And Baby Makes 20!

[fluffhead]

While I don't necessarily advocate the birthing of 20 kids, I'm always amazed at the "enlightened" folks who give me crap for having 5 kids, and decry other large families because of the resources that could have been used for starving kids somewhere else, yet would defend to the death the rights of the same-sex couple next door who are spending tens of thousands of dollars (often paid by their benefits, i.e. by you and I) to procreate with some stranger's sperm or egg rather than adopt one of those starving kids.

[Ladybug]

Who says they are not contributing? I'd be shocked if they were not giving generously to other families in need too. THey might not disclose that information or amounts as taught by their faith, but sharing is significant part of their faith and I seriously doubt if they've neglected their responsibility to share. They just don't strike me as half-effort kind of people when it comes to anything. LOL.

[scrub-jay]

While I don't necessarily advocate the birthing of 20 kids, I'm always amazed at the "enlightened" folks who give me crap for having 5 kids, and decry other large families because of the resources that could have been used for starving kids somewhere else, yet would defend to the death the rights of the same-sex couple next door who are spending tens of thousands of dollars (often paid by their benefits, i.e. by you and I) to procreate with some stranger's sperm or egg rather than adopt one of those starving kids.

Often, same-sex couples are not allowed to adopt those starving kids depending on the local laws. This may not be a valid option for them.

[MissCrabette]

I see your point, poky, but I don't like the idea that outsiders should feel entitled to tell me how to spend my money. If I choose not to have kids, should I give money to support one or two poor kids? I do, by the way, but that's not the point. Where do you draw the line? How many kids are considered reasonable and how many are a luxury? Why stop at kids? Should people who buy fancy cars or big houses be guilted into settling for less and sending the surplus to those poor babies?

[lovelight]

They do tons of work for children/families in need. They
Travel to Honduras frequently bringing along supplies and helping out there. They also went to Alabama to rebuild devastated houses with habitat for humanity. They are actually a really generous family on top of having all of their own children to support. One of the main things they teach their children is to do service for others.

[corn poffi]

I really don't care what they do. If they can afford them, fine. Their choice, not mine. I dont care who has babies or how many as long as the kids are safe, happy, loved, and cared for However, I don't really love anybody whores themselves and their families out on reality tv. That's the thing that bugs me about them (and anybody else with that type of reality show).

[poky]

I see your point, poky, but I don't like the idea that outsiders should feel entitled to tell me how to spend my money. If I choose not to have kids, should I give money to support one or two poor kids? I do, by the way, but that's not the point. Where do you draw the line? How many kids are considered reasonable and how many are a luxury? Why stop at kids? Should people who buy fancy cars or big houses be guilted into settling for less and sending the surplus to those poor babies?

Just to be clear, I wasn't actually making a point, I was just guessing at an answer to the question.

My own views are closer to zpg, but I don't waste time or energy worrying about large families that are able to support themselves, or begrudge them the lifestyle they want, which is why I haven't said anything until now. *shrug*.

[TulipsAndSunscreen]

Who says they are not contributing? I'd be shocked if they were not giving generously to other families in need too. THey might not disclose that information or amounts as taught by their faith, but sharing is significant part of their faith and I seriously doubt if they've neglected their responsibility to share. They just don't strike me as half-effort kind of people when it comes to anything. LOL.

Given that they follow the Bible as the infallable word of God, I'd guarantee you that they are tithing at least 10% of their income since that's what the Bible says. Which is a hell of a lot more than most people give.

Just saying.

The only reason why the Duggars bother me is because their religion seems oppressive to women. The woman's job is to have as many children as possible. The greatest thing she could possibly do with her life is have babies. She can't work outside the home. She is submissive to her husband in all things. That's the only part that rubs me the wrong way. The number of kids, eh, that doesn't bother me so much. I mean, I'm surprised that she hasn't had a major postpartum hemorrhage, uterine prolapse, etc yet, but the sheer number isn't a sore point with me.

[Meenah]

Is there such a thing as "pregnancy munchausen syndrome"?

[GrayMatterWife]

The only reason why the Duggars bother me is because their religion seems oppressive to women. The woman's job is to have as many children as possible. The greatest thing she could possibly do with her life is have babies. She can't work outside the home. She is submissive to her husband in all things. That's the only part that rubs me the wrong way. The number of kids, eh, that doesn't bother me so much. I mean, I'm surprised that she hasn't had a major postpartum hemorrhage, uterine prolapse, etc yet, but the sheer number isn't a sore point with me.

I don't think it's about having as many children as possible. It's about raising as many children in her faith as possible. Having those children is merely a conduit to the real goal.

I don't have any problem with anyone of any faith who views the greatest thing a woman can do is have (and responsibly raise) children, even if that it at the sacrifice of a career or whatever. The greatest thing I've ever done is have children. I cannot imagine anything ever being nearly as fulfilling, rewarding, and--frankly--female. We might be a little better as a society if the value of motherhood was raised a little, instead of seen as a great thing do do IF you are already otherwise satisfied and perceived as "complete" (in your career, education, marriage, etc.) and IF you do not "lose" anything about yourself. And if you aren't having kids for the "wrong" reasons--like your outdated religion oppresses you into having lots of babies. I rarely hear of anyone having a problem with educated, religiously uncontroversial, upper middle class women having lots of kids.

I don't have a hang-up with the whole "submissive to her husband" thing. I don't practice submissiveness as she does, but I don't judge her for it, either. She seems pretty happy. I really struggle at times with putting aside my ego in my marriage. I admire people who can be bigger than themselves and give selflessly for their spouse. Her take on things is not necessarily my take on them, but if it works for her, I have a hard time judging her.

[Chrisada]

Very well said GMW. And I personally have those same views of not wanting to work outside of the home, instead choosing to raise my children, which I believe is the greatest thing I will ever do... and I have no religion whatsoever.

Having and raising children, being a SAHM, these can all be wonderful things. My problem with it is the "choice" aspect. Does Michelle Duggar have a choice? If she wanted to to law school or go to med school, could she? Would that be acceptable in her religion? Or are women just supposed to be barefoot and pregnant in her religion? What if she had decided that she really loved God, but she never wanted to have any children at all? Would that have been acceptable? Would her accomplishments as a lawyer or a doctor have been given the same amount of respect as those who have been mothers in her religion? I think SAHMdom can be a great privilege. But is it the pinnacle of womanhood? I don't think so. A uterus does not a woman make. I suppose maybe I'm just a little too second wave for Michelle Duggar...

[SoonerTexan]

Her daughters have expressed desires to be nurses, etc., so I don't think there is anything about their religion that specifically prevents a woman from having a career. It probably just isn't doable when you have that many children!

Having and raising children, being a SAHM, these can all be wonderful things. My problem with it is the "choice" aspect. Does Michelle Duggar have a choice? If she wanted to to law school or go to med school, could she? Would that be acceptable in her religion? Or are women just supposed to be barefoot and pregnant in her religion? What if she had decided that she really loved God, but she never wanted to have any children at all? Would that have been acceptable? Would her accomplishments as a lawyer or a doctor have been given the same amount of respect as those who have been mothers in her religion? I think SAHMdom can be a great privilege. But is it the pinnacle of womanhood? I don't think so. A uterus does not a woman make. I suppose maybe I'm just a little too second wave for Michelle Duggar...

My guess is if Michelle Duggar were unhappy with her life she could "get out" pretty easily. That would likely mean leaving her religion, but if she no longer subscribed to that faith (which would equate unhappiness since their life is IN their faith), then she could do it. I can't imagine being denied money or access to her kids or any other woes that "regular" people stress about when choosing to leave -- their family is too high profile for that.

I gave up judging other religions and/lifestyles they entail a long time ago. If that is what works for them and gives them personal peace -- YAY! They found theirs. I do not understand MANY things from a myriad of religions, but my only concern is that those religions are not foisted on ME. I'm good with the way I live my life, I only hope for the same for others.

I do think it will be a shame if any of a number of the likely nightmare medical scenarios come true, but those risks have been explained to them, and they do foot their own bills. The *only* place where I'd think the public would have any right to complain is if this were being done by a family on medicaid, and the government would end up funding the care.