That’s supposed to say toys :smack:
I said it before, and I’ll say it again: It’s a vagina, not a clown car!
That would make a great topic title on Jerry Springer.
A guy who worked with my father had five daughters, all of whose names began with a “J.” But this family makes that one (so far as the first letters are concerned) seem pretty normal.
You see, I’ve never been able to buy ‘placing a burden on the world’ argument. Aren’t we all in many ways? If placing a burden on the world is a crime then automobiles (not just SUVs) should be outlawed. And so should living past the breakeven point on ones productivity to upkeep ratio. If the world is so overpopulated that this sort of thesis becomes valid then serial killers are doing the rest of us a favor (Hey! More resources for me!)
I’ve got one kid, another on the way, and rough plans for a third. That ain’t 15 but I don’t see that anyone has the right to criticize someone elses choices in this matter. If they can support them all (and all of you saying they can’t possibly I’d be interested in what hard data you’re running with there…not supposition but hard data) then more power to them.
I think I’m smart. But I don’t think I’m wise enough to make someone else’s decisions for them. Nor am I wise enough to make decisions with inadequate data.
You’re right, Chefguy. Let’s go kill them all. Better yet, let’s save some gas and just thin the herd where we are right now. :rolleyes:
–SSgtBaloo
(OTOH, I do tend to agree that these folks are waaaay too prolific, however.)
The question isn’t really how many kids is a particular couple having - this couple has 15, my husband and I have 0, others have 2 - but how many the average couple is having.
Here in the US, the birthrate is either at or just below the “replacement” rate - meaning without immigration our population would be holding steady or dropping (as is happening in parts of Europe).
So, while this particular family has 15 kids, there must be a lot of childless couples and/or non-reproducing singles to offset their production. The US is not contributing to overpopulation - although you could argue we’re heavily into resource depletion.
Still…better her than me.
shudders and checks the date of her next Depo shot, just to make sure she doesn’t forget
That’s exactly what I was going to post.
And the only way that this poses a problem is if you begin from a baseline presumption that all consumption of all resources is a bad thing. Not an assertion one could prove, by a long shot.
As for Larry Mudd’s assertion that these kids couldn’t be receiving adequate education being homeschooled because of their number, I can only say huh? Are you really suggesting these kids are getting less attention than a kid in a classroom with 30 kids, a number of whom have ADHD and an equal or greater number of whom just don’t give a damn, as is the norm in most public school settings?
I’m with Jonathan Chance. It’s their lives, their choice. If this story included facts like the couple is sucking down every governmental entitlement program known to man – AFDC, food stamps, WIC, Section 8, etc. etc. – and still pumping out kids, then criticisms might be in order. But it doesn’t seem that they are, and therefore, it’s not really anybody else’s business.
And also depending on how well the kids are educated, there are going to be 15 extra bodies that will soon be contributing to their country by working, paying taxes etc.
They’re going to be very popular in High School, I can tell you that.
Boy, their deductions on each April 15 are enviable, aren’t they?
Every once in a while Money magazine does a profile on a family with a herd of kids.
The thing that strikes me, when I read stories about their daily lives, is how charges of “Wasting resources! Hard on Mother Earth” fall flat. Now, it’s true, they’re exceeding their “replacement” of two kids. But it’s striking how much less wasteful they are, as individuals, than families with fewer kids. No one in that family takes 20 minutes showers (I’m guessing the little tykes bathe three at a time). They rarely drive their automobile with one person in it. Those teenagers aren’t going to each have their own car when they turn 16. Probably not a lot of call for single-serving overpackaged food, either. In general, people in families like this know more about recycling, reusing, handing down, conserving, and sharing than the average American.
I’m just having the one kidlet, so I don’t have an agenda in speaking for large families. I sure get a kick out of them, though.
i agree with qts and Larry Mudd. some people like large families, some like them small. it’s their choice. unless they are unable to provide adequate care for the children. imho, that is a real possibility. i can imagine the nightmare of maintaining a household of fifteen children. toss home schooling across the grades into the mix… i’m morbidly curious as to what the daily time table for the parents must be like.
also, are they prepared/able to send all their kids to study all the way? are they getting any outside help other than the certificate of whatever from the government?
Yes. Obviously.
In even the worst overcrowded public school, that class of thirty kids are all on the same page. They’re learning one curriculum. The teacher has five or six hours per day to teach it, and three or four hours to mark papers, prepare the next days lessons, etc. In that situation, yes, there are going to be a few kids who could benefit from extra individual attention.
There are nine separate curricula required in the Duggar house. Sure, each “grade” has a 1:1 or 1:2 teacher-pupil ratio. For what? A half-hour a day? An hour? During which time the teacher’s attention is minimally scattered by the five or six kids that are still in the infant/toddler stages, which are on their own more than enough to keep any less-than-superhuman caregiver jumping every minute of the day?
That situation is so wildly unpractical it boggles the mind what might possibly compell someone to undertake such a task.
Oh, wait, I suppose it could be explained if someone was more concerned with what their children don’t learn than with what they do.
Let’s take a look at a bill sponsored by Jim Bob. (PDF link)
Here’s a little article about Jim Holt, Duggar’s pal and co-sponsor of the bill.
Yeah, I have grave doubts that the twenty-three kids this pair have sired between them are receiving anything that resembles a reasonable education.
Jim! Jim-bob! Use a jimmy! 
Thats what I thought (Jinger) until I realized they are probably pronouncing it Ginger.
Thank God they picked J, it could’ve bene worse; they could’ve picked P.
Not relevant to this story, but Fundamentalist Mormons in Utah (and other places in the West) who have huge families like this are eager and proud to receive as much welfare and governmental assistance as possible. They consider it to be “sticking it to the Man.” At least, according to Under the Banner of Heaven by John Krakauer.
Well, back in the days of yoor one had a similar situation in one-room school-houses, with one teacher managing a class of kids of many age groups, and plenty of those kids got a decent education. You just have the older kids help out teaching the younger ones, and everyone ends up with a decent enough education.
Decent relative to the time and place. Bible readings, arithmetic, some history and basic geography. Enough learning for someone who expected to get by in a rural community. (Even then, the teacher was usually a single woman – certainly without half-a-dozen tiny ones to look after during the day.)
In modern America, educational standards are a little higher than they were in the 19th century. Think those kids have a chance of doing acceptably well on the SAT? Well-versed in the rudiments of English, mathematics, arts, music, science, geography, history, and computer studies? Have an introductory second language in there? These are all basic. If a quarter of those kids make it as adults in situations that wouldn’t also be attainable by people without a high-school education, I’ll bite off two of my fingers at the second knuckle and swallow.
RUBBISH!
The “little red schoolhouse” was even more overcrowded than today’s schools are. Farm families were big, and there was one teacher per building.
They were horribly underequipped, often with 4 children per book. No school library.
Qualifications of teachers varied wildly. Some were barely literate.
Male teachers were savagely brutal, & often literally sadistic. Beatings administered for minor infractions often drew blood. "Problem " children were all treated as troublemakers–including the retarded, dyslexic, and immigrants who had a limited grasp of English. Usually, these children were beaten until they couldn’t take it anymore, & then simply stopped going.
Teachers were often unqualified, were not permotted to marry & retain teir jobs, & were not permitted to date. Or drink. Or live in their own quarters. They were required to board with the family of one of their students. For “moral reasons”. :rolleyes:
And you mean “yore”, not “yoor”.