Duggars ready for 20 and counting
The cover story of the new issue of People is about the Duggar family’s willingness to have another baby despite the fact that the premature December birth of #19, Josie, was life-threatening to both baby and mom.
The People headline reads, “We’re ready for more” with the subtitles, “The Duggars under fire again,” and “With fragile daughter Josie finally home, the controversial parents say they’d welcome another child. Is this good for their family?”
Read the online People teaser story here. I picked People up in the airport last night, and here’s more:
Some dark clouds remain. Their position on adding to their brood continues to cause controversy, and after the family recently appeared on the Today show [see video on page 2], the program’s website was flooded with more than 3k messages – many of them harsh. “Pregnancy is hard on a body,” wrote 1 commenter. “I have to wonder if she will survive to raise all these children that ‘God has given them.'”
Added another: “I would think that the problems they had with the last one would make them stop and think before wanting any more. 19 is enough! Stop already!”
Agrees Jeanne Safer, PhD, a psychotherapist and author: “This seems like utterly obsessive behavior on the part of the parents… without regard to the impact on their family.”
The Duggars, however, are unfazed. “Before we had a heart change about children, I thought it was very strange for people to have more than 3,” Jim Bob says. “We don’t expect people to understand.”…
But nothing can shield Michelle or Jim Bob from those who say that having more children is not only unfair to Michelle but also places a burden on the other Duggar children, who – as with [19yo] Jill during the chicken pox outbreak – are called upon to help with their younger siblings.
Jim Bob remains resolute – and sees the upside of his family’s all-hands-on-deck philosophy. “Our children are growing up to become responsible citizens and are going to try to help others….”
What stings the most is when critics have a valid point – such as those who question how she can possibly give each of her children individual attention. “It stabs my heart when there is truth in it,” says Michelle. “As a parent, you think you can always do better, and I do worry there is not enough of us to go around. I want to finish my conversations with my kids. I want to be connected to them and be the best mother I can be.”
So, Michelle says, she does the best she can – trying to eke out one-on-one time through trips to the market, school lessons and sometimes staying up until the wee hours of the morning to catch up with her older children after the younger ones are asleep. “I can sleep later,” she says. “This is important now.”
Love how the psychotherapist thinks its “utterly obsessive behavior” to simply refuse to contracept, or to refuse to stop having sex, which is what all this controversy boils down to.
And I seriously love Jim Bob’s perspective: “We don’t expect people to understand.” The Duggars aren’t defensive, nor are they pushing their beliefs. (They’re actually living their beliefs by example – much better.)
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I know this is an unpopular opinion on these boards, and heaven knows I love children, but I think there is something seriously wrong with the Duggars. They are mentally ill. Your uterus: It is not a clown car.
These people aren’t heroes. They’re nutjobs.
Ashely, I agree, completely. This is not okay. It isn’t honorable. It isn’t admirable. It’s lunacy.
Ever watched their show???
I love them!! They are amazing and live what they believe.
Just as those who do not want children, don’t have any.
Which ones should she have aborted?
Mary Lee,
I think your comparison of Michelle’s uterus to a “clown car” is disgusting.
Some of the comments above are harsh, but I do think that there is something wrong with this couple. I don’t know how Michelle Duggar can do it. I had a normal (vaginal) delivery with my daughter and it took me a few weeks to recover!
Some of the comments above are harsh, but I do think that there is something wrong with this couple. I don’t know how Michelle Duggar can do it. I had a normal (vaginal) delivery with my daughter and it took me a few weeks to recover!
In my opinion, most reality shows are boring and stupid, anyway.
Carla, you are one of my favorite posters here, but the comparison is apt. I’m sorry you find it disgusting. Yes, I’ve watched their show. They are famewhores, they have no sense of control, they cannot give their children the amount of attention they deserve, they teach their girls to be little housewives and mothers…..Nothing about them, absolutely NOTHING about them is admirable.
I don’t believe in abortion. At all. I DO believe in birth control. These people are foolish, selfish, fanatical, and clearly, utterly mental.
I guess it shouldn’t surprise me that the religious fanatics on this site think the Duggars are “amazing.” I think they’re amazing too….amazingly INSANE.
What a blessed family!
Mary Lee and Ashley, your criticisms are baseless and are indicative of your own brand of mental illness: a carnal and unrenewed mind.
I don’t expect you to understand. In fact Mary Lee, I doubt you could. (Ashley, I know you couldn’t.)
Thankfully, God’s thoughts and those of Michelle and Jim Bob, are much higher than yours. Our world has been blessed by and is a better place because of the Duggar Family.
Frankly, if it’s God’s will, I hope they have another one, just to irritate all of the ignorant naysayers out there.
And it won’t matter if #20 finds the cure for cancer, or is a Downs baby…
our world will be a better place because of him or her.
Yeah, Ed, God REALLY wants us to have a billion children, teach them to be Stepford wives and then go on television and whore them out.
Seriously. How anyone can hold them up as a GOOD EXAMPLE of ANYTHING is beyond me. Ed, you don’t know me. You judge me? You judge Ashley? It doesn’t matter that, say, I am completely against abortion….I have to believe in the same God, and live the same kind of life as you? The ignorance here is astounding. It really is.
You religious zealots criticize gay people for being “degenerate.” I know more stable, loving, exemplary gay couples who do more for society and for the poor and for the sick than the Duggars could. I seriously doubt Jesus would applaud the Duggars.
People who admire the Duggars are as sick as they are.
I am pro-life and adore children, but the Duggars just get to me. I have been around a number of really large families (even lived with one for a while), and even though the older kids are usually act like they’re supposed to and say the things they’re supposed to, in my experience there has inevitably been a lot of anger and resentment under the surface. In a lot of cases, these kids don’t get much of a childhood because they’re so busy doing the parenting that is humanly impossible for their REAL parents.
I have the possibly unpopular opinion of being very pro-contraception. I haven’t always been this way. I was VERY anti-contraception until I was about 20. I finally started facing some of the trends I had seen in super big families. That was also when my beloved cousin, who also loves kids and is an awesome mom, had to decide to stop with her second child, because she had terrible morning sickness; horrific, life-threatening deliveries; and crippling post-partum depression. She finally decided that it was more important for her to be a good, present, sane mother to the two kids she already has, than keep having more and lose her mind or possibly her life. I wholly agree.
I’d like to have a big family someday–maybe 5 or 6. But I don’t agree with 19 or 20. They may be very sweet kids, and I respect the Duggars for doing far better with that number of kids than I ever would, but they DON’T get enough attention from Mom and Dad. From the families I’ve seen every day, warts and all, that is just a fact.
Bottom line: I believe in quality over quantity when it comes to children. Have the number you can handle, and raise them WELL. And you do the raising, please. Don’t hand it off to your older kids.
My above comment was probably too harsh and should have been reworded.
What I meant was that Jesus taught that unless you chose to follow him and become His disciple, there would be much that you wouldn’t be able to understand.
I didn’t mean it to be critical, it’s just a fact.
And it’s your right to choose not to become educated in spiritual things.
I didn’t mean to be offensive, sorry.
And don’t worry, you can call me a nutjob too, I won’t be offended.
At the worst, I’ll have a chuckle and probably pray for you.
“Bottom line: I believe in quality over quantity when it comes to children. Have the number you can handle, and raise them WELL. And you do the raising, please. Don’t hand it off to your older kids”
THIS. Bravo, Katey.
Hi again, MaryLee,
So one of your favorite posters here is a religious fanatic? Oh, and a zealot? LOL
Hi Katey,
Read what Michelle DOES to try and give her children the attention they need and want from her.(staying up late with the older children, outings etc.)Read about her FEARS that she isn’t doing enough.(I have the same fears and only have four kids)Read again how she is doing the best she can. There is no mistaking the love in their home.
I think the thing I love best about them is that they will continue to have all of the children God gives them, will continue to live debt free and raise responsible, loving children, continue to live the way they choose and the rest of the world can’t do a thing to change that. Well those that hate them will call them vile names and they will carry on. :)
Carla, what’s your problem? I was talking to Ed. Seriously. I am not your enemy. Enough with the attitude. You’re better than that.
Hey Mary Lee,
We disagree, I’m fine with that. You can call me crazy too, (I’ve been called a lot worse.)
But if we both want to rescue babies from being slaughtered by abortion, we’re on the same side in that fight and I’ll encourage you with my dying breath sister.
they teach their girls to be little housewives and mothers…..Nothing about them, absolutely NOTHING about them is admirable.
I’m trying to figure out how teaching someone to be a housewife and mother is not “admirable.” My grandmother was a housewife and mother, and a really great one. She raised 4 children (would have been 5 if not for a miscarriage), the youngest of whom was born when she was 38, tended her garden, cleaned her house, cooked awesome meals, wrote letters to friends religiously, laughed a lot, was a cancer survivor, and was EVERYTHING to my grandfather, who outlived her by 7 years (and was a shell of the man he was when she was living). And she loved her life. These “housewives” and “mothers” are often the greatest supports for their husbands and children in a world that seeks to degrade men (hello, in every commercial, the stupid one is always the man). Eventually, the Duggar girls will grow up and will choose their own paths. If that choice is to be wives and mothers, so be it. If that choice is to go to college first, so be it. If that choice is to be a scientist, doctor, writer, so be it.
I’m not saying I’d be having 20 kids (Lord knows my body isn’t cooperating after 3!), but my great-grandmother had 10 (that we know of who survived) and today, people would frown on that. My grandpa, the 2nd most admired man in my life after my husband, was the 8th, I believe, of those 10. People act as if this hasn’t been done before.
That is why I wrote LOL, MaryLee.
Ed.
I agree with everything you wrote.
Second, children and wives have no authority in fundie families–they’re just told to obey.
Seriously, you need to get out more and meet some actual people instead of reading about human parodies. Living under a rock makes you say completely uneducated, stupid things.
Kel, I didn’t say housewives and mothers aren’t admirable. I’m sorry it wasn’t clear. But Michelle Duggar has her daughter play mommy to their own brothers. THAT is disturbing. She’s not teaching their daughters to be who they are….She’s teaching her daughters to be who SHE wants them to be. I was a stay at home mom for a long time, and it was the hardest job I ever had. But my gosh, the sexism in their household is astonishing. She is making her children–especially the daughters–grow up too fast and to take on more responsibility than they should. My daughter has chores. I believe in teaching our children to be mature and to participate in the household. I do NOT believe in having a coterie of Stepford wives who cater to the men.
Kel,
I have met so many people that are one of 13 or 15! A very good friend of mine has 10 and another has 12. Her last little boy has Down Syndrome.
The horror of having children because you love children!
Nevermind the children, how about the relationship between the husband and wife??
I totally agree, children are not meant to raise their siblings.
I consider myself completely prolife. But, I do have a problem with the Duggars.
It is not so much in the number of children they have but with their choice of being on “reality” TV. Also, how many People magazine covers have they graced, giving their “story”…the trips they go on that are funded by their network, etc., etc. IMO, the parents have bought into their “celebrity” and can’t get enough of it…”celebrity” is their “job”… (a la Kate Gosselin)
I’m against abortion and contraception, but I also disagree with the Duggars. Parenthood is a responsibility. I come from a large family. I love large families. I just don’t think the Duggars are displaying that they are carefully considering their decision with each conception. If they were, I’m not convinced that they would be talking to US Magazine about it.
Although I respect what they are trying to do, I think that their motivation is less noble than some on this board seem to believe. They show too much interest in the spotlight.
I think that the Duggars wrestle with pride, and I worry that it is affecting how they are making some life-altering decisions.
Maybe Jim Bob and Michelle are more noble in pursuit than this… but I’m a cynic, I admit.
Nevermind the children, how about the relationship between the husband and wife??
I totally agree with those of you who said that children are not meant to raise their siblings.
I like watching the Duggar’s show and appreciate their faith. What worries me is the older girls and their hopes and dreams. 20 yr. old Jana and 19 yr. old Jill seem to be primary childcare providers along with Jessa and Jinger who are approaching legal age. I honestly don’t see Michelle doing much in that area and the girls seem to be the ones who keep the household going. I’d hate to see them go from Daddy’s house to their husband’s house without spreading their wings; not in a worldly way, but in a way that all young women deserve to explore their possible vocations and avocations. Mom and Dad may say the girls are spiritually satisfied with the family mission and the girls may say it also to the camera, but you do wonder if they ever get quality down time while at home.
It seems like there are some pretty severe violations of commenting rules going on here – in particular vulgar name-calling and insults. I think it’s time to raise the bar and just take them off as they occur. If people can’t express their opinion without calling someone a “whore” then their opinion really isn’t worth reading. Please, if we can’t make a point without descending into the gutter, then let’s not make it at all. There ought to be SOMEWHERE on the internet where we can escape to polite discourse – let it be here at jillstanek.com.
There’s a lot of ignorance flying around…
People Magazine is in the business of selling magazines. The more they sell, the more they can charge their advertisers for ads. The more they can charge, the more money they earn, which helps them sustain their business.
The Duggars’ story is compelling and sells magazines. People (the magazine) seeks out the Duggars. People puts the Duggars on the cover (because people want to read about them). It’s not the Duggars famewhoring or whatever the term was used.
God bless ’em.
I have the possibly unpopular opinion of being very pro-contraception.
I agree with you. I can’t believe that in this day and age people are still against contraception. It really gives prolifers a bad name.
Anyone need a crowbar to pull the logs out of their eyes?
Look at all the condemnation because someone decides what they want to do with their lives.
Choice is great when it’s about abortion – killing a child – not giving a child life and raising them.
If the Duggars choose differently, then that’s their <b>choice </b>.
MaryLee – your clown car comment is disgusting. Stay classy.
Ashley – your bigotry is showing.
Pro-aborts love to tell others to kill their children, but their own perverted sense of utopian morality demands that they be damnable nannies to the rest of us.
That is precisely why we have a 2nd Amendment.
There are plenty of families who don’t use contraception and don’t have 19 children (or a reality show). There’s something else going on here.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with Duggar family. If their calling is to have a super-large family and in their heart they feel it is right – I have nothing against it. Yes, large families have the advantages and disadvantages, but no reason to humiliate them or hate them. It would be a worry if the children were going bad ways, getting into drugs etc, it would be concern if the family was disfuncional (violence, hatred, constant arguing), it wouldn’t look good if they lived on benefits or in debt. As it is now – I don’t see anything wrong, they support themselves, children are all taken care of,loved, educated and responsible. And I also don’t see anything wrong with children helping parents to raise their siblings. It’s been like that for centuries! I helped to raise my brother when my parents were both working full time, so what? If I had another 4 siblings to take care of, I would have. And honestly – I believe it would have saved me from some of the nonsense I got myself into during teenage years. And I’m very happy I was made to work alongside with my parents during harvest times in the garden (both ours and grandparents), helping them during construction of our house, cleaning the whole big house all by myself since 13-14 years old. It’s all about learning to be responsible, caring for others and putting your family as a priority. NOTHING is wrong with that. I think in this age we are spoiling children too much, making sure they have as much pleasure as possible (it’s all about newest toys, playing games, going out, watching TV, and God forbid the child will need to go help grandma dig the potatoes… shock horror), which isn’t that important. Love, learning and responsibility is. Somehow noone dares to assume that the older kids help raise the younger ones, because they LOVE them :) It can be as simple as that.
Poppie,
What about the relationship between Michelle and Jim Bob?
Gina,
What do you think is going on?
Hating on the Duggars reveals more about you than them. Of course reality shows are silly; they are also edited! Back when Big Brother first started, you could watch them in real time on your computer. So I did. What I witnessed (without the fast edits, the music, and the host’s reparte) was totally different that the show as it was aired. What you see on TV is theater, and even if they film in your house it’s not an accurate representation of your life.
My experience is that children who help with their siblings grow up to be mature and responsible. Mary Lee’s comments are especially offensive (and she’s merely quoting a popular internet meme). My mother wanted nothing more than for me to be a wife and mother. Although I didn’t take her route, I am now a damn good cook! Thanks Mom, you are my hero!! My late grandmother now has almost 200 descendants…So guess who’s DNA will survive into the future? Not the abortionists’. Booyah!!
“I’d hate to see them go from Daddy’s house to their husband’s house without spreading their wings; not in a worldly way, but in a way that all young women deserve to explore their possible vocations and avocations. ”
======================================================
Excuse me? Have you watched these kids/ young women in action? They are caring
for their sibs, they are caring for their community, they are going on trips outside the US to help others while maintaining thier faith and living a very good life.
If they feel these young women have a vocation elsewhere, I don’t see them being hindered by the folks to pursue those.
I personally feel these young women will grow up and be good, productive citizens
of the community who can handle life better than most of their peers.
Carla, I think the Duggars are being used to represent a certain religious belief that couples must and should have as many children as possible. There’s been a lot of talk of choice and freedom in this thread. If you start reading up on the Quiverfull movement, with which the Duggars have been associated, you’ll see that it’s not about freedom at all. It’s about legalism.
I love and respect the Duggars.
For a long time, I’ve wanted to have 17 kids.
But I will take what God gives me. He is Good; His ways are not my ways; He loves me and wants what is best for my husband, my children, and I; He is in complete control over whether or not I conceive.
I have two children on earth. I love them dearly. They love each other. Even with two I can’t always give both all the attention they wanted. In fact, there were times that was true with one. No one can be everything to anyone. My husband and I love each other, love our kids, and love our family, and will welcome as many children as God sends us as blessings from Him.
In my experience, teenage girls like babies and toddlers. In my experience, many hands make light work–as does joy and thankfulness and making work part of worshiping God. I would never force one of my children into a parenting task, but there are plenty of other tasks–like laundry, dishes, cleaning, etc.–that are part of living in community with other human beings, or just taking care of even yourself.
I wish I had received more training as a housewife. I wish I hadn’t frittered away so much time and money on useless schooling.
I came by all of my views without anyone’s “forcing” them on me but God. I was the one who brought the idea of trusting God to plan our family to my husband’s attention.
The Duggars do what they do to bring glory to God’s name. And they are persecuted mercilessly by people who say awful, vile, hateful things. But God has written: Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, for great is your reward in heaven, because in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
I’m just wondering, for all of you who have a problem with the number of Dugger children, how many children is too many? Obviously, you know better than they, or anyone else for that matter, that 19 is too many. So please, tell me, how many am I allowed to have?
I will tell you what I have observed: some of the most selfish children I have ever encountered have two or less siblings. But hey, they have X boxes, laptops, TVs in their rooms, cars handed to them, and college is paid for.
Gina,
I think the Duggars are free to have as many children as they would love to have and it is not a conspiracy. Since I don’t live with them and neither do you I think we can both agree that you can’t force this couple to have 20 children. Wa La. Freedom to have as many children as God gives you.
Just typing out loud here.
Wonder what the comments would be if this post were about a woman going in for her 20th abortion?
Robin
August 12th, 2010 at 2:12 pm
I’m just wondering, for all of you who have a problem with the number of Dugger children, how many children is too many? Obviously, you know better than they, or anyone else for that matter, that 19 is too many. So please, tell me, how many am I allowed to have?
I will tell you what I have observed: some of the most selfish children I have ever encountered have two or less siblings. But hey, they have X boxes, laptops, TVs in their rooms, cars handed to them, and college is paid for.
Completely agree with Robin! The children are very often spoiled by material things and never taught responsibility and priorities in life. A large family is a school of life all by itself. A child leaving this school at 18 years will be much better equipped to independant life than the single child who had all his needs catered for by his/her parents. And it’s not only about being capable to do laundry/cooking/cleaning/gardening/babysitting, it’s also about learning to be responsible person and learning that life is not all about pleasure, freedom and games.
MaryLee,
I know next to nothing about the Duggars and have never seen their show, but “playing mommy” to my five younger brothers, not to mention my two younger sisters, was one of the richest experiences I ever could have had. I fed, diapered and looked after a lot of kids from my early years right into my 20’s. It didn’t prevent me from being who I am at all. It helped me mature a great deal. And it also meant that with more time on her hands, my mom had a lot more time for me than she would have had if I hadn’t helped out.
It would have been an excellent preparation for motherhood if that had been my path. I ended up a single career woman with young nieces and nephews I love, and who I have also diapered and looked after. This may be the only mothering experience I ever get. And it hasn’t been bad at all for me.
Maybe your statement would make more sense if I’d seen the show, but to me it’s just too sweeping a statement.
Robin: Amen!
Gina, I consider myself Quiverfull. I don’t see how it is anti-freedom or anti-choice. Those who are quiverfull choose to let God plan their families. I do it freely of my own choice, and I find it freeing from a lot of horrible worldly attitudes. I control what I can–and five years of infertility makes it pretty clear that my fertility is not one of those things–and I rejoice that an all-knowing God who loves me and has my best interests in mind controls what I cannot.
Carla, where did I use the word “conspiracy”?
Hi Gina,
You didn’t. I did.
“With fragile daughter Josie finally home, the controversial parents say they’d welcome another child. Is this good for their family?”
Um, whatever happened to, “Her body, her choice”? I thought that was all that mattered?
Hey MSM, your hypocrisy is showing.
Overheard in the alternate super-abortive universe: “Oh, I just loved that group when I was younger, you know, The Jackson 3!” “Really? Were they as good as the Jonas Only Child?” “Oh yes! But not as good as the Von Trapp Family Singer.” “And I’ve heard that Osmond Duo on youtube, really good stuff.”
From what I have seen of the show Michelle and Jim Bob spend more time with their kids than the average parent with 2 kids. Most things are family affairs in their house and everyone is involved. Those kids are happy. They are exposed to more real life things than most kids, i.e. building, TALKING as opposed to Facebook, and playing.
These people are doing an EXCELLENT job of raising their children and if most parents could be 1/10th the example they are the world would be a much better place.
“…they wouldn’t have a TV crew living in their house.”
=======================================
Typical Ashley…the crew only films the family ONCE a week…and the crew does Not live inside their home…
” I suspect they’re only having #20 so they can stay in the limelight ”
================================================
The media sought them out when Jim Bob was running for a Rep seat…not the other way around…better get your facts straight first before engaging fingers to type….
I agree with JoAnna “Um, whatever happened to, “Her body, her choice?”
Oh, I see…it’s no longer “Choice” if you want to have as many kids as God will give you….it’s only “choice” if the end result is abortion.
I agree that it’s the Duggars’ choice to have as many kids as they want, and I’m glad none of their children were aborted. However, although I would never advocate somehow trying to stop the Duggars from having children, I’m not sure if having twenty children is necessarily a good idea from a psychological/child-rearing perspective. I’ve never watched this show, but there are only so many hours in each day and only so much individual attention you can give to each child.
Ashley: A few weeks ago, you were saying you never should have had an abortion. Now that was just another “choice” to you?
Hon, I don’t know what your deal is sometimes. Every time you start warming up to being pro-life, you leave and when you come back we’re all “anti-choicers” again. I want to help you in any way I can, but this hostility is not helping anyone, including you.
My guess is someone is having an intense internal struggle. Call us names doesn’t justify abortion. Even if pro-life advocates were all identical, obnoxious, and smelly, abortion would still be wrong. Even if pro-life advocates were all crazy, abortion would still be wrong. If a tree falls in forest and there’s no one around to hear it, that’s right: abortion is still wrong. Back in the olden times, some people thought “shell shock” was all in the head. Now we know more about Post Traumatic Stress. Many post-abortive women are suffering from physical and emotional problems. Calling us liars and nuts won’t make those problems go away.
Both of the Duggar parents are around full time 24/7/365 for their children. Their income comes from rental properties.
I have one daughter. She is the biggest help to me with the younger boys. She loves to cook and bake and help me clean. It comes naturally to her and she ASKS to do it. I must be some kind of crappy mom to give her responsibilities at the tender age of 10. btw the boys get their fair share of that action as well. :)
I still love the fact that no matter what we think or say or do or feel the Duggars just might have a couple more babies.
Good grief, what’s with all the venom toward the Duggars? MaryLee and Ashely, they are good people, not nutjobs. They take care of themselves without any government assistance, which is more than many 1-child households can say. The Duggars are intelligent, responsible, capable, loving, generous people and their children are growing up to think of more than just themselves.
There is nothing at all wrong with children learning how to care for their younger siblings. There is nothing wrong with older children helping out with family obligations. It teaches them to be capable adults who are compassionate toward others. It teaches them to do more with their time than stare at a Nintendo DS or a television.
The nastiness being spewed at the Duggars is disturbing and baseless. It speaks to me of just how far we have fallen into a mindset that is anti-family and anti-child. Who are any of you to say that the Duggars could not handle another child? They welcome the gift of life and they are able to fold a new child into their family with love. You act as though they’re breeding serial killers.
The government has no right to say boo to this family because they don’t depend on the government to provide for them. I’ll take the Duggars any day over the welfare moms who keep having children outside of marriage and expect Uncle Sugar to send checks in the mail.
God bless them, and give them grace and wisdom to say Yes to His divine plan for them, whatever it may be.
How many children the Duggars have is their business. I don’t hate them, but I find their mentality disturbing. And what really gets my goat is the way the anti-choice movement is
disingenuously using them as an excuse to further its own anti-choice agenda, and to use this enormous family as an ideal and make it sound as though if they can have so many children,no woman should ever be allowed to have an abortion.
They say that they “weren’t punished” by having so many children.Of course they weren’t.They’re a married couple which has the means to take care of an extremely large family.
But things aren’t that simple. Many poor women in America can’t afford to take care of their children,and the claim that ample help is available for all pregnant women simply isn’t true.
If there actually were, there wouldn’t be so many abortions in America.
And to be both opposed to abortion and opposed to contraceptives is unbelievably foolish.
Anti-choicers have absolutely no right to tell women that they may not use contraceptives.
No one does,including the US government.
First of all: If you really believe in a woman’s right to choose, then you better prove it by respecting Michelle Duggar’s right to have 20 kids or more.
Second of all: These kids are all well cared for. Nobody in the family is malnurished or sick from poor quality care. Nobody is abused. All their needs are met. It may be some of the youngest kids are more bonded to their older siblings than to their parents, but since the older kids help with childcare, this can be expected.
Third of all: None of the older kids are in trouble with drugs, alcohol, or the law. Enough said.
Fourth of all: It does take a lot of money to raise 19 kids. The reality TV show helps with this. If there are people who want to watch the show, why not have it on the air? Same with Jon and Kate plus eight (although thanks to Jon’s selfishness, it’s now Kate plus eight). These kinds of shows help keep the families in question off of welfare. So you should be glad it’s on the air, since it means you don’t have to pay with your taxes for these kids that you gripe about so much.
“They are mentally ill. Your uterus: It is not a clown car. They’re nutjobs.”
“This is not okay. It isn’t honorable. It isn’t admirable. It’s lunacy.”
“Nothing about them, absolutely NOTHING about them is admirable.
I don’t believe in abortion. At all. I DO believe in birth control. These people are foolish, selfish, fanatical, and clearly, utterly mental.”
“I guess it shouldn’t surprise me that the religious fanatics on this site think the Duggars are “amazing.” I think they’re amazing too….amazingly INSANE.”
“I seriously doubt Jesus would applaud the Duggars. People who admire the Duggars are as sick as they are.”
“Enough with the attitude. You’re better than that.”
“She’s breeding a couple litters for Jesus.”
“Another thing their fundie fans won’t acknowledge is that the Duggars are fame whores who parade their kids around on camera for money and attention.”
“The ignorance here is astounding. It really is.”
“If their only concern was doing right by God and breeding lots and lots of future Christian Warriors, they wouldn’t have a TV crew living in their house. They’re media whores, similar to Jim Bakker.”
“They are famewhores, they have no sense of control, they cannot give their children the amount of attention they deserve, they teach their girls to be little housewives and mothers.”
“I can’t believe that in this day and age people are still against contraception. It really gives prolifers a bad name.”
Some nice comments here.
I know what homes I would allow my kids to hang out at and the Duggar’s make my cut. I know what posters here believe I am a religious zealot and mentally ill as well and that’s OK.
The rest of you know I would be cool with my precious gifts hanging out in your homes any day too.
“It’s amusing to watch anti-choicers treat the Duggars like selfless and righteous people. Did you ever think that they just view these kids as status symbols that they can use for fame and fortune? I suspect they’re only having #20 so they can stay in the limelight and continue milking their fame for all its worth: “Uh oh, media interest is trailing off! Better have another!”
If their only concern was doing right by God and breeding lots and lots of future Christian Warriors, they wouldn’t have a TV crew living in their house. They’re media whores, similar to Jim Bakker.”
Seriously, Ashely. I think the pro-lifers here just like the Duggars because of the God thing.
How dare you–any of you–alienate someone like me, who is trying to help your cause? Get off your high horses. The “clown car” comment is brilliant. It’s funny. Because it’s true. As for the “whore” comment….Um, it was “ATTENTION WHORE” or “MEDIA WHORE.” There is a difference. You ask me about my standards, and my judgment of the Duggars, and yet you get on these boards and call gay people names, you refuse to even THINK about birth control, you belittle those who aren’t Christian and tell us you’ll PRAY for us?
How can anyone look at the Duggars and think–Yeah, they really got the right idea? Nobody is even talking about abortion. Nobody. We’re talking about, jeez, maybe use some birth control, maybe not have your daughters raise their siblings, maybe not go on television and maybe not take that fat check from People magazine.
Seriously. Yeah, it’s so offensive to call a spade a spade. Good lord. The pro-aborts don’t want to look at the truth of abortion, and pro-lifers applaud and excuse anyone as long as they utter the name of Jesus. Wow. That is seriously, seriously messed up.
By the by, I LIKE Jesus. I just find this sort of blind worship and admiration of a family that is obviously mentally imbalanced really troubling. I have friends who are priests. I have friends who are devout Jews. I am not a total atheist. But holy moly, wow. Heaven forbid you get a sense of humor or maybe some level of discernment.
I do not worship the Duggars. Would love to hang out with them though. Would love to see them in action.
I believe there was a commenter here that stayed with the Duggars. Was it yor bro ken?
Can’t remember. Anyway, they were just as gracious and genuine as you see them on their show.
Someone correct me if I’m wrong but I believe the clown car comment was originally made by Amanda Marcotte. Charming.
“you get on these boards and call gay people names, you refuse to even THINK about birth control, you belittle those who aren’t Christian and tell us you’ll PRAY for us?”
MaryLee, I have noticed others saying that they will pray for each other on this site. If you are “not a total atheist”, please tell why this could offend you in the least. I personally pray for many here and hope you all pray for me too!
As far as prolifers here calling gay people names, refusing to think about bc or belittling those who aren’t Christians, please show some examples of what you are referring too. Thanks.
I haven’t read through all the comments but here goes:
“Love how the psychotherapist thinks its “utterly obsessive behavior” to simply refuse to contracept, or to refuse to stop having sex, which is what all this controversy boils down to.”
I don’t think this is what it boils down to at all. It is very possible and very reasonable for the Duggars to have sex and not have babies without contracepting. They COULD learn to use NFP and practice marital continence for once.
I’m also going to agree with Katey too in part:
“I have been around a number of really large families (even lived with one for a while), and even though the older kids are usually act like they’re supposed to and say the things they’re supposed to, in my experience there has inevitably been a lot of anger and resentment under the surface. In a lot of cases, these kids don’t get much of a childhood because they’re so busy doing the parenting that is humanly impossible for their REAL parents.”
This has been my experience SOMETIMES too. Perhaps the Duggars do not fall into this but usually older children experience a great deal of resentment due to the heavy family responsibilities placed on them
And as another commenter mentioned often the younger children are more bonded to older siblings than to their parents – something I find unsettling.
All this being said, ultimately it is between the couple and God as to the number of children they have. What is sure to happen though is if this couple has another child and things don’t work out their reality show is likely to be toast. The backlash will be terrible or very very hostile.
And if something untoward happens they could end up doing more harm to the image of large families.
Dee
August 12th, 2010 at 1:05 pm
I like watching the Duggar’s show and appreciate their faith. What worries me is the older girls and their hopes and dreams. 20 yr. old Jana and 19 yr. old Jill seem to be primary childcare providers along with Jessa and Jinger who are approaching legal age. I honestly don’t see Michelle doing much in that area and the girls seem to be the ones who keep the household going. I’d hate to see them go from Daddy’s house to their husband’s house without spreading their wings; not in a worldly way, but in a way that all young women deserve to explore their possible vocations and avocations. Mom and Dad may say the girls are spiritually satisfied with the family mission and the girls may say it also to the camera, but you do wonder if they ever get quality down time while at home.
I guess for me I would be worried that these young women would not maybe have the opportunity to have other experiences and explore some options BEFORE settling down and marrying. Or even while being married and a mother.
Also what number of children is too many? 20? 15? 10? Every woman differs as to what she can manage. Some women are completely undone by two children while others can easily manage a large number. :)
When blasphemy is included in the do nots and it continues to be done is there any hope that reasonable consequences will be forthcoming? And after it is made clear that it is not to be tolerated and the individual persists what happens then?
My problem with the Duggars is not in regards to their beliefs or anything of that sort. They seem like loving parents and they certainly seem to carry concern for their children.
I talked with my sister, who is a Labor & Delivery nurse, about why Michelle Duggar delivered her 19th child so early. My sister said that the health issues that arose in Michelle Duggar which caused her to delivered Josie very early were most likely due to her having too many repeat C-sections. Doctors don’t usually advise more than 3 at most 4 C-sections and the more C-sections a woman has the more dangerous it becomes for her and her child.
If the Duggars want to continue to have children there is a good chance that she will once again have another premature baby. While I do agree that every child is a blessing, as Josie was, I personally believe it is wrong to attempt to have more children when there is a good chance that you may have another very premature child. Josie was very fortunate to survive but, according to my sister, not all 25 week gestation babies do make it.
I also don’t believe there is anything wrong with birth control and I don’t see why the Duggars are so incredibly afraid of it. They claim that it caused a miscarriage but there is no real way of them knowing what caused their miscarriage, since they are so common and frequent.
Wow… this is so sad.
MaryLee, if you think the clown car comment is funny, that says a lot about you. It’s a very rude comment. There are people who finds all sorts of vulgar, insulting, and rude comments to be “funny”. That does not mean that the comment is inherently funny, it just means that some people think it is funny to make fun of other people. I’m sorry to see that you fall into that category.
I’ve been aware of/followed the story of the Duggars since Jim Bob was in the state legislature and Michelle got the “Mother of the Year” award from their state. They are a lovely, if somewhat unusual family. However, being unusual does not mean that there is something wrong with them… it just means that they have different priorities and different goals for their family than others do. I know people whose goals for their children involve placing them in dozens of extra curricular activities, pushing them hard for grades, and insisting that they go to an ultra expensive university. I happen to think that’s too much pressure for a child, but it’s not in and of itself “wrong”, per se. The fact that the Duggars have goals for their children to be oriented towards family and service to the community may be different than yours, but it doesn’t make it inhertently “wrong”.
As for the girls not getting out to see the “real” world, we are talking about a family who travels all over the world doing service projects, building homes, doing service in their community and around the country and beyond. They were debt free LONG before they had any contact with the media and remain debt free. They use the proceeds from the show to expand their mission work. If that bothers some, well, then don’t watch the show. It’s really that easy.
We have seven beautiful children and, God willing, will have more. We have moved to a small, rural community where it is not uncommon for me to find that my elderly female patients have 14 to 16 children. In fact, we had this discussion at the nurses’ station one night… there are certain inevitable degenerations of life that can land an elderly patient in our care… UTI, broken hip, breathing problems, pneumonia, etc. When women first start coming in to our care for these issues in their 60s, almost inevitably they were either childless or had only a small number of children. The women who don’t START to come in for these sorts of issues until their late 80s or 90s, generally had 10 or more children.
Is this a scientific analysis, of course not. However, it is an observation of what comes through OUR rural hospital. Since these are families who have lived in this area their whole life, we are the only hospital around, and many of the nurses there have been nurses there for 2 or 3 decades (or grew up there and have been nurses their for a few years to 10 or so years) all of the staff has a very intimate knowledge of the health status of the entire community.
They aren’t asking for anything from anyone… they aren’t on state aid… their children aren’t in gangs, aren’t doing drugs, aren’t violent felons… they all have enough to eat, enough to wear, a bed to sleep in… they have close relationships with their siblings and positive relationships with their parents… seriously, what more do we really ask of parents? Love them, provide for them, teach them right from wrong.
For those who have such issues with the Duggars that you resort to such vulgarities and name-callings… that does not reflect in one whit about the Duggars. It does, however, reveal a great deal about you.
Why is it unsettling for siblings to be strongly bonded to each other? I want my children to be strongly bonded to each other. I am between 20 and 37 years older than my children (depending on which one we are discussing). The odds are great that there will be a time period when Steven and I have died and the children will have their bonds with one another to continue to sustain and nurture them as they go through the inevitable ups and downs of life. Why is there anything wrong with that?
I don’t really care what the Duggars do or don’t do at this point. I don’t know them at all, have never seen their show, and so am not in a position to discern heroic virtue or mental illness as many here have.
If I were Mr. Duggar I’d be having a little heart to heart chat with Mrs. Duggar about her last delivery and its toll on her. I’d be telling her how I want to grow old with her and how 19 is the magic number for me. I’d tell her that it’s one thing to have the children, but that she needs to be there to raise them, that they need and deserve her, that 19 children later and being in her 40’s is seriously tempting fate.
“In fact, we had this discussion at the nurses’ station one night… there are certain inevitable degenerations of life that can land an elderly patient in our care… UTI, broken hip, breathing problems, pneumonia, etc. When women first start coming in to our care for these issues in their 60s, almost inevitably they were either childless or had only a small number of children. The women who don’t START to come in for these sorts of issues until their late 80s or 90s, generally had 10 or more children.
Is this a scientific analysis, of course not.”
you are quite right that it’s not a scientific analysis.
I too live in a rural area. In fact I grew up in one at a time when many women had 18 or 20 babies. Most of those women had many health issues post menopausal and most of those issues were reproductive related. Several of my friends who have had 9 and 10 children are facing major reconstructive surgery post baby bearing. One friend has been told that there is no point in correcting these problems until she is finished child bearing. Another will be having a hysterectomy. :(
I think the problem here is will this couple KNOW when to stop or will they wait until something awful happens.. When you are having lots of shilchildren it’s difficult to determine when to stop. One of my friends came to that conclusion after she had 5 miscarriages in a row in her 40’s. But still it took her and her husband 4 years to come to that conclusion. :(
However I will also state that I don’t believe the way most women today live is natural either – contracepting for years or experiencing years and years of periods – a situation that might not necessarily be their fault if for example they have been unable to marry.
Josie’s premature birth was the result of preeclampsia, which is something that can afflict any pregnant woman at any time. It is more likely to recur since Michelle has had it once, but so far as I know this is the first time she’s had it. I think this was only her second or third C-section, and I’ve never heard of a link between preeclampsia and C-sections, so whoever said that was just spouting their mouth off without knowing the facts. Yes, multiple C-sections can lead to a need for premature delivery, but this isn’t the case here–Josie’s premature birth has nothing to do with the fact that she has 18 or 19 older siblings.
Interesting that the pro-choicers who seem to care so much about Josie’s health don’t care if she had just been killed, or that abortions greatly increase the risk of premature birth in subsequent pregnancies.
Lots of people have completely normal pregnancies and births after premature emergency C-sections.
Interesting that the pro-choicers who seem to care so much about Josie’s health don’t care if she had just been killed,
Ah. Good point young christian woman! Would they have cared if Josie were killed by a late-term abortion for “health of the mother?”
The vast majority of issues with women who have what is loosely termed “pelvic relaxation”, a situation where the pelvic floor is no longer appropriately supported by the muscles that are supposed to care for it are a result of a combination of genetic predispositions and a lack of appropriate education on how to prevent those problems. In fact, women who have had only one or two children often had the exact same issues as women who had 20… because no one back then did Kegels. Even today, the vast importance of that simple exercise is often overlooked by many women (and even many OBs) who simply view issues of stress incontinence or uterine/pelvic prolapse as a “part of having so many children”.
Appropriate usage of the so-simple-to-do Kegel exercise can prevent the vast majority of these complications. Women who practice Kegels often have multiple children but their body only shows the same amount of “wear” as a woman who has had only one child.
As to will they know when to stop? Well, that’s a pretty personal issue, don’t you think? Your friend who had five miscarriages in a row, yes, I’m sure that was devastating. However, it was your friend’s decision to make, no matter what you thought of the decision. Just as it is the Duggar’s decision to make in their own situation.
Many times I have patients whose belief systems are not my own and I have learned that it is important to accept that person’s beliefs because the psychological harm of violating those beliefs is worse than the physical harm of respecting them even if they result in the patient’s death.
Or, would you have me tell my patient who is a Jehovah’s Witness that his religious beliefs in regards to blood transfusions are “insane” and a “mental illness” because of a situation in which I know as a nurse that if he refuses the blood transfusion there is a very good chance he will die…. and that if he accepts it, he will almost certainly live and regain health? Should I substitute my judgment for his? Absolutely not and it would be a supreme violation of all medical ethics to do so.
So is it in this case. It is up to no one besides Michelle and Jim Bob Duggar to weigh the risks versus the benefits of any particular course of action. They are the ones who will bear the consequences of those decisions. Therefore, they are the only ones with the right to make those decisions.
I will tell you that this is one area where everyone feels they have the right to issue an opinion no matter how vapid, rude, or offensive. Pregnant women are accosted with the most personal of questions by the rude society we live in on a daily basis, no matter what number child they are having…. 1st… or 21st does not matter. Therefore, I am saddened, but not surprised, by the number of people who think they have the right to judge someone else’s family size. Tell you what, when the Duggar children are going hungry, roaming the streets unsupervised at all hours, joining gangs, shooting up illegal drugs, stealing, engaging in illegal activity of ANY kind, then I could probably be talked into thinking that society has a right to comment. When society starts supporting Duggar children with welfare and housing subsidies, I might be able to be talked into thinking that society has a right to comment. Given the current state of affairs… I find it pathetic that people think they have the right to comment, much less to be so incredibly vulgar and rude.
You can’t say “that’s what they are to me, a cult” and then claim you were being hyperbolic in your original statement about a cult.
And I have NO idea what a “Christianist” is. But Christians certainly do NOT live by the “if you don’t like something, ban it” mindset. There are plenty of things I don’t like that don’t fall into the category of a moral evil such as murder.
What is with you, Ashley? You are being amazingly offensive to people of other beliefs, even for you.
Ashley, if you can’t see the difference between a single mother living in poverty, unable to provide for the six children she already has who has herself artificially impregnated with eight children that she has no ability to, or interest in, raising and caring for, who has attempted to milk and defraud the welfare system on multiple occasions… and a loving family with full financial resources, two parents, and strong community support who conceive with no outside intervention due to a specific belief system…. I doubt there’s much anyone can do here to help you.
Ashley,
SO DONE with your Christian Fundie bashing. You will be deleted until you can talk like a big girl.
Please brush up on this rule
No deliberate inflammatory comments
“The legal right of all people to reproduce without government regulation” is a great concept, Ashley. The legality of a woman having her unborn child dismembered in the womb is not. When people say “pro-choice”, they’re talking about the choice to have an abortion, period. Not the choice to have twenty kids, or the choice to adopt ten, or the choice to use three kinds of birth control at once. If you ask just about anyone, “What issue is the term ‘pro-choice’ connected to?”, they’re going to tell you abortion.
The “Christian Taliban” comments are not helping anyone and are contributing to a general lack of civility on this site.
MaryLee, I agree with you on a lot of stuff, but I do think that comparing a woman’s uterus to a clown car is offensive. I don’t think the Duggars are mentally ill, either, I think they’ve got a very different philosophy of life and child-rearing than many people.
Most of the time, when people say they’re going to pray for someone, I think it’s out of a sincere desire to want to help them. I have seen it used in a condescending manner, but most of the time I don’t think it’s intended that way.
Isn’t it fun watching “pro-choicers” prove what a misnomer their title actually is?
None if them want “choice”. They want less children. Period. Their comments about the Duggars ALWAYS proves that.
They think children are a curse on the world. They want them prevented or dead, and they hate to see families who actually love children and don’t want to kill them to focus on themselves.
They’d rather see adults choosing themselves over their children.
(Wow, the Duggars are sooooo evil for seeing their children as blessings and not parasites! )
Oh yeah, it’s so legalistic to NOT be controlling something. lol
What sounds legalistic to me is the idea that the Duggars should be FORCED TO CONTROL their fertility.
Every Duggar child isn’t raised to believe that s/he is the absolute center of the universe…what a tragedy!
I think we could use many more people in this world who are not fixated on themselves and what they want every second, but would rather help others. The world would be a better place with more people like that.
Thank you Carla, for keeping an eye on the posts. I can see that Jill’s site is one of the few that you can comment on without being deleted like the so-called pro-choice blogs I comment on that say “awaiting moderation.” They NEVER dare to post opposing views. They want to cocoon themselves in a little world where everyone thinks its ok to kill unborn children. It’s not easy to keep openness and at the same time keep it civil. Over and over, we question the mental state of the hateful pro-choice commentors, and repeatedly, they ignore us. I used to believe you could refer such folks to mental health care professionals, but honestly I think a lot of people in the counseling profession are lunatics themselves. A lot of counselors are encouraging people in their narcissism and their pathologies. In order for a woman to cope after an abortion, she must disconnect herself from her natural instinct to care for her child. This may seem nothing to pro-choice advocates, but it is creating a widespread problem. Once disconnected from concern for the child, it becomes that much easier to disconnect from others, from parents, friends, co-workers, etc. It becomes easier to dehumanize everyone who is viewed as the opposition. It even goes so far as to manifest as a belief that the human race is a bane to the earth and should self-destruct. This is a serious and widespread illness. This pathology is having a negative impact on every aspect of our modern society. Can we heal from it? I think we can. But I don’t know which individuals will heal and how much. We are in great need of healing. I have hope and optimism. Someday, no matter what, abortion will be a rumor of the past.
Didn’t Jesus say something about how important it is to not be a show-off?
Jesus said to be a light to the world, and that you don’t hide light under a bushel.
They are going to be the luckiest grandparents in the world. Just imagine, being able to have so many people to love and who will love you in return. When I am old, I would love to have many children and grandchildren to love, instead of growing up alone with maybe a kid or two who might come by to see me when they have time in their schedule. I’ve seen this happen with so many older people. The Duggars have taught their children how important family is, and I have no doubt that till the day they die, they will be in good company, with lots of love and laughter to enjoy!
I’m sure the Duggar children love being called “litters”. You call the parents child abusers, but you don’t mind demeaning their children with your own words. Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar use their words to build up their children and show them love.
<i>By the way, how do we know child Number 20 isn’t a publicity stunt?</i>
How do we know your abortion wasn’t a publicity stunt?
<i>Riiight. Replace “love” with “admire and obey Jim Bob,” and that might be accurate. They’re narcissists who want a swarm of followers who will hang on their every word. Most Christian leaders and/or evangelical ministers thrive on this.</i>
It is unfortunate that you have so much hate for people who have done nothing but love their children.
Emotionally healthy people are satisfied with strong connections to a few others who are near and dear to them
They are satisfied with what they have. And they are open to more if they are given more.
She already admits she can’t give enough attention to her kids.
She’s being open and honest about her insecurities as a mom. I have heard many single mothers say the exact same thing.
The fact that I don’t have camera crews following me around while I talk about it might be a tip-off.
Not really.
But that’s a typical narcissistic trait: not investing in a few close relationships.
I would consider having an abortion because you think your baby won’t be good enough for you to be a narcissistic trait, but what do I know? Where’s the “close relationship” there?
I have no doubt the Duggars love their children but my concern is with Josie. Premature babies demand extra care and attention. Hopefully Josie will grow and develop normally but much remains to be seen. These aren’t the babies you pass off on older siblings to care for. Josie may as yet develop special needs and I think the Duggars have to think a little more realistically. She may demand even more in care and needs as she grows. Also, could Michelle again suffer pre eclampsia, that would be another concern. I saw this condition kill a young first time mother so this possibility is nothing to take lightly. Personally, I think the Duggars should count their blessings and give it a rest.
I understand what you’re saying Mary… so far, Michelle has been giving extra one on one attention with Josie, and has been living alone with her while Jim Bob takes over with the children. One thing I think is wonderful about their lifestyle is that both of them are able to stay home and parent the kids together, so if one can’t be there, the other takes over. They seemed very aware of the fact that Michelle could have died during the pregnancy with Josie, and they didn’t take it lightly at all. They do seem to understand the challenges ahead of them with a premature baby. They truly do have faith that if another child comes along, though, God will give them the strength and the ability to take care of that child. So far it has been the case, and I have no doubt that they will do whatever they can to take care of their children in the best way possible.
Points being made by some of the posters on this board may be a little harsh, but they raise some points to ponder.
First of all, we know only what goes on in front of the camera. Also, people do not always collect or produce children for the most noble of reasons, just as people do not always collect animals out of humanitarian reasons though they may argue they do. There can also be an emotional need that is being satisfied.
With MIchelle’s history its time for good judgment to replace what I am beginning to see as a compulsive need. People will often satisfy a compulsion to their own detriment. It is now a health issue as well as possibly one of life and death. Eclampsia is nothing to play with. Michelle is at risk for disablity and death. We saw the tragedy of the young Texas mother drowning her five children. This woman had a history of serious mental illness her husband chose to ignore in his desire to have more children. I hold him far more responsible for the death of those children than I do their mother. A responsible husband would have had a vasectomy or encouraged his wife to have a tubal.
I think it is time for the Duggars to think much more responsibly as well.
Hi Bethany
I think we posted at the same time. It looks like my post addresses yours to some degree. It gets to the point, as it did with the Andrea Yates tragedy, that one must be realistic concerning risks and a disabled or dead Michelle will not be of much use to her children. We might have had four children alive today instead of five dead ones had Rusty Yates acted as a responsible husband.
Compare Andrea Yates to Michelle Duggar? I can’t do that. The differences there are huge!
The clown car comment is NOT offensive. How Puritanical can you be? It says a lot about me? What the heck do you know about me? You judge me? Seriously, I made the same comment to my very traditional and very conservative friend who is a pastor at a Catholic church, and he laughed his butt off. I think it says more about YOU that a comment like that offends you.
And the reason I am offended that people say they’re going to “pray” for me, is because you’re not praying for me, you’re praying that I become more like you.
Do none of you understand how pro-life I am? I have been shunned in my industry (the arts) because of my views, and had to forge my own path. Why do you insist on lecturing me, or belittling Ashley, when maybe it might help you to open your minds, a little bit?
The Duggars are compulsive. They are not healthy—if their children were animals, they would have the cops and the ASPCA on them by now. They’re not living their lives quietly; they are making money off of their children.
But, okay, that’s fine, if you want to lecture me and Ashley and anyone who might disagree with you about some things. Be pro-life; don’t be IGNORANT.
Marylee, how is comparing the children to dogs and cats anything but rude and tacky?
Children are not pets. They are not “collecting” children. They are simply not controlling whether they have more or not.
Ashley, again, people are not PETS.
Keep showing the” pro-choice” side of things though! :-D You approve of ONE choice.
Ashley’s a really good poster girl on how a pro-aborts’ mind really works and how it views the world around them…
I remember seeing a shirt that states…”Have a goal in life, Be a bad example”,
maybe I should get her one?
You people need to understand that the Duggars are not actively TRYING to conceive. They are not TRYING to have as many kids as they can. Michelle actually thought she was not going to have any more after the 18th, because she figured she was in the ‘next season of life’. She was absolutely floored when she found out she was pregnant again. Who in here can really control their fertility? Almost everyone I know has a baby from a time when they were using contraception. And I know so many people who TRIED for years to have babies without success. It’s not in our hands, and that is where the Duggars are coming from. They leave it to God.
Amen, Bethany!! Hence the fallacy of the statement: “my body, my choice”….
Hi Bethany,
I am not comparing Andrea and Michelle. I’m saying that there are circumstances where one must put good judgment first, and desires second.
Certainly a woman in her forties may be very surprised she conceived whether she tried to or not.
Oh definitely…I know I would!
RSD, I agree…it’s amazing how “my body my choice” flies out the window when it comes to people who choose not to use contraception.
If anyone called my uterus a “clown car” they would be devaluing my fertility and therefore, the children I had conceived. As if my children are some kind of joke.
It says a lot about me? What the heck do you know about me? You judge me?
That’s a pretty ironic statement, considering you don’t know the Duggars and yet you’ve decided they’re mentally ill.
FYI, I am not anti-birth control, though I am against hormonal contraception. And I am not against people choosing to have as many children as God gives them, if they are supporting their families. Frankly, I don’t really care what the Duggars do. I think I’ve seen their show *maybe* twice. They’re entitled to have the family they want.
Ashley,
Since you’re in attack dog mode with Mrs. Duggar, accusing her of narcissism for having so many children, what are we to conclude about you having killed the only child you ever had because you weren’t ready to face the adult responsibilities and sacrifices that come with motherhood?
The next time you snort the word narcissist I hope you look in the mirror.
MaryLee, I appreciate you tremendously, and as I said before, I agree with you on a lot of stuff. I do think the clown car comment is offensive, though, because I don’t think people should be demeaning about a woman’s sexual organs, period. I know you didn’t mean it as some kind of big statement, but if someone made a personal comment on sexual parts of my body, I would be offended.
My point about people saying “I’ll pray for you” is that they really are doing it with good intentions, even if you don’t agree with those intentions. Most of the time they truly believe you would be better off if you changed in whatever way they’re praying about. Are they wrong sometimes? Yeah, I definitely think so. But they’re not trying to be offensive.
I agree that belittling Ashley isn’t helping anyone.
Mary Lee, you get upset for being judged and called on for making a crass statement… while you are harshly and vulgarly judging others for their beliefs.
Ashley, the Octomom had litters. While there have been a couple of sets of twins, the Duggars have not had litters. The word litter is defined as multiple offspring from a single birth.
As for Andrea Yates, her husband gave her NO help and she had no part in the decision making. Jim Bob has been very open in multiple forums that the second Michelle says she’s done… they’re done. His words: “She’s the one who has to go through the hard physical part. She gets to make the final decision.”
Oh… so you had your child killed when he or she had
a four chambered, beating heart complete with valves
little fingers and toes (still webbed, but distinct)
complete respiratory pathways in place from throat to lungs
nerve cells branching out and connecting to each other forming the beginnings of neural pathways
teeth buds
external sex organs (even though not yet visible via u/s)
fully formed eyes
tiny earlobes
all basic physiology in place, ready to simply continue growing and developing
And yet you condemn parents who neither seek out nor prevent conception, work hard to assure the healthiest environment for all of their children, are raising children who are polite, interact well with others, respect authority, devote their free time to service to those around them and around the world, and support their family financially? When your response was… too hard, too much work, cuts into my plans for myself, might as well murder you because its legal and I can get away with it!
MaryLee wrote:
Seriously, I made the same comment [re: “clown car”] to my very traditional and very conservative friend who is a pastor at a Catholic church, and he laughed his butt off.
Oh, for crying out loud…
Let’s trace out your reasoning, on this one:
“I think that a crass joke, which mocks (by means of calling her womb by a vulgar epithet) the choice of a woman to have many children, is ‘funny’. My ‘very traditional and very conservative’ friend who is a pastor at a Catholic Church laughed at it, too. Therefore, the joke is perfectly in keeping with traditional and conservative (whatever that means) Catholicism.”
First, I have to ask: what makes this pastor “very traditional and conservative”? Was he incensing the Holy Eucharist and intoning the ‘Tantum Ergo’ and preparing to celebrate a solemn, sung Traditional Latin Mass while laughing at your crass joke? Does he wear a fiddleback chasuble and maniple while guffawing at jokes about the wombs of women? I’m seriously doubting whether you have any idea what your talking about, when you describe this ‘very traditional and conservative Catholic pastor’. (Is he also sympathetic to your strident defense of “gay marriage”–which would be a violation not only of clear and unequivocal Catholic teaching, but also of “canonical social conservativism”?)
Second: if we assume (for the sake of argument) that your description is at least superficially correct, it means only (and tragically) that you’ve found a priest who has a taste for traditional “bells and whistles”, has some conservative political tastes, and has (at least insofar as his enjoyment of your shameful comment goes) disgraced the holy priesthood.
Third: do you seriously not see that your comment proves nothing germane to your point? “It must be okay, because a priest laughed!” If all priests lived up to their holy calling, then that would be a good test, yes; but enough priests have such horrifically malformed spiritualities, theological understanding, and consciences that the test is not very reliable, I’m afraid.
So, the answer is still “no”: mocking a woman who chooses to have more children than you like, and comparing her womb–one of the most sacred parts of a woman’s body–with a farcical sight-gag (designed to mock her number of children)–is a bad thing to do, MaryLee. Even a moment of quiet and sober thought will show that to you.
Perhaps you (and your “traditional and conservative” preist friend) were unaware that St. Catherine of Siena–one of the few Doctors of the Church–was the youngest of 25 children? Would you and your priest friend like to mock HER mother, while you’re at it?
Bethany thank you for clarifying the Duggars intentions.
However, if they are not trying to conceive does this then mean that they are using a natural method such as Billings to try to avoid conception? Or are they just doing what they always do and hoping for the best?
Because to me, based on what has transpired the former would be a responsible course of action.
The clown car comment is offensive because it objectifies a person. Persons are subjects made in the image of God no matter what we feel about their actions. Therefore, we respect them always.
Ashley,
Your present state has no bearing on the narcissism that you have described as the motive for killing your first child. So when you ask how I know this, it’s based upon your comments here. (I presume that they have been truthful). Say what you will about Mrs. Duggar’s motives for having so many children, but the inescapable reality is that you aborted yours, whereas she gave all of hers life. And you, in your unrepentant, in your face, rebellious spirit are the very last person to sit and dictate how motherly love is best expressed. Try loving one of yours to full term first.
Then you still have a long way to Catch a woman with a twenty year head start on you. Start by making a Rachel’s Vineyard retreat and reconcile with yourself, your baby, and God.
Embryo is what you call a child at a certain stage in development. Toddler is what you call the same child a couple years later. Teenager is what you call a child who’s taking your car keys. There’s this cute thing yiddish men used to say about their sons, “Here comes my kadish now!” referring to the fact that the child would say prayers over him after he was dead. I love that. I wish I had a little kadish. When my kosher friends used to tease me and call me ‘shicksa’ I thought it was a compliment (I thought it meant hot gentile chick), but now that I’m older, I’m just a goya.
Dr. Nadal,
I’d have to agree with you. As much as I, along with so many on this board, admire and appreciate the beautiful Duggar family, if Michelle’s health is at risk, then she does have a moral obligation to take care of herself, spouse, and children. I don’t know if using the quiverfull practice of conception/child spacing is the same as NFP, but one of the things I learned about with NFP that the Couple to Couple League points out in their handbook is that the 3 P’s should be part of the married couples practice: Providence (God’s), Prudence, and Planning. Is it prudent to be having another baby when one’s health is a risk?
Not sure why my comment states that I need to edit it. Carla or anyone? Thanks.
It’s not that you NEED to edit it, it’s that you CAN edit it. Ignore if you’re happy with your posting.
Also forgot to add in my last post – why all this outrage from some individuals about married couples having lots and lots of kids? I just don’t get it. Isn’t this the history of the world for crying out loud? At least before contraception came to be widely used? I mean wasn’t Benjamin Franklin child # 23 or something like that? Celine Dion #14??
Would we have had all the great progress in history if the moms and dads of these individuals contracepted or aborted?
Great Post, Paladin. I love St. Catherine of Siena! Maybe some of the pro-woman, pro-feminist women on this thread should read about great females who performed heroic acts of virtue like St. Catherine (and many many others, of course).
Thank you Elisabeth. I noticed it on my posts, but not on others.
I don’t see anything wrong with siblings helping as long as the work is distributed fairly. I don’t see work as abuse I think we learn from working and it gives us a better appreciation of what we do have. I do believe though that if they have a surplus of money after they pay there living expenses that some of this should be put in accounts for the children so they can attend college or use it as they see fit when there older. I don’t watch a lot of T.V. so didn’t even know who the Duggars were until I started posting here. Although I don’t think it’s governments place to tell someone what their family size should be, I do believe that her doctor needs to make sure both of them have a very clear understanding of the risks involved before she conceives again.
And of course after the risks are clearly explained to both of them and Jim Bob still thinks more babies are o.k. and she doesn’t agree, she needs to start paying attention with her mind and not her heart.
Myrtle, please read more carefully. As previously stated, Jim Bob completely defers to Michelle’s opinion on this issue. He has made that statement publicly many, many, many times, as I pointed out above.
Angel, they are neither trying to conceive nor trying to avoid conception.
The belief of those who hold to the Quiverfull philosophy is that God alone is the Lord of everything–the Earth, our bodies, our wombs. He is the only one who can open or close the womb–the scriptures make this clear. So ideally, a couple just has sex when they want to and leaves whether conception will occur up to God. Those who are quiverfull do not use NFP for child spacing, although some (like the Duggars) do follow Old Testament rules on purity which involve abstaining for several months after a birth (how long depends on whether the child is a girl or a boy).
Most people who are Quiverfull do not have a problem with those who practice NFP to avoid conception when grave injury or illness to occur. But not all choose it for themselves. Absolutely they would encourage someone to know the risks; but some of the reasons they might choose not to avoid conception are: God could close my womb if He thought another child was not in my best interests; God is sovereign in my life, death, or injury; there is no mention in the Bible of avoiding sex, abstaining, or rendering it sterile for reason of preventing conception; I would not avoid conception for a desperately wanted first child, and this (third, or seventh, or eighteenth, or twentieth) child is just as valuable to me and to God; nothing happens apart from the will of God.
In practice, if one knows whether one is fertile or not, on the days conception is possible it may factor into the decision making process (for me, anyway): we are very tired, but we might conceive tonight, so we will stay up a bit later and have sex. And the opposite decision–we are very tired, and kind of want sex, but we might conceive tonight, so we’ll just sleep–would not be sinful, because we would not just be avoiding conception. That’s my opinion, anyway.
And of course, there are lots of doctors that will decide that another baby isn’t advisable just because she has 19, without ever examining her or interviewing her. So it would have to be a doctor she trusted. Some doctors try to get people with “too many” kids (how many is that, Angel?) to stop having kids with medical excuses even when there is no more risk than any other pregnancy; some will just say it’s dangerous to have kids over 40, or when you have a certain condition, or whatever, when in reality if the child were a first or second, they wouldn’t even mention the supposed danger.
ycw:
“So ideally, a couple just has sex when they want to and leaves whether conception will occur up to God.”
What bothers me about the entire approach in some ways is that it seems to leave no room for using one’s intellect and actively cooperating with God.
In generations past we did not understand how fertility worked so there was no way to use our intellect in line with our will and praying to God to help ourselves in difficult situations. Hence couples simply had many children – often who died or they couldn’t feed and care for.
That is not the case now. A couple in their 40’s who have experienced multiple miscarriages (like my friend) can now prayerfully make a choice to avoid having sexual intercouse on days when she might be fertile using NFP. For Catholics like myself, the reasons must be serious, although you and I both know that this is often abused. :(
Using NFP does not mean that couples do not consider God to be sovereign in their lives. In fact quite the opposite is true. With a method such as the Creighton method, the couple examines their fertility each and every day of their married lives during their childbearing years and makes a prayerful decision as to what they believe God wants for them. It is beautiful, respectful.
I’m not sure what bothers me about the Duggars approach but somehow it seems lacking. It seems not to be using all of the capacity that God gave us.
And yes I agree with you on the doctors frequent approach to women – especially those over 35! My question about the number of babies was rhetorical. Each couple must decide what they are called to.
Have a blessed day. :D
It seems …. to you… to be lacking. Obviously it doesn’t seem that way to them. What you view as using “all of the capacity” may very well seem to them be lacking… lacking in trust or faith or whatever (not saying that is true, just trying to show that there can be valid viewpoints on both sides). Just as I’m sure you wouldn’t want them to lecture you on what they might perceive as your lack of faith, it seems wrong to critique what you perceive is their lack of intellect. If you read their books and website and really listen to the interviews with them, this is not something they take lightly or are unaware of the risks… like my example earlier of the Jehovah’s Witness patient refusing a blood transfusion… just because *I* think that the patient is wrong does not mean that, for him, he actually is wrong and does not give me the right to substitute my judgment for his… even if it could cost him his life (a life that would otherwise be easily saved and possibly go on for years or even decades longer).
Ycw, I agree with your post completely.
Angel, we have had this discussion before elsewhere so you know that you and I may not see eye to eye on this issue (and that’s okay!), but I just have to address the idea that we are not using intellect when we allow God to control our fertility.
I don’t see how it is not using our intellect?
– like I asked before, who in here actually can control their fertility? Can I say to myself, “I want to be pregnant right now”, then have sex, and become pregnant as a result of willing it to happen? If I could, I would have had three babies since 2007.
Can I be absolutely sure that practicing any form of birth control is going to prevent a child? Even with every precaution, a pregnancy can occur. I believe wholeheartedly that this is whether the spark of life is created in my womb. Only God can produce that spark of life. God says that spark of life is a gift from Him to me. Why would I ever reject something that He called a “gift”? My intellect, along with my heart, says that it would be foolish to reject a gift that He is giving me. Who better than God knows the timing with which my children should be conceived?
The Bible never, ever, ever calls children a burden or gives us a reason to avoid accepting them. My intellect says, “Trust God’s timing.”
And Rachel lamented to her husband Jacob who said to her that only God opens and closes the womb….
Amen :)
I prefer to trust God. “Can a child presume to know where or how to live?” Why do we assume that our intellects are superior to God’s ability to plan? I believe that He is still the one who creates each human being–that He does not simply leave it up to deterministic principles. My God is not a watchmaker God; He is living and active, upholding and watching over the universe. Without Him nothing could or would happen…. He is far wiser than I, knows better what is best for me.
I know you don’t believe in a watchmaker God, Angel… but I hope you believe that when others make decisions, they are asking God for wisdom, which He grants to all who ask. Sometimes His wisdom is simply, “Trust me.”
I do get what you’re saying about how we have more knowledge than ever before…. but do we have more wisdom? I kind of doubt it.
Remember, we are told there are ways that seem right to man, but they lead unto death…
ycw,
While I certainly respect your beliefs, I am convinced that when God gave us a brain, it wasn’t to seperate our ears. There’s also something called good judgment. Had Rusty Yates practiced it, 4 children would be alive today instead of 5 dead children in the ground. Whatever trust and belief you have, I hope you do not take midnite walks in dangerous neighborhoods or pet rattlesnakes. Michelle Duggar is at risk for life threatening complications in a future pregnancy and has a premature child, who’s future needs and possible disabilities are unknown, and 18 other children who need her. If she wants to take that risk that’s her decision, personally I hope she gives it serious consideration. Its one thing if there are no health issues of concern, Its quite another if there are.
Let’s put it this way ycw, if you know someone has heart disease do you think they should have the good sense to avoid junk food and activities that put them at risk for further complications even death? Do you think the person coughing and wheezing should give up the cigarettes? Every day I’m sure we see people who we would agree should exercise much better judgment to protect their health and lives, for the sake of others if not themselves. This is how I view the situation with Michelle.
Apples and oranges. God gives us rules about what to eat in the Old Testament and modifies some of them in the New Testament. Eating the way outlined in scriptures would preclude a diet of junk food. The Bible also gives us instructions against polluting our bodies with substances that cause it harm such as tobacco.
In addition, Rusty Yates CLEARLY violated scriptural teachings that require the husband to love his wife as God loves the church, even down to laying down his life to care for her, treating her with honor as the “weaker vessel”. Jim Bob does no such thing… where Rusty left Andrea completely on her own with no financial or emotional support, no physical presence to help, Jim Bob is physically present in the home supporting his wife, providing for her with wise investments and rental properties, praying with her, helping with her physical needs, stepping in with the help of the older children to allow her the extra time she needs to both care for Josie and to heal…
To compare the Yates family and the Duggar family requires a complete abandonment of logic.
Abraham used his “brain” instead of his faith. He was smart enough to “know” that there was NO WAY his elderly wife would be able to conceive a child. So, he decided to help God out by being smart and having relations with Hagar and conceived Ishmael. Oh, wait, oops… no he was supposed to rely on faith, not his own wisdom. To this day the world suffers from the enmity between the descendants of Ishmael and the descendants of Isaac.
At least he did learn his lesson. When all common sense and wisdom would have precluded him from being willing to sacrifice his son (after all, that makes NO sense. Why would God send Isaac just to kill him???) he walked by faith in God…. and was thereby justified.
Elizabeth,
I am NOT comparing the Duggars and Yaegers. I am pointing out what can happen when one does not exercise good judgment. Rusty thought he was following scripture by impregnating his wife and the mental illness would take care of itself. I see this as Michelle’s mentality, that despite risks God will take care.
My argument is that God gives us good judgment, which is why we don’t take midnite strolls in dangerous neighborhoods or pet rattlesnakes. Well most of us anyway.
Also, a person may not have heart or liver disease because they didn’t follow biblical teachings. A person afflicted with hepatitis could have all the symptoms of alcoholic cirrohsis but have never touched a drop. Would you not expect this person to have the good judgment to abstain from liquor? Jesus is said to have turned water into wine so He apparently had no issue with it. That’s the point I’m trying to make, health issues do no always take care of themselves but rather we must rely on good judgment. The world is not a safe place and good judgment and not blind faith is what may keep you alive. I’m sure God will take no offense if you take cover during a tornado or avoid dangerous neighborhoods.
Oh and Elizabeth, it was Sara, Abraham’s wife as well as his half sister, they shared the same father Terah(Genesis 20:12) who told Abraham to impregnate her maid Hagar, it was not Abraham second guessing God. Some argue that she was Abraham’s second wife. One has to look at the culture and customs of the time. Also, Sara may not have been all that elderly by the standards of today.
Sarah was over 90.
I don’t take midnight walks in dangerous neighborhoods anymore.
Only God can create a child. I can’t. And even if I tried to prevent that creation, it might not work–or might even kill the child rather than preventing him or her. Conceiving a child is really not comparable to anything else. Regardless of the length of my life or the child’s life on Earth, the two of us will live for eternity with God. If I had to spend 9 months in discomfort to give one of my children a lifetime of 80 years, it would be worth it–how much more it would be worth my life on Earth being cut short for my child to have eternity in heaven.
I don’t claim to know everything that is going through or has gone through Michelle’s head, but I wouldn’t judge her for using NFP or for trying to conceive or for letting it rest in God’s hands. I trust she is competent to make her own decisions, and that she relies on God and the wisdom He gives.
(No, I don’t trust that about everyone, especially those who kill their children–just in case the trolls are thinking of asking)
Genesis 17:17 for Sarah being over 90 before Isaac’s conception
Sara is supposed to have died at 127years and Abraham at 175 years. Possibly a different calender, if any, at use in this era?
I’m glad you’re not taking midnite walks in dangerous neighborhoods. Shows excellent judgment on your part.
You’re certainly right about Michelle, she will make her own decision. From a medical standpoint I hope she thinks long and hard about it as her life was in as much danger as her child’s was and a premature child will demand much in time and attention.
ycw, Michelle had to be rushed to a hospital and her child delivered early. The baby survived thanks to intensive care. Sometimes humans have to step in and interfere with the Divine. Happens all the time.
I’m curious, when Andrea Yates was finally stabilized on anti psychotic medication and therapy after 4 children, catatonia, hallucinations, murderous impulses and hospitalizations, as well as medical advice against any more pregnancies, did her husband have a responsibility to say no more children? Yes or no?
Mary wrote:
Sara is supposed to have died at 127years and Abraham at 175 years. Possibly a different calender, if any, at use in this era?
Perhaps. But, if you’re going to take Scripture seriously at all, you’ll have to acknowledge that Genesis 18:11 (etc.) established Sarah’s barrenness, quite clearly, no matter what calendar was being used. (And all calendars, even the Jewish lunar-based calendar, measured the passage of years! It’s not that difficult.)
You’re certainly right about Michelle, she will make her own decision. From a medical standpoint I hope she thinks long and hard about it as her life was in as much danger as her child’s was and a premature child will demand much in time and attention.
I think Michelle knows that; and I think you’re skirting dangerously close to assuming that she’s somehow incompetent or unstable, and doesn’t know what she’s doing. Right?
ycw, Michelle had to be rushed to a hospital and her child delivered early. The baby survived thanks to intensive care. Sometimes humans have to step in and interfere with the Divine. Happens all the time.
Of course. And Jim and Michelle aren’t asking for a baby to be handed to them from the heavens; nor are they expecting the baby to live without food, fluid or air, or medical treatment; nor do they seem to be blind to any other necessary dynamic of family life; they’re not idiots, nor are they Christian Scientists. I suspect they know much more about taking care of a preemie than you or I do. (You did catch ycw’s part about preeclampsia affecting any mother during any pregnancy? Then why do you think that a subsequent pregnancy will present any greater risk?)
There seems to be a rather perrenial, obnoxious and illogical strain flowing through many of the anti-Duggar comments (both here, and elsewhere): “no one but a crazy person would try for 20 children; crazy people can’t be trusted to make good decisions about family life; so someone should step in and try to educate them, reason with them, restore them to sanity, etc., so that the children aren’t abused anymore… and the Duggars stop abusing themselves, for perdition’s sake!” It’s really sad. You people, who recoil at the Duggars: do you seriously not see that, in addition to being judgmental (sometimes to the point of being caddish and disgusting), you’re assuming your conclusion (i.e. that the Duggars’ way of handling family affairs is wrong) in order to prove it? That simply doesn’t work…
I’m curious, when Andrea Yates was finally stabilized on anti psychotic medication and therapy after 4 children, catatonia, hallucinations, murderous impulses and hospitalizations, as well as medical advice against any more pregnancies, did her husband have a responsibility to say no more children? Yes or no?
Er… before I answer: could you explain how–unless you’re trying to insinuate a connection between Andrea Yates’ mental illness and Michelle Duggar’s state of mental health–that example is at all relevant?
“You’re telling me these whackjobs are going to have a special, grandparent-to-child relationship with upwards of 80 kids?”
Ashley,
To be honest, I’m not a big fan of the Duggars, not because of the number of children they have but because they’ve turned their lives into a reality show. That said, I have to speak in defense of this family. My husband’s family is much smaller than my own. He is one of some 16 grandchildren. I am one of 47. My relationship with my grandmother is MUCH stronger than his with his grandparents. Furthermore, I am one of 10 children and have a much stronger relationship with my parents than he does with his parents as one of 5. It is entirely possible to cultivate healthy relationships with a large number of people. Especially considering that the Duggars have decades in which to do so. Children need to know that their parents are paying attention. This doesn’t mean that every time the kids want to chat or pester their parents, they are given the opportunity. It DOES mean that the parents are aware and cognizant of when their children NEED their attention. This is true whether you have one child or 15 children. Michelle and Jim Bob’s ability to be aware of their children’s needs is FAR more important than their ability to cater to their children’s DESIRES.
hi Bethany yes we do disagree but that’s ok! ;) That’s what sometimes happens with friends and I totally respect your view point and that of others who support the Duggars. :D
I was thinking about this on the way to work today and this is what I am thinking.
The course of action that the Duggars is taking seems to me to be unreasonable.
For example, if their position on blood transfusions was that they believed in letting God be sovereign and that they would not allow for transfusions, would your response still be the same? Would that be a reasonable course of action say for example, if they had a child who needed a blood transfusion not for lifesaving but say for helping them get well. If the Duggars response to that was “Well if God wants this child to live or to have a better life then he will see to it. We are willing to see just what God has in store for us and that child.”
If a child has a high fever would they behave this way in this situation?
To me, most people would consider this an unreasonable way to behave. I don’t believe God ever asks us to behave this way.
The fact is, Michelle and Bob Duggar COULD actually make a decision but they won’t. If they did decide to practice NFP , I believe that this would actually be a higher action than just letting things go on as they are because for one, they are using their God-given intellect along with their faith to decide upon a course of action, 2. they might actually be required to practice marital chastity and some self control, something that might actually strengthen their marriage.
I also consider their lifestyle to be unreasonable and unrealistic – especially as an example to their children. Will their children expect to live like this as adults? How many families have BOTH parents at home, not working?
The other thing I see is that this is an extreme reaction to their contraceptive behavior early in their marriage. They have gone from one extreme of being completely closed to the idea of children to the opposite extreme of having babies no matter what the cost.
Please don’t shoot me. I’m prolife and I love babies and very large families. I just don’t agree with what the Duggars have done. :(
By your response to that comment, Ashley, I hope you realize you’ve inferred that your theoretical (might be “pregnant right now”) “child” is a child, but you’re also inferring (by your use of quotes) that the child you aborted was NOT a child. It really doesn’t work both ways. You’ve posted before that you’d like to be pregnant right now. And yet, you continue to call preborn children “baybeez” (dehumanizing). I’m wondering if you are aware of the fact that you sound like two completely different individuals when you post. And it has become worse over the months you’ve been posting here.
I think it’s possible you are an incredibly confused, angry individual, who is struggling to come to terms with her own abortion, and pro-lifers (oops, sorry, “antis and Christofascists”) are the easiest target you have for that anger and hurt which you insist just isn’t there. It’s easier to mock and label us than it is to come to terms with your own culpability and your own feelings of bitterness toward those you love who played direct or indirect roles in your abortion.
So many of us here have seen this before, Ashley, and many here have even experienced it firsthand. Please talk to someone.
Angel, have you read ANY of my posts?
Yes, if they had a religious belief against a blood transfusion I would have an ethical and legal obligation as a nurse to allow them to die. I’ve posted that exact analogy several times.
Angel YOU believe it would be a higher course of action. They obviously do not. What makes you right and them wrong?
“To be honest, I’m not a big fan of the Duggars, not because of the number of children they have but because they’ve turned their lives into a reality show.”
Yes I agree. It seems like they have done this to achieve what they want and that’s another thing that bothers me again. I don’t believe it’s because they crave fame. But I do believe that they have chosen this so they can live what they see as “God’s will for them” and I don’t believe that God will is to market families in a form of voyeurism.
I was thinking about this on the way to work today and this is what I am thinking.
The course of action that the Duggars is taking seems to me to be unreasonable.
For example, if their position on blood transfusions was that they believed in letting God be sovereign and that they would not allow for transfusions, would your response still be the same? Would that be a reasonable course of action say for example, if they had a child who needed a blood transfusion not for lifesaving but say for helping them get well. If the Duggars response to that was “Well if God wants this child to live or to have a better life then he will see to it. We are willing to see just what God has in store for us and that child.”
If a child has a high fever would they behave this way in this situation?
To me, most people would consider this an unreasonable way to behave. I don’t believe God ever asks us to behave this way.
Pardon me for butting in :D, but from my perspective, it seems like you’re equating these two ideas: 1) Willfully allow an ill child to die by refusing life-saving treatment; and 2) Allow one’s reproductive organs to continue functioning as they were designed to function. Those two, in my opinion, are in no way the same thing.
Angel YOU believe it would be a higher course of action. They obviously do not. What makes you right and them wrong?
Elizabeth, I believe that we have a duty to use our God-given intellects along side our faith. God gave us our higher reasoning for a purpose. I don’t see the Duggars doing that in this case. If Michelle Duggar were to die from her next pregnancy I really don’t believe that that would necessarily have been the will of God. But I do believe they would see it that way.
It’s a good thing Jonas Salk, Edward Jenner, and Ignaz Semmelweis did not have this mindset. There are a good many of us who would not be here today. :D
Regardless of whose decision it was to have Abraham impregnante Hagar, he made the choice to act out of his own wisdom, not God’s. The consequences are obvious for the entire world to see on a daily basis.
And for Rusty Yates responsibilities, he never fulfilled any of them. In no way whatsoever can Jim Bob Duggar and Rusty Yates be compared.
Again, apples and oranges. Obviously the Duggars do not eschew medical technology. Therefore, the comparisons of Salk, Jenner and Semmelweis have no basis. (Oh, and I’ll buy Salk and Semmelweis, but Jenner was a fraud.)
Kel, THANK YOU. That is exactly the thought process I’ve been trying to get across. (Highly unsuccessfully, I might add.)
Allow one’s reproductive organs to continue functioning as they were designed to function. Those two, in my opinion, are in no way the same thing.
yes, except that her reproductive organs might now kill her just that same as the high fever. One would treat the condition of a high fever just as one might take care not to endanger ones’ life by having another high risk pregnancy.
and the attitude is still the same regardless of the situation: extreme legalism and rigidity.
Kel, there is just to me, something very unnatural and unwholesome about their lifestyle.
I think if they were a couple living on a farm, and had 20 children I would be more inclined to be ok with it. In fact I grew up knowing a family with 18 children who became doctors (women too with families!!), farmers, lawyers, and teachers and who went on to have their own families.
Elizabeth: you miss my point.
The point is that God is sovereign and therefore we won’t act.
We will let God take the reins always.
If Salk had that idea, why bother trying to treat polio. After all, if it’s God’s will, children will live from polio- if not they will die and it wil be God’s will.
Why does it matter where they live? Beliefs are beliefs, regardless of where one’s home is located.
As for recurrence, after severe pre-eclampsia recurrence rate is about 20-25% in subsequent pregnancies. So, she has a 75-80% chance of NOT having a recurrence, but for that you condemn her extreme legalism and stupidity? How about they have medical personnel who advise them, they clearly LISTEN to and follow the advice of the medical personnel, and they clearly seek medical attention whenever it is necessary.
In addition, this particular pre-eclampsia was triggered by a gallbladder attack. I would think the simplest course of action would be to treat THAT situation medically or surgically if necessary.
I do NOT miss your point. Your point is off target. There is a huge difference between allowing the body to function AS IT WAS DESIGNED and doing something to stop or prevent a process of DISEASE that is NOT as the body was designed.
As I often tell people who ask me when I’m going to get “fixed”…. “Why? I’m obviously not broken!”
Paladin,
You will notice throughout Scripture that it is the women who are always “barren” and never the men who are at fault. Just an interesting point. I didn’t argue anywhere that Sara was not in fact barren.
In ancient times Jewish people determined the beginning of the month by observations of the cresent moon which had to be certified by witnesses. Its easy to see how this could be somewhat inaccurate.
However if you believe these folks did indeed live into their hundreds, thats fine with me. Age may not have been measured by lunar year just as some Orthodox Jews accept that the days of creation may not have been actual 24 hour periods.
Wrong big time Paladin. I in no way consider the woman incompetent or unstable and I challenge you to directly quote me saying she is. I clearly stated that I have concerns from a medical standpoint just as I would have concerns for any person who I feel may be taking a health or life threatening risk. I saw a young mother die of eclampsia Paladin. I have seen women admitted to ICU to get their dangerously high blood pressure under control before they were disabled or killed by a stroke. Pre-eclampsia is something to be taken very seriously. Also my cousin’s child wasn’t diagnosed with cerebral palsy until she was 3 y/o. The Duggars cannot be certain at this point what if any special needs their child may develop. Of course I wish Josie complete health but I’m not naive about prematurity. I think they need to concentrate first and foremost on her. If this makes me a terrible person, so be it.
For heaven’s sake Paladin you completely miss my point. While some argue here that only God determines conception, etc. and we should trustingly accept whatever, I am pointing out that we interfere in this process time and again with C-sections, inductions, NICU, etc. Do you think maybe God wanted Michelle to stroke out and little Josie to die??? Do you think He may have not been pleased with all the human intervention on behalf of Michelle and Josie? This argument can work both ways don’t you agree?
Yes pre-eclampsia can stike any mother, I began developing it in my final month and my high BP was making the doctor nervous. However if you do your research you will find that mother’s with a previous history are at higher risk. In fact, our friend’s wife was advised to have no more children after two bouts of life threatening pre-eclampsia.
I in no way “recoil” at the Duggars Paladin, I just don’t want to see unnecessary disability and/or death. I see an infant that will require more intense care and who’s demands may grow as she gets older. I hope that Michelle will be realistic about the risks to herself and any future child. Like it or not Paladin the risks are there.
Any insinuation that Michelle is of dubious mental health is strictly in your head Paladin, and frankly you’re starting to get me a little irked. Both these women suffered serious complications of pregnancy, Michelle’s was physical, Andrea’s was postpartum psychosis. Some here have argued that Michelle, pregnancy,etc. should be left in God’s hands, I argue that when God gave us a brain, it wasn’t to seperate our ears. I use Andrea as a very tragic example of what happened when people did not exercise good judgment and assumed a potentially deadly situation would somehow remedy itself. I hold Rusty far more responsible for the deaths of those children than I do Andrea.
I do not want to see good judgment clouded by blind faith, whether its another pregnancy or taking a midnite stroll in a dangerous neighborhood. That is my concern for Michelle.
Well, let’s see….. Sara wasn’t getting pregnant but Hagar got pregnant by Abraham… thinking it was Sara.
Rachel didn’t get pregnant for a long time, but Jacob knocked up 3 other women a total of 10 times. Yup… thinking it was Rachel.
Hannah, the mother of Samuel, was the second wife to a man who had several children with his other wife… um, yeah, I think it was Hannah.
As for the implications, other people have stated it directly, and you have made repeated comparisons between the Yates’ and the Duggars’. Odd then, that people would think you were comparing them??
As you clearly recognize, pre-eclampsia can strike any woman in any pregnancy. Perhaps no one should ever get pregnant then!
Again, the odds of recurrence are 20-25%. You make it sound like they are 100%.
Elisabeth,
I guess we could hold Sara just as responsible. Also, some argue that Hagar may have been considered a second wife, which means Abraham would of course have sex with her. Couldn’t God have prevented a child from being conceived if he so strongly disapproved?
I am not comparing Jim Bob and Rusty Yates.
If there was a 75 to 80% chance your parachute would open, would you jump out of a plane? Whatever triggered the pre-eclampsia the point is she is at increased risk, period. I have seem gall bladder surgery on pregnant women and none of the developed pre-eclampsia so this may or may not have been the cause.
Yes it can be treated but there is no guarantee of success, as we have already seen.
My point again Elisabeth is that the risk factor is there and that is what concerns me.
take care not to endanger ones’ life by having another high risk pregnancy.
Problem is, most of us can’t truly know whether or not we’ll HAVE a high risk pregnancy. She had pre-eclampsia, which can happen if you’ve had no previous pregnancies, or 18 previous.
Kel, there is just to me, something very unnatural and unwholesome about their lifestyle.
This baffles me. “Unnatural?” “Unwholesome?” Are you sure we’re talking about the same family here?? I don’t think I’m following you…
extreme legalism and rigidity
How do we know this? Is Jim Bob insisting that they continue to have more children, or have they said they’re “open to life?” Isn’t that what the Catholics on this board have been teaching us for some time now? I don’t understand how you can be “open to life” on one hand but then say “Oh, that’s WAY too many kids. They should stop. They’re nuts.” Where is the line drawn? Where is the line for you, personally? How many kids *should* they have had?
After all, if it’s God’s will, children will live from polio- if not they will die and it wil be God’s will.
If the Duggars had that attitude, I’m sure they would have insisted that Josie not be treated when she was born prematurely. And also would have insisted Michelle not be treated for pre-eclampsia. Neither of those things happened. I’m really clueless here as to what you’re talking about. It seems to me that you’re trying to equate the Duggars with Christian Scientists or something of that sort. All they’ve done is conceive (which, btw, was natural – no IVF) and give birth. I really am trying to figure out what everyone has against them. As I said, I’m not a “fan”… have only seen their show a couple times. I just don’t get the vitriol for them. I really don’t.
If Michelle were going out and having fertility treatments… if she were saying, “Oh, we intend to get pregnant as fast as possible”… if they were taking fertility treatments, heck, if they were even using FAM to try to get pregnant right away…. then I might agree with you.
However… what they are saying is that they are open to the possibility. They aren’t seeking it, they aren’t avoiding it.
As for Sara, sure, we can hold her responsible. It’s still substituting human wisdom for God’s wisdom so it doesn’t really change the point. When we as humans substitute what WE think is wise for what God tells us, then bad things can happen that can impact the world for eternity.
Didn’t Sara end up getting pregnant? Maybe Abraham was quite the fertile myrtle he should have been.
Anyway Elisabeth I will try to make this simple. I am comparing two situations where pregnancy resulted in serious complications. It happens.
I am pointing out that relying on blind faith and not exercising good judgment can have dire consequences, as was the case with Andrea. I do not want to see Michelle suffer any dire consequesnce such as disability or death.
Oh my,
I should have said maybe Abraham WASN’T quite the fertile myrtle he should have been.
Kel,
You’re correct that one can’t always forsee pregnancy complications, but if a history is there then you have to consider an increased risk.
You’re not making it simple. You’re making it simplistic. (But hey, nice little dig. Did it make you feel good?) As a nurse who has worked with antepartum (high risk) mothers in hospital settings I’m soooooo glad you let me know that pregnancy can result in serious complications. Wow, they never covered that in nursing school!
Do you think they are stupid and not aware of the risks? Because I’m pretty sure that two people who have managed to raise a large family debt free with good morals, founded several businesses from scratch, have written books, won election to public office (well, he did, but you know it was a family effort), and have been through 19 previous births, some easy, some complex, don’t need you to point that out to them.
Elisabeth,
Its been argued by some that Hagar may have been considered a second wife which would mean Abraham was just performing his husbandly duty. What his unions meant for world history is a matter of Jewish, Muslim and Christian perspective and not one I am prepared to argue.
Whether MIchelle gets fertility treatments or just keeps her legs together isn’t relevant to me. My concern is for her safety and the care a premature child will require. Can she risk her own possible disability or death and would she be able to care for another prematurely born child in addition to the one she already has?
If she wants to take these risks its her decision. I am only seeing this from a medical perspective.
Ok since words are being put into my mouth I’m done here since I can’t discuss.
I am not espousing “vitriol”. I am saying I don’t believe in their viewpoint. I don’t believe in the Quiverfull movement and I believe it is lacking something.
Personally I do not care how many children the Duggars have. I simply believe they are misguided and have gone from one extreme to the other.
You win Elizabeth. :)
Have a nice evening.
No, you are JUDGING her based on your perceptions of the medical risk based upon… what? Your intimate knowledge of what is in her medical record? Your experience of being her personal physician? Psychic abilities? If their doctor is okay with this, if two clearly intelligent human beings (and I’d like to know if ANYONE who is calling them names on this list are debt free) have made a decision based upon 1) information, 2) experience, and 3) faith…. what gives everyone on here the right to judge that decision?
(And, not that it matters, the Bible clearly states that Hagar was Sarah’s maid. Not a second wife. A maid. The Bible doesn’t shy away from calling second and third wives…. wives. And God clearly stated that Sarah would conceive and bear a child, not just that Abraham would have a child.)
mine should read Kel instead of Elizabeth but it won’t let me edit.
bye. :)
What words have been put into your mouth? To say there is vitriol on this list (which Kel observed, rightfully so, but hey, if you’d like to try to push it off on me, I noticed it, too) requires only a scanning up. In case you didn’t notice, there are quite a few people responding here, on both sides of the issue.
The only point I have tried to make is that you have stated a belief that you are supposed to trust in your own wisdom, the Duggars (and others) believe that they are to trust in God’s wisdom. Neither belief is inherently superior to the other.
(Oh, and it’s EliSabeth. Not EliZabeth.)
Must have been cross posting. I see you made the change to Kel (who I still think was just noting the obvious on this thread…)
sorry Elisabeth. See what I mean? :(
My middle name is EliZabeth so the typo was unintentional. Plus I am tired after having worked a 6 day work week. Get it? :(
BTW, interesting how the Duggars don’t allow their kids to watch TV but it’s ok to produce a show for TV. Just sayin….;)
Mary
I think God might just be perfecting a work in me so I will just leave that post alone.
The Duggars have gone into a great deal of detail in numerous venues about WHY they do this. When Jim Bob was in the legislature and Michelle received the Mother of the Year award the media began paying attention to them and their family. They discussed that they could let the media tell only one side of the story, or they could tell their own side of the story and try to use it to encourage others in a walk with God, to become debt free, to view children as a blessing. After prayer and much discussion they started on the path they are currently on.
For heaven’s sake Elisabeth I have made it plain time and again the decision is ultimately hers but my concerns are from a medical perspective. Its honestly no issue in my life what she decides to do. Medical risk of having a previous bout of PE in which her BP got dangerously high resulting in the birth of a premature child who may have greater needs than the average newborn. You are right about the doctor, we can’t know what he/she advises, it could be either way. I only hope that Michelle takes more than faith into consideration but if she doesn’t so be it.
According to Genesis 11:30 Sarai was barren, she had no child. Also if you check google you will find there is debate concerning Hagar.
Elizabeth
If he continually defers to her and she’s expressed doubts why does she continue? Whatever they decide I don’t think it’s the job of the state to tell her to have or not to have more babies it should be her choice. My reasoning was that because Josie was a preemie she should consider that before having more children but I really don’t know all the details. If whatever caused her to deliver prematurely still exists and would be a factor in any other pregnancies I think she should consider carefully her own health and the risks involved to future children. I also believe if he’s conveying to her that that’s where her value lies then he is doing her a grave injustice.
Elisabeth
Hey Mary and angel –
I just wanted to let you know that I get what you guys are saying. I have no strong feelings on the Duggars either way because I don’t know really anything about them. I don’t think I would know enough about even my best friends, to accurately form opinions on things like how many kids they want etc. But I understand what you’re saying, absolutely. I know it sucks to feel misunderstood so I figured I would chime in a little bit.
As for the question of whether a nurse would be REQUIRED to let people refuse a blood transfusion, of course that’s not the issue. No one is saying that the Duggars should be forcibly stopped from having any more children – we, as citizens of a free country, are required to “let” them have as many kids as they want, thank goodness. This discussion is about what is perhaps most prudent, not what is legally someone’s right. If there were parents who lost a child due to refusing medical intervention, people here would probably have a lot to say about that – even though opinions like “It was cruel not to agree to a blood transfusion” or even “I worry about their ability to care for their other children” would not amount to people saying “They should not have had the right to make that decision.” Those are two completely different conversations.
I don’t really worry much about the Duggar kids themselves. I think we all grow up with our own set of things that were awesome and sucky, and navigating our individual ways to adulthood is a matter of finding out how to reconcile the things we didn’t like with the lives we want to have for ourselves. Family dynamics are really too intricate to pinpoint as being “positive” or “negative,” a lot of the time. So I don’t really see how anyone can comment on that.
Hi Myrtle 7:49PM
??????
You’ve never made a decision after you’ve had doubts? Everyone is saying “blind faith”… I would think that the fact that she has expressed doubts means that she has actually taken time to weigh all of the risks… you know, exactly what people here (and I know elsewhere) are accusing her of not bothering to do. (Not anyone specific, the overall tone of the thread.)
What I see happening is a lot of people making suppositions about what is being said between husband and wife and then, after coming up with the most possible negative impression of it, judging them. (Even while saying that they aren’t judging them.)
Look at that last sentence… “if he’s conveying to her that that’s where her value lies then he is doing her a grave injustice”. Do you have any reason, based upon anything they have said in this article or elsewhere (and especially when looking at a large body of interviews and articles by and about them) to assume that he is saying that? Based upon what? What other men, like Rusty Yates, did? That’s completely unfair. Are there men out there who view women as nothing more than baby machines? I’m sure there are. But can anyone watch THIS man as he prays for his wife and children… the tender way in which he treats them… and think that he in any way views her only value is childbearing?
Hi Alexandra,
So good to see you again! I hope all is well with you. Thanks for the thumbs up.
Elisabeth,
I’m getting tired of repeating this but apparently it just isn’t registering. I do NOT compare Rusty and Jim Bob or make any judgments of Jim Bob based on what Rusty did. I express concern for Michelle and have not even brought Jim Bob into it.
Do you claim that you didn’t make the statement (and assumption) that he is potentially telling her that her only value lies in childbearing?
Oops… that was Myrtle.
Hi Mary! All is well here – I’m absurdly busy at work, but that’s a complaint I’m lucky to have in this economy, especially since I freelance in an entertainment/arts industry. I hope you’re well! I periodically wonder about how you and your somewhat estranged daughter are. I am not religious, so I don’t pray, but I do keep the two of you in my thoughts. Sometimes I go into a church and light candles, when I can’t think of anything else to do with my emotions – just to feel like I have DONE something – and I lit one for you a few weeks ago.
I love how we have mutual name-admiration for each other – seeing your name always makes me smile. :)
Sorry to derail the topic, everyone-but-Mary – I didn’t mean to!
But that was clearly the statement I was responding to, since I quoted it…
Thank you Alexandra. :D
Mary… just a recap to show why people might think you are comparing the situations… your words:
August 13th, 2010 at 10:18 am
“We saw the tragedy of the young Texas mother drowning her five children. This woman had a history of serious mental illness her husband chose to ignore in his desire to have more children. I hold him far more responsible for the death of those children than I do their mother. A responsible husband would have had a vasectomy or encouraged his wife to have a tubal.
I think it is time for the Duggars to think much more responsibly as well.”
August 13th, 2010 at 10:22 am
“ It gets to the point, as it did with the Andrea Yates tragedy, that one must be realistic concerning risks and a disabled or dead Michelle will not be of much use to her children. We might have had four children alive today instead of five dead ones had Rusty Yates acted as a responsible husband.”
August 14th, 2010 at 9:47 am
“There’s also something called good judgment. Had Rusty Yates practiced it, 4 children would be alive today instead of 5 dead children in the ground. Whatever trust and belief you have, I hope you do not take midnite walks in dangerous neighborhoods or pet rattlesnakes. Michelle Duggar is at risk for life threatening complications in a future pregnancy and has a premature child, who’s future needs and possible disabilities are unknown, and 18 other children who need her.”
August 14th, 2010 at 11:03 am
“Rusty thought he was following scripture by impregnating his wife and the mental illness would take care of itself. I see this as Michelle’s mentality, that despite risks God will take care.”
August 14th, 2010 at 1:03 pm
“Michelle had to be rushed to a hospital and her child delivered early. The baby survived thanks to intensive care. Sometimes humans have to step in and interfere with the Divine. Happens all the time.
I’m curious, when Andrea Yates was finally stabilized on anti psychotic medication and therapy after 4 children, catatonia, hallucinations, murderous impulses and hospitalizations, as well as medical advice against any more pregnancies, did her husband have a responsibility to say no more children? Yes or no?”
August 14th, 2010 at 6:53 pm
“I use Andrea as a very tragic example of what happened when people did not exercise good judgment and assumed a potentially deadly situation would somehow remedy itself. I hold Rusty far more responsible for the deaths of those children than I do Andrea.
I do not want to see good judgment clouded by blind faith, whether its another pregnancy or taking a midnite stroll in a dangerous neighborhood. That is my concern for Michelle.”
August 14th, 2010 at 7:14 pm
“I am pointing out that relying on blind faith and not exercising good judgment can have dire consequences, as was the case with Andrea. I do not want to see Michelle suffer any dire consequesnce such as disability or death. ”
The key to the difference in those situations…. aside from Michelle’s mental stability (which many here have questioned) is Jim Bob. Where Rusty failed to provide, Him Bob provides. Where Rusty failed to help, Jim Bob helps.
Therefore, to repeatedly equate a thoughtful decision made by intelligent, caring people, to a clearly abusive and mentally unstable situation is disingenuous at best.
I am not espousing “vitriol”. I am saying I don’t believe in their viewpoint. I don’t believe in the Quiverfull movement and I believe it is lacking something.
Angel, I apologize. I was not intending to specifically point to *you* as espousing vitriol. I was speaking in general about many anti-Duggar posters on this thread who truly have been nasty in their treatment of them, and I should have been clearer.
Must have been cross posting. I see you made the change to Kel (who I still think was just noting the obvious on this thread…)
Reading posts one at a time, sorry… Yes, Elisabeth, that’s exactly what I was doing, but I should have been clearer.
Elisabeth
The key word is if. I do not follow the Duggar family saga. There both adults there married there not breaking the law by having family. I would never dream of telling anyone who are married how many children to have. What I find disingenious besides some of Mary’s point’s are the outcry that people are concerned about her future unborn children when children are being slaughtered in the womb daily. I’m also 46 so while I like to believe that Jim Bob has that poor womans best interest at heart I will not bet anything on it. What I’m saying is if she’s smart enough to coordinate the care of 19 children she needs to pay a little closer attention to the way he percieves her or maybe she needs to pay attention to the way she percieves herself. Somebody needs healing it may be Jim Bob it may be Michelle it may be the attitude of people towards large families. I really don’t know but Jim Bob won’t be carrying there future children nor will public opinion, Michelle will so she needs to absolutely examine his motives and her own.
points
Hi Kel,
No problem. :)
Again Elisabeth,
I was comparing two different medical situations, one that resulted in tragedy and one that could result in tragedy, not people. Again, I was pointing out an example of how relying solely on faith and not sound judgment can have dire consequences. If you see an obese person and hope they get their weight under control are you judging them? Hardly. If you realize they are at risk for serious health issues are you practicing medicine or judging them? Hardly. If anything you have concern that they make the proper judgments concerning their own well being.
Understand now the point I have been making???
Again I only use the Yates case as an example, I do not compare them.
BTW I commend and respect you for the work you do with high risk mothers. I worked in ICU where we took care of some of them, including the one who died of eclampsia. I was not being snide when I said “simple” but rather was tired of repeating something again and again that did not seem to be registering.
The bottom line: If the Duggars had 20 dogs instead of 20 kids, everyone would agree it’s weird and that they should be investigated for possible animal abuse.
No one thinks hoarding 20 dogs is normal. Even if they could afford all those dogs, people would still be scratching their heads and think it’s sick to have so many.
Hey Ashley. I’ll let you in on a little secret- people are not pets or possessions.
The man is the head of the house, and his wife submits to being a walking uterus and housework-dispensing machine. (And of course she has to home school, just to ensure that she has no life outside the family.)
Every statement you make can be easily refuted. You just make stuff up.
The Duggars have had more opportunities and exciting lifestyle outside of the home than most children get the chance to do. Have you ever seen their show, or seen the pictures on their website? They have been to various countries, have traveled America, have been places and seen people. They are not stuck inside all day without any opportunity. They do more than I ever even would have imagined when I was a kid- and I only had 2 siblings. Michelle is sooooo not subservient to Jim Bob. He treats her like a queen. She is one of the luckiest women there is. Her husband loves her more than himself and it is obvious.
Helo Alexandra,
You are such a dear. Seeing your post this am really brightened my day. I was just thinking the other day how I wish my mom had followed her first inclination and named me Mary Alexandra! Or just plain Alexandra. I should talk, I could kick myself till next week for not naming my youngest daughter a variation of my very special great aunt’s name. I like it better than what I named her!
Thank you so much for your kind words and concern. My daughter returned to the fold last year and is very much a rejoined member of the family. She has graduated college with honors and has started a Ph.d program at a school not far from her grandma, which has grandma ecstatic, as well as the rest of us.
I’m glad things are going well in you life and wish you the very best. Its always good to see you here.
Actually Ashley, many people own numerous dogs AND cats and the authorities do nothing. But they are likely to over-react IF a dog is abused than IF a child is abused.
However, in the current mindset, animals are much more important than human children.
I’m betting though that BECAUSE the Duggars have a large family, the authorities will be much more “concerned” than they ought to be.
Most people today think a couple is “sick” if they have 4 children. :(
Wow…. we’re Quiverfull… I work outside the house as an RN, my children have been homeschooled off on on over the years as school situations required, but now that we’ve moved to a tiny community with a good supportive school system, they attend school. My husband is a stay at home dad who volunteers at the school, is on the board of the local library, and does occasional EMT runs for the hospital. (Man, apparently we’re doing this thing all wrong… thanks for the heads up, Ashley, I had no idea what was expected of us!)
Last time I checked my uterus was firmly inside me and does not walk around on its own, but we’re in the lovely waiting period trying to find out if number 8 is on the way, so prayers would be lovely to have!
“Last time I checked my uterus was firmly inside me and does not walk around on its own, but we’re in the lovely waiting period trying to find out if number 8 is on the way, so prayers would be lovely to have!”
glad to hear about your uterus Elisabeth! ;)
Let us know if you are expecting another bambino! I will pray. :D
BWA HA HA…. if I’m expecting a “bambino”….Bobby’s wife’ll KILL me!!!
ROFL!
The bottom line: If the Duggars had 20 dogs instead of 20 kids, everyone would agree it’s weird and that they should be investigated for possible animal abuse. No one thinks hoarding 20 dogs is normal. Even if they could afford all those dogs, people would still be scratching their heads and think it’s sick to have so many.
Ashley a great many people raise large numbers of dogs and cats. Some like to breed them to sell, some raise seeing-eye dogs, some raise dogs for police work. Nobody bats an eye. I am also sure many ordinary people raise large numbers of dogs just because they like them. Nor would the authorities intervene unless there was reason to suppose the animals were actually being abused.
Nobody would think this weird. No one except someone like you, who are just so desperate to find some reason, no matter how outlandish, to criticize — what was it again? — a “Christofascist.” Your reasoning is just laughable.
“they might actually be required to practice marital chastity and some self control, something that might actually strengthen their marriage.”
I do not get this idea you people seem to have that not making sex makes marriages stronger. Sex is good and right and intended by God to be part of marriage. Sex makes marriages stronger too. Just because something is harder does not make it better. And how is sex not marital chastity?
“yes, except that her reproductive organs might now kill her just that same as the high fever. One would treat the condition of a high fever just as one might take care not to endanger ones’ life by having another high risk pregnancy.”
Where in the Bible does God command us to become sick? Who advocates for sickness? Is sickness a part of life we ever look forward to? Does God call sickness a gift? Children are a gift and a blessing that God calls good. Disease is an effect of the Fall and God calls it bad.
“there is just to me, something very unnatural and unwholesome about their lifestyle.”
Which part–that a married couple has sex? That children result? That they trust God?
“I think if they were a couple living on a farm, and had 20 children I would be more inclined to be ok with it. In fact I grew up knowing a family with 18 children who became doctors (women too with families!!), farmers, lawyers, and teachers and who went on to have their own families.”
You do realize they were self-sufficient before the TV show? Perhaps God has provided for them?
“The Duggars cannot be certain at this point what if any special needs their child may develop.”
I have read that sometimes, a younger sibling is the best motivator a preemie with special needs can have.
“I do not want to see good judgment clouded by blind faith, whether its another pregnancy or taking a midnite stroll in a dangerous neighborhood.”
Because God has commanded us to take midnight strolls in dangerous neighborhoods, and people often think it is a good idea, and the blessing of a new eternal soul results from dangerous nocturnal walks….
The blessing of a new life is a GOOD THING. God says it is so. Yet people are comparing it to illness, injury, and risky behaviors. None of these things result in a new eternal soul. None of these were commanded by God. An analogy of anything to pregnancy and childbirth usually fails.
Here’s an idea. If you think that the Duggars shouldn’t have another baby, pray about it. They’ve made it clear it’s in His hands.
I missed that first one, ycw, thanks for pointing it out. What I want to know is, why on earth do you think their marriage needs strengthening? On what basis do you judge it as having weaknesses?
Oh, and ycw, LOL at your last comment. I’ve actually said that to people… “you don’t think we should have more kids? Take it up with HIM!” (said while pointing upwards)
Oh, and the Duggars practice the Levitical (I think its in Leviticus… could be Deuteronomy, but I think it’s the former) command to abstain from marital relationships for a minimum of 40 days after the birth of a son and 80 days after the birth of a daughter. Why do you think they don’t have self control? If I had half the self control they had, we’d be debt free, too. (We’re getting there, though!)
Elisabeth
How cool. I think a large family is a blessing. God bless.
Just wanted to give a shout out to Bethany and Alexandra!!!
::waves:: I have missed you both very much and am glad to see your names. Not going to discuss Duggars right now I see that subject has been done already. :)
Love wins.
Wow. Leave to do miscellaneous business for 24 hours, and the thread gets swamped!
Elisabeth, you are seriously one of my all-time heroes! I could bask in one of your posts for hours, and practically not need sustenance for the rest of the day!
ANYway… Mary wrote:
You will notice throughout Scripture that it is the women who are always “barren” and never the men who are at fault.
“Fault?” That’s an odd turn of phrase for a condition that’s beyond anyone’s control. Would you say that it’s my “fault” that I have food allergies, for instance?
Just an interesting point. I didn’t argue anywhere that Sara was not in fact barren.
Mm-hmm. Do I detect a sprinkling of modern secular feminism, “fighting the good fight” against the evil and oppressive patriarchy? Just wondering…
Wrong big time Paladin. I in no way consider the woman incompetent or unstable and I challenge you to directly quote me saying she is.
Ah. So you’re free to insinuate all you like, so long as you don’t say so explicitly, that she’s not mentally healthy? The references to various unstable people (see Elisabeth’s skillfully encyclopedic list of your quotes, complete with cogent commentary) were completely irrelevant to your point, you brought them in by sheer accident, and you could just as easily have compared Michelle to George Washington, Sir Isaac Newton, and St. Philomena, instead? Come, now. There *is* such a thing as conversational implication; and for you to plead ignorance of it, in the light of your stated concerns about Michelle Duggar (and your worries that she might not make “good decisions”–a rather arrogant stance, I might add), is certainly disingenuous.
I clearly stated that I have concerns from a medical standpoint just as I would have concerns for any person who I feel may be taking a health or life threatening risk.
Let me try that, in your direction, and maybe it’ll clue you in on what we mean:
“I’m really worried about Mary. Deists are a shade away from complete apostasy from the Faith; they deny the providencial action of God within time, they deny the reality of the power of prayer, and they end up mocking the faith-based decisions of those who *do* trust in God’s day-to-day solicitude and care. Not that I’m calling Mary a Deist, or anything; all I’m saying is that she’s minimized the practice of trusting in God’s providence, and she’s said some condescending-sounding and things about the faithful decisions of others that also seem to insult their intelligence. The two things have some similarities, and I mentioned them. That’s all.”
See my point? If you think the Duggars are such nit-wits as to “throw their brains out the window and blindly take a leap of pseudo-faith”, then you have no idea how the Duggars approach the Faith (which has been explained to you–and others–repeatedly, on this thread alone), and you have a badly inadequate understanding of “Faith” in general. You seem to think that Michelle’s judgment is “doubtful”, because of her choice to have another child after preeclampsia; who, may I ask, are YOU that you look down from your high horse and make sober-sounding mutterings about your “worries” about her judgment? Honestly…
I saw a young mother die of eclampsia Paladin.
I’m sorry to hear that; I’ll be sure to pray for that young mother’s soul, this week. I don’t know, however, how that furthers your case. Since you saw someone die by the disease, that entitles you to look down on those who choose to have another child in the face of a past episode of it?
I have seen women admitted to ICU to get their dangerously high blood pressure under control before they were disabled or killed by a stroke.
That’s certainly a bad thing to have happen. I still fail to see how that advances your case.
Pre-eclampsia is something to be taken very seriously.
(??) Who on earth says it isn’t? Can you quote me, or anyone else on this list, as saying that it’s not? Can you quote the Duggars to that effect? What, exactly, is your point, Mary? Because unless you can come up with a plausible, logical explanation for the dizzying number of insinuations you seem to be scattering like straw, any sane and attentive person would be forced to conclude that you think Michelle Duggar is NOT taking her preeclampsia seriously–especially in the face of her desire for another child.
Also my cousin’s child wasn’t diagnosed with cerebral palsy until she was 3 y/o. The Duggars cannot be certain at this point what if any special needs their child may develop. Of course I wish Josie complete health but I’m not naive about prematurity. I think they need to concentrate first and foremost on her.
I’m sorry to hear about your cousin’s child. But again, you seem to think that the Duggars are such imbeciles (or hard-hearted beasts) that they haven’t considered any of this–which you, in your august wisdom and generous heart, see immediately. Do you not see how arrogant you sound, when you cast such aspersions and vague, wary-sounding omens against them? If I were they, I’d be insulted at your stance.
If this makes me a terrible person, so be it.
Let’s not get maudlin, here. I make no judgments about you, per se, as a person. I think your stated positions and insinuations are extremely faulty and disingenuous, certainly; but that’s rather a different thing. I try to identify and fix problems (including logical flaws in arguments), not people; the latter is best left to God.
For heaven’s sake Paladin you completely miss my point. While some argue here that only God determines conception, etc. and we should trustingly accept whatever, I am pointing out that we interfere in this process time and again with C-sections, inductions, NICU, etc.
And you show your consistent inability to scroll up and read the fact that THE DUGGARS DO NOT TAKE a “let God do everything, while we let our brains take a nap” approach! How many times does this need to be said to you, before you read and believe it?
Do you think maybe God wanted Michelle to stroke out and little Josie to die???
No. Why on earth would you ask such a bizarre question? See above; you seem convinced of the (false) idea that the Duggars are “throw everything to the wind” types, and I don’t see how anything but your own prejudice could lead you to think that.
Do you think He may have not been pleased with all the human intervention on behalf of Michelle and Josie? This argument can work both ways don’t you agree?
I really think you’re arguing against a phantom opponent in your head, Mary; neither I, nor the Duggars, are Christian Scientists, or “absolute providentialists” (in the sense of “God, do everything, ‘cuz I ain’t doin’ nuthin’!”), or anything of the sort. Don’t you see this?
Yes pre-eclampsia can stike any mother, I began developing it in my final month and my high BP was making the doctor nervous. However if you do your research you will find that mother’s with a previous history are at higher risk.
That is so. And your ultimate point is…?
I in no way “recoil” at the Duggars Paladin, I just don’t want to see unnecessary disability and/or death.
That’s a noble wish. Do you seriously think that the Duggars want to see unnecessary disability and death? If not, then your comment is meaningless, at best.
I see an infant that will require more intense care and who’s demands may grow as she gets older.
And you seem to be in doubt about the Duggars’ ability to know and recognize this, despite the fact that they’re LIVING in the situation. I see.
I hope that Michelle will be realistic about the risks to herself and any future child.
Ah. Mary has the capacity to be “realistic”, but Mary doesn’t think that Michelle and Jim Duggar have that capacity. Are you keeping count of the criticisms you’ve levelled against Michelle’s judgment?
Like it or not Paladin the risks are there.
No one–least of all, I–said that their lives–or ours–would be risk-free. But you seem to be putting yourself in the position of judge and jury (while trying to cloak your presumption in oblique language), and allowing insinuation to carry forth your judgment of them. That’s… well… wrong.
Any insinuation that Michelle is of dubious mental health is strictly in your head Paladin, and frankly you’re starting to get me a little irked.
Mary, I’ll be blunt, here: you’re spouting absolute balderdash… and it’s only the barest benefit of the doubt that keeps me from calling you a bald-faced liar. After repeatedly offering your “concern” that Michelle (and Jim, though you rarely mention him) might not be “realistic” about risks, or might not have “proper concern for Josie”, etc., now you try to plead innocence? Unctuous head-shaking and “tut-tutting” is no more justified than would be a flat-out statement of “I think Michelle is being irresponsible, and I think she’s risking lives thereby”… and at least the latter would be honest (though equally wrong-headed). Your irked-ness is noted, though.
Both these women suffered serious complications of pregnancy, Michelle’s was physical, Andrea’s was postpartum psychosis. Some here have argued that Michelle, pregnancy,etc. should be left in God’s hands, I argue that when God gave us a brain, it wasn’t to seperate our ears. I use Andrea as a very tragic example of what happened when people did not exercise good judgment and assumed a potentially deadly situation would somehow remedy itself.
And you still claim that you’re not casting aspersions on Michelle’s judgment?
I do not want to see good judgment clouded by blind faith, whether its another pregnancy or taking a midnite stroll in a dangerous neighborhood. That is my concern for Michelle.
That’s very big-hearted of you. That’s also utterly condescending, and I (and many others on this list) have called you on it. Even the people on this list who’ve said “trust in God” didn’t mean it in the mindless way that you seem to have taken it; faith is an act of the will, not of the emotions. Faith is a decision to trust the promises of God, once the intellect has apprehended them and found their proper interpretation. Do you follow? Your idea of “Oh, my goodness: people are throwing their brains away in order to fling themselves into a blind leap into the beyond!” is entirely in your own head, and it has no correlation to anyone’s position on this board, so far as I can tell.
And of course she has to home school, just to ensure that she has no life outside the family.
LOL – well, this proves it. You’re talking out of your rear, and you don’t know anyone who actually homeschools – you’ve only heard stories about homeschoolers. Your generalizations of late have proven to me that you actually have no argument. Broad generalizations are easy to make, though, so just keep lobbing those grenades over the blog wall.
Paladin
That was beautifully written. God bless you and yours. I believe children are God’s greatest gifts. Hopefully her and Jim Bob are in agreement when it comes to the size of their family and her health is his utmost concern. You and Elizabeth’s posts bring healing to my soul.
Mary
I think Paladin’s points are very valid. Words as you know have tremendous power. They are also a gift. It is possible to express doubt without casting aspirations. Thank you for helping me to do that. God bless you. And God bless you also for the use of old words which also bring healing to my soul. God bless all three of you with healing and health.
Paladin,
“fault” “fault”!!? Don’t be so touchy.
Secular feminism? LOL Whatever.
Paladin, insinuation is purely subjective. Its pretty much what you want to see. I asked you to directly quote me challenging Michelle’s mental stability. You will note I also responded to Elisabeth’s list. I’m still waiting Paladin, the direct quotes. BTW I was comparing medical situations, not people. Did George, Isaac or St. Philomena face potentially serious health problems with their pregnancies? Might be the reason I didn’t pick their names. I think I’ve made that clear about a 100 times already, give or take 10 or 20.
My concern that someone might not make a wise medical decision is arrogance? So Paladin, if you are concerned because someone’s smoking might cause them health issues you are being arrogant? If you raise concerns about the health risks of their smoking are you looking down from your “high horse”?
Paladin you can think I’m the goddess Athena for all I care. I have clearly stated whatever decision Michelle makes is no issue to me, ultimately it is hers to make. I in no way suggested the Duggars are nit-wits. You know Paladin, I wonder if you’re just projecting onto me since YOU are the one coming up with all these names for the Duggars that I have never once referred to them as, nor would I. Where did I say Michelle’s judgment was “doubtful”?
Paladin, when I point my experiences with PE and eclampsia I am explaining why I have serious concerns for Michelle. Be careful about using the terms “sane” and “attentive” since you are the one reading into my posts what isn’t there.
I wasn’t being maudlin Paladin, just exaspperated.
Paladin my point about prematurity is that such a child can demand much more care and be more likely to develop future disability, that’s not some “wary omen”. Some disability, such as CP may not become apparent until the child grows older. This is a fact Paladin that I am sure parents of premature children are well aware of, not some great insight on my part.
Paladin, the Duggars do not contracept and see each child as a gift from God. That’s fine with me. If they want to leave the conception of their children in God’s hands, go for it. But apparently they don’t leave everything else there, otherwise Michelle and little Josie likely would not have survived. Couldn’t one argue that if conception of each child and the pregnancy should be left in God’s hands, as do the duggars, then medical intervention should also be viewed as unnecessary? Just some food for thought. Whatever one believes concerning conception and pregnancy, there’s a lot of human interference with the Divine.
For heaven’s sake Paladin, I don’t want to see Michelle risk having a stroke or dying, or again experience the trauma of a premature birth. Certainly this was traumatic for the family, not to mention the infant. That’s my concern.
Paladin, until you can directly quote me challenging Michelle’s mental stability, any insinuation of such is strictly in your head, along with my ‘aspersions” about Michelle’s judgment. I’ll give you a little help Paladin, the only person I cast any aspersion on was Rusty Yates and it is there in black and white if you want to look for it!
My “idea” Paladin is your words..again. If Michelle decides to have another baby I wish her and the child the very best. Whether you like it or not Paladin, I have concerns for her safety and that of her child’s in a future pregnancy. If because of her deep religious conviction she is willing to risk another pregnancy well its her health and life and that of her child’s. I hope she makes this decison based on other than just faith. If she does or doesn’t is ultimately her decision.
Hi myrtle,
Your post is very kind though I disagree with you on Paladin’s points.
Mary
Why do you bring up the yates case if you don’t believe that michelle is unstable? If you think it’s not fair for her to have so many children don’t try to justify your view with any arguments just say I don’t think it’s fair that she have so many children. It didn’t really give me pause until I seen they were thinking about having one more. But it’s there decision there married. And just because you don’t agree with someone it’s not right to cast doubt on them. Something most people are guilty of. If you don’t agree with Paladin review your posts and look at how you debate. You brought up athena didn’t poseidon lose a contest with her. Now with the human mind one could look at that and say well legend had it that poseidon lost to athena. Does that make poseidon a loser no it just means that athena probably put more thought into her gift right which I think was the olive tree. Anyway what I’m saying is it’s o.k. to lose it doesn’t mean we’re losers it means we just don’t excel in that area. I don’t think advocating for families is where you excel you excel in women’s rights. But when you start thinking that because you care that gives you the right to make their decisions for them or make them appear challenged when they don’t agree with you that’s not right. if you are right time will prove that or prayer. Mary there is nothing stronger than a loving family nothing and even when fate breaks or weakens the cords real love always finishes what it started. And when someone accuses you of being a feminist if that’s what you are be proud. If it weren’t for feminists only God knows what women would have to put up with in the year 2010 or wouldn’t have to put up with if not for the feminist movement.
“If they want to leave the conception of their children in God’s hands, go for it. But apparently they don’t leave everything else there, otherwise Michelle and little Josie likely would not have survived.”
Um, isn’t that exactly what we’ve been saying? Yes, they leave conception in God’s hands. No, they don’t leave medical treatment in God’s hands, despite everyone’s accusations to the contrary–if Michelle develops pre-eclampsia/eclampsia again, she will seek medical treatment for herself and her unborn child or children, and that makes it very unlikely she will die.
One more time: God says in the Bible that children are good. God says that married couples should have sex. The Bible makes no mention of avoiding sex in order to avoid children, and the only mention of having sex but avoiding children (Onan and Tamar) is very negative. From this information, some believers–prayerfully and after seeking God’s wisdom–decide that they will accept whatever children God decides to send them. This does not always mean they don’t avoid conception with a real and present danger of disease or disability, but sometimes, after seeking God’s wisdom and considering the risk, they decide that it is God’s will for them to continue to welcome more children, and/or that the potential good–a new immortal soul–outweighs any pain, disability, or even death that may result.
Even if a person were to know that pregnancy would result in certain death–and there are few such cases; usually (as here) the chance of death is actually quite slim, especially for the mother–from a Christian standpoint, one can make the argument that a new soul, which will spend eternity in Heaven before the father, is of infinitely more value than a few fleeting years of this earthly existence, which is but a vapor and full of hardship and sorrow. But if death is guaranteed, the new soul would never know this hardship or sorrow, and the mother too would only know eternal glory sooner. And God may yet perform a miracle! It’s not a decision anyone should or could make for another person, but if one is a Christian, I could see how one might make that decision.
Again, pregnancy is not a disease or illness, but a process by which a new human being is brought from conception to birth, hopefully to live a full life according to God’s will. So comparing avoiding pregnancy to avoiding mugging or malaria or death is disingenuous. I am sure Michelle will do everything possible to avoid pre-eclampsia other than avoiding conception. I am sure she does not desire pre-eclampsia, and that she does not desire another micropreemie–except in that she desires God’s will for her, and we do not know if God’s will for her might include that.
God’s wisdom sometimes seems like foolishness to the world, but in reality God makes foolish the world’s wisdom and shames the wise. His wisdom is so much higher than ours that what seems to us foolishness can actually be God’s wisdom. If God has given wisdom to another Christian, and that wisdom does not contradict the Scriptures, then who am I to say it is unwise? Do you think the pope would tell the Duggars to use NFP?
Couldn’t one argue that if conception of each child and the pregnancy should be left in God’s hands, as do the duggars, then medical intervention should also be viewed as unnecessary? Just some food for thought
They could argue it, but it would not be Biblical. The gift of life cannot be compared to sickness or injury. In the Bible, it is clear that seeking medical help for sickness is not a sin. Remember the good Samaritan? He brought the injured man to a doctor. Jesus ministry on earth was healing the lame, blind, and sick. Sickness is a negative thing. Allowing physicians to care for you is a positive.
myrtle,
For the umpteenth time, I compare two medical situations, I do not compare individuals. Please directly quote me challenging Michelle’s mental stability and not just some sentence that in your mind implies something. Please review my posts and you will find the only person I cast aspersion on was Rusty Yates! Where do you get the notion I don’t think its fair she have so many children? I couldn’t care less.
myrtle my reference to Athena was a facetious response to Paladin’s comment and nothing more.
myrtle, kindly refrain from suggesting I don’t advocate for families when you know nothing of my life. As a child I cared for my invalid grandfather. I grew up surrounded by relatives, vacationed with relatives, and spent every holiday with them. I helped care for my sister’s children. As a parent I have produced three outstanding adults. I worked outside the home not because I wanted to but because I had no other option, as did my great grandmother, grandmother, and mother.
myrtle, the Duggars don’t know I live and breathe. Isn’t suggesting that I would make decisions for them a bit of a stretch??
Hi Bethany,
I only threw that argument out there because it is one that could be made, not one I personally support. We have seen people who will allow for NO medical intervention in their lives from conception to death because of religious conviction, or allow for only very limited intervention. We have had these issues when Amish people have been hospitalized.
I agree medical care is positive, but there are people who because of religious conviction do not. I did not suggest the Duggars were any such people only that the argument can be made and for some religious people is.
Mary,
As a gentle request for a favour: when you reply to specific phrases/sentences in a comment of mine, could you include the quote (of my comment) to which you’re replying? I can make educated guesses as to which replies go with which original comments, but I’d rather be as sure as possible.
You wrote:
“fault” “fault”!!? Don’t be so touchy.
(??) “Touchy?” I wasn’t offended; I was perplexed as to why you would mention such a non sequitur (such as the male vs. female fertility) in the first place… and it seemed to be (forgive me) an insinuation that the Bible was tainted with “male chauvinism”. If that’s not why you mentioned the idea, then could you share what, exactly, you DID intend by it? Again… I’m not offended in the least, by that; but the comment seemed rather bizarre. (Tell you what: if I’m offended, I’ll tell you explicitly; deal?)
Secular feminism? LOL Whatever.
See above; and see below, re: the issue of “insinuation”.
Paladin, insinuation is purely subjective. Its pretty much what you want to see.
That, my dear lady, is 24-carat bunkum. Words mean things; the word “insinuation” does, in fact, refer to something in objective reality. Think about this: if 100% of the cases of “insinuation” in the world meant nothing more than “a baseless, purely subjective projection of an artificial meaning onto something that was completely unrelated”, then the word wouldn’t have much use, would it? It’s certainly true that claims of insinuation can be wrong, and the practice of such claims can be misused/abused; but to say that insinuation is “purely subjective” is just silly.
Case in point: if you were to say, “I don’t like ice cream”, and I (with no other evidence to the point) were to reply, “Ah. So you hate dairy farmers and all their efforts?”, then THAT would be a case of subjective “projection” in which the original comment didn’t correspond to the alleged “insinuation.” But it’s possible to err/distort in the orther direction, as well: it’s possible to restrict yourself to innuendo, insinuation, and implicit suggestions… for the sole purpose of giving yourself a convenient “smoke-screen” behind which you can hide, when your point is challenged. “Hey… I’m just sayin’! Just food for thought! I didn’t mean that; show me where I said that!” The fact that something couldn’t (perhaps) be proven in a court of law doesn’t dismiss the issue; you’re still responsible for what you say, and how you say it.
I asked you to directly quote me challenging Michelle’s mental stability.
:) Forgive the smile, but this is quite ironic… and (God willing) a teachable moment:
Mary, I never said that you (personally) challenged Michelle’s mental stability, and I challenge you to produce a direct quote from me, showing me where I *did* say that. I said–and I quote:
“I think Michelle knows [the risks]; and I think you’re skirting dangerously close to assuming that she’s somehow incompetent or unstable, and doesn’t know what she’s doing.”
Mary, I never said that you (personally) recoil from the Duggars, and I challenge you to produce a direct quote from me, showing me where I *did* say that. I said–and I quote:
There seems to be a rather perrenial, obnoxious and illogical strain flowing through many of the anti-Duggar comments (both here, and elsewhere): “no one but a crazy person would try for 20 children; crazy people can’t be trusted to make good decisions about family life; so someone should step in and try to educate them, reason with them, restore them to sanity, etc., so that the children aren’t abused anymore… and the Duggars stop abusing themselves, for perdition’s sake!” It’s really sad. You people, who recoil at the Duggars: do you seriously not see that, in addition to being judgmental (sometimes to the point of being caddish and disgusting), you’re assuming your conclusion (i.e. that the Duggars’ way of handling family affairs is wrong) in order to prove it? That simply doesn’t work…
Where did I say that this included you? I was addressing “those who recoil at the Duggars”; why did you assume I meant to include *you*?
I hope you see my point, Mary.
You will note I also responded to Elisabeth’s list.
Yes, I noticed. Let me quote a bit of it:
Again Elisabeth, I was comparing two different medical situations, one that resulted in tragedy and one that could result in tragedy, not people. Again, I was pointing out an example of how relying solely on faith and not sound judgment can have dire consequences.
All right; let’s parse out your claims:
1) “I was comparing two medical situations, not two people.”
2) “I was saying that relying solely on faith, instead of sound judgment, can have dire consequences.”
All right. Apparently, “sound judgment” vs. “relying solely on faith” (and–forgive me, again–you really seem not to understand the correct definition of “faith”; I described that, in a previous comment) have everything to do with “two medical situations”, and they (somehow, at the same time) have nothing whatsoever to do with “two people”. That’s bizarre.
Secondly: I’m really trying to figure out how you can compare “two medical situations” (a very safe, abstract, bland, and non-judgmental-sounding term) which involve a “lack of sound judgment” BY DEFINITION, and yet say that you do not intend to compare two PEOPLE. Last time I checked, “persons” were the only things capable of having “judgment” at all, yes? “Medical situations”, being mere (non-living) events, lack an intellect and will, and cannot possess “judgment”.
Translation: you seem to have bent yourself into pretzels, and you seem to be trying to show how your commentary on the judgments of the women in question didn’t, in fact, involve commentary in the judgments of the women in question. Being a fan of logic, I have some difficulty accepting your rebuttal at face value, since it contains a flat contradiction.
If you see an obese person and hope they get their weight under control are you judging them?
That depends. If the condition is (for example) the result of hypothyroidism, etc. (and not at all to poor choices/lifestyle of the patient), and your “hope” is restricted to hoping that modern medicine will help them, then no. If, rather, the condition is at least partially due to bad choices (to overeat, etc.), and your “hope” includes the hope that their “poor judgment” gives way to good choices (which far more closely parallels your approach, here), then yes, of course you’ve “judged their judgment”. Surely you see that?
Beyond this, Mary, I’m getting a bit weary of rehashing the same points with you, and I think I may simply let the reader decide whether you were insinuating anything negative about the Duggars’ judgment and capacity for “sound judgment”.
ycw,
As I point out to Bethany I only threw that argument out there and is not my personal belief. Obviously the Duggars advocate medical care, and I never suggested otherwise, but there are religous people who do not from conception to death.
ycw, PE isn’t something that is easily or magically treated. Of course MIchelle would avoid it, like we would avoid cancer. Problem is you don’t avoid these diseases, they happen. Maybe Michelle could be stabilized, maybe the baby would not need premature delivery. Some women, my sister in law included, go to term with medical supervision. Other women do not and face life threatening situations. Michelle was one such woman. This does not mean she will have a recurrence, it means she is at increased risk.
I respect your religious beliefs and perspective but I firmly believe God also gave us good judgment and He no more wants a woman to risk her life with a pregnancy than He wants you to lay in the street and die after a car accident. People obviously disagree with me, I respect that. I am just giving my perspective. We have had JW patients ready to die rather than have blood transfusions, people who have allowed their children to die because religious conviction dictates only God will intervene, and if a woman wants to continue risking pregnancy because of her religious convictions, so be it. I was expressing my opinion only.
1) Just because it keeps being made to look as if pre-eclampsia is the inevitable outcome of any future pregnancy, it is not. A mother with severe pre-eclampsia, like Michelle Duggar, has a 20-25% chance of having it in subsequent pregnancies. And, for those not familiar with how medical statistics work, that does not mean if she has four more pregnancies one of them will inevitably cause pre-eclampsia. No, it means that each and every pregnancy has a 20-25% chance. Sort of like the old genome charts we had to make in junior high biology showing the chance of a child of particular parents having blue eyes… While it would be easy to assume if the parents had four children, one would have blue eyes and if they had eight children, two would have blue eyes, etc., the fact is that each and every pregnancy has a 25% chance of having blue eyes
2) Mary, I think you need to realize that there is a reason everyone is coming to the same conclusion… you “throw out” a lot of stuff and then back up and claim that you didn’t really mean anything by it. I wouldn’t let my children get away with such a statement. You claim innocence of knowing anything about the Duggars and use it to continue to proclaim all of these “concerns” about what “some people” (whoever they are) might do… all while ignoring the truths about the Duggars’ positions that are either obvious from their previous actions (such as seeking appropriate medical care) or have been explained to you, ad nauseum, by other posters.
You are defending the indefensible. And I think the only person you’re fooling is yourself.
As to the concept that “While some argue here that only God determines conception, etc. and we should trustingly accept whatever, I am pointing out that we interfere in this process time and again with C-sections, inductions, NICU, etc.” — Um, that doesn’t make sense. Only God determines conception…. c-sections do not have anything to do with conception. Inductions do not have anything to do with conception. NICU care of premature or sick neonates does not have anything to do with conception. The Duggars (and this household) agree that only God determines conception. That is why they aren’t having IVF, using fertility treatments, or doing anything whatsoever to go out of their way to try to mess with what is clearly God’s territory: conception. Believing God is in control of when a human life is created has nothing to do with the la de da attitude towards appropriate medical care that you keep worrying that they might not have considered (all the while not insinuating at all that you think they don’t consider it.)
Oh, and a thank you to Paladin, YCW, Kel and Myrtle and a shout out to Bethany and Carla (and a Oh My Goodness…. Alexandra… where have you BEEN?)
I was beginning to wonder if I was the only one seeing it… granted, since I normally comment in the middle of the night on my lunch and breaks, I probably shouldn’t expect a ton of interactivity (is that a word? I think I’ll pretend it’s a word even if it isn’t.)
testing
Carla, great to see you too! :) It’s really great to “see” all of you again (Elisabeth, Paladin, Mary, Alexandra, Angel,Myrtle, etc), because I’ve been having a harder and harder time finding time for Jill’s site, and miss it when I’m away! :) Hope you’re all doing well!
Paladin
Thank you for your love of logic.
Mary
Hopefully Jim Bob and Michelle are doing this for the right reasons. Time will tell.
testing 123
:) Great to see you, too, Bethany!
Hi Elisabeth! And Carla and Bethany! I’ve been around – not around here much, but some. I didn’t think you’d notice me squeaking in like a little mouse. ;)
I’m basically the same as always! Just older. Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose.
Testing. Again. :D
Alesandra,
Yes indeed, the more things change the more they stay the same.
Elisabeth,
1) I’m glad we agree with the point I have been making all along, that Michelle is at increased risk for PE. Please directly quote me saying she would have a recurrence and how severe it would be.
2) Elisabeth, not “everyone” is coming to the same conclusion. just a few of you repetitious souls who don’t seem to know there is a difference between a direct quote and an insinuation. Where have I suggested the Duggars have an aversion to medical care? Please give me an example of what I said and then later denied.
Oh only God determines conception, He has no hand in pregnancy and outcome, is that why you have no issue with c-sections, NICU, inductions, ultrasound, which can only be called human interference? Well Elisabeth I have no problem with it either but I have encountered people of certain religious faiths who do so and that is the thought I was tossing out, that some people would argue this as violating God’s will just as some may view preventing conceptions as violating God’s will. Ever hear of freebirthers? These are women who manage their own pregnancies and childbirth without medical intervention. Now do you understand the point I was making?
“All the while not insinuating at all that you think they don’t consider it”. Please Elizabeth, a direct quote.
“Ever hear of freebirthers? These are women who manage their own pregnancies and childbirth without medical intervention.”
My understanding is that they want to avoid ignorant, judgmental, and anti-life medical personnel. Can’t blame them for the sentiment. Most of them are very well-educated, and some of them would transfer to the hospital if they had a situation they could not handle.
I’m sick enough of anti-life doctors I’m not going the medical establishment route again; I plan to find a pro-life midwife. My labors are quick enough that I barely got to the hospital on time last time, so I kind of do have to be prepared to do this with minimal assistance.
Yada yada yada, more of the same self-delusion that if your aspersions are vague enough you can pretend you didn’t make them.
If I’m going to have a discussion at the level of a six year old, I’ll have a discussion with MY six year old. Actually, she’s far more logical than anything you’ve said over the past two days.
Elisabeth,
Please an intelligent argument. This childish babble is beneath you.
Hi ycw,
An interesting point. The documentary I saw concnerned women with different reasons, mainly just managing their own care and lives.
We have midwives at our hospital though I don’t know how many women use them.
Hi Paladin,
I will be posting my response to your 12:15PM post on seperate posts since I can’t get the entire response posted for some reason.
Point 1) fault fault
Years ago I brought up to a minister at Bible study that one never reads of barren men in the Bible, only barren women. The minister laughed and said he had no explanation but I made a valid point. I thought this would be an interesting point to toss into the discussion of Sara and Abraham. Are you able to find any such reference?
Its working! OK
Point 2. Seccular feminism
See, this is what happens when one draws assumptions based on insinuation. Some friendly advise Paladin from someone who has learned the hard way. Assumptions based on insinuation can at worst cause us a lot of trouble and at best make us look foolish.
My luck is holding!
Point 3. Insinuation is subjective
Kindly refer to Point 2.
Point 4. A direct quote challenging Michelle’s mental stability
OK I’ll give you this one. You said only that I was dangerously close to assuming she’s somehow incompetent or unstable. However I must respond the same way and again request a direct quote. Let me give an example. Years ago I was asked to stand by for the delivery of twins by an Amish woman, highly unusual since the Amish in our community tend to shun hospitals and adhere to their own religious convictions concerning health care. After delicate negotiations the couple reluctantly agreed to monitoring and an IV line, all of which were to be removed when mother and babies were stable, which thankfully they were. Now, am I glad the couple put good judgment ahead of their religious convictions YES! Did we make their decision? NO it was ultimately theirs. Did I have serious concerns for the mother’s safety? YES! Did I view this couple or the Amish people as a whole as unstable or incompetent? No one has greater respect for the Amish people than I do.
I hope you see my point Paladin.
I’m on a roll!
Recoiling at the Duggars. I was just making it plain I am not one of the people who recoil at the Duggars, I in fact like them very much.
Point 5. Comparing medical situations and not the people involved
We do this all the time at case study reivews, often at professional conferences. Obviously patient names and details cannot be included. Great learning tool. Attend one sometime and you will figure out how it is done.
Twisting myself into pretzels. You give me too much credit! My bad back prohibits much in the way of any such body contortions though I could do a mean backbend in my day.
Point 6. The obese person.
See, I told you that you can hope a person will make the best medical judgment without being judgmental or coming dangerously close to assuming someone is incompetent.
I agree about rehashing. Trying to convince people they didn’t read what in fact they didn’t read gets very tedious.
Hi Bethany,
Its always so good to see you here. Try to check in as often as you can, I know you are a very busy lady!
Mary,
I’ll try to reply to your individual posts, a bit later. For now, let me try one more time to show you what I mean by “insinuation”–or, if you don’t like that term, “conversational implication”. Here’s a quote from one of your earliest comments, which I’ll “fisk” (in the style of Fr. Z.):
First of all, we know only what goes on in front of the camera. [Not that I’m suggesting that anything BAD goes on “off-camera”; I’m just offering a tidbit for our consideration. A bit like saying, “We only see that which is in front of our eyes when we have them open; we don’t see what happens when they’re closed.”]
Also, people do not always collect or produce children for the most noble of reasons, [Not that I’m suggesting that the Duggars might be included with those who don’t “collect or produce” (Good grief!) children for the most noble of reasons, and I’m definitely not suggesting that any of their reasons were “ignoble”; it was just interesting food for thought… like saying, “Not everyone who eats hot dogs actually loves them.”]
just as people do not always collect animals out of humanitarian reasons though they may argue they do. [Not that I’m calling anyone who argues thusly dishonest, or anything; nor am I suggesting that they’re being unhumanitarian. Hey, I didn’t even say that non-humanitarian reasons for “collecting” animals are all BAD! Don’t put words in my mouth!]
There can also be an emotional need that is being satisfied. [Not that I’m criticizing that, or saying that it’s unwise or ignoble, or anything. I didn’t even say that there WAS an emotional need that wasn’t being met.]
With MIchelle’s history its time for good judgment to replace what I am beginning to see as a compulsive need. [Not that she actually DOES have a compulsive need; I said only that I’m beginning to see it! And I never meant to imply that she doesn’t already HAVE good judgment, or that her good judgment has been replaced by a compulsive need; I just suggested that… er… good judgment should replace what I’m beginning to see as a compulsive need–not that I’m saying she HAS that, mind you.]
People will often satisfy a compulsion to their own detriment. [Not that this is at all applicable to Michelle, mind you, or that she even has a compulsion, or that–if she does have one–she’d ever follow it to her detriment. I never said that! There’s no reason for anyone to suggest that I didn’t just mention this as a completely unconnected idea–a complete non-sequitur–simply because I enjoy giving people food for thought… random, or otherwise.]
It is now a health issue as well as possibly one of life and death. Eclampsia is nothing to play with. [Not that I’d ever dare to give even a hint of a suggestion that Michelle could ever “play with” something as life-and-death-involving as preeclampsia! I meant it only as food for thought; like saying, “Nuclear bombs aren’t things to play with.” I wish people would stop being so suspicious about my innocent and simple comments!]
Michelle is at risk for disablity and death. [Not that this has anything to do with any subsequent decisions of hers and Jim’s to have more children, vis-a-vis her preeclampsia, mind you. We’re ALL at risk of disability and death, if you think about it! Don’t jump to conclusions!]
We saw the tragedy of the young Texas mother drowning her five children. [And we also saw the tragedy of seven astronauts dying aboard the Space Shuttle, Challenger, in 1986. I mention this only because their condition and the Duggars’ both involved families, and both were tragedies. That’s all. Honestly: where do people get the idea that there’d have to be any less tenuous of a connection than that?]
This woman had a history of serious mental illness her husband chose to ignore in his desire to have more children. [Not that Jim would ever do such a thing, and not that Michelle has a mental illness, or anything. I mention this only because both cases involve carbon-based life-forms.]
I hold him far more responsible for the death of those children than I do their mother. A responsible husband would have had a vasectomy or encouraged his wife to have a tubal. [Yeesh. No comment, here.]
I think it is time for the Duggars to think much more responsibly as well. [Not that I’d ever suggest, or even hint, that the Duggars don’t think responsibly, or that their responsible thinking needs to increase for any reason relating to child-bearing and/or pregnancy at all; I meant it only in the general sense that it’d be great for ANYONE to think more responsibly, even if their sense of responsibility is strong and wonderful! Wouldn’t the world be a better place if that happened? Honestly… the people who thought I was insinuating anything about the judgment or non-compulsive mental states of Michelle and Jim should take a chill pill!]
I now turn your case over to a jury of your peers, milady.
Father Z, oh yeah!
:) You only said that ’cause you’re a fellow math geek; admit it!
No way, man. WDTPRS is a blog I visit daily.
:) Me, too… if I didn’t think he’d clobber me, I’d nominate him for bishop…
There is no doubt there… he would clobber you…
Paladin,
What have I said about insinuations and assumptions either causing us trouble or making us look foolish?
Point 1) We only know what goes on in front of the camera.
Do we ever really know what goes on in anyone’s homes behind closed doors? How often have we been shocked to discover what really goes on in people’s homes or that marriages are not as happy as we thought they were? Face it, we only see what people want us to, that is not an insinuation that anything bad is going on.
Point 2) People do not always collect or produce children for the most noble of reasons.
Ever hear of Octomom, animal hoarders? We had a situation near our home where a “devoted loving” couple were found to be abusing their large number of natural and adopted children. A fact of life Paladin however unpleasant.
Point 3) Claiming to collect animals for humanitarian reasons.
I’m afraid I can’t make sense of this comment. Kindly repost.
Point 4) Emotional need being satisfied.
Kindly refer back to Point 2
Point 5) Michelle needs to replace good judgment with what I see as a compulsive need.
Paladin a compulsive need does not make one mentally unstable or incapable of good judgment. We all have some compulsive behavior. I became suspicious when Michelle announced a possible pregnancy while Josie was still critically ill in the hospital and Michelle was only a month or two out of the hospital. Yes I would suspect a compulsive need here and yes this is when I became concerned that she preactice good judgment which at that time in my opinion she was not. Again an opinion. Much as you might hope an obese person puts healthy eating and good medical judgment above compulsive eating.
Point 6) People will often satisfy a compulsive need to their own detriment.
Kindly refer to Points 2 and 5.
Point 7) With Michelle’s history…
Again I refer you back to Point 5
Point 8) A health issue….
A medical fact.
Point 9) A risk of disability and death
A medical fact concerning pre-eclampsia. Michelle was well on her way to a stroke at very least before Josie was delivered. At least her doctor seemed concerned about such a possibility.
Points 9,10,11 concerning the Yates.
Again I was comparing medical situations not individuals. I would again encourage you to attend one to see just how medical situations are discussed and compared without comparing the people and the personal circumstances of the people involved.
Point 12) I maintain and always will that Andrea or Rusty, preferably Andrea, should have been rendered incapable of having more children. Maybe 4 children would be alive today instead of 5 dead ones.
Point 13) Time for the Duggars to think as responsibly as well.
I refer you back to Point 5. Its my opinion from a medical standpoint that Michelle should not put herself and another baby at any unnecessary risk, especially when she is already caring for a child with medical challenges.
Turn this over to my peers? Be my guest.
Anything else Paladin? I hope not because this IS getting tedious.
Paladin
I’m from the south so by the time your 46 usually you’ve required a little tact. So when it’s obvious someone is wrong and you’ve brought it to their attention and they continue it’s just tactful to stop debating the point and as my daddy use to say you win put it in your pocket. I’m not my daddy so I’m hoping you don’t stop I hope you continue to debate her until she stops. Anyone who expends this much energy on proving she’s right when it is obvious she is wrong needs to have more teachable moments as you so accurately stated in your previous posts. You have the tenacity of a bull dog and the patience of a saint. Please don’t back down because I will be forced to defend you and sometimes I’m just lazy. Expecially when it comes to defending the obvious.
Please myrtle,
Whether or not I am wrong is a matter of opinion and you are certainly entitled to yours. Until I stop? In case you haven’t noticed those who persist in falsely accusing me based on insinuation and not direct quotes are the ones who keep this argument going.
Apparently in your eyes I am the one at fault for defending my stand.
BTW myrtle I asked Paladin to give it a rest since I find the arguments baseless, based on insinuation and not backed by direct quotes, and it is getting very tedious.
As weary as I am of debating people who base their arguments on insinuations and assumptions, I will be happy to address any issues you may have with my posts.
Mary
I don’t think you have a stand. Mrs. Duggar is a lady and the way you used your words to imply that she is not stable is just not fair. I will not be retrieving any previous quotes for you if your old enough to debate your point your old enough to know when your wrong. What did it for me was after Elisabeth put all that time and effort into proving to you what was obvious and you still kept coming back for more and had the audacity to belittle her as well. I think some of the tactics you use are perhaps tactics you have been subjected too. But the other side of that coin is that you should have learned from that and not subjected others to the same treatment if indeed this is the reason you are so authoritarian when you know your wrong. I will not be addressing any of your posts. If you weren’t aware of your pattern before you should be now.
Mary
If your genuinely concerned for michelles state of mind why don’t you try praying for her. In an age where people delight more in death than they do life the fact that she has dilegently cared for her family consistently for a very long time speaks for itself.
Myrtle,
Again, how did I use words to imply she is not stable? Some direct quotes please.
Despite all the accusations I have yet to see a direct quote where I say she is mentally unstable. This would settle the debate once and for all. Even Paladin’s post was a collection of my quotes and HER opinion of what I was insinuating.
You won’t retrieve my quotes? How convenient.
I didn’t keep “coming back for more” I disputed what Elisabeth said since I considered it inaccurate. Exactly how did I belittle her? Have you seen what some of them have been saying to me? Please myrtle don’t project onto me. It is YOUR opinion I am wrong, I do not “know” it.
1:56PM
myrtle I have absolutely no concern for Michelle’s state of mind. Nor did I ever say she was not a good mother.
Whoops,
My bad, strike the very last sentence. My apologies I misread your last post Myrtle.
I read something into your sentence that you never accused me of saying!
See how that can happen Myrtle?
Mary
I don’t have to retrieve your posts instead I will pray that when you know the power of words and continue to use them in a fashion that is manupulative and or controlling and are cognizant of your actions I will pray that your own words rest on you for a season until you respect the value of words and the power that they carry. I could not do a better job than Paladin or Elisabeth and if I did what would it prove besides the obvious.
Mary,
Sorry not to oblige, but I’m saying “no mas”. I’m a patient man (not a “her”), but you’re either completely insensate to the wide array of social implication, or you’re being disingeuous. In either case, no one can say I didn’t try. And I actually have no hard feelings toward you (the annoyance was real, but temporary); I was sincerely trying to get you to see what you apparently cannot, or will not, accept. Believe me or not, as you wish.
Myrtle,
Point well taken; take care! Please pray for me, too! :) (I’ll return the favour!)
Hey guys. I have respect for all of you. I’d count it a privilege to stand shoulder to shoulder with any of you at a prayer vigil, a rally, whatever. But the comments on this thread sadden me because IMHO you’ve allowed yourselves to get trapped in a cycle of judgment and criticism that makes no one a winner. I hope you can find a way to bury the hatchet. I’ll go back to minding my own business now. Peace :)
Fed UP
Thank You.
Mary
Please forgive me if I’ve offended you. I would have said no more but when you persisted with Elisabeth who is not as seasoned at debating as Paladin I had to say something. They went through a lot of trouble to collect all those quotes and I could not see you throwing away there work because your a wee bit stubborn. Please forgive me.
Hi Fed Up,
I don’t have any hard feelings. In fact I enjoy a good joust. Its very thoughtful of you to be concerned for all of us.
Hi myrtle,
You are very much the southern lady you describe yourself as. There is absolutlely nothing for you to apologize for. While I don’t quite understand or agree with your perspective on this I don’t doubt it comes from a very sincere heart.
Hi Mary, I just think you guys have more in common than the comments on this thread indicate. Sometimes disagreement is helpful, sometimes not. It didn’t seem to me that it was leading to anything positive. I am not immune from doing the same thing, and I hope someone will tap me on the shoulder with a friendly reminder when they think it might be helpful. Now I’m really going back to MMOB :)
Hi Paladin,
As I said I enjoy a good joust. I certainly have no hard feelings toward anyone, least of all you. I’ve seen far worse than this on the blog, believe me.
We are a variety of perspectives, perceptions. interests, religions, and personalities and this is not a mutual admiration society. There are going to be disagreements, clashes, and personality conflicts, We all learn much from these debates, not by always patting one another on the back and agreeing with each other.
While I do not agree with your perspective on this, as with Myrtle I don’t doubt it comes from a very sincere heart.
BTW just to satisfy my curiousity is your name taken from that old western “Have gun will travel”? The main character was Paladin played by Richard Boone. I thought you might be around my age and that was your favoritce show as a child. I know, you are probably going to tell me you are wayyyyyyyy too young remember but I just wondered.
Hi FedUp,
Its always good to see you, Its a very public board and nobody has to MMOB.
Please read my post to Paladin, it pretty much sums things up. I hope to see you more often here.
Hi, Mary,
:) No, I didn’t get the name from “Have Gun, Will Travel”… though I remember watching that with my Dad, when I was young. It’s taken (more or less) from the “noble knights” who defended Christ and the Church, back in the day.
As for our “joust”: I’m glad enough to have an amicable end, but–forgive me–you really *did* remind me of the Black Knight in Monty Python’s Holy Grail:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhRUe-gz690
—– quote —–
[ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT’s left arm off]
ARTHUR: Now stand aside, worthy adversary.
BLACK KNIGHT: ‘Tis but a scratch.
ARTHUR: A scratch? Your arm’s off!
BLACK KNIGHT: No, it isn’t.
ARTHUR: [pointing at arm on ground] Well, what’s that then?
BLACK KNIGHT: I’ve had worse.
ARTHUR: You liar!
BLACK KNIGHT: Come on you pansy!
[ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT’s right arm off]
ARTHUR: Victory is mine!
[kneeling]
We thank thee Lord, that in thy mer…
[Black knight kicks Arthur]
BLACK KNIGHT: Come on then.
ARTHUR: What?
BLACK KNIGHT: Have at you!
ARTHUR: You are indeed brave, Sir knight, but the fight is mine.
BLACK KNIGHT: Oh, had enough, eh?
ARTHUR: Look, you stupid [expletive], you’ve got no arms left.
BLACK KNIGHT: Yes I have.
ARTHUR: [pointing to both detached arms on ground] Look!
BLACK KNIGHT: Just a flesh wound.
[kicks Arthur again]
ARTHUR: Look, stop that.
BLACK KNIGHT: Chicken! Chicken!
ARTHUR: Look, I’ll have your leg. Right!
[Arthur cuts one of Knight’s legs off]
BLACK KNIGHT: Right, I’ll do you for that!
ARTHUR: You’ll what?
BLACK KNIGHT: Come ‘ere!
ARTHUR: What are you going to do, bleed on me?
BLACK KNIGHT: I’m invincible!
ARTHUR: You’re a loony.
BLACK KNIGHT: The Black Knight always triumphs!
Have at you! Come on then.
[ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT’s other leg off]
ARTHUR: All right; we’ll call it a draw. Come, Patsy.
BLACK KNIGHT: Oh, oh, I see, running away then. You yellow
[expletive]! Come back here and take what’s coming to you.
I’ll bite your legs off!
—– end quote —–
But I digress…
All the best to you and yours!
Paladin
It is so unusual that the subject of knights keeps on coming up. Sometimes when I look at the state of our country my heart tells me there is no hope. It is too far gone. It kills it’s children in the name of mercy. It no longer values the institution of marriage. Those who try to do the right thing are punished and those who don’t are rewarded. So when I observe these things I share them with my God who can do anything. I only see the battle and the smoke he sees the soul. Occasionally he whispers the answer to my spirit. Experience has taught me that what he tells or shows me always comes to pass unless an individual truly repents and changes their course. The first time he showed me that a knight held the key. I just thought a knight. I don’t know much about chess but was always fascinated by the knight. Dr. Nadal was the first to bring up the subject of the knight when Stupak made his decision. My favorite movie does not involve knights but musketeers I especially like the movie the man with the mask at the end of the movie the three came into agreement to battle for there king, they were completely outnumbered. They chose to fight I do not understand how they walked out alive. But they did. The bad king took a vacation the good king reigned in his place. I do not understand when I look with my human eyes how good often triumphs over evil. But it always does. I believe in life there are things we are not meant to understand but occasionally when the battle is raging God allows us to get a glimpse of wonder of the unseen of the good in the universe that is very very old and it brings a sense of rest to the soul. One of my favorite songs is about a time when Christians were being persecuted and Roman soldiers who were Christians were told to bend there knee to their leader and worship him they refused and were sentenced to death. The conditions were horrific and one of the soldiers could no longer bear them and bent his knee and gave up the fight. At this point the song says something arose in the heart of the jailer of the Roman soldiers and he joined the soldiers on the ice. When I hear that song I am reminded of the true glory of the cross. Redemption. And the strength of the human soul. I know the glory of my king is not the way he rules but the way he reigns. The majority of the time he speaks to my soul not my intellect. What I love about coming to this site is that sometimes he gives me glimpses of the wonders of this universe with my soul and my mind something that I know is his gift to me. Thank you for being a part of that. The bad king and the good king were brothers. There father grieved for both of them.
typo. Their father.