Arkansas mom Michelle Duggar gives birth to 18th child

[spotbird]

Source: Dallas Morning News

ROGERS, Ark. – An Arkansas woman has given birth to her 18th child.

Michelle Duggar delivered the baby girl by Caesarean section Thursday at Mercy Medical Center in Rogers. The baby, named Jordyn-Grace Makiya Duggar, weighed 7 pounds, 3 ounces and was 20 inches long.

"The ultimate Christmas gift from God," said Jim Bob Duggar, the father of the 18 children. "She's just absolutely beautiful, like her mom and her sisters."

The Duggars now have 10 sons and eight daughters.



Read more: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/121908dntex18thbaby.2c95770.html

---

It's been a few hours, she is probably pregnant again.

[emilyg]

1. Their choice. I wish them well.

[eggplant]

11. As do I

I don't know why it always amazes me that so many people on DU think freedoms should only apply to people who think the same way as they do.

For all the (valid) claims of unbridaled bigotry on the right, there seems to be no shortage of it here either. :-(

[The Straight Story]

26. very well said

I agree.

[leftynyc]

50. Me too

As long as they can afford them, I have no problem with big families.

[itsrobert]

193. As long as they can exploit their children for

ratings and financial gold they will be able to afford them.

[GinaMaria]

194. there is some talk in the loung and on yahoo that

the Duggars have claimed their home as a church and have obtained tax exempt status for their home. A poster stated it was said on their television show. I am having no luck finding a news article that says this and I do not want to watch hours of this show looking for it. If true, they've found a dishonest, imo, way of affording these children.

Here's the lounge link http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=8356473&mesg_id=8356473

The yahoo link is in one of the posts in this thread.

[Lorien]

55. I wish them infertility

I don't have ANY because I feel that it's irresponsible to bring another human into such an overcrowded and swiftly dying planet. The Duggars are both selfish and foolish.

[lligrd]

75. Agreed nt

[Wabbajack_]

84. 18 is crazy

But you should have a couple IF you want them.

[Maru Kitteh]

119. So much judgementalism, so little progressiveism.

Am I selfish because I gave birth?

[superconnected]

150. If you do it 18 times.

[Obamarama]

102. I don't wish them ill, but I sure as hell wish they would cease operating an Evangelical puppy mill

These people are of the ilk that would say about my sexual orientation that I should quietly live my life within a closet, I shouldn't "flaunt" my "lifestyle choice".

Well, guess what? FUCK THEM. I'm tired hearing about their breeding program. If they weren't making their growing brood widely known by accessing the media and "telling their story," then I guess I'd have a more lassiez faire attitude about it all.

But, since they are whoring themselves and their choices out to the media, then fine...they are opening themselves to public scrutiny. And when I scrutinize it, I don't like what I see, just as if they were to scrutinize me they wouldn't like what they see because I happen to be gay. Plus, I'm helping subsidize their multiple litters via a whole lotta tax deductions so I think I have the right to scrutinize that as well.

And, when someone electively produces offspring at this rate, I don't think that using words like "litter" and "breeding program" are inflammatory.

[Sparky 1]

145. That's 162 months, or 13.5 years of being pregnant. UGH!!!!!

[FreakinDJ]

2. Those people need professional help

they are seriously deranged

[spotbird]

3. They have professionals filming their absurdity.

It must be hard to be one of the siblings who has to raise these babies.

[razors edge]

13. You get back what you give.

Who do you think will be there for these siblings when the parents are gone?

[Scairp]

186. I have a problem with this family but not for the reasons given here

There are white supremacist groups out there who claim these people as a wonderful example of a white couple repopulating America with as many white babies as possible. The Duggars must be aware of this, yet I don't believe they have ever denounced these hate groups and disavowed any affiliation with any of them. Until they do that publicly, they can suck it.

[The_Commonist]

4. Well...

[spotbird]

5. They are cute kids

but they look like their father, so we know how the story will end.

[smiley]

7. That's hillarious!

I haven't laughed that hard at a posting for awhile!

[tan guera]

93. I'm still laughing!

[Alter Ego]

130. Ya done beat me to it.

[scytherius]

160. God I may laugh for a week. HAHAHA n/t

nt

[Politicalboi]

6. Hurry! Hurry! Hurry!

Step right up and see the Freak Family. Sorta like the Farkel Family of Laugh-In but without the freckles and red hair.

[rambler_american]

8. Reminds me of an old Groucho Marx joke

Groucho was also the subject of urban legend, pertaining to a supposed response to a contestant who had over a dozen children which supposedly brought down the house. In response to Marx asking in disbelief why she had so many children, the contestant replied "No, Groucho. You don't understand. I really, really love my husband.", to which Marx responded, "I love my cigar too, but I take it out of my mouth once in a while.

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

[Digit]

10. That's a good one!

I used to love watching Groucho, and had forgotten all about it until you mentioned it.
I think I need to do some YouTubing....for the memories.

[InvisibleTouch]

9. I knew a woman who had about 12...

...plus several miscarriages and at least one stillbirth. Though she was past her childbearing years when I knew her (at least, I think so!), she was in constant physical pain, and eternally on the search for a reason or a cure. While there could well have been psychological reasons for her pain, the most obvious answer to me was physical: she never connected it to the fact that her body was utterly worn out from constant pregnancy and childbirth.

[woodsprite]

12. My OB/GYN said that it takes a woman 2 yrs for her body

to recover fully from pregnancy - including calcium depletion. That could have been very well what was up with your friend's physical pain.

[InvisibleTouch]

14. Yup - pregnancy is hard on a body.

I don't even breed my dogs more than once every other year, if that often.

In natural ("primitive") human societies, there are about 2 years between pregnancies, because that's about as long as children are breastfed, and breastfeeding seems to inhibit fertility. Gives the mother plenty of time to recover. Evolution knew what it was doing, so to speak.

[marshall]

173. For that matter, sex itself is hard on a body

People make chioes to have sex or not have sex, have children or not have children, have one child or have a dozen or more.

[hamsterjill]

18. And my OB/GYN cautioned against too many pregnancies

He was of the mind that a woman should limit her pregnancies to no more than three because of the toll that pregnancy takes on the body. He also was very clear about the risks associated with pregnancies after the mother reaches the age of 35.

All personal choices, of course, but I think it is good advice.

At this point, the Duggars are just trying to make the record books and then maintain their standing. It cannot be healthy for those children to have their lives filmed and played out in public.

[Maru Kitteh]

22. It's really great that you have this paranormal insight into the hearts of the Duggars.

Maybe you can tell me what my father-in-law wants for Christmas.

[izquierdista]

27. Paranormal?

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

[Hawkowl]

105. HaHA!!

Too funny!

[hamsterjill]

44. It's not that hard to see what's going on here!

Come on, don't you think they are receiving compensation for that television show? And for that show to continue, it's all about ratings. More births = free publicity!

I suppose you think that every woman in American should be birthin' 18 babies, huh?

[marshall]

47. Every woman in America should have the freedom to be birthin' as many babies as she can afford

And as many as she can physically birth.
I wish this family well and I admire them for their management skills.

[GinaMaria]

65. As many as she can afford?

How about if she can afford 5 but only wants 2 or maybe none? Every woman in America should have the freedom to make an informed choice about her body including pregnancies.

Ever seen a prolapsed uterus? First saw it when I started my nursing career in my early 20's. It made me realize then and there, what choices I would make concerning my future regardless of what I could afford.

[marshall]

72. Afford means more than just money

I would include not only financially affording, but also emotionally, physically, etc. It is a complicated decision that I hope everyone is able to make for themselves.

[GinaMaria]

88. Your use of the word 'should' implies

an obligation on the part of women who can 'afford' under your criteria to have children to do so. What if they can afford to but don't want to? Sounds like you are issuing a mandate.

[marshall]

94. My "mandate" applies to the freedom, not the action

I said they "should have the freedom", meaning that society should not interfere with the freedom to choose. Nothing to do with how they should act one way or the other.

[GinaMaria]

103. Thanks for clarifying.

[Sex Pistol]

97. Oh no...the hair splitters strike again.

[fascisthunter]

67. so, people who are too poor should not have that same freedom?

In general I agree that people should live within their means, and should be financially stable enough for the child, however stating so in this instance implies a verdict on all poor women, therein nullifying choice.

[superconnected]

74. Why America? Why not extend that to all countries and finish the planet faster?

[marshall]

79. Other countries define freedom of choice differently

China curtails reproduction (for the most part) to one child per (heterosexual) couple. Vietnam has recently begun discussion to go to a two child system. Meanwhile some European countries are paying women bonuses for having more children.

To each her own.

[LisaM]

174. I can't agree with that. Overpopulation is a problem.

Have you read how many diapers this family alone has used? Even if they are cloth (which I doubt) the amount of water needed to wash them must be obscene. I think they are selfishly using more resources than they should.

It's been a common tactic in religion to plump up their populations by encouraging families to have huge numbers of children. This is also a byproduct of polygamy - you can have a lot more children that way. God forbid that anyone thinks about the lives or health of the women who have to crank out these babies.

[Skittles]

120. my mum had three babies in 22 months

I be the middle one :o

[LiberalFighter]

15. What is the likelihood this woman would had survive after that many births...

in the 1800's? Bet it was a cause of many early deaths for women back then.

[newscott]

80. It was about 50/50 back then, so not very likely.

[MilesColtrane]

16. A C Section?

Seems like the kid should just be able to cartwheel out by now.

[Ilsa]

17. I wonder if she has had other c sections? It is possible for

the uterus to become scarred and create health problems for the next pregnancy. But they should be able to tell her after this one if her uterus still looks healthy.

[Maru Kitteh]

21. MOST hospitals still sadly have the policy of once a C section, always a C section.

Paranoia, malpractice insurance, old thinking - they all weigh in.

[Thor_MN]

31. Did they suture in a zipper for next September?

[Nihil]

34. Only need a few more and they'll just have to ...

... tear along the dotted line ...
:hurts:

[Ilsa]

87. Some went with V-backs, but changed later. Some docs might allow

a trial of labor, but no pitocin can be used.

[kirby]

24. Her third n/t

[LisaL]

123. Yes she had other C-sections. Child #15 was born by a C-section,

and so was one of the children before that.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5060048/%20

[Manifestor_of_Light]

185. The wear and tear on her bod must be horrendous.

C-sections are pretty rough anyway. It's major abdominal surgery.

I cannot imagine having that many kids plus a few C-sections. I bet her bones and teeth are in horrible shape, not to mention lots of other organs.

In the 19th century women used to say that they lost one tooth for every baby they had.


I think they are irresponsible and they are not being fair to the older girls by enslaving them into taking care of the younger ones.

[PittPoliSci]

60. hahahahaha

that's exactly what i was thinking. another thing i was wondering is how that mineshaft can give pleasure to any man enough to impregnate her for an 18th time.

[toopers]

157. "Like throwing a hotdog down a hallway!"

As quoted from Family Guy, I believe.

[MountainLaurel]

19. Just one more soldier in the Army of God

Meet the Quiverfull Movement.

[Maru Kitteh]

20. A very healthy weight. I don't presume to have the right to curtail reproductive rights for anyone

one way or another.

I wish mother, baby, and family well.

[olddad56]

23. wow

if all of her kids have 18 kids, she could have 324 grandkids. I worked with a woman who had 9 and I thought that was a lot. She was from a family of ( I believe) 12. Her grandmother has 96 grand and great grand children.

[Buns_of_Fire]

29. And if THEIR children have 18 kids, and THEIR children have 18 kids, and so on and so on...

I didn't work out the math, but I think what it comes down to is that, by the end of the century, we could conceivably be up to our ears in Duggars.

[Nihil]

33. And you thought Tribbles were fiction ...? (n/t)

:hide:

[FiveGoodMen]

86. And if everyone did this, disease, starvation and war would probably end the human race by then

[Endangered Specie]

25. to quote Bill Maher... Its a vagina not a clown car!

[JeanGrey]

92. Bill Maher is a clown.

[firedupdem]

28. whew.....

She's a trooper! 2 damn near killed me! LOL!

[gauguin57]

30. Sorry ... but part of this planet's problem is too many people.

Yeah, they're free to have as many kids as they want ... but seriously ... don't you think it's just a bit irresponsible for one family to be sucking up so much of the earth's natural resources?

At this point, I think they're just showing off.

And yeah, I sound mean, but (as our Dear Dumbya would say) SO WHAT?

[Vinca]

32. That's exactly what I thought - breeding humanity out of existence.

Of course at this point I suppose if they don't keep popping them out they won't have a television show.

[dflprincess]

71. If they really loved children and wanted 18 (or more)

they could adopt. There's plenty of kids available if you're not insisting that only a healthy white newborn will do.

[Best_man23]

35. Part of the ESP crowd

ESP=Every Sperm is Precious

[Mad_Dem_X]

38. LOL!

I have a bumper sticker that says: Not Every Ejaculation Needs a Name!

[The Stranger]

36. Please sterilize these idiots.

This is disgusting.

[NJCher]

116. Disgusting II

And what's just about as disgusting are the sanctimonious types who "wish them well" and wouldn't presume to make a judgment.

Meanwhile:





Cher

[Mad_Dem_X]

37. Sick.

I mean, really, who needs 18 children? Do they even take proper care of them all? Do they spend time with each and every one? I know many here will disagree, but this is just irresponsible.

[Seashell Eyes]

39. yes it is irresponsible

I'm sure they spend time with every kid since they home school and home church, but probably not much individual time. The older girls have to raise the toddlers after the newest baby is born and the children have to sign up for one on one time with their own mom or dad. Poor kids.

[The Stranger]

40. Not to mention the fact that the world is already overpopulated, species are being obliterated,

and the environment and ecosystems cannot support yet more human life, more cars, gasoline, energy use, housing, transportation, carbon emissions, solid waste and trash generated, consumption, etc.

Yet, instead of trying save the planet and address the problem, these imbeciles keep exacerbating it.

[Seashell Eyes]

42. that too

I hate it when people make that idiotic claim that the world is not overpopulated because everyone in the world would fit into Texas. It takes more than a few square feet of space to sustain a person. If the Duggars really loved children, they could've adopted after, say, number six.

[superconnected]

151. Remember the adage - if population were a bacteria covering a pond that doubles everyday,

the day before the whole pond is covered, it's only half covered. The day before that, only a quarter.


1750......790 million
1800......980 million
1850...1,260 million
1900...1,650 million
1950...2,555 million
2000...6,080 million

[Lorien]

57. Exactly. 7 billion "miracles" are more than enough! nt

[joeglow3]

41. They may not get as much alone time with mom and dad

but I reserve my efforts for the millions of kids across American who get no attention from their parents. Sorry, but if they are a loving family, take care of their kids & don't do anything illegal, it is their choice.

[gauguin57]

121. It's the "Here, Willow, take Trig" or "Hey Piper, take Trig" or "Hey Bristol, take Trig" syndrome.

:eyes:

[Lorien]

56. There aren't enough hours in the day to give each "quality time"

Mom will spend every waking moment feeding and cleaning up after them, dad will have to make a hell of an income to keep them all in their mormon outfits. There's no time to even get to know any of them before ANOTHER pops out!

And what kind of planet will this litter inherit? I don't have a single child because their future is far too grim for me to contemplate. Dooming 18 to the ills of a hugely overpopulated planet is just sick.

[WriteDown]

77. Sick, I mean who needs 3 children?

The government should issue an order immediately limiting families to 2 children or risk prosecution and fines. If both children die, then you've used up your chances of course. :sarcasm:

I do believe overpopulation(or at least uneven population distribution) is a big problem, but I would not ever try to limit this couples decision.

[treestar]

140. This is the main thing that gets me

Growing up there must be like living at boarding school.

[peaches2003]

43. Just watch the show - Dad is breeding a professional 'family'

Agree with #32. This now has become a source of income and lifestyle for these parents. They trot these children out like trained monkeys (who are anything but normal kids) to bankroll themselves. Trips around the country at no expense but to advertise anyone who gives them $$$, all based on them popping out another one every year. Dad Jim Bob gives me the creeps just looking at him.

[riverdeep]

45. The woman is 42 and she's had 18 kids.

Not much time has gone by that she hasn't been pregnant. Do they get any governmental assistance? Only religion can fuck people's minds up this badly to make them think this is normal or healthy.

[ShortnFiery]

96. I've known women who've had kids, without pumping hormones - naturally - up to 43 years old.

Her baby-making career is probably over. One becomes infertile before going through menopause ... it depends on the chemistry of the woman. I'm 50 years old and STILL waiting to go through menopause. I fee totally bummed out. I'm the only girl and my mother was offered her complementary hysterectomy at the age of 40 y.o. when I was 5 y.o. Back in "the day" (60s) when an middle-aged woman had any GYN problems, the default solution for the DOCs was "here's your complementary hysterectomy" gar-UN-teed to make you feel better. :P

Many sites I've visited (feel free to confirm) estimate that the "average" age of menopause in women is 51 y.o. ... I'm so stoked and chomping at the bit to be "done with it." This old mare is happily staying in the barn. ;) :hi:

[LisaL]

117. Oh pleeeease.

This is one fertile woman. She will probably keep on having them kids until she is 60.

[ThatsMyBarack]

46. What time does menopause hit?

(Checks watch....) Anything yet?

[hatrack]

48. Well, let's see . .. $3,500 X 18 for dependent deductions, $10,900 for married jointly . . .

That's $73,900 right off the bat just from Federal tax filings . . .

[electron_blue]

49. Don't forget the $300 xeach child from the stimulus checks earlier this year.

[hatrack]

51. You're right - another $5,400!

Yowza!

[hamsterjill]

52. Future Republicans

And don't forget the fact that these children are being raised to be future Republican voters, too.

18 more voters!!!

[joeglow3]

61. Don't forget the $1,000 child tax credit for each kid

PLUS, these are refundable tax credits, so (depending on the ages of the kids), they probably pay no taxes and get a 12-18 thousand dollar refund.

[southerncrone]

158. But let's not forget about

public assistance! I'm sure they qualify & GET: food stamps, WIC, make frequent trips to the Health Dept., and take advantage of other free handouts of our tax dollars.

I think the govt. DOES need to limit the number of dependents one can have. They have a ceiling on almost everything else.

WE are subsidizing their sex life. I DON'T LIKE THAT!

[woodsprite]

91. Just think what they'd make if they moved to Alaska!

(sorry, I couldn't help myself ;) ) I hear Todd has some home builder's he could hook them up with.

[peaches2003]

53. The show is pretty secretive about what Dad does

All they say is that he has some "commercial real estate" interests. He's never seen going to work and has all the free time in the world to cart his kids around in their huge RV on trips. Big house, lots of land, obviously plenty of money. Kids dress beautifully, but not like normal kids. They are very fundy- kids always dressed up even for play, never a hair out of place and they are quite robotic. The oldest boy is engaged and going through a formal "courting" process- the young couple is NEVER left alone and have to be chaperoned by one or more of the siblings at all times. So how come they can't be trusted alone? Probably because they think their only job in life is to procreate like Mom and Dad. Creepy!

[peace frog]

66. Cashing in their fertility

Pump out them babies, pile up them sponsorship dollars. New baby, new payday! CHA-CHING!
"Commercial real estate interests", uh huh. :rofl:

[Buns_of_Fire]

101. Now THERE'S an idea for NASCAR!

After all, the cost of sponsoring a racing team is going nowhere but up -- why wouldn't STP, say, be willing to sponsor #12 if he'll wear an STP jacket for all public appearances! They could have lower rates for a simple patch on the sleeve or on the back pocket. Nike, of course, would sponsor the shoes, and JimBob would proudly wear the Enzyte suit. And then, the Family could tour the country, giving footraces on the now-unused asphalt of Talladega, Bristol, Las Vegas, and the rest.

I'm tellin' ya, we're talking about some BIG BUCK$ to be made if this is handled correctly! (And that's one reason -- amongst many -- why I think JimBob has his brains located in the wrong part of his anatomy...)

[CTyankee]

125. Those girls are all wearing the same Prairie dress just like the women in

the Texas cult.

I guess it's her choice but I am just shuddering...

[defendandprotect]

169. Re SHOW ...they must make substantial amounts from it---????

I don't watch it --

I do watch Jon & Kate + 8

And Little people, however

I find Duggers a disgusting "choice" ....

but I doubt the religious right would ever allow them to be in need

of any kind ....

Btw ... anyone know what religion they belong to --??

[Haole Girl]

54. Here are my sentiments on this story:

:puke:

[robcon]

58. No matter how many kids they've had, it's still a blessed event.

Those who want to curtail their reproductive rights are vagina-nazis, IMO.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

127. Nah, I'm content with pointing at them and saying "Idiots."

Leave the curtailing to your nonexistent straw men.

[Dukkha]

59. Tomorrow's headline: Michelle Duggar pregnant with 19th child

she must be part Tribble

[KamaAina]

104. You called it

well, she isn't pregnant yet -- we'll have to wait until Jim Bob can fire up the DVDs of Sarah Palin's speeches for that -- but:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/WomensHealth/story?id=6496127&page=1

Jim Bob Duggar said Michelle started having contractions Wednesday night. She needed the C-section, her third, because the baby was transverse. Jim Bob said both baby and mother were doing well Thursday night.

"We both would love to have more," he said.

:eyes:

[joeglow3]

62. Choice is a two way street

Amazing how people feel comfortable with one side, but can COMPLETELY do a 180 on their views if they don't like something else.

[pitohui]

111. no it isn't a "two way street" when one "choice" is to choose to be a pig

this woman is evil, pure evil, her choice is to be a greedy pig and take a much greater share of the world's resources for her children than any woman should be allowed to take

as far as i'm concerned, if i ruled the world, everyone who had more than two kids would be sterilized, no question of "choice" about it

by allowing this kind of "choice" YOU are creating a world where the intelligent thoughtful non-brainwashed person who plans ahead -- has one or two children -- and the religiously insane person who is incapable of planning ahead or controlling her urges -- has an infinite number of children

hence where we are today, in a world where decent thoughtful people are shouted down by overwhelming numbers of idiots and religious nut-cases

when you allow those who "choose" to breed all they like, the decent people are out-bred by those who can't control themselves and those who under the control of various primitive religions

that's the world YOU are helping to create by shouting out "choice"

nobody should have the right or the choice to be a greedy pig

there is such a thing as right and wrong, and this is just wrong, evil, madness

democracy CANNOT, WILL NOT work for future generations if we support public policy that allows the most ignorant and the most out of control among us to have all the children they please to public acclaim -- while the best and the brightest are having very few children -- over time democracy will become impossible because the decent people will be hopelessly overwhelmed by the religious numbnuts

no one should be celebrated for having 18 children, they should be sterilized and jailed, frankly, so they don't pass on their "ethic" to their children

[Mudoria]

128. Glad you aren't running the world..

[Exultant Democracy]

63. Pretty revolting. I hope that their 10 sons and 8 daughters don't follow in their footsteps

but the fact is the Duggers are just the tip of the iceberg. I lived in Idaho for a little while and there were plenty of families with 6-8 kids. These religions are basically a long term suicide pact for humanity.

[JonQ]

64. Pro-choice it seems means pro-abortion

to some. This lady choose to have kids. She wasn't raped then forced to carry them to term against her will. She choose to do so freely (I'm assuming she's a mentally competent adult able to make such decisions).


Some on here are being as intolerant as the pro-life crowd would be upon hearing a woman had X many abortions. Her body, her choice right?

Maybe she should be forcibly sterilized by the state to prevent her from making the wrong choice?

[GinaMaria]

69. Where did you get your Jump to Conclusions Mat?

That's a pretty far leap in logic. Let's be honest about what people are saying here. The posts here are advocating for family planning. That doesn't mean abortion, it means birth control. No one questions that these decisions are personal choices,. Given the consequenses of having this many births, is it that shocking that people would question the choice. Don't confuse free speech and the formation of an opinion with wanting forcible sterilization. You're stretching this to extremes that are not part of the posts in this discussion.

[JonQ]

70. That's exactly my point

she has family planning available, she choose not to use it. It's not as if condoms, the pill, etc are illegal. And I'm sure shes heard of them. So she had them available and choose not to do it. End of story.

If someone chooses to have kids, despite having access to birth control, and people rail against her they are no longer advocating freedom of choice, they're advocating one very specific choice that they have decided on behalf of someone else. Essentially no different (morally) than those who would ban all forms of birth control. Both groups seek to make decisions for someone else because they believe that other person will make the wrong decision if given the freedom to do so.

I could see the arguments for family planning if it could be shown that she was denied access or education on such matters. But there is no indication that is the case (other than her choice to have many kids).

[GinaMaria]

90. Expressing an opinion is not advocating a specific choice for others

I rail against liver and onions. I have no problem telling anyone how gross and disgusting it is. I do not attempt to ban others from eating it. Having seen many prolapsed uteruses a consequence of having many many children... I can emphatically state that the consequences of her actions are disgusting. I will not however make a move to stop her or change her ability to make a choice for herself. I would hope her doctor has given her the appropriate information to make a truly informed choice. That is between her and her doctor and neither of us can determine how informed her choice is. She did make her decision. I think it is disgusting. Until I saw my first prolapsed uterus, I was headed down the same path this woman took. I started asking a lot more questions from that point forward and getting a lot more information.

As the oldest daughter in a large family I resent that I had to raise younger sibilings. I did not have these kids and I should not have been made responsible for them. I was cheated out of a childhood. The physical consequences are only a part of what is disgusting in this choice. She is free to make this choice, milk the media for attention or profit if she chooses, and she can choose to use her children as free labor, and I am free to say I find it disgusting. I am not free to take away her freedom to choose. I would never Prop8 her or others like her. There are those who find birth control disgusting. They are entitled to their opinion. They are not entitled to take away birth control options from others. There is a difference here morally.

[JonQ]

126. Look up

I didn't really feel like doing an exhaustive search but at least one poster called for them to be sterilized. Not the same as saying that you don't approve of their lifestyle.

[GinaMaria]

136. One poster?

How many would have said the same thing if the article was about a woman who had 18 abortions?

[JonQ]

137. On here?

I doubt very many. And they'd probably be lambasted for trying to tell a woman what to do with her body (sound familiar?).

[GinaMaria]

138. You haven't been around very long have you?

There were posts in the pasts about women having multiple abortions and more than one post called for sterilization, educating the woman etc. I don't think the number of abortions in the article was any where near 18.

This is a sad situation for the children in this family. Most people on this thread support that this is the mother's decision but also recognize how medically disgusting the decision is. Is your argument that this is medically appropriate or healthy?

[JonQ]

139. If they called for women who had abortions

to be sterilized then they were wrong as well, but I find that surprising on here. Perhaps freerepublic.

And having children isn't exactly unhealthy. Women have evolved to do that afterall.

18 sounds like alot in todays society. But actually that used to be closer to the norm than one or two children. So medically appropriate? Between her and her doctor. I assume she's getting enough to eat, not smoking, the usual, so that's probably not an issue. Healthy is kind of the same question, she seems to be doing fine.

But one could make the argument (and many have) that abortions are unhealthy because of the mental trauma it causes the woman. Maybe, I'm not in a position to say one way or the other. I just don't feel that anyone else should be able to order them to do or not do something that involves their own body.

[GinaMaria]

141. not surprising at all

You need to stck around a little longer. So what is your argument here?

What dog do you have in this thread? That one person beside yourself brought up sterilization?

You started this subthread with a huge assumption about the posters here. What exactly is the point you are trying to make?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

153. He wants to expose the hypocrisy of the evil leftists

towards the poor oppressed white conservative Christians.

This DU feature is your friend.

[JonQ]

164. I'm opposed to any forms of hypocrisy

liberal or otherwise. In this case it would have to be hypocrisy from liberals since conservatives aren't exactly pro-birth control.

Are you saying hypocrisy is ok if it's from liberals? To me pro-choice means exactly that.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

176. Some, obviously, more than others.

And ridiculing a couple of RW freaks isn't hypocrisy, it's a correct assessment of reality.

[JonQ]

181. If this were a conservative forum

I'd be criticizing conservative hypocrisy. As a liberal forum there is very little conservative hypocrisy to go after. Understand?

[EstimatedProphet]

156. There's a reason 18 children used to be a lot more common

With a high infant mortality, as many as 15-16 would die. We don't have those kinds of infant mortality rates today. 18 children that all survive to adulthood is an entirely different matter, so that argument doesn't hold water.

[JonQ]

165. Whether they live or die doesn't matter when the question was

"is it healthy for a woman to have 18 kids". If she is capable of it and taking proper precautions it is healthy. What happens to them years after they're born doesn't affect whether it is healthy for her to carry them to term. Which was the question I was responding to.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

175. Most men are capable of carrying 200 lbs weight on their backs

and if they do that too much, the majority of them will have serious health problems.

"Can" and "should" are different words for a reason.

[JonQ]

180. We didn't really evolve

to carry heavy loads all the time. We did evolve to reproduce. The more so the better. How can you dispute this?

[GinaMaria]

184. Please provide a link

that scientifically supports your claim; the more reproduction the better. We did evolve to reproduce. The more so the better. How can you dispute this?<\i>


Our feet have not evolved to walk on concrete, but according to you the female reproductive system has evolved to pop out double digit offspring? What a load of crap. Humans became more fertile with the steady introduction of carbs to their diets. The Agricultural Revolution improved human fertility, but you are at least two revolutions behind. The industrial revolution and now the knowledge worker revolution (cerebral evolution). Please provide scientific evidence and fact that women's health and their lives are improved with increasing numbers of birth.

[JonQ]

189. So evolution favors infertility?

I think you may be confused.

Evolution, if it can be said to favor anything, supports whoever is most successful at spreading their genes. A decent, well educated hard working couple who decides to have no children for moral/economic reasons is "losing" to the highschool dropout with a 70 IQ who knocks up dozens of women and bails on them every time.

"Please provide scientific evidence and fact that women's health and their lives are improved with increasing numbers of birth. "

And now you have tried to put words in my mouth. I made no claims that a womans health was directly tied to her fecundity. I said that from an evolutionary standpoint whoever reproduces successfully the most "wins". You are being, at best, disingenuous when you asked that.

[GinaMaria]

191. I think it is you who are confused

Please provide facts and data for the positions you have taken in this subthread. You have spewed a lot of nonsense based on feeling not fact.

Here's a gem We did evolve to reproduce. The more so the better. How can you dispute this?
Can you define better? Who's life is better with increasing number of children? Nothing disingenuous about asking you to clarify your statements. This is your statement. I didn't make it up and I'm not putting these words in your mouth.

Evolution is about adaptation. Let the HS drop out spawn. His offspring will not adapt as well as the few children of the well educated, who are more likely to see that their kids are educated too, well fed, emotionally developed, and able to contribute as a knowledge worker to our society. Those who make poor decisions, are emotionally damaged or immature, or risk their health are not the people that will do well in the future,no matter how many of them there are. How is it that winning is defined by you simply in terms of numbers? How does the world win, if you leave double digit (18 kids) morons running around the planet. Quality is far better than quantity. Quality of life,of health, of opportunity... take your pick.

Let's review:
You began this subthread with a claim that to some people here, Pro-choice means Pro-abortion, even though no one mentioned abortion. You then morphed this into an accusation that people here were making decisions for this woman. Which was never the case. No matter how many times it was explained to you that there is a difference between making a decision for someone else and having an opinion, you went on about hypocrisy. No one here is talking about going to the supreme court to make decisions for this woman. No one here is suggesting a ballot proposition in which we all get to vote on her reproductive rights or even vote to eliminate her rights. People are expressing an opinion about a family on reality TV. These aren't the people down the street. These are people who hold up their lifestyle as a good thing. It is not a good thing. It is not a healthy practice to repeatedly have children with very little recovery time after each birth. Does it happen? Of course, but not usually 17 times. There are long term consequences to her choices, both to her body and her children's development. You then moved on to expressing some of your own feelings about evolution.

Your feelings about evolution could use some fact checking.
And having children isn't exactly unhealthy. Women have evolved to do that after all. <\i>
Since the main topic is about a woman who just delivered her 18th child, please show something scientific and fact-based that explains how women's bodies have changed and adapted to have double digit off spring, or clarify your statement.

When we were nomadic our diets were based on what we could find or what we could hunt. Not a lot of carbs. As a result, human fertility was slower than it is now. Women reproduced every few years. This was a result of diet and of circumstances. As nomads, it didn't make sense to have another child before the first one could walk or run. Carrying two would have decreased survival of mother and children.

As the idea of farming caught on our diets changed to include carbs which did improve our fertility. In an agri society, it also meant that having more children would increase the number of people working on the land. We adapted to that. Our world has changed. We are in a different revolution right now. The name of the game has always been adaptation. It's how people have done more than survived. It's how we've thrived. (The same holds true for business.) Those who are not educated, not able to make fact-based decisions, and do not continually learn, grow, change and adapt, will be left behind. Again it's the Quality vs. Quantity issue. Just creating warm bodies and putting children to work for the family is a very old idea and one we have outgrown. It does not serve us as a species right now nor will it in the future.

If you can pick up a copy of the 7 Daughters of Eve, it is worth reading. Very eye opening about genetics and evolution.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

[GinaMaria]

163. Women have not evolved to breed like farm animals

Human evolution has been cerebral. Our decisions come down to a choice between the reptilian/limbic brain (make more people) and our higher reasoning (ability to consider facts, envision impacts on the future and weigh the consequences and big picture). There's a reason MDs tell women to wait 3 years between pregnancies. This is an accepted and researched standard of care. Not waiting is less healthy for the mother and child physically and emotionally. Considering the pyschological and emotional impact on other children in the family and other family members is part of higher thought processes. Being able to determine impacts up and down stream are a result of our evolution. It is our choice which part of our brains we use to make decisions.

Once again, no one is ordering this woman to do or not do something, but that truth contradicts your view of people on this site. It is however the reality. You've been grossly dishonest in this entire sub thread.

[JonQ]

166. Not really

I'm not the only one to point out the inconsistency.

Besides which, she isn't being "bred like a farm animal". That is an absurd claim to make.

And saying it is medically wrong because of the "psychological and emotional impact" is silly. There is no set standard for either of those things, it's entirely up to the individual. There are some people that aren't emotionally equipped to have any children. And some are perfectly capable of having one, two, or more. Trying to set one standard that must apply to everyone is foolish. Let them have the kids if they want, why is it any of our business? They aren't being abused or neglected (which would make it our business) and they seem healthy and happy enough. There are far worse parents that we should concern ourselves with.

[GinaMaria]

167. Please provide links

No where did I state this particular woman was being bred like a farm animal. My statement was in response to your comment Women have evolved to do that afterall.
Please provide links that demonstrate how women have evolved to have 18 plus children. Doctors disagree with you and this family.

The medical standard is 3 years between pregnancies. This is a physical requirement to replenish iron stores etc. If you have evidence of another standard please provide a link. As it stands, the AMA is the authority on medical standards in this country. The medical standards of care are based on research and testing. What are your 'standards' based on?

And once again, I have never stated it was anything other than my opinion, but recognizing that seems to be against your interest here.

By what standard are you judging that they seem to be healthy and happy enough? I really don't see any way for you to determine this.

[GinaMaria]

187. Hello?

Anything? Are you still looking?

[JonQ]

190. You mean provide a link

to 100,000+ years of human history? Yeah, sure.


Let's look at a few facts: humans are reproductively viable on average from 15-44 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate). We take 9 months to gestate (you need a link for that?) So that is on average 29 childbearing years. Even if you space them 3 years apart (essential to survival, as you claim) and there are no multiple births (twins are no doubt unhealthy as well) that's about 10 kids per/woman. Not that far from 18. And that's spacing it pretty far apart. Every two years would give you 15. Starting to see where I'm going?

So woman are perfectly capable of having 10-15 children without any greater strain than they have evolved to bear. ONly in western nations, and only recently, is having more than 4-5 kids seen as freakish, offensive, or farm animalesque. A cultural, rather than biological distinction. And since we're talking about evolution here, not morality, biology should be the main issue.


And if the only concern is the mothers health then I would advise not having any kids, ever. Even a healthy woman with plenty of food, vitamins, pre-natal care, etc is still put at a not insignificant risk at every pregnancy. So medically I'd say everyone should stop reproducing entirely. Apparently some people feel the risk is worth it. (can you honestly say any woman is physically healthier as a result of pregnancy than she was before?) I'll leave the choice up to them thank you.

"By what standard are you judging that they seem to be healthy and happy enough? I really don't see any way for you to determine this. "

Every report I've seen suggests they're both. I see no evidence to the contrary. I will withhold my judgment until I see evidence to condemn this as evil child abusers, you should do the same. It is possible to have a large, happy family. I'm getting the impression that that was not your experience, but that is not statistically relevant. There are small families (only children) who are beaten, starved abused by their parents. I'd hardly say that condemns the small nuclear family.

I'm curious, why is this such an emotional issue to you? I'm looking only at the facts. You seem to see some deeper, more sinister trend here that is absent in the article. Why?


_______________________________

edit: so to sum up these are my major take home points.
1) She is capable of having these children (she has done it, it's hard to claim it's impossible now).
2) It is possible to have 18 children in your lifetime and still not be guaranteed to die in childbirth (I have provided evidence for human reproductive potential).
3) It is her choice to do with her uterus what she pleases, not ours. (no links for that, but I wouldn't want to be the person arguing that we have the right to tell her what to do with her body, a losing standpoint to start with).

[GinaMaria]

192. Your conclusions are way off as they have been throughout

this subthread.

Let's look at a few facts: humans are reproductively viable on average from 15-44 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate ). We take 9 months to gestate (you need a link for that?) So that is on average 29 childbearing years. Even if you space them 3 years apart (essential to survival, as you claim) and there are no multiple births (twins are no doubt unhealthy as well) that's about 10 kids per/woman. Not that far from 18. And that's spacing it pretty far apart. Every two years would give you 15. Starting to see where I'm going?

First, there is no reason for sarcasm. We are having a discussion on topic in which we have found much to disagree about. Oh well. Second, this comment(essential to survival, as you claim)<\i>. I did not say it was essential to survival. It is essential for optimum health for both mother and baby. It's done to create the best possible outcome for those involved. Third, let's please do look at the facts. It is not recommended that teenagers have children. Their babies tend to be less healthy, they have higher risk pregnancies and it really does not benefit us as species for 15 year olds to be pregnant.

So woman are perfectly capable of having 10-15 children without any greater strain than they have evolved to bear. ONly in western nations, and only recently, is having more than 4-5 kids seen as freakish, offensive, or farm animalesque. A cultural, rather than biological distinction. And since we're talking about evolution here, not morality, biology should be the main issue.

The issue has never been capability. Certainly women are capable of it. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. The question becomes is this the healthiest choice? What are the impacts? All the things that have been brought up in this thread.

And if the only concern is the mothers health then I would advise not having any kids, ever. Even a healthy woman with plenty of food, vitamins, pre-natal care, etc is still put at a not insignificant risk at every pregnancy. So medically I'd say everyone should stop reproducing entirely. Apparently some people feel the risk is worth it. (can you honestly say any woman is physically healthier as a result of pregnancy than she was before?) I'll leave the choice up to them thank you.

Finally, thank you. This is exactly the point. A cavalier attitude about, 'women have evolved to do this," or brushing this off as simple is dishonest. There are consequences of pregnancy and of having children. Those consequences increase with each child. These weren't always known, but we know more now. This is what makes this woman's choice so baffling and why so many have an OPINION about it.

"By what standard are you judging that they seem to be healthy and happy enough? I really don't see any way for you to determine this. "

Every report I've seen suggests they're both. I see no evidence to the contrary. I will withhold my judgment until I see evidence to condemn this as evil child abusers, you should do the same. It is possible to have a large, happy family. I'm getting the impression that that was not your experience, but that is not statistically relevant. There are small families (only children) who are beaten, starved abused by their parents. I'd hardly say that condemns the small nuclear family.

First, health can be measured. My point is that neither of us has this information so we really can't say. We haven't seen her blood work. We don't know the findings of her physical exams. All we see is what is shown on camera for a television show. My point is we can't determine her health or happiness. Second, and this is has been typical of the discussion with you, you bring up something new and completely unrelated to the discussion. Who said anything about child abuse? Yes there are all different sized families that can experience abuse. Abuse was never a point here.

I'm curious, why is this such an emotional issue to you? I'm looking only at the facts. You seem to see some deeper, more sinister trend here that is absent in the article. Why?

This is not an emotional issue for me. I've kept the topic health related. You may be looking at facts but you are not writing facts. You are promoting the idea that this type of thing doesn't have to be thought about, just do it, it's what you were meant to do as women, push out as many as you can. My point has been that what you are promoting is not accepted medical practice. What is sinister about that?


_______________________________

edit: so to sum up these are my major take home points.
1) She is capable of having these children (she has done it, it's hard to claim it's impossible now).

Here we go again. No one ever claimed it was impossible. How is it you get so confused in this discussion. This discussion was about health.

2) It is possible to have 18 children in your lifetime and still not be guaranteed to die in childbirth (I have provided evidence for human reproductive potential).

Again? No one said anything about maternal mortality. Yes, we have been talking about reproductive potential, but just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should. There are a lot of things to consider.


3) It is her choice to do with her uterus what she pleases, not ours. (no links for that, but I wouldn't want to be the person arguing that we have the right to tell her what to do with her body, a losing standpoint to start with).

Seriously? Really? How many times does this have to be stated? No where in this discussion have I stated that I want to or that I feel I should make decisions for this woman or any other. I have been stating my opinion. Why do you refuse to get this point? I could not state it any clearer. It is fine that you do not have the same opinion as I do. That's why we participate in boards like this. It is not fine to be deliberately obtuse!

[marshall]

108. Remember the single stay at home mother of ten last month?

Ae 29 with ten children ages 13 to a few months--no job and no partner. She was appealing to the folks of her local town for help.

[JonQ]

124. I don't think that's really a fair comparison

as the duggers seem to be a relatively stable and self-sufficient family.

[LanternWaste]

131. I see a precise and relevant difference...

Seems to me that a woman choosing to prevent an unwanted pregnancy is being quite a bit more responsible in her choice than is a family who decides to enlarge the carbon footprint by a relatively large amount by their choice.

I see a precise and relevant difference (both legally and morally) in a) criticizing a family for the irresponsible consequences of their choice, and b) legislation designed to prevent a woman from making medical choices for herself.



We have a choice to buy an environmentally friendly vehicle or a hummer. The act of making the choice is rarely criticized, nor is the concept that allows us that choice... but there's plenty of room to criticize the consequence of that choice.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

132. Yeah, coz there's no such thing as BC pills. We evil leftists want everybody to ABORT ABORT ABORT!1!

:eyes:

[Javaman]

68. I guess it's time for me to post this again...

Javaman (1000+ posts) Tue Jun-26-07 05:26 PM
Response to Original message
31. This just in...
Upper Volta (ap)-

Woman gives birth to entire nation. Yesterday, Mrs. Matilda Phlapswitch gave birth to the nation of Swankenstien after giving birth to an unprecedented number of babies.

Last count as of 10 PM last night was 20 million. The mother is said to be doing fine but still doesn't believe in birth control.

She was quoted as saying, "it's god will for me to be birthin' a nation".

medical scientists are still at a loss to explain the massive birth. Dr. P.F. Pealy of the New College of Medicine in the new capital of Phlipsberga in Swankenstein said, "well, we knew she was getting big when we had to use a military heavy lift helicopter to transport her to the hospital.

Mother and nation are reported doing find. She was last seen breast feeding the children via a mass cow herd milking device.

[superconnected]

73. Glad she's healthy. The mom and dad still need a mental health exam though - and a free trip

to a third world country to see all the homeless and starving children.

[superconnected]

76. I always wonder what would happen if they got a divorce.

As it stands, I'll just wait for the kids to get older and spill the abuse beans on how they were full time child nannys and didn't get a real education. And, I fully expect one or two to write a book about the experience and to show up on talk shows - speaking against their parents.

[southerncrone]

159. My prediction:

At least 2 will end up being drug addicts.
At least 2 will end up as "preachers"
At least 1 will be arrested for pornography of some sort.
At least 1 of the girls will have NO kids
At least 2 will be working for Tyson Foods.
At least 2 will be working for Wal-Mart.
Most of them will end up on welfare of some sort.

I'd like to see their ACT or SAT scores.

[Sultana]

78. NASTY!

[Thickasabrick]

81. When she "weans" one, an older kid takes over. This is just sick nt

[Sentath]

82. jor dine grace mack ee ya ?

Language Abuse

P.S. assembly line child rearing is no longer the norm, these people are weird

[dipsydoodle]

83. Misread that : thought it said 18lb child

I thought fuck - I bet that made her eyes water.

[Chicago1]

85. They are being watched by the State of Arkansas

If I were them, I would be careful. They're not kidding anyone. The state is goign to step in if the situation becomes dangerous and unbearable. They're dumb.


START THE IMPEACHMENT!!!!

[No Elephants]

107. Is Arkansas giving them welfare checks to help feed and clothe those kids while it watches?

[brentspeak]

89. Eight-TEEN is enough???

Good grief, these people are not smart. And the older children will be spending their entire childhoods being babysitters - not much of a 'childhood'.

[friedgreentomatoes]

95. Their wish..

Just like I don't want anybody trampling my reproductive rights and telling me what to do with my body, I don't want people dictating them either.

How many children IS acceptable to the people here? 4? Well I guess there are atleast 14 childless couples elsewhere who make up for their having so many.

And what do you say to fundies when they ask you "what if everybody started aborting their fetuses?" I will say the same thing to answer "what if everybody started having 18 children?"

[Enrique]

98. now the kids can play baseball

Duggar boys vs. Duggar girls, if one of the boys doesn't mind playing as a girl. Parents can be the coaches.

[No Elephants]

99. Having babies for Jesus, just like the Virgin Mary.

[Obamarama]

100. I wonder if Jim Bob will mount and breed her immediately again, or will he let her rest up some?

These people are operating an Evangelical puppy mill.

[No Elephants]

106. Would YOU delay, if you were helping create the population that will take back America for

God, so that the Rapture finally comes and we all get to go to Heaven? Of course not. Neither would Bob. He on it!

[Arugula Latte]

133. Jim Bob Duggar ... Gettin' it up again and again for Amurika and Jesus!

[superconnected]

152. She only had one. Yes, she named it with a 'J'.

[alfredo]

109. How many years has she been pregnant.

[undeterred]

129. Enough to save a lot of money on 'feminine' products.

[alfredo]

149. she's been pregnant 13.5 years. Could she be addicted to the hormonal

changes, or is she just nuts?

[carlyhippy]

110. wasn't she going to film this for the tv show?

18 kids, I don't know how they keep up with that many kids, I would have probably left about 4 of them accidently in the store, 2 is plenty for me to keep up with.

[xyouth]

112. Everybody sing!!

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.


Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.


Let the heathen spill theirs
On the dusty ground.
God shall make them pay for
Each sperm that can't be found.


Every sperm is wanted.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.

[RainDog]

113. hey, you kids! get out of my vagina! (cue circus music)

I wouldn't have anything to say about this woman and her family if she did not purposely make herself a media clown-car circus. however, she does. I wonder if she and her husband will start putting sheets of married daughters out on display to prove their virginity on wedding nights. maybe for ratings week.

after all, the unadvertised, non-sponsored by a commercial entity and broadcast to all life is not worth living.

[laureloak]

114. Greedy and self-centered parents, those Duggars.

They should leave room on the planet for the other millions of people who want to have one or two offspring.

[hyphenate]

115. lol!

I don't hate the Duggars--they've provided plenty of amusement for me these past few years with their "know no limit" form of "birth control."

On the other hand, I despise some of their known qualities: they are fundies, they're repukes, and they're anti-choice. So yeah, while I don't hate them, I think they're beneath my contempt.

They can afford to have the basic essentials of life, with both parents real estate brokers and the lower cost of living where they live. So if they want to raise the next generation of stupid idiot service industry workers (read: McDonalds), so be it. Paying attention to each child's unique learning problems and requirements seems out of the question, IMHO. I personally would rather see a family of 4 (with two kids) because the children will get the attention they might need. But that's just me. I was the oldest of 4 children, but in today's world, even four is a question.

I seriously think that this woman (Michelle Duggar) is a nut, and I'm not afraid to say that. The husband is just an asshole of the highest order. What's gonna happen when she can't have any more kids, and the publicity (and cash cow) end of it is gone forever? They're not into it for ALL benevolent sakes, let's face it: like many current day fundies, they've got their greedy little hands on a large portion of the financial pie.

Regardless, my relatives are in a large part Irish Catholic. We used to make fun of all the large families because we'd say that the father obviously couldn't keep his dick in his own pants. Then along comes the Duggars and puts everyone of my large family to shame!

Nah--a clown car is what they really are. Either that, or they tie Momma Michelle to the bedposts and Jim Bob gets his way every single time. Remember that episode of X Files, called "Family?" I somehow get that very image when I think of the Duggars, and I cringe. For a group so eager for Armageddon, they sure are making plans for the future enough.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

118. I think this may the end of their breeding program

I had 2 C sections. I was told, and I have since read, the limit is three because the uterus becomes very weak and could rupture where the previous incision is during another pregnancy and/or labor. These people piss me off.

[LisaL]

122. Jim Bob said they both would like to have more.

From what I can gather she now had three C-sections. This birth (baby # 18) was by a c-section, and her 15th child was by a c-section, and one of the previous children was by a c-section.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5060048/%20

[Arugula Latte]

134. I can't believe she had so many VBAC kids ... Very dangerous.

She had C-sections and then afterwards gave birth vaginally several times? ... Wow, that is pushing it, especially after all those previous kids. Her uterus is due for a major rupture.

[LisaL]

143. Yep. 3 C-sections, 18 kids total, and she is 42 years old.

I think that they are getting into the territory where it could become dangerous for her to have more children. Yet Jim Bob says they want more. I wonder what her gynecologist is telling her about having more kids.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

154. Choosing the health, nay, the LIFE of the mother over the chance of churning out more drones

is un-Christian!

[PretzelzRule]

182. Oh, no worries...

like another poster to this thread said, they'll just fix Michelle up with a zipper for the next time :rofl:

[Book Lover]

135. That's why we call it choice

I wish them all health and happiness.

[LisaL]

144. Them having a choice doesn't mean I have to approve or like it.

:eyes:

[Book Lover]

147. Why the eyesroll at me? I never said

you had to do anything of the sort.

[slackmaster]

142. I've read that other than the tax exemptions, they aren't collecting any public assistance

No AFDC, no food stamps, etc.

For me that makes the story a big non-issue. Mildly interesting that a couple can be so "reproductively fit", but they're not hurting anyone but maybe themselves.

[rebecca_herman]

146. they are really stretching it with the J names

Jordyn-Grace? Jinger?
I wouldn't have 18 kids because - well, I just don't want that many but, it's her body her choice. I want 2-4 and some might consider the upper end of that excessive. *shrug*

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

155. Linux to the rescue!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4705930&mesg_id=4705930

[zelta gaisma]

148. do you think they are trying to out populate the "unbelievers"?

[Myrina]

161. Disgusting and irresponsible.

n/t

[fjc]

162. Maybe someone should tell them what's causing it.

[defendandprotect]

168. "WHY?" was my question, but I see the answer is "god" ...!!!!

[JI7]

170. and Jim Bob wants to run for public office ?

who the fuck is going to take care of the kids. oh, yeah, the older kids take care of the younger ones already.

[TrogL]

171. It's a vagina, not a clown car

[bookworm65t]

172. She needed Lamaze???

Did anyone see the last episode of their show on TLC? She and her husband attend a Lamaze class with other expectant couples.

I laughed so hard I couldn't see for a while. I didn't know that that a woman with a large family still needed Lamaze instruction.

:silly:

[dugaresa]

177. "Ohh, get that, would you, Deirdre?"

that is what I am thinking happened.

good luck to the family...it is their choice.

[Ellen Forradalom]

178. It's not the size of the family that makes me squeamish

it's the pimping of the family and the trumpeting of their values on TV that does. My values are not worse than theirs even if I have only one child and let him read what he wants.

[foxfeet]

179. Her vagina is no longer a clown car.

It has officially become a machine gun.

[Endangered Specie]

183. Does this woman even remember what a period is like?

[JitterbugPerfume]

188. that is disgusting