NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24537885/


18th child expected. Ah well, Arkansas, what can one say.



To date, the Duggars’ 17 natural children range in age from 20 years to 9 months. Included in the mix are 10 boys and seven girls — Joshua, twins Jana and John-David, Jill, Jessa, Jinger, Joseph, Josiah, Joy-Anna, twins Jedidiah and Jeremiah, Jason, James, Justin, Jackson, Johannah and baby Jennifer, who arrived last Aug. 2.

Their large number of offspring has meant other large numbers for the Duggars. Michelle has been pregnant for 135 months of her life, with an average of 18 months between births. The family estimates it has used 90,000 diapers and launders 200 loads of clothes each month in a row of industrial-size washers and dryers.

Even though they go through three loaves of bread per day, they claim to feed their family for less than $2,000 a month. Transportation is facilitated by nine vehicles, led by a 21-passenger bus. They estimate that all members of the family have combined to work approximately 39,000 hours on their home.

Each child learns to play both violin and piano. And for what it’s worth, when child No. 18 arrives, they’ll have enough kids to field two baseball teams.



Personally I am a tad bit disturbed at the sheer amount of children this woman brought forth. But then again, if that is what she wants and if she believes that is her calling who am I to judge. Especially since they don't really seem to be your average hicks or rednecks at first glance, they seem middle/upper middle class. They obviously have the means to feed and sustain such a large clan. Wonder if they're going to break the 20 barrier? Since she hasn't stated any desire to sterilize or likewise.

You know the weird thing about this?
I suspected they were "devout Christians" before even reading the article. Now, it might be prejudice on my side, but why is it that those ridiculously large families almost invariably seem to be religious fanatics as well? :confused:

You know the weird thing about this?
I suspected they were "devout Christians" before even reading the article. Now, it might be prejudice on my side, but why is it that those ridiculously large families almost invariably seem to be religious fanatics as well? :confused:

I dunno. Most W.A.S.Ps'd probably settle on two or so.

Somewhat fixated on the letter J - what sort of name is Jinger anyway?

Maybe she'll stop when she can't think up any more names starting with J? :D

I do see one obvious J missing, but possibly she'll wait with that one until that one Special One comes out... :p

Somewhat fixated on the letter J - what sort of name is Jinger anyway?

It's "Ginger" for people who want all their kid's names to begin with "J"... like "Jesus".

Maybe she'll stop when she can't think up any more names starting with J? :D

I doubt it. By the looks of it, she's already started making new names up...

I doubt it. By the looks of it, she's already started making new names up...

Ah yes, lots more possibilities:
Jabba
Jackall
Jackass
Jahweh
Jampacked
...

18th child expected. Ah well, Arkansas, what can one say.
This woman has spent only 1/4 of the last 20 years not pregnant. Holy shit.

This woman has spent only 1/4 of the last 20 years not pregnant. Holy shit.

No, her holy shit comes out the other side... probably not as frequent, though... :p

w.t.f.
where's that laughing pear when you need it?

It's "Ginger" for people who want all their kid's names to begin with "J"... like "Jesus".

Ahh I see, I was assuming it rhymed with minger...

Well, even if they are useless parents, it would be kinda fun having that many brothers and sisters.

At some point, they have to consider the rising risk of disability in the offspring as the parents age. If they were 40ish people having their first kid, I'd say "go for it." But 18 kids? They've had their share and ought to knock it off.

Well, even if they are useless parents, it would be kinda fun having that many brothers and sisters.

At some point, they have to consider the rising risk of disability in the offspring as the parents age. If they were 40ish people having their first kid, I'd say "go for it." But 18 kids? They've had their share and ought to knock it off.

And should have done so about 16 kids ago...

A uterus made of steel and a brain made of mush.

And should have done so about 16 kids ago...

No, I'm not saying that at all. Good parents should have more than two kids (per couple), crap parents should have less.

I'm saying that 18, so close together, suggests people who don't know when to stop. Risks of childbirth increase with age, as do risks to the child. I don't think "this year's baby" justifies the risk to the mother, let alone the child, when that genetic combination of the two parents has been so thoroughly explored already.

At some point, they need to stop having more kids. Based on the mother's age seems as good a reason to draw the line as any other.

No, I'm not saying that at all.

You may not be, but I am. I don't think that anyone should have more than two kids.

You may not be, but I am. I don't think that anyone should have more than two kids.

I agree. It's not like there is a shortage of human beings as it is.

You know the weird thing about this?
I suspected they were "devout Christians" before even reading the article. Now, it might be prejudice on my side, but why is it that those ridiculously large families almost invariably seem to be religious fanatics as well? :confused:
Because no sane woman who has any real choice in the matter would volunteer to be pregnant for her entire adult life?

I don't see why it would bother anyone that she has that many kids (other than in a "I wouldn't want to" way) they feed, clothe, educate them all without any public assistance. If you can support your kids have as many as you want. I can support 2 in the way I feel they deserve so that's how many I had.

I don't see why it would bother anyone that she has that many kids <SNIP>.

Because the world is already overpopulated.

Because the world is already overpopulated.

So you should get to dictate someone's choices about how many children they will have? Sounds very anti-choice to me.

I don't see why it would bother anyone that she has that many kids (other than in a "I wouldn't want to" way) they feed, clothe, educate them all without any public assistance.

Wrong.

The Duggars freely and proudly admit that they ARE NOT capable of caring for all the children they have produced.

For one thing, the only way they can afford their home is because they've managed to get it declared a "church" and thus don't have to pay property taxes. For another thing, they use the freak-show appeal of their family to pull in paying media appearances and to attract donations from the public.

And, of course, let's not forget how they brag about forcing their older children to be parents to their younger siblings! I've got no problem with expecting an older child to help care for younger siblings, but I also think that parents don't get to call themselves parents unless they are at least doing the MAJORITY of the parenting...which the Duggars admit they aren't.


If you can support your kids have as many as you want. I can support 2 in the way I feel they deserve so that's how many I had.
No two parents are capable of parenting 18 children at the same time. Period. Sure, maybe two adults could theoretically earn enough money to provide, materially, for 18 kids, but it's not physically possible for them to be full-time parents to that many kids.

During a TV interview, Pa Duggar couldn't even remember one of his daughters' names until she helped him out.

So you should get to dictate someone's choices about how many children they will have? Sounds very anti-choice to me.
I believe that somebody who abuses their children should have those children taken away. I also believe the Duggars are guilty of gross neglect, if not downright abuse, and thus I don't think they should be permitted to keep any of their children. If they want to keep pumping out babies and failing to care for them (the way they currently do), then I want to protect those kids and give them a shot at a decent life. They shouldn't have to suffer for the disgusting selfishness shown by their parents.

I believe that somebody who abuses their children should have those children taken away. I also believe the Duggars are guilty of gross neglect, if not downright abuse, and thus I don't think they should be permitted to keep any of their children. If they want to keep pumping out babies and failing to care for them (the way they currently do), then I want to protect those kids and give them a shot at a decent life. They shouldn't have to suffer for the disgusting selfishness shown by their parents.

I've seen many documentaries and news stories about them, I haven't seen any neglect. Do you have evidence of this neglect?

So you should get to dictate someone's choices about how many children they will have?

When did I say that?

When did I say that?

That it's your business how many children she has because "the world is already over populated" and that people should "stop after 2" I just wonder why you have a problem with it at all.

That it's your business how many children she has because "the world is already over populated" and that people should "stop after 2" I just wonder why you have a problem with it at all.

I fail to see how my stating my opinion and the reasoning thereof is the same as saying that I should be able to dictate to others.

I've seen many documentaries and news stories about them, I haven't seen any neglect. Do you have evidence of this neglect?
Read their website. They catalogue it very comprehensively.

For example, the Duggars exploit their kids for free domestic labor, admitting that each of the older kids basically has a full time job in terms of hour spent cleaning, cooking, and taking care of their little siblings. A kid who worked outside the home as many hours as the Duggar kids do in the home would be unquestionably an example of parents violating child labor laws. If the Duggars were sending the kids to clean, cook, and baby-sit for other people that much, they'd already be in jail for exploitation. That alone is enough to qualify as neglectful if not abusive, in my eyes, though sadly the laws don't yet recognize this type of exploitation.

The Duggars also emotionally neglect all their children and brag about it. They are proud of the fact that they force their older children to become parents as soon as they are physically able, by taking "the buddy system" to a ridiculous extreme. Expecting a 12 year old child to parent their younger sibling is pathetic, and its even more pathetic when the parent tries to paint it as some lovely learning experience. A 12 year old child should not be expected to take on the role of primary care-giver for infants or toddlers every day of their life.

Also, I personally believe it is neglect for somebody to choose to parent a child when they know they cannot materially support that child, and the Duggars certainly cannot support their family if they are held to the same standards as everybody else. If they actually had to pay property taxes, purchase their own household goods, and get by without the countless handouts they solicit, they would have no chance at all. Granted this is NOT legal neglect, but it's neglect in my book. It's also a level of selfishness that turns my stomach.

Read their website. They catalogue it very comprehensively.

For example, the Duggars exploit their kids for free domestic labor, admitting that each of the older kids basically has a full time job in terms of hour spent cleaning, cooking, and taking care of their little siblings. A kid who worked outside the home as many hours as the Duggar kids do in the home would be unquestionably an example of parents violating child labor laws. If the Duggars were sending the kids to clean, cook, and baby-sit for other people that much, they'd already be in jail for exploitation. That alone is enough to qualify as neglectful if not abusive, in my eyes, though sadly the laws don't yet recognize this type of exploitation.

The Duggars also emotionally neglect all their children and brag about it. They are proud of the fact that they force their older children to become parents as soon as they are physically able, by taking "the buddy system" to a ridiculous extreme. Expecting a 12 year old child to parent their younger sibling is pathetic, and its even more pathetic when the parent tries to paint it as some lovely learning experience. A 12 year old child should not be expected to take on the role of primary care-giver for infants or toddlers every day of their life.

Also, I personally believe it is neglect for somebody to choose to parent a child when they know they cannot materially support that child, and the Duggars certainly cannot support their family if they are held to the same standards as everybody else. If they actually had to pay property taxes, purchase their own household goods, and get by without the countless handouts they solicit, they would have no chance at all. Granted this is NOT legal neglect, but it's neglect in my book. It's also a level of selfishness that turns my stomach.

Oh. My uncle has 17 children and they had a similar existence. I guess since my childhood was so much worse than theirs I never really thought of them having anything but "better" than me.

Personally I am a tad bit disturbed at the sheer amount of children this woman brought forth. I'm more disturbed by the "J" fixation. But I suppose they save on monogrammed towels that way.
You know the weird thing about this?
I suspected they were "devout Christians" before even reading the article. Now, it might be prejudice on my side, but why is it that those ridiculously large families almost invariably seem to be religious fanatics as well? :confused:Opposition to contraceptives.
Because no sane woman who has any real choice in the matter would volunteer to be pregnant for her entire adult life?Hey, to each their own. If there were no harmful consequences for others (which could be the case here) and a woman wanted to, let her.

Because no sane woman who has any real choice in the matter would volunteer to be pregnant for her entire adult life?

Hey, now, be fair. I agree that most women wouldn't enjoy that, but I can honestly say that my grandmother always seemed entirely happy about having twelve children, and she was both sane and generally awesome.

Her vagina is a clown car. :)

Her vagina is a clown car. :)

As soon as I saw you had replied, I just KNEW.....:D

Her vagina is a clown car. :)

My sense of humour wants to have your sense of humour's kid. :D

That's the funniest thing I've ever read! :)

A uterus made of steel and a brain made of mush.

^ This

My sense of humour wants to have your sense of humour's kid. :D

That's the funniest thing I've ever read! :)

I go where I'm needed. :)

I think I should also point out that it isn't just her. I think this guy needs to consider masturbating more. Or hang out with me and my friends. We'll take care of his fertility. :)

I think I should also point out that it isn't just her. I think this guy needs to consider masturbating more. Or hang out with me and my friends. We'll take care of his fertility. :)

I hear weed is good at keeping those little men in line. ;)

I think I should also point out that it isn't just her. I think this guy needs to consider masturbating more. Or hang out with me and my friends. We'll take care of his fertility. :)

Good point.
My second thought was along the lines of "Good grief, don't these people have a TV?"

Personally I am a tad bit disturbed at the sheer amount of children this woman brought forth. But then again, if that is what she wants and if she believes that is her calling who am I to judge. Especially since they don't really seem to be your average hicks or rednecks at first glance, they seem middle/upper middle class. They obviously have the means to feed and sustain such a large clan. Wonder if they're going to break the 20 barrier? Since she hasn't stated any desire to sterilize or likewise

Holy uterus! That ain't no woman! That's a friggin' guinea pig!!!:eek:
http://i.pbase.com/o6/23/737723/1/82111723.05i6QHW9.20070711caaf020.jpg

tl;dr

it's a tv show

Hubby lieks em preggers

what more can one say?

Ah well, Arkansas, what can one say.get me outta here! at least 3 arkansan friends have commented that this woman is insane and it's irresponsible to reproduce that much. god invented blowjobs and dildos for a reason.

I cannot wait until I'm done with college. I halfway hope I lose my scholarship so I have an excuse to go somewhere else.

You may not be, but I am. I don't think that anyone should have more than two kids.

Because the world is already overpopulated.

The world is overpopulated, agree. So wouldn't it be better yet if no-one had more than one kid?

Holy uterus! That ain't no woman! That's a friggin' guinea pig!!!:eek:
http://i.pbase.com/o6/23/737723/1/82111723.05i6QHW9.20070711caaf020.jpg

It's a baby cannon. :)

The world is overpopulated, agree. So wouldn't it be better yet if no-one had more than one kid?

Yes

The world is overpopulated, agree. So wouldn't it be better yet if no-one had more than one kid?

Better yet, why not just set a national quota for children?

Better yet, why not just set a national quota for children?

I'm tempted to make a joke about the Chinese and the one child policy but then the voice of reason kicked in and I decided I didn't want to be banned for something as stupid as that. :p

I'm tempted to make a joke about the Chinese and the one child policy but then the voice of reason kicked in and I decided I didn't want to be banned for something as stupid as that. :p

Baaah! The fish ain't bitin'!

Better yet, why not just set a national quota for children?

Better than better yet, let's stop reproducing altogether!
And hey, while we're at it, let's "euthanize" everyone who comes from a nest of more than 2 kids!!
And, and, and, well, let's just nuke the hell out of humanity, be done with it once and for all!!!

Aaaaaahhh, feels gooood to get that of my chest.... :p

Because no sane woman who has any real choice in the matter would volunteer to be pregnant for her entire adult life?

So this woman is insane? Have you met her? Do you know anything about her?

And then you call Christians judgemental.

I really want to send her a letter like this

Dear Crazy Woman,

I am OK with condoms. Why else would I allow them to be invented?

Love Always,
God

PS Your new haircut is fantastic.

And then you call Christians judgemental.

Nah, Christians are more judgementdayal. :D

So she likes being pregnant, and having kids. Hooray.

's for 'Not being able to financially/ materially support the kids' - Bottle, you also in favour of poor people being disallowed from breeding?

If no, shut up.

I really want to send her a letter like this

Dear Crazy Woman,

I am OK with condoms. Why else would I allow them to be invented?

Love Always,
God

PS Your new haircut is fantastic.

This is my reasoning for the pill. A friend of mine knew a girl (I think they were roommates?) who was on the pill, using a condom, had endometriosis, and STILL GOT PREGNANT. If God wants you to have a kid, you'll definitely have a kid. I have a friend who got pregnant TWICE and they were using condoms.

The fact that no method of birth control (or combination of, apparently) is 100% effective puts the fear of God in me. Or, well. The fear of babies. Either or.

So she likes being pregnant, and having kids. Hooray.

's for 'Not being able to financially/ materially support the kids' - Bottle, you also in favour of poor people being disallowed from breeding?

If no, shut up.

A bit of advice for you, young one. Never, ever, ever throw down with Bottle. She will wipe the floor with your face and the rest of us will point and laugh.

Honestly, I don't see what the major deal is. However they managed to do it and however barely it may be they are seeing to the physical and mental needs of their children and that's what matters.

If the state child protective services felt that there was a case of neglect, or at least one that they could prosecute, I'm sure they would have stepped in by now.

In comparison to what I grew up with the most offensive thing I found about the family was their hardcore (in my opinion) religious zealotry and their hideous (if economically required) sense of fashion.

Their living conditions are far superior to what people have endured, and even considered normal to good, over the last few millenia and, much as I hate to bring it up as it gives credence to such myths, what do you think Adam and Eve did? It was nowhere near as easy to raise children way back then as it is today and, so far as I recall, going by what's written they had a lot more than 18 kids.

What it boils down to is that even if you find something morally repugnant to you it doesn't make it abuse, neglect, or in any way, shape, or form wrong for whoever it applies to.

Frankly, I think they're stupid, both for their zealotry and their reproductive zeal, but I'm not going to label them as neglectful or abusive just because they use a system, that apparently works, I disagree with to live their lives. After all, if it's stupid and it works it isn't stupid.

I'm just glad it's them and not me since I tend to find children to be a bit creepy to begin with. I've also had friends tell me they think I'd make a good father, and I think they're insane for that. So yeah, the idea of having one kid is enough to creep me out, 18 is just insane.

As for the world being over-crowded, no, it's not. Seriously. We still have a long ways to go before the world is well and truly over-crowded, even at "just over 6.6 billion" as stated by wikipedia. When we're approaching 50-60 billion and we're utilizing 70+% of the Earth's surface (not just land surface) with extensive use of orbital industry, high-rise "megaplex" style housing, as well as under-ground/water facilities, then let's talk about over-crowded.

As things stand the world has too much stupid, not too many people.

Because no sane woman who has any real choice in the matter would volunteer to be pregnant for her entire adult life?So this woman is insane? Have you met her? Do you know anything about her?

And then you call Christians judgemental.

I think the clue is in the second condition: "who has any real choice..."

but maybe that is just me.

So she likes being pregnant, and having kids. Hooray.

's for 'Not being able to financially/ materially support the kids' - Bottle, you also in favour of poor people being disallowed from breeding?

If you'd bothered to read my responses on the thread, you'd know that I don't advocate putting legal limits on how many children people produce. What I advocate is removing children from abusive or neglectful homes, which the Duggar home most certainly is (in my opinion).

When it comes to the poor, I put my money and my time where my mouth is. I have spent a lot of time volunteering at a free clinic that primarily provides care for women and children, including free birth control, free prenatal exams, and a range of free services for children. I know from personal experience that most poor parents WANT to make good choices for their families, and they WANT to be able to provide a good life for their children, so I try to help them be able to do so.

This is why the Duggars are revolting to me. They CHOOSE to be shitty parents. They CHOOSE to live beyond their means. They CHOOSE to be neglectful and intentionally produce more offspring even when they know they already are unable to be good parents to the children they have. They put their selfish desires and petty superstitions ahead of the wellbeing of their children.

It is, frankly, quite rude of you to compare the Duggars to poor parents. Most poor parents are decent and well-meaning. The Duggars are pathetic hucksters who exploit tax laws, charity, and their own children.


If no, shut up.
Just out of morbid curiosity, do you actually think this kind of wimpy "throw down" will work? Or were you deliberately trying to provoke me (which would be flame-baiting, just FYI)?

Meh, either way, fail.

So this woman is insane? Have you met her? Do you know anything about her?

And then you call Christians judgemental.
Actually, no, I don't call Christians judgmental. Indeed, my #1 beef with most Christians is their deliberate lack of judgment and their unwillingness to apply said judgment to themselves and others.

I wish the Duggars were more judgmental. I wish they were more inclined to make judgments, especially moral or personal ones, applying to their own lives as well as to the religious community they are a part of.

This is my reasoning for the pill. A friend of mine knew a girl (I think they were roommates?) who was on the pill, using a condom, had endometriosis, and STILL GOT PREGNANT. If God wants you to have a kid, you'll definitely have a kid. I have a friend who got pregnant TWICE and they were using condoms.

The fact that no method of birth control (or combination of, apparently) is 100% effective puts the fear of God in me. Or, well. The fear of babies. Either or.This may just be me, but I find that to be a rather primitive and ignoble motivation.

This may just be me, but I find that to be a rather primitive and ignoble motivation.

Or a rather remarkably sane and level-headed one in this day and age.

The what is only as important, at most, as the why, at least in situations like this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nojWJ6-XmeQ&feature=related

This is a good argument in favour of birth control and I say that after a couple has 3 children they should be forced to watch this for every subsequent child. :D

Or a rather remarkably sane and level-headed one in this day and age.

The what is only as important, at most, as the why, at least in situations like this.If I read this correctly, you say that doing things only because you're afraid of being punished instead of because it would be the right thing to do is remarkably sane and level-headed in this day of age. Not to mention believing the main reason people get pregnant is "because God wants it this way."

If I read this correctly, you say that doing things only because you're afraid of being punished instead of because it would be the right thing to do is remarkably sane and level-headed in this day of age. Not to mention believing the main reason people get pregnant is "because God wants it this way."
Well, if I believed that there was a God who was capable of making me pregnant against my wishes, I'd probably kiss its ass, too. At least until I figured out how to kill it.

Echoing other voices in this thread, I also say that I see certain dangers regarding their physical, material and psychological fitness to deal responsibly with this many children.

Another point I'd like to make after visiting their website (http://www.duggarfamily.com) is that apparently, they didn't choose to have this many kids out of a pure love for kids or whatever, but due to a guilt complex they never got over after a miscarriage they had early on. I know miscarriages can be traumatic, but I feel it is one's duty to deal with them responsibly, which pumping out kids en masse is not.

Four years later they decided to have their first child. Then, Michelle went back on the pill, but she conceived and had a miscarriage. At that point they talked with a Christian medical doctor and read the fine print in the contraceptives package. They found that while taking the pill you can get pregnant and then miscarry. They were grieved! They were Christians! They were pro-life! They realized that their selfish actions had taken the life of their child. They prayed and asked God to forgive them, and to teach them to love children like He loves children. They asked God to bless them with as many children as He saw fit in His timing.

If you'd bothered to read my responses on the thread, you'd know that I don't advocate putting legal limits on how many children people produce. What I advocate is removing children from abusive or neglectful homes, which the Duggar home most certainly is (in my opinion).

When it comes to the poor, I put my money and my time where my mouth is. I have spent a lot of time volunteering at a free clinic that primarily provides care for women and children, including free birth control, free prenatal exams, and a range of free services for children. I know from personal experience that most poor parents WANT to make good choices for their families, and they WANT to be able to provide a good life for their children, so I try to help them be able to do so.

This is why the Duggars are revolting to me. They CHOOSE to be shitty parents. They CHOOSE to live beyond their means. They CHOOSE to be neglectful and intentionally produce more offspring even when they know they already are unable to be good parents to the children they have. They put their selfish desires and petty superstitions ahead of the wellbeing of their children.

It is, frankly, quite rude of you to compare the Duggars to poor parents. Most poor parents are decent and well-meaning. The Duggars are pathetic hucksters who exploit tax laws, charity, and their own children.Such a pity that, err... Child services disagree with you? Maybe I'm overly optimistic, but maybe, maybe they know more about the case than someone who read a single article about the whole deal.

Granted, this is assuming that the Duggar's children caught child services' attention in the first place. However, it doesn't look like they did. Indeed, even after considerable media attention, turning them into what pretty much amounts to regional celebrities... Nothing.

Hum. Odd, that, isn't it?

Obviously if God had meant people to have this many children he wouldn't have invented scarlet fever, diptheria, rickets etc ;)

Such a pity that, err... Child services disagree with you? Maybe I'm overly optimistic, but maybe, maybe they know more about the case than someone who read a single article about the whole deal.

Granted, this is assuming that the Duggar's children caught child services' attention in the first place. However, it doesn't look like they did. Indeed, even after considerable media attention, turning them into what pretty much amounts to regional celebrities... Nothing.

Hum. Odd, that, isn't it?

Or it could just be that CPS's and Bottle's standards of unacceptable parenting/neglect are not the same.

Such a pity that, err... Child services disagree with you?

It certainly is. But, then, Child Services programs are consistently among the most chronically under-funded and under-staffed agencies, and have their hands legally tied in more ways than you can probably imagine. I have a personal friend who works in a child services organization, so I tend to empathize with them more than I demonize them.


Maybe I'm overly optimistic, but maybe, maybe they know more about the case than someone who read a single article about the whole deal.

Quite possible. Don't know exactly what that has to do with me, though, since I've read a lot more than one article.

You appear to have made a great many assumptions about me and my stance on this issue. Thus far, none of your assumptions have been right. I'd suggest you stop assuming and start paying attention, if you are actually interested in meaningful discussion. If you're just interested in trolling then please continue as you were.


Granted, this is assuming that the Duggar's children caught child services' attention in the first place. However, it doesn't look like they did. Indeed, even after considerable media attention, turning them into what pretty much amounts to regional celebrities... Nothing.

Hum. Odd, that, isn't it?
Not really. As I already pointed out (several times), my personal standards for parenting are not identical to the legal standards in my country. For instance, I believe it should be just as illegal to force your child to have a full-time job inside the home as it is to have them work a full-time job outside the home.

I also believe it is fundamentally fucked up for a person to be able to avoid paying property taxes because they designate their residence as a "church." For one thing, I don't think religious buildings should have any such exemption, and for another I think it's pretty transparently an exploitation of legal loopholes in this case.

There are lots of things that are legal in my country which I believe are wrong. Until very recently, it was legal in the USA for a man to rape his wife. I still believed it was rape and it was fucked up and wrong. See how that works? It is legal for parents to engage in a range of abusive behaviors toward their children right now. I still think those behaviors are abusive and shitty.

Hum. Odd, that, isn't it?

What, social services not reacting to neglect? No, that's rather common, unfortunately.

What, social services not reacting to neglect? No, that's rather common, unfortunately.

They do respond to calls from vindictive harpies you piss off and then proceed to call child services on you.

They could make a fortune on child trader
http://childtrader.com/

Ah yes, lots more possibilities:
Jabba
Jackall
Jackass
Jahweh
Jampacked
...

You forgot Jar-jar. And Jabberwocky. Jerkface, jewbag... :D

You know the weird thing about this?
I suspected they were "devout Christians" before even reading the article. Now, it might be prejudice on my side, but why is it that those ridiculously large families almost invariably seem to be religious fanatics as well? :confused:

Well, I grew up Catholic. That religion totally forbids any kind of birth control, be it pills or condoms or whatever. I have a suspicion as to how/why this came into practice, politically (I really don't think it had anything to do with "morality" of interfering with "God's will" for us to have/not have children). When a couple gets married in a Catholic church, they have to take marriage counseling with the priest. In these sessions, the couple has to agree that the children they have be brought up under the Catholic religion, regardless of anything else.
No birth control + all children being raised Catholic = lots of Catholic babies = larger following for the Church = more social and political power.

Well, I grew up Catholic. That religion totally forbids any kind of birth control, be it pills or condoms or whatever. I have a suspicion as to how/why this came into practice, politically (I really don't think it had anything to do with "morality" of interfering with "God's will" for us to have/not have children). When a couple gets married in a Catholic church, they have to take marriage counseling with the priest. In these sessions, the couple has to agree that the children they have be brought up under the Catholic religion, regardless of anything else.
No birth control + all children being raised Catholic = lots of Catholic babies = larger following for the Church = more social and political power.

The initial reason behind the church's stance on birth control comes from the end of the Black Plague when the church realised it needed to expand its foundation. It had lost millions of followers. Before and during the Black Plague, ancient methods of birth control were used and crude abortions were performed. The change came when the plague ended the there was a need for the population to regrow and the only way to achieve it was to destroy all pre-existing knowledge of birth control.

The initial reason behind the church's stance on birth control comes from the end of the Black Plague when the church realised it needed to expand its foundation. It had lost millions of followers. Before and during the Black Plague, ancient methods of birth control were used and crude abortions were performed. The change came when the plague ended the there was a need for the population to regrow and the only way to achieve it was to destroy all pre-existing knowledge of birth control.
It's also got the added benefit of making people (and particularly women) even easier to control.

A woman who spends her entire adult life pregnant and rearing children is going to be pretty much busy non-stop. A man who is expected to provide, materially, for 15 children on the type of wages that the average human has enjoyed across history is, likewise, going to be pretty goddam busy. Neither one is going to have a lot of free time to question, or a lot of spare energy to use fighting The Man.

If I read this correctly, you say that doing things only because you're afraid of being punished instead of because it would be the right thing to do is remarkably sane and level-headed in this day of age. Not to mention believing the main reason people get pregnant is "because God wants it this way."


The latter as my response was based on presuming that the majority of your response was aimed at the parts in bold so "because God wants it this way" has no bearing at all on my response.

As for doing things because you are afraid of being punished in this day and age yeah, it's pretty level-headed and sane. Just look at the world around us.

The sane and level-headed part was aimed more at the fear of children aspect than any other part.

It certainly is. But, then, Child Services programs are consistently among the most chronically under-funded and under-staffed agencies, and have their hands legally tied in more ways than you can probably imagine. I have a personal friend who works in a child services organization, so I tend to empathize with them more than I demonize them.

You apparently don't live near Omaha or even Nebraska which has one of the worst CPS systems in the US, and not simply because they are under-funded or under-staffed.

While I'm sure that what you say is the case in a lot of CPS systems it's not the case in all of them. Some of them are bad because they have bad people, bad regulations, and allow for a high degree of what other organizations would consider incompetence.

My current roommates lost their child to CPS in a situation that they probably wouldn't have batted an eyelash at had they been black and had not the CPS worker assigned to them not been potentially predjudiced against them based on prior history with the guy. Oh, yeah, and along the way the courts stepped in and pretty much blackmailed them into psychiatric treatment at an institution where the doctors are borderline incompetent thereby resulting in the girl's teeth rotting in her mouth and her having the short-term memory of a goldfish and the guy's grip on reallity being tenuous at best.

Gotta love it when CPS' actions cause peole who might have been marginally competent parents to be completely unfit to raise a child

No birth control + all children being raised Catholic = lots of Catholic babies = larger following for the Church = more social and political power.

While that might have been the case later on a lot of the tenets might have originally been introduced purely for the survival of the species.

No sex before marriage means that both people are free of STDs, unless they contracted some from their mother. No sex outside of marriage means that if the children are "defective" then you know who the "bad seed" comes from. No homosexuallity means that every couple reproduces, ignoring sterility issues of course.

It's pretty elegant, really, and completely unworkable in the long run because it'll promote massive overcrowding.

A woman who spends her entire adult life pregnant and rearing children is going to be pretty much busy non-stop. A man who is expected to provide, materially, for 15 children on the type of wages that the average human has enjoyed across history is, likewise, going to be pretty goddam busy. Neither one is going to have a lot of free time to question, or a lot of spare energy to use fighting The Man.

Pretty much that too.

It's one of the reasons I don't care much for a lot of the religions I've been exposed to.

No sex outside of marriage means that if the children are "defective" then you know who the "bad seed" comes from.

No you don't, you simply have a smaller sampling to choose from.

Haha, awesome, I guess.

In a generation or two and entire infantry platoon can be raised from the Dugger (is that right?) clan!

I get the creeps just thinkign about it.

and did I read that right?

I highly doubt they use 90,000 diapers a month.

That's 3000 diapers a day.

Well, I grew up Catholic. That religion totally forbids any kind of birth control, be it pills or condoms or whatever.

Does "birth control" include stuff like counting days since last mestruation?

Does "birth control" include stuff like counting days since last mestruation?

no it does not.

no it does not.

Ah. At my end of the wire it is usually included.

I get the creeps just thinkign about it.

and did I read that right?

I highly doubt they use 90,000 diapers a month.

That's 3000 diapers a day.

90,000 ever.

Ah. At my end of the wire it is usually included.

With that failure rate? You might as well go for washing yourself with coke afterwards, you'd be getting the same results.

How on earth is this woman still healthy?!..or is she?

How on earth is this woman still healthy?!..or is she?

Depends upon whether you mean physically or mentally...

Depends upon whether you mean physically or mentally...

Hell, just physically. The strain pregnancy puts on the body, then back to back, and then EIGHTEEN TIMES?

Hell, just physically. The strain pregnancy puts on the body, then back to back, and then EIGHTEEN TIMES?

Beats the hell out of me...

As far as mentally, I don't think she was all there to begin with.

Haha, awesome, I guess.

In a generation or two and entire infantry platoon can be raised from the Dugger (is that right?) clan!

Ah, Trollgaard, you never fail to disappoint...

Bottle, I agree with you entirely. They ought to have those kids removed from their home immediately.

Bottle, I agree with you entirely. They ought to have those kids removed from their home immediately.

I agree with Bottle, but not entirely. I can't quite stomach the idea that the parents are unfit to have ANY children, because they seem unfit to have eighteen.

I agree with Bottle, but not entirely. I can't quite stomach the idea that the parents are unfit to have ANY children, because they seem unfit to have eighteen.

I disagree. Their behavior and use of their children has gone on for far too long. Maybe at one point they might've been okay to have one or two kids, but not now. Not after what they've done.

I disagree. Their behavior and use of their children has gone on for far too long. Maybe at one point they might've been okay to have one or two kids, but not now. Not after what they've done.

It's no wonder that CPS is such a hard job, if otherwise rational people can't see that taking the kids away is 100% about looking after the kids, and 0% about punishing the parents.

It's no wonder that CPS is such a hard job, if otherwise rational people can't see that taking the kids away is 100% about looking after the kids, and 0% about punishing the parents.

Are you saying that of me? Because I know perfectly well that taking the kids away has everything to do with looking after the kids. That's why I think they should all be taken away, because these people can't care for the children responsibly. These kids deserve a much better life than what they're getting.

Surely it'd be more like throwing a hotdog down a hallway.
No tread left on that tire.


18 is still no where near the record, which is 69 (http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060626145347AARhVCP) :eek:

Where I used to teach, one couple had 23 kids (this was two generations ago), and one of those kids had 12. As a result I was teaching a boy in year 9 (he was 13) who had two nephews in year 11 (15 and 16 respectively).
From another side of the family, I was also teaching an aunt and nephew who were in the same class.

Are you saying that of me? Because I know perfectly well that taking the kids away has everything to do with looking after the kids. That's why I think they should all be taken away, because these people can't care for the children responsibly.

It has been demonstrated that they can't care for eighteen children properly.

If they had only two or three, any "abuse" or "neglect" from their current parenting method would be beneath the level you could take kids away.

So surely the idea is to remove as many kids as necessary, until the remaining ones have an acceptable life. Unless you can show some system of abuse or neglect which would rule that out. I don't think there is any abuse or neglect which wouldn't be remediatied by simply less kids in the family.

It has been demonstrated that they can't care for eighteen children properly.

If they had only two or three, any "abuse" or "neglect" from their current parenting method would be beneath the level you could take kids away.

So surely the idea is to remove as many kids as necessary, until the remaining ones have an acceptable life. Unless you can show some system of abuse or neglect which would rule that out. I don't think there is any abuse or neglect which wouldn't be remediatied by simply less kids in the family.

Oh, I see what you mean. Sorry...I must've misunderstood you earlier.

I'm still not sure I fully agree...my gut feeling(hardly reliable, I know, but I'm not in a position to decide so it's good enough for this) is that there's more to the neglect, that in some way they wouldn't somehow improve if the rest of the kids were removed.

And really, what about the psychological effect the removal of, say, sixteen of their kids would have? What makes you think they'd still be able to parent after suffering a shock like that?

I'm not saying you don't have a point, mind. I'm saying your point isn't as good as you think it is.

Oh, I see what you mean. Sorry...I must've misunderstood you earlier.

I'm still not sure I fully agree...my gut feeling(hardly reliable, I know, but I'm not in a position to decide so it's good enough for this) is that there's more to the neglect, that in some way they wouldn't somehow improve if the rest of the kids were removed.

But that's a presumption of guilt. Leading directly to excessive punishment.

(Yes, I know I said "CPS should not punish" but there is unavoidable harm to parents in taking their kids away. Involuntary punishment, as it were.)

And really, what about the psychological effect the removal of, say, sixteen of their kids would have? What makes you think they'd still be able to parent after suffering a shock like that?

Fair point. They'd be under a lot more scrutiny though, and they'd still have something to lose.

I'm not saying you don't have a point, mind. I'm saying your point isn't as good as you think it is.

Oh, I don't have much of an axe to grind I guess. I started out just curious about which of Bottle's several posts you "completely agreed" with.

I'm more disturbed by the "J" fixation. But I suppose they save on monogrammed towels that way.
At least she came up with different names for each. George Foreman named all five of his sons, "George" and one his 5 daughters, "Georgetta".
My, but he must have spent a long hard time thinking those gems up.

Still, you go up to him and tell him what a dumbass he is for naming his kids that. Gwan, I dare ya!

But that's a presumption of guilt. Leading directly to excessive punishment.

(Yes, I know I said "CPS should not punish" but there is unavoidable harm to parents in taking their kids away. Involuntary punishment, as it were.)


Yes, but I don't think it's avoidable in this case. CPS can't afford to wait for a full trial to be conducted before they're able to step in and stop abuse.

Fair point. They'd be under a lot more scrutiny though, and they'd still have something to lose.

Which would simply be more stress on top of what they had already, I would figure.

But then I'm not a psychologist so I couldn't tell you if it would actually be meaningful or not.


Oh, I don't have much of an axe to grind I guess. I started out just curious about which of Bottle's several posts you "completely agreed" with.
Yes, I do overstate things. Perhaps I meant more that I agreed with her general viewpoint(especially when it comes to parenting) and her overall feeling of the situation rather than her exact words. Call it a case of human frailty.

Hell, just physically. The strain pregnancy puts on the body, then back to back, and then EIGHTEEN TIMES?

Some of them were multiples. So it hasn't actually been 18 pregnancies.


I agree with Bottle, but not entirely. I can't quite stomach the idea that the parents are unfit to have ANY children, because they seem unfit to have eighteen.

Parents who intentionally put themselves in situations where they cannot take care of all of their children are a danger to all of their children.

Meanwhile, how exactly would you pick and choose the children you would remove from custody vs. the ones you would leave?

Parents who intentionally put themselves in situations where they cannot take care of all of their children are a danger to all of their children.

Not directly a danger. It's negligence -- failure to fulfil a duty.

I think that's an important distinction, when it is quite possible the parents would be able to "take care of" all their children if they had fewer of them.

Meanwhile, how exactly would you pick and choose the children you would remove from custody vs. the ones you would leave?

According to which children were judged to be most at risk. If two of them are particularly close, I guess you'd try to avoid splitting them up.

Then it becomes fairly important just why you're taking the kids away. If the older kids who are performing parenting duties is the main concern (abuse,) then favour removing the older kids. If the kids not having educational materials or proper food or adult counsel is the main concern (neglect), then favour removing the younger kids.

Of course, it's much easier to just come down like a ton of bricks on the family, and take all the kids. Then you can use a little bit of each reason.

Not directly a danger. It's negligence -- failure to fulfil a duty.

I think that's an important distinction, when it is quite possible the parents would be able to "take care of" all their children if they had fewer of them.

Be able to, maybe.

But they've already shown an unwillingness to ensure that they are able to. They weren't made unable to take care of their children by unfortunate circumstances. They chose to put themselves in a situation where they were unable to do so.

If someone is irresponsible enough to make choices that make them unable to take care of their children, it doesn't really matter what the choice is. They are a danger to their children because they don't prioritize their responsibilities to their children. It's that lack of prioritization and responsibility that makes them a danger to their children, not the particular manifestation of it.

Suppose a couple had two children, one of whom needed medication. Suppose those parent chose to spend their money to have fun instead of buying that child's medication and the child has to be removed from their custody. Should they retain custody of the other child simply because that other child wasn't the one who needed medication? What happens next time when it's food they don't buy for their child because they wanted something else?

The abuse or neglect case is so marginal, it's extraordinary to me that people refuse to accept any kind of compromise which targets the kids most at risk, and tries to fix the problem with minimum necessary intervention.

I'll sleep on it. I might just be wrong.

The abuse or neglect case is so marginal, it's extraordinary to me that people refuse to accept any kind of compromise which targets the kids most at risk, and tries to fix the problem with minimum necessary intervention.

I'll sleep on it. I might just be wrong.

I'm not saying that there is grounds for them to step in here. I just don't agree that any children should be left in a home where parents have been found to have engaged in abuse or neglect.

If the parents are irresponsible enough to choose not to take care of their children, all of the children are at risk. I don't think it is in their best interest to try and pick and choose a few to move to a better situation and leave the rest to likely be neglected. Leaving children with irresponsible and neglectful parents is not, in my opinion, in their best interests.

the case for removing the children would be much stronger if the foster care system wasnt a nightmare of neglect and abuse itself.

as it is the children are together, they are fed, clothed, sent to school, and are growing up in a supportive cooperative environment.

foster care would not be better than this.

Back in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, you would recieve a medal for having 10 or 14 kids, respectively. Useless fact number 864

I wonder, doesn´t this woman knows that for every pregnancy that she has had, 8-10 years of her life have been substracted? That her body has suffered 17 births, thus weakening it? Isn´t it irresponsible to bring forth that many kids to this world? I am freaked out by this.:eek:

I wonder, doesn´t this woman knows that for every pregnancy that she has had, 8-10 years of her life have been substracted? That her body has suffered 17 births, thus weakening it? Isn´t it irresponsible to bring forth that many kids to this world? I am freaked out by this.:eek:

16 x 8 = 128

She would have lived another 128+ years? Wow! She has longevity!

16 x 8 = 128

She would have lived another 128+ years? Wow! She has longevity!

You, sir, are a Smart-arse!:p

I imagine by now the births are probably quite easy -- and with her older children helping with the younger, it's probably not bad for anyone.

You, sir, are a Smart-arse!:p

Of course I am. Now, back to the subject:

My mother's family had 11 children, and they all grew up to be well-adjusted individuals. Now, I can't remember the names of all my cousins, but that's not that important in the long run.

Now, I haven't read this entire thread (it's starting to grow lengthy), but, other than the fact that there are 18 children running around, exactly what kind of abuse have the parents inflicted on the children?

I get the creeps just thinkign about it.

and did I read that right?

I highly doubt they use 90,000 diapers a month.

That's 3000 diapers a day.

I think the awkward sentence construction is to blame. I think they meant so far, in total, she's used 90,000 diapers, and that monthly, she has to do 200 loads of laundry.

Somewhat fixated on the letter J - what sort of name is Jinger anyway?

Ginger. Only with a J to make it fit their theme.

I'm tempted to make a joke about the Chinese and the one child policy but then the voice of reason kicked in and I decided I didn't want to be banned for something as stupid as that. :p

On a serious note -- many families in China have just lost the only child they COULD have under the one family, one child rules -- in the earthquake. I may be wrong, but I seem to remember that once you've had your kid, you're forced to be sterilized.

Incredibly sad.

Of course I am. Now, back to the subject:

My mother's family had 11 children, and they all grew up to be well-adjusted individuals. Now, I can't remember the names of all my cousins, but that's not that important in the long run.

Now, I haven't read this entire thread (it's starting to grow lengthy), but, other than the fact that there are 18 children running around, exactly what kind of abuse have the parents inflicted on the children?

From my personal viewpoint, the fact that they have intentionally had children that they cannot support - instead needing to rely on handouts and some sort of ridiculous legal loophole that allows them to declare their house to be a church - could be seen as neglect.

For better or worse, it is not legally actionable neglect, but I still see it as such.

Bottle also seems to believe that the amount of work they put their older children through and the extent to which they rely on those older children to raise the younger ones is abuse and neglect. I don't really have enough information (maybe I'll go read their website sometime) to make a determination on that.

You forgot Jar-jar. And Jabberwocky. Jerkface, jewbag... :D



Well, I grew up Catholic. That religion totally forbids any kind of birth control, be it pills or condoms or whatever. I have a suspicion as to how/why this came into practice, politically (I really don't think it had anything to do with "morality" of interfering with "God's will" for us to have/not have children). When a couple gets married in a Catholic church, they have to take marriage counseling with the priest. In these sessions, the couple has to agree that the children they have be brought up under the Catholic religion, regardless of anything else.
No birth control + all children being raised Catholic = lots of Catholic babies = larger following for the Church = more social and political power.

And as another Catholic I can tell you that the prohibition against birth control is probably the most ignored one going, because then they get into the hypocritical, stupid, and VERY fallible "but you can use the rhythm method."

Right. I can use a rhythm method, too -- called taking a pill every morning.

From my personal viewpoint, the fact that they have intentionally had children that they cannot support - instead needing to rely on handouts and some sort of ridiculous legal loophole that allows them to declare their house to be a church - could be seen as neglect.

They seem to be supporting them just fine. If they have to solicit handouts to do it, that's disappointing, but that does not equal neglect.

Also, using a legal loophole to gain a tax advantage does not equal neglect.

For better or worse, it is not legally actionable neglect, but I still see it as such.

Ok.

Bottle also seems to believe that the amount of work they put their older children through and the extent to which they rely on those older children to raise the younger ones is abuse and neglect. I don't really have enough information (maybe I'll go read their website sometime) to make a determination on that.

It teaches children responsibility to constantly be given greater responsibility as they get older. Expecting the older children to assist in caring for the younger children does not equal neglect. When I was a little kid, my brother cared for me on occasion when I was too young to stay by myself and our parents were working.

This does not equal neglect unless it goes out of control onto a ridiculous level, and I don't see any evidence of that.

On a serious note -- many families in China have just lost the only child they COULD have under the one family, one child rules -- in the earthquake. I may be wrong, but I seem to remember that once you've had your kid, you're forced to be sterilized.

Incredibly sad.

Actually, if I remember my world issues lesson on this, it was that under the one child policy (I was on the side arguing in favour of the policy though for some reason) in China, you aren't forced to undergo mandatory fertilization unless you've broken the rules on purpose. Often it's strictly voluntary or doesn't happen.

Also, if you're in rural China, the rules are different, same if you're a member of a minority. More children are allowed and mandatory sterilization is less frequent in that segment of society.

I agree, however, it was tragic.

From my personal viewpoint, the fact that they have intentionally had children that they cannot support - instead needing to rely on handouts and some sort of ridiculous legal loophole that allows them to declare their house to be a church - could be seen as neglect.
I used to have a neighbor who had 4 kids, raised them all on welfare and church handouts, she got section 8 to pay for her house, food stamps, etc. Were her children neglected? Should we take away all the kids living on welfare? It's a handout right? Those parents are abusive!

Some of them were multiples. So it hasn't actually been 18 pregnancies.


Yeah, I forgot about that for a bit. Still, it makes me wonder what her doctor's got to say about this, you know?

The hypocracy here is astounding, really. I've browsed around NSG for sometime and I see how everyone is overtly judgmental of ANYONE of faith and accuses people of faith for being judgmental. Of course these are the same people that turn around and spout of the lame rhetoric I've seen in this thread.

How on earth can you possibly know that these parent's are neglectful? You can't, unless you are one of the children. There are parent's with 2.2 children and plenty of money who far worse! Now I doubt I would want 18 children, but if someone does, all the more power to them. And of course need I say the crazy polygamist clans that are actually FORCING this upon women! But this woman is doing this willfully, it's her choice.

And there's nothing wrong with teaching kids a little responsibility. We have so many unplanned parenthoods in this country, babies being dumped in trash cans, it's horrible! It's like caring for your siblings and when they are preparing to marry themselves, they will be ready parents.

At least she came up with different names for each. George Foreman named all five of his sons, "George" and one his 5 daughters, "Georgetta".
My, but he must have spent a long hard time thinking those gems up.

Still, you go up to him and tell him what a dumbass he is for naming his kids that. Gwan, I dare ya!

While you're doing that, tell his wife as well. She put up with/agreed with/encouraged that idiocy.

While you're doing that, tell his wife as well. She put up with/agreed with/encouraged that idiocy.

It must be very confusing to call one of them in a grocery store.

"George?!"
Five responses, "Yes?"
"Dangit, George #4?!"

It must be very confusing to call one of them in a grocery store.

"George?!"
Five responses, "Yes?"
"Dangit, George #4?!"

According to Wiki, they all have nicknames: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Foreman

They seem to be supporting them just fine. If they have to solicit handouts to do it, that's disappointing, but that does not equal neglect.

It does in my mind.

Also, using a legal loophole to gain a tax advantage does not equal neglect.

It highlights the fact that they are unable to provide for their children.

It teaches children responsibility to constantly be given greater responsibility as they get older. Expecting the older children to assist in caring for the younger children does not equal neglect. When I was a little kid, my brother cared for me on occasion when I was too young to stay by myself and our parents were working.

And there's nothing wrong with that. But, if Bottle is correct, the older kids in this family are doing nearly all the work in raising the younger ones, rather than simply helping out. From what she said (and, again, I haven't read up on their methods here), the kids are doing the equivalent of working a full-time job.


I used to have a neighbor who had 4 kids, raised them all on welfare and church handouts, she got section 8 to pay for her house, food stamps, etc. Were her children neglected? Should we take away all the kids living on welfare? It's a handout right? Those parents are abusive!

Did she intentionally have kids while living on welfare and handouts? If so, then I would call her an irresponsible and neglectful parent, yes. She is responsible for taking care of her children. It's nice to have something to fall back on if something happens to keep you from supporting yourself and others, but intentionally relying on others to do your job is unacceptable.

Is that bad enough to take them away? I'm not sure. Given the state of the foster care system, probably not.

It does in my mind.

Neglect
Function: transitive verb
1 : to give little attention or respect to : disregard
2 : to leave undone or unattended to especially through carelessness

It highlights the fact that they are unable to provide for their children.

No it doesn't. It proves that they're slightly devious. I could declare my shooting range a church because people can receive spiritual enlightenment through the zen focus of aiming and firing a gun. However, that does not make me neglectful if I were to have kids.

And there's nothing wrong with that. But, if Bottle is correct, the older kids in this family are doing nearly all the work in raising the younger ones, rather than simply helping out. From what she said (and, again, I haven't read up on their methods here), the kids are doing the equivalent of working a full-time job.

I'm going to need some proof of that. As far as I can tell, the older kids are "helping out." It at no time says that they're being forced to drop school, not do homework, not get their own jobs or live their own lives as far as I read.

This quote was not directed at me, but I want to comment on it anyway:

Is that bad enough to take them away? I'm not sure. Given the state of the foster care system, probably not.

Before taking kids away for neglect, even if you suspect neglect, you should consider if you're taking them out of the frying pan and dumping them in the fire. The foster care system is, as you pointed out, awful.

Neglect
Function: transitive verb
1 : to give little attention or respect to : disregard
2 : to leave undone or unattended to especially through carelessness

See your second definition, although even the first one could probably apply.

I'm going to need some proof of that. As far as I can tell, the older kids are "helping out." It at no time says that they're being forced to drop school, not do homework, not get their own jobs or live their own lives as far as I read.

Tall to Bottle. She's the one who said it. I haven't read their website, so I can't really say.

See your second definition, although even the first one could probably apply.

I disagree. They're attending to their children to the best of their ability (as far as I can see, only having read the article). The fact that they do need a little financial help is poor planning on their part certainly, but that does not equal neglect.

Tall to Bottle. She's the one who said it. I haven't read their website, so I can't really say.

What is their website address?

At least she came up with different names for each. George Foreman named all five of his sons, "George" and one his 5 daughters, "Georgetta".
My, but he must have spent a long hard time thinking those gems up.

Still, you go up to him and tell him what a dumbass he is for naming his kids that. Gwan, I dare ya!

If I ever meet him, you can count on it.

I disagree. They're attending to their children to the best of their ability (as far as I can see, only having read the article). The fact that they do need a little financial help is poor planning on their part certainly, but that does not equal neglect.

They aren't attending to (ie. providing for) their children. They're having other people do it, all while having more and more children they still can't provide for.

As parents, it is their responsibility to provide for their children. Not only are they unable to do this, but the continue to bring more children they can't provide for into the world. The only thing that saves those children is the fact that we live in a society where other people choose to make up for irresponsible parents and shelter, clothe, and feed children who would have none of it if it were left up to their parents.

The best of their ability would be to stop having children they have absolutely no intention of providing for. That way, they could at least go about trying to take care of the ones they already have.

What is their website address?

Erm....

Does handy google search...

http://www.duggarfamily.com/

they attend to their children all day long. they feed them, they teach them, they make sure they do homework, housework, read the bible and practice the piano.

i dont see what is so very disturbing.

They aren't attending to (ie. providing for) their children. They're having other people do it, all while having more and more children they still can't provide for.

As parents, it is their responsibility to provide for their children. Not only are they unable to do this, but the continue to bring more children they can't provide for into the world. The only thing that saves those children is the fact that we live in a society where other people choose to make up for irresponsible parents and shelter, clothe, and feed children who would have none of it if it were left up to their parents.

The best of their ability would be to stop having children they have absolutely no intention of providing for. That way, they could at least go about trying to take care of the ones they already have.

Erm....

Does handy google search...

http://www.duggarfamily.com/

Ok, I read the article again and looked through their website. While the website itself was nauseating, I must admit they have a really nice home. Even more interesting is that they are both real estate agents, their home is debt free, and I can't find a single link on their entire website to give them money.

(I wasn't going to. I just wanted to see if it was there.)

Where do we get the notion that they are needing and soliciting handouts?

w.t.f.
where's that laughing pear when you need it?

I've got the source image, but not the edited macro one. /tangent

I saw this picture on their website and I had to share:

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/tempalbum/toilets.jpg

That's disturbing.

Ok, I read the article again and looked through their website. While the website itself was nauseating, I must admit they have a really nice home. Even more interesting is that they are both real estate agents, their home is debt free, and I can't find a single link on their entire website to give them money.

From what I can tell just quickly looking around, they didn't really pay for their home. It may be debt-free, but that has a lot to do with the fact that TLC or the Discovery Channel paid for much of it in exchange for being allowed to film it.

And, of course, they don't have to pay the property taxes that any other parents with a home would have to pay.

Where do we get the notion that they are needing and soliciting handouts?

Mostly from Bottle. But I think I've seen reports on how this company or that was giving them free stuff because they have an amazing number of kids. They also parade them in front of the cameras a great deal and, I believe, make money off of that.

It's not really all that clear. Maybe if Bottle comes back to the thread, she'll explain.

From what I can tell just quickly looking around, they didn't really pay for their home. It may be debt-free, but that has a lot to do with the fact that TLC or the Discovery Channel paid for much of it in exchange for being allowed to film it.

First, I'm going to need a source for that. Second, even if it's true, TV stations often pay money in order to film interesting things. This is not an unusual business practice.

And, of course, they don't have to pay the property taxes that any other parents with a home would have to pay.

Already covered that.

Mostly from Bottle. But I think I've seen reports on how this company or that was giving them free stuff because they have an amazing number of kids. They also parade them in front of the cameras a great deal and, I believe, make money off of that.

It's not really all that clear. Maybe if Bottle comes back to the thread, she'll explain.

Even if they do make a significant amount of cash from parading around in front of the camera and getting paid for it, that is a source of income, not a handout. Many actors do the same thing. In order for that to be neglectful, you would have to prove that being on TV is harmful to the children.

A handout is if they put a link on their website asking for donations, or if they had a sign in the street that said "We need this much $ in order to buy food this month." That is soliciting for a handout.

Like I said, I was going mostly based on what Bottle said and what I recalled from past articles about companies giving them free diapers and the like.

Maybe they aren't relying on handouts, in which case my particular argument wouldn't apply.


I do have to say that, looking through their website, I find it rather disturbing that they have lots of pictures of older children taking care of the younger ones, but apparently not a single one of their parents doing so with any but the youngest (except, perhaps, for Bible study). It gives some credence to Bottle's characterization. But I suppose it may or may not be representative.

Like I said, I was going mostly based on what Bottle said and what I recalled from past articles about companies giving them free diapers and the like.

Maybe they aren't relying on handouts, in which case my particular argument wouldn't apply.


I do have to say that, looking through their website, I find it rather disturbing that they have lots of pictures of older children taking care of the younger ones, but apparently not a single one of their parents doing so with any but the youngest (except, perhaps, for Bible study). It gives some credence to Bottle's characterization. But I suppose it may or may not be representative.

Well, when bottle comes back. I will spar with her. There are several pictures on the site of the family doing things together (like the orchestra, and cooking). However, in a family that size, there would be a lot of community looking-after going on.

I'm not saying I think that it's a good idea to have 18 kids, but I am saying that don't seem to be neglectful in the way that they're doing it. Seizing the kids from them would be... a mistake of epic proportions.

When all is said and done the fact remains that by hook or by crook the parents are obtaining enough money and material to feed, clothe, and house their children in what appears to be a satisfactory manner.

Older children looking after younger children? If 6 kids are old enough and responsible enough to go out babysitting or doing other jobs and bring in $750/week and it costs that much to pay for daycare for the other 12 kids how is the situation any different outside of the fact that it's now non-family members watching the children and the "working" children are (theoretically) accruing a verifiable work history?

Family house reclassified as a church? If the legal definition of church in their area matches what the house is then it's legit. It might not be tasteful, and it might indicate that such laws need to be revised, but it's still legit.

"Parading" the family around on TV and such to make a buck? How about "Hogan Knows Best," "The Osbournes," and whatever that show with that guy (Gene Simmons?) from KISS is.

Accepting corporate handouts to get things you need? Sure, look at all the people who turn their cars into moving billboards in exchange for monthly stipends or brand new cars. Heck, on the way home today I saw a box truck where every side was covered in rotating bars displaying 2-3 separate ads, mostly for local music and casinos.

I don't like them, to be honest. The family size is, by my standards (and bear in mind my father's second wife (my mother being his third) had 4 sons and 4 daughters and my maternal grandmother had 3 sons and 2 daughters), obscenely large. Their decision to "leave it up to God" with regards to their family size is brute-force ignorance at its finest. Their apparent refusal or inability to recognize any other faith much less allow that sort of diversity into their household is appalling. To be quite frank I don't much care for their fashion sense or mandatory music either but that's not as important as the fact that it seems like the children will get little to no privacy at all.

Still, for such an abusive situation they sure do seem to have a better standard of living and, much as I hate to say it due to the religion factor, a much better environment for children than the area I live in. At least the Duggar kids don't have to wonder if the bathtub's going to fall through a moldy hole because nobody will fix it since the building is scheduled for demolition "real soon now."

Well, now I don't have to feel bad for not planning on having children, they've made up for it.

Maybe they are trying to start thier own army to eventually take over the entire state of Arkansas?



This is my own personal opinion, quote if you like but don't flame:
It has come to my attention that the Panda is the only truly intelligent species on the planet. They took a look at the state of things and decided that its pointless to keep breeding.

On a serious note -- many families in China have just lost the only child they COULD have under the one family, one child rules -- in the earthquake. I may be wrong, but I seem to remember that once you've had your kid, you're forced to be sterilized.

Incredibly sad.

Er... I think you've got that wrong. There have been forced sterilisations in Tibet, but as far as I remember there's never been such legislation among the Han. The consequences of having a second child are mostly financial, you're being forced to pay more taxes than the rest and you might have some social problems as well.

Admittedly, I have been wondering if you would be allowed a second child if your first died. After all, you are allowed another pregnancy after having had an abortion.

But seriously I find confort in the knowledge that if I ever feel the strange need to parent a child I can just borrow one of thiers until I get bored.

But seriously I find confort in the knowledge that if I ever feel the strange need to parent a child I can just borrow one of thiers until I get bored.
And with that number of kids, they'd never notice. You could keep it as long as you wanted - or until it started to smell. Whichever comes first.

And with that number of kids, they'd never notice. You could keep it as long as you wanted - or until it started to smell. Whichever comes first.

If I borrowed one of the younger ones it will probably start to smell bad first.