that risk, no matter what their religious beliefs are. God does not want that, I know that in my heart instinctively..he does not want that kind of informed intentional risk taking in His name. Informed risk taking of a chronically ill child or mother, or worse..of a dead child or mother. I can't believe they don't know that instinctively either and I don't understand it, sorry.
 
What could the mother do for these children that a father or aunt or concerned teacher couldn't?

Nate, they're not Catholic. As Protestants, having convictions about not using birth control is hardly orthodoxy.

I bear no particular ill-will towards this family, but wouldn't you agree that whatever version of Protestant Christianity they are practicing is decidedly fringe?

You and I are both Christians--weren't you confused about what they meant by "following their convictions." Or did you automatically know what they were talking about?
 
I'm not defending them (and yes, I think the Quiverfull movement is fringe to say the least), but I'm not going to call them "selfish assholes" either. Neither the wife nor the husband seem to be complaining, the kids all seem to be well-adjusted and no one's hurting anybody.

I'm just still confused why they need a mom so badly. Aren't "mothers" just an archaic notion from a time long since passed?
 
I'm not defending them (and yes, I think the Quiverfull movement is fringe to say the least), but I'm not going to call them "selfish assholes" either. Neither the wife nor the husband seem to be complaining, the kids all seem to be well-adjusted and no one's hurting anybody.

I'm just still confused why they need a mom so badly. Aren't "mothers" just an archaic notion from a time long since passed?

I agree. "Selfish assholes" is way over the top, not to mention untrue.

As for why children need mothers. . .tricky fellow. . .I see where you're headed there.

:wink:
 
Okay, I'll throw it in here:

You're a selfish asshole if you don't care that it costs your city over $150K per year just to educate your family.


There, I feel better.
 
Okay, I'll throw it in here:

You're a selfish asshole if you don't care that it costs your city over $150K per year just to educate your family.


There, I feel better.

Aren't these kids all home schooled? Which would actually remove the cost from the city. It costs the taxpayers -- what -- an average of $5K per year per kid in the public school system? Doesn't that represents a savings of at least $50K ?
 
who needs a mother when you've got nearly a baker's dozen worth of daughters? they'll raise the young'uns.

(not brothers, though, we need them to chop wood and shoot things).

traditional roles of mother/father absolutely do seem archaic to this family, but luckily, gender role expectations are firmly shackled into place.

and more power to 'em!

(as for the actual question at hand, i think any child would grieve the loss of a parent, no question)
 
Back
Top Bottom