Happy Mother's Day: Woman pregnant with 18th child

Phyllis Diller wrote:

<quoted text>
True, but I bet my meat flaps are still nicer than hers, and I have many more years on me!!!!

My guess her meat flaps shriveled
up and fell off by now.All that wear and tear eeeww!!

chickie wrote:

<quoted text>Lose sight of your defense huh???

What the heck are you talking about??

JJJ wrote:

I'd put money on it they are mormon. I didn't read through all the comments...but...seriously...A rizona (hello?!),

Ummm...no. It's Arkansas, not Arizona.

They are not Mormon, but rather extremely conservative Christians. One of the TV shows even features them going to a Bill Gothard conference. Google "Bill Gothard." Quite the program!

If the Duggars are following all of Gothard's contorted rules...including the days when Michelle is "clean" and "unclean" for intimacy, its a complete set up for frequent pregnancy--because a woman must abstain for about the first 12 days of her cycle.

Baby Mama wrote:

<quoted text>Hey there. They are wealthy. Did you catch that part?

I have to wonder where that rumor came from. Did you see the houses that they rented prior to building their current house? Not exactly the lap of luxury. And as I said in a previous post, a good part of the construction/furnishing costs of their current house were paid for by the Discovery Channel in order for them to get a show done in the time frame they wanted to finish it. No, Discovery may not be giving a cash payout of much to people they feature on their show...but how much do you think that house and all the furnishings are worth?

I would like to suggest that those here who really want to reduce their carbon footprint by not having kids and tellign everyone else not to do so go one step further and throw themselves off the nearest brige. Then you will no longer use valuable resources. Funny you think the next generation should not be born, so as to save the planet, but I don't see you offering your life to save it.
And while we're at it, I also think that part of the problem with our population growth is that people are living too darn long due to medical advances. I say let's forget anyone over 65, they are just a drain on our valuable resources, too.

Brett Weir wrote:

<quoted text>
I once dated this chick that had her uterus pimped out by Seka herself. You should have seen it, it had a pair of fuzzy dice hanging from one lip, an italian horn hanging from the other, there were mini Bose speakers set up behind the flaps...... I really enjoyed her. I forget her name .......oh well.

Who is this "Seka", and how can I hook my wife up with her? Is she local?

Told Ya wrote:

1. If they are home schooling their children using a system similar to the one in PA, then guess what? they are getting asistance.

Huh? In PA, "Homeschooled" families get NOTHING from the state, but they still pay school taxes. Families that opt to use "cyber charter schools" are not "technically" homeschooling. Those families get a computer, reimbursement for internet connection, curricula materials, and consulting teachers. In all, the CyberCharter school gets $8000 to pay for these materials as well as the consulting teachers.

If those same children went to public school, approximately $13,000 per year would be spent on them.

So it seems to me that children who are homeschooled or are enrolled in cyber-charter schools actually save the tax payers money.

I think the kids should all chip in and buy mommy a new uterus for Christmas?

Whatta ya think?

.....or do they even know what money is?

one down wrote:

I guess I'd rather see a stable relationship produce a baseball team rather than 18 single moms with no support from their babby daddies

You make a good point, but still, 18 kids? Ridiculous. Can dad say vasectomy??

Mom of 4 wrote:

<quoted text>
I have to wonder where that rumor came from. Did you see the houses that they rented prior to building their current house? Not exactly the lap of luxury. And as I said in a previous post, a good part of the construction/furnishing costs of their current house were paid for by the Discovery Channel in order for them to get a show done in the time frame they wanted to finish it. No, Discovery may not be giving a cash payout of much to people they feature on their show...but how much do you think that house and all the furnishings are worth?

Hey mom did you see the first or second show they said they owned a diner and he used to buy cars and fix them up and sell them,they also sold the diner too. I can't imagine this money they made that long ago is still around.Their house is incredible so they have got to be getting money from somewhere.

Rick wrote:

Reminds me of the time on "You Bet Your Life" when Groucho Marx interviewed a lady who had 23 children.
"Why so many children?" Groucho asked.
"Well, I just love my husband!" the woman said.
"Well, I love my cigar, but I take it out of my mouth once in a while!" replied Groucho.

Ha!! Best reply of all! She definitely needs to 'put a cork in it'

Mom of 4 wrote:

<quoted text>
It's not even just the clothes...which I could *sort* of stomach as an "environmental" guesture to recycle the clothes. But did you look at the food in their pantry? They are feeding their kids absolute JUNK with very little nutritional value. My stomach just about turned when I read the recipe for their "tater tot casserole" on their website.
It's not like my kids never eat junk food. But we have a fruit tray out at nearly every meal, and the veggie tray usually makes it out for dinner. We try to serve a variety of healthy protein, whole grain products, and fruits & vegetables.

I thought the same thing. My son and I both get migraines from MSG. Try cooking cheap without it. Adding canned soup to everything is gross.

Mom of 4 wrote:

<quoted text>
I think you may be on to something with the "Munchausen-by-Proxy " idea.
However, you may want to review the definition of "fornicate." The Duggars do not seem to be guilty of that.

This post is very funny!

oh deer wrote:

I would like to suggest that those here who really want to reduce their carbon footprint by not having kids and tellign everyone else not to do so go one step further and throw themselves off the nearest brige. Then you will no longer use valuable resources. Funny you think the next generation should not be born, so as to save the planet, but I don't see you offering your life to save it.
And while we're at it, I also think that part of the problem with our population growth is that people are living too darn long due to medical advances. I say let's forget anyone over 65, they are just a drain on our valuable resources, too.

while i don't condone having 18 kids... i assume that you value life... well, lives that exist are more important than lives that don't. use birth control - these people don't even try! again as we have stated, the more americans there are. the less there is for those in third world countries like africa. i'm not suggesting the redistribution of wealth, but selfish decisions have consequences, so do conscious
socialy responsible decisions.

i chose not to have children of my own, instead i helped my husband raise his two children who grew up in our household. it has been a rewarding experience and i now have two wonderful grandchildren. experienceing the birth process is not essential to validating my worth as a woman and a mother. there is a larger responsibility.

my apologies... I KNOW africa is not a country, i meant third world REGIONS!

change agent wrote:

my apologies... I KNOW africa is not a country, i meant third world REGIONS!

Africa isn't a country?

I was going to go there.

Darnit!!

NUNYA wrote:

<quoted text>
You couldn't be any more clueless. The person who you're bashing in this post b/c she "doesn't have any love for herself??" Actually, I'm sure this person not only has a love for herself, but has the ability to care about global matters. You apparently only have the ability to love yourself and can't see things from a global perspective.
People like you should NOT be having kids b/c you're only teaching them to be selfish little monsters...only caring about themselves.

ok, so maybe you are right... but answer this: what is the point of this whole globe if there is not anyone living on it? why should people be told how many kids they can or can not have? and since when does a life have such little value? that would be just like telling people that once they turn 70, they need to die because they are causing damage to our earth, their air machines are taking up too much room, etc.

or once I can say that at least none of those kids are being "abused" in their cult like family.

You can't say that based on the little you see. There are children abused everywhere that no one suspects because the public face is so different than the private one.

oh deer wrote:

I would like to suggest that those here who really want to reduce their carbon footprint by not having kids and tellign everyone else not to do so go one step further and throw themselves off the nearest brige. Then you will no longer use valuable resources. Funny you think the next generation should not be born, so as to save the planet, but I don't see you offering your life to save it.
And while we're at it, I also think that part of the problem with our population growth is that people are living too darn long due to medical advances. I say let's forget anyone over 65, they are just a drain on our valuable resources, too.

"oh, Deer"...you just may be my new hero!!!!!!!!!

oh deer wrote:

I would like to suggest that those here who really want to reduce their carbon footprint by not having kids and tellign everyone else not to do so go one step further and throw themselves off the nearest brige. Then you will no longer use valuable resources. Funny you think the next generation should not be born, so as to save the planet, but I don't see you offering your life to save it.
And while we're at it, I also think that part of the problem with our population growth is that people are living too darn long due to medical advances. I say let's forget anyone over 65, they are just a drain on our valuable resources, too.

No one is telling anyone NOT to have children. No one is telling this Prairie House couple that either. This is just a forum of ideas and comments..some better than others; some dumber than others, some smarter than others-who cares! It's not rocket science. I think most people are saying..18 kids!! Please, give it a rest, give her a rest. And, there will be more-you just have to know that. I'll tell you why I think a dozen and a half is abusive-you didn't ask..but that's the beauty of this anonymous ranting. Those smilin' Stepford children will never really be children..not for long anyway; and that smilin' Stepford mommy-what do I say about her-a frumpy woman who has been brainwashed into thinking her only person on the planet is to pro-create. I think the children will be the caretakers of the younger ones forever and daddy will never lack attention, will he? Perhaps daddy should really think about putting a combination lock on his zipper and then forgetting the combination. Or, have a vasectomy! This way there is no heavy lock to lug around between his legs.
To your other comment about people over 65; you think 65 is old? Oh dear, deer ! Not anymore it isn't.