Mentally Ill Woman Gives Birth To 16th Child

[The Central Scrutinizer]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/parenting/10/12/sixteen.kids.ap/index.html


"We both just love children and we consider each a blessing from the Lord. I have asked Michelle if she wants more and she said yes, if the Lord wants to give us some she will accept them," he said in a telephone interview.


Unbelievable. :boggled:

[BPSCG]

Unbelievable. :boggled:Well, if they're not on welfare, that's their business, now isn't it? Though they might want to get their biology straight about where kids come from.

[TragicMonkey]

Though they might want to get their biology straight about where kids come from.

You know it's too many kids when the pope suggests you might want to start using birth control.

[sophia8]

Objection! The description of "mentally ill" applied to the woman in the report is clearly a personal opinion of the poster and not based on any facts presented here.
That aside, I'd like to hear from the woman herself, (preferably after she's had about six weeks of getting only two hours of sleep at a time). A woman who say "it's God's will", whether she's talking about the umpteenth pregnancy or the umpteenth time her drunken husband has kicked her down the stairs, makes me want to batter the silly cow to death with my first-edition copy of "The Womens Room".
If she actually wants lots of kids, is happy having lots of kids, is freely choosing to devote 19 hours a day to looking after said kids - that's fine by me. But doing it because her church, her husband, her family, her community, some ancient weirdy-beardy up in the sky, TELLS her to?

[Melendwyr]

I must concur. Just because she does something crazy does not mean that she can be accurately described as 'mentally ill'. That judgment is completely unjustified given the available evidence.

[pgwenthold]

It reminds me of the (likely apocryphal) exchange from "You Bet Your Life." There is a contestant with 11 kids.

"11 children? Why do you have so many?"
"Well, Groucho, I love my husband."
"I love my cigar, too, but I take it out of my mouth once in a while."

[Jas]

Well, I'd attach the label of 'mentally ill' after one, but that's just me

[toddjh]

Well, I'd attach the label of 'mentally ill' after one, but that's just me

On the one hand, that's unfair.

On the other hand, :clap:.

Jeremy

[slingblade]

If she's "mentally ill" for bearing 16 children.....then he's mentally ill for inflicting such abuse on his wife's body, and on his other children. More so, actually, since he thinks some invisible man in the sky is really responsible.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Objection! The description of "mentally ill" applied to the woman in the report is clearly a personal opinion of the poster and not based on any facts presented here.

It's based entirely on the facts presented here. If you have 16 kids in 17 years, and still want more, there is something wrong with you. In your brain. I.e., a mental illness.

[Melendwyr]

It's based entirely on the facts presented here. If you have 16 kids in 17 years, and still want more, there is something wrong with you. In your brain. I.e., a metal [sic] illness. Well, that's no more invalid than the general use of the phrase.

It's no more valid, either.

[slingblade]

It's based entirely on the facts presented here. If you have 16 kids in 17 years, and still want more, there is something wrong with you. In your brain. I.e., a metal illness.

Really? What's it called? What's the DSM4 say about it? Axis assessment?

You think there's something wrong with a woman having 16 children. That's an opinion.

And yes, it's sexist, mostly because you place the responsibility for the children solely on her, and unless she's had 16 virgin births, there's another party who's equally responsible whom you don't accuse of any illness.

Guess that pesky pukin' penis just wanders in there all by itself, does it?

But also because you can't fathom that there might be, in the wide range of all human behavior, at least some women who enjoy pregnancy and children and engage often in creating them. I don't know that this woman is one of them; there's the possibility that she's not having all that much fun, the possibility of abuse or coercion, the possibility of anything. But I don't know her. Neither do you.

The other end of the spectrum, not wanting any children, is applauded, I note.
Not called "mentally ill," but celebrated. Interesting.

[Meadmaker]

I dated a girl in high school who was the 9th child out of 17 in her family.

There was absolutely nothing mentally ill about her, or her parents. When she got married, she invited me, a few other close friends, and her family.

It wasn't a big wedding, but it was medium sized.

ETA: There were no twins in my friend's family. There were 17 separate pregnancies, over a period of 20 years.

They were Catholic.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

They were Catholic.

Like I said - mentally ill.

[Tanja]

She is no more mentally ill for having 16 chidren than I am for having none at the age of 30.
Some people love having children and are able to bring up a large family.

[username]

Mentally ill implies something physically wrong with her brain.

I think this woman is simply a religious wacko like many other religious wackos who do things that the average person just shakes their head at.

I think the root of this woman's behavior (and her husbands for that matter) is not caused by any mental illness, but to the casual observer it looks about the same.

Perhaps instead of calling her mentally ill, which isn't supportable by the evidence presented, we use a less formal term which is "batsh|t crazy".

I think that term fits well, although I do have to say that since they aren't milking the welfare system to support the kids it really is their business and nobody else's.

[TragicMonkey]

I feel sorry for the kids, though. How much attention can they possibly get from their parents when they have to compete with 15 siblings? How well can the parents actually get to know their own kids with that many? How well can the parents know what the heck is going on with the kid from day to day? Hell, how long could one of them be missing before the parents noticed?

[Meadmaker]

I feel sorry for the kids, though. How much attention can they possibly get from their parents when they have to compete with 15 siblings? How well can the parents actually get to know their own kids with that many? How well can the parents know what the heck is going on with the kid from day to day? Hell, how long could one of them be missing before the parents noticed?

The girl I dated from that family with 17 children didn't have those problems. I knew several family members, and they didn't seem to suffer from neglect. All the brothers and sisters knew each other pretty well, and that seemed to really compensate for whatever parental time they lacked. It was true that the parents didn't have much time to dote on a particular report card or school play, but the mother and father certainly knew all their children, and the children knew their mother and father.

Frankly, I would say that in comparing their family to an average family in my small town, I think those kids might have had an above-average level of parental involvement in their lives.

[Jorghnassen]

If having 16 children means mentally ill, it implies it's very likely one or many of your ancestors was mentally ill... It also means J.S. Bach was mentally ill...
While having many kids in today's society seems off the norm, it used to be that having many kids was wealth back when the country was undeveloped and being colonized (it meant more people to help you work now or later and to take care of you when you're old). Somehow, nowadays, having kids has become a bad thing according to a significant portion of the population. While it's true that some people carelessly reproduce, this particular example does not appear to be the case.

[BPSCG]

And I'll bet all the kids have certain assigned duties depending on age; the older ones probably do a lot of the chores, middle ones do some babysitting for the youngest and do the laundry, and the ten-year-olds set the dinner table and clean up afterwards. I used to know a couple who had five kids in their four-bedroom townhouse, and that was exactly the way they did it. And (this is starting to sound like a broken record) the kids were pretty responsible, well-behaved, and well-adjusted.

Not to say I'd want to have a family like that. But to claim, in the absence of any info to the contrary, that the mother is mentally ill, is saying more than you know.

[TragicMonkey]

Not to say I'd want to have a family like that. But to claim, in the absence of any info to the contrary, that the mother is mentally ill, is saying more than you know.

That's what I was thinking, until I realized that I assume anyone with more than three cats is a little nutty.

[Metullus]

That's what I was thinking, until I realized that I assume anyone with more than three cats is a little nutty.
Technically speaking, anyone with any cats is squirrel-bait.

[Skeptic]

That this family is, by today's standards in the west, odd and/or eccentric, yes. But mentally ill? No, not unless 98% of the world's population before the 20th century, and at least 80% of the world today, is mentally ill.

Perhaps the world we're looking for is irresponsible, in the sense of having more kids than one can afford. But I have not seen anything in this report that indicates that is the case. Are they on welfare? Are the children ill-fed and ill-clothed?

ETA: Hmmmm, why do I get the feeling that if the woman lived with another three women and two men in a relation that included massive amounts of of sadomasochistic homosexual sex, that would have not been evidence of anything being wrong with her.

Apparently, all "families" of whatever sort are equal and normal... except the traditional religious one, which is a sign of mental illness.

[Cleon]

While I don't think I'd go so far as to call this family "traditional," there is certainly no evidence that they're mentally ill. Unusual, yes. A little weird, yes. Religious, yes. But not mentally ill--unless someone has a diagnosis from a qualified psychotherapist they're not sharing?

[Jorghnassen]

While I don't think I'd go so far as to call this family "traditional," there is certainly no evidence that they're mentally ill. Unusual, yes. A little weird, yes. Religious, yes. But not mentally ill--unless someone has a diagnosis from a qualified psychotherapist they're not sharing?

Oh, they definitely are of an older kind of traditional ;).

[TragicMonkey]

That this family is, by today's standards in the west, odd and/or eccentric, yes. But mentally ill? No, not unless 98% of the world's population before the 20th century, and at least 80% of the world today, is mentally ill.

Sixteen children by the same woman would have been extraordinary in the past, too. Women that fertile would most likely have died in childbirth before they reached their sixteenth kid. She also would have lost a few of the children to early deaths.

[headscratcher4]

I posted this somewhere else too...but I thought those following this thread would enjoy it as well...below is a clip from the Duggar family website...below that is a wonderful link that I think says it all about the Duggar family.

Welcome to the Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar Family website!
Our prayer is that all who view this site will realize that we are ordinary people with our individual weaknesses and imperfections but yet we serve an extraordinary GOD who delights in demonstrating His great power! "And He said unto me, my grace is sufficient for thee for my strength is made perfect in weakness, most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities that the power of Christ may rest upon me." 2 Corinthians 12:9 We trust that you will find strength and encouragement from HIM who is "able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask..."

Grace and Peace, Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar Family
P.S. We hope that the links on our website will be a source of help to you as they have been to us.

Family Favorite websites:

http://www.wholesomewear.com/

[Dr Adequate]

Really? What's it called? What's the DSM4 say about it? Polyphiloprogenitive disorder. It's in the appendix, just under "chronic neogeocreationism".

[Meadmaker]

And I'll bet all the kids have certain assigned duties depending on age; the older ones probably do a lot of the chores, middle ones do some babysitting for the youngest and do the laundry, and the ten-year-olds set the dinner table and clean up afterwards. I used to know a couple who had five kids in their four-bedroom townhouse, and that was exactly the way they did it. And (this is starting to sound like a broken record) the kids were pretty responsible, well-behaved, and well-adjusted.

Not to say I'd want to have a family like that. But to claim, in the absence of any info to the contrary, that the mother is mentally ill, is saying more than you know.

That's how it worked in my friend's family. As soon as they were old enough to fold laundry, they started folding laundry. But they still had plenty of time to play. Everyone did his chores, and there was still plenty of time left over. The mom even worked part time. The mom and dad were both CPAs. She worked part time from home.

Once people started moving out, they always held an annual family reunion, and had a basketball game. Two of the older ones were assigned as coaches, and they rotated players in and out to make sure that everyone got enough playing time.

Well put on that last point.

[sophia8]

And I'll bet all the kids have certain assigned duties depending on age; the older ones probably do a lot of the chores, middle ones do some babysitting for the youngest and do the laundry, and the ten-year-olds set the dinner table and clean up afterwards. I used to know a couple who had five kids in their four-bedroom townhouse, and that was exactly the way they did it. And (this is starting to sound like a broken record) the kids were pretty responsible, well-behaved, and well-adjusted.

That was pretty much how I organised things with my four kids. Each child, once it got to the age of eight or so, had responsibility for cleaning a certain section of the house once a week, and each was on a daily washing-up rota. I am proud of having raised a son who can clean a toilet without being nagged! And the eldest, once she got to about 14, babysat the younger ones.
Yes, this woman undoubtedly has everyone on a rota - you have to have everything in a large family very organised.. But even so, she can't have any time at all for herself. Much as I loved my kids, I loved the times when they were out of my hair just as much.

[Skeptic]

Sixteen children by the same woman would have been extraordinary in the past, too. Women that fertile would most likely have died in childbirth before they reached their sixteenth kid. She also would have lost a few of the children to early deaths.

Exactly--my point is that her behavior (essentially, a pregnancy every year) would be normal; the result (sixteen living children) would be exceptional in the past, but only because external circumstances (the rate of infant mortality and death in childbirth) had changed.

A woman like her in 1800 would have been considered extraordinarily lucky, but her behavior would not have be different than that of her neighbors.

[hodgy]

I think that its reasonable (though not especially interesting) to criticise that family's religious beliefs. To infer some sort of mental illness from the size of the family is just ridiculous (and a very non-rational approach). There was a clear attempt to snidely infer mental problems by linking the 2 facts, I think that was intellectually dishonest. There are very many benefits of a large family - many of them have been pointed out in other posts.

[Art Vandelay]

So do these people have a plan for college?

Exactly--my point is that her behavior (essentially, a pregnancy every year) would be normal; the result (sixteen living children) would be exceptional in the past, but only because external circumstances (the rate of infant mortality and death in childbirth) had changed.

A woman like her in 1800 would have been considered extraordinarily lucky, but her behavior would not have be different than that of her neighbors.
And what if your logic is applied to people that weigh upwards of 500 pounds? Their behavior (eating as much as they possibly can) is no different from what people 200 years ago did, only the result is different. There's a saying that insanity means doing the same thing and expecting different results, but doing the same thing in different circumstances and expecting the same results is equally insane. People acted the way they did 200 years ago because of the results. The distinction of "external circumstances" is silly. External circumstances are part of behavior. "Behavior" is defined as "The actions or reactions of a person or animal in response to external or internal stimuli". If I shoot a gun at a firing range, I'm engaging in target practice. If I shoot a gun into a crowd, I'm engaging in murder. The nature of my actions are defined in terms of external circumstances. It's silly to try to evaluate actions divorced from their context.

[Meadmaker]

So do these people have a plan for college?


In my friend's case, none of them got help from the family on college expenses, but most of them ended up graduating from college. I think there were 7 CPAs in the family. Mom and dad were both CPAs.

I know I wouldn't live like that, and college planning is one of the things that would make me not want to have all those kids, but to say that such a thing is bizarre or a sign of mental illness is just wrong.

I haven't been in touch with the family, including my friend, for about 15 years. When I lost touch she was 25. Her youngest sister was 16. Her oldest brother was about 36. There were only 12 grandchildren in the family. None of the kids raised with 16 siblings wanted a large family themselves.

[Skeptic]

So do these people have a plan for college?

Is going to college some sort of inalinable right all children must have? How about a flat screen TV and a private room? By the way, it IS possible to go to college even without mommy and daddy's help.

[Mephisto]

If the family is self-sufficient, I can't see where anyone has a say in what they do. My personal opinion is that IF she is mentally ill, it likely has nothing to do with the amount of children she has - they are more manifestations of a symptom.

If they also have friends, neighbors and relatives who think in similar ways they'd be able to:

Start their own ball league

Start their own religion (although they would end up riding a comet in a purple robe or showing the gross inadequacies of the FBI, ATF and the DEA through the death of too many innocents)

Run a corporate farm

Change the vote in their small town

Start a religous crime syndicate

Hole up in them thar hills

Clean the guns until the Lord call em

Wait until Jenna or Barbara become President so the whole family can get drafted and put into the "Sullivan Brigade" in the war to promote Democracy in Venezuela.

Sit around and wait for a dead lamb with seven horns and seven eyes to pull the seals off a scroll . . . talk about "intelligent" design!

[slingblade]

And what if your logic is applied to people that weigh upwards of 500 pounds? Their behavior (eating as much as they possibly can) is no different from what people 200 years ago did, only the result is different.

Wow, that's nicely convoluted. *applause* I can't tell from that phrasing exactly where you're mocking his argument, and where you're making your own. Either way, you've managed to misunderstand.

There's a saying that insanity means doing the same thing and expecting different results, but doing the same thing in different circumstances and expecting the same results is equally insane. People acted the way they did 200 years ago because of the results.

Peope also acted the way they did 200 years ago because they often had no choice. 200 years ago, there were very few methods of birth control, none of them as reliable as the common methods that are available now, and few or none of them socially permissible. In certain socio-cultural and economic strata, women were expected to be submissive and in obedience to their husbands. Certain religious sects preached that a woman owed a sexual duty to her husband, and the risks of pregnancy and death she took were God's will and not to be denied or resisted. Even Protestant sects were often against birth control then, not just Catholics, because children were, again, manifestations of God's will, as was their survival or death.

The distinction of "external circumstances" is silly. External circumstances are part of behavior. "Behavior" is defined as "The actions or reactions of a person or animal in response to external or internal stimuli". If I shoot a gun at a firing range, I'm engaging in target practice. If I shoot a gun into a crowd, I'm engaging in murder. The nature of my actions are defined in terms of external circumstances. It's silly to try to evaluate actions divorced from their context.

I don't see where he was trying to divorce the actions from their context, but rather to re-situate them in our post-modern context. We have birth control now, so having that many children seems, to many of us, to be foolish, selfish, abberant behavior. That, and we've largely changed how much we allow religion to dictate our behavior. Even the most devout Christians are more likely now to approve of some form of birth control than they would have been 200 years ago.

All Skeptic is saying is that sixteen pregnancies would have been, if not "normal," then surely not unusual 200 years ago. However, sixteen living children would have been somewhat unusual, because children simply didn't survive birth or infancy then with the same regularity they do now.

It only seems unusual to us today, because the external impetus for having so many children has changed.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Mentally Ill Woman Gives Birth To 17th Child (http://www.cnn.com/2007/LIVING/personal/08/03/17.kids.ap/index.html)

And after Jennifer Danielle was born Thursday morning, her parents already were talking about having more children.

"We'd love to have more," Michelle Duggar said...

Unbelievable. :boggled:

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I am going to laugh when the youngest sons turn out to be gay.

[EBU]

Did those of you who think this woman is taking on a little too much work notice that she also home schools all the children?

[geni]

Unbelievable. :boggled:

Actualy it would appear to be a highly effective method of maximiseing the chanches of your gentic info continueing to exist,

[Carnegiea]

So, do you think these kids have many friends outside of whatever church this family hits up for donations? They're all home schooled and live on a sort of isolated compound without much chance to interact with children from more conventional families or people who aren't blood relatives. I guess The Learning Channel's camera crews give them some exposure to normal people, but still.

Look at how they're dressed. All the boys have identical haircuts circa 1955 and all the girls all look like they've been pulled from the set of Little House on The Prairie. All their names start with 'J'. At best, this is creepy, and at worst this is indoctrinating them into the same sort of weirdo belief system their parents have.

Yeah, I'm sure they'll do fine once they're out in the real world.

[TragicMonkey]

Further evidence in the "Crazy" column is that all the children's names start with the same letter.

They should have started with Adam, and then moved down one letter each kid.

They'd be on "Quentina" by now.

[UnrepentantSinner]

So, do you think these kids have many friends outside of whatever church this family hits up for donations? They're all home schooled and live on a sort of isolated compound without much chance to interact with children from more conventional families or people who aren't blood relatives. I guess The Learning Channel's camera crews give them some exposure to normal people, but still.

Look at how they're dressed. All the boys have identical haircuts circa 1955 and all the girls all look like they've been pulled from the set of Little House on The Prairie. All their names start with 'J'. At best, this is creepy, and at worst this is indoctrinating them into the same sort of weirdo belief system their parents have.

Yeah, I'm sure they'll do fine once they're out in the real world.

That's my thought exactly.

[Luciana]

How about being the last of a very large family? That's the current case of my 85yo grandma.

My Great grandmother had 21 children, but only 10 made into adulthood. This was circa 1920s, 1930s, in a rural area of the poorest region in Brazil. The family was wealthy in relation to that small town.

Actually, there was some sort of competition between my great grandmother and another lady who also had 21 children. Unlike granny, who was creative in choosing names, this lady found an interesting method... French numbers. Her kids were Un, Deux, Trois, Quatre, etc. My mother, as a kid, was friends with Dix-huit, a kind of "uncle" who lived next door. Dix-sept died in a plane crash, Vingt-Un became a Congressman, etc.

Not only her siblings, but the house was populated with children of poorer relatives or orphaned kids of the neighborhood. It was all one big family.

But now my grandmother, 85, is the last. Fortunately, she's living with two of her children - she had 8 of her own -, otherwise she'd feel so lonely.

[Luciana]

Look at how they're dressed. All the boys have identical haircuts circa 1955 and all the girls all look like they've been pulled from the set of Little House on The Prairie. All their names start with 'J'. At best, this is creepy, and at worst this is indoctrinating them into the same sort of weirdo belief system their parents have.
.

I believe you're extrapolating. The haircuts and clothes could be an effect for the camera, plus old-fashioned tastes common in smaller communities. Do kids visit their mama in the hospital with muddy clothes?

And what's creepy about names starting in J?? It's not that sophisticated, but countless families do that. Some families choose to name kids after grandparents, some choose because it's fashionable, some choose because they like it. Those guys chose J, what's the problem? Some names are tacky indeed, like Joy-anna, but it's hardly the worst.

As for the religion part... is it my impression or people in this forum are quicker at ascribing negative traits to Catholics than to Protestants? Could it be because most come from Protestant families themselves, and even though they might be skeptics/atheists, still see the Catholics as them and have been conditioned to criticize them?

I point that out not because of this thread alone, but as a general trend in this forum. Perhaps this is another topic.

[T.A.M.]

To call this woman "mentally ill" is the start of a slippery slope I do not think we should go down.

Eccentric, perhaps, out of the norm...definitely.

If we call her mentally ill, then what next? Do we then call the Amish "mentally ill" for their ways...so different, perhaps even backward, compared to most of societies? What about Polygamists and their families? Is it different than our way of life...yes. Is Polygamy wrong? That is an opinion pov, and a religious one for the most part.

Unless someone can show me facts that prove she has a DSM IV diagnosis, I think the label of "mentally ill" should be dropped.

TAM:)

[SezMe]

In my opinion, no responsible couple has more than replacement, namely, 2. The world simply cannot sustain people who act so irresponsibly.

[UnrepentantSinner]

I believe you're extrapolating. The haircuts and clothes could be an effect for the camera, plus old-fashioned tastes common in smaller communities. Do kids visit their mama in the hospital with muddy clothes?

I've seen video footage of them. The photo captures how the children are dressed accurately. And those sorts of clothing are only seen on girls in areas were there's Amish or Fundamentalist LDS, not in any other small town I'm aware of.

The clothes are a loud "creepy" claxon.

[timhau]

How do the parents feed all those people? Or did they used to have 18 kids?

[Zep]

I have a sneaking suspicion that momma still doesn't quite understand how she gets pregnant; the Lord just keeps making her so, so that MUST be the right thing to happen. Poppa's "visits" are simply part of her "womanly duties, as the Lord hath spake".

Next up, Incest! The game the whole family can play!

[UnrepentantSinner]

How do the parents feed all those people? Or did they used to have 18 kids?

Help from their cult church and living frugally apparently.

I did a Google search to see if I could find anything but I got distracted by this thread on the Discovery message boards (http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/8981916228/m/7181998219).

I admire the Duggars. They raise their children to love and respect each other and other people. They raise them to know God, and how many children Michelle & Jim have is really their business, not anyone elses. I personnally would love to meet them, they seem like an awesome family to me. I pray God continues to Bless them. As long as Michelle is healthy, I hope she can continue to expand their family if that is what they want. To those who think they have enough....we all have opinions....we don't have to always speak.

[geni]

In my opinion, no responsible couple has more than replacement, namely, 2. The world simply cannot sustain people who act so irresponsibly.

Actualy we can. See large areas of europe now have a fertility rate of rather less than 2. This is a problem.

[Jeff Corey]

This reminds me of the time that a woman with 19 children was on "You bet your life".
Groucho: Why so many children?
Woman: Because I love my husband so much!
Groucho: Well. I love my cigar, but I take it out of my mouth once in a while.

I used to watch the show all the time, and remember seeing this. After googling the quote, however, it may have been a false memory caused by hearing or reading about it.

ETA:Oops, missed post #6.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Jeff, that anecdote was doubly inappropriate because if Mrs. Dugger loved her husband like Groucho loved a cigar... there would have been a lot less Dugger children.

Though, depending on her preferance, more dirty towels.

[slingblade]

Polyphiloprogenitive disorder. It's in the appendix, just under "chronic neogeocreationism".

But does that prove she has such a disorder? I can easily agree a certain disorder exists, but I'm still waiting for someone to prove she's likely to have it, as opposed to just wanting a really big family.

Neogeocreationism? Young Earthers are mentally ill? Not just stupid?

[Carnegiea]

According their website (http://www.duggarfamily.com/aboutus.html) Michelle Duggar got pregnant while on birth control and miscarried, which hints that this whole thing has a little more behind it than the Lord saying to have a whole mess of kids.

As for naming kids, I'm aware that some parents have all their kids' names start with the same letter. It's just that 17 kids whose name all start with the same letter is a little grotesque.

I'm not even taking issue with large families, or religious parents, I'm taking issue with these ideas taken to their logical extreme. Are these kids learning what they should being home schooled in this kind of environment? Are they learning the social skills needed to get along with people who aren't blood relatives? Is it healthy to dress them all in what looks like uniforms? I think these are good questions.

[Hamradioguy]

I have a sneaking suspicion that momma still doesn't quite understand how she gets pregnant;


I've heard that many years ago there was an isolated couple who lived way, way back in the hills. Once a year the husband would hitch up the buckboard and come to town for provisions-Things they couldn't grow themselves. And every year he would bring news of another child. Year after year: "It's a boy. Gonna be a good strong helping hand when he gets older." Or, "It's a girl. Pretty thing. She'll give all the boys in town something to think about when she's a teenager."

Finally, one year he came to town and when asked, "Well, what it it this year?" He replied, "Taint nothin. The wife and I finally figured out what was causing all them kids."

Probably an urban legend, but I suppose it IS possible, even in this day and age.

[ponderingturtle]

In my opinion, no responsible couple has more than replacement, namely, 2. The world simply cannot sustain people who act so irresponsibly.

But they know that god would not let them have more children than the world can support, and the Apocalypse is around the corner anyway, so why worry?

And I believe that the replacement rate would be an average of 2.1(I think) children per person. To maintain population each individual only having two children would not work as you would end up in a declining population situation.

[Overman]

Deja Vu...

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Mentally Ill Woman Gives Birth To 18th Child

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/121908dntex18thbaby.2c95770.html

(Mods: This thread was created before the forum was reshuffled. Feel free to move it to Current Events(?))

[WildCat]

Is she pregnant with #19 yet?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Is she pregnant with #19 yet?

Probably

[WildCat]

Apparently the world record is 69 children by one woman, so this baby factory still has a lot of work to do.

[CFLarsen]

I'm curious as to whether this is a skeptical issue or just a personal opinion.

If it is the former, let's have it discussed at TAM. The onus is on the claimant to present the evidence that people who have 16 kids in 17 years, and still want more, are mentally ill.

If it is the latter, why even bother entertaining such unverified rants?

[WildCat]

The evidence? Prima facie.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I'm curious as to whether this is a skeptical issue or just a personal opinion.

Skeptical issue.

If it is the former, let's have it discussed at TAM. The onus is on the claimant to present the evidence that people who have 16 kids in 17 years, and still want more, are mentally ill.

OK. Get me a spot on the speakers list.

If it is the latter, why even bother entertaining such unverified rants?

It's the former, so this portion is moot.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Apparently the world record is 69 children by one woman, so this baby factory still has a lot of work to do.

:eek:

Link, by chance?

[WildCat]

:eek:

Link, by chance?
The most prolific mother in history was a Russian peasant who had 69 children in the 18th century, 67 of which survived infancy. Between 1725 and 1765, she endured 27 multiple births, which included 16 pairs of twins, seven sets of triplets, and four sets of quadruplets.

The modern world record for giving birth is held by Leontina Albina from San Antonio, Chile. Now in her mid-sixties, she claims to be the mother of 64 children. Of these, 55 are documented, birth certificates apparently being something of a less-than-serious concern in Chile.
http://www.geneamusings.com/2006/07/world-records-for-number-of-children.html

She's even far short of the modern record.

[HarryKeogh]

I went to the funeral of an employee five or six years ago. I found out he had 30 or so brothers and sisters. OK, they were half-brothers and half-sisters. And it was his dad's fault. Apparently, he had several mistresses in his home country and his form of birth control (ejaculating in the woman's vagina while saying "no whammies, no whammies, stop") was ineffective.

[CFLarsen]

The onus is on the claimant to present the evidence that people who have 16 kids in 17 years, and still want more, are mentally ill, at TAM.

I can't get anyone to get a spot at the speaker's list at TAM. I have no idea why anyone would think I have such power. They are certainly very misguided, at least when it comes to that.

But I am sure the claim will attract some serious attention at TAM - if the evidence is solid.

If it's not - that's probably why we won't hear about it at TAM. I can't for a moment think that JREF will suppress such evidence.

If such evidence isn't submitted for scrutiny - well, that's probably because it is not thought to be strong enough.

[WildCat]

I had no idea that this forum now had a requirement to attend TAM before discussing anything here.

[CFLarsen]

If a claim is to be scrutinized by skeptics, TAM is arguably the best place to do it.

The best skeptics in the world. The claimant can't run away. It's all out there.

Wouldn't we all love to see Sylvia Browne be challenged at TAM?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

The onus is on the claimant to present the evidence that people who have 16 kids in 17 years, and still want more, are mentally ill, at TAM.

I can't get anyone to get a spot at the speaker's list at TAM. I have no idea why anyone would think I have such power. They are certainly very misguided, at least when it comes to that.

But I am sure the claim will attract some serious attention at TAM - if the evidence is solid.

If it's not - that's probably why we won't hear about it at TAM. I can't for a moment think that JREF will suppress such evidence.

If such evidence isn't submitted for scrutiny - well, that's probably because it is not thought to be strong enough.

Since you are unable to get me on the speakers list, I will present my evidence in a private meeting room. Each person wishing to attend will have to pre-pay $1000 (US) in order to attend.

When can I expect your payment?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I had no idea that this forum now had a requirement to attend TAM before discussing anything here.

Apparently it does now. :)

It's a perfect excuse for you to finally attend!

[CFLarsen]

Someone just chickened out. After demanding money for presenting their evidence.

A joke? Maybe. At least after the claim was challenged.

Before that? Who can tell?

Is it important? It is to organizations such as JREF - because they have to spend time - and therefore money - on such claimants.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Someone just chickened out. After demanding money for presenting their evidence.

A joke? Maybe. At least after the claim was challenged.

Before that? Who can tell?

Is it important? It is to organizations such as JREF - because they have to spend time - and therefore money - on such claimants.

Private rooms in Vegas hotels are not free. Since you are unable to get me a spot on the speakers list, I have to book a private meeting room.

When can I expect your $1000 payment? Or are you afraid of what might be presented?

[Joe Random]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_45074951785dd2472.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14691)

The floating head of Zardoz loves these threads, he told me so. But since I have no evidence for this and I won't be attending TAM, I guess my claim doesn't have a drumstick to stand on.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

[/URL][URL]http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_45074951785dd2472.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14691)

The floating head of Zardoz loves these threads, he told me so. But since I have no evidence for this and I won't be attending TAM, I guess my claim doesn't have a drumstick to stand on.

Of course, this woman wouldn't have 18 kids if she had just kept her drumsticks together! :)

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Is she pregnant with #19 yet?

I bet after 18 she doesn't have to 'push' every hard. :D :D

[Thunder]

I bet after 18 she doesn't have to 'push' every hard. :D :D

Wow..that was a very nice thing to say. Do statements like that work well with the ladies?

[CFLarsen]

Anyone is free to organize their own session, where they present their case.

Claimants do not have a right to have their expenses paid. The onus is on the claimant, period.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Anyone is free to organize their own session, where they present their case.

Claimants do not have a right to have their expenses paid. The onus is on the claimant, period.

Your argument has been withdrawn.

[WildCat]

Claus is morphing into Rob Balsamo right before our eyes! Running away from any online discussion and demanding a live debate instead. But Claus takes it 1 step further - demanding that his opponent travel to TAm to debate him in person!

Anuway, since Claus has now made it clear he never intends to discuss any topic here on the JREF forum we can all look forward to a Claus-free JREF forum from now on!

[HarryKeogh]

You think his chain would have fallen off by now after all the yanking.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

You think his chain would have fallen off by now after all the yanking.

Some people just don't get it. ;)

[Toke]

I don´t see the problem, she loves kids and have the health to have alot of them.

Nice for her.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Wow..that was a very nice thing to say. Do statements like that work well with the ladies?

I might have known it would be you without the sense of humor. :D

[Thunder]

I might have known it would be you without the sense of humor. :D

I'm not much of a fan of racist or sexist jokes. Sorry.

[Brendy]

Is there any tread left in the tire, or is it like throwing a hotdog down a hallway?

[Toke]

throwing a hotdog down a hallway?

En rød pølse i en sportshal.

A sausage in a stadium.

[Brendy]

I'm not much of a fan of racist or sexist jokes. Sorry.

Sorry, but just because a joke is about a woman does not make it sexist.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Sorry, but just because a joke is about a woman does not make it sexist.

That's what I was going to say, but ya beat e to it.

I wouldn't worry too much though. He's not able to properly define a racist either. :D

[The Central Scrutinizer]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/01/duggars.new.baby/index.html

Unbelievable. :boggled:

[JJM 777]

The page has disappeared, so I cannot read it.

Anyhow, if the OP invented the term "mentally ill", without such a diagnosis found in the CNN article, this is nearly as pathetic as much of the history of psychiatry.

[Puppycow]

The page has disappeared, so I cannot read it.

Anyhow, if the OP invented the term "mentally ill", without such a diagnosis found in the CNN article, this is nearly as pathetic as much of the history of psychiatry.
Look at the dates. The link in post #94 works.
BTW, are you a Scientologist or something? Just trying to figure out what "this is nearly as pathetic as much of the history of psychiatry" is supposed to mean.

[Caustic Logic]

She sounds pretty nuts to me. 16 kids you can't support? Screw it, if it looks like "eugenics" to some. Serious addicts are cut from the drugs. Compulsive self-injurers get strait-jackets or drugs. Habitual stabbers aren't allowed to have knives. Isn't there ANY circumstance where a court could order someone to be separated from their ovaries?

On second thought, seeing that spelled out, that sounds awful.

But hey - this is a dilemma, isn't it?

[quadraginta]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/01/duggars.new.baby/index.html

Unbelievable. :boggled:
From the article...
"I told Jim Bob and he couldn't keep it in, he was so excited," she says. "The kids were outside playing on a water slide and he gathered them together and had to share the news. There was all this screaming and yelling."


Under the circumstances this might not be a bad outcome.

[Caustic Logic]

And yes, it's sexist, mostly because you place the responsibility for the children solely on her, and unless she's had 16 virgin births, there's another party who's equally responsible whom you don't accuse of any illness.
.

And the others who made this point. :thumbs up: Something ugly in my head maybe, hafta check later... The thread title helped me jump to that kind of thinking, I blame that! I honestly don't know the case that well either, but yeah, they love sex and she's way too fertile, and if it's all just them and anything is to get snipped it's on mentally ill "blessing" dude's side. I don't think anyone's getting snipped, and I guess I'll need to read up before I pipe up again. Peace.

[Puppycow]

She sounds pretty nuts to me. 16 kids you can't support? Screw it, if it looks like "eugenics" to some. Serious addicts are cut from the drugs. Compulsive self-injurers get strait-jackets or drugs. Habitual stabbers aren't allowed to have knives. Isn't there ANY circumstance where a court could order someone to be separated from their ovaries?

On second thought, seeing that spelled out, that sounds awful.

But hey - this is a dilemma, isn't it?

According to the link:
The Duggars live debt-free in a house they built themselves with their kids, all whose names begin with J: after Josh there are twins Jana and John-David, 19; Jill, 18; Jessa, 16; Jinger, 15; Joseph, 14; Josiah, 13; Joy-Anna, 11; twins Jedidiah and Jeremiah, 10; Jason, 9; James, 8; Justin, 6; Jackson, 5; Johanna, 3; Jennifer, 2, and Jordyn-Grace, 8 months. Their lives are featured on TLC's "18 Kids and Counting," airing Tuesday nights.

[Caustic Logic]

According to the link:
No debt, no support? I had picked up somewhere that they were on welfare and cost the state like a million dollars. See, that's why I need to keep quiet until I figure out which people and facts we're actually looking at. Mega culpa.

[Eddie Dane]

Like I said - mentally ill.

Hey! My wife is Catholic!
Wait, that's actually a good point. Never mind.

[timhau]

No debt, no support? I had picked up somewhere that they were on welfare and cost the state like a million dollars. See, that's why I need to keep quiet until I figure out which people and facts we're actually looking at. Mega culpa.

Maybe you confused them with The Octomom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octomom), who is nuts and at least used to be on welfare.

[ponderingturtle]

No debt, no support? I had picked up somewhere that they were on welfare and cost the state like a million dollars. See, that's why I need to keep quiet until I figure out which people and facts we're actually looking at. Mega culpa.

Well they do make money as a freak show on the discovery channel, kind of like the whole John and Kate family.

[ponderingturtle]

Maybe you confused them with The Octomom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octomom), who is nuts and at least used to be on welfare.

Hey she is copying people who coppied them. They were the first to bring their family on TV for the money.

[JJM 777]

Look at the dates. The link in post #94 works.
BTW, are you a Scientologist or something? Just trying to figure out what "this is nearly as pathetic as much of the history of psychiatry" is supposed to mean.
Oops... now I see that this thread is so old that even CFLarsen is commenting here.

Much of the history of psychiatry is simply political suppression of lifestyles not tolerated by the mainstream population. In this case, if the fact that somebody is a) religious or b) wants to have many children is the basis for diagnosing her as "mentally ill", it falls to the same category.

[Caustic Logic]

Apparently I had forgotten just how many kids the "Octomom" had, imagined she'd got married and had a few more... I just don't follow the news well. I also didn't realize how old this thread was. That's fine and great IMO if someone has a big family of 16+ kids, so long as they're running a big prosperous farm or have/had some TV appearances that make a LOT of money, or win the lottery a time or two. Otherwise I can't imagine it's very smart trying to raise that many. Might be fun for the kids, except the one that gets neglected and stuck behind the couch for a month before anyone remembers her... Jennifer, Juliet... didn't we have a Jamie, too?

[casebro]

According to the link:
Quote:
The Duggars live debt-free in a house they built themselves...

That doesn't say anything about welfare payments. It just says they haven' borrowed any money. And implies that they don't have a mortgage. I don't know what state they live in, or that state's welfare rules. Anybody?

[UnrepentantSinner]

The Duggars are Natalists. They keep pumping out white, Christian children because they think the rest of us aren't doing our part.

[JJM 777]

The rest of us are doing our part inviting their white Christian children to fall into worldly temptations.

[thaiboxerken]

I don't know if she's mentally ill. But she's clearly delusional if she thinks some invisible sky buddy wants her to keep pumping kids out.

[Kariboo]

According to the link:
Quote:
The Duggars live debt-free in a house they built themselves...

That doesn't say anything about welfare payments. It just says they haven' borrowed any money. And implies that they don't have a mortgage. I don't know what state they live in, or that state's welfare rules. Anybody?


They are in Arkansas

As far as I know they provide for themselves. They live off the rental income from commercial property they own debt-free.They have no house or car payments and no credit cards. http://askville.amazon.com/Jim-Bob-Michelle-Duggar-income-support-17-kids/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=21738839
He has also been in the house of representatives.

I do watch their show now and then and although their life wouldn't be my choice (they are very fundamental in their religion, only home school and seem to be living about a 100 years back in a lot of ways). They do impress me a nice people though, they seem to be quite non judgemental about other people, they work hard and do as they preach.

[David Wong]

I don't know if she's mentally ill. But she's clearly delusional if she thinks some invisible sky buddy wants her to keep pumping kids out.

Yes, 95% of the population is mentally ill.

Makes perfect sense.

[thaiboxerken]

Yes, 95% of the population is mentally ill.


Delusional, at least.

[JJM 777]

she's clearly delusional if she thinks some invisible sky buddy wants her to keep pumping kids out.
Belief in what one has never seen doesn't qualify as "delusional".

Most people believe in many stories or facts told by scientists, newspapers etc. without ever seeing any evidence of the stories or facts being told.

[thaiboxerken]

Belief in what one has never seen doesn't qualify as "delusional".

So if a person believes in leprechauns, that's not a delusion?

Sorry, but the notion of a god is absurd. Thus believing one exists is delusion.

[JJM 777]

I never knew that the definition of "delusion" includes theology as a whole. Depends on whom you ask to define the word, of course. But that makes communication a bit difficult, if everyone has his own private meaning for words.

[thaiboxerken]

The only reason god-belief isn't considered a delusion by the majority of the world is because they all share that delusion. If believing leprechauns exist is a delusion, so is believing that a god or gods exist.

[Eos of the Eons]

I've seen the Duggars on TV. Everyone works to raise the little ones. I wonder if any of them will ever escape the family when they come to voting age or drinking age. I can imagine the kind of edumacation they are getting.
The house was built with help from others, and furnished for free by people who support the TV show and them. They have a recipe for baked tater-tot something or other I haven't tried yet.

[a_unique_person]

Yes, 95% of the population is mentally ill.

Makes perfect sense.

Only that many?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/TV/12/14/fans.duggar.support/index.html

They can start working on #20 right away!

[The Fool]

Never mind. In the future DNA engineering will allow her to be configured to give birth to things more useful to a family that already has nearly twenty children... things like...cute Puppies, Toaster ovens...that sort of thing. She has enough Children, someone please tell her.

[Eos of the Eons]

Although the comment about her uterus erupting and leaving those kids motherless was ridiculous, it made me laugh out loud.

[I Ratant]

One of my friends was the youngest of 15.
11 brothers.
Talking to her and one of her sisters, Daddy was an abuser.
My friend was addled about a few things, and quite normal in others.
She looked for abusive boy friends.
And was seperated from her kids by court order.
Tended toward suicide attempts when life got difficult.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/TV/12/14/fans.duggar.support/index.html

They can start working on #20 right away!

I must be psychic. #20 is in the oven!

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20543449,00.html

[Arisia]

I do wonder when the oldest girls will be let out of the family compound to start large broods of their own. :boggled:
I really do hope that none of the children will be pressured into the same kind of 'be fruitful and multiply' life.

[Caper]

I do wonder when the oldest girls will be let out of the family compound to start large broods of their own. :boggled:
I really do hope that none of the children will be pressured into the same kind of 'be fruitful and multiply' life.

I hope they move into where I grew up and start broods of their own.

I am 1 of 5 kids.... so my mother was only mildly mentally ill. I won't have 5 kids that's for sure......

I know the world just hit 7 billion, but none of that growth occurred where I was from. I'm only 32 and the elementary school I attended is closed. The High school I attended......... closed. I think we had like 7 baseball teams in our small community when I was really young and it was the same for every other community near ours. I think my parents would get 100 or so trick-or- treaters for Halloween........ I think they got 3 this year. I find it depressing to go home these days......... the community I grew up in is dying. I think the average age is about 107..... I'd love to see some families wanting to have 3,4,5 or even 6,7 and 8 kids. I know I won't be one of those families... but I wish there were more people out there that did. Somewhere wanting more then 2 children became a "mental illness"....... I don't know but at some point there are going to be alot of old people around, which means alot of people taking more out of the system then they are putting in.... and not alot of people putting in. I don't think we have the problem figured out.

[roger]

i must be psychicthe father. #20 is in the oven!

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20543449,00.html
ftfy

[UnrepentantSinner]

Michelle, this God calling. Your quiver is full. You can stop now. TYIA.

[Manopolus]

LOL, all this hubub over only 16 children. My stepfather had 18 sisters and 2 brothers. Counting him, that's 21. In rural areas back in those times, it was hardly even worth mentioning. He was second from the youngest and born in 1949. Incidentally, the older children take over many of the parenting duties in these situations... it's not as bad as it sounds for the parents.

[whatthebutlersaw]

Incidentally, the older children take over many of the parenting duties in these situations... it's not as bad as it sounds for the parents.

Now, THAT I take offense with. Kids didn't ask for kids. Ain't their responsibility, ain't their job.

If you want umpteen kids and you are ready and willing to care for them - I won't be up in your business. Knock yourself out.

But the moment you start palming them off on anyone else (this does not include,for example, daycare or school - but handing over your parenting obligations on other people) I will call you a lousy parent. I have friends who completely abdicate parenthood the moment there is someone else above the age of 20 in the room. All other grownups are resources to be utilized in shirking parental responsibilities. I know a couple of kids whose only proper parenting comes from the step parents. Both mom and dad just handed all the boring grown up stuff over to their new partners and went back to gaming, in the once case, and playing dressup in the other. The kids were being properly parented but not by their parents and they KNEW that the step parents didn't really have any obligation beyond that any grown up has in the company of a child for them. That they were parented on the good graces of two people who were willing to accept their existence and generally like them - but never asked to be handed the day-to-day responsibility for them. When the kids hit highschool, step mom gave up (she had a baby of her own then and the kids, who already had a smaller sibling at their moms, reacted badly, pretending the baby didn't exist) and left. Now step dad is the ONLY parent in the group of his baby and the two, rather troubled, teens. Recently, the unit expressed surprise and annoyance that step dad was the only person called personally to parent-teacher conference. Neither mom, nor dad had received in invitation. Well, duh - the school have never seen either of you. Every time there's an emergency, neither of you will show up and now step mom is out of the picture, step dad is the only adult school knows exist. You don't even fill out the papers, they were all filled out by the steps.


That sucks bad. That is parent fail. But the steps, as proven by step mom (who remains in the kids' lives but doesn't do driving them around or doing parent-teacher stuff anymore) have the choice of extracting themselves from the situation. Palming all the boring parent **** off on other adults can be pretty rotten. But if the someone you are palming your kids off on is an older sibling - their child, over whom they wield powers, both legal and emotional - then I have no words for how much that parent disgusts me.

They simply suck.

I went to school with a guy who was number five of seven - Family A. He did screw up school because he was constantly looking for attention but all in all he was an okey kid and so were his siblings. Family was free church christians of some kind but as far as I could tell that only informed half the decision to have so many. Younger were not palmed off on the older. Mom obviously did this because A: she didn't believe in birth control but B: also, she loved kids. She ran the church play hours and frequently had other kids over so I think she didn't just like having 'em but also spending time with 'em. She just couldn't get enough of kids. She would babysit at the drop of a hat and take in daycare-kids until council daycare was sorted out. I don't know what they did, but they supported themselves. Never saw the dad. Have no clue what he did. Got the impression mom ran that house all the way.

My brother was for a short while in-lawed with an in-law of with the biggest family in the county. Family B. At the time 15 kids and counting. Not religious as far as I can tell. God knows where dad was. He hadn't left the family but he kept out of the way. Mom palmed the kids off on older siblings the moment the waens started toddling around. Fourteen and fifteen were twins, so I bet eleven and twelve were thrilled. There was a dachshund that no one was caring for or training. These people were on the social, even though the statutory maternity pay (everyone gets it, not just the employed) and universal child benefit with multi-child bonuses meant the household already out-earned MPs. They couldn't even be arsed to do their own shopping. Grocery trucks stopped outside their house. (Guess who paid for the house? Yeah. Social services.) I'm not kidding. My brother's in-law's in-law was the oldest of all fifteen. The big brother. He wasn't even 20 at the time but was really keen to get my brother's 17-year old SiL pregnant. He wanted at least seven of his own. She was game for that as she had no plans on getting a job, ever. I bet they hated it when parental leave was changed to freeze at least three months for either parent so the dad has to take at least three months off, or forefit the benefit for those three months.

I'd like to point out that despite the existence of those pimholes, I still support the statutory parental leave and the universal child benefit, including multi child bonus. The bureaucracy and cost of means testing that stuff would still be dearer than whatever cutting off idiots like these would save. And abolishing it would mean half the work force would be forced to go home. And as seen above, it's sometimes possible people have loads of kids, support themselves and love caring for their kids. Extricating A from B would prove far too daunting. Also, it's not illegal to be an *******. The same rights apply even if you do it for the wrong reason. I will reserve the right to call them ********, though. (Again, not family A. Just family B.)

[Arisia]

... Incidentally, the older children take over many of the parenting duties in these situations... it's not as bad as it sounds for the parents.

In what I've seen of this family, I'm seeing most of the parenting duties that fall to the teens fall to the girls. I haven't watched the show, so I could be wrong, and I would welcome being corrected, if they show the teen boys doing diaper/bottle/laundry/cooking duties on the show.

[CplFerro]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/parenting/10/12/sixteen.kids.ap/index.html



Unbelievable. :boggled:

"So, is there any traction left on the tire at this point, or is it like throwing a hot-dog down a hallway?"
--Stewie Griffin

[Not Scooby]

Some of us consider siblings helping out to be building the bonds that holds a family together. There is a lot of space between shirking parental duties and mutual support.

[UnrepentantSinner]

"So, is there any traction left on the tire at this point, or is it like throwing a hot-dog down a hallway?"
--Stewie Griffin

Nancy Schneidermann had a snarky comment about the elasticity of her uterus this morning on Today show.

[Andrew Wiggin]

Just a better dressed version of this...

U0kJHQpvgB8

When the mill closes and dad gets layed off, it'll be medical experiments for the lot of you.

[sgtbaker]

Now, THAT I take offense with. Kids didn't ask for kids. Ain't their responsibility, ain't their job.
<snip>

I couldn't agree with you more. I just had a minil experience with that. My daughter was trying to get a group of friends together for trick or treating. One of her friends, (15) wasn't allowed to go unless she brought her 5 year old sister. That's crap! Your her mom, you take her trick or treating.

[Mark6]

I do wonder when the oldest girls will be let out of the family compound to start large broods of their own. :boggled:
I really do hope that none of the children will be pressured into the same kind of 'be fruitful and multiply' life.
Oldest one already has two children. Although he is male.

[mrgrouch]

natural selection at work, lowering man kind's iq one generation at the time.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

For those who objected to the term "mentally ill", would you like your crow broiled or fried?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/29/duggars-overpopulation_n_1387640.html

"The idea of overpopulation is not accurate," Duggar says, because the entire population of the world could fit inside of Jacksonville, Florida.

[joobie]

I'm curious as to whether this is a skeptical issue or just a personal opinion.

If it is the former, let's have it discussed at TAM. The onus is on the claimant to present the evidence that people who have 16 kids in 17 years, and still want more, are mentally ill.

If it is the latter, why even bother entertaining such unverified rants?

claus at his finest.

[Jekyll's Guest]

For those who objected to the term "mentally ill", would you like your crow broiled or fried?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/29/duggars-overpopulation_n_1387640.html

Did stupid and willfully ignorant become mental illness?

I'm not sure the massive surge in white coat manufacture and asylum staffing will offset the financial drain from caring for the tens of millions incarcerated.

[Jarlaxle]

Further evidence in the "Crazy" column is that all the children's names start with the same letter.

They should have started with Adam, and then moved down one letter each kid.

They'd be on "Quentina" by now.

They're not the only ones to do THAT...heck, all of Roger Clemens' kids have names that start with "K". I went to school with four siblings, all of whose names started with R: Rebecca, Regine (might've been Regina), Reveri, and Randall. IIRC, Dad was Richard.

[sts60]

For those who objected to the term "mentally ill", would you like your crow broiled or fried? ...

Let's stipulate for the sake of argument that she is wrong about overpopulation. I know there is a thread about this, including the various projections that population will peak and then decline, and the problems with distributions of people and resources, etc. For this thread, let's just start from the premise she's wrong.

Since when is being wrong the same as mentally ill? Even badly wrong in a stupid ("Jacksonville") way?

I have to admit it's not clear to me from this thread whether you mean those parents are literally mentally ill, or just "nuts" in the informal sense. Yeah, I think they're nuts for having 17 children. But (I don't watch the show) is there any evidence that they are broken in a way that keeps them from being happy or dealing with the everyday world?

I'm just trying to understand the parameters for who belongs in the DSM IV and who doesn't. Very large family? Some of our dear family friends have ten kids, and they are a loving, happy bunch. But they were also Catholic, so does that mean they were certifiable? (Well, so much for me then.) Fundamentalist beliefs? An engineer with whom I worked literally believed the world was created 6,000 years ago with the appearance of being old ("Omphalos hypothesis"). But he acknowledged this was not scientific, did not press his beliefs on others, and was a smart guy with a great sense of humor.

Me, I think anyone who goes on reality TV series is nuts. But the producers of these shows are always trying to play up the freak-show factor, so they will look for outliers like the family in question. There are very large families out there (anecdotal support above) who are perfectly well-adjusted and with "mainstream" religious views. Are they mentally ill? If they are not, and the TV parents in question are, where do you draw the line?

Or, going back to what I was wondering earlier... do you just think they're "nuts" in the colloquial sense?


ETA: I just know I'm going to regret wandering away from arguing with Apollo hoax believers...

[The Central Scrutinizer]

claus at his finest.

Is this the thread where I agreed to debate him, but told him he would have to rent a conference room at his own expense? :)

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Did stupid and willfully ignorant become mental illness?

I'm not sure the massive surge in white coat manufacture and asylum staffing will offset the financial drain from caring for the tens of millions incarcerated.

Watch the video. The elevator doesn't go all the way to the top.

Thinking that the entire population of the earth could fit in Jacksonville FL, is not just stupid. It is a complete detachment from reality.

[Cleon]

Thinking that the entire population of the earth could fit in Jacksonville FL, is not just stupid. It is a complete detachment from reality.

I think we should send this to the Mythbusters.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I think we should send this to the Mythbusters.

LOL! They'll place the following ad in Variety:

"Wanted, 7 billion extras to appear on popular television science show. Lunch provided."