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

Smudga wrote:

They are home schooled and have no real social interraction. The only reason this family has been able to have all of these children is because of their church giving them everything they need and them getting government hand outs.

Stuckinbaldwin wrote:

But how will they be able to pay for college if they decide to? They are home-schooled now, which isn't the greatest preparation...

Long Islander wrote:

I guess it's cheaper to live in Arkansas than on Long Island because here if you have just one kid you can barely meet your expenses! I had seen this family on Discovery Channel when they were having # 16 and I thought that they were crazy then! Now I think that they are INSANE! Yes, how many children they have is their choice but come on, isn't it getting ridiculous? EACH child has "chores" to do and the older ones get stuck taking care of the younger ones. Without her older children's assistance Michele Duggar could never handle 18 kids! Isn't that a little like slave labor?! They NEED to be kids! They NEED to enjoy their childhood. Yes, they should assist their family BUT where do you draw the line? These children are all home schooled together because the older ones probably have to help the younger ones!!! I saw the mega house they live in and I would like to know how they can even afford it? Isn't having all these children selfish on the parents part?

UNbelievable wrote:

<quoted text>
Wow - two UNbelievably ignorant statements in one post.
How on earth would you even have a clue as to their social interactions?
And both parents have been very successful in business. They give -- they don't take, which is probably a foreign concept to you.

DiamondsnPearls wrote:

<quoted text>
Not necissarily.
There are a lot of things that people waste money on in our society-
This family puts it's priority in human life, rather than things.
I have 2 sons- 19 and 17. Both do their own laundry, cook full meals on a daily basis, and work. The 19 year old goes to college on a full scholarship, and holds down a full time ob- the 17 year old works part-time, and goes to HS.
Both have to to clean their bathrooms, load the dishwasher, walk the dog, change and launder their own sheets, towels, and clothes, and chip in to clean the general areas of this house (corners, the garage, and they BOTH work on the lawn and garden with us}.
They have social lives, friends, parties, and fun.
Resposibility begins at a young age.
No child has ever gone wrong because they hae responsibilities and are taught at very young ages to be responsible.
Children go wrong when parents let them run free, and be children without any direction, training or structure.
We learn to be responsible adults in childhood. That is what childhood is about- learning to become a responsible ADULT. No child can become one without lessons learned early on.

Jim Bob Steve Mike Doug wrote:

<quoted text>
#18 should be named "Justa-Stop" Duggar. But that's only my opinion.

Jim Bob Joe Mike Steve wrote:

<quoted text>
Jim Bob sure does......
Not only does he have cable, but he apparently has pipe.....and knows how to lay it.

UNbelievable wrote:

<quoted text>
I've met them, and you're correct - they're not very normal. "Normal" is sullen, rebellious teenagers, siblings who can't stand to be around each other, children who need to be prodded or bribed to do the simplest chores around the home, takers rather than givers.
And "socially normal" would mean kids who, like, can't say three words without, like, two of them being "like", are more interested in being cool than relating to others, and are unable to function equally well in a group of adults as a group of their peers.
I think I'd rather have the "abnormal" kids...

Bobbiez wrote:

I guess my question is this...if people who homeschool deserve a tax break because the are not using public school funds...why shouldn't my husband and I not get a tax break because our family is not using up any public funds? We have school no children. Why should we pay to fund other families' kids?

a mom wrote:

<quoted text>
There is a big difference between responsibilities and slave labor. My kids have their jobs to do at home. In this family the older kids do it all. If you read their website you will see how mother states that the older kids get the younger kids ready in the morning (isn't that her job). The older kids teach the younger kids their subjects (thought she was the one homeschooling). One daughter makes lunch for the family the other makes dinner. Is there a reason everyone can't make their own lunch? If I told my daughter she had to make lunch and dinner for her 20 year old brother it would not be a pretty site! If it weren't for the older kids the house would not be running smooth.
I have also wondered. Where are the babies while mom is homeschooling the kids?

peteoo wrote:

<quoted text>
Because they will be participating in providing for your future welfare at no cost to you today.
Would you rather write a check to cover your portions of the county, state, and national debts
since you have no kids to pass your portion on to?
Choose carefully.
What about social security benefits that will be paid by those who work while you move onto (assuming you're not aleady into it) retirement.
I believe that most people receive more from social security than they put in.
Another argument for taxing people to provide schooling and education is they will be the ones who ensure our prosperity as a country in international trade. Maybe you have a whole bunch of gold coins buried in your backyard and plunk them down at the grocery store. I use $ when I buy grapes that were grown in Chile. If you want the $ to be worth anyting in the international currency markets 20 years from now, we'll have to educate the little ones to keep the economy going.
Last of all, I don't think you/we want idiots designing, manufacturing, servicing or flying our current or next generation of military infrastructure.
Or the current one.
I'll be happy to provide directions to your local military recruiting office if you think we haven't provided 'our' kids with a good enough education and you think they're not up to the task.
:)

JD in NC wrote:

<quoted text>
umm... ohhhhkay... and you sound quite "normal" yourself...
Part of what you are talking about is the "normal" development of a human being. These kids are being raised like robots. There is no individuality. How CAN there be when they're being raised as a HERD?? There is no way that these parents are spending QUALITY time with each and every one of these kids. How can you honestly say that these children will be able to function on the same level as adults in the "real" world?

peteoo wrote:

<quoted text>
Just because it happened in my family doesn't mean it is happening in this family.
Let's say that it isn't happening.
Should they manufacture some discontent to make all themselves more believable and the folks on this forum a little happier?

peteoo wrote:

<quoted text>
How much time have you spent with the Duggars?
How can you possibly make the statements you are making? I think you are jumping to a number of conclusions. Let me jump to your question.
I assume you mean 'how can they function on the same level as their peers when they are adults.'
I come from a very large family. I'd say that my brothers and sisters have adapted very well to the world and register on the high end of the bell curve when it comes to achievement. I think we hit right smack dab in the middle of the
"perceived as 'normal'" bell curve.
I still know a lot of the other kids that I grew up with, who were also from large families. They've also done just fine.
I think many who have posted here perceive what it must be like, based on their (limited) point of view. They come up with a negative assessment of the current conditions or future probabilities.
I call that prejudice.
COULD it be bad? Absolutely.
Doesn't look that way to me though.