Woman pregnant with 18th child

[quote=njqt466;1469371] I noticed that on the first couple of specials as well. The dad definetely has control issues.

I don't know that it shortens a womans lifespan it does however cut down on the amount of money paid for tampons and maxi-pads.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jason_els I hope this show plays in Europe. No, it doesn't! What the Duggar family exemplifies are the issues of fundamental Christians, home schooling and right wing, fringe loonies. They are not the average middle class American family. They are however, a perfect example of how George W. Bush got into office twice; because they believed his line of crap about family values.

NJ... they're just a family trying to survive on their own. I don't attach any sort of political or religious implications on to their topic... because thats just analyzing them WAY too deeply. Sheesh. Regardless of their reasons, they deemed it the right choice to have that many children and raise them in their own way. The family should be admired... as the human race was meant to go out and multiply in fruition (as was any living creature).

The dad probably has control issues because he's raising so many children. I'm sorry... but until we all give birth to and raise that many children... we have NO room to judge that man.

The children, I'm sure... will get good, real world experience once they grow up and are sent out into the world.

I, for one, admire the family.

Quote:

Originally Posted by njqt466 I'm not sure that's true here. The children all appear physically healthy. They go to doctors. They don't just sit home and pray for a broken bone to mend.

I agree, I'm sorry I misunderstood you. That's what I thought I was saying in my last paragraph.

I guess I understand your viewpoint; but I know people like the Duggar family and 80% of the time they are conservative Christians. Regrettably, I have extended family members who live as they do.

As an educator I have always been against homeschooling. there are only 3 reasons people ever give for home schooling their children: 1) Local public schools do not meet average standards 2) Their child needs specialized one on one attention. 3) They don't like their children mixing with those of different faiths, ethnicities, races and spiritual backgrounds.

I have seen homeschool groups come into museums where I have worked and the children are always ill behaved and rambunctious. Why? Because mom will put up with a lot of crap that a teacher won't.

The best behaved school groups were usually the Muslim school groups and the students from the worst parts of local urban areas.

all i have to say is two words: birth control!

I've not seen any of their t.v shows, in fact I didn't know they had any. The family shops frequently where I work and I've not seen anything other than clean-cut, mannerly, healthy, attractive kids. They all speak as if they are receiving a good education. Their father does not seem to instill fear in them.
And, keep in mind that this family is in Arkansas where the public schools are not noted for producing particularly bright students.
The family lives in what they call a house but because it has to house so many people it appears to be institutional. Not in a bad way, just not like the average American has. It is a very nice house with every modern amenity.
The father is a fairly successful real estate investor. I suppose a point could be made that "we" do subsidize them because each of those dependents is a tax credit! When poor black women have lots of kids folks howl and complain about them living on the dole and perhaps a similar charge could be made against the Duggers.
Like many on here, I loathe the religious fundies and they are VERY prominent and powerful in this part of the world. However, I've not heard of the Duggers being a part of any of the local groups.
When I think of the Duggers I can't help but also think of the Polygamists but, honestly, I don't think they share any similarities. At least I hope not!

I had no opinion on it...I watched that one after I had surgery.

Surely that is an idea that quite many children from large families, would already have.

When I did an informal survey, of people I work with and friends, of reasons why people should have many children, one answer somebody suggested, was of course, that people who grow up in large families may have had a good experience, and want to repeat it for their children. Of course other answers were "animalistic" reproductive urges, pass on one's genes, don't believe in birth control, stuff like that too.

Yes, of course children from large families should be encouraged to have "litters" of their own, as one of the practical reasons for encouraging large families and pronatalism, is the natural ENLARGEMENT of the human race, for the greater good of the many.

Yeah, I wish more people would point that out, that so many people for whatever reasons, choose to let their families grow more naturally or fail to ever get around to selecting a "satisfactory" means of "birth control," and contrary to the myth, it doesn't "wear out" their bodies, as a natural function of human life is to create more human life.

The natural function of the human reproductive system, is of course reproduction, which it should be welcome to do naturally, without contraceptive potions and poisons, without supposedly more natural rhythm, just pushing out babies just as fast as the body is able or tries to make them, the natural flow of human life unhindered.

I think large families are quite cool, and represent hope for the future, investment into the future, and a profound respect for the ways of nature or simplisticity, at least in the realm most likely to benefit humans. Besides when families get "that big," that's yet another reason to shun "birth control," as they are already seemingly beyond the "point of no return," "the horse has already escaped the barn," or whatever metaphor best fits welcoming the natural growth of large families or spreading or persisting baby booms.

Oh really? Would nature (or nature's God creator) agree? A human womb is technically, actually a baby incubator. It's purpose isn't merely maintaining the already "huge" size of the human race, but ENLARGING the human race further.

For most all of history, most normal people didn't practice much of any "family planning." Babies came to life when they came, and were generally fairly welcome to be born. Even the demographic terms bear witness to the respecting of the natural flow of human life. "Natural increase," and people having "issue" of children. As if God was "issuing" out the babies, to lots of families who could maybe find some place for more children, many of which families already had several children.

I don't at all agree with the anti-humanity bent of the "family planning" pushers. In the bewildering array of anti-life, anti-nature "birth control" "options," I would like to see the many virtues of the "no method" method, help put it at the very top of the list of "family planning" methods.

I have long advocated that it's okay, and natural, to allow the womb, especially among those few people who might find themselves to be very fertile, to be a rather "busy" place. And while the human womb can stretch to hold many babies at the same time, it even better can naturally push out sometimes rather large families, at just 1 baby at a time, sometimes having a couple sets of twins, in the most newsworther sensationally large families. That's hardly a "clown car" packed to "overflowing" with jammed-in clowns.

I'm glad that you posted again . I don't agree with anything you said but I like to read your posts .

That too, is one of the practical reasons why I advocate that people shun unnatural "birth control" and more relax and welcome the natural flow of human life, unhindered.

Think of the "environmental" implications. Less waste on nonproductive not-producing-human-life tampons or condoms, that can clog sewer systems if not properly disposed of in the bathroom trash can. More towards furthering human life and progress.

Fewer monthly periods is indeed a benefit of larger families and possibly more frequent pregnancies via welcoming human life and natural family growth. And the natural ENLARGEMENT of the "huge" human race, means all the more people around to experience life, a very good thing to encourage, and to help keep us civilized and respectful to one another.

Thanks for the compliment, I think?

But consider what I say, surely most anybody can eventually see some truth or logic in it, contrary to the error-prone ways of the world, of people who seem to want to be dumb-on-purpose, as to anything of God's ways or wisdom.

My main aim isn't merely to amuse or entertain, but hopefully to enlighten and somehow make the world a better place. For humans especially.

All the more a good thing to do, as it slowly becomes just a tad harder, decade after decade, to find too many places all that far from lots of people?

I would love to see more people besides me, post on the possible virtues of encouraging more natural and relaxed, family growth.

Sorry to disappoint?

I've been busy. Sure, I miss checking up on the forums as often as I would like, but often smart people (such as I) tend to be quite busy with other things as well.

My Mom had 4 children, and my brother-in-law has had 7 children so far, and I have seen wonderful large families in Churches I have attended, so I have even some personal experience with large families, and I think it quite understandable how some families can naturally sometimes grow so large, and I agree with most every reason for natural family growth that could be cited.

I don't at all think the world population has grown so dramatically to now, estimated at around 6.7 billion people, by accident, but I believe things happen for a reason, it's according to intelligent design, or according to certain ways of nature, that simply "must be."

I would like to be welcome to have a possibly large family, and for my children to repeat in having large families themselves. That freedom and respect is far better served, in a growing world of people with numerous large families, and a more pronatalist cultural mindset.

I generally circulate cards for people to sign, when somebody I know at Church or work is having a baby. I get compliments sometimes of what a nice thing that is to do. But sometimes I further explain, I am a pro-life activist, I disagree with the immoral decaying social mores and welcome people to enjoy naturally growting their families, and I advocate that the "huge" human population go on growing more naturally and seemingly "unrestrained." The natural flow of human life should be more welcomed, more relaxed, to flow naturally unhindered.

You are so right. Those nasty, rude New Yorkers would be so much more civil to one another, if only there were twice or thrice as many of them.

And more people means more available resources, too. We all know that discarded condoms take up so much more space than discarded diapers.

Old Mother Hubbard... had so many kids, her .... fell out.

Well considering that people have sex, what 1000 times per baby?, are you so sure that condoms take up less space in landfills? Perhaps so, but that is hardly the point.

Enjoying sex the way that nature and God intended, doesn't at all guarantee a baby to come to life, but rather the prospect that another human life "might" come to life. So using condoms guarantees that needless waste will be generated. The point isn't the emphasis on trash, but the emphasis on life. Yes, I advocate that the number of diapers going into landfills grow and grow naturally, but then diapers are a small percentage of trash BTW. Somewhere I heard the figure of $30 per ton to dispose of trash. That's trivial compared to the immense value of yet another human life.

Some decades ago, radical stupid "environmentalist" radicals, stirred up some stupid debate about whether using cloth diapers was supposedly "better" for the environment. They would appear to maybe have a point, as if humans are naturally growing so incredibly numerous and populating more and more densely together, supposedly fewer diapers in landfills might leave more room for people? Well that hardly seemed to be the focus, but anyway some people concluded that washing cloth diapers had impacts too, water had to be heated, bleach goes into sewer lines. So what really makes the difference then? The number of baby's bottoms to be diapered. Which many pro-lifers have long advocated be allowed to rise naturally, as quite many people, for various reasons, don't believe in or have practical or "religious objections" to the use of unnatural "birth control." So the answer to that silly question should be clear. People should use whatever type of diaper helps them to reproduce more, or to relax and reproduce more naturally. Cloth if needed to save some money to better raise larger families, or disposable for convenience. Like a lot of people, I would probably prefer disposable. Or would you also like to use cloth toilet paper, and rewash your toilet paper after use? Besides, our trash occupies quite less space, than it takes even to house so many "burgeoning billions" as there are in the world today.

I don't expect humans to use "birth control" at all, as there's so many ample and better ways that we humans can ADAPT, that don't seek to unnaturally "limit" our numbers. I am quite sure that New York City could hold triple the number of people, but then, if their population triples, there's lots of land all around that big cities can "overspill" into. There's really little need for people to live "on top of one another," if they don't prefer or opt to.

The natural remedy for the powerful reproductive urges that most people nearly constantly feel, is of course, pregnancy. The natural remedy for pregnancy is of course, childbirth. I see the natural flow of babies pushing out, much the same, a natural process, as the heart circulating blood, or allowing people to visit the toilet to handle certain "natural processes" of the body. You feed people, and more babies are going to come to life. That's understandable and to be expected. God commanded people to be fruitful and mulitiply and fill the earth, and so naturally we should expect people to naturally tend to proliferate. And so we find even, that "huge" families with 17 children, do tend sometimes to go on growing. Which is a proper natural process, besides, consider how much experience they must have already raising children? Or would we foolishly consider "tampering" with human fertility that God must have created for some purpose, propose an oppressive 1-child society, with little or no freedom and personal responsibility advocated, in which most parents have little or no experience raising children?

And supposed "educated" ex-purts, fail to consider so many aspects of the population question. A more pronatalist society, I would expect people to behave more civilly towards one another, if more people acted as if every human life is precious and sacred. They should so much better, be able to cope with being all the more vastly and densely populated together, which I see as a far better answer to the growing "force of nature" that human population growth may or may not seem to be becoming. Better to go along with and embrace "what must be," than to "spit into the wind," and try to impose "control" in something that God never meant for us to "control."