[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
I don’t get it - I mean I think they’re stupid and socially irresponsible, but well within their rights.
[/QUOTE]
What’s not to get? Yes, I’m expressing my feelings re their stupidity and social irresponsibility; but, you’ll notice nowhere did I state they had no right to squeeze out as many sprogs as they want.
[QUOTE=Q.E.D.]
It’s ok, I’ll snicker twice as hard just for you.
[/QUOTE]
Ahh denial, it is so cute.
Enjoy your disgust at the birth of a human child. I hope it serves you well.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
What is it about this story that threatens you so?
[/QUOTE]
It’s obvious. He’s angry at the possibility that people who might be skeptical about evolution are clearly superior from a natural selection standpoint.
[QUOTE=mswas]
Enjoy your disgust at the birth of a human child.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, please. You make it sound like it’s some sort of noble act to give birth. Allow me to clue you in: it ain’t.
[QUOTE=Q.E.D.]
Oh, please. You make it sound like it’s some sort of noble act to give birth. Allow me to clue you in: it ain’t.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, human life has little value, I get it. At least human life other than your own.
[QUOTE=mswas]
Yeah, human life has little value, I get it. At least human life other than your own.
[/QUOTE]
All this is about is conflicting values. Some would take offense if a fundamentalist were to criticize our modern lifestyle, with our small families and many of material indulgences. But they themselves are quick to criticize the fundamentalist for believing that the spiritual and emotional satisfaction gained by having a large, loving family far outweighs any that can be found through material goods.
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
All this is about is conflicting values. Some would take offense if a fundamentalist were to criticize our modern lifestyle, with our small families and many of material indulgences. But they themselves are quick to criticize the fundamentalist for believing that the spiritual and emotional satisfaction gained by having a large, loving family far outweighs any that can be found through material goods.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I guess I fall pretty roundly on one side of that. I think the love of family is more important than material goods, which are merely accessories to one’s life, whereas the family is a part of that life.
The lament that another human being was born is pretty disgusting to me. I don’t have the desire to have 18 kids and I live a pretty modern lifestyle, but still, if there if stuff is as important to some people as human life, then I think we have crossed a threshold of moral inversion.
18 is a lot of kids, definitely, but I think people tend to think of a classroom of 1st graders instead of a range of ages. When your oldest are in their late teens/early 20s, you don’t have a bunch of babies slobbering on their bibs, you have a range of little ones and also a range of older ones who can lend a hand with raising their siblings. No doubt the older ones help raise the younger ones, but with that many older ones, there also should be plenty of time for them to have fun being kids too. My older kids help a LOT with their younger siblings–it is part and parcel of being in this family, and it makes sense to them because it’s never been any other way.
Personally, I wouldn’t want 18 kids, but I’ve watched with some envy the specials where people have 8 or 10 or 12 kids (not multiples though, please). I’d love it, PROVIDED I could stay at home and handle the day to day of it. I think it would be entirely possible to raise a big brood, if you’re organized and if you approach that organization the way you would approach running a 24-hour/day classroom/daycare/group home. You chart, you set schedules (and keep them), you delegate. That appears to be what they do, and it seems to be working for them.
Moneywise…how does anyone afford to send even one child to college? My kids will be working their ways through, and will have to get financial aid, which they can then repay. That seems reasonable to me, but maybe that’s because I’ve never been part of a family that could just plunk down thousands of bucks for college for a kid.
[QUOTE=mswas]
Yeah, I guess I fall pretty roundly on one side of that. I think the love of family is more important than material goods, which are merely accessories to one’s life, whereas the family is a part of that life.
The lament that another human being was born is pretty disgusting to me. I don’t have the desire to have 18 kids and I live a pretty modern lifestyle, but still, if there if stuff is as important to some people as human life, then I think we have crossed a threshold of moral inversion.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I couldn’t look at one of those little kiddos and think “you never should have been born,” but I guess you and I are funny that way.
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
Yeah, I couldn’t look at one of those little kiddos and think “you never should have been born,” but I guess you and I are funny that way.
[/QUOTE]
I wouldn’t think that about any of those kids, but I might think “you should have been born to about three or four different families, at least, so you could have a better life.”
[QUOTE=meenie7]
I wouldn’t think that about any of those kids, but I might think “you should have been born to about three or four different families, at least, so you could have a better life.”
[/QUOTE]
How do you know their life isn’t good? Lots of people have horrible lives when they are only children. The size of the family isn’t an indicator of quality of life. Having the ability to get stuff doesn’t make life better. It can be very nice to have lots of family.
[QUOTE=meenie7]
I wouldn’t think that about any of those kids, but I might think “you should have been born to about three or four different families, at least, so you could have a better life.”
[/QUOTE]
Do you look at a child born to an inner-city, poor mother and think that child should have been born to a different family?
I don’t have a problem with people, including conservative Christians, choosing to have 18 kids; that’s their business and their prerogative. I also see nothing wrong with expecting older siblings to look after younger ones and expecting all of the kids to contribute to the physical and economic welfare of the family – that’s how families have worked through most of human history, and I’d even venture to say that kids who grow up with responsibilities probably grow up happier and mentally healthier.
I do, however, have MAJOR problems with the idea of bearing and raising a large brood of children in order to turn them into weapons in a culture war, and as far as I can tell, that’s exactly what the Quiverfull movement is about:
– Kathryn Joyce, “Arrows for the War” (an informative article about the movement)
Children are individuals. As they grow up, they have the right to make their own choices about faith and values. Sane, ethical parents accept that these choices may not be the same as the parents’ choices. And yet, the entire Quiverfull movement is predicated on the assumption that parents CAN control their children’s choices and worldviews – mostly, by homeschooling them and isolating them from outside influences.
I’m not opposed to homeschooling; in fact, I can think of any number of circumstances where it might be the best choice for a family. But I believe that ethical homeschooling involves exposing children to a variety of different perspectives, beliefs, and value systems, as well as teaching them to be self-sufficient and preparing them to attend an accredited college or university if they so choose. Education should broaden a child’s options in life, not narrow them. I’m not convinced that the Duggars are adequately preparing their children for any kind of life other than the one they themselves are leading, or even letting them know that other possibilities are out there; and if that’s the case, I do think that means they’re failing to fulfill their responsibilities as parents and educators. (I may be wrong, and I’d be pleased if I am, but what I’ve seen of the Christian homeschooling movement is not particularly encouraging.)
[QUOTE=Fretful Porpentine]
Children are individuals. As they grow up, they have the right to make their own choices about faith and values. Sane, ethical parents accept that these choices may not be the same as the parents’ choices. And yet, the entire Quiverfull movement is predicated on the assumption that parents CAN control their children’s choices and worldviews – mostly, by homeschooling them and isolating them from outside influences.
[/QUOTE]
If you had children would you try to teach them these values from a young age?
[QUOTE=mswas]
If you had children would you try to teach them these values from a young age?
[/QUOTE]
I expect I would up to a point, since most parents try to teach values in some way, but there’s teaching values and teaching values. There’s a difference between saying “This is what I believe, and here’s why I believe it; some people believe X instead” and saying “This is the only truth, and questioning it is wrong and sinful.” Fundamentalist home-schooling families tend to do the latter; that’s why they’re home-schooling in the first place.
Again, I don’t know for sure that this is what the Duggars are doing, and I’d love it if I were proven wrong.
[QUOTE=Fretful Porpentine]
I don’t have a problem with people, including conservative Christians, choosing to have 18 kids; that’s their business and their prerogative. I also see nothing wrong with expecting older siblings to look after younger ones and expecting all of the kids to contribute to the physical and economic welfare of the family – that’s how families have worked through most of human history, and I’d even venture to say that kids who grow up with responsibilities probably grow up happier and mentally healthier.
I do, however, have MAJOR problems with the idea of bearing and raising a large brood of children in order to turn them into weapons in a culture war, and as far as I can tell, that’s exactly what the Quiverfull movement is about:
– Kathryn Joyce, “Arrows for the War” (an informative article about the movement)
Children are individuals. As they grow up, they have the right to make their own choices about faith and values. Sane, ethical parents accept that these choices may not be the same as the parents’ choices. And yet, the entire Quiverfull movement is predicated on the assumption that parents CAN control their children’s choices and worldviews – mostly, by homeschooling them and isolating them from outside influences.
I’m not opposed to homeschooling; in fact, I can think of any number of circumstances where it might be the best choice for a family. But I believe that ethical homeschooling involves exposing children to a variety of different perspectives, beliefs, and value systems, as well as teaching them to be self-sufficient and preparing them to attend an accredited college or university if they so choose. Education should broaden a child’s options in life, not narrow them. I’m not convinced that the Duggars are adequately preparing their children for any kind of life other than the one they themselves are leading, or even letting them know that other possibilities are out there; and if that’s the case, I do think that means they’re failing to fulfill their responsibilities as parents and educators. (I may be wrong, and I’d be pleased if I am, but what I’ve seen of the Christian homeschooling movement is not particularly encouraging.)
[/QUOTE]
I quote your post in its entirety because there are a number of participants in this thread that I believe would benefit from reading a well-reasoned, calm, and reflective post which shares concerns about the family without immediately leaping to conclusions.
I don’t know how the Duggars handle their home-schooling. I agree with you that if their method is as you describe, it’s cause for criticism.
[QUOTE=pbbth]
I have also seen articles that have mentioned them receiving up to $20,000 in donations from churches and private citizens…
[/QUOTE]
What is that $20,000 based on?
I have a basket of laundry sitting next to me. What are these kids’ jeans right here worth? Are they worth the $15 that they probably cost new? Are they worth the $2 they’d fetch at the thrift shop? Are they worth the 10 cents that they’d cost if I got them at a “fill a bag for a dollar” clothes pile at a yard sale? Are they worth the zero dollars that I actually paid for them because they were a hand-me-down? A hand-me-down that I took, even though I didn’t really “need” it.
I’ll bet that $20,000 is based on the retail price of the items if bought new. It’s just so much more shocking that way.
There are certain items, like clothes, toys, and books, which are quite plentiful used. Their value is hard to assess, because on one hand they are close to worthless in terms of cash value, but on the other hand, they are worth a lot because comparable new items are pretty expensive.
So if the Duggars economize by accepting donations of clothing, I’d hardly call it a “hand-out.” I’d just see it as them taking advantage of the massive depreciation in value that happens to a piece of clothing as soon as it becomes “used.” Just like a lot of the rest of us do.
[QUOTE=mswas]
How do you know their life isn’t good? Lots of people have horrible lives when they are only children. The size of the family isn’t an indicator of quality of life. Having the ability to get stuff doesn’t make life better. It can be very nice to have lots of family.
[/QUOTE]
I never said anything about the lack of material things, so don’t assign that belief to me.
I’m talking about the “buddy” system junk where the older kids are expected to parent their younger siblings when they had no choice in making them. That sort of thing is a real sore spot for me, because I saw my cousin, who is the eldest of six kids, be railroaded into being a permanent, free babysitter for her younger siblings all through her teen years. Her parents felt no qualms about taking time for themselves, while allowing her none. (And lest you think otherwise, she just wanted to go spend time with her very meek, well-behaved friends who also went to the fundie church they went to, not hang out with bikers.) It was so frustrating and upsetting for her that she ended up moving across the country to get away from her parents, and therefore I lost one of the only people I could stand at family parties. 
The “two for replacement, one for spare, and fifteen for shits and giggles” mentality made sense back when people were dying of broken ankles and Keith Richards was in middle school (: the stone ages). IMO it is now selfish and irresponsible to have more than two kids. Overpopulation is a very real problem.
I don’t get it. This is what humans have been doing since the beginning of time and continue to do in much of the world. And somehow we still seem to be surviving. Why the outrage when someone in America does it?