I dunno, if the price is right, I’d consider buying the oldest one when she turned 18. 
But am I absolving myself of that responsibility? By your definition, and one the the main criticisms of them, I would be.
Quote-“What happened to “personal responsibility”? Because if you’re making someone else do it, that doesn’t seem quite to fit the definition.”-unquote.
You are either responsible for taking care of your kids-cleaning, clothing, feeding, interacting, or you’re not. Doesn’t matter to the issue of responsibility if it is forced labor, volunteers, or paid help.
I still think they’re freaks, but not because of the number of children they have, rather, because they’re freaks.
Thought better of it.
Making. MAKING. Makingmakingmaking.
Not “having.” Not “letting.” MAKING.
As in “You don’t have a choice. You are doing it.”
Daycare providers have a choice. You cannot MAKE THEM TAKE CARE OF YOUR CHILDREN.
But am I absolving myself of the responsibility?
Just answer the question, please.
I might not be an optimal parent for forcing siblings to do this, but I am not being irresponsible. See the difference?
How many goddamned times do I have to answer this question?
If you force someone to take care of your kids, you are.
If you don’t, you aren’t.
If someone is in the business of offering child care and they offer to take care of your children and you pay them, you are taking responsibility for your own damned kids.
If someone isn’t in the business of offering child care and they have no choice but to care for your kids, you are NOT taking responsibility for your own damned kids. You are taking advantage of other people in order to keep fucking like demented rabbits.
So, if they had 17 kids, put them all in daycare, that’d be ok with you? I kinda think you’d still be saying they’re irresponsible.
It would be better than making one of your other kids into a primary caregiver. What’s the point of having so many kids if you can’t spend time taking care of them?
Daycare is neither necessary nor sufficient as proof that they don’t suck as parents. But it would at least demonstrate that they have the resources to afford the kids they have (assuming the daycare is paid for from their own pockets and not simply mooched from others nor paid for by the labors of their existing children) and their older children aren’t simply tools to enable them to continue their apparent addiction to having babies.
If they could have and support this number of kids, including sending all of them to school, without conscripting people not involved in the whole fucking like bunnies decision, then I’d say they could be demonstrating personal responsibility. As it is, they seem to be funding their proclivities through their own children.
I’ve got no quarrel with charity. I’ve got no quarrel with welfare. But people who need charity and welfare cannot be called “self-sufficient.” They can be good people. They can be wonderful people. They cannot be said to be living within their means.
I’d be more pissed at CPS forcing her to move. Plenty of people live off the grid and do fine raising their kids.
Apparently they’re getting their lesson plans from this guy.
Nothing too surprising on Bill Gothard’s Wikipedia page. Are there any religious leaders left who haven’t groped women or m*lested children?
This part was a bit odd, though
Everything I’ve seen and heard about these people makes me think they are all profoundly dead inside. However, that is not my issue. I looked through this whole thread, and I’m disappointed that no one linked to this image. For shame, people. For shame.
Makes you wonder what precisely they are doing with the Cabbage Patch Dolls.
This is the compositional fallacy I’m talking about. This isn’t anti-christian rhetoric, it’s all about the extremism. The same behaviour would be condemned if severed from their religiosity. Look:
Is this anti-vegetarian persecution? Disdain for this strategy does not constitute an attack on the basic principles of the ethos. If a subset of libertarians or socialists or nudists advocated extreme proliferation and keeping their progenny out of public schools to makes sure that they were properly indoctrinated as part of a political movement, their actions would be equally condemned. They are messed up, unsupportable actions, no matter what ideology they are in support of.
This new article sheds some intersting light on the clan- the lowlight being Jim Bob supplants his income by giving Bible based financial freedom seminars (Bible based?)- so he’s debt free in part by scamming others- wonderful.
Also, mom is “submissive” to Jim Bob, and if you want one on one time with a parent you have to sign up for it!
Anecdote alert. My friend is one of 10 kids. He turned out fine. They were poorer than some of their neighbours but the kids are all hardworking and loved. This sort of family used to be standard hereabouts. I’m one of 5, my parents were both from large families whose parents were from larger families. My Great-Grandmother had 19 children. Most of these people and their descendents turned out fine. Those who didn’t I doubt it was much to do with family size. Home schooling is another issue, granted. It’s an issue I have scant knowledge of so have no particular opinion of.