Duggar Mother's Day special tonight: Josie (briefly) comes home

The TLC promo...

One hour special premiering this Sunday at 9p. After 4 months of uncertainty and challenges, Josie Brooklyn is finally released from the hospital and reunited with the rest of the Duggar family. Watch as Jim Bob, Michelle, and Josie's 18 siblings prepare for this emotional homecoming.

Check your local listings on the time, this TLC listing says the special will air at 8p. Could be 9p ET, 8p CT.... or 8p ET, 7p CT. Just check.

We already know Josie's trip home was short-lived. Per People, May 5:

At just 8-days-old Josie suffered a perforated bowel....

duggars josie comes home.jpg

She survived without surgery and continued to stabilize - so much so that she was released from the hospital on April 6 with the understanding that doctors would follow her closely on an outpatient basis - with surgery likely in her future when she was bigger. "I was excited she was home," says Michelle, "but I was worried because I've never cared for a baby so tiny before."

Her fears were realized just two days later when Josie had to be rushed back to the NICU after her vital signs dropped....

Josie's emotional, though brief, homecoming will be featured in a TLC Mother's Day special, 19 Kids and Counting: Josie Comes Home, on Sunday, May 9 at 8p. Her trip back to the hospital will be shown on the show on Tuesday, May 11 at 9p.

The Duggars are hopeful Josie will continue to gain weight and get to a place where further testing and any possible surgeries can be done, maybe even taking her home again in the next weeks....

Here some more "sneak peak" clips of tonight's show from TLC...

[HT for People article: proofreader Laura Loo]


Comments:

Cool. My son loves that show.

Posted by: hippie at May 9, 2010 10:55 AM


Am I the only pro-lifer who thinks they should have stopped having children after, say, four? Why do pro-lifers look to them as an example of how to live? Why not adopt 19 children whose parents abandoned them?

Posted by: Nate Sheets at May 9, 2010 12:28 PM


Nate: Of course you don't have to have 19 kids to be a good pro-lifer. Most pro-lifers aren't Quiverfull...ers (?), and even those who are opposed to artificial contraception due to Catholic teaching support NFP, which the Duggars clearly aren't practicing. So I don't necessarily agree that pro-lifers ARE looking to them as an example of how to live.

Anyway, whenever a premature baby is in the news, we're naturally inclined to support coverage of that, since it sheds some light on the humanity of the unborn. And while I've never seen the show, from what I can gather they seem to be a happy, loving family. So good for them.

Posted by: Kelsey at May 9, 2010 12:56 PM


You are entitled to your opinion, Nate. Little late to try and tell them they "should have" stopped at 4 though, dontcha think?? :)

I think they are amazing and am grateful I get the chance to watch them and other prolifers who raise their families to love all life from conception to natural death, whether they adopt children or not.

Posted by: Carla at May 9, 2010 1:22 PM


Nate, they hold true to their convictions that God is in control of their fertility. Most pro-lifers who hold this belief won't have anywhere near as many children, and no one is saying they should.

Being open to life means accepting whatever God has planned for your family, be it 2 children, no children, or 18 children.

Posted by: Lauren at May 9, 2010 1:30 PM


Nate,
Children are a blessing. The Lord is so good to the Duggers to open Michelle's womb so many times. Why would you deny them of that?

Just because they haven't adopted at this time doesn't mean they should be withheld from their "heritage and reward." The Lord calls us each to different things. We aren't all called to bear 19, nor are we all called to adopt that many.

They have 19 for the same reason I have four (one preborn) and three others born into Christ's arms, that's how many the Lord has seen fit to give them. As one who was barren for 4.5 years before the Lord chose to open my womb I know very well that it is the Lord, not man, who is the giver of life and he alone who decides when to open the womb.

Posted by: Elizabeth G. at May 9, 2010 1:38 PM


Nate,
You ask a good question As I see it, if you lined up all the Duggar children, oldest to youngest, it would be pretty difficult to look each in the eye and suggest that children numbers 5-19 shouldn't have been born. I doubt that children numbers 1-4 could not imagine their lives without all the others. Having a large family is amazing and at the same time overwhelming, but as these children grow up and have their own families, they will appreciate the sacrifice their parents made for them. That is a lesson that will last for generations. God bless the Duggars, especially, baby Josie!

Posted by: Janet at May 9, 2010 1:43 PM


oh shoot, I meant to say, "I doubt that children numbers 1-4 could imagine their lives without all the others."

Posted by: Janet at May 9, 2010 1:46 PM


So I guess the answer to my question is "Yes", I am the only one.

Posted by: Nate Sheets at May 9, 2010 2:31 PM


No, you're not the only one, Nate. There are plenty of pro-lifers who are ok with non-abortificient birth control.

Personally, I feel that when future pregnancies would put the mother or future child at risk, it is perfectly acceptable to look into NFP, or even permanant birth control measures like vasectomy or tubal ligation. Some couples are fine using condoms, but I don't think this is the best long term solution in terms of marital intimacy.

Anyways, saying that the Duggars *should* stop having children, or should have stopped 15 children ago takes things a bit beyond recognizing legitimate reasons why families might want to limit any additional pregnancies. I think that's the part where you probably split ways with the majority of pro-lifers.

Posted by: Lauren at May 9, 2010 3:24 PM


But we still love you :)

Posted by: Kelsey at May 9, 2010 3:30 PM


I certainly look to them on how to raise a child. Those kids are smart, hardworking and respectful. All 19 of them. Most parents cant get that right with one.

Posted by: Kristen at May 9, 2010 3:46 PM


Why four? Most people would agree that more than two is unwise.
I have never thought of the Duggars as a pro-life standard or example. It just never occured to me. When I think of them, I think of how brave they must be to do what they believe is right despite being ridiculed and made fun of for their lifestyle.
Even if they were not Christians or pro-life, I would still be in favor of them having as many children as they wanted. Who should be able to tell anyone of us who we should marry, how many kids to have, where we should live, whether I can be a stay-at-home mom or not? Should the government, family members, popular consensus?
If you begin to dictate what is an appropriate lifestyle for everyone, then where is freedom?

The other day I ran into a girl from high school who asked me how many kids we had. I told her we were pregnant with the fifth. She said, "When you gonna quit?" I was thinking, 'why? you don't even know them, they don't bother you, why would you care?'

I love that, at least for the time being, I can live life the way that I desire and that is pleasing to me. I'm not trying to be offensive, Nate, but I just don't understand why it seems that there are so many people eager to take that away from others who differ from them.

Posted by: Heather M at May 9, 2010 3:54 PM


I think as long as there both in agreement to have a large family and she's not being pressured than it's a beautiful thing. I don't want to be offensive either but I don't get how people who are doing the right thing are always expected to pick up the slack for those who don't. If it's a couples choice to adopt that's different. There's a couple I read about that also have a very large family most of them are handicapped and most of their children are adopted. But that was there choice.

Posted by: myrtle miller at May 9, 2010 4:23 PM



"Am I the only pro-lifer who thinks they should have stopped having children after, say, four? Why do pro-lifers look to them as an example of how to live? Why not adopt 19 children whose parents abandoned them?"

Posted by: Nate Sheets at May 9, 2010 12:28 PM


They might have adopted if they had not been able to have children. Lots of other kid loving folks do. Of course we can't know that.

Anyway, thinking about the Duggars got me thinking about which of the big 5 personality traits correlate with having many children. I should probably kill some time mining the GSS to find out. It would be interesting to see whether there is a pattern in the personalities of such parents and what the means and standard deviations are for the traits then compare them to averages for those with zero kids and those with two kids. Now if a researcher could actually find a fair number of people with the Duggar worldview and corresponding large family of say at least 8 kids, then do a longitudinal study of the big 5 traits of their kids and then compare their scores to their parents and possibly derive some heritability factor. Any significant heritability could give such folks a profound advantage much like the Puritans had that led to hundreds of years of American prosperity. I mean these days you have to find ways to give yourself hope.

Posted by: hippie at May 9, 2010 5:02 PM


I just love the Duggars, but at first I thought they were weird. Nate you should watch the show and see what wonderful parenting is done in that household. We need more joyful, hard-working and humble people like them.

As the seventh child in my family, I am never-endingly thankful my parents didn't share your worldview. I only have one child, wish I could have more, but that is what God had in store for me.

I can't wait to see the show tonight, it always brings a smile to see those parents and kids. It's a life very different from mine, but it is a pleasure to visit them via TV. It isn't the life I choose, or was laid out for me, yet I truly respect their trust in God. We can all learn from them.

Posted by: LB at May 9, 2010 5:19 PM


I def. see Nate's point. I actually can't help but think this everytime I see the Duggar family, because it does seem unfair that so many children are suffering in foster care. But, on the other hand, I do think people should have the right (legally and morally) to have as many or as few kids as they want...they just can't kill them after they're concieved. And the Duggars appear to be a wonderful, happy family, so more power to them.

I think maybe the best solution is for the government to offer more financial help to families who want to adopt older/ special needs children but who don't have enough money to do so.

I like your website btw Nate, and good for you for working with foster kids!

Posted by: Adair at May 9, 2010 6:59 PM


"Who should be able to tell anyone of us who we should marry, how many kids to have, where we should live, whether I can be a stay-at-home mom or not? Should the government, family members, popular consensus?
If you begin to dictate what is an appropriate lifestyle for everyone, then where is freedom?"

Excatly Heather M.!! Spoken like a true pro-choicer and gay rights advocate!
Here's a question for all of you haters. If the fetus you save is gay, will you still fight for it's rights?

Posted by: Grace at May 9, 2010 7:05 PM


"Here's a question for all of you haters. If the fetus you save is gay, will you still fight for it's rights?"

Wait, is this a real question? It seems to imply pro-lifers can't be in favor of gay rights, let alone the fact that many gays are pro-life themselves. Ever heard of PLAGAL? It is insulting to homosexuals to imply they can't respect life because they are gay; I'd say you're the homophobe here.

Posted by: Adair at May 9, 2010 7:21 PM


Get real Grace, 7:05PM

The best way to dignify stupidity is to respond to it so I will not respond to your question.

Posted by: Mary at May 9, 2010 7:23 PM


Posted by: Nate Sheets at May 9, 2010 12:28 PM

"Am I the only pro-lifer who thinks they should have stopped having children after, say, four?"

-------------------------------------------------

Probably not.

I am with Abraham Lincoln.

I believe a man's legs ought to be just long enough to reach the ground.

Or roughly paraphrase Mel Gibson in 'Patriot'.

"These are exactly the kind of people we need to win this war."

My oldest daughter and I had the priveledge of sharing a meal and spending an evening in the Duggars home when there were only about a dozen children in motion at once.

It was not disorderly. All the children were well behaved and each had resposibilities commensurate with their level of maturity which was much higher than other children of the same age.

The Duggars have home schooled all their children, which is probably a net loss, not only to the government schools where they live, but to the students who never had the opportunity to profit from interaction with the Duggar kids.

But the Duggar children were spared the humanistic inculcation provided by the government schools.

Ten more years of observation will tell the tale as to whether the Duggars have been successful as parents.

My money is on the Duggars.

Posted by: yor bro ken at May 9, 2010 7:40 PM


It is insulting to homosexuals to imply they can't respect life because they are gay
Adair, I have nothing more to add. Very well put.

Posted by: Kelsey at May 9, 2010 7:43 PM


Posted by: Grace at May 9, 2010 7:06 PM


"If the fetus you save is gay, will you still fight for it's rights?"

---------------------------------------------------

Grease,

Yes.

If scientists find a genetic marker for 'homosexuality', will you still support a pregnant females choice to kill her prenatal child only becasue she knows she/he is a homosexual?

The 'right to life' is the inherent posssesion of every human being regardless of their sexual preference, gender, or ethnicity.

Though other humans may 'choose' to violate that 'right to life', they cannot remove or destroy it.

The most they can do is destroy the human.

So Grease,

When your mother was pregnant with ou what species of embryo/fetus was present in her uterus?


Posted by: yor bro ken at May 9, 2010 7:51 PM


Good point, yor bro ken. I have heard that as well, that there may soon be prenatal tests for homosexuality. In that case, the pro-life movement will be one defending the right to life for gays, as we are already defending the rights of other people who are discriminated against-such as females and the disabled- to not be murdered in the womb. And the pro-choice movement is supposed to be "progressive"! Irony, irony, irony

Posted by: Adair at May 9, 2010 8:16 PM


HI Adair,

From what I have read the gay community, of which a very dearly loved family member of mine may be part of, is deeply concerned about this possibility. I've noticed that many gay people, not all, have been part of the left wing coalition supporting "abortion rights".

Oh the gods do punish (wo)man by giving them what they ask for!

Posted by: Mary at May 9, 2010 8:46 PM


Adair-
I agree. I think anything the government does that gets individuals out of institutions or group homes or even nursing homes is a good thing. I think when a family decides to keep a loved one out of an institution or nursing home and cares for their loved one at home they should also get financial assistance. From what I've seen it's like our government has confidence in everything but the family unit. I think that has a lot to do with the way lobbyists lobby. From what I understand the nursing homes have powerful lobbyists. Which is kind of sad because I believe the family unit was designed by God.

Posted by: myrtle miller at May 9, 2010 9:21 PM


Dear Mary,

I agree with you, it does seem that many gay people lean to the left. I think this makes sense, considering the left tends to be a little more friendly toward gay issues. In terms of the abortion issue, I think many people just tend to follow their party's stance on it, and the left has tried hard to portray pro-lifers as woman-haters. Honestly, though, I am suprised the Democratic party became the pro-choice party, and the Republicans the pro-life party, as it looked as though it would be the opposite in the 1960s.

Anyway, God bless you and your family member!

p.s. I really need to stop posting and get back to the real world... why are blogs so addicting? :)

Posted by: Adair at May 9, 2010 9:32 PM


The more I have though about Nate's question, the more it rubs me wrong.

What is the difference in saying a family must stop at 4 as opposed to say 1. If China had a four child policy would it make it less evil? Who is it that decides how many biological children a person may have? Nate says 4, China 1, others perhaps 2, 3 or 8.

Children aren't commodities or pets, or anything other than precious life created in the image of God. Children will one day be adults and it is not up to the government or whomever else to say: you should never have been born.

Posted by: Elizabeth G at May 9, 2010 9:45 PM


Elizabeth: I don't believe in God, so your citation of God making children in his image won't work with me.

Despite what people have implied, I never suggested lining the children up in concentration-camp fashion and giving those past the 4th a lecture on how they should not have been born. As a pro-lifer and a social worker, I'm kind of against doing that to children and would call in any parent that does so as verbally abusing their child.

The issue is not the children, it's the parents, whom I view as nothing more than attention whores for their little quiver-full cause. My point is that there are thousands of children who need to be adopted. For some reason, I feel that if a single black woman who lived in the Bronx were to have 19 children, all being supported by the state, people reading this blog would have less of the warm and fuzzy feelings they're feeling for the Duggers, and a little more urgency toward getting that woman to stop pro-creating. Thankfully these people have a reality show to subsidize their ridiculous predilection to have as many children as they possibly can. Not everyone has that.

Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Posted by: Nate Sheets at May 9, 2010 9:53 PM


I have never known a gay person to be pro-life. And I know hundreds of gays. Since you guys believe everyone is created equal, you also believe that gays should have the right to marry and adopt? Because, you know, who are you to tell other's how to live their lives? I still can't believe an anti wrote that.

Posted by: Grace at May 9, 2010 9:55 PM


Grace: to whom if your comment addressed?

Posted by: Nate Sheets at May 9, 2010 10:08 PM


Excatly Heather M.!! Spoken like a true pro-choicer and gay rights advocate!
Here's a question for all of you haters. If the fetus you save is gay, will you still fight for it's rights?

Posted by: Grace at May 9, 2010 7:05 PM


Grace, I am neither.
I firmly believe that ALL humans are deserving of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as well as respect and love.

Sexual preference has nothing to do with the sanctity of human life. Human life deserves protection from conception to natural death.

Posted by: Heather M at May 9, 2010 10:13 PM


I'm just jumping into this thread, sorry, but I have a logistical question...how would we even know if a woman aborted a child because he/she was gay? Would people have to fill out a questionnaire about why they were pursuing an abortion? Seems too intrusive to me. And I think it's a long shot. But you know, maybe if we didn't devalue gay people after they've been born the whole issue about abortion for sexual orientation wouldn't exist.

And the Duggars seem like a nice family. Sure they will be using up a lot of resources but they seem able bodied and content. My only issue is that the mother is getting old so of course there's a greater risk she will develop hypertension or give birth prematurely. I know you're supposed to give in to God's will or whatever but I think she should really consider having another baby because there is the risk the kid could be really, really sick. And I guess this is getting off topic but twenty years ago we didnt have the technology to save extremely premature babies...is technological development part of God's grand plan? I mean in your opinion, bloggers on here, not to be offensive.

Posted by: Jake at May 9, 2010 10:19 PM


Um, Grace. www.plagal.org

Posted by: Lauren at May 9, 2010 10:24 PM


Nate,
You missed my point about lining up the 19 children and picking four to "keep". That was a hypothetical scenario and I wasn't suggesting someone actually do that! If you don't have children or siblings, I could imagine how it wouldn't make sense to you.
How you can compare the Duggar's situation to that of a welfare mother who has 19 children, I really don't know, but if she wants to have her own TV show, and receive money for it, it's fine with me.

Posted by: Janet at May 9, 2010 10:26 PM


Grace, aparently you've not spoken to Nate Sheets nor any members of PLAGAL. We tell you these individuals exist and point you in the direction of the Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians, but it's as if you continually plug your ears and go, "la la la, I can't hear you"

Posted by: Rachael C. at May 9, 2010 10:28 PM


Jake, we currently track abortions for DS and other disability as well as sex selective abortions. I don't see why it would be any different to track abortions performed because of the "gay gene" if one were found.

As for your question re: having children at an older age, I think that comes into a situation where you start talking about NFP, thought it would probably be harder as a women enters peri-menopause.

Overall I support the quiverful mentality, but I also think that there is a reason why God designed women in such a way that our cycles are easily tracked.

Posted by: Lauren at May 9, 2010 10:29 PM


The Duggars don't use a lot of resources! What are you talking about? That's a bunch of nonsense. In fact, they don't spend the $ that some Americans do.


Nate's comment reminds me of a comment that Bobbi McCaughey said: Bobbi has been famously quoted as saying, “Well, come to our house, and tell me which four I shouldn’t have had! (she and her husband Kenny refused "selective reduction" AKA abortion)

I am sure Michelle Duggar would make that same comment to you, Nate.


200 years ago, a family the size of the Duggars was not that unusual.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at May 9, 2010 10:37 PM


Janet: I do have siblings: two bio and two adopted. Try again.

Michelle: really? Have you read any of the comments or are you just jumping right in with talking points as is typically with conservative blog commenters?

I am pro-life. I am glad none of the children were slaughtered in the womb. Seriously, stop suggesting that I want to pick and choose which children are born.

God, pro-lifers can really be thick.

Posted by: Nate Sheets at May 9, 2010 10:41 PM


Um, Nate, you said there should only have been four. That kind of begs the question, what then of the other 15?

Posted by: Elizabeth G at May 9, 2010 10:46 PM


Heather, what you wrote is straight from pro-choice talking points.
You: "Who should be able to tell anyone of us who we should marry..."
If you don't think gays should be able to marry, and have voted to make sure they legally can not, then you do, Heather.

You: "...how many kids to have..."
If you actively try to ban abortion, then that would be you trying to tell others how many kids to have, Heather.

You: "If you begin to dictate what is an appropriate lifestyle for everyone, then where is freedom?"

My point (& other pro-choicer's) excatly!

For the rest of you who don't get my question, you want every pregnancy brought to term, but when it comes to gays, some of you don't think they should be able to marry, adopt or serve their country. You think of them as second class citizens, same goes for pregnant women, you think the fetus deserves more rights than a pregnant woman.
I do believe you can be pro-life and gay. But if you are pro-life and anti-gay, that makes you a hypocrite, because you love to scream, "equal rights for the unborn!", but out of the other side of your mouth you scream, "gays marrying will destroy the traditional marriage" and "gays can't be good parents". Do you get it now? You believe a fetus should have the same rights as all human beings, unless that human being is gay, then they don't count as equals.

Posted by: Grace at May 9, 2010 11:05 PM


Wow, Elizabeth. You got me. Obviously I mean that all of the other Duggar children should been dismembered in the womb.

Posted by: Nate Sheets at May 9, 2010 11:16 PM


Why does this make me roll my eyes?

Dude, Nate, the Duggers support and love their kids, the kids are well-behaved and they all seem to be happy. Maybe they shouldn't be on-camera, but the show isn't as intrusive as SOME family reality TV shows (i.e., John and Kate) and it doesn't really seem to bother them. Nothing wrong with that. The hypothetical black woman is not supporting her children and abuses the miracle they are; I imagine that would be a tragic show, and I highly doubt she was raped and impregnated ninteen times, so all those kids came from the irrisponsable sex she was having. The difference between her and Mrs. Dugger would be that Mrs. Dugger takes care of her children, which is really something to marvel at, something to celebrate.

More good parenting in this world means more good people. In the Dugger's case, they seemed to have produced 19 pleasant children who all have a good chance of growing into 19 pleasant people - something this world seems to be short on. Maybe some of them will adopt.

Being gay has nothing to do with this topic or this blog, btw, and I don't know why people keep bringing this up. Race has nothing to do with this topic or blog, either - again, why? Yeah it's unfair that other people have "sex without consequences" which result in a lot of dead and abandoned children, but that's not the Duggers' fault, nor is it any pro-lifer's fault. If the Duggers SET OUT with the intention of creating 19 children to parade on camera like a freak show (John and Kate), then things would be different. As it is, they found a way to spread their message, which was TV. They claim that having a big family is possible without the chaos, and they've managed to back it up fairly well - which is more than I can say for most people on TV nowadays.

Wrapping it up: Adoption is not a quick-fix, and should not be bandied as the ultimate solution. It can, in some cases, be quite tragic. What we need is a renewed respect for sex and for children - two things people have failed to connect and therefore, to understand.

Respect and love, people, we're on the same side here (except Grace, who is a troll and doesn't understand that we honestly don't care how people live their lives, so long as they aren't killing other people).

Posted by: Abel at May 10, 2010 1:14 AM


* they found a way to spread their message, which was through TV.

Posted by: Abel at May 10, 2010 1:17 AM


Grace, the right to life trumps all rights. One must have life before being given liberty and be able to pursue happiness. Therefore, you should be asking yourself whether you respect these people enough to give them life than asking us what rights are given. If you're not even going to respect that first right, then what right do you have to tell others what they can and cannot believe, if you don't even respect these people enough to let them live so they can be given further rights?

Posted by: Amy at May 10, 2010 3:12 AM


Am I the only pro-lifer who thinks they should have stopped having children after, say, four? Why do pro-lifers look to them as an example of how to live? Why not adopt 19 children whose parents abandoned them?
Posted by: Nate Sheets at May 9, 2010 12:28 PM

it is really between God and the couple

This couple obviously feels called to a special openness to children and God has obviously given them the means and the skills to do accomplish his will.

I have a few friends who have 9 children and they go into the Catholic schools and encourage the young women to be open to more children when they are older and married.
I think this is a good thing to do because most young women are given the message over and over again that the world is under populated and only one or two children are acceptable.

I think that the Duggars at the very least demonstrate that it is possible to have many children. And that these children are not "damaged" in any way by being in a larger family.
(another very common misperception)

Posted by: angel at May 10, 2010 7:07 AM


above should read OVER populated!

Posted by: angel at May 10, 2010 7:54 AM


There is no right to marry. Marriage is a privilege, not a right. It requires the consent of another person, and it is a social mechanism designed to protect children. It is not a certificate for "playing house".

There is no right to adopt. Adoption is a privilege and confers an obligation. Children are not accessories for "playing house". Adoption is permitted for people who demonstrate a stable union. This does not statistically characterize gay unions, so gays are a poor risk as adoptive parents on that single basis alone.

There is a right to life, and all people who favor abortion and euthanasia are violating the right to life, as an expression of their extreme intolerance for others who are different.

Posted by: pharmer at May 10, 2010 9:02 AM


No Nate, I'm dead serious.

In your world what should have happened with the other 15? Abortion is one means of preventing their birth (and not what I said you were getting at), but are you saying they should never have been conceived?

If so, through what means? Hormonal birth control? NFP?

What if they chose not to act according to your wishes? Would forced sterilization have been a better option?

Posted by: Elizabeth G at May 10, 2010 11:13 AM


I have 4 children, Nate...should I be forced to use the pill or some other birth control now that I have the number of children you find acceptable? Even though I love the children I have and would be absolutely thrilled to find out I was blessed with another one, should I just stop because you might judge me?

Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at May 10, 2010 11:37 AM


Nate...I understand your point. 19 is a lot of kids. I can't even imagine it. I don't agree that just because they don't adopt kids from foster care they can't have their own children. I am the youngest of four. Should my mom have adopted a kid and not have had me? I know the point you are trying to make but I just don't think its relevant. Just my opinion.

But someone else pointed out that what if a woman on welfare had 19 kids...

Well the Duggars are not on welfare. They support their children 100% without government assistance...

Its the Duggar's decision to have that many and I think it is wonderful. Their kids are all fed, clothed, and they look like really respectful kids to me. We need more people like that. They are being taught morals which so many kids are not these days. Their parents seem to love each one. Have you ever seen a family with siblings that love each other and their parents the way the Duggars do?

Heather M...your old friend said that because she is jealous of you. I know that because I have been trying to conceive my second child for months now and I just feel crushed every month when I'm not pregnant. I just found out an old friend from high school who is

a) younger than me
b) married after me
c) had her first after I had my first
d) second just turned one year old

is pregnant with her THIRD! And I wanted to say "Wow! You gonna keep popping them out one right after another?" and then caught myself like "That isn't you! Why are you being so mean?" and I realized it really didn't concern me how many kids she had, but that I was very jealous that she got pregnant with her third without even trying and I've been trying for months and can't even conceive my second. Jealousy, pure and simple. I had to ask God to forgive my poor attitude and to realize He will bless me in HIS time.

Think how many people are walking around out there with an aborted baby on their conscience. To see others enjoying their fertility is a smack in the face when they feel they couldn't. When I got pregnant with my son one friend made nasty remarks to me. I found out later she had had an abortion. Seeing me enjoying my pregnancy when she never allowed herself to do that made her react in bitterness and anger.

Good for you Heather M. to have your fifth. God bless you and your little ones!

Posted by: Sydney M. at May 10, 2010 7:56 PM


Sydney, I totally understand what you're saying. I also had secondary infertility and thought and felt some very unkind things. I'll be praying for you!

Posted by: Lauren at May 10, 2010 8:18 PM


These people are child abusers. Not only is there no way to give 19 children the love and attention they deserve, having baby after baby is DANGEROUS FOR THE BABIES. The risk of health complications goes way up, so it's no wonder this one was born at 1 1/2 pounds. Medical experts--who actually know what they're talking about--advise spacing children, because "three to five saves lives." Google that phrase.

I wish people would stop praising this freaky cult of a family. Women's bodies are not designed to have 20 kids safely.

Posted by: Ashley Herzog at May 10, 2010 9:39 PM


And it's obvious that the Duggar kids are slaves to the family. All they ever do is clean up after each other and smile for the camera. What a horrible lifestyle. How could you not be neglected, with 18 siblings to compete with for attention? Wasn't this the criticism of the Octomom? The Duggars are sickos.

Posted by: Ashley Herzog at May 10, 2010 9:44 PM


Starved for love and attention with 18 siblings and 2 parents?Lol, As one of my friends who has 6 older sisters (10 kids total) likes to say, "I have 7 mommies!"

Seriously, in a family like that you will always have plenty of arms to hug you, shoulders to cry on, and always someone to watch your back. The sibling relationship is the longest a person will have, longer than the relationship with parents, spouse, and school friends.

Posted by: Elizabeth G at May 10, 2010 10:46 PM


Lol, As one of my friends who has 6 older sisters (10 kids total) likes to say, "I have 7 mommies!"

As if that's a good thing. These child abusers are forcing their children to raise each other. With 19 kids, the older kids have to shoulder responsibilities they shouldn't have, and they get pushed aside for the kids who have more immediate needs (diapers, bottles, etc). I'm a libertarian, but I wouldn't mind if they were forcibly sterilized. Having hordes of kids is bad for the kids.

Posted by: Ashley Herzog at May 10, 2010 10:51 PM


God, I wonder how long it takes for this idiot to get pregnant again. I suspect the only reason they do the TV show is that there's no way to afford their kids otherwise. They're forcing the kids to be child laborers and perform for the camera, so they can prove a religious and political point. It's abuse, plain and simple.

Posted by: Ashley Herzog at May 10, 2010 10:57 PM


Yeah, seriously. No matter how well the children are treated, multiparity like this puts babies at risk. This youngest child--Lily?--will most likely suffer health consequences for the rest of her life as a result of her prematurity. And I don't want to say it, and I will gladly pay for it if I am required to because every born child deserves the best life possible, but taxpayers will end up paying for baby Lily's asthma or cystic fibrosis or LD issues. Should she have been born? That's a moot point. She is born. But should the Duggars have a 20th child, if they're concerned about its wellbeing? Probably not.

Posted by: Common sense at May 10, 2010 11:03 PM


Get off it Ashley. honestly, you're a child. What do you know about parenting or anything? Are you a doctor? Are you a mom? Are you a Duggar?

Stop your enraged diatribe. you sound like a lunatic.

The Duggars have real estate investment and were NOT in debt or on any public assistance BEFORE THE TV SHOW. Shows how much you know.

Secondly, all of her children have been delivered healthy, and vaginally. I think she had only 1 or 2 c-sections out of all of them. Josie was born early, not because of anything wrong with Mrs. Duggars uterus or cervix, but because of a gallbladder attack.

For your informatoin, Miss know it all, I had a gall bladder attack with my son, and I was pregnant FOR THE FIRST TIME. So it can happen to any woman whether it be 1 or 19 pregnancies.

Who are you to say how many children Mrs. Duggar should be "allowed" to have? Those children are fed, clothed and look pretty happy and adjusted to me.

Then you have the Lindsay Lohans of the world who weren't part of a big family but grew up feeing angry, abused, neglected and now have STD's and drug problems. Awesome. And all the money and fame in the world can't solve that.

The Duggars are teaching their children that the world doesn't revolve around THEM. More kids should learn that lesson you included.

And if I sound snarky, good. Your angry juvenile rant rubbed me the wrong way.

Posted by: Sydney M. at May 10, 2010 11:49 PM


if you care every kid equally than its ok.

Posted by: tubal reversal at May 11, 2010 2:49 AM


Ashley

You are being nasty for no reason.

The Duggar children are learning life skills that are necessary (I wish I had learned to cook when I was younger). Both the boys and the girls (the older ones who are driving ages) know how to change a tire. Do you know how to change a tire? Or cook? Or change a diaper? Who cares if they help out with their siblings? They'd be better caretakers than SOME people you hear about.

And since they don't spend their days watching some of the trash that's on television, they are better for it.

Common sense: the youngest is named Josie. :)

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at May 11, 2010 7:52 AM


Sorry, I'm still horrified by the Duggars. No one had a problem saying the Octomom was a child abuser and probably mentally ill. Bill O'Reilly advocated taking those kids away. Sure, she wasn't financially independent, but besides that, what were the differences? Why doesn't Jill have weekly Octomom updates? After all, it was pretty "pro-life" of her to refuse selective reduction on some of the embryos.

I suspect all you really like about these people is the wifely submission and the fundamentalist Christianity. They're part of that "Quiverfull" cult that tells women to submit to their husbands and have no control over their childbearing. The fact that the women have to home school and have no time or interests outside the family is just a bonus!

I wish TLC would stop promoting child neglect and child labor.

Posted by: AshleyHerzog at May 11, 2010 8:09 AM


The "death panels" (government bureaucrats deciding who will, and will NOT get medical attention) will be made up of such intolerant people as Ashley Herzog.

That's scary.

Posted by: Pharmer at May 11, 2010 8:31 AM


lol, "death panels." I thought that was just something people made fun of Sarah Palin for and didn't really believe in. I guess not.

Posted by: Ashley Herzog at May 11, 2010 8:36 AM


Pharmer understands that the Ashley-unit is an intolerant leftie creation (the libertarian story is an obvious fabrication), it is not in health care, and it does not know that Medicare vastly outstrips all private insurers in percentage of health claims DENIED.

Posted by: pharmer at May 11, 2010 8:53 AM


You are so misinformed Ashley its laughable.

The BIBLE says wives should submit to their husbands. Before you start spitting nasty things at us, the Bible also says that men are to ALWAYS put the needs of their wives FIRST.

If you are submitting to someone who is always looking out for your needs before his own...you have the most perfect marriage. Considering 50% of all marriages end in divorce, maybe more people should try marriage the way GOD intended.

And if you don't believe in God, thats fine. But the Duggars do, so who are you to judge how they live their married life? Michelle looks to be a fully content, JOYOUS woman unlike you. you are half her age but you have the bitterness of a 90 year old woman. ugh.

Kate Gosselin used IVF to get pregnant which is hardly pro-life. That is why you won't see pro-lifers touting them as examples.

Posted by: Sydney M. at May 11, 2010 8:54 AM


IVF...nice cover. I still suspect you don't like the Octomom and the Gosselins because they're not Christian fanatics who expect wives to roll over--literally--and do whatever the man says. Didn't the Duggars take their kids to the "Creation Museum," which shows humans living alongside dinosaurs and says the Earth is 6,000 years old? It's scary to see that many kids being brainwashed.

Posted by: Ashley Herzog at May 11, 2010 9:09 AM


Ashley...

Kate Gosselin and Octomom used children as possessions. Octomom had herself impregnated with children she couldn't afford or take care of, not thinking at all of the kids. They were possessions to her. Same with Kate Gosselin...I think you can tell from how Kate and Jon act that their children aren't their primary concern. They are narcissistic and put their own selfish desires first.

The Duggars do not. The Duggars are not actively trying to get pregnant but are open to any life NATURALLY created by God in Michelle's womb. They are not narcissistic. They are not on welfare. Thats the difference.

Institute for Creation Research puts out a great magazine called Acts and Facts. Its free. You should read it. It is full of Ph.D's and geneticists and biologists, and geologists and anthropologists and M.D.'s who all discuss how science of the body, science of the earth and the fossil record point to a YOUNG earth and a world wide flood. These are people much more educated than you Ashley. They pull apart the THEORIES of evolution strand by strand.

i think you are the one who is brainwashed Ashley.

Posted by: Sydney M. at May 11, 2010 9:26 AM


Ashley,
I was going to comment but I have four children of my own to brainwash. Later.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at May 11, 2010 9:43 AM


If you actually believe in a young Earth, I can't deal with you. If you believe that humans coexisted with the dinosaurs, you've been brainwashed.

It's ironic that the Duggars are anti-science and are indoctrinating their kids with religious superstition and creationist hogwash. If they lived in the Christian theocracy they want, there's no way they'd have 19 healthy kids. Here's what their family would look like if we lived in an anti-science theocracy:

http://6-bleen-7.livejournal.com/46587.html

Why didn't the Duggars just let God heal Josie instead of relying on all that scientific and medical progress? Isn't God supposed to provide?

I can't deal with this, it's making my head spin. I'm out for the rest of the day.

Posted by: Ashley Herzog at May 11, 2010 9:45 AM


Oh yay, trolling is so much fun isn't it, Ashley?

Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at May 11, 2010 9:52 AM


I always find it ironic that people like Ashley call themselves "pro-choice". lol I love when supposedly pro-choice people comment on the Duggar family, because it shows so clearly the truth!

Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at May 11, 2010 9:58 AM


Sydney, great posts! I completely agree with everything you've said.

Carla, lol!

Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at May 11, 2010 10:05 AM


Bethany,
With four of your own to brainwash, I suggest we get to it, girl!! :P

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at May 11, 2010 11:34 AM


"Why didn't the Duggars just let God heal Josie instead of relying on all that scientific and medical progress? Isn't God supposed to provide?

I can't deal with this, it's making my head spin. I'm out for the rest of the day."

That's because you're not trying to understand. You're starting from a flawed, preconceived premise and refuse to accept any new information.

Here's the difference:Normal human feritility isn't a disease or condition to be treated. Disease and the complications from prematurity are conditions that exist outside the norm which require treatment.

Posted by: Lauren at May 11, 2010 12:17 PM


"No one had a problem saying the Octomom was a child abuser and probably mentally ill. "

Ashley @ 8:09,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe I commented at all about Octomom on any of those past posts...

The Duggars obviously have demonstrated they have adapted as their family has grown. As parents, they are the primary care-givers and what we all think doesn't matter to them (nor should it). They are answerable to God, not the rest of us, and your incredulity about their situation is puzzling to say the least.

Posted by: Janet at May 11, 2010 1:36 PM


Janet: I do have siblings: two bio and two adopted. Try again.

Michelle: really? Have you read any of the comments or are you just jumping right in with talking points as is typically with conservative blog commenters?

I am pro-life. I am glad none of the children were slaughtered in the womb. Seriously, stop suggesting that I want to pick and choose which children are born.

God, pro-lifers can really be thick.

Posted by: Nate Sheets at May 9, 2010 10:41 PM

It's very cool that your parents adopted two children... kudos to them!

Posted by: Janet at May 11, 2010 1:45 PM


Ha, here's somebody trying to demarcate the line between "natural" and "man-made." It's arbitrary. Assisted reproductive technology and treatment for premature infants, both seek to sustain new life. They're both medical interventions. A hundred years ago we didn't have IVF, but we also didn't have the surfactants that would allow premature babies to develop lung capacity.

"Opening one's womb" sounds silly to me. What if the Duggars had realized they couldn't afford to have that 18th kid and Mrs. D. opted to get an IUD before conceiving again? Would you still applaud them as good Christians? Why shouldn't Octomom be allowed to proliferate endlessly if motherhood is a woman's highest calling in life?

Or do you only believe that people who are materially well-off should partake in that ever-glorious practice of "opening one's womb to God?"

Posted by: common sense at May 11, 2010 1:59 PM


Ha, here's somebody trying to demarcate the line between "natural" and "man-made." It's arbitrary. Assisted reproductive technology and treatment for premature infants, both seek to sustain new life. They're both medical interventions. A hundred years ago we didn't have IVF, but we also didn't have the surfactants that would allow premature babies to develop lung capacity.

The problem with IVF is that it creates extra embryos which are destroyed in the process of creating and sustaining other life. It is not okay to kill an innocent human being to bring another into the world.

"Opening one's womb" sounds silly to me.

I doubt that they are seeking your approval.

Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at May 11, 2010 2:10 PM


What if the Duggars had realized they couldn't afford to have that 18th kid and Mrs. D. opted to get an IUD before conceiving again?

In order for something to be realized, it has to be true. The Duggars have shown themselves to be more than capable of providing for all of their children. And if something happened today and they lost all of their money, they are not the kind of people to just give up. They would look for opportunities and find them, and make things work, trusting that God would provide and take care of them, as He always has. The Duggars would never consider IVF because they believe children are a blessing and not a burden- and that is not conditional.

Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at May 11, 2010 2:20 PM


Why shouldn't Octomom be allowed to proliferate endlessly if motherhood is a woman's highest calling in life?
Or do you only believe that people who are materially well-off should partake in that ever-glorious practice of "opening one's womb to God?"

Ahem, pro-lifers aren't the ones who think that people should have their bodies sterilized against their will.
That's what the intolerant left seem to want. Why don't you ask Ashley H. why she thinks some people shouldn't be allowed to have the children they want?

Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at May 11, 2010 2:24 PM


One more thing: I'm not sure why you all think the Duggars have a halo over their heads. They're exploiting their kids as much as the Gosselins, and clearly more than the Octomom. They're inviting a TV crew into their holy, holy home and forcing these poor children to perform on camera. Personally, I think all reality TV shows featuring children, who are at the direction of their screwed-up parents and clearly don't have a choice whether or not to participate, are exploitative. What kind of childhood is this for the Duggars? Do the kids get any say in the matter?

Of course, the answer is no. Fundie families are authoritarian and take any display of anger/distress at the family circumstances as rebellion. That creepy Jim Bob clearly views his wife as a sex machine and baby dispenser, and the kids as status symbols. He uses his wife's body to demonstrate how virile he is.

How sick.

Posted by: Ashley Herzog at May 11, 2010 6:53 PM


"That creepy Jim Bob clearly views his wife as a sex machine and baby dispenser, and the kids as status symbols. He uses his wife's body to demonstrate how virile he is.
"

Actually, the Duggars practice the bibilical time of abstinance following the births of each of their children. I don't know many men who "view thier wives as a sex machine" who happily wait up to 80 days for sex. Aside from, you know nothing of their marriage. Just because someone's a nice Christian lady doesn't mean she doesn't enjoy sex.


Posted by: Lauren at May 11, 2010 7:05 PM


Yeah, yeah, yeah. What about the fact that they're exploitative? (Well, it's more than HE's exploitative, since she's required to submit and not question him.) I can imagine exactly how it would play out in a fundie family if one (or more) of the kids said they didn't want the family to be on TV anymore and it was making them really distressed. Jim Bob would pretend to have a little empathy, say some prayer, then tell them not to question his spiritual authority or undermine the family.

Posted by: Ashley Herzog at May 11, 2010 7:16 PM


These kids' live sound horribly depressing and stifling. Has anyone else noticed they've never shown a Duggar kid bring a friend to the house? They don't go to school or interact with any friends besides their siblings. Their lives consist of chores, Bible study, home schooling, more chores, an hour or two of "free" time, and more Bible study.

http://www.bay-of-fundie.com/archives/137/life-in-the-duggar-family

I can't wait to raise non-fundie kids, who actually get to have friends and fun and go to a school with normal people. (We're even planning on a private Catholic school!) I'll just look to the Duggars as an example of what not to do.

Posted by: Ashley Herzog at May 11, 2010 7:30 PM


Ashley, apparantly you've never watched the show. They do activities outside of the house all the time. In fact, I would say that the majority of the shows I've seen have involved vacations of some sort. Plus, their cousin (who looks like any other American 20 something) hangs out with them all the time and they have completely normal interactions with her.

I wouldn't personally put my life on television, but I don't think the Duggars are any more exploitive than any other family on TV.

Posted by: Lauren at May 11, 2010 7:44 PM


Ashley,

I don't know how much you actually know about the Duggars, but it is not fair for you to characterize them the way you are. That would be like me saying that all pro-choicers are post-abortive, it simply isn't true.
There is nothing wrong with you disagreeing with their lifestyle, but hateful rhetoric is unnecessary. I do know there are groups or sects of 'christians' that believe and live the way you describe, but most Bible-believing christians would object to that lifestyle.

From what I've read, they do ask their kids opinions about filming, they only film 3 days a month, and they give a lot of the money away to charities.
Every interview I've ever seen from them, they've been asked if they are planning to have more children and Jim Bob always says its up to Michelle. I realize that as a non-christian, it is probably very difficult for you to understand the Biblical practice of submission. That is not a dig, it is hard for some christians to get, especially the way the world is today. There is a me-first and me-only mentality that is prevalent in society.
The Bible never demands submission. It is to be given willingly, as a gift. If a man is the 'head' of the home, the wife is the 'heart'. Sometimes your head and heart agree on a matter, sometimes they don't. My head (mind) takes into consideration what my heart wants. A godly husband should love his wife above himself and take her desires, ideas, needs, etc into consideration. However, submission only becomes a necessity when an agreement cannot be reached and then the Bible teaches that as an act of love to your husband, you trust him...follow his lead.
The idea of submission may rub you the wrong way, but would you really want to marry a man you didn't trust anyway? If a man really loves you, he will put your desires above his own unless he sees that what you are wanting to do will be problematic in the long run.
The Bible doesn't simply teach wifely submission, but mutual submission. We are to treat others better than we treat ourselves. If you love your spouse, then this is a no brainer. Really, my point is that submission is common sense. It comes from loving and trusting each other.
In my home, my husband and I have an equal relationship. We do everything together, discuss everything. Because we love each other, we are eager to please each other. I know that he loves me and our family above all else, so I trust him to make decisions, although he chooses not to make decisions without me.
Submission apart from love may be drudgery. Submsission from love is natural and pleasant.

Posted by: Heather M at May 11, 2010 7:54 PM


Of course they have to do it for the SHOW. No one would watch a reality show where everyone sits around reading the Bible. That was their schedule before the show.

Oh, one cousin. That doesn't count as having normal, healthy interactions with friends your own age who aren't related to you. These kids are completely isolated.

I feel the worst for the teenage girls. It's obvious that they're slaves to the family and have been forced to provide what the child-neglecting parents can't. I saw an episode where a younger kid screamed for her "buddy" (an older girl forced to be a parent instead of a normal teen) when something went wrong. Since they're also not allowed to date, those girls will be forced into an arranged marriage to someone who will rule over them and force them to be walking uteruses/sex-and-housework dispensing machines.

Posted by: Ashley Herzog at May 11, 2010 7:55 PM


I don't see the girls as "slaves". So what if they don't go to public school or they wear skirts all the time? they are polite and they don't have the attitudes of some girls these days (and they don't use profanity!) They won't be "welfare moms" because they'll wait for that special someone if that's what they want. They also experience the same things other girls do, like braces and having wisdom teeth out. As they say in the beginning of the show, they are not too different than any other family, they just do a lot of things differently.

I like watching the birthday celebration episodes. I watched a repeat this morning where they went BOWLING! *gasp*

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at May 11, 2010 8:04 PM


Ashley,

I am glad that you can't wait to have kids. It will be the joy of your life. I'm sure that you will raise them in a way that is polar opposite to the way my husband and I are raising our kids. I would never demean your choice to do so.

Every morning when I wake up, I stare into the face of my husband who adores me. Then I roll over and pick up my sweet baby boy who smiles with delight and reaches for me. The baby in my womb kicks and I tear up, feeling blessed to be filled with life once again. I go into the living room where my 3 older children are playing together. The love I feel for them is intense and it is the joy of my life. I live in a house filled with people I love and who love me and who love each other. It overwhelms me sometimes.

This is the life the Duggars have, but times 4. For everyone in that house to be surrounded with so much love from so many people...I imagine it is wonderful.

Posted by: Heather M at May 11, 2010 8:06 PM


No, Ashley, they're not. You are just making crap up. The Duggars have always been very active in their community and have done homeschooling events since way before their show started. It might shock you to know, but there are OTHER KIDS at these events that the Duggar children socialize with. They also hold church services at their home where *gasp* other families with children attend.

Where the hell do you think that their oldest son met his wife? She didn't just appear out of the sky, Ashley.

They aren't "forced" into any sort of marriage, and it certainly isn't arranged. The way they go about courting is simple. If a young man contacts the Duggars saying he is interested in one of their children, they discuss with the child if they feel that God is leading them to persue the relationship. If the child doesn't feel led to see that person, they don't. The parents are there for guidance, but certainly don't dictate who their child ultimately ends up with. It's not as though the parents say "hey, I found you a husband. You have no say in the matter!"

Instead of just spouting bull, why don't you actually do 5 minutes of research about their lives. It doesn't fit into your preconceived notion though, so I'm sure you won't bother.

Posted by: Lauren at May 11, 2010 8:06 PM


I've seen plenty of them, and everything about them appalls me. End of story.

Posted by: Ashley Herzog at May 11, 2010 8:11 PM


Well, Ashley, you obviously haven't seen the ones that explore their belief system since you've mistated it about 5 times.

Or maybe you have, and yet you still mistate their beliefs because they don't mirror your own.

Posted by: Lauren at May 11, 2010 8:20 PM


Ashley, Jim Bob is not "creepy". Look, he isn't my cup of tea... but then I've found the man who makes my heart flutter, and Jim Bob belongs to his wife Michelle. Did you see them renew their vows? My word, I have never seen two people, married for a quarter of a century still so passionately in love! I was so inspired! I told my husband "I wanna be like that in 19 more years!"

You can see that Jim Bob's love for his wife, while passionate, is still tender and romantic. They are BEST FRIENDS...every interaction between them is loving and respectful. I wish more married people behaved that way!

Posted by: Sydney M. at May 11, 2010 8:35 PM


Some people may find it nuts, but I found it very romantic that Josh Duggar wanted to save his first kiss for his wedding day.

I am betting that Josh & Anna won't have 19 kids. I could see them having 5 or 6 kids. And their first child, their baby girl Mackynzie, is SOOOO CUTE!

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at May 11, 2010 9:04 PM


I agree LizfromNebraska. They have normal urges like the rest of us and yet they controlled them. Think of how NORMAL it is to want to kiss your girlfriend. Its EASY to give in to your physical urges, its hard to say NO I won't do that. I respect that tremendously.

It takes a lot more character to control yourself and deny yourself than it is to just do whatever you want with whomever you want whenever you want.

Posted by: Sydney M. at May 12, 2010 9:25 AM



Post a comment:




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Please enter the letter "t" in the field below: