The Duggars are pregnant with #19

I am not a religious person at all, don't share their beliefs by the least, but I have nothing but admiration for them...
They are one amazingly close, loving, sweet, giving family who don't have one bad bone on them.
IMO, this one is really one case of whatever rocks their boat.... They owe nothing to nobody.... NOT-A-DIME.
Their kids are fantastic, with a sense of family and community that you don't see around.
Every trip they take, they make a point to volunteer - half of the trip is fun, mostly learning about the cities and cultures, and the other half is volunteering to make whatever community they are at better.
What they get, they share.... They are still buying used clothes, shoes, cars, everything....
I really really really think that anybody who throws a rock on this family has some serious thinking to do... Because then they are judging for the sake of judging alone, and that is just really sad...
That is just my two cents, for what it is worth -
as far as the baby - Congrats Michelle!!!! Boy, they have BEAUTIFUL babies, don't they?

I'm sorry, but they are not "self-sufficient".

They are exploiting their kids/family to make money to support themselves. If it wasn't for the sponsors, the reality show and selling their stories, they wouldn't have a pot to pee in that is big enough to pay to support that many people.

The parents aren't capable of raising their kids on their own. They are using their older children to help raise the younger ones. Which is completely unfair to the older children. All the mother seems capable of is popping out babies and delegating the responsibilities of raising the other kids onto the kids themselves so she can concentrate her efforts on the newly arrived infant.

I'm sorry! But they are selfish and IMHO she is addicted to being pregnant and to the attention that she garners from being pregnant.

I'm so disgusted by these people. It's cases like this where I think forced sterilization should become a law!

Now I know I'll be attacked by some members for having posted the above, but that's my sincere opinion and I stand by it and I'm not going to debate or defend it.

Wow - they were always debt free - after and long before the show... the kids have nothing to do with it....
Those kids look far far far from slaves....
You are not going to be attacked, but I don't think you know enough about this family....

Same as my opinion from the older threads.

I agree with YOU Carolinalima! I say more power to 'em!! If ANYBODY should be pumping out babies (as someone stated) it should be a wonderful nuclear family like this one!! BRAVO!!!!! We need more people like them! A little hard work never hurt anyone! Good for the teenagers to learn responsibility!

Forced sterilization?? UHhhh...yikes...scary.

It would appear you don't know much about this family re the debt issue for one. As for the older children helping out, isn't that what all families should be about? We were only 3 in our family but we were expected to carry our share of the chores that were required on our farm. There were no girl/boy jobs - there were jobs that needed to be done and the doing was shared among us. I always thought that was what families did. My paternal grandmother had 15 children and the older children were required to help by doing chores. None of them were mistreated, none were on welfare, none asked for any handouts.

You yourself have had to rely on assistance for your health issues and you are just one person. These folks have asked for and received nothing.

I think they are doing a fantastic job and that their children certainly seem to be sane, well-balanced individuals with a good sense of well-being, love for themselves and others. That's more than you can say about some of the only children that so many folks have these days.

I'm with Carolina on this one. They love their babies and children and support them, don't owe anybody anything, and that's more than can be said of most people.

"Self-sufficient" is an optimistic term to use here. Unless they:

- Use solar energy for 100% of their electrical needs

- Synthesize all of their own oil

- Grow all of their own food

- Offset all of their carbon dioxide emissions

...then they're just as parasitic as the rest of us. Their genetic, ahem, "legacy" is established; if the urge to have another carbon unit around the house is so great, then they should have done the responsible thing and adopted...be it a human or an animal.

Ironic, isn't it, that someone with such a big family is apparently unable to see the big picture.

It really saddens me to see people like this glorified and treated as heroes in some capacity. Much as it may seem otherwise, I actually enjoy children; and it's for that reason - and the lack of foresight in the people responsible for them - that I feel sick to my stomach when reading a story such as this

I have to admit that I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I do agree that they seem like generally nice people and they are self-sufficient (though I suspect they probably get a couple of million a year for their reality show, which has to help). On the other hand, the whole "quiverfull" movement makes me nauseous. I think its motivations are largely political, i.e., we'll outbreed them and then when we're the majority, we can do things our way. Their way, I suspect, would outlaw all forms of birth control, mandate that women must stay in the home and raise kids, and make their brand of Christianity the mandatory national religion. I think it's also an extremely irresponsible philosophy because I would bet that for every family like the Duggars that can take care of all those kids, there are 2 or 3 that can't but keep having babies under the notion that "God will provide." I think Ben Franklin had it right when he said "God helps those who help themselves."

I believe when folks say self-sufficient in regard to this family they aren't going to quite the extreme you have. They simply mean they are not asking the government for handouts paid by your tax dollars. I realize that is a much more simplistic comparison than yours, but according to your "big picture", we are all parasites and bleeding the system.

Exactly! So with it being an undeniable fact that this planet is becoming resource-challenged (due to overpolulation), voluntarily being such an extreme drag on the ecosystem is the height of arrogance, ignorance, and selfishness.

EDIT: To put it another way; if it's okay for them, then it's okay for anyone, right? So, on a worldwide scale, if all familes were replete with 19 children, do you realize that we likely wouldn't see another generation that wasn't without mass famine and disease, land and natural resource depletion, animal extinction, etc., on a catastrophic scale? It really just isn't about a solitary family living in a vacuum.

It seems they have revamped their website from a few years ago. I'm quite certain that I had read either there or in interviews that people and companies have "donated" things to them and in fact their house was built from materials and some labour that were donated. So while they may not have personally come out and said "give me", the only reason they are able to at least house that number of children was through donations that built them a larger house.

Now they sustain their family through exploitation of selling their story to the media and through books.

Ah, but that is what the public wants to see! Take Jon and Kate, Jessica and Nick and all the other stupid reality shows. Look at the rag mags, the public are willing to pay anything to get information about these people. Is it fair to blame them because the public goes crazy for that info? The paparazzi would have no jobs if the public would stop their silly quest of living vicariously through celebrities or known figures.

I say if the public are silly enough to want to see all that, then why should they not reap the benefits. At least they aren't taking or asking for government handouts like so many are. They have a large and loving family which is more than some folks can say when you hear about all the in-fighting in families.

The planet is becoming resource-challenged not so much due to overpopulation as it is to greed of large companies and governments. My BIL approached the Canadian government over 10 years ago with bio-fuel. They wouldn't give him the time of day - it would have cut into their profits at the Petro-Canada pumps.

Of course your argument that on a worldwide scale all families with 19 children would be OK is pretty silly. Many people cannot have children, not even 1, others simply don't want any, many would not even if they could because they just don't want the responsibility, others couldn't afford to clothe and feed them. From a personal point of view, I only ever wanted one because I felt that was about all I could handle physically and mentally so I highly doubt a family of 19 would be the norm or desired by all, so it's not really an argument IMO, it's more of a "what if" scenario.

True. But without the donations and now the exploitation of their family for money, and the child slave labour to look after all of the kids, they wouldn't be able to support themselves or properly care for that number of kids.

She freely admits that she has the older children buddied up with younger ones to make sure they get their homework done, wash, eat etc. Basically that older child is responsible for the care of the younger one while mom and dad boink like bunnies to produce yet another kid. Once that new one is born, she concentrates all of her efforts on that newest baby and pawns off the previous child to yet another one of their kids.

Sorry. But that is the epitome of beyond selfish! If she can't care for those children herself, then she has no business getting pregnant and having more and more.

IMO - they are no different than farm families 50-80 years ago. My dad is one of nine - because they needed kids to help work the farm.

That said, I think it's insane to have 18 kids.

"Slave labor," that is hilarious. You may want to research what slavery actually is, from the sound of your post you have no idea.

That is what is wrong with many children today, they do not learn responsibility and the fact that life is not all about "them".

And I'd take bets that those children will grow up to be more responsible adults than many of the young people we see hanging at the malls these days or getting into drugs, kids carrying guns and the list goes on. They are raising good, kind and responsible children. As for child labour - well that's just funny since, as I said before, everyone in the family helps with chores like we did when we were kids. At the age of 12 we were splitting wood and bringing in hay because that's what farm kids do.

I personally don't have a probelm with the number of children. I am not concerned about overpopulation or the environment in regards to these guys. I for one am not having kids and neither is my sister so thats us two out of the picture, they can have some of ours. In regards to the environment, which someone I talk to mentioned this morning to me, I think people need to look at the source of the environment issues. The Duggars are a drop in the bucket in regards to environmental concerns. People love EASY targets though don't they?

I also don't have a probelm with the kids having responsibility around the house and with the each other. Anyone that comes from a large family knows thats what happens. It's not unhealthy by any means. I think alot of kids these days that have probelms handling life have parents that cater to them and think that kids should be kids (whatever that means) and not have to contribute to the household. How are they ever to learn? If it is a done in a loving way its not a burden but a way to grow in maturity. People should be more concerned with kids that don't have a strong family unit to depend on.

I also think that people should specify if they have seen the documentary about them. It explains alot about their finances and how they came about having the home they have now. If you haven't you may want to, just to make sure that you are informed before you form a solid opinion. I just wonder if people are forming opinions off of what others interpretation of this family is or if they have seen for themselves.

I think there are worse families that we can point our fingers at as being bad for the kids and most of them only have two or three kids! and yet these folks can raise kids that are pretty good kids from what I can tell. I think people need to live and let live in this one. It is surely not for everyone but these people are doing a good job.

Crazy for sure, but at least they don't go around begging for help and freebies. And they aren't on the government dole. And she isn't seen out shopping on Rodeo Drive and getting her nails done while a group of babysitters is home watching all the kids.

My thought too... Grandma was one of 13

My 4th G-Grandfather (1757-1836) had 20 children with 3 wives. His name was Smith, and now you know why that is such a common name!

You're right, but that was a very different time. More kids meant you could work a larger piece of land, growing more crops and bringing in more money for the family. Since the extra money brought in was generally a lot more than the extra cost of raising the additional kid, it made good economic sense. There was also a lot higher child mortality rate than we have now. If you had 9, on average probably only 6 or so (on average) would make it to adulthood and have kids of their own. In modern times in an industrialized nation, the marginal cost of having additional children far outweighs the monetary value of having an additional child and the mortality rate for children is less than 5%.

ETA: Also, while I agree that they don't receive a government handout directly, they do get a tax credit for each one of those children. I'm not sure of their exact circumstances, but potentially they're eligible for a $1000/child tax credit. If they can claim 16 or so of the kids as dependents at the moment, that credit is on the order of the taxes a person making $100,000/year would pay.

Those are all good points, but as long as the Duggars can pay for their kids without any government help, then it is only their business how many kids they have. They are well adjusted and devoted to each other and their family. They have no debt, and even their house has no mortgage. Their chosen lifestyle is not for me, but if it works for them, then it is none of my business if they hav 50 kids!

On the other hand you have the Gosselins who are exploiting their children for profit. Kate regularly begs for freebies, and won't put her children's welfare ahead of her "job." Their public scandal can't be good for their children. Then there is Octomom, who is/was on welfare with 14 children and no husband. But she get plastic surgery and regular manicures, while leaving her 14 children with help paid for by whom? It certainly isn't her hard work that provided that new house and all the help that came with it. She is outrageous.

Very true.

Exactly - but it seems that people love to judge judge judge others, just because of different beliefs and lifestyles... just for the heck of it... when it is none of their business NONE!

Of course it's silly, it's a hypothetical based on people's opinion that, as a philosophy, it's okay to have a gazillion children simply if you can "afford" them. The point is that the only situational necessity extended to these people is the fact that they don't have to rely on government assistance, but not the size of their family being X or 100 times X. So if that's the only governing factor, then you'd have to extend it to anyone that wanted to have that many children, or else you'd have to change the rules of the game halfway through when it got out of hand and say, "Wait a minute, this was cool for awhile, but now the schools are overcrowded, unemployment is through the roof, etc."

And that wouldn't be very fair now, would it?

I believe that fortunately most people aren't interested in having a gazillion kids, particularly in most advanced countries. Responsible people realize how expensive it is to feed, house and educate gobs of kids. My issue is with the irresponsible ones who know that they will be taken care of by welfare, food stamps, and free health care. I still believe they should be required to be sterilized, if they've already had two children being supported by good old Uncle Sam, or risk losing their benefits. I've read the Constitution, and I don't see anything about being guaranteed the right to procreate without responsibility.

Actually, there are many schools closing here because the attendance is half what it used to be - people are having fewer children and it isn't feasible to pay for hydro, heat and upkeep on a school that is only half full. There are already jobs not being filled in the trades because everyone wants their children to go to university so skilled labour is at a premium. Those university graduates are now taking jobs at McDonalds because their university degree is useless (a BA is not much better than a high school diploma anymore). So that argument doesn't hold water.

As for determining size of families, I wasn't aware it was a "game" and that there were "rules". Those kids are probably going to be better citizens than many of the ones coming from small families and will probably work harder, have better work ethics and contribute more to society, both economically and in community service, in which case it would be a wonderful thing if there were more families that size who did the same thing. I think it is a personal choice whether we have 1 or 10 and as long as we aren't asking anyone for a handout, then it isn't anyone's business whether we have 1 or 10. This almost reminds me of people who seem dumbstruck if you tell them you choose not to have children at all - they treat you like you are deficient in some way. None of their business IMO.

I think people (BOTH parents) who WANT to have a lot of kids, are responsible with those they have, do not depend on government benefits, who are loving and effective parents, should have as many as they want.

I won't be having any, so if there's a kid "allotment", they can have mine . I think there are plenty of people who won't be having kids for whatever reason, to allow for the few families that do want more than "normal". Most industrialized nations are experiencing a decrease in births, so I don't see overcrowding being a problem at this point.

I've always been somewhat obsessed with large families. The largest family I knew growing up had 6 kids, because we lived overseas and the Navy won't send you overseas if you have too many kids (over 6, apparently). I know that I'd have had to do more chores if I was in a larger family, but I always wanted a ton of younger siblings. It wouldn't have worked with my dad, though. He's not an involved parent. My mom would have loved to have more, though.

I don't see a problem with the "buddy system". If you're in a large family, you have to help out. That's just the way it is, and I'd bet their kids will grow up more responsible than most American kids, who are largely lazy and self-centered (including me, I admit), and who go on to be lazy, self-centered parents raising more lazy, self-centered people.