# 20 Kids



## MJS (Nov 8, 2011)

http://moms.today.msnbc.msn.com/_ne...michelle-duggar-announces-shes-pregnant-again



> Michelle Duggar and her husband Jim Bob are expecting their 20[SUP]th[/SUP] child, the couple revealed exclusively to TODAY.
> "We are so excited," Michelle Duggar told TODAY Moms before the broadcast. Now three and a half months pregnant, the mom of 19 says she was actually surprised to discover that she's expecting again at 45. "I was not thinking that God would give us another one, and we are just so grateful."
> The super-sized family stars in its own reality TV show, 19 Kids and Counting, on TLC (guess they will have to update the title!).



Saw this on TV this morning.  Personally, I think the woman is nuts, but to each their own I suppose.  Then again, looking at some of the comments that were left on the link I posted, others think she's crazy too! LOL.


----------



## granfire (Nov 8, 2011)

the trainwreck continues....did they not learn anything from the last child?!

Ah, blame G-D for it....worked in the past.....


----------



## decepticon (Nov 8, 2011)

I would not choose the same path as the Duggars, but I don't understand why you consider it nuts or a trainwreck for them to manage their family as they see fit. They aren't asking the government or anyone else for a handout. They aren't asking anyone else to be responsible for the care or welfare of their children. They seem to be doing a fairly good job of housing themselves.

Although Mrs. Duggar had a health issue with her last child, many women continue to have additional children after having one problem pregnancy. Again, none of us were required to chip in to cover either of their medical costs.

Regarding blaming God, I believe the sentiment expressed was thankfulness not blame.

I find it difficult to understand why the Duggars' family choices stir up such strong feelings in people who are basically unaffected by them. I know of several farm families in my area that have 11 or 12 children. Just because smaller families are currently the popular trend in most places doesn't make large ones inherently wrong.


----------



## granfire (Nov 8, 2011)

I am sorry, I did not express myself well.
It's like a train wreck, one has difficulty to turn away from.

And certainly there is a heaping helping of sarcasm on my part, considering the severe health problems that latest young one had. At one point you can say 'thank you, but no thank you' to a blessing. 

Having a lot of kids is not inherently wrong, true.
But then again I do have a problem with the whole 'reality TV' thing. 

Large families used to be an economic necessity plus the absence of birth control made family planning a bit unpredictable. These days we have more of an opposite problem: Large families are a drain on the finances. 

Around here 4 kids are close to the norm, where I am from anything past the 2nd puts you close to being trailer park trash. Certainly no full quiver people that I know of.

Alas, she is happy. More power to her.


----------



## sfs982000 (Nov 8, 2011)

Geez I think my 2 are a handful, can't imagine 20 LOL.  Best of luck to them I guess, far be it from me to question how to manage a persons family or how many kids to have.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 8, 2011)

I'm not sure about having 20 but I would have liked more kids. I've only the 2 with nine years between them, I had miscarriages between the two. Perhaps growing up with only parents and a brother makes me think having a big family would have been nice. I would have liked four or five kids. Now I'm waiting for grand children but I don't hold out much hope. 
You can't win however, it doesn't matter how many or how few children you have someone has a go at you. Friends of mine who were childless often had people telling them they were selfish which hurt them as it wasn't by choice. Friends with more than two children were assumed that those after the first two were an accident and were called selfish! My daughter was assumed to be an accident and I was called selfish again for having one so late. You can't win. It really isn't anyone's business.


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 8, 2011)

sfs982000 said:


> Geez I think my 2 are a handful, can't imagine 20 LOL.  Best of luck to them I guess, far be it from me to question how to manage a persons family or how many kids to have.



I think once you get beyond four they all start taking care of each other.

I had three. Felt like six.

As for reality TV, perhaps it's the only way they'll ever be able to feed them.


----------



## Buka (Nov 8, 2011)

I wonder if they realize what's causing the pregnancies?


----------



## granfire (Nov 8, 2011)

Buka said:


> I wonder if they realize what's causing the pregnancies?



Lack of hobbies.


----------



## Carol (Nov 8, 2011)

A fanatical devotion to the pope!  

Betcha didn't expect that one


----------



## granfire (Nov 8, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> I'm not sure about having 20 but I would have liked more kids. I've only the 2 with nine years between them, I had miscarriages between the two. Perhaps growing up with only parents and a brother makes me think having a big family would have been nice. I would have liked four or five kids. Now I'm waiting for grand children but I don't hold out much hope.
> You can't win however, it doesn't matter how many or how few children you have someone has a go at you. Friends of mine who were childless often had people telling them they were selfish which hurt them as it wasn't by choice. Friends with more than two children were assumed that those after the first two were an accident and were called selfish! My daughter was assumed to be an accident and I was called selfish again for having one so late. You can't win. It really isn't anyone's business.



True enough, but you are not the center point of a 'Reality TV' show. 

I think that exhibitionistic streak in people is revolting to me, not the prolific procreation.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 8, 2011)

granfire said:


> True enough, but you are not the center point of a 'Reality TV' show.
> 
> I think that exhibitionistic streak in people is revolting to me, not the prolific procreation.



We have Katie Price/Jordan's reality show so I expect anything is better than that! Oh and we have 'The only way is Essex' and something that is really really bad 'Geordie Shore'.




 TOWIE as it's called!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIaSbox1bqI&feature=related  Geordie Shore, the nightclub you see them is one of the ones where my instructor is head doorman. Gives you an idea why you shouldn't go out in Newcastle Upon Tyne!! yep, chavs and Geordies ugh! You will look at the family with 20 kids in a whole new light after this one!!

PS Cheryl Cole is a Geordie with a conviction for assaulting a toilet attendant at a club, please feel free to keep her on your version of X Factor or whatever!


----------



## Carol (Nov 8, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> We have Katie Price/Jordan's reality show so I expect anything is better than that! Oh and we have 'The only way is Essex' and something that is really really bad 'Geordie Shore'.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



She's already been sacked from the X-Factor...


----------



## granfire (Nov 8, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> We have Katie Price/Jordan's reality show so I expect anything is better than that! Oh and we have 'The only way is Essex' and something that is really really bad 'Geordie Shore'.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


do they issue you a gun at the door?

PS Cheryl Cole is a Geordie with a conviction for assaulting a toilet attendant at a club, please feel free to keep her on your version of X Factor or whatever![/QUOTE]

Yeah, that's the kind of dreck that is really killing TV for me.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 8, 2011)

granfire said:


> do they issue you a gun at the door?
> 
> PS Cheryl Cole is a Geordie with a conviction for assaulting a toilet attendant at a club, please feel free to keep her on your version of X Factor or whatever!



Yeah, that's the kind of dreck that is really killing TV for me.[/QUOTE]

I don't mind it on the telly, I can not put it on but when the Geordie women come down to Catterick looking for sqauddies I can't avoid them! They drink, fight, strip, shag and eventually puke in the street, great fun.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 8, 2011)

Carol said:


> A fanatical devotion to the pope!
> 
> Betcha didn't expect that one



I don't believe the Duggars are Catholic...

But, as I understand it, there is a religious aspect.  They are (very) conservative Christians.

And they more or less manage to pay their way through their own business and living frugally.  I'm sure that proceeds from their book, and the tv shows helped (including, according to what I've just looked up, helping finish their house and stock the pantry...), but unlike Kate Gosselin, they haven't dropped life for reality tv.

(My wife is very much interested in both...  I've absorbed more about them than I want to think about...)


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 8, 2011)

granfire said:


> Having a lot of kids is not inherently wrong, true.



In my view it is.  Too many human's = poorly planet = no more humans.  People need to practise responsibility with regard to the future.



granfire said:


> Around here 4 kids are close to the norm, where I am from anything past the 2nd puts you close to being trailer park trash.



Aye, anything above replacement level is not really acceptable these days.

Not disagreeing with you, Gran, just putting my 'spin' forward on the points.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 8, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> In my view it is.  Too many human's = poorly planet = no more humans.  People need to practise responsibility with regard to the future.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So your a fan of the China method of taking care of kids huh


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 8, 2011)

I like to think there is a difference between a reasonable expectation of people to make their own decisions on important matters and the state regulating such things for them.  

I remember listening to a chilling radio play that my English teacher recorded for us about a possible future in which having more than two children was illegal and if you chose to do so then you paid with your own life.  Not a future I'd like to see come true but it may well do if we, as a species, don't come to the realisation that we cannot expand our numbers indefinitely.  Most Western European nations have made that choice, for one reason or another and we are breeding ourselves 'down' - that is likewise not the best of choices.  Nature loves a dynamic equilibrium of creatures to their environment; that's the balance we should aim for if we desire long-term stability and survival.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 8, 2011)

Im more of the as long as your not living off the Govt then i should butt out belief.


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 8, 2011)

Which is absolutely fine.  

I am speaking of a broader canvas than that.  The world is a finite place and we have to 'fit' ourselves to it as a species or we'll pay the price collectively for individual lack of restraint.


----------



## billc (Nov 8, 2011)

The world is a huge place, and the more advanced a society becomes, for example Europe, the fewer children they tend to have.  One family with twenty kids is not a big deal and is hardly the norm so it may be a long time before we start eating Soylent Green, which I hear is quite tasty and nutritious.  I usually have soylent green with peanut butter.


----------



## MJS (Nov 8, 2011)

Ultimately, what this family does, isn't effecting me.  IMO, I think its in poor taste to do a book, reality show, whatever, to draw interest, which ultimately draws money.  If there is a book or show on them, I'm not interested...lol.  As for her health issues...well, thats not something to take lightly, IMO.  I mean, I think its important to take your health as well as the health of the baby you're brining into the world, into consideration, and if that means not having yet another child or one with some serious medical issues, well, thats a no brainer.  

Sometimes, I can't help but to think that when people do certain things, they're doing it for the sole reason of bringing attention to themselves.


----------



## Carol (Nov 8, 2011)

jks9199 said:


> I don't believe the Duggars are Catholic...
> 
> But, as I understand it, there is a religious aspect.  They are (very) conservative Christians.
> 
> ...



It was a random Monty Python comment.

The Duggars are of an evangelical Protestant movement called Quiverfull.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiverfull


----------



## granfire (Nov 8, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> I don't mind it on the telly, I can not put it on but when the Geordie women come down to Catterick looking for sqauddies I can't avoid them! They drink, fight, strip, shag and eventually puke in the street, great fun.



LOL, yeah we had a place like that, at least it had a cheap Motel next door.

And it was out in the country....
Fun clientel to work with....


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 9, 2011)

One thing that affects us in the UK is that as our population ages if we don't have the young people because not so many are being born we face not having enough people paying tax to keep the country running! We could end up a country populated by old people either fading away in poverty or having to work until they die! At least if this family grows up and goes out to work there will still be tax payers in the future and someone to look after the old codgers!


----------



## granfire (Nov 9, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> One thing that affects us in the UK is that as our population ages if we don't have the young people because not so many are being born we face not having enough people paying tax to keep the country running! We could end up a country populated by old people either fading away in poverty or having to work until they die! At least if this family grows up and goes out to work there will still be tax payers in the future and someone to look after the old codgers!



I am sure there will be enough young folks from the Commonwealth to fill the void, although they won't adhere to the British phenotype...

Same for Germany though. All those folks that 'returned home' after the Iron Curtain fell were a good thing.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 9, 2011)

granfire said:


> I am sure there will be enough young folks from the Commonwealth to fill the void, although they won't adhere to the British phenotype...
> 
> Same for Germany though. All those folks that 'returned home' after the Iron Curtain fell were a good thing.



The Commonwealth countries are independant of the UK and I'm not sure that asking the Aussies and Kiwis to contribute would go down well.


----------



## Cyriacus (Nov 9, 2011)

Way to be Happy about Contributing to Overpopulation.

...All Malign Comments aside, _why_.


----------



## granfire (Nov 9, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> The Commonwealth countries are independant of the UK and I'm not sure that asking the Aussies and Kiwis to contribute would go down well.



LOL
Silly Tez....
No, those countries with a surplus of young people.
After a couple of generations the British people would not look like cooked Lobster on the beaches of Mallorca anymore. 

I mean, Germany had a huge influx of people from Rumania and Russia....all with a claim to nationality, even though their people left the Vaterland over 200 years ago. 

But I saw an interesting piece on German TV a while back regarding the state sponsored retirement programs:
While it is true that less people pay into it, the less people make more money, so it all evens out.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 9, 2011)

granfire said:


> LOL
> Silly Tez....
> No, those countries with a surplus of young people.
> After a couple of generations the British people would not look like cooked Lobster on the beaches of Mallorca anymore.
> ...



Sadly we are getting the young people of the Commonwealth killed in Afghanistan.


----------



## granfire (Nov 9, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Sadly we are getting the young people of the Commonwealth killed in Afghanistan.



Ah, true enough.


----------



## sfs982000 (Nov 9, 2011)

shesulsa said:


> I think once you get beyond four they all start taking care of each other.
> 
> I had three. Felt like six.
> 
> As for reality TV, perhaps it's the only way they'll ever be able to feed them.



You bring up a good point, I wonder how much of the reality show was a factor in them deciding to have another baby.  I know that talking with friends that also come from big families that the older siblings had a big hand in helping to take care of the younger ones.


----------



## decepticon (Nov 9, 2011)

I doubt that the reality show was much of a defining factor regarding the Duggars' family choices. From the few interviews I have seen, their religious beliefs play the determining role. However I am sure the tv show income has been a help to their financial bottom line. It does appear that they live a modest lifestyle rather than a financially extravagant one, and that they also are involved in charitable work in Central America.

Re the population issues, that is hard for me to get on board with. I fully believe that most of the problems plaguing our planet are due to greed, not population numbers. As has been shown in several nations, enough food is not the issue - distribution is. Population does not cause corporations to dump their waste into the oceans and rivers, greed and thoughtlessness does. Even if the earth's population was much smaller, there would still be those whose actions would endanger the planet. 

It is even harder for me to comprehend population as the problem, since I look out my back door onto approximately 30,000 acres of undeveloped forest land. When on my way to MA class, I wonder why so much traffic if I pass more than 2 cars on the 8 mile stretch between my home and the paved road. Yes, I have spent time in various cities, but I still think there is room for everyone.


----------



## cdunn (Nov 9, 2011)

There are problems with the Quiverfull-style family beyond overpopulation. These kids wind up foreigners in their own countries, and enthralled to their parents. These tiny cults raise some deeply injured people.


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 9, 2011)

decepticon said:


> Re the population issues, that is hard for me to get on board with. I fully believe that most of the problems plaguing our planet are due to greed, not population numbers. As has been shown in several nations, enough food is not the issue - distribution is. Population does not cause corporations to dump their waste into the oceans and rivers, greed and thoughtlessness does. Even if the earth's population was much smaller, there would still be those whose actions would endanger the planet.
> 
> It is even harder for me to comprehend population as the problem, since I look out my back door onto approximately 30,000 acres of undeveloped forest land. When on my way to MA class, I wonder why so much traffic if I pass more than 2 cars on the 8 mile stretch between my home and the paved road. Yes, I have spent time in various cities, but I still think there is room for everyone.



Overpopulation is indeed a very big and very real problem, *decepticon*.  

It's not a question of how many of us can we fit into a given area as much as it is how many of us can a given area sustain.  This is a problem that will only amplify as the developing nations become more fully industrialised and their resource consumption reaches American levels.

I envy you your rural idyll but the (enviable) lack of humans in your vicinity is perhaps colouring your views on the over-population problem.


----------



## decepticon (Nov 9, 2011)

As they say in these parts, "I have been to the city and I have seen the elephant...", but you are probably right, my current location may be influencing my thinking.

Actually I lived in Mexico City, one of the largest cities in the world, for a while back in the 1980's and have also spent some time in Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paolo. And I have seen all the nearly vacant land surrounding those cities. And the starvation of the people within them. Again, I see the primary problems of greed and uneven distribution being more prominent than that of over population.

When I worked as a marine biologist, I had occasion to visit some of the smaller Caribbean islands for work. Deforestation and pollution originated with the greedy 1% who refused to work with residents to come up with other options than those for dealing with the demands of daily life. It did not originate with the original residents - they had existed quite well in much larger numbers prior to the arrival of Columbus, when they could manage the local resources themselves.


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 9, 2011)

I don't disagree, *DC*, there is always more that can be done to manage resources more efficiently and with an eye on the long view.  All I was alluding too is that there is a limit to how many humans the planet can provide for when we are speaking of a 'Western' life style.  Sadly, we, in the First World, already exceed the Earth's capacity in that regard - that's why I say it is only going to get worse as other countries demand their slice of the pie too.

Which in turn is why we have to get the global population stabalised and at a lower level than now, let alone the horrific projections of numbers for the near future.  If we don't do it ourselves then the planet will do it for us.


----------



## MJS (Nov 11, 2011)

Population will vary from state to state.  My point of this thread wasn't really to discuss population issues in various states, but simply to talk about how someone could financially wise, support a family with that many people, without some sort of outside assistance.  IMO, when you put your beliefs before the well being of the children that didn't ask to be born, but that you're bringing into the world, that isn't right.  

As for whether or not the show was a defining factor....I have no idea, but its a no brainer when the tv shows see a potential cash cow.  No, I dont think that the family said, "Gee, if we pump out kid after kid after kid after kid, maybe, just maybe, we'll hit paydirt and get on a reality show."  But I'm sure they didnt turn down any offers either.

Anyone know what the parents do for a living?  

If we look at land, undeveloped land, well, is there really such a thing?  I mean, seems like any undeveloped land nowadays, is quickly scooped up and new houses, condos, senior living, etc, are being built.  What happens when there is no more undeveloped land for the ever increasing population?


----------



## JohnEdward (Nov 11, 2011)

I think it is irresponsible to have 20 kids, I have that in my family lineage. It is irresponsible especially since we are well out of the Victorian model of raising children of seen but not heard, and spare the rod (literally) spoil the child.  Today we know so much more of what children needs are and their requirements to live happy and productive lives. There is allot of demands are requirements that go into raising children. It is fair to all those kids, how can two people possible raise all of them by today's standards, giving them enough love and individual attention and all their needs met.  We are not having kids to work the farm anymore.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 11, 2011)

MJS said:


> Anyone know what the parents do for a living?


According to the Duggar website the dad is a Real estate agent


----------



## granfire (Nov 11, 2011)

MJS said:


> If we look at land, undeveloped land, well, is there really such a thing?  I mean, seems like any undeveloped land nowadays, is quickly scooped up and new houses, condos, senior living, etc, are being built.  What happens when there is no more undeveloped land for the ever increasing population?



Sadly we lose a lot of farmland to development these days.
Thankfully we are able to feed more people off less land these days, but we are also currently under drought conditions in large parts of the country, plus the artificially elevated need for corn in other than food applications (and China buying hay)

We might feel a backlash soon enough.


but hey, there has been an honest to goodness thought model released to return abandoned urban areas back into farmland...and in the case of Detroit, with an _average_ house value of around $7500....not out of the realm of possibilities.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 11, 2011)

The best thing about having so many kids is that if you hit hard times you can always eat a couple.


----------



## granfire (Nov 11, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> The best thing about having so many kids is that if you hit hard times you can always eat a couple.



:lfao:


----------



## Blade96 (Nov 11, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> The best thing about having so many kids is that if you hit hard times you can always eat a couple.



bwahahaha   Love your sense of humor.


----------



## mook jong man (Nov 12, 2011)

Yes , my wife always says she doesn't like kids , so I said "Well just leave them on the side of your plate and eat your vegetables".


----------



## Indagator (Nov 12, 2011)

20 is a lot of children, however as I come from an SSPX Traditional Catholic parish I am quite used to families having 12-14 children on average (of course some lower than that number and some higher). Heck, I myself have 5 brothers and two sisters - and that's what we consider a relatively small family...
Big families are beautiful.


----------



## granfire (Nov 12, 2011)

Indagator said:


> 20 is a lot of children, however as I come from an SSPX Traditional Catholic parish I am quite used to families having 12-14 children on average (of course some lower than that number and some higher). Heck, I myself have 5 brothers and two sisters - and that's what we consider a relatively small family...
> Big families are beautiful.



LOL, my husband is 1 of 5...one more disturbed than the other...
nah...not all big families are beautiful. Sometimes it's good when the contribution to the gene pool is limited!


----------



## Thesemindz (Nov 12, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> It really isn't anyone's business.



I wish more people would adopt this as a general rule.


-Rob


----------



## granfire (Nov 12, 2011)

Thesemindz said:


> I wish more people would adopt this as a general rule.
> 
> 
> -Rob



True.
BUT: If you choose to live your life on TV you make it everybody's business. 
(After all, that dreck takes up the time the TV stations used to show good shows. and in that case actually educational stuff)


----------



## Master Dan (Nov 12, 2011)

decepticon said:


> I would not choose the same path as the Duggars, but I don't understand why you consider it nuts or a trainwreck for them to manage their family as they see fit. They aren't asking the government or anyone else for a handout. They aren't asking anyone else to be responsible for the care or welfare of their children. They seem to be doing a fairly good job of housing themselves.
> 
> Although Mrs. Duggar had a health issue with her last child, many women continue to have additional children after having one problem pregnancy. Again, none of us were required to chip in to cover either of their medical costs.
> 
> ...


 I thing two of the basis hate responses come first from a general feeling that somehow these people are taking resources from others or the commentor personally? The second comes from internalized guilt from thier own inadiqaute ability to raise children themselves or the lack there of. I have been close to two families with 12 and 13 children and the home was run like a very organized day care with a commercial aproach to the laundry feeding and a constant hand me down succession in clothing but everyone was cared for and loved I am amazed and the capacity to do it all. They also worked as a family on gathering and processing natural foods during the growing season. My experience is that all the large families I am involved with have a strong faith base for what they are doing.


----------

