Duggars “won’t rule out having baby #20 - Why Michelle Duggar can’t say, “We’re done!”

[Shallah Kali]

I am posting this here in general chat because the Quiverfull movement is both a political as well as a religious movement.

http://nolongerquivering.com/2010/01/29/people-magazine-duggars-wont-rule-out-having-baby-20

After the partial uterine rupture, it seemed so obvious to everyone that I ought to be done for sure. How many times did I hear: Surely God will let you off the hook now ~ He would want you to protect your health to ensure that you’ll be around to care for the seven already-born children He has blessed you with?

snip

You see, once a woman’s mind grasps the concept of “trusting the Lord” with her reproductive life ~ absolutely nothing is ever simple or obvious again. The Quiverfull philosophy is an alluring and powerful spell ~ and the woman so enchanted feels the euphoria of the “Big Happy Family,” she is seduced by a vision of chivalrous men and genteel ladies, tempted by the promise of God’s protection and provision, and she knows the sheer ecstasy of inhaling deeply the ambrosial smell of yet another newborn.

So it’s no surprise that despite preeclampsia, gallstones, and a micro-preemie baby, Michelle’s still determined to leave it up to God whether there’ll be a twentieth Duggar baby or not. That she ought to stop now is glaringly obvious to everyone but Michelle and the Quiverfullers who are similarly beguiled. Having been there and done that (got pregnant twice again after the partial uterine rupture), I’m inclined to go easy on the lady. I think Michelle is doing her best to life consistently according to the worldview of her firmly held Christian beliefs.

But I’m not backing off on my efforts here at NLQ to expose the delusion which has Michelle so captivated that she’s continuing to take unneccesary and irresponsible risks. Bill Gothard, whose “biblical family values” have strongly influenced the Duggars, has never been married and has no children. This man, along with other Quiverfull leaders such as Doug Phillips, Doug Wilson, Voddie Baucham, etc. need to be held accountable for the teachings they are calling “biblical” ~ teachings that trap women in a mental headspace in which common sense and gut feelings are to be distrusted and ignored.

No Longer Qivering ‹(ô¿ô)›
There is no "you" in Qivering
http://nolongerquivering.com

Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement By Kathryn Joyce
http://books.google.com/books?id=WhhCQY_7sogC


Fundamentalist Christianity may lose some access to power in the next election, but it has long-term plans. In this fascinating look at the new generation of fundamentalist Christian women, journalist Kathryn Joyce introduces us to the world of the patriarchy movement and Quiverfull families. Here, in direct and conscious opposition to feminist calls for marital equity, women live within stringently enforced doctrines of wifely submission and male headship. Instead of raising independent daughters, these Christians advocate a return to keeping daughters at home—and out of college—until their marriage to a suitor approved by Dad. To counter reproductive rights, they eschew all contraception in favor of the Quiverfull philosophy of letting God give them as many children as possible—families of twelve and more children that will, they hope, enable them to win the religious and culture wars through demographic means.

Quiverfull is a fascinating examination of the twenty-first-century women and men who proclaim self-sacrifice and submission as model virtues of womanhood—and as warfare on behalf of Christ.

"Kathryn Joyce's well-researched book delivers much more than a quiverfull of understanding about this movement that twists religion to justify keeping women barefoot, pregnant, and powerless. It's also a stark reminder why those who value reproductive justice must actively engage in politics and the public debate."
—Gloria Feldt, author of The War on Choice, Blogger at Heartfeldt Politics, former president, Planned Parenthood Federation of America

"'Prairie muffins,' hayrides, and babies -- lots of babies -- don't sound like the stuff of fanaticism, but in Quiverfull Kathryn Joyce brings us the news from the most militant frontier of fundamentalism -- a patriarchy movement' of right-wing women who embrace a caricature of 19th century womanhood as a strategy for culture war. At turns funny, terrifying, and heartbreaking, Quiverfull is a necessary book, an empathetic and brilliant analysis of how this small group of believers shape mainstream ideas about motherhood, marriage, sex and gender."
—Jeff Sharlet, author of The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power

Arrows for the War
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061127/joyce/single

Quiverfull parents try to have upwards of six children. They home-school their families, attend fundamentalist churches and follow biblical guidelines of male headship--"Father knows best"--and female submissiveness. They refuse any attempt to regulate pregnancy. Quiverfull began with the publication of Rick and Jan Hess's 1989 book, A Full Quiver: Family Planning and the Lordship of Christ, which argues that God, as the "Great Physician" and sole "Birth Controller," opens and closes the womb on a case-by-case basis. Women's attempts to control their own bodies--the Lord's temple--are a seizure of divine power.

snip

"Our bodies are meant to be a living sacrifice," write the Hesses. Or, as Mary Pride, in another of the movement's founding texts, The Way Home: Beyond Feminism, Back to Reality, puts it, "My body is not my own." This rebuttal of the feminist health text Our Bodies, Ourselves is deliberate. Quiverfull women are more than mothers. They're domestic warriors in the battle against what they see as forty years of destruction wrought by women's liberation: contraception, women's careers, abortion, divorce, homosexuality and child abuse, in that order.

snip

Instead of picketing clinics, Pride writes, Christians should fight abortion by demonstrating that children are an "unqualified blessing" by having as many as God gives them. Only a determination among Christian women to take up their submissive, motherly roles with a "military air" and become "maternal missionaries" will lead the Christian army to victory. Thus is Quiverfull part of Mary Pride's whole-cloth solution to women's liberation: embracing an opposing way of life as total and "self-consistent" as feminism, and turning back the tide on a society gone wrong by populating the world with right-thinking Christians.

The gentle manner of Deidre Welch, another Coxsackie mom, with four boys, seems at odds with Quiverfull's militaristic language, which describes children as weapons of spiritual war, as arrows shot out by their parents. But she describes the movement toward larger families in the same way: "God is bringing revelation on the world. He wants to raise up His army. He wants His children to be."

All God's Children
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2009/03/14/joyce_quiverfull/index.html

The Quiverfull movement saddles women with a life of submission and near-constant pregnancies. One mother explains how she embraced the extreme Christian lifestyle -- and why she left.
By Kathryn Joyce March 14, 2009
----

A bit on Bill Gothard and his political connections:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4004754

Christian Dominionism ~ Part 3: Bill Gothard and the Ties that Bind Extremist Politics to Christian Patriarchy
http://nolongerquivering.com/2009/11/04/christian-dominionism-part-3-bill-gothard-and-the-ties-that-bind-extremist-politics-to-christian-patriarchy/


Matthew Murry An American Tragedy http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/14/421737/-Matthew-Murray:-an-American-tragedy

The Nightmare of Christianity By Max Blumenthal http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090921/blumenthal

Gothard cult's infiltration of law enforcement, part 1: An expose of Ray Nash http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/27/15309/5588/151/444280

Gothard cult's infiltration of law enforcement, part 2: PDI Unmasked http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/28/163659/492/529/444911

Gothard cult's infiltration of law enforcement, part 3: A backdoor for dominionists http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/29/151842/163/927/445554

[The Straight Story]

1. her body, her choice (nt)

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Straight Story]

3. Indeed - and the same right for people who don't like abortion to tell others how they feel

freedom, I am all for it.

[farmout rightarm]

5. Is overpopulating the planet to the point of uninhabitability a freedom too?

It may be, I'm just wondering.

[Oregone]

8. Each human being has a definite minimal carbon footprint

And if we reach the point where such an additional carbon load begins to interfere with other's rights and ability to live, then this is a viable debate. That time may in fact be now.

[Orsino]

181. The time is long past, for Americans...

...when American lifestyles far outstrip those in the rest of the world when it comes warming and other pollution.

Along about child three a couple should begin to wonder why they want the world's population to increase. Fifteen kids later, we have to suspect profound ignorance or selfishness.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

39. Yes it is.

[Zoeisright]

88. Well, no.

You don't get it. Abortion is a private matter between a woman and her doctor. PERIOD.

Nobody else has the slightest right to tell anyone else what to do with their own bodies.

That isn't FREEDOM. It's nosiness, passing judgment, and proselytizing.

Buh bye.

[roguevalley]

32. there's a piccie out there with them and the caption a vagina is not a clown car

[RainDog]

48. yes there is...

[onpatrol98]

78. Tacky

What a tacky caption? What kind of person puts that under a family picture...anyone's family picture.

[RainDog]

95. a family that whores itself out, maybe?

imo, it is much tackier that this family is so selfish that they have this many kids in a world in which children starve to death every day for lack of food.

it's tacky that educated americans have known for decades that ZPG is one things each person can do to help the suffering of every person on this planet.

the reason these idiots have so many children is because they are stupid. because they believe in things that are demonstrably false.

they chose to make themselves public figures, not me.

people that I know, on DU and beyond, think this poster is hilarious, as do I. (I didn't make it, it's been in circulation online for years.)

so I'd say the kind of person who makes that poster is the kind that is sick of idiots like the Duggars. does that answer your question?

[onpatrol98]

101. Thank You

Your response said volumes...I guess the better question was apparently, what kind of person enjoys this kind of caption?

It's not lost on me that all of that pro-choice talk...really is just talk for a some people. For a slice of pro-choice people (not all), pro-choice really is simply pro-abortion. This woman exercised a choice...one you clearly disagree with...one for the life of me, I don't understand, but at the end of the day it really was her choice.

If she chose to follow her husband, God, or the Santa Claus, at the end of the day, it was her choice to do it.

This family is apparently feeding their children. That world of starving children is still available, how many of them have you adopted. If that's the issue. They should have adopted children, instead of having so many.

By the way, since there's also a slice of DU'ers bent on controlling the way America procreates (Wow!) What's the allowable number?

Quote:"the reason these idiots have so many children is because they are stupid."

??? (Wow)

Yes...you've definitely answered my question. You've answered a lot of questions. Like why people throw around the terms socialist, wacko, extreme, etc.

I think what the couple did is extreme...on the other side of that coin, I think a lot of the responses to what they did has also been rather extreme

[RainDog]

103. I see you are from the south...

....which explains volumes to me about the sort of person you are, too. and the sort of "tactics" you use when you don't like something - because this all comes down to you not liking a picture and feeling a need to try to "shame" someone for posting it.

...because I am also from the south and one reason I detest it and would never want to live there is because of people like you who think you are some arbiter of humor and that to laugh at people who have chosen to be a freak show is some sort of signal of social merit.

it's not.

so, as far as my bona fides - as far as "what kind of person I am" well, I was invited to apply for a Rhodes Scholarship due to my research into 18th c. social history as a student. (If you REALLY want to see some good caricatures, the British were all over it way back then.) I had a grant from the national endowment for the arts for my own artistic work. I won awards for my research (at a major University - a "public Ivy" is the term used for it.) I have a masters degree from one of the top ten schools in the nation in my field - the top in my field in research.

no, I haven't adopted because I do not want to be a professional mother. I do have two children. One is high-functioning autistic and is doing very well, thank you. He's in college. The other is also in college and also has a well-developed sense of the absurd. He also thinks this is a hilarious poster. both of them do, actually.

What is lost on you is that you equate making fun of others who choose to have so many children with an assault on choice. that's really faulty logic on your part and demonstrates a desire to inhibit someone's free speech because you don't like it. in other words, what you are doing is no different than what you are accusing me of with this poster.

No one is trying to control how someone procreates and for you to say so demonstrates either a weak mind or a lying one that does not understand issues of free speech, yet again. You don't like the poster? that's your right. You don't like that I posted it? that's your right. and when you try to attack me for it, you will get it right back. don't like it? too bad. that's the same attitude you take with me with your insults.

zpg isn't mandatory. no one is trying to make it so. it's considered logical, ethical - you know, those things that don't have a lot of value for fundies.

and, yes, these people, and all who follow this "quiver-full" movement are idiots. yes they are.

why? well, many reasons, but first and foremost is a cultish reading of the bible. bible literalists are, to a person, idiots. they may not recognize themselves as such, but for hundreds of years is has been demonstrably proven that the bible is not literally true, not historically accurate, not written when fundies claim, not a record of actual events - and yet some people, due to ignorance (they are raised in these cult environments - fundamentalists are all cultists, no matter how large their ignorant population may be)embrace the stupidity because it's all they know. and when they are challenged, it threatens their very foundations and thus it is very hard to reason with anyone in such a case.

and for this reason, they do things that are stupid.

how you get to "socialist" from laughing about how stupid someone is to embrace fundamentalism is really beyond me, but I take it as a stretch on your part just to try to make an argument.

but I find it really, really funny to read that you are equating posting that poster with "extremists" for those who laugh at it, rather than those who embrace the idiotic belief system that gets them to that point in the first place.

so, I guess you said a lot about yourself, too.

[onpatrol98]

107. LOL

Quote: "....which explains volumes to me about the sort of person you are, too. and the sort of "tactics" you use when you don't like something - because this all comes down to you not liking a picture and feeling a need to try to "shame" someone for posting it."

I was not trying to shame the person that posted it. Return to the posting. I was surprised at the person who put the caption beneath the picture. I assumed the poster of the picture was not the creator of the caption. An earlier poster, mentioned the existence of a picture AND someone else produced it. I have done the same thing on blogs. Someone suggests something exists, and I try to find it. If I find it, I post it. It doesn't mean I created it. I found the caption to be somewhat crude to put under a picture of family...anyone's family. I would not want someone to do that to a picture of my family as some kind of a cute joke. I thought as democrats, the whole idea was to celebrate "families" of all kinds.

--------------------------------------

...because I am also from the south and one reason I detest it and would never want to live there is because of people like you who think you are some arbiter of humor and that to laugh at people who have chosen to be a freak show is some sort of signal of social merit.

---------------------------------------

It's a free country, I am free to think it's not funny. You are free to think it is. I am the arbiter of what is funny to me. Excuse me, if I choose to disagree with your analysis that this family is a "freak show". If you're comfortable with that. Again, feel free. Me personally, I don't want to hang any bad handles on anyone's family. When I see a picture of a smiling family, I feel good. Freak show, simply doesn't come to mind...for me.

---------------------------------------

so, as far as my bona fides - as far as "what kind of person I am" well, I was invited to apply for a Rhodes Scholarship due to my research into 18th c. social history as a student. (If you REALLY want to see some good caricatures, the British were all over it way back then.) I had a grant from the national endowment for the arts for my own artistic work. I won awards for my research (at a major University - a "public Ivy" is the term used for it.) I have a masters degree from one of the top ten schools in the nation in my field - the top in my field in research.
-------------------------------------
I'm not sure why you added the part about your educational background. DU is clearly full of articulate, intelligent individuals or to my mind, we wouldn't be on DU. I'll defend my dissertation in a few weeks. It's not from a top ten schools in the nation, and I doubt seriously if I'm considered in the top of my field in research. But, I missed the point of that part of the exchange. Perhaps, I offended you in a way, I didn't catch. Intelligence, empathy, I mean, none of this has anything to do with degrees or education. Some of the smartest people I know, didn't have the opportunity to attend a college.
-------------------------------------
Quote: "no, I haven't adopted because I do not want to be a professional mother."

Again, I don't know what adoption has to do with being a professional mother? You suggested that adopting would have been a better choice for this family...considering the number of starving children in the world. It was a very specific position to take. Not one that was necessarily unreasonable. In fact, it was reasonable. I wondered if you had chosen this as an option for yourself. Since, you suggested it as better option for that family.
-------------------------------------

Quote: "I do have two children. One is high-functioning autistic and is doing very well, thank you. He's in college. The other is also in college and also has a well-developed sense of the absurd. He also thinks this is a hilarious poster. both of them do, actually."

They're not alone. I am laughing my butt off.
-------------------------------------

Quote: "What is lost on you is that you equate making fun of others who choose to have so many children with an assault on choice. that's really faulty logic on your part and demonstrates a desire to inhibit someone's free speech because you don't like it."

I would say that's a s-t-r-e-t-c-h. I don't want to inhibit anyone's free speech. The value of a place like DU is that we all get a chance to express ourselves and defend our positions. I thought the reactions to the Duggars was a desire to inhibit the couple's choices.
-------------------------------------

Quote: "in other words, what you are doing is no different than what you are accusing me of with this poster."

Clearly, I disagree.
-------------------------------------

Quote:"No one is trying to control how someone procreates and for you to say so demonstrates either a weak mind or a lying one that does not understand issues of free speech, yet again."

I do not believe either my mind or yours is weak. And, I think when people suggest we should only have one or two children in order to save the planet and then talk about whether or not laws could be created to do it is an attempt to control. To my knowledge, you have not done this. But, I've read posts that took this direction.
-------------------------------------
Quote: You don't like the poster? that's your right. You don't like that I posted it? that's your right. and when you try to attack me for it, you will get it right back.

I don't mind getting it right back. Forgive me, if what I did came across as an attack. Perhaps, it was one. I felt I was being attacked also.

-------------------------------------
Quote: "don't like it? too bad. that's the same attitude you take with me with your insults."

Free country. I agree.

-------------------------------------
Quote: "zpg isn't mandatory. no one is trying to make it so. it's considered logical, ethical - you know, those things that don't have a lot of value for fundies."

China felt it so logical and ethical that a co-worker of mine left the country when they discovered she was pregnant with another child. When she talks about some of her personal experiences...the mere thought of it makes me a bit nervous. And, her also.
-------------------------------------
Quote: "and, yes, these people, and all who follow this "quiver-full" movement are idiots. yes they are."

Nothing personal. I just don't feel the need to paint that stripe on them. I don't understand why they've made the decisions they've made. It wouldn't have been my choice.

-------------------------------------
Quote: "why? well, many reasons, but first and foremost is a cultish reading of the bible. bible literalists are, to a person, idiots. they may not recognize themselves as such, but for hundreds of years is has been demonstrably proven that the bible is not literally true, not historically accurate, not written when fundies claim, not a record of actual events - and yet some people, due to ignorance (they are raised in these cult environments - fundamentalists are all cultists, no matter how large their ignorant population may be)embrace the stupidity because it's all they know. and when they are challenged, it threatens their very foundations and thus it is very hard to reason with anyone in such a case.

and for this reason, they do things that are stupid."

Simply unworthy of a response. And, for all of your education, lacking in depth. You've proven you're capable of much more than resorting to calling people stupid, and idiots...I'm not sure why you fall back to this.
-------------------------------------
Quote: "how you get to "socialist" from laughing about how stupid someone is to embrace fundamentalism is really beyond me, but I take it as a stretch on your part just to try to make an argument."

I'll tell you how. I said, I see why people paint us this way. Because in any movement, people take the extremes and pounce. Nothing in your post suggests socialism. I was saying sometimes when we're painted as a group as something we're not, it's because they take some of the extreme responses and views and tie them to an entire group. Socialism is simply a word. It could be any broad brush. Some of the reactions to this family seems really extreme to me. That's a personal observation.

-------------------------------------
Quote: "but I find it really, really funny to read that you are equating posting that poster with "extremists" for those who laugh at it, rather than those who embrace the idiotic belief system that gets them to that point in the first place."

To ME, the picture was simply tacky. What that woman and any woman chooses to do with her vagina is her business? I thought that was the whole point of pro-choice. What I found "personally" unfunny, was tacking anything meant to demean under a family photo. Your family or anyone's family photo. Regardless of their positions, it was a family photo. I have taken family photos, you've taken family photos. You look back on them later with pride. They're special. Could you imagine surfing the Internet one day, and finding a picture of you and your sons smiling on happy day, and finding a hurtful caption on it? If someone did that to me and my family, or to you and yours, I would find it unfunny. I wouldn't care if you were on the dumbest reality show in the world, making the dumbest choices in the world. I would feel badly for you and your family.
-------------------------------------
Quote: "so, I guess you said a lot about yourself, too."

Perhaps, I did. Thank you for the exchange.

[RainDog]

115. yes, thank you

your explanations for why you posted the apparently "random" things you did - pulling a China reference into laughing at idiot fundies, for instance, does say volumes.

because, simply by making the association that fundies and beckerheads do, you seem to think that validates their leaps of logic based upon ignorance.

as far as calling fundies ignorant - as I said, I'm from the south, grew up among them, know the drill very well, and, frankly, my reactions are personal as well as political.

Maybe you're new to the internet, but it is the wild west, often, in terms of reactions. I'm not at all surprised by the disgust. for various reasons.

since this family has identified itself with a group that is regressive, is it really a surprise that they get attacked on a board like DU?

no one attacks the notion of choice, ultimately, in terms of the Duggars. they have pimped themselves out as part of a cult movement. If they didn't advertise and market themselves, maybe others wouldn't dispute the value of their product (i.e. the mindset.)

[onpatrol98]

116. An Agreement

Quote: "If they didn't advertise and market themselves, maybe others wouldn't dispute the value of their product (i.e. the mindset.)"

On this I can't say I disagree.

[grace0418]

127. What's the allowable number of children a teenage girl should be forced to raise while

her mother is busy being pregnant with more? When does her choice start to eclipse the choices her daughters might have for their lives, and when does that become not okay?

[Doremus]

161. +1 And I'm sure they're only exercising their own choices when they

wear identical hairstyles that don't involve beauty salons and select clothing with identical fabrics and styles.

Unlike most families in which every child has their own idiosyncrasies and personalities, these 19 individuals just happen to make the same choices everyday about everything.

lmao

[Iris]

131. someone who's trying to make a point?

[Nye Bevan]

84. Wow. So original.

I think you must be the first DUer ever to post that picture in a Duggars thread.

[RainDog]

94. you may think that, but you're wrong

others have posted it here - that's where I saw it for the first time, in fact.

[proud2BlibKansan]

109. I love it and am glad to see it every time it is posted

[Sheltiemama]

139. Which is about once every 18 months.

Whenever I hear of another Duggar pregnancy, I think, "Oh, good! That picture will be posted on DU again!"

[spotbird]

12. True that.

It just sucks for the sick babies she chooses to have suffer for her fanaticism.

[Shallah Kali]

14. Never said it wasn't. I am for freedom of choice in reproduction

and freedom of religion. I posted this because this is a small but devoted political/religious movement that at it's most extreme is a mind controlling cult ( see Matthew Murry An American Tragedy http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/14/421737/-Matthew-Murray:-an-American-tragedy & The Nightmare of Christianity By Max Blumenthal http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090921/blumenthal )

I did not post this to mock the Duggars or those like them but to share some information from someone who used to be part of the movement on how and why the Duggars make the choices they do. It is a growing movement that will effect local if not national elections. And maybe understanding more will help everyone tolerate one another a bit more....

[Sheltiemama]

61. Thanks for posting those links.

I'm going to print out those stories for reading later.

[Beaverhausen]

15. Her youngest is still in an incubator

She needs to choose to be a good mother to the children she already has and say enough is enough.

http://www.tmz.com/2010/01/28/duggar-baby-19-im-ready-for-my-close-up/

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

40. Your opinion vs. her choice? Her choice wins every time.

[Beaverhausen]

114. and her choice is putting her own health and the health of any more children at risk

Yes, it's my opinion that she needs to remember that she was lucky this time, but might end up leaving those 19 kids without a mother if she tries it again.

[grace0418]

136. Okay, what about her choice vs. her daughters' choices?

Seems like her selfish and irresponsible choice wins there too. Forced labor and child neglect! What a great parenting style!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

153. I guess we could ask her daughter in a few years.

[grace0418]

154. Yes, after the damage is done. Ask my oldest sister how that worked out for her.

Hint: not good.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

155. I'm sure there are anecdotes about similar situations that worked out just fine.

[grace0418]

157. And naturally since it works out fine for some then everyone should ignore the problem.

Really?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

170. Anything other falsehoods you'd like to say that I said?

[grace0418]

176. What did I "say you said"?

I responded with my opinion, just as you have.

[Shell Beau]

60. I think it is on the verge of child abuse.

How can she possibly give the love and attention to each child that they need? I have just one, and it boggles my mind. I hope to have a second child, but I imagine splitting my time and attention between just two will be tough. I can't imagine almost 2 dozen. I have a feeling that many of her children act as parents to the other children.

[grace0418]

134. It's not just on the verge as far as I'm concerned.

And the Duggars themselves proudly talk about how each of the older daughters is assigned younger siblings to raise as soon as mom pops out another one. "Isn't our system of child neglect and forced labor just adorable!?"

As the youngest of eleven, I can tell you that there is no possible way for two parents to give that many kids the love and attention they need to grow and mature properly. I was raised by my siblings, who were in turn raise by the older siblings. That's no way for a child to be raised. We muddled through it together, but there are so many ways in which we were not prepared for life and adult relationships because our parents were completely checked out of the process.

[MisterP]

174. I dub it "Ponzi" or "pyramid parenting": the less spacing, the worse the burden on the

kids to maintain the family unit: this is often how poor families end up, the kids working and contributing intensively instead of "being kids"

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

156. What limit would you impose?

[grace0418]

158. I didn't see anything about a limit in her post. Mrs. Duggar is pimping out her family and

glorifying her choices on national television. Those of us who disagree have every right to call her out on those choices. No it doesn't mean we support some kind of legal limit on family size, but neither does it mean we'll refrain from criticism.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

171. Why do you keep acting as if anyone here is telling you not to criticize her?

[grace0418]

175. Because every time someone does you come back with some proclamation designed to

shut down the criticism.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

179. Proclamations don't end with a question mark.

[Shell Beau]

163. I wouldn't. It isn't up to me.

But now that I am a mom, and I see how much time just one child needs, I can't even begin to imagine adding almost 20 more. Doesn't seem fair. Personal responsibility is huge. Too many people don't act responsibly. I am sure the Duggar's think they way they raise their family is just dandy, but I don't agree. There is no way each child gets the love and attention, and one on one time they deserve. Same thing with Octomom. I just wish some "religious" people would realize the earth is populated. No need to be so fruitful anymore.

[grace0418]

128. She lost out on the possibility of being a good mother when she started farming out the

raising of her younger children to her older children, IMHO. No child should have to raise his or her siblings, and those siblings should not have to be raised by children.

[Cleita]

19. Not really, her choice is being made for her by her religious affiliation. n/t

[Raine]

25. No, not her choice ... the Duggars have said over and over again

that they have left it up to God ... so how is that her choice. Michelle Duggar used birth control until they decided to "leave the size of their family up to God" this shows IMO that this is NOT her choice at all.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

41. It is still her Constitutionally protected right either way.

[Raine]

54. Oh yes Constitutionally it is

I guess you could say yeah it was her choice to leave the choice to God, eh.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

65. Yes you could.

[onpatrol98]

79. Her choice

Wouldn't it officially still be her choice...if she "chooses" to leave it up to God?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

85. Yes either way.

[Shell Beau]

172. Let's not kid ourselves here. Obviously, some of her

other children are acting as "parents" to these children. I don't condone any law that puts a number on how many children one can have. But, I can have a personal opinion here. What is disgusting is that children will be raising children. And since we don't live back in time when more children meant more income (except it kinda does mean that with the Duggar's and their show), I find it repulsive. I want to give my only child a sibling. She is 16 months old. She requires every bit of free time that I do have. I wonder how on earth I will be able to divide my time so that both would get the love and attention they need and deserve, and I am only talking about 2 kids. Not 20ish.

[tblue37]

178. Don't worry. One child takes up 100% of your time. When you have two,

they will take up 100% of your time. It's amazing how well it all works out!

A new mother is, well, new at it. Everything takes too long. Once you get the hang of it, it gets easier. I had one child at 29. I was astonished at how hard it was to even find time to fold clothes or get a shower! Then, 19 months later, I had my second child. Somehow it worked out. Then, when she was 6 months old, I started taking in other children as a home daycare provider, which I continued to do for 18 years (while still teaching college on the side).

Over those 18 years, I had anywhere from 6 to 10 children in my care at a time, including my own 2. I helped raise 34 children (plus my two). After my divorce, I dated a professor in my department for a couple of years. One day he was watching me handle a bunch of kids in my daycare, including two infants, clearly not even breaking a sweat while doing so. He remarked, "You are the only woman I know for whom having triplets would be a picnic."

He was right. After my experience running a daycare, I could easily have handled triplets.

I did a good job with all those kids, too, and many of them still hang out with me as adults.

They also learned a lot in my care, and we went to the park almost every day (weather permitting), took field trips to the Natural History Museum, the pumpkin patch, the pet store, the local kiddie wading pool, to watch parades and see Santa, and to listen to the university choir sing vespers, and did art projects, played games, and did all sorts of fun things all the time.

If anyone had told me while I was struggling to handle my firstborn that I could handle 6-10 kids so smoothly without neglecting them, I would never have believed it--and yet I did just that. Certainly, during the hours that all those kids were in my apartment, I didn't get much of my own stuff done, though.

Of course, the other people's kids were only in my care for 55 hours a week most weeks. Sometimes I would have one or two of them overnight or for the weekend, too, but usually it was just from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, so I did have some hours when I had just my two. Also, after the divorce, my kids spent some time at their dad's house, too, so I had a couple of nights a week to myself, plus alternating weekends.

Nevertheless, for 55 hours a week, I had a whole lot of kids in my care--and I managed just fine.

When you have your next baby, you will handle it just fine, too. You'll see.

[Obamanaut]

100. It is her choice to 'believe', as it is for someone else not to. When

she made her choice, she accepts what goes with that belief.

[Raine]

162. Yes that's true

it was her choice to leave the choice to someone else (God & her husband). I hadn't thought of it that way at first but deciding to leave it up to someone else is a choice in and of itself.

Edit: added word

[varelse]

27. True

The next pregnancy will probably kill her and is very likely to produce a stillborn, severely handicapped or very sick premature infant. I hope for her sake and for that of her living children, she makes a choice to put her own health first - and to guarantee that baby #19 will remain forever the baby of the Duggar family.

[Sheltiemama]

68. I'm hoping her body decides that 19 is enough.

It just about did this time. It's her choice, but the children she has need her.

[varelse]

72. Oh it has

it is a question of how the message is delivered, and how many attempts are made before it is received :(

[Sheltiemama]

126. Yes, that's the problem.

This should be a warning that it's time to quit, but they may not acknowledge it. I really fear another pregnancy could kill her, and then the older girls would have to raise the younger children, and that's just not fair.

[Shallah Kali]

143. They older girls already raise the younger kids

2007 when they had 17 kids:
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/20134584/

Buddy system
With that many children, organization is everything. Each older child has one or two younger “buddies” for whom he or she is responsible. Breakfast is at 8, after which the family “quick-cleans” the house. At 9, home schooling starts, again with the older children helping to tutor the younger ones.


Fifteen-year-old Jill is responsible for preparing lunch, which is served at noon. At 1:30, all the children ages 4 and under break for naps while the older children engage in group studies using materials from the Advanced Training Institute International, an organization that produces Bible-based home instruction materials.



At 4, the children work on individual studies while Jana, 17, prepares dinner, which is served at 5. There is free time and shifts at the piano, an instrument being learned by 11 of the children, all of whom also play the violin. At 8, it’s baths followed by “Bible time with Daddy.” Bedtime is 10 p.m.

snip

With so many children, there is a sign-up list in the kitchen for children who feel they need one-on-one time with a parent. But Michelle says that she actually has more one-on-one time and quality time with her children than most because she home-schools them and is with them all day.

[Sheltiemama]

144. But it would be even worse if Michelle died.

I hadn't heard about the sign-up sheet. That should be a red-flag warning sign you have enough children.

[varelse]

159. Yes and all of them will lose their mother

the younger ones will have to grow up without her.

[rebecca_herman]

81. She's 43

There's a good chance the choice will be made for her anyway, there's a very small chance of a natural pregnancy at her age anyhow.

[Iris]

135. that's hardly true

women in their 40s have the 2nd highest rate of unplanned pregnancies, with the first being teenagers.

[marshall]

30. Freedom of choice doesn't usually result in uniform choices

We get everything from octomom with 14 kids, abortion adict mom with almost two dozen abortions in a couple of decades, jobless and carless mom with ten kids by ten dads and under thirty, and many more with myriad choices who somehow make their lives work in spite of it.

[Lorien]

35. And it's my choice to call her utterly selfish

The planet doesn't need more humans on it, and it sure as hell doesn't need any more Duggars. How much "quality time" are the parents spending with the kids they already have?? These people are nothing more than hoarders and attention whores.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

42. As it is the choice of the anti abortion crowd to yell at women going in clinics.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

38. +100

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

120. Or is it?

With that "total submission" ideology, I very much doubt she has ANY choice in this matter. Or in any matter, except perhaps the color of the drapes. Maybe.

[grace0418]

123. What about her daughters? Do they get a choice in whether or not they want to be mothers?

It seems to me that ALL women should have the right to choose whether or not they want to be mothers, and from everything I read (and from my own experience being one of eleven children) the older daughters in this family haven't been given that choice. Every personal freedom has limits when it starts to impinge upon the same freedom in those around you. When Mrs. Duggar chose to have more kids than she herself can care for without forcing her older children (or should I say older daughters) into being full-time nannies, she lost me.

Yes, it is her body and her right to choose. It's my right to believe (and say) that she is selfish and irresponsible and doesn't seem to give a rat's ass if her children get a childhood.

[Confusious]

Yea, but I still think she's a lot mentally deficient....

Oh, and raising a gaggle of psycho kids. You can't have that many and give them all the attention they need. My prediction, A few end up in prison, a few on the streets, a few die in wars, and a few end up in the mental ward.

that'll leave about 3.

[Gormy Cuss]

166. Don't you mean her body, God's choice?

The OP is about Duggar in relationship to the Quiverfull movement, that is to say explaining a motivation for having so many children, not about whether she has a legal right to have as many children as she wants.

[Catshrink]

4. I'm sure the father earns a sufficient income to provide for all those children.

[Oregone]

6. If not, Welfare Jesus provides

He is Jesus Christ's very youngest brother, and not often talked about. They couldn't cover all 15 of Mary's children in vivid detail.

[ddeclue]

37. DUZY ALERT!

:rofl:

Was he the guy that fixed the fish and loaves problem and turned the water into wine?

:rofl:

[spotbird]

13. He pimps his kids for a living.

Visualize a father from another racial group profiting from his proliferation.

[Raine]

29. It helps that TLC & Discovery Networks paid for the

furnishing of their home, landscaping, trips and who knows how much other stuff.

[malletgirl02]

59. shame about TLC and Discovery

That they air something like that. Do you remember many years ago when these channels use to be educational? What happened?

[proud2BlibKansan]

110. And tens of thousands of dollars per episode

Jon and Kate were paid $65,000 an episode. Maybe the Duggars make even more, since they have a bigger family.

[grace0418]

138. Because that's all it takes is money.

Kids don't need individual attention, or mature adults guiding them and teaching them. As long as there are some older siblings who can be forced to cook, clean, change diapers and get them to memorize Bible passages, it's all good.

[depakid]

7. Pretty clear that the woman suffers from some form of mental illness that's being exploited

for gain by multiple parties.

Shines a bit of light on what a sick society America has developed into.

[Shallah Kali]

16. Maybe... is it some varient of hoarding or is it a combination of culture as well

many of the followers of that movement group in in very strict households that view any deviation from their religion as as a sign that person is bad for turning away from their deity's rules to down right evil or demonically influenced :(

[KittyWampus]

17. I think preeminently, it's about men controlling women and removing any possibility of a woman

existing in her own right as an individual.

This is a husband PROVING he owns the women, completely.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[depakid]

69. You don't see this stuff coming out of Canada, Europe or Australia now do you?

Wonder why that is?

As to Oz, the most insightful quote I've heard on the two countries:

We got the convicts, you got the puritans.

[proteus_lives]

75. Really?

You want me to find links to fundie communities in Canada/Europe/Australia? Because they're out there.

Quote: Truth stings huh? You leave the room and they snigger about the "overeager yank".

Convicts/Puritans: Well we slaughtered the native populations but at least the US didn't spend a century and some change being the ass-end of the British Empire.

[depakid]

77. LOL- you so don't get it

American TV- including what were once called the discovery channel and the learning channel pays for, pimps and popularizes (if not legitimizes) this sort of stuff every day!

It's as sorry a state of affairs as the culture of lies your media created, whereby dishonesty is no longer discouraged and decried- but expected and rewarded with 7 figure salaries.

And, looking at the nature of the society and the political and economic trends that its produced, not something that other nations want to emulate. For very good reason.

[proteus_lives]

92. Yeah, because OzTV is all Shakespeare.

No reality shows? What, what country is Rupert Murdoch from again?

I seem remember that this last year there have been several outrages from your in-law's media. Mostly to do about Black people. Black-face and KFC right? How enlightened.

Your anti-US rants would be taken more seriously if not expressed in every post you've ever made.

Now you just look like an ex-pat with an axe to grind. It may impress the Australian kids but it's not doing you any favors around here.

[depakid]

93. Now you're getting ridiculous

Seems like your knowledge of TV or radio in any other nations is limited to whatever sort of "controversy" makes DU or passes for news or cable programming in Indiana.

Here's a clue: Most other people recognize how manipulative the corporate media has become, and how it ties into the political and economic decline that America is facing- a pattern that's going to become even more pronounced, now that the Supreme Court has overreached with 1st Amendment, just as they did with the 2nd.

FYI on the Puritan deal: people in other nations find the obsession Janet Jackson's tit and the need to chop, bleep or dub every film on TV to be bizarre. As in- there's something psychologically wrong with you.

A cultural thing- but instructive, since for some reason these are "vices" that will get stations or networks disciplined and fined, whereas outright lies, vile personal attacks and endless, and strident ideological propaganda are encouraged and rewarded.

We don't have any of that sort of pathology here. Sure you can gawk at Gerry Springer re-runs on cable, but you can also watch honest news, incisive analysis of public issues and view films and series as they're meant to be seen, even on free to air (Unlike Americans, we're not afraid of curse words and tits).

Come to think of it, this is probably why we get so many of the cool British series that are excluded from BBC America. Too costly to go back and sanitize them all for the fundie sensibilities.

[proteus_lives]

165. Wow, you're always so desperate to dump on the US.

Why is that?

You act like we're all Duggers or the Amish. You believe your own stereotypes and broad-brushes. It's hilarious. I've never met a single person that gave a shit about Jackson's tits. It's a problem in our MSM, they focus on the crazies and people with an axe to grind.

I'm going to be the first one to line to help get the dumb-ass 1st Amendment decision reversed.

"just as they did with the 2nd." Disagree, gun rights are becoming more secure in this country and that's always a great thing.

Don't pretend that Ozzie MSM and the BBC are pure and innocent, they're owned and they have their agenda just the same as CNN, FOX and the rest.

And below poster is right, you know fundie communities exist all over the world. Don't pretend it's solely a US problem, your exceptionalism is peeking.

[depakid]

167. Not to hurt your 'lil nationalist feelings, but everyone was laughing

at Americans today on our local ABC broadcast re: the anniversary of the wardrobe malfunction.

As well as expressing dismay (and having a go at) over the new fundie ad.

Pretty embarrassing stuff, actually. And funny.

[friendly_iconoclast]

173. For a guy who dumps on Americans, you sure do hang out here a lot

Seems a little conflicted given your stated views and the US-centric nature of DU.

We'll let you keep hanging out with the popular kids,as long as you act cool.

[Posteritatis]

119. Sure, it happens in each of those

Also, don't make me laugh about the suggestion that Australia doesn't have a puritan problem.

[friendly_iconoclast]

177. You're being less than honest. Turns out Australia has quite the Puritan problem.

Looks like your 'forgot' that your fine society has not only produced the Exclusive Brethren, but the Hillsong gang of Christian Dominionists.

Just as nutty as the Yank variety.

Not to mention the Draconian censorship laws.

Seems you not only got the convicts, but the prison guards....

[Lorien]

36. Hoarders syndrome

that, and a desperate need for attention and "celebrity".

[Sheltiemama]

132. I hadn't thought of it that way.

It's interesting to look at from the hoarding point of view.

[MindPilot]

111. Please see my post 108.

Might be a fetish or a compulsive disorder. Evidently it's common enough there are names for it.

[theoldman]

9. I would think her vagina and internal organs would be worn out by now.

There has to be a limit on how many children a woman can have before she dies from giving birth. She is human, she is not a brood sow.

[Cleita]

22. One of my friends in high school came from a family of seventeen

kids. When her mother delivered the seventeenth, the doctors took mom and dad aside and told them that she probably wouldn't survive another pregnancy because her reproductive organs were basically shot. They recommended a hysterectomy and they agreed. They should try to get the Duggar mom to do the same.

[gkhouston]

71. One of my greatgrandmothers had 23 kids, with only one set of twins.

Boy, you can sure tell they didn't have television!

on edit: my dad's mom, her daughter, was one of the older children in that brood of 14 girls and 9 boys. Is it any wonder he was an only child?

[onpatrol98]

80. After #17

Wow! I wonder why the doctor didn't mention it...sooner? Or, maybe he did.

[Cleita]

90. They were Catholics.

I think they had to get the priest to agree that she needed the life saving operation, so I guess her health and life had to be in danger for the Church to consent. Remember Catholics aren't supposed to practice birth control, which a hysterectomy would be considered as being, if there was no other life and death matter to have one.

[onpatrol98]

91. Oh...Okay

[onpatrol98]

112. Hysterectomy

I have also heard of cases where women are actively discouraged from having hysterectomies if they only have one child or two children and are considered very young.

Nothing against male gynecologists or obstetricians, but, I wonder if there is a difference when you consider the gender of the doctor, when decisions like these are involved. Just curious, really.

[Cleita]

122. This was in the fifties and it was a medical decision for the health of the mother.

I'm sure maybe they would suggest something else today, but in the fifties birth control options were limited and like I said there was religion involved.

[demigoddess]

141. back in the 70s when most OBs were men, if a woman wanted her tubes tied

and she was young the Dr. would only tie one tube. If she got pregnant, It was 'god's will'. I know of a lady who had this happen to her. She sued. Men playing god is not new, they have just changed their tactics.

[wickerwoman]

10. Says it all right here:

"The Duggars said they prayed for Michelle’s blood pressure to come down, but when that didn’t happen, they agreed to the surgery."

God wants you to have 19 kids, but then gives you preeclampsia, presumably because he has marked you for death and decided that your 19 children should be motherless. But then when the praying for your life doesn't work (because it's thwarting God's will), it's OK for the doctors, whose medical education you have reviled and sought to undermine, to do a c-section.

So tired of fundies of convenience in our society. If you don't want to accept evolution, you don't get to benefit from all the things that resulted from it (like anti-biotics, GM food, animals or plants that have been selected for desirable characteristics...)

:crazy:

[Iris]

133. that's what I've been thinking about this

if a fetus's rights trump that of the mother's, which some people think is the case in the latter months of pregnancy, AND you believe a fetus is a human being with full right of a living person, then how can anyone justify removing a fetus from its life support system just because his mother's kidneys are failing?

[spotbird]

11. Thanks for this. nt

[pansypoo53219]

18. or

she REALLY doesn't like tampons.

[bigwillq]

20. She hates the I-Pad

:rofl:

[alterfurz]

21. Groucho weighs in

apocryphal "You Bet Your Life" exchange:

Groucho: So, Mrs. Smith, do you have any children?

Mrs. Smith: Yes, thirteen.

Groucho: Thirteen! Good lord, isn't that a burden?

Mrs. Smith: Well, I love my husband.

Groucho: Lady, I love my cigar but I take it out once in a while.

[Walk away]

23. I bet they all love their guns too. What good is a Fundie Army if it's not armed?

It's not difficult to see where this is going. They are too stupid and backward to compete against normal people. Christian / No Science home schooling and no higher education for half of your population leaves brute force and numbers as your way to the top.

Bibles, guns and babies!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

43. Another Constitutionally protected right. Oh well.

[Walk away]

58. So was slavery...but we evolved. One lives in hope...... nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

66. Civilian gun ownership=slavery? That's hysterical. Thanks for the laugh.

[Walk away]

73. What? I just said that there is a precedent for society evolving and changing...

the constitution when that happens. I am sure that there was a time when slave owners couldn't imagine not buying and selling human beings.

It may dangerous to own a gun when you are so reactive.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

83. You are really funny you should try stand up. Thanks for the entertainment.

:toast:

[JetCityLiberal]

129. Slapdown

great post.

the lame responses speak volumes as usual.

Paul

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

180. Some people don't like the Constitution. They need to be called on it.

[slackmaster]

104. Package Deal Fallacy

Shame on you.

[Blue_Tires]

24. well, the world's first televised death in childbirth could pull a fat ratings number...

[Iggo]

26. Oh good. She's still blaming God.

It's nice to have examples to point to when I'm trying to explain to the teenager what a "fucktard" is.

[Harry Monroe]

28. Jesus, she's a puppy mill!!

I really think that they're ought to be some tax on people who choose to have more than 3 children. Tax them for the extra natural resources they use and the extra strain they put on the earth and the environment. And this tax should be a graduated increase for each child over 3. Her body, her choice of course, but they should have to pay for the extra strain on resources used.

[Shallah Kali]

31. VIDEO Born to Breed: 15 And Counting -Wendy has been giving birth on a near constant basis for 18 yr

http://www.wetv.com/video/48175134001/born-to-breed-15-and-counting

Rachel believes conception and giving birth are an act of worship.
http://www.wetv.com/video/48185315001/born-to-breed-worship

Vyckie left the Quiverful Movement because it was interfering with her ability to simply be a mother
http://www.wetv.com/video/48185344001/born-to-breed-defector

http://www.wetv.com/video/48245414001/born-to-breed-the-author

[Yurovsky]

53. She's a christian brood mare...

that's how the fundies view women ... just keep cranking out babie until your uterus falls out. The mother's health is unimportant to the thumpers, just need more young'uns to hold the "God Hates Fags" sign on the streetcorner.

Disgusting...

[hyphenate]

34. These people scare the shit out of me

A thousand steps backwards for all women--we can't endure another setback any longer. They will turn logic back onto itself, and proclaim that women are not only subservient to men, but women should be licking their master's boots when he comes back from his survivalist training session.

Let's face it: these people are true and total headcases. The men are control freaks, the women like so many other women who have been brainwashed into thinking they are only there for chilbearing. Mother of Christ! Are we capable of getting rid of that paradigm? We have let people like Scott Roeder, Randall Terry and endless hordes of Operation "Rescue" MEN make a comeback to a point where women are no longer in control of themselves. And these women are doing it KNOWINGLY.

If we, as a species, want to evolve, we have to change things yet again, by making sure that the inroads these assholes have made are covered over by laws and rules giving women equality in the country, with no chance of taking that away from us. I think we need to revisit the ERA, and try once more to get it passed. How many of our "beloved" members of congress will let it through? THIS is the kind of vote that would be worth watching, and seeing how many members of congress are willing to stick their necks out and vote for it. Holding a scorecard for all the DINOs and their votes could prove quite useful when election time comes around--I, for one, would not be ashamed to tell my Senators and Reps that if they don't allow ERA to pass, I won't be voting for them when the time comes.


BTW, if a woman chooses to stay at home and raise kids, that's their choice. But I'll be damned if that choice is taken away from me, not only by men, but by other women. NO ONE has the right to tell me what I can or cannot do.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

44. Who is trying to tell you what you can or cannot do?

[Vinca]

45. I try to ignore these people, but with so many homeless children

in need, it's obscene to keep breeding rather than giving an orphan a home. Somehow I think Jesus would understand.

[ellie]

46. What about the choice

of the children not to grow up in a nameless, faceless crowd? Oh? That's right, they don't have a choice. They get to suffer the whims of their parents. What a bunch of selfish bastards.

I come from a family of nine and let me tell you, I still wish I was an only child. It was a goddamn circus growing up.

[grace0418]

130. +100,000,000. Youngest of eleven.

Amen to the nth degree, finally I read a sensible response. No child should be forced to raise his or her younger siblings, nor should those younger siblings be raise by children. To see all the accolades these selfish, irresponsible jackasses get for not knowing when to say enough already is absolutely mind-boggling. They actually brag about the fact that the older daughters (never the sons of course) each get assigned younger siblings to raise, and NO ONE says "Uh, that's fucked up". WTF?

Nope, it's either "Well, her body, her choice..." or "As long as they have the money to raise them..." (as if that was the only thing a child needs). Argh! :mad:

[Mari333]

47. with all those kids when do they find time to fuck?

I mean, come on.

[MilesColtrane]

49. They don't raise them.

The previous children raise the new children.

[marshall]

52. An new twist on Hillary's "It takes a village..."

The village is one big family.

[pipi_k]

50. IMO, a woman's choice to NOT breed shouldn't be equated with

a woman's choice to keep breeding to the detriment of the children she already has.

Someone with that many kids couldn't possibly have given them the attention they needed and deserved. And, like someone else wondered a bit upthread...with all those kids, when the hell did they find time to fuck?

I'm a parent myself, and I've got kids who are parents. Anybody with very young children who still consistently has that much energy left over at the end of the day is suspect as a parent, as far as I'm concerned. Or, maybe it's like another person said...maybe they leave the raising of their spawn to the other kids.


I dunno...I guess I just don't understand this "right to procreate" stuff. Especially not when it's at least somewhat obvious that the kids aren't having a joyful childhood, or when they're being USED as babysitters and proxy parents for their own siblings.

I also wonder about the "right to procreate" crowd's opinion on whether people whose children have been taken from their custody for good reason...example being what happened here...

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/01/erica_luce_mother_of_6-week-ol.html

If I had my way, this woman would never give birth to another child again.


It just sort of chills my blood to think that there are some people who would still believe she has a "right" to have as many children as she wants to, even after what happened.

[Jennicut]

51. I have more of an issue with her whoring her kids out on tv then how many she has.

Just go ask Jon and Kate if that was a great idea....I don't know. Maybe for them it was with the money involved, but the kids suffer.

[yodoobo]

55. Sounds like she made a choice or something

Exactly how big is this "movement"

Biggest family I know of has 6 kids.

Beyond that, the vast majority of families I know have one or two children, and occasionally.

[lolly]

56. Ultimate Goal

A woman can NEVER be anything but a mother and wife.

All the claptrap about G-d's will, making new souls, whatever.

The desired result is that women can't be teachers, lawyers,doctors, can't have an independent intellectual life,can't be educated.

Their entire being is taken up with mothering.

Look, I love being a mother--but I love doing lots of other things as well. And sometimes I love the freedom to do nothing.

These women are purposely kept from doing anything else.

Same as those XYZ Ranch polygamy families.

[Sheltiemama]

57. I didn't know one of the leaders was single and had no children.

That's very surprising. Or maybe "hypocritical" is the word I'm looking for.

One thing that bothers me about the Duggars -- and I watch their show and enjoy it -- is that the girls aren't sent to college. I suspect several Christian colleges would give them full scholarships. The more educated the mother of a family, the better off that family will be.

And I really hope that Michelle's body doesn't let her get pregnant again. I really don't want her to die. Those children need her. I read the Duggars' book -- I'm an only child, and they fascinate me -- and believe me, Jim Bob is not the brains of the operation.

[Political Heretic]

62. Uttterly fascinating. Thank you.

[Blue-Jay]

63. It must be nice when your only purpose in life is reproduction.

Every fruit fly can sympathize with her.

[XemaSab]

64. The founder of NLQ is a DU'er

n/t

[Sheltiemama]

152. Oh, cool!

What's her screen name? Her Web site is fascinating and so well done.

[XemaSab]

168. I think it's No Longer Quivering

but I can't be positive.

[Sheltiemama]

184. It is.

It's a great site.

[Arkana]

67. So, Mrs. Duggar...

is there any tread left on the tires, or is it pretty much like parking a bicycle in an airplane hangar?

[susu369]

70. They must get a helluva income tax refund check

*nt*

[walldude]

74. Anyone who thinks this woman isn't brainwashed is fooling themselves.

No woman in her right mind wants to spend 20 years pregnant. Sorry but if my wife had had a knife in her hand during childbirth I'd be John Bobbit right now. And she was crazy enough to do it a second time and managed to do it without killing me. I just can't see any woman truly wanting to do that 20 times, let alone spend 20 years bloated, sick and aching,

[Shallah Kali]

76. 'Barren' - a former Quiverfull mother recounts her struggle to have more than 2 kids & the disdain s

she faced from others in the movement:

http://nolongerquivering.com/2010/01/26/barren

by Calulu



Of all the things that happened during my ten years in the Quiverful movement I think that the one thing that caused me the most pain was my inability to bear children. Being infertile in a movement based upon the notion that God grants the righteous a full quiver of arrows led to all sorts of interesting assumptions by people that swore I was their Sister in Christ.

snip

But the thing that tipped us into embracing the Quiverful was a medical emergency. Our four year old daughter, Laura, ended up in ICU with ITP – idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura. Her body started to routinely kill off her platelets for no known reason. After a few scary bouts where we almost lost our baby the doctors started to tell us that they might have to use chemotherapy to stop her immune system from doing further damage. One doctor advised us to have another child and make sure that the cord blood was banked for future possible use on our daughter.

My husband James and I discussed this. I talked to the ladies of our Thursday morning Bible study about the idea of having another child and they challenged me to allow God to gift us with as many children as He deemed. While James and I didn’t use birth control, we’d never considered allowing God to direct the number of our offspring. I’d figured at some point we’d just decide our family was large enough and we’d stop having kids by artificial methods.

snip

Ten years of frustrations. When I did manage to conceive I would get to the ninth week of pregnancy and miscarry. Over those ten years I became pregnant and lost the baby no less than nine times.

At first my church family members were sympathetic but as time went on I became the target of some rather ugly advice. It started simply when a close friend whispered to me during a fellowship meeting that God told her I’d lost my baby because I would drink an occasional soda and everyone knew that brand caused fetal tissue death. And it all went downhill from there.

http://nolongerquivering.com/2010/01/26/barren/

[liberal_at_heart]

82. I disagree with her religion and politics but I will not judge her for chosing to have children

A long time ago it was people that had no children or only one or two children that were treated with disdain. Now it is those who have many who are treated with disdain. It's a cultural thing I think. Our culture has changed but apparently how we treat each other has not. I will not judge her.

[onpatrol98]

86. A Woman's Choice

I like the point you made about not judging her. I mean, if you support a woman's right to choose, doesn't it become hypocritical to condemn her choice. I mean...I sure as heck can't understand why she would want so give birth and attempt to raise so many children. But, thank goodness, the choice is hers. Even, if many believe her husband is controlling her (which I don't believe), she would have to "choose" to allow herself to be in that position. I think this woman (as odd as it seems to me) is doing exactly what she wants to do. And, as for the population control people, are we really talking about restricting the number of children Americans can have? In this case, the Duggars don't scare me...the population people do.

[RainDog]

96. no, it doesn't become hypocritical to criticize the duggars for their choice

because it is based upon religious beliefs that have no bearing on reality - just like the anti-choice movement is based upon the view that females should be barefoot and preggers as a "fallback" position.

Choice is based upon the idea that women have a right to privacy, not a right to choose how many children to have - the law doesn't address the right to have or not have children.

on the other hand, at least thirty years have passed since ZPG has been recognized as one way to deal with overpopulation - voluntarily choosing to limit family size for the good of the entire planet. the duggars, to me, are an example of selfish and stupid people who are like members of a cult.

[FLDCVADem]

118. I want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding

Are you saying that the right to privacy grants a woman the right to choose an abortion, but not the right to have as many children as she wants to have?

[grace0418]

124. Actually no, I don't see it as hypocritical. Why? Because her choice has affected her

daughters' right to choose. None of them have had the option to decide whether they want to be full-time mothers from childhood on, but that's exactly what they've been doing. Each of those older daughters has been raising their younger siblings while mom is busy choosing to have more. The Duggars are very proud and open about that fact. And, really, as one of eleven children, I know there really isn't any other way. When Mom is pregnant and tired all the time, it's up to the older kids to take care of the family. Some kids are fine with that, but some are not (not that it matters, what matters is that they're not given any choice). My oldest sister is almost 60 and still carries a great deal of resentment about not having a childhood and having to be the mother for her siblings. And she has every right to be mad. Motherhood was thrust upon her while our mother was busy getting all the accolades for being a "saint" to have so many children.

That's always the thing when it comes to personal rights. Once someone's right to choose something for himself or herself starts to negatively impact the rights of others to make the same choice for themselves, it becomes a problem. Yes, legally she has every right to pump out as many children as her uterus can bear, and I would never suggest population controls. However, I can and do think it's incredibly irresponsible to have more children than you personally can raise yourself, and will not back down from saying so.

[onpatrol98]

137. Incredibly Irresponsible

I think everyone believes it was incredibly irresponsible. But, simply that it was her choice to make. As for her daughters right to choose, I don't know many children that get choices, regardless of their family makeup.

As a former latchkey child responsible for taking care of a younger sibling, parents generally (unfortunately) make decisions that are disastrous for their children. Children don't get to plan the neighborhoods their parents move to, the people their parents vote for, in the case of separated parents, they don't get to chose the new partner their parent hooks up with. So, yeah, it probably stinks to be the older children in this household. The younger ones, know only this life.

My grandparents had 13 children. But, my grandmother made it clear...if she had been born in today's age...that would not have been the case. Religious or not. She didn't feel she had any options, then. She was very young, with a lot of children.

And, according to my mother, that was how it worked...the older children took care of the younger children, and you had a mother that was basically worn out. My grandparents farmed, their children picked cotton, beans, and helped run the household.

They missed days frequently because they had to work in the fields when it wasn't raining, and my grandparents still expected excellent grades. Now, these people are doctors and lawyers with typically "2" kids or less...or none. Two have "4" and the rest think they're nuts. LOL.

But, they don't have anything bad to say about their upbringing. They liked being a part of a large family. But, that may be time providing a softer view of a very harsh life. They certainly didn't replicate their mother's experience, and she didn't want them to.

I just assumed this was a new day, and people wouldn't continue this practice if given alternatives.

[grace0418]

142. I love all ten of my brothers and sisters, and they love me.

But all of us were affected by being raised the way we were (and none of us have more than three kids).

Yes, once upon a time people regularly had many children for a lot of different reasons. Sometimes it was due to lack of knowledge about reproduction, combined with religious beliefs. Sometimes it was because big families were needed to keep a family farm going, and various diseases and calamities took some children at a young age. Sometimes that's just the way it was. And yes, in those cases older siblings were forced to care for younger siblings. Most turned out alright, but some didn't. Most would not choose to repeat such a hard life.

But what really kills me is that the Duggars do not live 200, 100, or even 50 years ago. They live now, an age when we know our planet is overburdened, when we know that children need more than just three meals a day and clothes to grow and mature properly. When you can look around and see that there are MILLIONS of children who are orphaned and starving. If they really, really want to have that many kids and they really believe that they have the means to care for that many kids, why don't they adopt them? They can adopt them young enough to indoctrinate them with their ridiculous religious beliefs and still be building the religious army they seem to want.

Instead they whore themselves out on television, getting accolades for their selfishness and irresponsibility, and nobody is supposed to criticize them because it's her body, her choice.

Well, I too assumed it was a new day, and people wouldn't continue this practice if given alternatives. But the Duggars have, and for that I will continue to criticize the hell out of them.

[liberal_at_heart]

148. We all have our own lives to lead. We can't live our lives accoring to

how someone else dictates. There are some who are only children who chose to have large families because they feel like they missed out on something when their parents decided to have one child. And I'm sure there are those who come from large families who want small families when they have children. Just because someone choses something different than what their parents did doesn't make what the parents did a bad thing. Alot of children want to do something different than what their parents did. It's called growing up and away from your parents and becoming your own individual. We are all different and we all have our own path to follow and our own journey to take. If we don't want others to tell us how to live our lives we shouldn't tell others how to live their lives.

[grace0418]

150. She puts her life and her irresponsible choices on national television for all to see.

Her right to be free of criticism about those choices ended the minute that first show aired on the Discovery Channel, as far as I'm concerned.

If she were forcing her older kids to work outside the home full-time in order to pay for nannies to raise the younger children, people would be up in arms about that. Why is it any better that they work as unpaid full-time nannies in their own home? Why does that fall under some kind of privacy blanket that no one is allowed to comment about? Well, I say that's bull-shit.

[liberal_at_heart]

140. no one gets to chose their parents

And most older children have the responsibility of helping with younger siblings. My mother died when I was three. My older brother watched me and even potty trained me. Now our situation was due to a death in the family, but either way it is not unusual for the older children to watch the younger ones. My daughter's best frined has to babysit her younger siblings quite often. Children don't get to chose their parents and they don't get to pick and chose their freedoms either. Believe me if my son could chose his freedoms he would sit on the couch all day eating candy and watching cartoons. But he as school, homework, chores just like most children do. I only had two children and one of them is autistic. My duaghter will have the sole responsibility of taking him in if both my husband and I die. At least those in large familites know they have each other to lean on and be there for each other. I do agree that they're pretty strict on their kids. I disagee with many things they do. I disagree with their religion and their politics. I disagree with alot that they teach their children. But to judge someone having children based on what they teach those children is wrong. There are Christians out there that think that atheist parents are harming their children by not teaching them about God. I have an atheist daughter and I have no doubt there are people out there that think I am harming my child by allowing her to be atheist. That doesn't mean their judgment is right.

[grace0418]

147. Lots of kids are in less than ideal situations. I'm so sorry your mother died when you were three.

That's horrible, and it's wonderful that your older brother took over and helped out. But that's a completely different situation. My older siblings were wonderful with me as well, teaching me many of the things a responsible, attentive mother who didn't have eleven kids would teach her children. And incidentally, my mother's mom died when my mom was two, and I believe that part of her compulsion to have so many kids comes from that feeling of not having enough unconditional love.

And no, children don't get to choose their parents (I sure as hell wouldn't have chosen mine). But there is a VAST difference between families coming together to make the best of a bad situation that is no one's fault (a parent dying, for example), and willfully choosing to put your children in a situation they shouldn't have to be in until they are adults. I'm not talking about a child's choice between whether or not to sit on the couch all day eating candy or going to school. I'm not talking about having to do some chores, or watch a sibling for an hour while mom runs to the store, or change a diaper here and there. I'm talking about full-time child care at the expense of you own childhood, when you mother COULD be taking care of her kids, but she's decided to abdicate that responsibility in order to get pregnant, again.

I'm not judging her on what she's teaching those kids (even though I totally disagree), I'm judging her on what she's NOT giving those kids. Time and attention. If that were out of her control, that would be one thing. But it's fully within her control, and she chooses pregnancy over her living children every time.

[liberal_at_heart]

149. Well many people feel very strongly about this issue

Many of us will just have to agree to disagree. I think her children will be just fine just as only children grow up fine so will those who come from a large family. Having large families has its pros and cons just as I'm sure having a small family does. Most things in life have pros and cons and most people turn out just fine even if they make choices that are not what someone else what chose. I for one will not judge her because I don't like it when others judge me and we all have different paths to take in this life. What a boring world it would be if we were all the same. And what a shame it would be for us to miss out on our passions in life if we were not allowed to pursue them.

[grace0418]

151. It would also be a shame if nothing in society ever evolved because people were too

afraid to say anything ever. She put herself and her family on television for whatever reason. Well then she can't be surprised when she gets some criticism along with all of the accolades. I actually do value my privacy and the privacy of my family, so I don't glorify myself on national airwaves.

As a child, it used to make me so angry when people would come over to our house and tell me how lucky I was to have such a saint for a mother, because surely she had to be one to put up with eleven children. In one fell swoop they managed to tell me that I was some kind of burden that only a saint could endure, and that the insane, surly, crazy woman who had just gone on a rampage all over the house because someone spilled lemonade was actually a saint. That fucks a kid up. I would have LOVED if just one person had ever taken me aside and said "I know it must be hard to be in such a big family. You must not get very much attention. It must make you angry when your mom doesn't have time or energy to spend with you or do things that other moms do. It's okay to feel that way." ONE PERSON telling me something like that once in my childhood would've made a huge impact.

So if there is any chance that any one of those Duggar kids (or any other kid in a similar situation) feels like I did; and if there is any chance they might read my words and take some small amount of comfort in knowing that someone understands why they feel resentful towards their "saintly" mother; and that it's not their fault their mom and dad made bad choices; and not everyone thinks they're saints, then I am happy to have spoken.

[Zoeisright]

87. Those people are gross. There's something wrong with him for sure.

And she's pretty stupid. The way his eyes cross makes me think there's a genetic defect there.

[Maru Kitteh]

89. OOOOooooo...... Look at the ICKY people!

You sound just like a bigot talking about:

A hippie couple
A couple of old folks
A gay Couple
A couple of young people
An ethnic minority family

[Stevenmarc]

97. Well at least she bred enough to take care of the rest when she drops dead with #20

[grace0418]

121. They already do all the work anyway. She spends all her time pregnant and the older

girls are stuck taking care of everyone else. It's not like she actually parents any of the living children.

[Stinky The Clown]

98. For her, its an SUV

Sport Uterus and Vagina

[RainDog]

102. lol! n/t

[concerned1]

99. Don't they need an engine overhaul every two dozen kids?

[ThatsMyBarack]

105. When QF children take over the world....

I hope to be dead. :nuke:

[slackmaster]

106. Religion is a choice, political orientation is a choice, staying married is a choice

And having babies (or not) is a choice.

[MindPilot]

108. Gravidophilia -- arousal from being pregnant

Gravidophilia is a form of Pregnancy Fetishism. It is attraction toward (or arousal from) being pregnant oneself, rather than from another's pregnancy, i.e. Maieusiophilia. It is a common misconception among the community that Gravidophiles are all Lesbians, as they are mistaken for female Maieusiophiles.

This fetish may also be a tag for the men who fantasize about being a pregnant woman or a pregnant man.
Gravidophilia has a wider etymological root when considered as "a love of pregnancy". In this sense it can be considered as roughly similar to Maieusiophilia, however, within the community it is used exclusively to refer to the love of being pregnant, as opposed to "the love of pregnant women".

Gravidolagnia is a sexual attraction to the state of pregnancy and the arousal from the idea and experience of being pregnant. This is not to be confused with gravidomania, which would describe an insane or extreme craving, desire, obsession, or impulse for pregnancy. This article concerns the word Gravidolagnia. Information on the fetish can be found at Gravidophilia.

http://bastionworks.com/Mikipedia/index.php?title=Gravidophilia

[onpatrol98]

113. Hmm...Interesting

That's very interesting. That would be a tough condition to have...to just want to be pregnant all the time. I did wonder about that with the Duggars and all. I could see how an organization like Quiverfull would attract people who feel like this. I don't see how a group could convert someone into believing this, but you never know. I would think after you've been pregnant a couple times or just once, you kind of know whether you want to spend the next twenty years of your life being pregnant.

Thanks for the article. Really interesting.

[MindPilot]

117. I was kind of surprised to find out there was actually a name for it.

And yes, not only would these kinds of groups attract like minded women, but also the men who have fetishes about pregnant women.

The really bad part is the kids are essentially victims of someone's fetish or compulsive disorder.

[grace0418]

125. I should really stop reading any stories about the Duggars. It just makes me livid

to see these irresponsible fundy nutjobs getting attention and accolades for being selfish and not giving a shit whether their children have a childhood, or any individual attention from their parents.

And then to read the replies about having to respect their choice that don't seem to take a minute to consider that the older daughters don't get any choice in the matter of being full-time surrogate mothers to their younger siblings.

:mad:

Like I said, I should just stop reading as soon as I see the name "Duggar".

[farmout rightarm]

145. I just think it's interesting their name rhymes with "mugger"

shrug

[Terra Alta]

146. Michelle Duggar is very selfish.

After #18 she was advised not to have any more children.. and what does she do? Go and get pregnant again, giving birth over three months early to a preemie who may have life-long complications due to her mother's selfish decision. And now the Duggers aren't ruling out MORE kids??? You'd think this would be a wake-up call for them. I guess what it would take would be for Michelle AND #20 to end up dead for them to realize what a big mistake they've been making.. of course by then it would be too late.

[varelse]

160. Let's not put this all on Michelle

every one of those 19 babies has TWO parents.

[Terra Alta]

169. yes, Jim Bob is nuts too.

wonder how he would feel if Michelle died while giving birth to #20.. and the baby dies as well. Would that be "God's will" too?

[Lars39]

164. He'd be remarried within a year, probably.

[snooper2]

182. FREE JINGER!

:P

http://freejinger.yuku.com/

[hamsterjill]

183. Her Choice? Yes...but the point is whether it's a good choice or not

Does this woman have a legal right to bear 20-plus children. Of course she does. But the real question is whether or not that's really a good choice.

I have the right to do a lot things, but doing them may not be advisable.

In this case - this family needs to stop with the procreating. It's not healthy for Michelle, but it's also not advisable for the rest of the children.

I think the same thing about the Duggar children as I did about the children on John & Kate Plus Eight. It's simply not NORMAL to have your everyday lives televised for all the world to see. And reality tv is not an old-enough phenomenen where there is truly any real psychology about what these reality shows are going to DO to these kids. You have the Paul Peterson's, etc. (former child stars) who argue against childhood celebrity status. That's about the closest data that we have. And none of THAT data is positive.

So, personally, I'll be waiting for the tell-all books once some of these children reach adulthood.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

185. If she dies it will be "Gawd's Will".

Very sad.

Reminds me of the case of Andrea Yates. They had too many kids too close together. A psychiatrist warned BOTH of them that if Andrea had another child (#5) she WOULD go completely off the deep end with postpartum psychosis.

Russell Yates killed those children and ruined her life just as surely as if he had killed them with a gun, by insisting that his wife have another one. Too many kids too close together.

They were following some right wing preacher who was into mass reproduction, and she was always worried about not being a good enough mother.

Now that Andrea Yates is locked up in a mental hospital for the rest of her life, Rusty Yates has remarried to some other woman who will probably be subjected to forced multiple childbirth. Rusty and #2 got married at a Church of Christ which is quite right wing and holy roller.

[Shallah Kali]

186. Why I posted this thread

I posted that piece about the Duggars on the blog No Longer Quivering by a group of former Quiverfull women was hopefully provide some insight into the minds of why people join that movement in particular and fundamentalist patriarchal religion in general. It was not to incite the mocking that invariably ensues when the Duggars are mentioned. Neither was it attempt to over throw the constitution somehow implicitly denying anyone's right to believe whatever they want to believe by pointing out in it's more extreme forms the religious and educational training some of those who follow the Quiverfull philosophy follow could qualify a mind control cult.

It is easy to just say ew look at the weird-os. It is harder but more useful imo to try to understand people like these so someday if you run into them maybe I can show them the human dignity, tolerance and civil disagreement I want myself and my beliefs to be treated with hopefully thereby encouraging the same from them. Mocking and insults only harden the other group in their position 'proving' to them that the scary Others are as bad as their leaders said they are.

How to talk to someone living inside an abusive church/cult group
http://www.elizabethesther.com/threes_a_crowd/2010/01/how-to-talk-to-someone-living-inside-an-abusive-church-cult-group.html

And herein lies the crack in the armor of cult-like groups. Inside a group like this, there is no personhood. The individual means nothing (or very little). The community is everything. In fact, taking care of one's own interest is considered selfish.

Committed members are accustomed to forsaking all for the sake of 'the ministry,' 'the mission,' the 'work of the Lord.' And by forsake I mean: giving up good jobs, homes, livelihoods, family ties, social networks--anything that hinders full, absolute surrender to their higher calling.

This is why acknowledging the personhood of the individual is a powerful antidote to the soul-crushing machinations of an oppressive religious system.

So, when people "on the outside" treated me as an individual and vaidated my thoughts and words through respectful understanding--I was powerfully moved. Simple kindness was much stronger than someone trying to convince me that I was being victimized. People who listened to me--without always trying to correct my thoughts--set me free.

[verdalaven]

187. Quivering parents assume much

to assume the children they shoot out into the world will adhere to their dogma once they get a taste of the WORLD. I know many who were raised in fundamentalist households, like me, and ended up embracing atheism later in life.