This past weekend Mike Huckabee interviewed the Duggar Family – of TLC’s 18 Kids and Counting if you didn’t know. Covered was the difference between their family and Jon & Kate Plus 8, how much laundry they have, how they shop for groceries, and much more.
This family is a delightful example of the fruit of embracing God’s blessing of children.
was interviewed
[HT: reader Pete]
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Great example of a godly family.
I really do not like this being portrayed as anything like an ideal family.
Look, I’m no avocate of freaky anti-birth policies–but things like this are unnatural (and if they weren’t, then these people wouldn’t be on TV). I mean really, how much attention can these kids get as individuals from their mother and father, how many times a day can they ask for advice on things, and not be drowned out by the younger/older members? Who will help with college, or look out for them in their more private adult lives? And having camera men poking into every nook and cranny of your existance can’t help, especially where the children are involved. I for one would hate to be treated like someone in an assembly line for every little thing. Kids need their parents, not their older siblings, to show them the way. Having nineteen other siblings can make for a tiring, noisy, and competitive atmosphere.
Unless, of course, you’re determined to show everyone it can work… in which case everything supposedly works out just dandy, while you swallow your true feelings.
Look, I’m no avocate of freaky anti-birth policies–but things like this are unnatural (and if they weren’t, then these people wouldn’t be on TV). I mean really, how much attention can these kids get as individuals from their mother and father, how many times a day can they ask for advice on things, and not be drowned out by the younger/older members?
Wah wah wah
It’s never been common to have this many children, but it can hardly be described as unnatural.
Most kids spend most of their time at school where they are in classes of 25+ kids. How much one-to-one time do they get?
Come on.
Kids need their parents, not their older siblings, to show them the way.
Tosh. Utter tosh.
The massive family came before the publicity. From all appearances, the true feelings produced the family.
Some people are intimidated by the incredible success of others.
That family works. I’m amazed and grateful for them.
Love that family. The show is fairly new and I would imagine that it will also be short lived on purpose. They are giving the world a glimpse into how an adherense to biblical principles and an active faith life produce desired results.
Actually, Abel, unlike the Octo-freaks and Jon and Kates, this family can be described as nothing short of natural. It’s those families that swallow pills, inject hormones, and use all other types of chemicals and devices to keep the natural consequence of sex from happening that are the unnatural ones. Or those that create babies in petri dishes or take fertility drugs and end up with multiples when a healthy female body can only sustain so many children. Those children end up preemies with health problems (if they are lucky).
Most families with 2.5 children live with crushing debt, car payments, mortgages, and such. Mom and Dad often both work in order to meet these obligations. These parents are completely free and devoted to their family, unlike those kids in day care or public school or a combination. I guarantee you that these kids get more parenting that those kids with only one sibling.
I love this family!! What an amazing God glorifying group!! I wish they were my neighbors.
You said it Jacqueline!!!!! Nothing is more unnatural than swallowing synthetic hormones to stop your body from functioning as it SHOULD (a woman’s body is designed to get pregnant and produce life) Nothing is more unnatural than paying a doctor to scrape out your growing child from your womb!
In the 1800’s it was actually very common to have 12 children or more…most of those children died from diseases back then but still, many women had multiple pregnancies and were none the worse for it! Fast forward to Margaret Sanger and her indoctrination of the American people in the way of abortion and eugenics and now you have all the problems you have today such as, 1 in 4 Americans infected with an STD at any given point–YUCK! 1.2 million children murdered by their mothers every year through abortion…over half of all marriages end in divorce. Drug use is at an all time high…. The Duggars have truly lived their Christian faith! Their children are all fed, clothed, respectful of their parents, educated, musical…what a great family!
What many don’t know is that the Duggars used birth control early in their marriage and it led to a miscarriage. They felt so guilty over the possibility that the birth control led to the miscarriage, they decided to just embrace all the children God would give them. Children are a blessing, NOT A CURSE!!!!! I think this family respects each other and shows so much love. Mrs. Duggar is my hero!!!!
I LOVE watching “18 Kids and Counting”. I missed this week’s episode, though. I also can’t wait for them to become grandparents in October. That little baby will have 8 Aunts and 9 uncles just on her father’s side. What fun!
Big families weren’t too uncommon in the 1700s and 1800s. I don’t see why so many people object to large families.
If a married couple has a really large family , that’s certainly their right .
I don’t have any problems with this , as long as they have the means to provide for all those kids . I don’t have any problems with this .
But to use this as an excuse to advocate making abortion illegal is annoyingly disingenuous of anti-choicers .
And do you think that if Margaret Sanger had never existed , that abortion wouldn’t exist today ? How naive can you get ?
When Sangter lived , many despetately poor women lived miserable lives with their large families and children grew up in terrible circumstances . Such conditions are still common in much of the world .
I wish anti-choicers would stop demonizing this courageous woman and their incessant spreading of all manner of lies about her .
And please don’t reduce women to mere baby-making machines .
You insist on women bearing lots of children whether they have the means to or not, don’t want the government to help them financially and are blindly opposed to sensible family planning. YOu are totally out of touch with reality .
“And please don’t reduce women to mere baby-making machines .”
I think you meant to say “Don’t glorify child-raising the way you do”.
Hey Robert… quit being so scared of women. I don’t get the “anti-choice” rhetoric either. Women have a choice to not have sex or not. The smart ones don’t reduce themselves to being sexually available at all times for a man by injecting themselves with chemicals or popping a pill. Those smart women have embraced their feminine sexuality and work WITH it for the greater good.
I love the Duggar family. They show true authentic love towards each other, they show that husband and wife come before their children and they show true respect and love to their children. I wish people would quit acting like parents are *supposed* to be 100% available to their children at all times. That’s what has lead to our societies explosion of spoiled brats that think the world owes them a stage and everything in between. The Duggar children are far from spoiled brats, know and understand respect, have good morals and show genuine love and concern for each other. It’s refreshing.
correction… Women have a choice to have sex or not…
Margaret Sanger is well known for supporting eugenics. Are you suggesting that someone here made that up?
I’m not afraid of women and I have absolutely no problem with them having children . I just don’t want the government to try to force every pregnant woman to give birth against her will, or whether she has the means to take care of that child, or the if that pregancy would kill her , ruin her health and cause a helpless child to be brought into this world into abject poverty, hunger and lack of opportunity.
This is not good for women , children, their families and society in general .
“I just don’t want the government to try to force every pregnant woman to …cause a helpless child to be brought into this world into abject poverty, hunger and lack of opportunity.”
How about we wait until we know for sure that the child has a lack of opportunity and then kill it? We don’t want to accidentally kill someone for whom it may turn out that they DO have an opportunity. Hence, I think it would be best to wait and see who has opportunity and who doesn’t, and THEN kill the ones with no opportunity and spare the ones who have an opportunity their lives. Same goes for poverty and huger. Only kill people who we know FOR SURE are hungry, not ones who have the potential to be hungry. Make sense?
“The smart ones don’t reduce themselves to being sexually available at all times for a man by injecting themselves with chemicals or popping a pill.”
Using birth control is not making yourself sexually available at all times to a man. Last time I checked, that is a conscious decision.
I still get the final say in whether or not we have sex, not some stupid pills.
You can not take pills and still “make yourself sexually available at all times”, you know.
Lol. I’m not saying it’s physically impossible without hormones, but really, seriously, if it happened every day and was supposed to be a, as you say, “natural” occurance–then why the heck are these people on TV? They obviously are aware of the abnormality of it, otherwise they would object to all the attention. And if you compare parenting to teaching, as in a school system, then really… that’s truly quite sad. I don’t rely on my teachers like I do my parents–otherwise I might be a heck of a lot more liberal. And sure, there are tons of messed-up families with only two or one child, but I also know of several families who live in poverty because the parents decided to have seven, eight and nine children. And those children–a few of which are my friends–did not have close relationships with their parents, or their siblings, and could not go to a college they wanted due to lack of money.
And if you agree that children can be raised by older siblings, well then. It’s possible. But like I said, I don’t believe it’s ideal. And if it is, wouldn’t there be even less of a need of marriage, of single motherhood and even abandonment? If anybody can be raised by anybody else, why all the insanity over having a family structure present in a child’s life? Should adoption be as simple as driving up to a shelter, picking out however many kids you want and hauling them home after a two-dollar fee?
*marriage, and more acceptance of single motherhood and even abandonment?
Being the oldest of 6 kids in a rather poor family, I can vouch for what Abel says in large part. It wasn’t really THAT bad, but when I was 10 and 13, I was doing more than my fair share of raising my youngest brother and sister.
My biggest issue with the Duggars though is that…I dunno…It just seems as though the kids are so very coached in everything they say. Such an obvious lack of any independent and free thought I find troubling.
I just don’t want the government to try to force every pregnant woman to give birth against her will,
The baby has to come out one way or another, but it can either come out alive or dead and (typically) hacked to pieces. Besides which, once the baby is in there, morally speaking the mother has no choice and that’s just life and just tough. You can’t kill people to solve your problems.
or whether she has the means to take care of that child, or the if that pregancy would kill her , ruin her health and cause a helpless child to be brought into this world into abject poverty, hunger and lack of opportunity.
You have a weird idea of what constitutes the common good. In short, you cannot kill people to solve your problems. There are other solutions to these problems – killing babies is not one of them.
This is not good for women , children, their families and society in general .
I don’t think I realised that the Duggars have a show. While I think it’s great to have a big family, yeah, I don’t think having kids on these kinds of shows is really all that good. So, yes, some reservations there.
And X, I would think that almost any children on such shows would be coached, of necessity really, so I don’t think that’s very good for them.
But as for “not thinking for themselves” – please! Are you telling me that secularists don’t indoctrinate their kids – typically via the TV?
All parents indoctrinate their kids (that’s what teaching is): “Brush your hair, brush your teeth, eat good food, don’t hit your brother, don’t tell lies …”
The Duggers are creepy. Not because they have approximately 50 children: I don’t care how many kids they have. They totally strip the kids of any identity, which I do find disturbing. What bothers me about this family is that they can’t actually provide for any of the children they’ve had. All of their food is donated through a church, and they hold church meetings in their house so they can write it off on taxes. That squicks me.
…well, that and they named their daughter Jinger. With a J. Ugh.
If the Barack Hussein Obama’s had 18 kids would they be creepy too?? Nooooooooo.
The Duggars are amazing! They love the Lord God. They love each other. They love their kids. That is what you can’t stand.
These children are immensely lucky. Instead of a lot of stuff and undivided attention for their first 18 years, they get an adulthood and eternity with all their siblings, nieces, nephews-and imagine all the cousins, aunts and uncles to love and spoil the children, too.
Attention and toys last a moment. Siblings last a lifetime.
Amen, Jacqueline.
To those that hate the Duggars and think they are weird and creepy I can only say that it hardly surprises me or anyone else here that you call what is evil, good and what is good, evil.
I can imagine all of the ugly hate mail and disgusting, rude comments they get from others. I would have done anything to grow up in that family!
JYW, there is no point in you commenting. Really.
Robert,
“I just don’t want the government to try to force every pregnant woman to give birth against her will, or whether she has the means to take care of that child, or the if that pregancy would kill her , ruin her health and cause a helpless child to be brought into this world into abject poverty, hunger and lack of opportunity. ”
A) The government is unable to force anyone to give birth, because there is no force involved. A healthy pregnancy will naturally result in a live birth, no force necessary. An abortion will forcefully end the life of the developing child.
B) If a pregnancy would indeed threaten the life of the mother, then medical intervention such as emergency c-section or induced labor and treatment of the premature baby are available. How would intentionally killing the baby in utero save the mother’s life? Oh wait, we asked you this on another thread and you didn’t really answer. Hey, maybe you should stop repeating statements that you are unable to back up with facts? It’s a thought.
C) I’ve said this to you before. Circumstances do not determine who is worthy of life and who is not. One’s humanity determines that. Circumstances can be improved – why not take measures to improve them instead of advocating killing innocents? Having an abortion will not solve the problem of poverty. It’s a temporary solution that destroys a human being.
Abel,
“And if you agree that children can be raised by older siblings, well then. It’s possible. But like I said, I don’t believe it’s ideal. And if it is, wouldn’t there be even less of a need of marriage, of single motherhood and even abandonment? If anybody can be raised by anybody else, why all the insanity over having a family structure present in a child’s life? Should adoption be as simple as driving up to a shelter, picking out however many kids you want and hauling them home after a two-dollar fee?”
What?? So in refuting someone’s idea that older siblings can help raise younger children, you somehow ended up at two-dollar, fast food style adoptions.
Uh, no, Carla. I clearly outlined that I don’t care how many kids they had. Yeah, sure, I disagree, but its really her choice to have as many kids as she can afford. Again, what bothers me is that the Duggers can’t afford it. They utilize tax loopholes and the charity of others to keep their family growing, which, to me, is morally questionable. If you can’t afford that many children, don’t have that many children.
HA,
Can I look that up somewhere?
I am grateful for the charity of others for the clothing of my children. Grandma, friends with hand me downs and the thrift store keep my children clothed. :)
Which one of my children should I “off” to better our situation??
Since when do the Duggars rely on food pantries for their living?
The last time I had cable and watched a show on the Duggars (2 or 3 Duggar children ago, I believe):
They were building a brand-new house. For CASH MONEY. No debt. They completed each component for the house when they had saved up the CASH to do so.
They owned their own business(es) and thus made their own living.
Yes, they paid for their own food at the grocery store. Themselves. Without food stamps or any other government aid. They simply planned their meals to fit their budget (which was rather high, obviously, due to their family size).
If the Duggars are receiving charity or any other kind of handout, it would be news to me and extremely surprising news at that. The last I knew, they were of the opinion that they should be living free of debt, and taking care of their own family themselves, without charity or government handouts. And I think they hold church services in their home because they didn’t feel that other churches area were a good ideological fit for them. I kind of doubt they home-church simply to “write it off on taxes”. People who do home-church generally do so because they feel strongly about their own beliefs and there isn’t a church home for them in the area in which they feel comfortable and accepted, and perhaps they disagree with some of the finer points of other church’s interpretation of the Bible.
I personally wouldn’t want to have this many children for the reason that I want each of our children to get some individual attention from Mom and Dad daily. But the Duggars seem to make it work. We’ll see what the children have to say about how well they liked their upbringing when they are adults. How the children feel about it should be the main gauge of how well the parents made sure each child was properly cared for in this context (emotionally/relationally). Those of use who are outside the family and don’t know them personally shouldn’t necessarily be quick to make assumptions. Even those of us that grew up in large families. Not every family is the same and we have to keep that in mind.
HA,
What is morally questionable about accepting private charity? Most, if not all, churches have a food pantry for the purpose of helping the community. Should churches only offer food to families with a socially acceptable number of children? My parents only had two children, my brother and myself, and we received assistance from a church when my dad was out of work. Is that kosher since there were just two kids? Or was it irresponsible of my parents to have any kids at all, since their situation took an unexpected turn for the worse and they found themselves in need? Maybe you think the duggers are creepy. Maybe their tax situation seems dubious. Maybe you think they shouldn’t be on a reality show. I can dig it. But slamming them for accepting food donations? That’s not the best angle of criticism.
I agree that it is ridiculous to say the Duggars are “unnatural.” How can it be unnatural to let your body function as it was designed? And I am willing to bet that most of those who find their child-bearing unnatural don’t find sex to be so–so they are in the odd position of finding sex without artificial hormones or devices between two married persons of the opposite sex “unnatural.”
There are still many families who choose not to control their fertility. Quite a few have 10 or more children; many do consider themselves normal. For the Duggars and others who do end up on TV, it is a sacrifice they make to use their unusual position to try and reach others for the Lord–something that all of us who are believers should be able to understand. And many who give God control of their fertility have only a couple children, or none. For some the struggle is not to use unnatural technology (like IVF) when God has not opened their wombs.
What do mothers of many children really think? Well, many are overwhelmed at times when the oldest few are still little–but they persevere because they are encouraged by others who have walked that path and by their knowledge of God’s word, and are grateful for what God has blessed them with as their children grow older. Yes, they help more around the house and with their siblings, but in many cases they are not forced to help with childcare unless they want to. Instead, their main duties include things like cleaning, tidying, cooking, and other age-appropriate tasks that every adult should learn by the time they become independent. And most women who have trusted God with their fertility, as it wanes, find themselves sad that season in their lives was over, and wish they could have one more child (at least). Their children often pray for more siblings and have close relationships.
Even among the more secular large families, I have often heard women say that while you can regret not having more children, you will never regret having another.
Nowadays, those with large families are a bit more self-selecting, so perhaps the picture wasn’t always so rosy when some had large families simply because they did not have the technology to alter their bodies or the knowledge to avoid conception. But the difference is still not in the number of children, but in the heart attitude toward children–that they are blessings and gifts, to be received with joy, not burdens to be avoided.
The Duggers are creepy. Not because they have approximately 50 children: I don’t care how many kids they have. They totally strip the kids of any identity, which I do find disturbing.
That’s my observation, HA. I didn’t know they had their own church in their home. That kinda makes it a little more creepy to me. Like, they don’t even get the limited amount of interaction with people outside their immediate circle of influence that going to church outside of their home would afford…But oh well. Maybe one of the kids will wake up one of these days. I can’t wait to see what they say once Mr. and Mrs. Warden’s mind-control wears off.
But as for “not thinking for themselves” – please! Are you telling me that secularists don’t indoctrinate their kids – typically via the TV?
All parents indoctrinate their kids (that’s what teaching is): “Brush your hair, brush your teeth, eat good food, don’t hit your brother, don’t tell lies …”
Posted by: Louise at August 6, 2009 9:48 PM
No, Louise, teaching is not indoctrinating. Personally, I tell my daughter what she SHOULD do or SHOULD NOT do, explain to her the consequences of doing or not doing that thing, and then, if something bad happens due to her noncompliance and harms herself/someone else around her/our home, she experiences the consequences of that and has to either fix her mess, or go through the punishment to suit her crime. No indoctrination required.
When talking about the nature of our world and the principles thereof, anything which might be ambiguous due to differing opinions of religious individuals vs. those non-religious, I explain to her MANY DIFFERING THEORIES AND VIEWPOINTS. Most of my family is religious, so she’s familiar with creationism, intelligent design, and the big bang theory.
But it’s nice of you to say I just turn on whatever indoctrinating programming you think I watch and set my kids in front of it to stew.
Poor Kids ! Unable to watch TV, but they are on a TV Show , do they watch themselves as part of their home schooling? If they want to live with their clan , than do it , not be on TV , making money off these poor children , maybe this is WWJD answer to be on TV and make a whole lot of money, next a clothes line for children.o
BOO HOO HOO those “poor kids don’t get to watch TV”. It’s the END OF THE WORLD!!!! They’re SO ABUSED!!!!! Give me a break. There are many more important and intellectual (and FUN) things to do other than park one’s behind in front of the tube with a bag of potato chips. Come on!!!
Gee, I guess my kids must be SO ABUSED. They’re only allowed to watch 30 minutes of TV a day on weekdays. Why? Because if I let them all they would do is sit in front of the TV until their brains ran out their ears. It’s so horrible for my kids to instead play outside, play with their toys, read books, and play games with Mom. Terrible! Their childhood will be devoid of anything good and right, won’t it? (Yes, that was sarcasm.)
It wasn’t so long ago when TV wasn’t in existance and I would argue that children from that generation generally turned out a LOT better than the self-serving, egotistical, out-of-shape couch potatoes from THIS generation (and I’m qualified to say this because I’m PART of this TV-video game-couch-potato generation!). They did REAL THINGS during their childhood. They played outside. They learned the values of such things which are lost today – the value of hard work (really?!), good values (no!!!), doing useful or good things with their time such as talking to elders and other family members (gasp!), reading books (shocking!), playing (non-electronic) games together (wow!), and learning to help out and be a functioning, responsible member of the family unit and of society (!!!).
The Duggars don’t “strip their kids of any identity”. That’s absurd. The last time I saw them discussing their children they could name the different personalities and preferences of each one and they showed respect for their DIFFERENCES. And it’s not some wierd cult-ish “indoctrination” to teach your kids what you believe is right. Nor is it cult-ish to have a home church. Just because your church is not a different building than the one you live in doesn’t mean a dang gone thing. As long as the Duggars are teaching their kids the whole Bible, and nothing BUT the Bible (in other words, not adding wierd, heretical, un-Biblical ideas to it) then there is nothing Biblically wrong with what they are doing. When I last saw them discussing this issue, they had another like-minded family joining them so it isn’t as though they are isolated. They don’t live in a prison-like compound which they never leave. The bottom line is that anyone who doesn’t feel the same way the Duggars do about religion is going to point the “indoctrination” finger at them. Particularly folks who are not Christians.
Just because some of you folks teach your kids “a lot of different viewpoints” doesn’t make you superior to parents who teach their kids the ONE viewpoint they believe is the RIGHT one. The best any of us can do as parents is to teach our children what WE BELIEVE IS RIGHT in our hearts. Just because others may disagree doesn’t take away our right and responsibility to do so. The Duggars aren’t breaking the law. They aren’t teaching their kids wierd, immoral, or gross/harmful ideas (such as the Yearning for Zion cult in TX). There are some parents in this world (I’m sure none of the parents here are like this but there ARE many of them out there) who don’t give a darn and let their kids do whatever, because it’s too much work to raise them with any kind of morals or values. Would you rather have a generation of lawless, disrespectful, lazy little punks like that or would you rather have a child raised in an environment where they learn “clean living”, responsibility, etc.?
At least the Duggars are LIVING their faith (“walking the talk”) instead of living in hypocrisy as so many folks do these days.
The Duggars have those commercial properties they own and rent, royalties from their show and books…….it would seem that with their financial principals of debt-free living and “buy used, save the difference” that they are particularly well situated to care properly for their family. so that should not be a concern. concerned that they are devout and faithful christians? even though i am not of their faith, they inspire me in many ways! that’s what this country is about! show faith in the way you see fit. when i was young and wanted to tart around, and do other “teenage stuff” i probably would have shunned the idea of clean living faithful people, because it would have been a challenge to the things i wanted to do, which were not of faith, and could certainly be called sin. having matured slightly, i am not as defensive when i realize that i am wrong. their example of decent respectful living should be applauded by everyone, because those types of citizens make for a better community, a better country. that’s just how i feel about it.