Surprise! Duggar Family Expecting Their 19th Child

maystar
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 07:31 am: [report]

These people are retarded…

xifeng882
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 07:36 am: [report]

What drives a person to want to have this many children? Its seems completely irresponsible. Can you really take care of all these children both financially and emotionally? And now they’re just going to exploit their children by putting them on tv… Ridiculous. This woman needs to go menopausal really soon. Good luck to Anna, seems like she might just have a very awkward future in head of her.

ot2b2009
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 07:37 am: [report]

Why hasn’t someone sewed her vagina shut yet?

I Go To 11
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 07:40 am: [report]

@ xifeng882: They claim that it’s “up to God” to determine how many children they’ll have. I can’t even imagine what kind of toll this has taken on Michelle’s body.

tabby
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 08:03 am: [report]

What I ‘love’ about this whole thing is how the Duggar family can be so socially irresponsible as to have 19 children because they are married and they are following ‘God’s will’, whereas Nadia Sulleman is made into an evil person for being unmarried and having a whole slew of children herself. The Duggars are celebrated with a reality show to support their family whereas Nadia is given hell if she wants a show to support hers. Hypocrisy, thy name is America.

Ginger
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 08:03 am: [report]

My grandfather came from a family that had nineteen children.

But this was back in the 20’s and 30’s when having kids was a way to have someone else get income for things. Not out of some skewed religious belief that God wants you to keep procreating until your uterus falls out.

I hate the Duggars so much. If one of your kids is having a kid, then you need to stop having kids. The time has come to coo over someone else’s child and be a grandparent.

God, I just…I just cannot stand these people.

lindseylee21
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 08:04 am: [report]

The real question here is WHY hasn’t anyone given Michelle a makeover??? Her hair is like sad poodle fur.

java82
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 08:13 am: [report]

The funny thing is that, while their religion is all about having sex solely for procreation purposes, J’Michelle and Jim Bob clearly weren’t planning on having kids, since the pregnancy seems to have come as a surprise. Therefore they, horrors of horrors, had sex… for pleasure!

All joking aside, there is nothing wrong with having kids, but why hasn’t her doctor warned her about what all this baby-pushing is doing to her health? I’m squirming just thinking about it.

VsegdaOdna
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 08:18 am: [report]

@tabby- The difference between the Duggars and Suleman is that they were already financially sound prior to having a show. They arent living off of others and have no debt whatsoever. They have all their children naturally (not medically aided in conception), versus 8 at once. If you have seen the show, all the kids seem well cared for. They definitely seem well behaved and the household over all is very functioning. The exact opposite has been shown to be true for Nadia. It’s also in how they represent themselves. The Duggars come off as a nice, caring family with nary a bad word spoken about anyone. Nadia has been shown bad mouthing Kate Gosselin for having had a tummy tuck (which was a gift! from John’s new girlfriends father.) Shows where her priorities lay.

lostrun
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 08:19 am: [report]

The issue w/ Octomom is that she can’t afford her children, while the Duggars can.  They own rental property, and they have no debt.  They are not on welfare, while she is.  Also, Octomom had a litter thru IVF, while the Duggars are through regular shagging (w/ a few twins thrown in).  There is a difference.  They’re also not mentals who want kids to fill the loneliness they feel about not having siblings while growing up.

Pinky
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 08:21 am: [report]

Does this family recieve any type of social financial assistance, food stamps, child care, health care via our tax dollar ? If so, why ?! There is a local couple here who are “religious” who also have a bunch of kids and they get welfare assistance-why should my tax dollar pay for their choice ? Let their church ‘help’ them if God is leading them to have so many kids !

raqueleza
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 08:21 am: [report]

I used to think the Duggars were completely off the wall, but I watched the show recently and realized that their children are happy, healthy, and very loved by their parents. This isn’t a case of Octomom or Jon and Kate; while the Duggars obviously receive compensation for their appearances on television, “fame” hasn’t gone to their heads, the mom and dad are still together, and they’re raising their family within their means; what’s wrong with that? The Duggars are an example of an alternative to traditional nuclear families, just like single parents, polyamorous couples (threesies? foursies?), and families with same-sex parents. As long as the kids are being taken care of, it’s all good.

amorsalado
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 08:22 am: [report]

*sigh*

I’ve been trying for years to have one, and she just pops them out one right after the other right after the other…

raqueleza
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 08:27 am: [report]

@Pinky: From what I know, they don’t receive any assistance from the government. They’re actually weirdly thrifty too, don’t buy clothes or shoes new, shop in bulk, are free of debt and built their a majority of their home themselves to save money. They’re pretty penny-pinching. I’d agree if that were the case though; we’re supporting enough people on welfare as it is!

BlueVibe
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 08:29 am: [report]

I still don’t understand why people who love children so much don’t adopt or foster.  Why produce so many kids of your own when there are so, so, many children out there who need loving homes?  Have one or two of your own, then adopt.  It seems so egotistical to have a huge family that is *all* your biological kids . . .

Melania
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 09:01 am: [report]

I dont think these people have to have sex anymore, he just has to jack off in her general direction, her hole should be big enough now. 
What pisses me off, is what people do in the name of religion, to justify their actions, or lack there of. 
I seen one time on of their kids going on about how evidently humans had only have had a history going back 5000 years.  Maybe they should visit Turkey or Iran and see how old history actually is. 
With nearly 7 billion of us on earth, why is it that we regulate the number of species of everything else, yet never put a limit on ourselves.  I travel A LOT and its getting bloody depressing to see how worse the polution is each year.

Melania
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 09:04 am: [report]

forgive my typo’s there, this just gets me so riled up that my mind is thinking faster than my fingers can go.

GreenAura
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 09:10 am: [report]

Okay, I’ve seen the show and yes their children seem happy and healthy… but this family IS EXACTLY WHY THERE NEEDS TO BE A 2 CHILD LIMIT ON HOUSEHOLDS.  Sorry, I know I sound like a communist, but our earth cannot possibly sustain a population that is continuing to grow the way it is.  We are having a hard enough time w/ 7 billion…. imagine 12 billion which is what it will be in the next 50 or so years.  We wonder why all of our resources are being depleted.  Meanwhile, the entire continent of Africa is going hungry so that the gluttons of America can feed their 100 million children.  This just makes me angry.

*sam*
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 09:42 am: [report]

*sigh* I’m really torn on this issue. On the one hand, so long as they have the resources to provide for all of the children, then who am I (or anyone else for that matter) to tell them to stop? Conversely, if there are health risks that they are obviously neglecting by having so many children, then that certainly needs to be addressed. I don’t know how old she is, but I do know that once you hit 33(maybe it’s 35) your chances of having a Down Syndrome child drastically increase, so unless they are 100% positive that they can handle the strains of everything that entails, it’s probably best that they stop.

Though, I do completely agree with BlueVibe in that if people wish to fill a softball roster with their own children, they should seriously look into adoption and/or becoming a foster parent. To me, the times where over-the-top religious beliefs could dictate procreation have long since passed and it’s (been) high time for us to start seriously thinking about the world we’ll be leaving for those future generations that “God deemed necessary to have.” It’s *incredibly* irresponsible in my opinion to keep bearing your own children when it is so blatantly obvious that a)there are plenty of other children out there that need a good, loving home and b)the earth is in dire need of some TLC. (psst, the irresponsible label goes to “Octomom,” Jon & Kate, as well as the Duggears—the former two may have the mitigating factor of IVF, but they *both* had children prior to said IVF, and therefore do not escape scorn IMO). 

Plus, to be completely honest, evangelicals creep me out (I’m assuming that’s what they are anyway based upon their obvious disdain for prophylactics and manner of dress).

brandyalexander
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 09:58 am: [report]

Look, I’m a little bothered by this, too… but I also think this is a good time and place for feminists to examine their pro-choice philosophies.  The knife cuts both ways.  Just like how you wouldn’t like the government to force you to carry a pregnancy to term, I also don’t think the government should be able to stop a family like the Duggers from having more children, especially if they are able to care for them all.
(I do think, however, that we need to reexamine our love affair with children and fertility now that we find ourselves in a position where we cannot feed the earth’s population.  I wish the Duggers would snip it or tie it, and start adopting, but I do think they have the right not to… )
Just a thought.  Let me know what you think?  I’m a little shaky on this, too…

writergirl
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 09:58 am: [report]

I don’t understand how a doctor hasn’t told her to stop yet.  Nineteen children can’t be good for you or the baby.  How she actually carries a baby to term is beyond me—the uterus can’t possibly stand that much expansion and contraction and that much constant expansion and contraction.  What’s their youngest now?  Six months?  Something like that.

And the parents don’t raise those children, the older ones get assigned younger ones and take care of them.  So no, emotionally, Mommy and Daddy aren’t “there” for the baby, but surrogate Mommy and/or Daddy is.  That’s just not fair to the older kids…..
As for the son, Josh, he said three will be his limit.

Melania
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 10:02 am: [report]

GreenAura i agree with you completely, except i am going to be a bit more radical.  What the polution i have seen, and its not by country its got to be considered by earth…as we are all in this together. 
I think there should be screening, i think you should have to make a certain income and be able to provide a certain standard of education.  I think a persons genes should be ‘clean’.  And then, limited to one child per family if they meet all the requirements. 
There is not a place i go on earth yet, where i have not seen loads of plastic in the water, sewage still going out into the ocean (with people fishing ICK!), and smog that causes sever breathing issues. 
And frankly i remember watching the pilot of this show, they ddnt have loads of money, it was everyone watching them breed on tv that gave them more.  They are disgusting, and shaming all humanity.  There is no WAY she can even have a good relationship with her kids.

retro chic
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 10:10 am: [report]

@writergirl – heehee… that’s a lot of expansion and contraction, alright! Seriously, I agree the older sibs get the brunt of this… not fair!

My mom was one of nine – that was bad enough. They were broken down into two groups; she being the leader of the second group. While there was love, she said it functioned more like a small company than a close-knit family. Not much room for individuality, either.

*sam*
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 10:10 am: [report]

@brandy: I totally understand and agree with what you’re saying. Perhaps the best way to remedy these sorts of things is to STOP GIVING THESE PEOPLE TV SHOWS!!! It can easily be misconstrued into condoning their actions as well as sending the message to others that if you want to be rich and famous, all you really need to do is have a sh*t ton of kids.

lea322
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 10:11 am: [report]

@java82: I don’t believe that they have ever said that they only have sex to procreate. They seem to genuinely love each other, and I’m sure that manifests itself physically. The modern protestant church doesn’t teach that sex is only for baby-making.

@writergirl: The older kids do help with the younger ones, and they are assigned to mentor specific children. I don’t think they’re actually raising them though, in the sense that the parents have checked out completely. That’s what families do though…they do what’s necessary to make the unit function as a whole. I do agree that if the children were raising the children and the parents weren’t involved, something would be very very wrong. I’m just not sure if that is what’s happening here.

It’s funny to me that I’m defending the Duggars, because they really get on my nerves a lot of the time, too. But, as has been pointed out, all of the kids seem happy and healthy, their marriage appears strong, and the family is financially sound, so I guess I have to say “to each their own”.

amorsalado
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 10:21 am: [report]

...but I also think this is a good time and place for feminists to examine their pro-choice philosophies.  The knife cuts both ways.  Just like how you wouldn’t like the government to force you to carry a pregnancy to term, I also don’t think the government should be able to stop a family like the Duggers from having more children…

I agree with this brandyalexander.  Just like I don’t think the government should be able to regulate/put a cap on how many embryos are transfered during an IVF cycle.  The regulation of reproductive rights is the regulation of reproductive rights no matter how you slice it, and it’s a slippery slope to stand on.

amber
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 10:22 am: [report]

I wish these people would stop having children. When did it become their responsibility to populate the world one average(or less than average in some cases) at a time.
The fact that these people have a show and are constantly in the news shows that we have our priorities wrong. They should not be celebrated because they don’t use birth control. Just because people can have children doesn’t mean they should, yes these kids are being cared for but at what expense? My grandmother was right in the middle of 16 children and she had a hell of a childhood, where she was caring for her younger siblings and had way too much responsibility at a young age.
Just stop, stop having kids.

AgentBeryllium
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 12:13 pm: [report]

A) People do a lot of weird and messed up things in the name of God. I think if Jesus were to come down today his exact words would be: What the hell is going on ? I didn’t say do THAT!

B)Why have we not blamed the doctors for this nonsense? I used to work for doctors. I know how they act. They are sales men and will do ANYTHING to increase their quota. I think that it should be a case by case basis. If you have 19 kids. Then no you shouldn’t have more kids. If you are trying to have kids, no cap, just keep trying. The reason WHY Nadya Suleman had so extreme multiples. I am sure is because her Doctor convinced her to do this. Most Doctors are nothing but money whores and patient care and the Hippocratic oath are now ignored. It’s all about what they will do to get into their new BMW or home or timeshare what have you.

resullins
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 12:45 pm: [report]

@Brandy: I agree with you. But there are cases where the children’s welfare is at risk. Obviously not in the Duggar’s case, but in most of them. It is a slippery slope, but it’s quite obvious there should be a line. Perhaps the line should be drawn for people that are recieving government assistance only? If you’re not taking money from the government, they shouldn’t have a say in what you do… but the opposite is also true. If someone else is going to have to pay for your children, then they shouldn’t be had. But it’s a fine line.

And I do NOT buy the God dictates how many children we have. They’re the ones that are making the choice to have sex. They’re dictating it… not God. That’s a cop-out. If God really wanted them to have kids, he could make the little swimmers get through the condom!

brandyalexander
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 12:51 pm: [report]

@resullins: sounds fair to me…

mountain_laurel1183
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 06:06 pm: [report]

The Duggars may have enough $$ to support the number of children they have, but most people in the Quiverfull lifestyle are not even close to as wealthy as the Duggars. Most live under the poverty line. Most don’t, however, accept government assistance unlike Nadia Suleman, so they don’t get quite the press Suleman did. Just watch the episodes with the Bates on 18 and Counting to see what it is usually like for families with that many children. Even then, that is just a tiny portrait. “Quiverfull” by Kathryn Joyce is definitely one of the most interesting books I’ve read this year. It gives a more complete picture of families who live the Duggar lifestyle than the idealized version you see on TLC.

miss game
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 06:24 pm: [report]

People have been having this many children for a LONG time… it used to be pretty standard for rural families to have as many kids as possible. Who better to do the farm labor. Someone earlier even said her grandfather was one of 19 and that was in the early 1900s… before modern medicine.

Honestly, I agree with the people who think the Duggars should do what they want. They are very nice, good to their children, and put food on everyone’s plate. The kids are very well behaved, you never see them or the parents yelling (misbehaving, yes. but there are MANY small children).  I have seen episodes focusing on the parents bonding with different children (eg - the dad took several of the older girls camping). They use the show to their advantage, but I don’t see a problem with that.

katnohat
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 06:27 pm: [report]

as for the older kids being assigned to “raise and mentor the younger kids” I was the oldest of three, and I had to look after them after school and when Mom and Dad went out. It’s called being part of a family.

DancingGeek
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 06:37 pm: [report]

If she wants to treat her vajayjay like a clown car, its her perogative- they seem to have the means to care for them.

“Get that for me will you Diedre?”

savedbygrace
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 06:50 pm: [report]

I applaud the duggar family.They have 18 well behaved children, the are debt free and can support their children.They are a very close knit family, raised with morals.I think alot can learn lessons from raising your children & putting God first in your life.Yes , they are a reality show, but they weren’t always a reality show.And they didn’t set off having their family with a show in mind.I think the show is a great way to show their testimony for our Lord Jesus, and what life can be like if you put him first in all things.Look at all the people they are reaching for God.I just think its wonderful!

misanthropic_anthropoid
wrote on September 2 2009 @ 09:48 am: [report]

Many on here do indeed seem retarded.

Leftists always complain about intrusions into people’s bedroom, especially if homosexual activity is involved, but when a married Christian couple decides to practice tried-and-true, old-fashioned reproduction, it’s becomes an occasion to trot out their talking points in favor of population control for the sake of the environment, with a sprinkling of their usual vulgarity.

The gossip site editor then directed her attention towards the pregnant wife of the Duggars’ eldest son, implying that the poor woman is doomed to have tons of children without her consent…That’s a bit of projection on your part, Miss Editor, along with some faux pity.

The “author” of this drivel, in her own biography here on TheFrisky.com, described herself as someone who makes “soy lattes and icky smelling chai tea” and “lives alone with her amazing dog Lucca who she’s pretty sure is more awesome than all adorable babies combined.” It shouldn’t be a shock then that she vented such loathing at the conception of two new babies. It points to the one thing that conservatives can do to make secular leftists become completely unhinged: “Be fruitful and multiply.”

amorsalado
wrote on September 2 2009 @ 12:03 pm: [report]

That’s a pretty wide sweeping blanket statement right there Misanthropic.  First of all, I’m pretty far left in my “leftist” beliefs, and an atheist to boot, and I DEFENDED the Duggars and their right to reproduce. 

I don’t think anyone should be able to mandate my (or anyone else’s) reproductive rights, and that includes ALL of them, not just abortion.

Try not to paint all “secular leftists” with the same brush, because if you do that you’re going to find yourself with a face full of paint.

java82
wrote on September 2 2009 @ 12:32 pm: [report]

@lea322 Heh. I was just cracking a (very lame) joke there. Any and every couple have the right have sex their SO simply to express their love for one another.

From what I remember the Duggars saying once, they seem to put blame that Michelle miscarried once due to her birth control pills, so they tossed those out. So I guess I can see why they’re not using any contraceptive, aside from their religion. This is just really about Michelle’s health. Because being a huge family works for them and everyone seems genuinely happy and love each other very much.

GreenAura
wrote on September 2 2009 @ 12:44 pm: [report]

@misanthropic_anthropoid: The Duggars and their 19 children ARE adding to the overpopulation problem of this world.  But as stated in your rightwing viewpoint, “be fruitful and multiply” is the way to go… so long as it involves married, white, American Christians.  If we were speaking of an unmarried, nonwhite agnostic couple, there would be a problem right?

Oh and thank you for your wonderful and completely appropriate use of the word “retarded”.  Just curious.. are retards allowed to “be fruitful and multiply”?

resullins
wrote on September 2 2009 @ 12:46 pm: [report]

I was actually more offended by the broad “retarded” generalization.

I’m registered Republican, but am pro-choice and for gay marraige. I grew up in the Appalachians of North Carolina, in a Southern Baptist family and have 5 siblings. So there will be no more judging!

If you read, no one here is really condemning the Duggars. They take care of themselves and their children. I’m only condemning the people that continue to have children when they can’t afford the ones they have. If the government and tax-payers are paying for the children, then they should have a say.

And the big difference here is that we are doing nothing but stating an opinion. Our opinions do not regulate by law the reproductive rights of anyone. Where as the right-wing sect seems to get their opinions passed into law. Most of our laws can be traced parochially, and that’s just discriminatory.

We can state our opinions all we want. Until they actually outlaw having more than 4 children, get over it.

*sam*
wrote on September 2 2009 @ 01:09 pm: [report]

@misanthropic: Whoa! Hold on just a second. Obviously you didn’t take much time to actually read anyone’s comments. A good majority of them not only mentioned how happy and loving the family seems to be, but how since they can afford them, the government (or anyone else for that matter) shouldn’t really have a say in how many children they choose to have. Furthermore, health issues have been brought up as the main concern of having so many children, not just the overpopulation bit (though that has been mentioned several times as well.)

Likewise, in regards to our opinions on the matter, they are just that, opinions. Believe it or not, we really don’t have that much clout over the general law making processes. Shocking, I know. So please, before you wish to make broad generalizations about us ‘leftist’ (socialist, communist, or whatever else Fox News feels like labeling ‘us’ today) I would appreciate it if you at least took the time to read and comprehend our points. thank you.