Could you get that Deirdre?

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Sat Aug 04, 2007 12:28 am

A certain Monty Python skit springs to mind... :speech:

Arkansas couple welcome their 17th child - CNN.com

LITTLE ROCK, Arkansas (AP) -- It's a girl -- again -- for Jim Bob and Michelle Duggars, the proud parents of 17 children.

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, adding that the girls are outnumbered seven to 10 in the family. "We love the ruffles and lace."

The family's home in the northwest Arkansas town of Tontitown includes dormitory-style bedrooms for the boys and girls, nine bathrooms, a commercial kitchen, four washing machines and four dryers.

The children are home-schooled by Michelle Duggar, 40. The oldest is 19 and the youngest, before Jennifer, is almost 2 years old. The family includes two sets of twins.

"We are just so grateful to God for another gift from him," said Jim Bob Duggar, 42, a former state representative who sells real estate. "We are just so thankful to him that everything went just very well."

All of Jennifer's siblings also have names that start with J. They are: Joshua, 19; John David, 17; Janna, 17; Jill, 16; Jessa, 14; Jinger, 13; Joseph, 12; Josiah, 11; Joy-Anna, 9; Jedidiah, 8; Jeremiah, 8; Jason 7; James 6; Justin, 4; Jackson, 3; Johannah, almost 2.

The Duggars have been featured on several programs on cable's Discovery Health Network.

Among the "fun facts" listed on Discovery Health's Web page devoted to the Duggars: A baby has been born in every month except June; the family has gone through about 90,000 diapers, and Michelle Duggar has been pregnant for 126 months -- or 10.5 years -- of her life.

DesR85 · Post by **DesR85** » Sat Aug 04, 2007 1:40 am

I'm rendered speechless after reading that article. Now that is a lot of children.

I wonder if they have sufficient finances to support a family that large, though.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sat Aug 04, 2007 8:48 am

Even if they have the finances, there is no way they could have the attention to give that each one needs. Assuming this isn't a bad joke, somebody should expose the pair to a different hobby then admiring lace.

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Sat Aug 04, 2007 11:02 am

I have to admit, I find some of the names of those poor kids amusing too...

"Jedidiah"

Incidentally, I realised I got the title wrong, it should have been:
"Could you get that Deirdre?"
Nigel is another character in that particular scene.. *snicker*

BlueSky · Post by **BlueSky** » Sat Aug 04, 2007 11:11 am

:laugh:

:laugh:
All together now...the big production number....from the Meaning of Life.

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Sat Aug 04, 2007 11:23 am

BlueSky wrote::laugh: :laugh:
All together now...the big production number....from the Meaning of Life.

Oh allow me... :laugh:
Let's start in a rousing chorus of... [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47P59ha9k9s"]Every Sperm is Sacred[/url]

BlueSky · Post by **BlueSky** » Sat Aug 04, 2007 11:28 am

dragon wench wrote:Oh allow me... :laugh:
Let's start in a rousing chorus of... [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47P59ha9k9s"]Every Sperm is Sacred[/url]

My footwork for the dance number is coming along nicely.

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Sat Aug 04, 2007 11:39 am

BlueSky wrote:My footwork for the dance number is coming along nicely.

You know, I can practically see you in one of those alluring little black and white numbers joyously practicing the steps....

Fiberfar · Post by **Fiberfar** » Sat Aug 04, 2007 11:54 am

Darn.
Lots of kids.

Know whatahmean, know whatahmean, nudge nudge, know whatahmean, say no more?

lythium · Post by **lythium** » Sat Aug 04, 2007 1:22 pm

"We are just so grateful to God for another gift from him," said Jim Bob Duggar

How about blaming another hillbilly on your your willy, Jim?

Rubber is also a gift from God..

You wascawwy wabbit!

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Sat Aug 04, 2007 2:02 pm

I've always generally believed that family size is a personal matter. But, when I've said that, I've been envisioning between one and five kids, roughly.

This however.. given our steadily depleting global resources.. just seems irresponsible and reckless. And as Fable mentions, how do you give all of those kids adequate attention? I find sometimes with just one child (who is even quite self-sufficient at the age of 12) my limits can get stretched.

In developing nations people often have large families (contraception availability and taboos aside) for sheer survival. The more people you have out scrounging a pittance of a wage.. the better your chances.

But.. in the "Western World" this seems more than a little insane.

TheAmazingOopah · Post by **TheAmazingOopah** » Sat Aug 04, 2007 2:11 pm

fable wrote:Even if they have the finances, there is no way they could have the attention to give that each one needs. Assuming this isn't a bad joke, somebody should expose the pair to a different hobby then admiring lace.

Yeah, most of those 17 kids are missing out on a lot of healthy parental love. Having all those brothers and sisters around the house will probably give them a sense of responsibility and people skills, but you can get that elsewhere, and really isn't worth this. I find it extremely selfish to create so many kids of your own when this planet is already beginning to overcrowd. Sure, I can understand if you want 2 children instead of 1, but going for 17 children and beyond is ridiculous. I am not looking at kids as "objects" or "products", but out of a rational principle, this is just bad. Bad for the planet, bad for the children.
Stupid parents. Maybe they should be sold for medical experiments.

Maharlika · Post by **Maharlika** » Sat Aug 04, 2007 6:16 pm

Your wish is my command.

dragon wench wrote: Incidentally, I realised I got the title wrong, it should have been:
"Could you get that Deirdre?"
Nigel is another character in that particular scene.. *snicker*

I hear you.

Done.

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Sat Aug 04, 2007 6:40 pm

Maharlika wrote:I hear you.

Done.

Awwww, thanks Mah

When I wrote that it wasn't even a request, only a clarification in case anybody thought I'd finally lost the precious few marbles I have left

Mr. Pastorius · Post by **Mr. Pastorius** » Sat Aug 04, 2007 6:48 pm

How do they plan to keep them well fed when they can't even afford a condom?

Sorry, I know that was a tad out of line, but I simply couldn't resist.

Maharlika · Post by **Maharlika** » Sat Aug 04, 2007 6:58 pm

dragon wench wrote:Awwww, thanks Mah
When I wrote that it wasn't even a request, only a clarification in case anybody thought I'd finally lost the precious few marbles I have left

Well, there's no bother rectifying it and leave the lost marbles to BS when he goes tunnel searching again.

Now, on topic lest I be accused of hijacking this thread to another subject:

I find it selfish on the part of the parents to produce more offspring given their reasons. I find it humanly impossible for them to cater to the individual needs of each child --- and I'm not talking about food, clothing, and education/school - money can take care of that. I'm talking about the needs only parents can provide.

I have a pair of students who are 10 siblings in the family. Quite well off, I say. Judging their behaviour and personalities, it seems that their parents have raised them well and good.

Then again, that's 10 kids not 17.

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 11:30 am

I find the word "quiverfull" strangely absent from the article, while a nagging feeling in me tells me it should be present.

Chimaera182 · Post by **Chimaera182** » Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:14 pm

Good god, someone clearly needs to finally write a manual on Life and get it on the bookshelves before the Christmas shopping season. I mean my god, this couple shows many signs of being people who should not be encouraged to have more kids but rather to have less (or preferrably none).

On the other hand, it isn't just in "modern" and "Western" societies where the idea of parents with multiple children comes up. In Saudi Arabia, certainly a wealthy and affluent non-Western nation, there are families with as many children as the Duggar family, and it's perfectly acceptible there. Who are any of us to judge the Duggars for wanting to have more than the socially accepted (for our respective regions) number of children? If they can afford it and don't find it too difficult and if it makes them happy, let them have at it.

Cartell · Post by **Cartell** » Thu Aug 09, 2007 10:15 am

What I can't understand is how you can call the couple that decides to have 17 children bad for the enviroment or irresposible. Nor can you having never met them, judge how well they can share attention or parental love to said children... Having 17 children is bad for the enviroment nor is it irresponsible.. They are simply a couple who loves children and is willing to deal with what comes of it... I was simply surprised at how judgemental you all were of them.. Apart from the few who cracked jokes of course.

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Thu Aug 09, 2007 1:16 pm

Cartell wrote:What I can't understand is how you can call the couple that decides to have 17 children bad for the enviroment or irresposible. Nor can you having never met them, judge how well they can share attention or parental love to said children... Having 17 children is bad for the enviroment nor is it irresponsible.. They are simply a couple who loves children and is willing to deal with what comes of it... I was simply surprised at how judgemental you all were of them.. Apart from the few who cracked jokes of course.

I find the concept of having children to satisfy God creepy. I'm also kind of judgmental though, so that might be it.