Only in Arkansas…

Posted on August 3rd, 2007 by Christine.
Categories: Current Events & Politics.

Since this is sort of a “relationship” site of sorts, I thought this was apropos… a couple in Arkansas just gave birth to their 17th child.
Michelle and Jim Bob Duggar already had 16 children when they decided to pregnant with their 17th. All the children’s name start with the letter “J,” but I’m worrying if they don’t stop soon, they’ll have to switch to another letter as the names are running out.

Here’s a pic of the family visiting Mom in the maternity ward. How many mini-vans does it take to haul 16 kids to the hospital?

3889_1186147712.jpg

Now, if the family is happy and the kids are all well cared for, who am I to judge, right? I just hope Michelle and Jim Bob took into consideration that every family’s resources are limited, and at some point, having to split a finite pool of resources once again for an additional child will mean that you aren’t providing the best possible for the existing children by adding more. From these pics, though, it seems– at least on the surface– they haven’t hit that point yet.

duggars.jpg

18 comments.

Why Mexico Is A 3rd World Country »« Deal of the Century: Oceanview Lots - Hawaii!

Mara the Peacemaker pontificated

There was a news story on this family when they had their 16th child which I remember very well.

I was reading that based on the number of pregnancies, Mrs. Duggar has been pregnant for a quarter of her life.

August 3rd, 2007

Christine the Lioness stated

I do, however, just because it’s so far from the norm, have to wonder what this couple gets out of having so many children. I mean, people have kids for different reasons whether it be religious, or they feel bigger families mean more support for each other, etc. But the flip side of that… is there are also people who collect like 20 cats. Which, isn’t always, but can be the sign of a mental disorder too. Sometimes, when people “overdo” things, they are really trying to compensate for something else that’s missing in their lives. I’m not saying that’s the case here, but the desire to have so many kids does raise that question.

I’d never heard of them before this article I saw today.

August 3rd, 2007

Mara the Peacemaker remarked

Well, I think they don’t use artificial birth control. When they first married, the wife was on the pill but they decided as a couple that the pill was morally wrong for various reasons. I don’t know if they have issues with only the pill or all forms of artificial birth control (such as condoms) but I do know that they have this “We’ll have however many as God blesses us with” attitude towards the number of children they have. From what I read, they don’t even attempt NFP like many Catholic couples do (and I don’t think this family is Catholic, btw).

I think they also had a reality show a couple of years back.

I would never presume to tell someone how many children they could/should have, but I do wonder about the quality of the relationships they have with their children considering that they’ve got 17 of them.

August 3rd, 2007

Christopher the Pyro penned this

Hmm… 17 babies.. now that is something that seriously appeals to me.. one of your kids is bound to strike it rich.

August 3rd, 2007

Christine the Lioness scribbled

Or go nuts and murder the rest of the family…

August 3rd, 2007

Christine the Lioness uttered

Regarding the birth control, you might be right, Mara, but I did read an article on them where the husband said they would keep having them as long as the wife wanted them. So I’m guessing they’d have to start using birth control once she decided she didn’t want anymore… IF she ever decides that. Maybe not before she hits menopause.

I agree… I believe strongly in a woman’s choice to have as many or few kids as she wants but the most disturbing thing about the article I read on them was that each kid has a “buddy” — an older sibling that’s responsible for making sure the younger one gets fed, bathed, etc. The mother devotes her time to the infant, so the rest of the kids are being raised by other kids under the mother and father’s “supervision” so to speak. This is the part I feel is sort of wrong… the older kids never asked to become parents at such a young age. They should be able to be kids themselves and enjoy their older childhood years without that kind of responsibility.

I have a younger sister, and I used to love helping my mom take care of her… get diapers, help feed her, etc. But I was never expected to. I was allowed to be a kid and my parents were the parents. Whether you call them a “buddy” or whatever– you’re kind of forcing something on your older kids that you, yourself, as a parent, should be doing. After all, you’re the one who decided to have all of them, not your kids.

August 3rd, 2007

Mara the Peacemaker scribbled

Oh okay, I didn’t know it the wife’s decision for them to keeping having children.

I thought the same thing you did when I heard about the “buddy” system.

August 3rd, 2007

Christopher the Pyro commented

The “Buddy” system is a old traditional way of raising a family… it seemed to get us through most of the last 6000 years alright, I wouldn’t worry too much.

August 3rd, 2007

Christine the Lioness asserted

Um… some of us call being the older “buddy” just being a parent. And I doubt there are many child psychologists and developmental experts that would agree with you.

August 3rd, 2007

Christopher the Pyro remarked

Hey the proof is in the facts on this one… thousands of years of human society where family units worked together, (children helping with younger children) certainly seems to prove that it’s not the end of the world…. in some ways I would bet there are some very real advantages to being raised by an older sibling than strictly your parent. Obviously a best of both worlds is preferable. Additionally it’s not like most of society is doing any better… hmm children raised by their nanny’s because both parents are not around are better off? I doubt it.

August 4th, 2007

Christine the Lioness scribbled

I never said children being raised by a nanny is better off. As a matter of fact, what I’m suggesting is that it’s better for a child to be raised by a PARENT than anyone else– older siblings, nannies, or anyone else.

People should really only be having kids because THEY want to raise them, not to pawn them off on someone else to take care of. My view on this is quite simply, if you don’t want to be around to raise your kids… don’t have any. I realize sometimes circumstances change, but if you’re getting pregnant with the intention of having someone else raise that kid for the most part after it’s born, I find that to be a bit selfish.

August 4th, 2007

ProphetJoe the Irreverent penned this

It takes a village… )

Actually, we watched the reality show that was on — they were building a new house and they built most of it themselves. The 17 year old son was the project manager (I think) and the 14 year old boy drove the tractor, etc. They seem pretty normal (granted, it was edited for TV, so we only see what they want us to see). The dad is a real estate guy, I think. They bought a large parcel of land with the expectation that each child (and their spouse) could also build on the land in the future. So, I guess they ARE the village!

August 4th, 2007

Raven the Groupie scribbled

I was a nanny for a while (so to speak) and I always felt bad for the kids becasue their parents weren’t ever around. But at the same time, the kids were raised pretty well, but I also had a hand in doing it…but I agree that kids shouldn’t have the responsibility. As the the Parents…to each his own i suppose… s

August 5th, 2007

Raven the Groupie penned this

Also…I HATED being a nanny…I only did it becuase I needed the money…those kids don’t even get PAID.

August 5th, 2007

Christine the Lioness said this

I think the dad does something for the government…

August 5th, 2007

Ivy the Soldier uttered

They make money too from sharing their story I believe.. they have a show on the discovery health channel I believe. I can barely do it with 4 kids.. i cant imagine anymore!

August 7th, 2007

ProphetJoe the Irreverent pontificated

Ivy: but don’t you really long for 50+ grandkids d

According to their web site: “ As a family project the Duggars built a 7000 sqft. home debt free! Both Jim Bob and Michelle are licensed real estate agents.They often host and facilitate the Jim Sammon’s Financial Freedom Seminar. Jim Bob served in the Arkansas House of Representatives from 1999 to 2003 and was a candidate for the U.S. Senate in 2002.

I’d like to build a 7,000 Sq Ft house, but I don’t want 17 kids in it. Hell, I don’t even want my 3 kids to have 14 of their friends over at the same time!

August 8th, 2007

Ivy the Soldier spake, and sayeth

hell no! I love my 4 but sometimes I wish someone would take them for a few months.. Atleast one or two of them..LOL.. I dont see how an “average” family could make it with 6 or more kids really. The duggars arent average by any means.. My damn grocery bill is through the roof now. To cook breakfast for everyone it takes atleast a dozen eggs.. we go through a loaf of bread a day easily sometimes close to two.It doesnt sound like alot but it adds up. …. You HAVE to buy everything in bulk. I have a friend who has 5 kids all older than mine and they go through double what I do a day.. So I can only imagine what its going to be like when my kids get older and their food becomes more expensive as well as clothing..

And as for grandchildren.. I want to be able to easily remember my grandkids names with out having to play the guessing game..

August 8th, 2007

Feed for Battle of the Sexes : Chris vs Chris

Leave a comment

Names and emails are required (emails aren't displayed), url's are optional.

) (w) (u) p (y) (n) d (*) o) 8) ( (f) (g) (t) o (8) (l) (i) x (~) (e) $ (&amp) (c) ( s (d) (o) (@) (p) (^) (b) [


Fatal error: Call to undefined function show_subscription_checkbox() in /var/www/vhosts/chrisvschris.com/httpdocs/wp-content/themes/vistered-little-cvc/comments.php on line 93