We've beat the horse to death so I'm not here to "debate" the idea of twenty kids, just saying it sounds like a good round number to be done with. Coming soon April 2012. Another Blessing.

Bet this one demands bed rest and that will change things up a bit.

__________________

Then Jesus said, "Come to me, all of you who are weary and carry heavy burdens, and I will give you rest." Matthew 11:28

I am surprised her uterus has not fallen out yet. Disgusting!

__________________
SAHM of Bailey 12, Tyler 10 , Emily Ann 6, and Ryan Matthew 4 yrs old.

I am in no way saying that kids are not a blessing. I have 4 children and each one of them is a blessing, but geez isn't 19 enough?

__________________
SAHM of Bailey 12, Tyler 10 , Emily Ann 6, and Ryan Matthew 4 yrs old.

It's called "hoarding" children.

I do not understand why they would take the risk of the death of Michelle or the baby. What craziness.

I am judging them, oh yes, I am..........

__________________
GO NAVY WRESTLING!!BEAT ARMY!!!
RJB 3/18/60 - 5/22/04
We miss you, sweet brother
God Bless the USA!!!!! Praying for my Youngster son at United States Naval Academy, class of 2014!!

http://mylifeundertheabaya.blogspot.com/

All I keep thinking is..what were they thinking??? I agree with usnamom, it's hoarding children. What bothers me is that they keep having these babies and it's the older children that have to help with raising the younger ones. I know a lot of people are probably not going to agree with me, but I do not believe in older children having to care for their younger siblings.

__________________
~~~~**Maryann**~~~~

I just got a firm grip on reality....
Now I can strangle it

While I feel that people should have the right to do what they want and these people certainly don't rely on the public for their support, there comes a point where you have to question a person's sanity. The last one almost killed her, they've done their share of contributing their progeny and perpetuating their spirituality, which I assume is one reason to keep reproducing.
Their children will quite probably have lots of children.

Take a break, smell the roses, enjoy the children you already have (not to mention grandchildren now). I don't see anything positive or logical about it.

__________________
The political system is broke and it's a joke.

I agree with what everyone is saying. I do not agree with how the older children have to care for their younger siblings. Can't kids just be kids and not have to raise children so young? Why does she feel the need to keep re-producing?! I will never understand this.

__________________
SAHM of Bailey 12, Tyler 10 , Emily Ann 6, and Ryan Matthew 4 yrs old.

I too was surprised that they were expecting again. Her last pregnancy was challenging (not sure about life threatening), and I still do not know if the baby girl has any developmental disabilities due to her being born so premature (3 months?). That would be my biggest concern.
I was not surprised by her response of saying children are a gift from God, but couldn't believe that Jim Bob actually said that they couldn't stop at an odd number! ( Could not believe he said that).

On the flip side, the Duggars are a good Christian, beautiful, self-sufficient family and really can do whatever they choose, but part of me wonders if this is to keep the viewers interested too.

__________________
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!

I don't get it either. I do love seeing loving, happy families though, no matter what the size. But having 20 children is way beyond the norm though. I like to see children grow up together and be close. I had always wanted a lot of brothers and sisters when I was young, but I didn't get my first sisters until I was 13. I love them and my brother (14 yrs younger) to death, but it was a bit of a different ball game. While I did play with them, I helped raise them.

Especially since she had problems with the last one, you'd think she'd take that as a "sign" to stop now.

__________________

Exactly my thinking as well. I hope this last child will throw this woman into menopause. My mom had her last child at 39 and right after my sister was born, she went into menopause 3 months later. Ambrianna, my sister was born 12 years younger than I was, and because my mom had to work and my dad had to work, I ended up being the babysitter. I did not like it being a child, but it was something I had to do.

__________________
SAHM of Bailey 12, Tyler 10 , Emily Ann 6, and Ryan Matthew 4 yrs old.

I feel sorry for the older girls. They seem to be the ones raising the younger ones. But, I like that Jim Bob (hate that name) is seen interacting with the children. On that other show Sister Wifes you NEVER see the father interacting with the children....he's too busy jumping from one bed to another! He has fathered 17 kids I think with 4 women. I don't understand and I wouldn't want to be Michelle or one of those 4 women in SW's.

I don't feel sorry for any of them. They operate from a much different paradigm than most of us, but my observation is that the parents spend much more time directly influencing their children to value honesty, faithfulness, selflessness, etc., than the vast majority of parents - myself included.

Their kids aren't out having unprotected sex and having babies and finding themselves unable to support them. They're not drinking and driving. They're not cooking up meth in the barn.

If I were asked whether a nation filled with Duggar-types would be a stable, prosperous nation, I have to say that I think it probably would. They aren't responsible for all the 'ills' we see in our society.

My understanding is that the problems she had with her last baby weren't related to the fact that she had so many prior pregnancies. People have that same issue with their first baby just as often. And I don't think it was life-threatening for her, but the baby was delivered quite prematurely.

I have NO desire to have that many GRANDKIDS, even - ha! But they seem to do things well with 20 that many people can't pull off with 2, so I have a hard time throwing insults at them.

Gee, I and my siblings had a much different upbringing and we didn't do any of these things. I don't think it takes extremes to raise children "right."

__________________
If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition, and then admit that we just don't want to do it.

- Stephen Colbert.

Nor did I do any of those things.

But all too many children do take that path.

If I was going to get on my high horse about parenting methods, I wouldn't choose to pick on a family that is, it appears, producing adults that are more likely to be good citizens.

I agree. It's one thing to have an older sibling "help" with a younger brother or sister, but I truly believe these older siblings actually "raise" their younger brothers and sisters instead of the parents doing it


I also have a problem with the amount of individual attention these parents could possibly give each child.

I really want to know when they found the time to 'make' the new baby! LOL! I only had 2 kids, but was so tired, cranky, overwhelmed, then working, busy, etc etc etc that we hardly ever had time for intimacy!!! Do they just say 'everyone in their own rooms by 9.....it's mommy/daddy time!' I can just imagine the older kids going 'ewwwww, please don't!'

__________________
"It's not about how much baggage you have, it's about whether or not you can carry your own baggage with grace and dignity."

The measure of a good upbringing is more that just whether the kids end up as good citizens, in my opinion.

__________________
If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition, and then admit that we just don't want to do it.

- Stephen Colbert.

While I agree with the being self sufficient, etc stuff, I think they need to back off the baby mill. Every new life, wether their children or someone else's, is a burden on our resources. Not to mention, don't they think that their God would be happy if they adopted a child without loving parents? These people are nuts, plain and simple. Also greedy. I think someone should start up a campaign of getting as many people as possible to send them a condom in the mail.

__________________
Doing the right thing isn't always the same as doing the easy thing.

I agree entirely!!!

__________________
SAHM of Bailey 12, Tyler 10 , Emily Ann 6, and Ryan Matthew 4 yrs old.

I just wonder when the show gets cancelled what will they do to support that many children. I at least hope they don't squander the money than get onto Medicaid since they can't afford the children. I don't know how they have time to reproduce, I can only imagine the thing I would look forward to the most is alone time in bed. Yikes!@

I had this in mind too, but I wasn't sure if it would stir up a ruckus talking about "rights" and all that.

I think people in general need to be more aware of their surroundings, like community and resources. I remember talk of dwindling resources back in the 70's and 80's, so it's not like people having all these children are unaware.

What about jobs? All those children are going to need jobs to support themselves and their families. How many jobless and homeless are there NOW, before all those Duggars grow up and need to support themselves families? Are they all assuming they'll have a TV show to support them?

I'm guessing some of those children will be on the fast track to huge families - is the first daughter-in-law pregnant again already?

It may be anyone's "right" to have as many children as one wants. Just because someone has a "right" to do something, doesn't make it the "right" thing to do. At some point it crosses the border into selfishness. This isn't the 1800's anymore when all resources were plentiful.

__________________

Don't lose sleep over this. I believe they are 100% debt free (including their house) due to their sensible life-style. Wish more people could have these bragging rights.

__________________
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!

I don't know so much if it's because of their sensible life-style (although I'm sure this contributes)---Jim Bob was in the Arkansas House or Senate (I can't remember), they also "worked" in real estate, owning and selling prime property in a booming part of Arkansas. Was their home built before or after they became "famous"?

I don't know. I truly don't. I don't understand the need to have that many children, I don't "get" the whole Quiverful movement.

__________________
Mental that one, I'm telling you. ---Ron Weasley, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets"

Marilyn, I don't believe their house was built prior to their becoming famous.

However... I believe they do live debt-free as a matter of principle. It seems people who don't care for them can't be objective about this issue. I understand that -we all have strong feelings about issues and those feelings cloud our thoughts. I'm not saying that to 'pick' - just trying to bring some objectivity to the discussion. Just because they do have significant income from their show doesn't mean that they do not have 'living debt free' as a core value.

My guess is that being a member of the AR senate doesn't pay a boatload, but I believe they also - as you said - had a very lucrative real estate business and maybe even car dealerships. Not sure about the car dealerships. That was prior to the show (and I believe during the show, as well). I watch them on tv about once a year, and I know I've seen their sons making the rounds to rental properties the family owns, and fixing things that needed fixed.

My observation and understanding were that they lived in a small - very small - two or three bedroom house for many years while they were saving to build their large house. They didn't want to build until they had the money saved up. It seems like they were in the process of building it when there was a special about them on tv, but I could be wrong about that. They were planning all along to build a huge house, and for the dad and sons to build it themselves. I do remember watching it more way back when it was first on, and that the dad and boys would go build after the dad got home from work in the evenings and on the weekends. They framed it themselves and did a fair amount of things... but not much of the finish work. I believe it took several years to build, and it was during that time that they became 'famous', and if I recall correctly, one of the 'perks' they were offered by TLC was 'product placement' - they were given some of the things in their house in exchange for those products being on display on the tv show.

So... they didn't pay for everything in that house out of pocket from his other jobs. I believe that was their original intent, and they were going down that road and actively building when the tv show came along.

................

I just googled to find out about their early years. They were married in 1984 and purchased their first house for $19,000. That was the last mortgage they had. At one point, they were in a 900 sf house with five kids.

JimBob started a car dealership, and he had a 'day job' at a grocery store. Michelle sold cars at their car lot (and at this point, they actually lived *at* their dealership). During this time they also started their own towing company.

Initially, their tv presence was just in the form of a tv special and not a tv series. It wasn't until TLC got involved several years later that they were 'regulars' on the tube.

Bottom line... yes, they are famous, and are surely paid very, very well for the life they live on tv. I wouldn't trade my privacy for that, I don't think, but if it's working for them, power to 'em. They 'walked the walk', money-wise, before they were famous, and I really don't doubt that they would still be doing so if tv had never become part of their lives. I don't see why it is so hard for some people to understand that there really are people out there who run their lives by a set of core values that don't depend on whether or not you're famous or well-paid.

About the quiver-ful thing, marilyn, I don't think the way you phrased it is really how it is - you said you don't understand the 'need' to have so many children. I don't think they 'need' to. I think they think they are simply 'supposed' to let God be in control of whether she gets pregnant or not.

Say you were working as a 911 operator and read some rules and regs, and interpreted them to mean something. You'd follow those rules according to what you believed was intended, even if you didn't quite get why they put it in the manual. You would do it because you were 'subject' to the entity that was 'over' you.

That's why the Duggars do what they do. They've read the Bible and have come to some conclusions about what God's intentions are for mankind in terms of pregnancy, sex, reproduction, etc.. I don't think they are doing it because they 'need' to do it. I think they do it because they believe they are 'supposed' to do it.

FWIW, I don't agree about their interpretation of the Bible. Not at all. But I am sure there are some things that *I* do because of my faith that others don't 'see' when they read the Bible, so I am loathe to sit in judgement of them over something they're convicted about.

I guess it's semantics, but I think they feel they need to have as many children as possible, to remain as faithful and devout as they can...

I know that they believe that God wouldn't allow them become pregnant if it wasn't his will---I just don't understand that interpretation of the Bible.

__________________
Mental that one, I'm telling you. ---Ron Weasley, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets"

Oh, gotcha. Sorry I misunderstood.

But I think I'd also say, though, that they don't think they 'need' to have as many children as possible to be in favor with God. I think they think they 'need' to just live their lives in such a way that they are not preventing nature from taking its course where reproduction is concerned. I think that they believe that God is the one who ultimately controls whether sperm and egg are 'destined' to meet, and that they do not have the right to try to actively prevent something that might be God's will.

It's a position I could probably defend if I were on a debate team and told to take that 'side', but I really don't think the weight of the evidence comes down on that actually being God's intention for mankind.