18 kids: How many is too many?

The only time my mother spent with me was spent beating and berating me.
I think that I would rather spend a small amount of scheduled time with a kind and loving mother like Michele Duggar than spend years I did with my own abusive one.
It is not our place to judge others or say how many children are too many. If we worked harder on our own character flaws and paid more attention to our own ways to be more environmentally concious, I believe the world would be a far better place.
God bless the Duggars and their beautiful, loving family. I only wish I could have been part of a family like theirs.

Reply

What I can't comprehend is why they didn't adopt. I see no problem having that many children if you can take care of them, but there are already so many unloved children in the world, and they could have done so much towards improving the life of a child already here. I just hope it all works out the best for them.

Reply

18 in my opinion is too many! What about college for 18???? insane!!!!!

Reply

All I have to say is; when you have 17 children, how on earth do you have the time or energy to make an 18th!?! I only have two children and between them and keeping my house in order I don't always have the time or energy!

Reply

Anyone who has more than two kids better not be complaining about rising fuel and food costs. The bottom line is that every child that is born is more of a burden on our society. It comes down to the laws of supply and demand. More people means more demand, and we can't just magically increase supply to keep up. People like the Duggar's should be ashamed. There is absolutely NO reason to have this many children. Back in the days of farming it made sense because half would die off but today the purpose of having a child is to enjoy creating a family, and you know what, 2 should be sufficient. That way our population remains stable, and we can actually combat problems like poverty, overburdened schools and environmental degradation. The Duggars are no better than rabbits, they don't think before they breed either.

Reply

I just want to address the people who are saying things like '18 isn't a lot in the grand scheme of things' in regards to the environmental/overpopulation issue. It's true, 18 wont make a huge dent. But lets assume the Dougans are raising their children to have lots of children, like she is. Seeing as this is a rather exceptional case, lets say each of them has 'just' 10 children. So the next generation of this family is 180 children. the generation after that is 1800. The generation after that is 18000. Granted, some of the children probably wont follow in the mothers footsteps, but even so... it's NOT a one time 18 person addition to the population. Things like this grow exponentially, and in a couple hundred years this one couple deciding to have 18 children (so far) will have added *thousands* to the population.

Reply

I also watched the Today show when the Duggar's announced they were pregnant again. The older children did not look happy about the news, especially their oldest son. I think that gives you the answer right there.

Reply

I really try not to judge others but I do have to question some of the beliefs of the "Quiverfulls"...didn't God (if you believe in God) give us the brains and the earth with it's many wonders to use?! As in creating medicines and birth control? I have to wonder how 18 children could get all of the attention and love just one child requires and deserves. Also, is it really up to other "children" to help raise the other ones? I do not personally believe a family unit is a community. I would venture to guess most on this forum are very capable and nurturing parents. Could you really see trying to stretch yourself for 18 children? Does that mean your less of a parent? I don't think so. Responsibility and knowing ones limits comes with being a good parent. Passing these responsibilities on to older siblings and not knowing your reproductive limits is not responsible parenting. This overabundant family is obviously abnormal or it wouldn't get the attention it does.
Though this one family does not create a huge difference environmentally, it is something to ponder since our earth would not appreciate or sustain every family following this belief system.

"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."

I have to disagree with this outlook for only one reason...thier is more value to environmental issues then having unlimited blessings from God in the form of children...not so literally as a particular child verses a whale but I bet a mother whale thinks her baby is more important then ours:) Without bee's we would die in just a few short years due to lack of enough food from pollination, so environmentalists do have a valid point.

It's pretty simple that if we don't, as parents, all think environmentally then our children will not have an environment at all.

Reply

Last weekend, I was walking in my neighborhood and came across a lone fawn darting in and out of traffic. As I tried to protect it from running into the street, I watched helplessly as this baby galloped into an on coming car. I was horrified. I learned later that although fawn's might look orphaned, in nature, mothers separate from their babies during the day, in order to better avoid predators. I had to wonder if when nature instilled this instinct, if concrete streets and neighborhoods were considered. It seems to be getting easier to recognize the cumulative affect that our self important attitudes are having. I'm not an environmentalist, nor do I hold an opinion on the amount of children people choose to raise. What I do know is that with the blessings of a baby, comes the gifts within nature to nurture them. It's not that a Whale or Tree holds more importance then a child, but it's our responsibility to ensure what sustains us, can survive to sustain them. We are all connected by what is known as the food chain. No one has the right to judge anyone else's choices...but to disregard gifts provided from the same place that blessings evolve, I find sad. As you researched the Duggans, I researched you. I viewed your video web blogs;
a picnic in the woods, with beautiful trees and fresh air.
Strawberries picked at the end of summer, for your children to eat.
Your new tradition at Christmas, a "tree" cut down to benefit your family's needs for celebration... and
the trees your husband cuts down to keep your family warm in the cold winter months.
What's interesting, is how easy YOU are to dismiss the very thing that keeps your blessings protected and safe from the bitter cold.
Without the one, there is no other.
That is the only point.
When you choose to place yourself in the superior position of deciding what stays and what goes, the burden is placed upon the very platform you're standing on, not you.

Reply

I believe its a personal decision & I believe they know how to not have children, as they had been married for a few years before they had the first. They managed to prevent pregnancy. I also believe this is a religious decision of theirs. Personally, I don't think they need to keep having children until one is disabled or the mom's body gives out. Also, at first I was interested, but since its become a media frenzy, I'm just not that interested anymore. I don't need to watch her deliver babies until one or more is born with a birth defect or a disability. Not that this family would treat that baby any differently. In fact the whole group would care for it just as they do the rest, probably better. I believe she REAL lucky to have all those healthy, perfect babies and her body reacts well. I get too postpartum, I'd probably be psychotic.

Reply