Michelle Duggar Hospitalized In Arkansas

[C.Ann]

Why is this so amazing? Back in the old days when there were farms to run, 18 children wouldn't raise an eyebrow. Why is it so different now?

I can remember a time not too long ago when people thought it was very odd (and some people even thought it was selfish) to have an "only child"..

I wonder if people would be more accepting of this family if they were Amish - where extremely large families are desired, prayed for, and hoped for?

My late DH came from a very, very large family; my dad came from a very, very large family; my mom came from a large family; one of my best friends had 9 kids; etc., etc.. I guess it all boils down to how many children one wants - and can provide for without resorting to welfare..

 

[dumboiu]

I guess it all boils down to how many children one wants - and can provide for without resorting to welfare..

There is also the over-population factor to consider.

 

[VillageMama]

There is also the over-population factor to consider.

The U.S. is not overpopulated and only the teeny-tiniest percentage of couples will have more than five children, let alone 19. I don't think the Duggars are running the risk of overpopulating the world.

 

[MrsPete]

Why is this so amazing? Back in the old days when there were farms to run, 18 children wouldn't raise an eyebrow. Why is it so different now?

There are a couple big differences:

"Back in the day" when huge families were not unusual, it was rare that ONE MOTHER produced all those children. Without good health care, pregnancy and childbirth were dangerous, and most men who had 18 children were married 2-3 times over the course of their lives. Hasn't Michelle Duggar had a couple c-sections? Chances are pretty good that she (and the baby) wouldn't have come out quite so well if this were 100 years ago. Jim Bob probably would've been left on his own somewhere around child number six or seven. My great-grandparents had TEN CHILDREN (the two of them, just one marriage), and I understand that was considered a rather remarkable feat for ONE WOMAN. Most women weren't quite so fortunate.

In the days you're describing, children were an economic necessity. Families NEEDED all those kids to help on the farm and to support the parents in their old age (no pensions, 401Ks or social security), and without immunizations they NEEDED to have at least 8-10 kids in hopes that 2-3 would live to adulthood. I remember an elderly relative telling stories about ONE WINTER when her family of 2 parents/6 children became a father/2 daugthers family -- all because of the flu.

Today the vast majority of kids live and thrive, and instead of being an economic HELP to the family, kids today are a financial drain. Today it's expected that they'll be given quite a lot of "stuff" over the years, including educational opportunities, travel experiences, cars, braces . . . and kids aren't expected to contribute to the family in a financial way -- not in the same way they did 100 years ago. Few kids today work for more than their own spending money/car.

I remember going with my grandmother (who was born in 1913) to see an old house that was for sale -- a house in which some of her childhood friends had lived. She showed me the PULL DOWN STAIRS in the dining room that led to the attic where ALL THIRTEEN CHILDREN -- boys and girls -- slept. These weren't poor people; they were an average family and owned a huge farm. She explained that in that regard she'd been considered lucky because she had only one sister and they had a bedroom for just the two of them.

I'm not saying that kids aren't worthwhile -- just that our societal thinking has shifted, and it's not really fair to compare to the olden days.

I think it's most honest to say that the Duggars are an unusual mixture of old-fashioned values/ideas AND modern day advantages. They believe in a big family, but they don't face the same hardships that families did in generations past. Thus, their results are different.

There is also the over-population factor to consider.

Actually, the United States NEEDS more workers/taxpayers. Someone needs to pay into the Social Security fund, or people my age (born mid 60s) won't have anything. Well, we probably won't anyway.

 

[dumboiu]

The U.S. is not overpopulated and only the teeny-tiniest percentage of couples will have more than five children, let alone 19. I don't think the Duggars are running the risk of overpopulating the world.

I think you are mistaken - on many levels.

 

[krcit]

I just can't believe it took them until #17 to get to JENNIFER!

Not a fan, but I'm glad she is okay.

 

[happygirl]

I think you are mistaken - on many levels.

I would love to see any links that says the US Is over-populated or anything else that you claim she she is wrong about

 

[DMRick]

Why is this so amazing? Back in the old days when there were farms to run, 18 children wouldn't raise an eyebrow. Why is it so different now?

I don't care how many kids they have, but I will say that in my mom's family (she had 22 brothers and sisters give or take a couple that didn't have the same mom (the oldest) having that many kids was a fight just to eat. The kids were all worked very very hard on their farm. The meat went to the boys, the hardest workers. The gravy and bread went to the girls..they supposedly didn't need as much. The older kids took care of the younger kids. The mom (my grandmother) left when the youngest was a baby. We all think she couldn't face another pregnancy. She remarried and had no more children. By then, the older kids knew how to take care of the little ones. They had no childhood.
The Duggars are different, but I suspect there will be books written there, just as in other TV families. They have a very different way of bringing them up..they have said they blanket train but that is not shown on the show. This show is like a lot of TV shows. It's edited and we see what they want us to see. Unlike Kate and Jon, the mom and dad seem to be smarter in deciding what can be shown, so we don't see a lot of the disciplining.
Do I think this is a nice family? Yes, I do, and I think the kids are well behaved, but just like the other TV families, I truly believe this is done for money. If they weren't getting paid, I think I could safely say there would be no show. Without the 19 kids, I also think there would be no show. So, this is another family that would not be on TV if they didn't use their kids to be there.
I wish all of these families would only do specials, and not be on TV full time. We've seen that it isn't always for the good of the children. The children are on TV (on all of these shows) at their parents wishes/demands.
I do hope all goes well with Michelle, and that the baby arrives safely in it's time.

 

[robinb]

Oh my goodness! I just googled "blanket training" ... what a concept! I had never heard of it before. BTW Doris, I agree with you about the Duggars being more savvy about only allowing viewers to see what they want us to see. I have a feeling that that kind of censorship goes beyond just their show and is integrated into their family.

 

[lilybrooke14]

Just wanted to say that I used to live not far from where the Duggars live now. There are cities that are around (Fayetteville) but there are also a lot of rural farm families. The kids on those families are, by and large, still expected to help out on the farm. At least they were in my area, myself included. I had to be home in the evenings to clean horse stalls, feed animals, help take care of the dogs, and generally do whatever else was needed. Breaking ice on the pond so the horses would have water to drink? Yeah, my job. Anyway, it's not just "in the old days" around there. It's just what you do. Most people have 2-4 kids though.

In any case, I think they are a nice family, if a little odd. I hope that she's doing well.

 

[The Orchid]

I would love to see any links that says the US Is over-populated or anything else that you claim she she is wrong about

I guess it depends on the perspective. If you look at it from the perspective of Americans who enjoy 30% of the world's resources and are thriving while poorer countries are ravaged with disease and famine, then no, we are not over populated. Our wealth will continue to ensure that we are able to not only take care of our people, but to do so in ways that most of the world can't even imagine. We won't merely survive, we will continue to live in great luxury no matter how large our population becomes. We will own big cars, oftentimes several in a single family. Our small families will live in homes so big that many people around the globe would consider them large enough for dozens of people. On Christmas we will give our children and loved ones HD TVs, computers, video games, iPods and clothes made by people in poor countries who earn a few cents an hour for their hard work. So no, given our wealth and comfort levels, we are not overcrowded from our perspective. Of course not! We are five percent of the world's population and we use 30 percent of the world's resources. No complaints from most Americans about population!

Now if we're talking about the perspective of animal life, I suspect that if you could ask any of the animals on this planet who are at risk for extinction they may express some concern. It won't be hard to find them! Forty percent of all animals are on endangered and only a few of them get legal protection. If you could ask them if the USA is overpopulated, they would probably voice their concern about the rapid deforestation and use of resources that make Americans so very comfortable. It's their homes that gets torn down so we can live in fine houses and sit on nice furniture. We may not consider ourselves over populated, but the creatures that are displaced so we can grow our crops, farm our animals, extend our cities and dispose of our garbage probably would disagree with you on that one.

If we're talking about overcrowding from the perspective of the environment, well, mother earth may very well say, if she had a voice, that she resents that we have turned this beautiful planet into a poisonous mess. Our rivers and lakes are polluted with toxic, cancer causing chemicals, our air is seriously questionable in many parts of the country, and we have a problem involving where to place spent nuclear rods. Due to our need to give 300 million Americans "bigger, better and more" our surface temperature is increasing at staggering rates causing climate change throughout the globe. For all of these reasons, I suspect mother earth would argue that we, indeed, are over populated.

But you're right. I doubt anybody could produce a link for you that specifically says that the USA is overpopulated. As long as we can feed, cloth and house our own, that's all that matters, right?

 

[The Orchid]

The U.S. is not overpopulated and only the teeny-tiniest percentage of couples will have more than five children, let alone 19. I don't think the Duggars are running the risk of overpopulating the world.

Perhaps not, but like most religions, the "quiverfull" movement does tend to be handed down from parent to child. While we can hope that most of the Duggar children don't produce as many children as their parents, what if they produce even half? What if they each have nine children? That is 171 grandchildren. If those kids follow that path, then that is 1,539 great grandchildren and 13,851 great, great grandchild. I don't even want to image great, great, great grandchildren....124,659. Add one more "great" multiplying at the rate of nine children each and you have more than 1.1 million descendants. That's enough to populate a very large American city.

No, it's not likely that all the Duggars will produce that way, but I would hope that those numbers would show exactly how rapidly the population can increase. And before somebody jumps down my throat like last time we had the "Duggar debate," NO, I do not approve of laws governing the number of children a family can have. I do, however, wish people would think of the environment and other animal life before bringing that many people into the world. It's my right to wish for people to care about an environment that we all have to live in just as it's their right to not care.

I'm not opposed to larger families, by the way. But the Duggars take it to a ridiculous extreme. The woman breast feeds her youngest child until she gets the next kid, then hands the second youngest child off to an older kid. That is just not right. I believe that all kids should help around the house and help with siblings, but no parent has any right to make a 12, 13, 14 year old child a mommy or a daddy. That is wrong on so many levels.

 

[dumboiu]

I guess it depends on the perspective. If you look at it from the perspective of Americans who enjoy 30% of the world's resources and are thriving while poorer countries are ravaged with disease and famine, then no, we are not over populated. Our wealth will continue to ensure that we are able to not only take care of our people, but to do so in ways that most of the world can't even imagine. We won't merely survive, we will continue to live in great luxury no matter how large our population becomes. We will own big cars, oftentimes several in a single family. Our small families will live in homes so big that many people around the globe would consider them large enough for dozens of people. On Christmas we will give our children and loved ones HD TVs, computers, video games, iPods and clothes made by people in poor countries who earn a few cents an hour for their hard work. So no, given our wealth and comfort levels, we are not overcrowded from our perspective. Of course not! We are five percent of the world's population and we use 30 percent of the world's resources. No complaints from most Americans about population!

Now if we're talking about the perspective of animal life, I suspect that if you could ask any of the animals on this planet who are at risk for extinction they may express some concern. It won't be hard to find them! Forty percent of all animals are on endangered and only a few of them get legal protection. If you could ask them if the USA is overpopulated, they would probably voice their concern about the rapid deforestation and use of resources that make Americans so very comfortable. It's their homes that gets torn down so we can live in fine houses and sit on nice furniture. We may not consider ourselves over populated, but the creatures that are displaced so we can grow our crops, farm our animals, extend our cities and dispose of our garbage probably would disagree with you on that one.

If we're talking about overcrowding from the perspective of the environment, well, mother earth may very well say, if she had a voice, that she resents that we have turned this beautiful planet into a poisonous mess. Our rivers and lakes are polluted with toxic, cancer causing chemicals, our air is seriously questionable in many parts of the country, and we have a problem involving where to place spent nuclear rods. Due to our need to give 300 million Americans "bigger, better and more" our surface temperature is increasing at staggering rates causing climate change throughout the globe. For all of these reasons, I suspect mother earth would argue that we, indeed, are over populated.

But you're right. I doubt anybody could produce a link for you that specifically says that the USA is overpopulated. As long as we can feed, cloth and house our own, that's all that matters, right?

Very well stated. I hope people begin to understand that overpopulation does not simply mean how many people live next door to THEM (or how much barren terrain they can see flying across country, but rather that they begin to take a more realistic global view of the impacts of overpopulation.

 

[mhsjax]

Oh my goodness! I just googled "blanket training" ... what a concept! I had never heard of it before. BTW Doris, I agree with you about the Duggars being more savvy about only allowing viewers to see what they want us to see. I have a feeling that that kind of censorship goes beyond just their show and is integrated into their family.

I used blanket training, long before the Duggars were on TV. It works great, It teaches control and a child being able to entertain himself without getting into stuff that they shouldn't. I have always been able to take my kids into any type of high end shop and not worry about them running around and touching everything. It teaches the kids limits and if more parents would use this, we wouldn't have so many out of control kids.

 

[DMRick]

I guess I just always wonder why they don't show the type of discipline they use on the show. I think many would like to see it. I don't mean to inicate that it's horrible to discipline, but if they just keep putting the baby back on the blanket and not hitting, why not show it? It might be useful to someone else who wants to see how they start the kids off. I'm sure the noise level in the house at times (even nice noise) has got to be off the charts, but it's just not ever shown. I think, unlike other reality shows, the dad has a lot more say in what we are allowed to see. I wonder, would we think what we don't see as good, or would we be upset?

I used blanket training, long before the Duggars were on TV. It works great, It teaches control and a child being able to entertain himself without getting into stuff that they shouldn't. I have always been able to take my kids into any type of high end shop and not worry about them running around and touching everything. It teaches the kids limits and if more parents would use this, we wouldn't have so many out of control kids.

 

[mhsjax]

I guess I just always wonder why they don't show the type of discipline they use on the show. I think many would like to see it. I don't mean to inicate that it's horrible to discipline, but if they just keep putting the baby back on the blanket and not hitting, why not show it? It might be useful to someone else who wants to see how they start the kids off. I'm sure the noise level in the house at times (even nice noise) has got to be off the charts, but it's just not ever shown. I think, unlike other reality shows, the dad has a lot more say in what we are allowed to see. I wonder, would we think what we don't see as good, or would we be upset?

I really don't know why they don't show it, I really don't watch the show that much. All I can say is my relatives had a family like this and those kids are never yelled at of physically touched and those kids are angels. I think it has to do with training early and those kids know the the parents mean business. I remember my 4 year old nephew asked his mom if he could get down from the Thanksgiving kids table he wanted to play, he mom answer very softly no you may not you may talk softly with you friends at the table and he never questioned her and did what he was told. Like I said I think it starts from the beginning and it seems to me that these parents have the right idea on how to raise a family. Although I do think they are crazy to have that many, but it isn't my decision.