Duggars: Should medical issues mean no more kids?

(AP Photo)

(AP Photo)

Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar surprised a lot of people when they recently told People magazine they are still open to having more kids despite their most recent baby – their 19th child – being born more than three months early and struggling to live with multiple medical issues. (This particular article is not featured online, but here is the most recent story about the Duggars on People.com.)

Mom Michelle had preeclampsia, pregnancy induced high-blood pressure, and the baby girl had to be taken by C-section in December.

Jim Bob and Michelle talk frequently about why they want to have as many kids as the Lord will give them. (The story is on their Web site.)

Michelle miscarried after she conceived on birth control pills. The doctors felt the miscarriage was because of the pills. At that point they decided to they shouldn’t use contraceptives and be open to how ever many kids they conceive whenever they conceive.

Doctors in the People article suggest that the preeclampsia could be a problem in any future pregnancies and additional health problems could arise as Michelle is 43.

People did have some interesting quotes on having multiple babies that I had never heard before:

“ ‘The risks of additional pregnancies tart to go up dramatically after four,’ warns Dr. Jeffrey Richardson,a Ventura, Calif., obstetrician who had practiced for more than 30 years.”

“ ‘Postpartum hemorrhage, dysfunctional labor, preterm labor and early miscarriage are all risks.’ ”

The article says the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists says pregnancies should be spaced out at least 18 months. (I think Rose was 16 months old when I got pregnant with Walsh.)

The article also reported that based on the Bible, The Duggars abstain from sex 40 days after having a boy and 80 days after having a girl.

The Duggars say in People: “Each child is a gift from God.”  Jim Bob adds, “The negatives don’t bother us.” Agrees Michelle: “Our hearts haven’t changed.”

There are many faiths that for many reasons preach that parents need to always be open to conception and there are loads of reasons why people think having as many kids as you can conceive in a lifetime is excessive, but I really want to focus on the medical issues alone.

At what point do medical factors override that openness to having children? At what point does Mom’s health or baby’s potential health change being open to conceiving any time you are having sex?

277 comments Add your comment

lakerat

February 10th, 2010
7:00 am

Not sure how to respond since I believe people should be able to do as they please as long as they can afford the children, as this family can. At the same time, it seems to be to be grossly unfair to all of the children since the parents, potentially, could not possibly have time for each child to really bond effectively. And, as has been pointed out in other articles, it seems that the older children are the one’s responsible for caring for the younger ones.

Regarding, “The doctors felt the miscarriage was because of the pills. At that point they decided to they shouldn’t use contraceptives and be open to how ever many kids they conceive whenever they conceive” – OK, but have they ever heard of condoms…..ANd, yet, they really seem like good and loving parents, so this is quite the conundrum for me as on onlooker from the outside.

motherjanegoose

February 10th, 2010
7:30 am

I have one of each ( 5 years apart ….that we could afford…..LOL) and love them both dearly. I cannot fathom having enough time to mother this many children. Is it possible to snuggle and read a book with 6 children? It is more than financial and having the space for them. I agree with lakerat’s thoughts about parents and time.

To me. the command of multiplying in the Bible was because the earth needed people. Do we need as many now?

Since you want to focus on the medical aspect and I have no verifiable comment here, I will pass and be interested in the medical aspects others share.

I do find that the chance of a future child being medically fragile, because these parents continue to reproduce when they have been given guidelines. is sad to me. They child will be impacted forever with potential health issues.

Jeff

February 10th, 2010
7:30 am

I’ll take these parents contributing to society so much more than octomom and the Gosselins. These parents seem to have their head on reasonably straight, allowing for normal mistakes that all parents make. I say have as many as their conscience (and bodies) allows them to. As a single dad, I wonder how difficult life would be if something DID happen to the mom? I would hope some substantial life insurance has been secured.

first time poster

February 10th, 2010
7:31 am

I agree with the previous poster for the most part. I’m not surprised to hear that they will continue to have more children, unfortunately as she ages the odds are not in their favor to keep having healthy children and the risks to her health are going to keep rising as well. Personally, all I can say is better them then me – no way would I ever have that many kids!

catlady

February 10th, 2010
7:42 am

Are you telling us that they can afford to pay all expenses for all these children themselves? NO federal or state aid at all? Of course not. Therefore, they have had far more than all the children they should have. God gave us brains for a reason.

It is immoral to do this to other taxpayers. It is immoral to treat their children as collateral damage.

Has she exclusively breastfed all these babies for 12 months each? I am doubting it. If she had breastfed,it is unlikely that she would have conceived so quickly, repeatedly. They need to learn some self-control. Substitute her face with that of a black woman, and see if anyone would be so forgiving of her “rights” to singlehandedly populate a small town, on the public dime (or millions).

I predict she will be dead well before 50 (although they may keep her body alive for “one more try.”)

Disgusting on every level: moral, health, religious.

And before you say, “Well, it must be God’s will” think of what else you must be saying about God’s will. He doesn’t will us to breed like animals, or discount ethical considerations.

motherjanegoose

February 10th, 2010
7:45 am

@catlady…this is somewhat on topic…did your daughter find an OB she likes?

RJ

February 10th, 2010
7:59 am

@catlady, I read about the Duggars several years ago and they’ve always been financially able to take care of their kids. They have a system that works for them, but I do question how they’re able to really bond with all 19 kids. I would think it would be difficult with 4 or 5.

My great grandmother had 14 kids. I’m sure this was the norm at that time. My grandmother had 8. I only have 2. We couldn’t necessarily “afford” the first one, but did what we had to. I’m amazed at how this family has managed. The medical issues should make them reconsider their decision to continue having children. She needs to be healthy for the kids that she has now.

Jane

February 10th, 2010
8:00 am

@catlady – how hateful of you today!

YEs – they are financially sound and are NOT dependent on taxpayers – so they are not doing anything IMMORAL to taxpayers such as yourself.

You’re saying that if she doesn’t breastfeed each child for 12 months shes a bad mother? I couldn’t (and didn’t) breastfeed my children, but I’m far from a bad mother.

You’re the only one citing racism (if she was a black woman…) – so be careful where you point your finger.

Saying they may keep her body alive for one more try at a pregnancy is just nasty, gross and a reflection of your pitiful self.

YOU are the one who is disgusting morally and religiously.

Their lives aren’t any of your business, so do go acting all high and mighty insulting them. You’re pathetic.

Jeff

February 10th, 2010
8:02 am

Sorry you’re having such a bad day catlady.

HI there

February 10th, 2010
8:02 am

While I think it’s great they can afford to have as many children as they like, I worry about what this is passing onto their children. Honestly, do they not think about the impact this many children has on the planet? If they have 19 kids, and each of thier children have just two kids each, that’s 38 grandkids alone and if they each have as “many as god will give them” than who knows what the total number would be.

I’m not sure how much this is costing the tax payer since John used to be a state senator and I don’t know if thier health benefits last for life, or just that term. Might be something worth looking into. Honestly though, if this keeps up, we’ll be like China or Japan who only allow families to have one child each. I just feel this is selfish.

On the topic at hand, how much damage has been done to this poor womens body after having so many children? My only child was by C-section because I too suffered from preeclampsia and now have this as a major worry when thinking of having a second child. My risks have greatly increased and I will be putting myself at more risks having a second child. Who would take care of my first born if anything was to happen to me? If I died having a second one, would my first born wonder why she wasn’t enough for mommy? I often wonder if their older children feel this way when mom continues to have child after child giving them less and less of themselves to them since there are so many to spread it around to.

Lisa

February 10th, 2010
8:05 am

catlady needs to shove it!

motherjanegoose

February 10th, 2010
8:07 am

@ Jane…calm down…I think the point catlady is making about breastfeeding is that IN BIBLE TIMES thy probably did not have infant formulas they do now and thus most everyone breastfed their children

If the Duggars are citing the BIBLE rules then they should perhaps pay attention to all of them?
( wow that could be a chore).

This is a big issue for me as so many people cite a specific Bible verse or custom while ignoring others. I find this to be buffet Christianity….select the Bible verses ( food on the buffet) that appeals to you but ignore the verses ( food on the buffet) that does not taste good in your life.

JMHO

HI there

February 10th, 2010
8:07 am

Jane,

When they invited cameras into their home to make money off their story, it did become our business. Catlady was merely pointing out that had this been a black women the issues would change, not saying that she is a racist, it’s just the way things are, the truth hurts sometimes. Also, how do you know they are not doing this on the taxpayers dime? He was a Senator, so it’s very possible he is still on government healthcare and you know how much better it is for the “bosses” then the “workers (tax payers).” Relax a little and get back on topic, which is the health of the mother.

cld

February 10th, 2010
8:17 am

@ catlady, As others have said, this family is NOT on any form of public assistance. I actually have read (and watched) a great deal about them. While it is not the life I choose to lead, I have no issue with their decisions. They are taking care of their own, which is more than many Americans today. Also, breastfeeding for 12 months will not ensure you don’t get pregnant in that time. Most breastfeeding women begin ovulating again around 9-10 months after delivery – which actually is when Ms. Duggar tends to conceive again. So I would venture to say she IS breastfeeding, even though that is not a mark of good/bad mother.

I am Catholic, which is a religion that teaches the evils of birth control. Before I had my son, I was on the pill for six years. Through much personal research (completely unrelated to the propoganda shoved down our throats at pre-marital counseling), we have decided hormonal birth control is not something we want to use at this time in our lives. Yet, 20 months after the birth of our son, we still have managed to not get pregnant again.

While I completely understand wanting to have as many babies as the Lord will give you, I also think he gives us signs along the way. Maybe these struggles with their youngest, is a sign that they should slow down. I have a friend who was very disappointed that she suffered some physical injury during the birth of her most recent child. She fully intended to let nature take its course and have another baby as soon as God allowed . . . but she has to wait now. IMO, that IS God’s plan; He’s telling her to slow down.

dg

February 10th, 2010
8:24 am

Everybody has the right to risk their lives and follow their beliefs, duggars do as well. As long as they have never received a single penny from anyone, except for income by Michael. No TV money, no magazine money, no interview fee and no chritable donations of funds/goods etc from anyone. Raising the kids on their own strength they are free to kill Michelle during childbirth if they decide to.
But if they have accepted a single penny that stems from all the publicity they are getting each time, they they are no better than the Balloon Family.

Becky

February 10th, 2010
8:28 am

I’m with Lakerat and others on this..If they can afford them, then have as many as you want, but children need more than parents that have money..Coming from a family of 10 and having a Dad (drunk) that wasn’t there for us and a Mom that worked all of the time, I understand what people are saying about needing bonding time..

The Duggars do seem to be loving, caring parents, but it does seem like the older ones “parent” a lot of the younger ones..So, if this works for them, great..

@catlady..Sounds like you are having a really off day, hope that it gets better…

cld

February 10th, 2010
8:28 am

I think there is a huge difference between taking government aid, and taking money for their TV show, books and interviews. The Duggars were following this practice LONG before they began receiving publicity. I think they had 12 or 14 kids before they ever did their first TV appearance – so it is a genuine belief, not just a publicity stunt (as we’ve seen in other families).

What is the difference between them accepting money for their TV show, and families of child actors/singers accepting payment for their children’s work? While most child stars are paid in funds that they can’t fully access until they come of age, most of their parents receive some sort of cut of that money, either from managerial commissions or simply cost-of-living allotments.

motherjanegoose

February 10th, 2010
8:30 am

Since this was brought up…..my husband’s mother was one of 10 ( I believe) a Catholic family.
His sister has told me that her mom could not wait to get out of the house and married at 17….was tired of doing all the work involved with the other siblings.

Is there anyone else out there today who comes from a big family and has a perspective about being sucked into the work that the Mother could not do alone? My Grandma was the oldest of 9 but we never discussed this. I do not know.

Theresa Walsh Giarrusso

February 10th, 2010
8:35 am

they do pay for all their children and live debt free. She is pumping in the article to give to the baby in the Nic U so I would guess she generally nurses. that’s really hard to do — pump for nic u.

I do think they are very good parents. I think the older kids help a lot with the younger kids. The link to their web site is very interesting — it tells how she manages the home and gives their daily schedule — it’s pretty interesting.

Theresa Walsh Giarrusso

February 10th, 2010
8:37 am

MJG – my grandmother had to step into that role for her sibs but her mother died. so a little bit different. She left town too as soon as she could to get away from all that responsibility.

cld

February 10th, 2010
8:39 am

@MJG, I know that my husband’s grandmother was in that situation. I don’t know how many siblings she had, but she was the oldest daughter and was responsible for much of the cooking, canning and childcare. She married as a teenager just to get away from all the responsibilities, and held a long-standing resentment toward her mother.

Jeff

February 10th, 2010
8:43 am

Why shouldn’t they be allowed to make money off their story. That’s the free market at work. That’s not taking money from other people because that is a voluntary choice, not coerced by the government like welfare, etc. I say go for it. If someone is willing to pay you (voluntarily) for a story they think is worth paying for, then more power to you.

first time poster

February 10th, 2010
8:43 am

As far as I am aware the Duggers are not on the public dole, they follow that Dave Ramsey guys teachings (think that’s him) and have lived on a cash only basis for many years. Again, I don’t agree with what they are doing, and in my opinion living your life based on a book isn’t the smartest thing to do, however it’s their lives and their beliefs and from what I can see they are not harming anyone else in the process. I just can’t get that worked up over them.

Becky

February 10th, 2010
8:44 am

@cld..Love your post..As I said, I come from a family of 10, with about 2 years between each child (except for the twins)..My Mother breast fed the first 4-5..Didn’t stop her from getting pregnant over and over..

@Hi there..I don’t think that they made it our business by inviting cameras into their house..We don’t have to watch them, if we choose not to..They are not trying to gain publicity off of this (IMO)..

@dg..Why shouldn’t they make money off of TV? They aren’t trying to exploit (sp) their children, they are just trying to show American’s how life is with a large family..As someone else said, these children aren’t any different than child actors..

catlady

February 10th, 2010
8:44 am

I am glad to hear they are not on any taxpayer assistance. So, all the children are home schooled, had home births, and have had this cesarean at home with all the attendant care for the premie? His work insurance pays for ALL of this? (I do understand that they probably have great assistance from volunteers, etc.) No WIC? No peachcare equivalent? No foodstamps? You see, public assistance takes many forms. Then there is welfare (like the writeoff for income taxes for size of family, home interest payments, EIC)–those hidden welfare payments that middle class people believe is “due” them. The new baby will probably be eligible for SSI immediately, as well, if she is (likely) handicapped–about $700 per month plus health care.

I don’t think I am bring unnecessarily harsh. Her fecundity affects more people than just them. There are great other costs besides money here. (Think about how many grandkids she and her husband will have if their reproductive prowess extends to the next generation. I believe one son has already started on this?)

I teach kids from families with 8,10, 12 kids. What I have observed, in addition to the obvious, is that the kids get progressively less intelligent with each new baby. These kids tend to replicate this pattern.

I really don’t think I am being hateful, but some people think THEY are the most important and THEIR ideas are the only ones correct. Time for the Duggars to get plugged into the real world, where having 19 kids to insure that 5 live to adulthood isn’t necessary, as it was in Biblical times. My mom was one of 9 and my father’s mother was one of 13 (greatgrandma died in childbirth, or there would have been more).

Re the racism: Replace her shining white face with a black one with multiple kids hanging all over (some with their own next generation obvious), eyes yellow from HIV or teeth gone from crack/meth, and see if you feel the same way. I am willing to say YOU DO NOT! I am not the racist here. Black mothers of 19 don’t get much sympathy or encouragement, yet this lady has here own cheering section.

Any of you who wish to contribute to this family, go ahead. I believe in personal responsibility, and breeding like a rabbit is NOT responsible, even if you were Bill Gates!

YUKI

February 10th, 2010
8:44 am

I think if they can take care of all those kids, then so be it. It’s the people that keep having a bunch of kids and expect us to pay for it that really burns me up. But if these people are responsible and can care for them (even with the help of a TV show), then so be it. I just don’t understand for the life of me how that woman can spend literally half of her life pregnant. Ugghhh! And it does seem a bit unfair to the older kids who obviously have way more responsiblity than normal kids who don’t have 10 or whatever younger siblings to take care of. If I would have had to spend my childhood playing “mother” to a bunch of brothers and sisters and not been able to just be a kid, I’d probably be a little bitter. But they seem like nice people and the kids seem well adjusted from the small clips of the show that I have seen.

I do think, though that maybe after all the health issues of having this latest baby, they might want to think about slowing it down……

Andrea

February 10th, 2010
8:50 am

Well, I don’t consider this a “huge” family by these standards but a good friend of mine was one of five siblings growing up. Once the parents divorced, the oldest sister had to become more involved in the running of the household because mom had to work. Fast forward to when they were adults and the ripple effect manifests itself. The oldest girl had one child and then had another child and the kids are 11 years apart. The oldest became a primary caregiver and the mother reconciled it by saying it was what she had to do growing up. Totally wrong but the choices of the parents manifest in different ways through the children.

I am sure these are good people, but being able to create life and being able to provide a quality of life are different things. There is no way this work is not being shared by the older children.

@catlady – I think some of the comments toward you are off base. The truth does hurt and it can make others uncomfortable, but you still tell it. And if the husband is receiving congressional benefits, that is on the taxpayer’s dime. Granted, we do it for all senators, but it is still on the taxpayer’s dime. If they had to self-insure 19 kids, I would bet my paycheck, it would be a different story.

catlady

February 10th, 2010
8:55 am

MJG she goes to the new people tomorrow. Hopefully it will go well.

I guess many on this blog have not experienced what I have, seeing huge families.

But if you kid yourself that they are not getting welfare (if nothing more than through tax breaks based on family size) you are deluding yourself.

In addition, being willing to do that to your older kids seems abusive to me. Of course, I was an only child who was not “inflicted” on older siblings so my mom and dad could set some world’s record for God.

In the large families I know, the older kids spend significant childhood time taking care of the others, with some real bitter feelings and negative results. I think each of your children should be a special, separate entity, not Number 12. Can you imagine how kid 12 feels when he hears that mom is pregnant yet again and his tiny amount of her time is about to get smaller? And he is merely lost in the crowd, with number 8 or 9 acting as his mentor?

Think about it–you want your beloved spouse to have a dozen wives? After all, one of the older wives will take care of you, etc.

It’s good that to each his own. It’s just when “his own” impacts me or my family that I cry foul. It really seems like a mental health issue to me, like those who collect cats.

Good day to all.

DB

February 10th, 2010
8:55 am

I know what *I* would do, if faced with the possibility of losing my life during a pregnancy. While I certainly am grateful for God’s gift of my children, I always felt that God also gave me a brain to use to the best of my ability as well as a uterus. But that’s me. Michelle Dugger is free to make whatever choices are right for her and her family. I don’t have to agree with them, but I don’t judge her for them, especially since they seem to be making responsible choices as far as providing for them and raising them. She and her husband have managed quite a balancing act. It’s not what I would choose for a family model, but I’m pretty sure that Kids #3 through #17 are pretty happy to be here in the world.

One of my best friends growing up in elementary, junior and high school was the oldest of five kids, and her activities were constantly curtailed by having to care for her younger siblings – her parents divorced at the end of junior high, which put even more of the burden on her. She married somewhat earlier than the rest of us, and I think we were all sort of expecting her to start punching out kids. But nope — nary a one. When I asked her about it 5 years later, she declared, vehemently, that “she had already been a mother, thank you very much, and now it was HER time.” She is a doting aunt to her sibling’s kids, but she really craves the peace and quiet of her home.

cld

February 10th, 2010
9:01 am

Hmmm, so is catlady saying all of us with kids are on welfare? Because each dependant comes with a tax deduction? Wow, I never consider myself a welfare recipient. But I guess in her eyes, I am.

DB

February 10th, 2010
9:05 am

@catlady: Interesting that you have this perspective from being an only child. I, too, was an only child up until the age of 13 — my mom had a miscarriage and some fertility issues that weren’t as easily addressed back in the 60’s, and I was almost 13 when my brother was born. Instead of being delighted at having a sibling, I was horrified — I had a pretty sweet deal as an only child, and just saw my entire world as being destroyed. It’s easy to look back and say “Pretty selfish,” huh? Well, it was what it was. Luckily, my parents were very careful not to “inflict” my brother on me. They always asked if I could babysit, never expected it, and only once or twice were my own actions curtailed because of having to pitch in and help out at home with my brother. My brother and I were never “friends” growing up — how could we be? He was 6 when I went off to college! Now that we are both adults, we are friends, and I guess I was the neutral “adult” in the family when he was a rebellious teenager, who could talk sense to him without it being “parental”.

Anyway, catlady, what I’m trying to say is that the example you gave of Kid #12 being resentful is probably not nearly as profound as it would have been for you or me. They have been surrounded by siblings since they were born — they don’t know any other way to live, and you can’t miss what you never had. I think it will be interesting to see how many GRANDCHILDREN the Duggers end up having, after their children grow up and decide how to arrange their own families.

Cheryl

February 10th, 2010
9:11 am

RJ – “I do question how they’re able to really bond with all 19 kids. I would think it would be difficult with 4 or 5.” What an idiot. I have 4 kids and have bonded well with all of them. Don’t assume what you don’t know.

@catlady – watch the show or read about them before you speak. They are self-employed and do not take any kids of public assistance, including those you mentioned. Why does it bother you that they made a choice that you wouldn’t have made?

s

February 10th, 2010
9:20 am

Medical issues meant only one child for my wife and I. Our child was premature and my wife was really sick. Everyone turned out fine, but it was scary at the time.

We could have kept going, but the doctors said that we were at a slightly increased risk of having the same issues. That was enough for me. I got a vasectomy. And really, one child has been enough. I don’t feel like there is something missing in that department.

I guess its up to each of us to decide what risks we would take. As for the Duggars, I just don’t care.

ABC

February 10th, 2010
9:23 am

I am so tired of hearing about these people…as tired as I am of the Gosselins. Obviously, the Duggars are free to do what they wish as long as they don’t cause problems for other people. But they need to wake up. While I respect their religious beliefs (even if I don’t agree with them at all), at some point common sense needs to enter the picture and Michelle needs to think about her own health and well being. Also, with so many kids, no matter how loving the parents and household, how in the world are they able to give each child the attention and one-on-one time he or she deserves. I read somewhere once that families should only have as many children as there are adults in the house to take care of them. That really resonated with me. Not only does it cut down on the population (a valid concern in an age where we are expending our precious natural resources at an alarming rate), but it ensures parents have the time and energy necessary for each child.
I hope the Duggars’ youngest turns out fine, I really do, but I hope they will take this as a sign from their God that maybe they are done with reproducing.

lakerat

February 10th, 2010
9:25 am

Whoa, catlady – please get off your high horse today – your blanket accusation that all of us are on welfare because the gov’t allows tax deductions is WAAAYYY off base.

As others have pointed out, and as far as all that we have read on the family, the father provides for the family through his real estate business, and they have never required any governmental assistance.

Your rant really has given all of us a new side of you, one that is not so likeable. While you may be way down the sidewalk of life (as MJG likes to say) this attitude of “they are only in it for the money from OTHERS – actually, you sound a lot like my MIL – LOL)” is way off base. Also, eligibility for WIC, etc is available (or used to be – I rally haven’t followed those criteria in quite a while) to everyone, so, no they are not “mooching” off of you or anyone else, anymore than the rest of us are (have).

So, again, just how are their decisions impacting you, right now?

Theresa Walsh Giarrusso

February 10th, 2010
9:27 am

Side issue – Facebook reprinted our blog from the other day about Vomit tracking via FAcebook.

ttp://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=289452922130

cld

February 10th, 2010
9:28 am

@s – I am glad to hear you took measures to keep your family’s health at heart. I know someone who had terrible pregnancy-related health issues, resulting in a premie almost four months early (healthy today, after four months in the NICU). That couple still plans to have more children, against the doctors’ warnings that the same health issues will likely repeat (mostly preventable, but the parents apparently lack the incentive to make some changes in their lives). Everyone is healthy today, but I think they are selfish if they proceed without making some major changes. I applaud you for recognizing the bigger picture. Just my $.02.

mom2alex&max

February 10th, 2010
9:30 am

I am pretty sure they are not in any kind of public assistance. Do they of course, pimp themselves out just like the Gossards and the octo-moron. But it’s my choice whether I watch or not, thus increasing ratings and advertising dollars. I choose not to watch.

catlady

February 10th, 2010
9:30 am

cld, OF COURSE you are getting welfare! Not just because you have kids, however. That’s the thing. Everyone calls what they get “deserved” and what the black crack mothers get “welfare.”!

In addition, the Duggars family is using up 7 times a normal allotment of air, water, food, etc. Is that fair, even if they can “afford” it? They are affording it by someone else NOT getting it.

And, as for being “self-employed? (is that what they call it?) Unless you are the boss of a one-person business, you are making money off the labor of others (who are not getting paid the amount they are making for you, BTW).

I really prefer to remain blissfully ignorant about this family and how they “get by” on the backs of others. It is almost totally impossible to consider that they are doing it all themselves, growing their own food, purifying their own water, recycling all their wastes, building their own roads, not to mention their “self-employment.”

Sorry folks, I think some of you are badly deluded. But good day to all, and God bless.

cld

February 10th, 2010
9:36 am

catlady, How do you know I’m not black? Welfare is a paycheck from the government. Or a food allowance from the government. A tax deduction off the money I EARNED at my job, and am paying taxes on – merely decreases the amount of taxes I’m paying. I may get a $3,000 deduction on my tax bill, but I’m PAYING the government far more than that annually in taxes. The difference is that people receiving welfare are not paying money into the government, merely accepting payment from the government.

What about people who deduct interest payments from their mortgages? Or tax-deferred retirement plans? Health care or dependant care flexible spending accounts? What about the fact that those of us with employer-sponsored (or supplemented) health insurance premiums, are not taxed on the portion of our premiums that are emplyer-paid? What about tax writeoffs for health care (beyond premiums), student loans, business expenses? I’d like to hear from someone . . . anyone who doesn’t have a single tax deduction. Please speak up.

cld

February 10th, 2010
9:37 am

p.s. I never said I deserved anything. The government is being very nice in allowing me to deduct a large portion of my income from my tax obligations.

lakerat

February 10th, 2010
9:37 am

Surely this is not the “real” catlady posting today…

first time poster

February 10th, 2010
9:39 am

Wow, who knew that not growing your own food, paving your own roads purifying your own water or recycling your own waste is considered living off the backs of others; thanks for the update. OTT much?

Michelle

February 10th, 2010
9:39 am

To the topic at hand, I think the health issues will continue to rise. For the “average” adult woman health issues begin to crop up in the 40’s and 50’s! Imagine what it would be like if you are pregant more than not?! I think with this last child, it could be a fluke, or perhaps she is getting to a point where her body is not handling things quite so well.

Something else to keep in mind, perhaps she may go into an early menopause and then it would all be a moot discussion anyway!

I definitely would not want a huge family like they have. I do feel though, that it depends on the involvement of the parents. My mom has 7 other siblings and they all have an average of 5 kids each! The older ones didn’t necesarily get “stuck” taking care of the others. Do they help out, sure. Are they the primary caretaker? Probably not!

With a lot of the large families that are in a religious aspect (as theirs is) there is a lot of love and companionship. They share, play games, cook together, clean up. They actually learn a lot more about responsibilities than most of today’s kids!

I would venture to say that some of the kids will continue with the large families, but I’ll bet a few will find “creative” ways to avoid them!

We are in no position to judge others, but I do see where catlady is coming from with a few of her statements!

s

February 10th, 2010
9:44 am

“Re the racism: Replace her shining white face with a black one with multiple kids hanging all over (some with their own next generation obvious), eyes yellow from HIV or teeth gone from crack/meth, and see if you feel the same way. I am willing to say YOU DO NOT! I am not the racist here.”

You may not be racist, but you aren’t very logical.

If the family was white but had illegal drug issues then I think that would change people’s feelings as well.

Speaking of drugs, did you take your medication today?

Jeff

February 10th, 2010
9:50 am

Yes, catlady, your comment IS racist. But I still hope your day gets better for you and all those around you.

Theresa Walsh Giarrusso

February 10th, 2010
10:01 am

Catlady is a good contributor on this blog — she just happens to disagree on this topic – — but try to be nice to her because she is part of our family.

JATL

February 10th, 2010
10:07 am

The Duggars disgust me to the point that it’s almost difficult for me to have a conversation about them! I’ve even written the Discovery/TLC networks to chastise them for glorifying this idiotic display. I don’t care if they can afford them, want them -whatever. That’s completely irresponsible! The planet is already overpopulated without these ignoramuses adding to it. Their oldest just made them grandparents and they still want MORE of their own? I saw an interview with her talking about their belief from a passage in the Bible about being “quiverful” and that God gives you as many arrows to fill your quiver as he thinks you need. YEAH? Well God also gave us brains so we wouldn’t breed like a pair of rodents! They’re DISGUSTING!!!!!

RJ

February 10th, 2010
10:26 am

@Cheryl, why so angry? An idiot? Far from it! My mom had 3 and worked full time. We didn’t all get her attention as much as she would’ve liked because there were 3 of us! I swear some of you must live the most unhappy lives. Glad I get mine on the regular! Geesh! Get a life! It ain’t that serious!

@catlady, seems like you’re having a bad morning. I agree with you on how she would be viewed if she were black, but that’s not the point. They are not on government assistance. They homeschool their kids and have done quite well for themselves. You seem to really have a problem without actually knowing them. I have no problem with how they’re living their lives. I have seen kids from large families, however the ones I know live in poverty. Mama is a crack addict which is why she keeps having babies. They come to school with all sorts of problems. Grandma is usually taking care of them anyway. This family is different from what I’ve seen.

M1chelle

February 10th, 2010
10:37 am

@catlady – I understand you saying that the opinions may differ if the mom was Black and I agree with that statement. What I don’t agree with is why would you would add that the black mom would have HIV or be on crack? Two very different issues. There is a stereotype of welfare recipients – black, single mothers with lots of kids. However, many people don’t like to admit it, but there is a gross number of welfare recipeints that don’t fit that stereotype.