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

JATL

February 10th, 2010
10:47 am

As far as medical issues go -they are INCREDIBLY fortunate and blessedly lucky that they haven’t had at least one special needs child yet. As she ages, it’s going to happen at some point that they have a Down’s baby, an autistic child -something that requires a lot more of a parent’s time and energy and isn’t so easily foisted off on the elder siblings. That’s one medical reason for them to quit breeding. It’s also amazing to me that her uterus hasn’t ruptured. She’s had numerous c-sections as well as vaginal deliveries, and many doctors tell women after 3 or 4 c-sections that they don’t need to have any more because each one weakens the uterus and opens the door for problems if another c-section needs to be done. And one of the reasons women used to die in their 30s and 40s even if NOT during childbirth was simply because their bodies were worn out. Pregnancy and birth really takes a toll on your body. It’s one that your body was made to withstand -to a point! Also since she had preeclampsia with this one and she’s over 40, she has a MUCH higher risk of having it again. I’m sure none of these factors will change anything though because they’re just dumb. I’ve watched them several times, and there’s just not a whole lot happening behind her eyes. This is the only thing she can do and it’s what gets her attention, and that’s the crux of why they have all of these kids.

s

February 10th, 2010
10:53 am

Its kind of surprising that the Mr. Duggar would still want to sleep with his wife. Seems like having 19 children would have destroyed her body. Plus she’s been pregnant for most of their marriage. When women are pregnant, they are gassy, bloated, beasts for a couple of months. I don’t blame them for being so irritable, but its certainly not attractive. This woman has a litter of children, I bet that her labia hang like curtains.

JATL

February 10th, 2010
11:11 am

@S -Ha Haaaaaa! You are SO right. I’ve had two kids and the body does take a bruising! You can certainly get back in shape and wear your stretch marks proudly as a sign that you are a mother, but after 19 -I can’t even imagine what it all must look like! There’s a great mock-up of them floating around in cyberspace that has the family portrait (like an Olan Mills) and says below it -”The Vagina -it’s not a clown car.” Those later kids are probably crawling out….

Jane

February 10th, 2010
11:12 am

Theresa, please check catlady’s blog at 9:30 am – I’m sure it came from a different IP address than her others today. Looks like someone wants to “pretend” to be her.

Becky

February 10th, 2010
11:18 am

@M1chelle..LOL..Change your black mom to white and the HIV to hepatitis(sp) and you have my sister..

My problem with anyone getting government help is that (IMO), it helps the wrong people..People that are out working and trying to do for their family can’t get help, but people that don’t (and won’t) work, can get all sorts of help..A single parent that makes min. wage makes to much money to get any help and I don’t think that is right..Like I said about my sister..She is a crack addict and has hepatitis C (drugs), yet she can get food stamps and disability because she does drugs..So, if the Duggars are getting benefits from his job with the government, he worked for it and earned it..

Millie

February 10th, 2010
11:21 am

“S” that comment was totally uncalled for! What gives you the right to disrespect this modest woman’s body in that way. You have no idea what she looks like and if you did it is none of your business! She remains a very attractive woman who is very good at taking care of herself other than the multiple pregnancies. Her OB doctor stated after baby 18 that Michelle is admirably suited to bearing children and her reproductive organs are in great condition. Yes, she is at a somewhat higher risk for a repeat of the preeclampsia, but this time it was triggered by the gallbladder problems and she also had a shorter space than usual between pregnancies. I am sure they will take her health into consideration before another pregnancy, they only said they were still “open to the possibility”.

UGH

February 10th, 2010
11:21 am

Sorry but I agree 100% with Catlady, Hi There & JATL. That type of serial over-breeding is unnatural. The world is suffering with environmental & poverty issues because of over-population. I think Michelle Duggar is addicted to being pregnant & needs to see a professional. I cannot believe how so many people feel this type of existance is acceptable. The older kids are nothing but unpaid slaves & they are all being robbed of teh childhood that every youngster deserves. What kind of attention can the parents possibly give each child? In my book, that is child abuse!

TechMom

February 10th, 2010
11:22 am

I just had this conversation with a pregnant co-worker yesterday. We’re both astonished that Michelle and Jim Bob are functioning adults with that many kids (you’d have to ship me off to the looney bin) let alone that Michelle still has all the ‘parts’ to still get pregnant after 18 kids. Quite frankly I am completely amazed that they have 18 healthy children. As far a I’ve seen there aren’t any with even mild health conditions so maybe it’s good genes. I do wonder if they’ll consider trying alternatives to NOT getting pregnant for a while that don’t include the pill. This latest pregnancy was a surprise timing wise and I do think they try to space their kids out a little more although they are open to whatever God’s plan is for them. As a Christian I must say I admire they’re faithfulness. I don’t see their choice to hope and pray for the best any different than lots of folks only having their first or second child. I have another co-worker who didn’t have her first child until her late 30s and had a baby with Down Syndrome. She and her husband wanted more children and even though there is a risk they would have a 2nd child with Downs, they still chose to get pregnant. Should they not have tried for another child? It’s not a risk I would choose to take but obviously they’re desire for another child outweighed the risk of having another child with medical issues.

My friend and I joked about how many of the girls would move from daddy’s house to their husband’s house and start popping out babies and how many would move out, never have kids and be in therapy for the rest of their lives. My guess is more will take the former route as this is what has been taught to them as normal and appropriate (and remember they don’t watch TV and only associate with other large families with similar beliefs so their knowledge of the outside world is very limited).

blog voyer

February 10th, 2010
11:28 am

The Duggar family is interesting, no doubt. It’s not just because they have decided to have so many children either. I honestly think there is something a little strange or “off” about the situation. That being said, their decision to have 19+ children is fine with me. That stands for them or anyone else. I don’t think its a big deal unless they start mooching constantly off of other people, which they don’t do. They sustain themselves.

I do understand the concern for the amount of time each child gets to spend with their parents though. I am one of twelve children and both my parents spent time with each of us. I do feel like having so many siblings made me more appreciative of my parents and the time we spend together. I am one of the youngest of the twelve, but I do know that my older siblings were involved in lots of different activities as children. For the last few of us we also got to participate in school activities and things like that. I have enjoyed being a part of a big family, each of my siblings has their own unique contribution to our family as a whole. That being said the majority of my siblings have “average” sized families. I, myself, would like to have three or four children.

At what point do medical factors override that openness to having children?
For me, if I knew that having another child would drastically increase the odds of complications for my health, or for that of the child I would probably shut down the shop. If I really wanted additional children, I’d look into alternative methods.

Overall, I think people should have as many children as they want, provided they support them financially, emotionally, and all the other ways. It is my personal opinion that each parent should provide for their children better opportunities than they had. If a parent finds that they can’t provide a better life or better opportunities, I believe they should stop having children. Something should improve for the next generation.

-Just my opinion ;)

itpdude

February 10th, 2010
11:32 am

This is a question for the two people making the baby but for me, yes, medical issues should mean no kids, PARTICULARLY when you already have kids. I think it is supremely selfish for someone to risk the lives or handcuff the lives of another sentient being to satisfy their own existential crisis. For example, my ex-wife has a history of autism in her family. I wanted to adopt. She had to have a kid. We divorced. She re-married and had a kid of her “own”. . . . who is autistic.

That is unethical on her part to the child and to society. It is unethical towards society because society is picking up much of the tab for her child due to special education (which should be performed now that he is here) and other issues of and related to autism. People need to look at their own genetic and medical makeup and determine what is not simply best for them, but best for those around them. There are children being shuffled from foster home to foster home. Do the right thing and adopt.

s

February 10th, 2010
11:36 am

You’re right Millie. I take it back. For all I know her vagina might still be in great shape and her labia might look just like it did on her prom night. I was wrong to assume that 19 children passing through her womb might have changed the appearance of any part of her crotch. And obviously Mr. Duggar still likes her vagina very much, so who am I to judge?

JATL

February 10th, 2010
11:39 am

@itpdude -that’s another thing I’ve wondered -since the Duggars are SUCH big Christians, if they wanted 20 kids -why didn’t they adopt a bunch of them? She still could have had some of their own, but they could have given so many kids out there a permanent home. While I don’t think having so many siblings is a great thing, their situation WOULD beat being shuffled around from foster home to foster home or living in a state-run orphanage.

lulu

February 10th, 2010
11:41 am

Correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t they have health insurance for life from Mr. Duggar having previously been a state rep? They may not be “on the dole”, but the taxpayers are certainly paying for the health care needs of their family.

While I applaud their ability to financially support their children otherwise, I still think it is irresponsible to continue to have children. Scientifically, breastfeeding does provide a certain amount of birth control – and for a reason. Short intervals between pregnancies have been known to contribute to low birthweight infants and other related medical problems. IMO, it should be obvious that, after this scare, they should commit their time to the many children they have rather than to risk their mother’s life – but that’s their decision.

I do have some serious issues with the fact that they choose to show their “love” for children by bringing in baby after baby of their own – I wish they would turn their values outward rather than just applying them to their own family. Perhaps by fostering or adopting children who actually need it rather than singlehandedly trying to double the earth’s population, they could do some good while also fulfilling their desire to raise a multitude of children.

mystery poster

February 10th, 2010
11:50 am

@Catlady
I agree with you 100%. As long as we live in a society, everything that we do affects other people.

Tarah

February 10th, 2010
11:52 am

I’ve been following the Duggars for a long time now. I applause them for their poise and faith in the midst of this hard time. They love every child that they have and care for each one individually. These are beautiful, well-rounded children with precious souls. I’m always so excited to tell people about this family and how they do it! I think this is a wonderful ministry! They have no debt and “buy used and save the difference”! They don’t and have never relied on ANY government aid. It’s hard for many to imagine considering the world we live in. Nobody has to live their lives except for them. So I encourage you to pray for them and encourage them on this long and difficult road!

Magenta

February 10th, 2010
11:53 am

The medical question alone is an interesting one. My mom came from a big family. She was #5 of 6, and her younger sister was born when Mom was about 3. Grandma had to stay in bed for most of her pregnancy in order to avoid miscarrying — and she was a very healthy, strong woman. When my aunt was born, however, she was in fine shape. In fact, of the 6 siblings, she was one who lived the 2nd longest, passing away at age 75. Grandma, however, lived to be 99. Yes, she was one tough lady!

On the other hand…my mom only had me, but she was already in her late 30s, and she didn’t make it to 70, due to heart disease caused by smoking. So it sounds to me as though Mrs. Duggar has an even chance of doing OK, even in her early 40s with so many previous births. She has a devoted husband and financial security. But she’s certainly a rare exception.

My late mother-in-law had 6 kids in very rapid succession. For the most part, their births were just slightly more than one year apart. Many of my husband’s siblings have been in chronically poor health, but I don’t know whether this is a medical issue or a socio-economic one. “Dad” didn’t stick around and she raised all 6 on her own. She did live into her 70s but also had chronic problems — high blood pressure, osteoporosis, and eventually blindness and lung cancer.

Kristin

February 10th, 2010
11:55 am

I have to address the overpopulation comments that I have read over and over again. Their carbon foot print is smaller than most modern families that have an average of 2 children. They wear clothes from second hand stores, they drive used vehicles and they grow their own food. The children are homeschooled (so there isn’t the pollution of buses parents driving them), they do not have video games or televisions in each room, and they built their own home with their own hands. The average American child goes through countless pairs of shoes because of what fads dictate, receive a new gaming system every few years, has their own computer and television in their room and each child has their own bedroom, which is usually quite large and requires additional heating and cooling.

Those that question how irresponsible the Duggers are for their taking of natural resources I have to question how environmentally responsible are you? How many square feet does your family live in?

Krys

February 10th, 2010
11:59 am

With all the care and attention that has to go into children (not to mention money), I don’t think it’s possible to take care of 19 children well. Especially is they have medical conditions. Will we as tax payers be left to pay the cost?? They sound a little crazy to me. It just reminds me of dogs having a litter of puppies. Not cute at all! But it’s a free country. “Hey mom, I just had baby #20″ As mom hangs up the phone and shakes her head!

Male Chauvinist And Proud Of It!

February 10th, 2010
12:07 pm

I think women should stop having babies when it becomes apparent that their slim, sexy bodies will not recover from the preggers fat. No husband should have to choose between the mother of his children and his hot, young, flexible secretary.

Sunny

February 10th, 2010
12:11 pm

There is no right or wrong answer to this question. Preeclampsia (and other health problems) can occur in the FIRST pregnancy of a young and otherwise “healthy” woman.

David S

February 10th, 2010
12:12 pm

From everything I have seen, these parents actually take full responsibility for every child they have. They are not on welfare. If they have taken any charity it has been that, not involuntarily forced thievery by the state on their behalf. They homeschool – not relying on the local government to steal from others on their behalf to educate their children. They pay for their own medical costs or insurance. They have utilized the entertainment industry to generate enough income for them and their children’s expenses. I don’t know if the husband has always been working in the voluntary private sector or for the government, but if the private sector, even more kudos.

When a stupid screwup by a doctor may have cost Sen. Murtha his life, and when doctors and their various screwups cost tens of thousands their lives every year, it is certainly inappropriate to turn to the conventional medical establishment for its thoughts on anything related to health and well-being. My great grandfather was one of 18 children. Many of them died of one thing or another, but it was not related to childbirth and great-grandma did fine.

So long as this couple continues pulling their own weight and not living parasitically off me and other members of the productive sector of society, let them have as many kids as they want. Their sense of responsibility is certainly not in question here.

Frankly, there are few in the remainder of society that actually take full responsibility for their own children. For the rest, even one is too many.

azgal

February 10th, 2010
12:22 pm

Jim Bob should sleep in the boys room! That would be the best birth control….

Sunny

February 10th, 2010
12:25 pm

I would also like to add to the conversation regarding how much time is spent with each child. Most of you must realize that neither of the Duggar’s work outside of the home so they are ALWAYS around and bonding with their children unlike most of us who commute 2 hours a day, work 2 hours a day, spend hours tending to activities and errands only to come home and pass out only to do it again the next day. Many people with one or two kids don’t spend ample time with their children. These people see their children and spend more quality time in ONE DAY than many do in an ENTIRE WEEK.

Magenta

February 10th, 2010
12:26 pm

Since the subject has come up, the religious philosophy for most who have super-large families is to raise up the children as devout believers, so as to allow their theology to become the rule of society. If you’ve never heard of the Quiverfull movement, Google it. It’s a lot more than just “have as many as God will allow.” Given what we’ve already seen of radical Islam, this strategy creeps me out, big-time.

BeeJay

February 10th, 2010
12:29 pm

Like other posters, I believe people to some extent can do what they want as long as it doesn’t present a burden to society. However, it’s difficult to believe that in an age where population has run amok and the earth’s limited resources are already becoming obvious that it is prudent and ethical to increase the population so greatly all by yourself. Certainly all the children here are precious, but there is a responsibility to being a citizen of the world and that includes care for the earth. It isn’t very caring for one couple to have 17 children, whether they can care for them financially or not. I also wonder like others as to the parents’ ability to parent them all. No doubt the kids take care of one another and the household, too. This is larger that some school classes. But that issue is where it is none of my business. Physically, it can’t be healthy for a woman to have a baby every 18 months. Her body is going to wear out, if it hasn’t already, and a worn-out body does not produce healthy babies. Are they so blind that they would willingly and knowingly sacrifice a child’s health because they can’t call it quits? 7 is one thing, a dozen is unthinkable, but 17 is really going way too far. We really wouldn’t put up with almost any other family doing this, but because they’re white, Americans, on TV, and apparently financially okay, we will put up with it. In China, they’re allowed one child. 17? Really? C’mon people.

JMS

February 10th, 2010
12:33 pm

If doctors think this is now becoming to risky for her, that she could die if she keeps going… then I think it is highly irresponsible for her to keep having children. What if she does die and leaves all these young children without a mother! I would hope she would get passed her obvious obsession with repopulating the United States with her offspring and know when enough is enough. When the risk to her is greater than the reward (the reward is being around to see these kids grow up and become successful adults) she should have enough common sense to stop and think about her family and not her insatiable need to keep popping out kids. Both her and her husband need to stop and take care of what they have, if she needs to have babies around, she most certainly will as already their are grandbabies on the scene. She is like a babyaholic….. Yes, I said it; anything done in excess is a problem! Drinking, drugs, eating, just because you pay your own way does not make it OK! Then again it is a free country and people are allowed to make stupid decisions, of which she would be a prime example if she is not already. Up till now one could think they are just a large loving family, however if this continues she will be just another loon vying for attention, or dead.

no excuses

February 10th, 2010
12:33 pm

I find this disturbing and grossly irresponsible.

Sheila

February 10th, 2010
12:36 pm

NO , Hell no they do not need more kids , quess who is paying for the one in the hospital , will continue to have health problems , I never see Michelle hug, kiss alll the kids , a pat on the head like good dog. She also can end up with health problems esp kidney disease , How is it that her uterus is not hanging out? Enough said , get them off TV , why so many reality shows?

DJ

February 10th, 2010
12:37 pm

This will catch up with Michelle’s health eventually. Human bodies are not designed to have this many babies. What is Jim and the children going to do when Michelle strokes out with her next pregnancy and either dies or becomes disabled?

JMS

February 10th, 2010
12:38 pm

Nicly put BJ! Apparrently you were in line in front of the Duggar’s when they were handing out common sense and I think they may have given their share to you!

LMartin

February 10th, 2010
12:39 pm

I believe a massive stroke or heart failure are in the cards for Michelle Duggar if she continues to compulsively reproduce. Then Jim Bob will look for another seed receptacle. Disgusting on too many levels to count.

Photius

February 10th, 2010
12:41 pm

Hey Michelle… Your womb is not a clown car!

ldr

February 10th, 2010
12:44 pm

The Lord made provide the children but he also gives common sense. Get a grip and use birthcontrol!

Tiger needs me on his PR team

February 10th, 2010
12:46 pm

@catlady…since you’re so willing to play the “what if they were” game..I’ve got one for you.

What if they were childless? Would you have a problem with a 43 year old childless woman, who by all measures has the ability to care for and provide for a baby, taking a calculated risk to have a child? I doubt it.

That’s the problem with your “what if” game. They are NOT what you posed in your hypothetical scenario any more than they are what I posed them to be in mine.

Given that, it would seem to me that we should err on the side of personal freedoms. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….The American Way, right?

If she wants to have 25 kids, I don’t care, they seem like genuinely good people who try successfully to do the right thing….and if they want to do their part to populate the world with a very large family who also exhibit good will, philanthropy, and charity to others, I’m fine with that..even if it does cost the taxpayers a little. Beats shelling out coin on a “bridge to nowhere” so that contractors can line their pockets.

JMS

February 10th, 2010
12:47 pm

I agree to a point with Davis S, I do not care how many kids she wants to have so long as I do not have to pay my tax payer dollars to support that choice, however after being told to continue is risky and she chooses to continue how do you defend that? What would all those kids do if she did die? I do not call that responsible, whether they are paying for it or not.

Ralph M.

February 10th, 2010
12:47 pm

Yes. They should never ever stop having children. Even if they hit 100. They should keep going.

Dar

February 10th, 2010
12:54 pm

I don’t know that I would consider tax deductions “welfare” inasmuch as they are a method dictated by the government to calculate your tax liability, which is not the same as simply a handout for doing nothing, but okay we can agree to disagree. I do agree that the EIC is 100% welfare and should be called such. If you are getting back the taxes you paid (or not paying any to begin with) PLUS some, then that “plus some” is a handout. My child is not in daycare and my house is paid for, so my only deductions are state income taxes, property taxes and charitable donations, and those are phased out nearly to zero if not all the way to zero, especially when the throw me into AMT. I do have an employer sponsored 401k and healthcare benefits and my pre-tax dollars are used for those so I guess I do get some sort of tax break off your backs and for that I thank you all for carrying my sorry butt in that manner.

Tiger needs me on his PR team

February 10th, 2010
12:58 pm

@Dar..nice points. Tax deductions are really the government’s way to influence the populus. Why do we get a break for 401K, because the government wants to encourage citizens to save for their future. Home mortgage interest deductions, govt’s way of rewarding people to buy homes. personal exemptions….have children. The duggars are just doing wath the tax code and, by extension, legislators, and, by further extension, the society who elected those legislators what they deemed as important, moral, and good for the country.

BB

February 10th, 2010
1:00 pm

Do these people not realize there are other contraceptive methods? This many children is irresponsible, there is no way child #14 or whatever doesn’t feel lost in the shuffle. Sounds like Michelle is addicted to babies that are dependent on her. The world doesn’t need more spawn from these fundamentalist horndogs.

Momof2

February 10th, 2010
1:01 pm

We have to let the parents choose – otherwise we become China, where the one child rule exists.

sasha

February 10th, 2010
1:01 pm

Definitely NOT responsible—utterly pathetic as now it is the celebrity status they are casting toward!

Dr. Oz Child rearing expert

February 10th, 2010
1:03 pm

Just what are they trying to prove. God can bless them in other ways too.

Tarah

February 10th, 2010
1:05 pm

Michelle probably doesn’t need to worry about a massive stroke or heart failure. When you consider the health of her body, she naturally trends towards healthy blood vessels. If her medical team doesn;t overload her with fluids during labor and delivery, it seems like she’ll do well.
She has a lot of children but delegates to get things done efficientlyand usually speaks softly. So I don’t imagine her having a hypertensive stroke aside from gestational conditions such as preeclampsia.

Tiger needs me on his PR team

February 10th, 2010
1:06 pm

@MOMof2…excellent point. For everyone who is an advocate of there being baby cops, be careful of the door you want to open then, never know how that might evolve into someone infringing on your rights. It’s all fun and games until someone tells you that they don’t like your perfectly legal activity and they want you take away your right to do it.

Tiger needs me on his PR team

February 10th, 2010
1:08 pm

I never knew we had so many medical professionals in the blog….from guarantees to death “well before 50″ to how she is going to die. Amazing.

By the way, she’s 43 now, isn’t she “well before 50″ as we speak..how many more years do we have until she’s “close to 50″ and the “well before 50″ prediction is seen as inaccurate? Can’t be too long now.

Jeff in Roswell

February 10th, 2010
1:12 pm

How many is too many? There are no hard and fast rules. I don’t think the government nor anyone else has the right to tell them to stop. I don’t think it’s wise for her to continue from a health stand point, but it’s her choice – not ours.
People are all up in arms about this and for what? What percentage of American citizens have that many children? It’s miniscule! Just because it’s not mainstream, doesn’t make it wrong.

Cece175

February 10th, 2010
1:12 pm

My concern is the older kids do they really have a life doing things kids their age should be doing or have they grown up to be the babysitters? There is NO WAY she can possibly bond with all of the kids she has, they are stair-steps in age so you have potty training, diaper changing etc.. Who was responsible for all the kids while her Jim were in the hospital? Having babies after 40 is dangerous to both Mom and the new baby… the fact that they are willing to ignore that makes me wonder why they would ignore the advice they have been given… As for affording to take care of these kids I’m sure that they are getting paid well for the TV program…and unless they were independently wealthy to begin with they were getting assistance from somewhere

NANA

February 10th, 2010
1:17 pm

I didn’t get to read all of the comments but it is obvious to me that catlady knows nothing about these people. I hope and pray she doesn’t get pregnant again but it isn’t really any of my business. Those kids are darling, well rounded, well mannered, well educated (at least through high school)! And for God’s sake, let’s leave race out of this one, ok?

Tiger needs me on his PR team

February 10th, 2010
1:20 pm

Here’s a hypothetical question for everyone who is appalled by this. It would seem having 1-3 kids is ok…but 19 is definitely too much. Sound logic would suggest there must be a finite number you place between ok and too much. So what’s your number?

If you were ruler supreme, what cap would you put on citizens of the US that if they exceeded you would penalize them?

Oh..and a followup question…what would you like your dictatorship to be known as? A monarchy, czar, kingdom…well, you get the picture.

Wounded Warrior

February 10th, 2010
1:21 pm

I just have to say that she can run a nursery instead of spitting them out for many more years!! The oldest ones should be out going to college or starting their own family (like the oldest has a daughter). Just like the phrase from ‘Raised in Arizona’…they have “more than they can handle”. As long as they can provide for them, then they can have a 100 kids. Not my biz. Just when you start having 14 kids under 7 years…and on the taxpayer’s dime is when the public was outraged @ Octomom.