that I cannot stand myself. The same goes for the woman with the 8 kids who got her own show as well. Anything that is used and watched on tv I do not like.
Once can blame tv for this, yes that is true, BUT it takes both sides to agree on something for them to be produced. I could NEVER place my family through anything like that NO MATTER the $$$$ being paid out.

but I don't think it is anti-choice unless they want government intervention.

If someone says, "I think abortion should be legal, but women who get abortions are bad people," then they are still pro-choice, but they're being really judgmental about it.

If she was someone's unknown neighbor, no one would really say much. Maybe scratch their heads and say 'huh'

all the time.. people ( our friends)would look at us like we were aliens for not wanting kids.. no reason...just never felt the maternal instinct I guess.

That being said I have no problem with the Duggars wanting 20 kids..I know what they are going through in a way..and can sympathise with them..being trashed for something they want to do.

I don't judge people as long as they are not hurting anyone...though I do have concern the baby she might have might have problems or she might end up dead herself due to age issues.

sort of population growth. I think it's extremely selfish of them to have this many kids.

producing litters sure seems irresponsible.

Sure, she has a right to keep spitting out kids until her uterus falls out (and that has happened to people), but I've also got the right to say the Duggar's are gross and irresponsible. I don't know what they get out of it, except for more money for their tv show. Living in a house with 20 kids is pretty close to my idea of hell.

Everybody has a right to procreate as much as they want, but I think they're being irresponsible to future generations. The thing that really gets me about them is they're probably the kind of people who believe the hogwash that God made the Earth big enough for all of us to keep having babies willy-nilly until we cover every inch of the planet. That insanity needs to be called out and exposed for what it is.

If we try to reduce it to a "precious resources" calculus, then the we can make the exact same critique of any couple that has more than two children or, in fact, about any person who owns an iPhone or who lives beyond a certain arbitrarily chosen age. Anyone at all who uses more resources than they put into the system is guilty; it's only a matter of degree.


I accept that people sincerely believe that it's about short-changing future generations, but that line of reasoning strikes me as unpersuasive.

Overpopulation isn't a big problem in America, but it's the worst problem in lots of countries. If everybody had the same world view as the Duggars, this world would be in bad shape. We need to do all we can to discourage that type of behavior and the philosophy behind it. Sure, a lot of the things we do use a lot of resources and are unsustainable, but those problems are magnified exponentially when we keep having more children who do the same things. Overpopulation exacerbates all the most important environmental issues we face.

That is, people will put a brick in the toilet tank to cut down on water usage with each flush, but it doesn't actually make much of a difference if they don't make other changes as well.

Criticizing the Duggars for unfair consumption of resources (which is what the "future generations" argument really means) is equivalent to turning down an offered can of Zippy Cola because of some esoteric political maneuvering by the company 10 years ago and 12,000 miles away. It seems overly grandiose and unconvincing, especially when there are plenty of other reasons to take issue with it. I simply don't buy that it's truly the proximate cause of the criticism.


Again, I don't doubt that people sincerely believe that the Duggars are wasting the resources of future generations, but the same is true of any group of couples whose offspring outnumber the parents, though to a lesser degree. Should a couple with three children receive 5% of the criticism levelled a tthe Duggars?

What I mean when I say that it's irresponsible to future generations is that those kids will one day have offspring of their own and the number of family members grows much larger with every successive generation. The Duggar's aren't just making 20 babies for now. Their children aren't the end of the line and their effect on later generations won't end when they die. That's why the world population doubles in shorter and shorter intervals continually.

Our actions in our lifetimes don't cease to have an effect when we die. In some cases, as in bearing children, those negative actions continue to be magnified over and over with each new generation. Having large families is a 'gift' that keeps on giving. It's unsustainable behavior and it's hard to reverse the problems associated with overpopulation.

Be specific, please.



The fact that you consider "bearing children" to be "negative actions" is quite illuminating.

In addition, when a couple has that many children they are also forcing their own children to become parents to younger siblings when they are still children themselves. Parenting is the responsibility of the parents not their children.

Larger families were the norm years ago when there were higher infant mortality rates as well as needing help with family farms/businesses. Large families are no longer a necessity that they once were.

the biggest bunch of horseshit I have ever read on DU in my 8 years of participation here.

By definition their not the norm, and that makes them weird, strange, different whatever. Looks like they can support them, so what can ya do. Watch the show or don't.

That's my problem with her.

and especially the girls are being raised to think for themselves or believe that they can make their own choices.

I keep hoping at least one of them escapes.

or the Others get Arrested for Acting Out or having some signs of being Brainwashed then I would wonder why we spend our time focusing on THIS FAMILY and their CHOICE...

Just as I wouldn't want the Duggers coming after me for MY Choice of Family Size or a Gay Family Adopting or any of the other Open Choices we all make....WHY THE HECK Do we OBSESS about THEM?

They CHOSE their Marriage and Lifestyle. With SO MANY CHILDREN...and none are in trouble of have accused their parents of anything...then WHY DO WE OBSESS about them?

I have friends who only have two or three kids who are having terrible problems with them. Drugs being the first and Rebellion being the second...where the Parents are left with two are three kids to raise because their kid got into a romantic situation and was too young to deal with it. Parents are left with Grandkids and the kids just can't cope because they were doing what they though they should do...and thought they could handle it.
There's so much out there of kids having kids and not knowing what to do...and coming home and not able to cope.

I don't see that Duggar is beating his wife and abusing his kids or that the wife is beating the kids and "Family Service" is being called in constantly.

Frankly....it's THEIR CHOICE as to their Family Situation which we Lib Dems always used to support. CHOICE!

and no one can give 19 kids the emotional support they need.

I haven't watched the show in more than a year but I noticed that it was always the older girls taking care of the little ones and Michelle seemed very uninvolved - and that's with the cameras running.

As for choice - I don't see any sign that they're raising those kids to be able to make choices. Which is telling those kids that they can't be trusted. Jim Boob has said that while the girls are under his roof they obey him and when they marry they obey their husband. They're setting the girls up to be abused.

Good parents try to raise their children to think for themselves they don't raise them in a way that tells the child they can't be trusted.

that would place that many kids in one home.

No matter how well intentioned a couple may be it just isn't possible to give that many kids the attention they need.

They are not all young kids but range up to 25. And there are at least a couple grandkids.

At any rate, it is not a case of having that many kids in one home since many are not kids but adults.

group classified by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group.
So he's out of the house....
http://www.queerty.com/oldest-duggar-child-now-antigay-activist-will-the-other-18-follow-suit-20130618/

than they have so far. I had not known they had a "reality" tv show and feel they do not deserve it or any notice for doing what they do. People who go all "look at me, look at what we are doing!" raise my hackles, make me wonder WHY they are doing it. Is it because they believe in it or because they just like the attention. Giving attention seekers such as this more attention is unhelpful and unnecessary. IMO. Meaning the Family.

This one kid? ewwww. Being raised to be a jerk, to try and force your beliefs on others, especially in such a negative way, is not good.

that they're raising a whole mess of little non-thinking neoconservative hatemongers. With any luck, some of them will figure it out, but that's unlikely based on a lifetime of indoctrination.

but questionable. As a former child welfare worker, I have always been deeply skeptical of these people who adopt many children. They always get lots of kudos for helping the poor innocents, weren't they loving and giving, etc. I always found that it set of alarm bells for me. Kinda wondered who they were doing it for as it struck me it was more about them than about the chidren. Dunno, I just never liked it.

Yes, this is a generalization and does not apply across the board.

I watch the show every so often..girls seem happy and they can leave anytime...I don't think they are being abused..the older one who is now married seems happy.

I would not want my wife to be submissive Biblical type are but I have met plenty of women who came right out and said they want a husband who would make all the decisions, be the breadwinner and take care of everything.
Everyone is different.

Doesn't the fact that this family is ALWAYS happy seem a little odd? As if acting for the cameras, etc. or perhaps too afraid to show real emotion? Makes one wonder what really happens when the cameras stop rolling.

Have you ever seen a group of young children where one or two wasn't eventually crying for attention, etc.? Do you ever see the Duggar babies cry?

I'm sorry, but what they portray is just a little too "perfect" for me.

And how would the girls leave when they don't have the means and must obey their father?

I tell my wife all the time one day a Duggar child is going to write a tell all book spilling the beans or you will see a Duggar girl knocked up or the boys/girls being rebellious/jailed/drugs whatever..

It's long, but here is an excerpt on "happiness"


http://www.patheos.com/blogs/nolongerquivering/2012/02/carefully-scripted-lives-the-real-reality-of-the-duggar-family-blessings/

[div class = "excerpt"]
5. Emotional control

The Duggar children are also taught to carefully control their emotions, and emotions like anger or ingratitude are not acceptable. I’ve often heard people argue in favor of the Duggars by stating that “they look so happy!” Here is an excerpt from blogger Dulce, who was raised on the same teachings as the Duggars, dealing specifically with this issue:

"One of the creepiest things about Gothard and the Pearls is that they teach that happy is the only acceptable emotion. If you do not have a joyful countenance, you are publicly shaming your authorities. In other words, if the kid looks unhappy, it is a personal offense against the parents. Pearl also has nauseating quotes and anecdotes about how any time his kids expressed unhappiness or anger they were hit even harder and longer until they were cheerful. How twisted is that? Children are taught from babyhood to always be cheerful, or else they deserve a spanking. As they grow older, it is not just the fear of a spanking that causes them to keep smiling. It is the sincere belief that they are sinning with ingratitude, rebellion and more if they don’t present a happy face."

As I said earlier that a bad attitude is seen as rebellion, and immediately dealt with. I have no idea whether the Duggar children are happy or not, but I know that if they are unhappy they aren’t allowed to express it, especially for the TV cameras (being a Christian “witness” to the world and all that jazz).

Other than that, the kids seemed well adjusted and self-sufficient.

and they'll get a reality show, too.

and that's in part what my post is about. WHO ARE WE TO JUDGE?

If we can't get along with folks different from us then WTF happens to Civilization?

Family Research Council, a hate group which now employes the eldest Duggar offspring. Religion is not above criticism nor is religion allowed to attack others with impunity.
http://www.queerty.com/oldest-duggar-child-now-antigay-activist-will-the-other-18-follow-suit-20130618/

We judge the GOP. Pat Robertson. BP and KBR and BOA. Rush Limbaugh. The Teahadists. The list goes on and on. We are judgin' machines, and a good thing it is too. By your "logic" we should get along just fine with warmongers, genocidal maniacs, destroyers of the environment, racists, and homophobes too. 'Cuz who are we to judge?

Mommie Duggar doesn't get a break any more than Dick Cheney. They have the right to keep existing and spreading their poison, and we have the right to speak against their destructive, stupid philosophies.

spot-on target.

That is it in a nutshell.

I don't know the show. I imagine, to make it onto a "reality" TV show the family is probably odd, weird, eccentric. That's par for the course on those shows.

But they're also...(gasp!)...RELIGIOUS? Oh! The vapors! Think of the children!

NOBODY has the right to live by a religious code with which I disagree. That's not what Amurikka is 'bout.

I don't think some people on this board understand the difference between making comments on a website and actively interfering with private lives. Unlike the anti-abortion lunatics, we don't take any action. That doesn't mean we can't comment on these people who have put themselves out there on a "reality" show.

But, lordy, if some COULD...

Comments in this thread like:

I oppose anybody having any kids at all beyond 2. Better if you chose 0...but people who have 19! should be publicly-shamed into ceasing to procreate.

If I were the decider... I would have had her forcibly sterilized long ago. (paraphrased)


Those lead me to think that the only thing stopping some from FORCING these people to live the way we want is the pesky law.

That's just as bad as saying they want to forcibly prevent someone from having an abortion, and in my opinion whoever said that doesn't belong on this site.

The problem is they are part of the "Quiverfull" movement. A misogynistic fundamentalist sect whose plan is to out-breed the evil non-religious people and thus take over the country.

When the end goal of their religion is my execution, I'm not gonna just let them be.

Couldn't even bother googling Quiverfull, huh?

here: http://www.alternet.org/bizarre-christian-quiverfull-movement-pushing-women-procreate-gods-army

I had no idea. That is some seriously scary, twisted shit right there.

to want that many children. Maybe she just likes being pregnant. It was hell for me the two times I was pregnant. I had morning sickness all day.

...citizens don't make it their "Lifelong Duty" to have as many offspring as they can.

My opinion: Fuck the Sons-a-Bitches. (Not the children..the parents)

Not saying anyone has the right to take away a woman's right to choose. But she doesn't have the right to be shielded from criticism of her selfish choices.

environmental degradation being what they are, 20 children in this day and age seems excessive.

Back in the olden times when families did consist of many more children, infant mortality was a great deal higher and the extra hands helped work the farm as the U.S. was much more rural.

I don't know whether the Duggers are supporting their children on their own or depending on community outreach but if a sizable % of U.S. families had anywhere near the number of children as the Duggers, life would quickly become unsustainable.

Thanks for the thread, KoKo.

One or Two Child per Family some kind of prescription for World Health?

At least the Duggar's would have a few children left to "go forward" and the rest of us would have nothing left if a disaster wiped our families out.

Think about this. Denying the Duggars is sort of some kind of GENETIC SELETION?

They should have LESS because we Environmentalists choose to have only One or Two Children to lessen our burden on Earth's Resources?

Does this make SENSE?

that doesn't mean I can't criticize their choice.

Anyone's children or family could be wiped out in a flood, tornado or disaster but infant mortality rates aren't anywhere near what they used to be.

I don't have any children but I don't begrudge anyone for having them.

I don't see criticizing having excessive numbers of children in this case 19-20 as being some kind of genetic selection.

I do see human society in grave danger due to overpopulation, global warming and other forms of pollution.

I also believe overpopulation increases the chances that nations will resort to war over dwindling resources.

is the lowest it has been since the 1930s. I don't think the Duggars are going to break us.

have such large families. In the U.S., where the Duggars and I and you (?) live, they are not the norm and it's pointless to say "well what if more people did that" because the fact is they don't. The stats show us that. It's a non-issue.

Even as the U.S. and developed nations growth "rate" slow down, the populations are still increasing, so it's still a growing issue.

Furthermore norms aren't static, culture and society shape and influence them, the norm in the 19th century U.S. was for much larger families than we have today.

The Duggers having their own reality television program basically promoting an extra large family which serves to shape or influence our norms, some people will emulate that pattern.

The way I see it, we have two choices, either say great to each their own and to hell with it or we can criticize excess in the hopes of nipping that kind of influence in the bud, which in turn helps to shape our norms.

I'm not suggesting no one has the right to have how ever many children they want, but I'm also a strong believer in the 1st Amendment and if the people wish to criticize or praise behaviour they have every right to do so.

Genetic selection? How?

Everyone should have less than 19-20 children! Preferably only 2 at the most.

Do you know of some disaster that's going to wipe out 17 children of every family with 19-20 of them?

Hmmmm...so a woman's right to choose stops at two huh?

This issue is being argued by the OP as that, but that's not my criticism. See this post, I already wrote it all out.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3818880

I am a woman and there is no way this is about a woman's right to choose. And btw... from what I've read about this family this particular woman does not have any choice in this. So making it about a woman's choice is pretty ironic.

But if you want my full opinion please see my linked post.

So then, you fully support a woman's right to make her own reproductive choices until such time as she makes a choice you disagree with, and at that point she becomes a planet destroying monster.

That about right?

I think it makes her and her husband selfish and irresponsible. And probably ignorant. I would like to think that educated people would understand how an ecosystem works and that there are things it just can't handle. Overpopulation being one of the biggest things it can't handle.

I just like to think about other people and their needs besides myself and mine. I'm not so self absorbed that I would choose to do something reckless that could harm the whole of humanity. I like to think of the whole planet that hopefully many generations will be able to enjoy if we take care of it properly.

That's the same reason why I choose to reuse plastic bags/baggies until they get holes in them, turn out lights I don't need, use energy saving light bulbs, recycle everything I can, use as little paper as I can, etc... etc... etc... I'm not perfect but I make an attempt in pretty much every thing I do not to waste. It does not make my life easier at all, in fact it kind of adds more work and clutter, but I do it because it's the right thing to do.

I can't force anyone else to do it, but I can certainly be critical of them not thinking beyond their immediate world and not considering how their actions affect others.

It's the difference of having the "I can do anything I want and you can't tell me what to do" attitude and having a "I would love to do this but I won't do it because I care about how my actions affect my community and the world".

... based on your stated fear that the Duggers will singlehandedly wipe out all life on Earth.

Uncontrolled population growth is not a serious issue in most of the developed world. Japan and several European countries are experiencing population declines. The majority of US families since the 1950s have limited themselves to 1 to 3 children. Many choose to have none. As contraception becomes more available in the developing world birth rates will decline there also. So for a few families to choose to have a large number of children is hardly world threatening.

One of the things that we all need is other people. People to make all the things we don't have the ability or time to make for ourselves, to purchase the goods or services that we can provide, to help us as we age. If no one has children where do those other people come from?

The population is growing at a rate that the earth just can't sustain.

If we can get contraception to people in developing countries population growth will stop there also. We could see the world population begin to shrink in the next few decades.

who think like the Duggars and gum up the works when we try to include birth control products and education into aid packages.

re the evils of abortion? Of course she grieved the loss of that fetus ... she also used it in her efforts to demonize women who are pro-choice.

If you want to criticize her stance on reproductive rights by all means do so. That's certainly valid. What isn't valid is criticizing her for *her* reproductive choices.

Nobody here as far as I know is using their fame to stop her from doing anything.

Unlike:

http://www.duggarfamily.com/content/tennessee-abortion-rally

Michelle and Jim Bob Rally for Tennessee Abortion Rally

Brimstone Services

October 8, 2013

Nashville, Tenn. - October 8, 2013 - Michelle and Jim Bob Duggar of the popular TLC program "19 Kids and Counting" are taking a stand against Tennessee's abortion policy, publicly campaigning for the Tennessee Abortion Amendment, also known as Amendment 1, which will be voted on during the November 2014 general election. Their first stop will be the "Heartbeats for Life" event on Monday, Nov. 4, exactly one year before the vote, at Cornerstone Church in Madison, Tenn.

A Tennessee Supreme Court ruling in 2000 interpreted the state constitution to include greater protections for abortion than the United States Constitution. The proposed amendment would allow lawmakers to require a waiting period prior to an abortion, place greater restrictions on later-term abortions and draft rules on what doctors are required to tell women prior to an abortion.

The Duggars, known for their pro-life stance, support the amendment and will be keynote speakers at the "Heartbeats for Life" fundraiser sponsored by Heartbeat Haven pregnancy center on Nov. 4. Michelle Duggar comments, "We are so excited to be coming to help kick off the push to get Amendment 1 passed. Since the extremely liberal state Supreme Court ruled in 2000 that the state of Tennessee cannot put any regulations on abortion, Tennessee has become an abortion procedure destination."



I don’t think it’s anyone’s business to tell parents who have suffered a miscarriage how to behave. People express grief in all sorts of ways, even ways you might consider distasteful. That said, a video message to miscarried baby Jubilee Shalom Duggar strikes me as pro-life messaging first and foremost. “So often in society, babies are looks on as a problem, trial or responsibility,” mama Michelle Duggar reads, “but God says babies are a blessing. We do not believe that babies are a bother or a headache, a financial drainer or a career interrupter.” What a lovely way to honor Jubiliee: by guilt-tripping other women who have terminated unwanted pregnancies!

The video’s image alone is of extremely tiny baby fingers touching an adult hand, which is one of the most commonly used images of pro-lifers. Even though the majority of abortions occur during the first trimester, when the fetus mostly a combination of cells, emotion-exploiting pro-lifers will use pictures of premature babies with fully-formed hands and feet to try to scare people into thinking they’re killing a tiny person.

Like I said, grieve however you want. But don’t try to pretend this “video message to Jubilee” is actually a video message to Jubiliee, as opposed to what it really is: pro-life propaganda exploiting the family’s miscarriage. (Also: if you or someone you love has experienced a miscarriage, it’s probably not a good idea to listen to this video which, at certain points, is actually quite sweet and touching.) [Vimeo via Jezebel]

http://www.thefrisky.com/2011-12-28/duggar-family-sends-video-message-with-anti-abortion-undertones-to-miscarried-baby-jubilee/


In a Room Crowded With Duggars, Ohio Republicans Pledge to Reintroduce Heartbeat Ban

Robin Marty

by Robin Marty

August 16, 2013 - 9:35 am

834 133 1516 The Duggars at the "Stand For Life" rally in Austin, Texas, on July 8.

The Duggars at the "Stand For Life" rally in Austin, Texas, on July 8. (Laurie Bartlett / YouTube)

Calling it “round two in the state of Ohio,” state Rep. Christina Hagan (R-Alliance) led a Thursday afternoon press conference to announce that the state’s notorious heartbeat bill will be reintroduced in the house. If passed, the bill would make abortion illegal at as early as four weeks past conception (six weeks after the patient’s last menstrual period), before many people are aware they are pregnant.

“We are ready to start the fire again, and we are ready to go to battle for what we believe is most important in this world, and that is life,” said Hagan at the press conference, which was filled with reporters as well as members of the Duggar family, reality television stars who have become some of the new faces of the evangelical anti-choice movement.

Speaking in favor of the ban was Michelle Duggar, matriarch of the 19 Kids and Counting family. With 17 of her 19 children in tow, Duggar spoke against the “baby holocaust” occurring in the United States, a talking point she also used at a Texas press event roughly a month ago: “There is a baby holocaust taking place, where doctors and nurses are paid to take the lives of innocent, unborn children. … If we do not speak up and do something to stop this holocaust, the blood of these little ones will be on our hands.”

http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2013/08/16/in-a-room-crowded-with-duggars-ohio-republicans-pledge-to-reintroduce-heartbeat-ban/

Interesting.

excessively procreate is when they produce more kids then they can afford to take care of physically and monetarily.

Yes people do have the right to choose how many children they want to have, however, they do not have any right to make demands on society to help support an endless number of kids. Society has a right to tell irresponsible parent(s) that we have no interest in funding your poor choices.

to Provide for their Kids. Now...some might say the RW supports the whole family as a Show Piece.

STILL ...I think going after them for THEIR FAMILY CHOICE...makes us Dems look like we don't hold true to the PRINCIPLES we espouse about "CHOICE FOR FEMALES!"

The argument could be made that any children at all are to many if you can't support them strictly on your own. You sound like you'd defund any aid to families with children.

with children. However, if a family is forced to apply for aid because one or more parent is not able to obtain a job that pays enough to support the family, does it make sense if they choose to continue to have children? We live in really tough times and a lot of families have a really tough time making ends meet. As the saying goes, when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

Just because you can procreate does not mean that you should. Somewhere you need to add common sense to the equation.

Higher? Lower?

government benefits because one or more parent is not able to obtain a job with income sufficient to support the family then it would be the extreme height of irresponsibility to have any additional children as long as they are on public assistance because they are not adequately supporting their existing family. These are tough times and it is very hard for families to obtain jobs that allow a family to take care of itself. As I said before, if you are standing in a hole, stop digging.

Government assistance is there to help people when they suffer really tough times. It exists as a safety net. How on earth do you expect a family on public assistance to be able to work their way out of their predicament if they continue to have children?

Think about what you're saying here.

pop out babies left and right and then tell society that society is now responsible for financing this population outbreak? At what point do you finally see that the selfish, self-centered, irresponsible behavior of others infringes on the rights of society to now have to pay for the folly of others?

If the adults in a family find themselves unemployed (to no fault of their own) and are forced to turn to the safety net, do you think that it a good time for them to add to their family?

Just because a person or couple has the physical ability to procreate does not necessarily mean that it is always the smart move to do so. There is a long term cost in terms of time and money every time a baby is born.

The attitude of others that people have the absolute right to procreate as many times as they want with total disregard of the consequences totally boggles my mind. It reminds me of the Catholic Church who has, for centuries, told their members go forth and have as many babies as God sends you with the inference of don't worry if you can't take care of all your children because we expect society to do that for you.

Actions have consequences and it is not too much to expect adults to act in a responsible manner. That is what adulthood is supposed to be about.

take care of a child then the parent (or parents) should lose all parental rights and the child put up for adoption. There are a lot of couples out there who want children but are unable to have their own. Children should not suffer the consequences of being born to irresponsible parents but deserve a better life.

Watch where you're going. I can't believe I'm seeing this kind of attitude on a PROGRESSIVE message board. A kid can't grow up with his/er own parents because daddy didn't use a condom when the family was in down times and they wanted some fun?

Watch where you're going. Will we still be a nation of due process and rule of law if you had your way?

And no, putting kids up for adoption is not easy as pie. Look up how foster care/being a ward of the state works. The reality is too damn grim for me to describe any further.

planet and all life forms outweighs the "right" for humans to act in an irresponsible manner that is detrimental to everyone and everything else. Humans are the only creatures that intentionally kill off other life forms. Humans, as a whole, are the most short sighted, destructive entities on the planet. Look at all the life forms that are now extinct due to being hunted to death (or on the verge of extinction), destruction to our environment, religious obsessions that result in endless conflict, hourding of wealth by the few who could care less about the masses, and so on.

For those who claim to be devote Christians and think that it is their right to maintain dominion over the planet, they seem to forget that they are supposed to be good stewards of the lands. If the human race actually thinks that it can continue to go down its current course without consequences they are delusional. Some things will always be beyond the ability of humans to control.

Right here on DU.

(and it may be for a real need due to job loss) would you approve it if the person:
1. Bought a new car?
2. Bought season tickets to a local sports team?
3. Went on a shopping spree at the local mall?
4. Took a vacation to Las Vegas?

Most people would agree that the above listed items could be perceived to be irresponsible if a person is on public assistance (full or partial). So why does it become acceptable for a person or a couple to make a conscious decision to have a baby when the person or couple is not able to take care of herself or themself? If a person or couple is not (are not) able to take care of herself (themselves), one could make an arguement that to bring another life into the world is a selfish act.

A woman or a couple have every right to decide how many children they want to have. When the decision impacts society then society has a right to point out the parent(s) irresponsibility. Actions always come with consequences.

Even if they do take $$ from social programs.

To me it is more people than can be properly loved and emotionally supported. At this point, there are so many children in the house, it's akin to an orphanage as far as personal attention.

and I will leave it at that.

but Dems are about Variety of Choices...Repugs want to CHOOSE FOR US!

They are the DECIDERS!

I go with FREEDOM OF CHOICE for CITIZENS to DECIDE!

Discovery Channel portrays the Duggars as merely a family making a choice to have a lot of kids! Isn't that special! And look how happy they all are! Watch them go skating! And plant apples! In their big fancy house! It's a farce. There's more than nothing wrong with it. It's worth pointing out exactly what their movement stands for. It's obvious many people don't realize it, with all the people claiming it's just a choice!

I am serious.

http://www.amazon.com/Quiverfull-Inside-Christian-Patriarchy-Movement/dp/0807010731

If she did this without trying hard to impose this on the rest of us, I am all for choices. But the moment she, and her husband, use it to promote a movement that goes against the grain of a secular society based on science, I take issue.

She can have as many kids as god wants to give her, just don't push that on me.