Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How come they aren't in the news then? What's so special about these guys?
True, there is a Ukrainian family in Rancho Cordova, CA who also has a family of 17: USATODAY.com - California family has 17 children. Apparently they don't have the "all-American" look in order to be featured on various TV specials and rake in tons of money from endorsements. This family seems more "real". They are more real than the Duggars with their weird Bill Gothard type teachings (that the TV specials never talk about), or their "blanket-training", or their handing over their newest bundle of joy to yet another sibling to take care of, while Mom and Dad Duggar start another project.
I am quite familiar with Michelle Duggar and her husband Jim-Bob. All of their children, by the way, have "J" names including a daughter named, "Jinger" (pronounced like the name, "Ginger"). On large family boards, especially the "Quiverfull" boards (for those not familiar with "Quiverfull", go to QuiverFull .com and you will find out more), they are looked upon as "Quiverfull Supastars".
Of course, they've been also featured on various TV specials and have had many endorsements pay for their mega-mansion in Arkansas with all the wonderful trappings that large families do not normally have. Also, controversial is their "blanket training" methods which include swatting the crawling baby with a wooden spoon in order to train the child boundaries. Another controversial subject is their "buddy system", in which the newest baby, at six months old, gets an older "buddy" (sibling) to take care of him/her while Mama and Daddy get busy on making yet another baby. Michelle Duggar stops breast-feeding at age 6 months in order to speed up her ability to get pregnant again while the "buddy system" sibling takes care of the 6 month old infant from there on.
It's nice that Michelle Duggar had the opportunity to have a normal childhood coming from a family of 3; had the opportunity to experience a childhood. She got to go to school, date, be a cheerleader. Her own kids get to become a mom or dad at age 8 or 9, while Mom and Dad get the adoration from the Quiverfull crowd and the rest of the world who think that they are some sort of Wonder Parents. I do know that they're self-supporting and not on welfare. They are also followers of Bill Gothard, a right-wing, Christian conservative who has his own ideas on many things, including child-bearing and child-rearing.
I remember my dad talking about his family of 12 siblings and they did the same thing, where an older child was responsible for a younger one. They also did the same thing in the book "Cheaper by the Dozen" and in Louisa May Alcott's "Little Men". My ex-boyfriend came from family of 8 and they had the same plan. Very interesting! Thanks!
True, there is a Ukrainian family in Rancho Cordova, CA who also has a family of 17: USATODAY.com - California family has 17 children. Apparently they don't have the "all-American" look in order to be featured on various TV specials and rake in tons of money from endorsements. This family seems more "real". They are more real than the Duggars with their weird Bill Gothard type teachings (that the TV specials never talk about), or their "blanket-training", or their handing over their newest bundle of joy to yet another sibling to take care of, while Mom and Dad Duggar start another project.
I always wonder why it happens this way. I have two sets of twins in my 6, not sure why that happened since there's no other twins in my family. And we are constantly struggling while other people can take fertility drugs, have a bunch of multiples, and get free diapers, houses, help, etc. just because they have a bunch of multiples.
And yes, I am whining about it.
Your account of the Duggars' is starting to creep me out.
I always wonder why it happens this way. I have two sets of twins in my 6, not sure why that happened since there's no other twins in my family. And we are constantly struggling while other people can take fertility drugs, have a bunch of multiples, and get free diapers, houses, help, etc. just because they have a bunch of multiples.
And yes, I am whining about it.
Your account of the Duggars' is starting to creep me out.
LOL! You can get free diapers. All you need is a publicist and an angle...
I remember my dad talking about his family of 12 siblings and they did the same thing, where an older child was responsible for a younger one. They also did the same thing in the book "Cheaper by the Dozen" and in Louisa May Alcott's "Little Men". My ex-boyfriend came from family of 8 and they had the same plan. Very interesting! Thanks!
That's right. My husband is the youngest of 9 children. We have 7 children and are finished. His older siblings have only 2 or 3 children each because they were also responsible for taking care of the younger ones to a great degree. Two of the younger ones have no children. One of them is a confirmed bachelor who only visits his family every three to four years. The other one is unfortunately no longer here. My husband's dad was sick from the time that my husband was a little boy. His mother decided not to drive after she got married. The kids never went anywhere or did anything until the older siblings got married, left home, and started taking the siblings out and about. I guess the older siblings got their fill of taking care of kids and doing everything because the poor dad was ill for many, many years before he passed on and the mother was burned out to the point of almost entering a mental hospital. The kids all turned out well because the mom and dad did the best they could, but it wasn't without a price.
I don't remember the people you're mentioning above having "blanket-training" methods for infants and toddlers and I don't remember them adhering to cult-like/legalistic teachings of Bill Gothard. I think it is very interesting that Bill Gothard who has never been married or has kids himself, to be such an expert in marriage and child-bearing.
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Ring a bell? These people gave LIFE to THEIR children. They have the LIBERTY to do so. And they are PURSUING HAPPINESS through raising happy, loved citizens.
There is nothing defined in the U.S. Constitution about procreation being an unalienable right. For example, there's the right to free speech, and the right to keep & bear arms ... but there's no right to keep & bear children.
With your interpretation of the Constitution (putting procreation under the category of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"), that opens the door to many other interpretations. Does life, liberty and pursuing happiness include driving a vehicle? No. It's a privilege. Does it give someone who is plagued with a medical condition the right to smoke marijuana to make them "happy", or perhaps even save their life? No. That's still illegal in many parts of the nation. Unless it's specifically defined, which it isn't, having children is not a Constitutional right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LML
The education provided to them may be public or it may be private but it is the same education that is provided to 18 families with 1 child or 1 family with 18 children. The childless people once received an education that was paid for by other childless people and they too had the liberty to make the choice as to have children or not.
Not everyone benefitted (and I use that term loosely) from public education. Some of us had parents who weren't wealthy, but still managed to send us to top rated private schools. If these parents with 18 children are indeed home schooling their kids, then I commend them. On the other hand, those who have more children than they can afford & use the public system as a free daycare service are taking advantage of the taxpayers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LML
Forcing people to have the number of children you deem appropriate in the name of the "public good" IS socialism and is, in fact, practiced in China today. Personally, I don't want to live in a country where others are allowed to make those type of decisions for citizens. Freedom has a price. Sometimes that price is keeping your nose out of other people's business and hoping they will do the same for you. Suppose the country decided that, because there weren't enough children being born to shoulder the future cost of social security, EVERYONE MUST have at least 2 children?
I never said I wanted the government to control or regulate how many children somebody has. I'm one who says that if you want to continuously bang a woman like a cheap drum and have as many offspring as you want, go right ahead ... but be sure to pay for every aspect of their upbringing entirely on your own.
As it is, the childless people are burdened with paying taxes (and given no special "credits") to support those who keep reproducing without taking responsibility. This Arkansas family may be an exception, but the general rule is the bigger the family, the poorer the family ... and there are more big families than not who are dependent on public assistance. I'll be glad to keep my nose out of others' business as long as they keep their hands out of my wallet!
I always wonder why it happens this way. I have two sets of twins in my 6, not sure why that happened since there's no other twins in my family. And we are constantly struggling while other people can take fertility drugs, have a bunch of multiples, and get free diapers, houses, help, etc. just because they have a bunch of multiples.
And yes, I am whining about it.
Your account of the Duggars' is starting to creep me out.
Wow - two sets of twins - you are awesome!!! Raising one infant at a time is all-consuming, much less two or more at a time. I mean that sincerely. Having 7 children ourselves, all singles, college age down to kindergarten. I know about the struggle of providing for them, and not just financially. My husband has a good career and I have a good career, although I'm finished with my career that I went to school for and am now an entrepreneur.
Yes, it is difficult, and for people to even think that raising 17 or 18 children is easy, and that the smiles on the kids are all real, and not a bit of a facade. Someone remarked on another blog board how some of the kids have dark circles under their eyes. This is to be expected when one gets up and down with an infant all night. Also, when you have complete access to your children, when they know nothing else except what you've indoctrinated them with, there is going to be complete and blind obedience to whatever Mom and Dad say. The Duggars have such control. The Duggars have declared their home as a church as they have other families that come to worship there. There is controversy over whether or not they pay property tax on their home; however, I've found that the Quiverfull people, who worship these two Quiverfull Supastars, as I've mentioned, are quick to dispell that. Others are not so sure that it isn't true.
I think that the Duggars appear to be nice people, their kids know how to play various musical instruments and they seem like lovely kids. Is it possible that it's "too lovely", "too perfect"? I don't know. I haven't seen that yet in my family of 7 kids. Have you seen it with yours? To me, something seems a bit amiss. I think it will be interesting to see how many of these kids rebel against the very restrictive and legalistic teachings of Bill Gothard as they get older.
Take care. Wishing you a happy and blessed Mother's Day!
There is nothing defined in the U.S. Constitution about procreation being an unalienable right. For example, there's the right to free speech, and the right to keep & bear arms ... but there's no right to keep & bear children.
With your interpretation of the Constitution (putting procreation under the category of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"), that opens the door to many other interpretations. Does life, liberty and pursuing happiness include driving a vehicle? No. It's a privilege. Does it give someone who is plagued with a medical condition the right to smoke marijuana to make them "happy", or perhaps even save their life? No. That's still illegal in many parts of the nation. Unless it's specifically defined, which it isn't, having children is not a Constitutional right.
Not everyone benefitted (and I use that term loosely) from public education. Some of us had parents who weren't wealthy, but still managed to send us to top rated private schools. If these parents with 18 children are indeed home schooling their kids, then I commend them. On the other hand, those who have more children than they can afford & use the public system as a free daycare service are taking advantage of the taxpayers.
I never said I wanted the government to control or regulate how many children somebody has. I'm one who says that if you want to continuously bang a woman like a cheap drum and have as many offspring as you want, go right ahead ... but be sure to pay for every aspect of their upbringing entirely on your own.
As it is, the childless people are burdened with paying taxes (and given no special "credits") to support those who keep reproducing without taking responsibility. This Arkansas family may be an exception, but the general rule is the bigger the family, the poorer the family ... and there are more big families than not who are dependent on public assistance. I'll be glad to keep my nose out of others' business as long as they keep their hands out of my wallet!
I wouldn't worry about the "keeping our noses out of their business" as the Duggars put themselves in the limelight, no one else did. They chose that on their own. Jim-Bob Duggar has future political aspirations in his conservative state (having already been an Arkansas state representative from 1999 to 2002). When he ran and lost the last time, he played up his family size, morality, Godliness, to his constitutients. Also, they have received a mega ton of endorsements which have equipped their home with a restaurant type kitchen, furniture, washers, dryers, etc. Ya can't have your cake and eat it too.
There are many, many large families in the town that I currently live in. In just the past generation alone, there were a few families with 20+ children. My Kindergartner's teacher is one of 14 children; wonderful adults now. None of these people got anything from anybody; they did it on their own.
There is nothing defined in the U.S. Constitution about procreation being an unalienable right. For example, there's the right to free speech, and the right to keep & bear arms ... but there's no right to keep & bear children.
With your interpretation of the Constitution (putting procreation under the category of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"), that opens the door to many other interpretations. Does life, liberty and pursuing happiness include driving a vehicle? No. It's a privilege. Does it give someone who is plagued with a medical condition the right to smoke marijuana to make them "happy", or perhaps even save their life? No. That's still illegal in many parts of the nation. Unless it's specifically defined, which it isn't, having children is not a Constitutional right.
Not everyone benefitted (and I use that term loosely) from public education. Some of us had parents who weren't wealthy, but still managed to send us to top rated private schools. If these parents with 18 children are indeed home schooling their kids, then I commend them. On the other hand, those who have more children than they can afford & use the public system as a free daycare service are taking advantage of the taxpayers.
I never said I wanted the government to control or regulate how many children somebody has. I'm one who says that if you want to continuously bang a woman like a cheap drum and have as many offspring as you want, go right ahead ... but be sure to pay for every aspect of their upbringing entirely on your own. If they can't, then they have no business having kids.
As it is, the childless people are burdened with paying taxes (and given no special "credits") to support those who keep reproducing without taking responsibility. This Arkansas family may be an exception, but the general rule is the bigger the family, the poorer the family ... and there are more big families than not who are dependent on public assistance. I'll be glad to keep my nose out of others' business as long as they keep their hands out of my
wallet!
The Constitution is a limitation on the government- not on private individuals.
The Constitution does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals- only the conduct of the government. The Constitution is to protect the citizens from the government.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
