18 kids: How many is too many?
Categories: Newborns, Pregnancy & birth, In the news
When Michelle Duggar, the Arkansas mother of 17, made a surprise Mother's Day announcement on the Today Show that she was pregnant with baby number 18, I was glued to the television screen in amazement.
On that day, my own two youngest children were in Arizona with my parents as I awaited the birth of our fifth child. As I rested and prepared for the new baby while they were gone, I would occasionally get anxious thinking about their return. Would I really be able to handle five kids, all under the age of eight, with the demands of a newborn nursing schedule and the sleep deprivation I knew all too well awaited me?
Seeing the 17 clean-cut and well-behaved Duggar children on television and hearing how these home-schooled kids also play the violin and the piano and participate in an elaborate routine that ensures household order, I wondered how these parents manage to stay sane, let alone organized and connected to their large brood. Was there something a soon-to-be mother of five could learn from their extreme parenting experience?
In search of answers, I Googled them. As it turns out, there were plenty of stories dating back to when their family was the relatively small size of 14. They were also the subjects of a TLC reality show so there was no shortage of information about them.
In doing my research, I was shocked by the amount of vitriolic articles and comments directed at them by people who think it is irresponsible and just plain wacky to want to have that many kids. The most hateful and vile comments came from environmental/green bloggers who deem this family's carbon footprint to be downright criminal.
Granted, 18 kids is not for everyone, but by all accounts, the Duggars are good parents who educate and take care of their own kids (arguable better than many smaller families). I'm all for being environmentally conscious, but when environmental activism places more value on a tree or a whale than on a human baby, I draw the line. Babies are a blessing and so long as the Duggars take care of theirs, who are we to scold or judge them?
As for how they do it, it seems that they run their family like a small country. They're committed to organization and there is a large degree of family loyalty. Like any good enterprise, leadership counts and these parents appear to be 100% dedicated to the sustainability of their clan. A reunion episode 20 years from now will make for a very interesting case study. Till then, I wish them all the best.
Recent Posts
- Weekend Fun and Games (7/03/2009)
- Kids and Extracurriculars - When Do You Let Them Quit? (7/03/2009)
- Twitter Follow Friday on ParentDish! (7/03/2009)
- Lush Lashes (7/03/2009)
- Abigail Breslin Makes $13 a Week (7/03/2009)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Jenni 5-27-2008 @ 10:23AM
This family is completely debt free, supports themselves financially with no government aid, and doesn't even use the governments money to educate their chidlren. Heck, they can have 100 children and I wouldn't care. These children also seem to be being raised to not depend on the government as well. I'm all for it!
It's a different opinion if my tax money was being used to support them; but nothing at all to do with the environment.
Reply
Paige 5-27-2008 @ 10:48AM
Wow. I can't imagine having 18 kids and keeping sane. Just how do they do it?! It does seem from what Ive read and what I see on tv interviews, that they do take excellent care of their children. Better than most people with just a few kids. So, while I can't possibly imagine wanting to have that many, they do, and they seem to be great parents... so, who are we to judge? I just wonder about the attention each child gets, finances etc. It must be very hard. It seems like a close knit family, so good for them.
Paige
www.angietheant.com
Reply
Marcia 5-27-2008 @ 11:03AM
Like Jenni said, as long as my tax money isn't supporting their family, I don't care how many they have. The only weird thing will be when the older ones start having kids and the mom is still going. I personally have 2 uncles and an aunt younger than me and I can't stand when they refer to me as their neice. They are only half brothers and sister of my dad, but it's just so strange.
Reply
Jamie 5-27-2008 @ 11:09AM
There are repercussions to the environment when having that many children. This is not to say that the environment is more important than a child, but if we don't take care of Mother Earth she will not be able to take care of our children. The more people we place on this earth the higher the demand for landfills and natural non-renewable resources. Although I can see both sides to this argument I don't feel the other side is being represented in this post. There was a reference to the financial side of this, yes they may not need government assistance, and I applaud them for that. But they will be burning more fuel and eating more food as they get older and therefore creating a higher demand for energy. Lets hope they don't all chose to drive gas guzzling vehicles right? Yes, more people places more need on the environment and a higher demand for post consumer goods. I am not trying to start an argument. I just believe it is important to think of both sides of the problem.
Reply
CLM 5-27-2008 @ 11:11AM
No offense, but why shouldn't a whale have the same value as a baby? We're mammals, too, so why should we outrank the rest of the "family tree" so to speak?
Reply
cffw5907 5-29-2008 @ 1:12PM
This is for CLM if a whale is more vaualble than your child, then please speak for yourself as they are not as valuable as my 2 boys.
Katie 5-27-2008 @ 11:19AM
These children will more than likely be more enviornmentally aware than any other children with only 1 or 2 members... they understand the use and appreciate what they have, not what they could / can have. They are learning to use everything, and could possibly use less electricity than the homes that have 4 members and 5000 sq ft, or the 20 members and 5000 sq ft.
I think they are a welcome change from the others we see all the time (MTV's sweet sixteen ring a bell)
Reply
Kris 5-27-2008 @ 12:06PM
Have you ever watched their show? The way it "works" for the Duggars is that the older kids raise the younger kids. I think that is just awful for the oldest few kids... they really aren't kids, they are parents. They make dinner, do the laundry, clean the house, etc.
I'm certainly not advocating that kids not do housework and never help with siblings, but that's all the older Duggar kids do.
Reply
Momma 5-27-2008 @ 12:17PM
This is where I lay my hat. And on top of that, how can they have a meaningful relationship with 18 children? There isn't enough time in a day to get to know each of those kids on a deep personal level.
I start to raise my brow when I see 6 or more kids.
Jenni 5-27-2008 @ 10:16PM
On the contrary, they are learning to work together and live in a community. I am guessing that, when the time comes, they will make the best employees because they will be willing to help the team and work together. They aren't raising the younger children, they are helping out to make a household work and accomplish a common goal.
These children are learning a value that I wish all my employees could learn: it's not about "what's in it for me" it's about "what can I contribute to this community".
Shaundra 5-28-2008 @ 2:29PM
These parents are teaching their children life skills. They will one day be amazing parents themselves. They will each have the skills they need to run their own homes. I am an only child who had no idea how to do anything pertaining to running a home. We now have 5 kids and I still feel like I could have benefited from learning organizational skills as a young child. I think these parents are blessing their children by teaching them how to be a contributing member to their home, church, community, and country.
queenoqueens 5-29-2008 @ 9:42PM
The bottom line for me would be, are the kids happy? Can I have 18 kids and raise them to be happy individuals? I know that I couldn't, but maybe the Duggars can pull it off. While responsibility for kids is good and contributes to their self-worth in the long run, I wonder if the older ones raising the younger ones is really a fair deal.
As for the environment, I don't think that's a good reason to limit family size. I mean, do we really want to go to a system like China where people are told by the government how many kids they can have. And while we're at it, maybe the government can just sterilize people when they've reached the "right" amount.
I see it as a non-issue......there aren't that many people willing to have large numbers of children. So I don't think we have to regulate it just yet.
Judy 5-27-2008 @ 12:13PM
I certainly couldn't handle 18 kids, but at the same time, I get really upset when others say no one should be allowed to have that many. Where do those people think we should draw the line? Between us, we now have 4 kids (his 1, my 1, our 2) and we're probably not done yet. I'm sure there are plenty of people who think we shouldn't have more.
I am trying to do what I can to reduce my environmental impact. I'm not perfect, but we're getting much, much better, and much more aware. I know plenty of families with just 1 child who don't care and aren't doing anything.
And it is a difficult argument: I do believe in doing what you can, but the decision not to have another child is a HUGE sacrifice, and I don't like having to take environmental impact into it when having a child. This human being doesn't get to exist because his carbon footprint would be too much?
If I remember right, the Duggars - soon to be 20 of them - live in a 7,000 square foot house. In front of me I have an article stating that the average new home in 2005 was 2,434 square feet for an average of 4 people living in that house. So each Duggar gets 350 square feet, while each member of an average American family has 1,750. It's just another way of putting things in perspective.
Reply
Judy 5-27-2008 @ 3:48PM
Obviously my math was off there. I hit the wrong buttons - each average American has 600. DUH! The sun on the beach over the weekend fried my brain!
pers 5-27-2008 @ 1:42PM
"I'm all for being environmentally conscious, but when environmental activism places more value on a tree or a whale than on a human baby, I draw the line. Babies are a blessing and so long as the Duggars take care of theirs, who are we to scold or judge them?"
You seem to be missing the point. Whales and trees are not the primary concern of environmentalists - children are. Future generations aren't going to be able to live like we do. Global waring threatens to displace something like a billion people as sea levels rise over the next century. Clean drinking water will be a problem in many areas as underground aquifers which we depend on for much of our water and are currently being drained far faster than they can refill start to run dry. What's going to happen as natural gas and oil become harder to get and more expensive as the easy to drill supplies run out? Unless technology provides miracle energy sources that are currently unseen - hybrids only slow the problem by a little bit.
Our very food supply depends on oil at every level from tilling the soil to fertilizer and pesticides to harvesting to transporting. As oil prices increase, food becomes more expensive and scarcer.
And of course with water shortages and food shortages and oil shortages and people driven from their homes by rising oceans comes war.
I'm scared for the fate of my own children and what the world will be like when they are grown and have children of their own. There is a bleak outlook right now, but a lot of it could be made better if only people were willing to make major changes to their lifestyle - replacing a few lightbulbs with energy efficient ones and recycling are worth doing, but still just drops in the bucket. Each extra person brought into the world comes with their own carbon footprint, especially those born into America who gobble up a disproportionate amount of resources compared to the rest of the world.
Environmentalists don't want change just to save the whales or the trees, though whales are and trees are very nice of course. They want to make things better for future generations of humans. As it is, we're completely trashing the world they are going to have to live in.
Reply
pers 5-27-2008 @ 1:42PM
Also wanted to point out to Judy that the Duggars might use less per person per the time being, but they still use far more for family. That's 7000 feet they require when a smaller family could make do with much less (and 2434 for a family of four is ridiculous, who needs that much space for just four people) and drive a huge gas guzzling bus around instead of a small car.
Not to mention that the kids aren't going to live with their parents forever. Soon they will each be building their own house to heat and power, and they will need their own vehicles to get around. Then they will start having their own huge families, assuming they follow their parents wishes, since the girls are being brought up to believe that their purpose in life is to marry and start popping out as many babies as they can.
I agree that people have a right to have as many kids as they want and would never want to go the route of China. But I just wish that people would think a bit about their effect on others. By having a huge family, you're basically staking a claim on far more than your share of future resources as you bring people into the world who will need them. It's rather selfish.
Reply
Jenn 5-27-2008 @ 2:21PM
While I certainly don't think it's right for anyone to be saying you can or can't have as many children as you want, I have to agree with pers on the environmental side of things, particularly as regards people who are environmentally conscious. The whole point of environmentalism and conservation is to preserve things (including food, water, and other resources!) for our children. When the number of children other people have starts to impact the future of MY children....why shouldn't I complain?
Also, as another commenter noted, there is not enough time in the day to have a thorough, loving relationship with your children when you have that many. I have no doubt that they love their kids, and they do take excellent care of them, but there is no way that they could have the type of relationship with each of them that parents have with just one, two, three kids.
When it comes to parenting, it's quality, not quantity!
Reply
Jen 5-27-2008 @ 2:49PM
Reading through the comments, I saw that someone asked about the relationship they can have *or lack of* with their children having that many. They said on the "Today Show" that everyone is scheduled their own personal time with mom. I find that extremely sad. I couldn't imagine having to schedule time to actually get to spend time with my parents and I'd never put my kids through that either. *shakes head*
Reply
Marcia 5-27-2008 @ 6:43PM
Jen, that is very sad that they have to schedule time with their mother. I couldn't imagine that! I also believe in the 'quality not quantity' guideline that a previous poster said. I have an aunt with 5 kids and none of them are permitted to go to any friends' birthday parties or participate in any extra-curricular activities because they can't afford it for all 5. If you can't offer your children as many opportunities as you wanted to have when you were young, why have so many? I totally disagree with the older kids raising the younger ones. They didn't have them so why should they have their own lives put on hold to raise siblings? I can't imagine what it's going to be like if the girls follow in their mother's footsteps.
Reply
the goddess anna 5-27-2008 @ 7:53PM
Why is it sad to schedule in one-on-one time with each child? I have three kids, and I schedule time for them. Why? So I can be with them without the distractions of the other siblings or Daddy. Now, my kids are young (5 and 3 next week), and I get overwhelmed by them quite easily. Scheduling the alone time allows me to do it at a time good for the two of us... something that is not always easily done.
My daughter also helps look after her brothers, in a very simplistic way - like, if they're playing in the living room, she makes sure they're not climbing the bookshelves while I'm in the bathroom. She also has chores. She is very proud of her responsibilities, and I think I would be a bad parent if I did not give these to her. I don't see how the Duggars are much different in this regard.
On the subject of how many children a family should have - well, that's a very personal decision. I'd like a fourth, but we're still thinking about it. We're environmentally conscious, but not to the point of other posters here, and the people who do not wish to either have kids or large families really do outnumber those of us with larger families. It's cool to want to be a conservationist, but it's not kosher to market your opinion as the correct one and attempt to inflict it upon everybody else.
Reply