“if you are so overly concerned about the strain on the planet’s resources, why are YOU still here?”

Alright, I’m all for letting people have their say and don’t typically run to the mods saying a post is out of line. That said, call me crazy, but wouldn’t suggesting that another poster commit suicide fall into the “nasty comments” category? That was undoubtedly the nastiest, most out of line comment I have ever seen posted on this site. I am stunned and disappointed that it even went through.

“I hope you are childless, L, and plan to remain that way forever. Otherwise you are an utter hypocrite. And I certainly would never suggest that anyone off themselves, but if you are so overly concerned about the strain on the planet’s resources, why are YOU still here? There’s nothing that gives you any more rights to live than any of the Duggar children.”

Char, even though your comment is not directed toward me, I find it to be very rude and inappropriate.

“L” was weighing in her opinion, the same that you and everyone else is doing. At no time did she claim to be the “moral arbiter of reproductive choice”. She was not saying that she had more of a right to live than the Duggar children, like you implied.

It’s sad that adults do not even know how to have a debate. People always take things too personally and they don’t understand the difference between a disagreement of opinions and personal attacks.

I believe that it is socially irresponsible to have so many children. While it is great that they are a loving and close family, the levels of consumption for this one family is outrageous. With all the concerns of global overpopulation, global warming, etc., having so many kids is really quite selfish. JMO

“If you claim to be “pro-choice” then be pro-choice. That means any choice, the choice to not have a child, or the choice to have as many as you want.”

But see, that doesn’t work for people like “L”. If someone wants to abort an unborn child, then we must honor them and their choices, and it is a mortal sin to judge that choice for any reason. But OTHER choices, like the choice to have as many children as we want, are subject to scrutiny by people like “L”, who have declared themselves the moral arbiter of reproductive choice and what “choices” are acceptable are not.

I hope you are childless, L, and plan to remain that way forever. Otherwise you are an utter hypocrite. And I certainly would never suggest that anyone off themselves, but if you are so overly concerned about the strain on the planet’s resources, why are YOU still here? There’s nothing that gives you any more rights to live than any of the Duggar children.

Well, since the world is so vastly overpopulated then maybe we should all stop having kids altogether. In fact, lets shoot for worldwide sterilization, at birth even, that way we never have to worry about overpopulation again. Better yet, we’ll hand pick the people who get to reproduce, everyone else gets sterilized.

I mean, seriously, there are worse things in this world then a family having 17 well-behaved, loving, intellegent, moral children. Get over yourselves already. It’s not “WRONG” just because you don’t agree with it. If you claim to be “pro-choice” then be pro-choice. That means any choice, the choice to not have a child, or the choice to have as many as you want.

Quote:
“Let me just add that it is SO annoying to read the comments that this family is “selfish” because they are having biological children instead of adopting. I seriously doubt that any country would even ALLOW them to adopt because of how many children they already have. And how in the world would it be better if they adopted??? It would still be another person in their household; more energy (as people have pointed out). No difference at all. I think that sometimes people just want to pick and find the negative aspect to any situation. If they did adopt, people would still be complaining about them over something.
Posted by: Kelli at Jun 11, 2007 11:59:36 AM”

KELLI! hello! “It would still be another person in their household”. Ummm, if they adopted a child instead of continuing to reproduce, it would add to their family but wouldn’t add to the world population.

Children in need of adopting already exist (I can’t believe I have to explain this)… so they’re already out there using energy and resources, albeit parentless.

You’re right that no country would let them adopt since they already have so many. Because, hmm… they wouldn’t be able to give each child all the time and attention they need and deserve?

Wait a minute… wouldn’t it follow then that they can’t give each bio child all the time and attention they need and deserve? Wow!

I suppose I should state here that I’m all for woman’s choice. To have children or not to have children. To have one or… seventeen? (Yes, I believe it is her right, but also so irresponsible.)

But the most fundamental thing that bothers me about this family is this: it is not Michelle’s choice. She is dictated by god to have as many kids as possible. Based on an extreme religious movement, which itself is based on some super faulty logic. They are raising their children, indoctrinating them, that they have no choice. That what god wants is for them to NOT choose, to let it happen and “receive” as many children as god wants.

Am I being super judgemental? Yes.

(You will also notice that I made no apology for it.)

WOW!! If they can make it work for them, more power to them. Who are we to judge them. We don’t live their life, raise their kids, take care of the family. They have every right to do what they want, just like all of you!

133 months of pregnancy? That’s about 124 months, 10 plus years too long for me. 63 loads of laundry? Sheesh!

But besides that, I don’t agree with their views on no birth control, etc., or a few other things, but that’s not for me to agree with. I just wonder when the kids get to have some free time to themselves. Between the older kids taking care of the younger ones, the girls cooking/cleaning, playing violin and piano. (Couldn’t they choose if they wanted to play either, maybe something different?) I just want to know when they get to let loose and have fun once in a while. I just feel like the kids never asked for their parents to rely on them for so much, or for them to have so many children that’d need the children to help them basically co-parent. It’s no wonder the children are already voicing how they don’t want big families of their own. I don’t blame them!

Yes, they have a tight, well-oiled ship and structured lives as far as their family and household goes, but even the best ones have some kinks in there from time to time.

I just can’t imagine living in a family like that. *shrugs* More power to them for making it work the way they have, but I’m just…yeah…

I would like to have a big family but when I say big I mean like 4 kids. Haha! If they are happy that is wonderful but goodness..that cannot be good for you. Growing up I was friends with one of the youngest of 10 children and the mother had to stop because her body couldn’t do it anymore. 17 children really is amazing but it’s kind of freak show. Know what I mean? The older children in the family of 10 were really embarrassed and resented their parents. Every baseball season it seemed she was pregnant again and they hated that. Their friends made fun.

My main problem with the way these parents handle things is that they seem to put way too much responsibility on their (older) children. As Michelle Duggar explains on their website, the older kids are “buddied” up with one or even two of their siblings. This means they have to make sure their “buddies” wash, brush their teeth, get dressed, etc. and they have to look after their schoolwork / teach them. This is of course in addition to household chores (two of the older girls do the cooking).
Yes, the parents have made a decision to have a large family, but they didn’t ask their children whether they basically wanted to be parents at 15 or 16.

http://www.duggarfamily.com/faq.html