<p>emeraldkity4 – Every time I go to a different doctor and have to fill out a medical history, it asks about number of siblings. The dentist has a similar form. Even in casual conversation at work, if I say “one of my sisters…” or “one of my brothers…” it leads to the question of how many siblings I have. Once that information is out, it is unbelievable how fast it travels throughout the worksite, or office. Of course, as I was growing up and in school, everyone in the school knew how large our family was. It was not something that I threw out for general public knowledge, but when asked, I saw no reason to hide it. I suppose that is why there is a market for such television shows about large families – it appears to be an oddity that makes people curious. I remember when I was young and my parents had just had their 12th child, our local newspaper did a story on our family. My parents were not happy with the resulting article as it concentrated on how much food we consumed and very little with how we worked together to take care of each other. I guess it was our taste of what TLC is doing to the Duggars. I have to say, I have never seen any of the Duggars’ show, mainly because I don’t think that they would be portrayed accurately.</p>
<p>
Of course I do. I think “Yuck, they’re nuts” but I certainly don’t think the government (or anyone else) should arrest or forcibly sterilze them. Yet some posts have come close to this.
Unlike some who have posted on this topic, I respect their choice to choose whether or not to have children and how many to have. Anything else is a slippery slope.</p>
<p>I’ve always leaned libertarian, but I am sympathetic to the argument that people who continue to have children on the taxpayers’ dime should be sterilized. But if you can pay for ‘em, go ahead and keep poppin’ 'em out.</p>
<p>my Drs never ask about siblings- I think it just asks about parents-
I didn’t know that many large families growing up in the burbs in the 60’s- most had two kids- some had four- the next street over in our development, had much bigger houses, so that was where the catholic families congregated- largest was probably seven kids.</p>
<p>My sister has five- which made for larger purchases of family vehicles, larger home, frequent trips to costco…</p>
<p>The Waltons was a popular show when I was growing up ( as was the Brady Bunch 
), I think while I knew many families with just one or two kids, they were curious about larger families, but at the same time, the smaller families had more of the perks that kids liked- new cars, trips to Hawaii & Whistler…</p>
<p>“what TLC is doing to the Duggars”</p>
<p>You mean employing them in a lucrative job?</p>
<p>The Duggar parents are middle-aged people making their own decisions about their TV career. They shot the first special 5 kids ago. They’ve had many chances to move on if they don’t like what TLC is “doing to” them. Apparently they’re happy with the deal they have. Are you saying that you don’t respect their choice to feature their minor children on TV for our amusement?</p>
<p>We live in an urban area where most people have two or maybe three kids. I’ve had a lot of people treat me as an oddity for having four – which is obviously not a huge number, but in the context of our area unusual. My kids say they always were the kid with the most siblings in their classes, etc. People felt free to ask me if my fourth was planned, whether congratulations were in order, etc. It is interesting how in one generation the cultural norm has changed so much in some parts of the country. If we lived in Utah, we’d be a smallish family. Context is always so powerful when defining what is “normal” or “acceptable.” Two hundred years ago, the Duggars would not warrant an article in a newspaper.</p>
<p>18 kids are you kidding? that is fairly unusual even two hundred years ago, unless you were Genghis Khan or a polygamist.</p>
<p>My grandmother who was born in the 1900’s, was one of 10 girls, that was a very large family in her midwestern farming community.
It was noteworthy that most of my aunts went on to have two or fewer children, at a time when birth control was not foolproof. ( my maternal grandmother had one child- my paternal grandmother had two- one with each husband)</p>
<p>We can make reasoned choices about when and how many children to have- we aren’t rabbits.</p>
<p>( Average household size in Utah is 3.07, in Orem county it is 3.57)</p>
<p>Back in the 50’s-60’s when a lot of us parents were born, large families were more common. H and I are both from families with 7 kids. And we each have a brother who is severely handicapped. (Our brothers are very fortunate to have siblings to look after them–especially now that H’s parents are deceased, and mine are elderly, ill.) When I was growing up, if I told someone I had 6 siblings, the only comment I remember was, “You must be Catholic!” We are, and I didn’t take it as an insult. There were quite a few families in my public school who had a kid in each grade. . .I can’t think of any who weren’t Catholic. (We couldn’t afford Catholic school because we had too many kids!)</p>
<p>Now, if H and I tell people that WE have 7 kids. . .they either ask if we are Mormon, or tell us we are destroying the planet. I’ve often wondered, with the various numbers of kids it is possible to have, why almost everyone thinks 2 is the perfect number? Is it mostly the ZPG movement, or something else? (Don’t worry, Momof4–we’ve never been to Disney World, either, but we do hope to put our kids through college!)</p>
<p>We can’t know what goes on in another family. Even some of MY relatives have made comments that they “felt sorry” for my oldest D. It was their impression (having 0-2 kids themselves, and living states away) that my D “must be burdened” by having so many younger siblings! (As if younger siblings are no “benefit” to their older sibs!–what about love and cheap entertainment? What about being a role model and developing leadership skills?) Oh, and she didn’t have a “normal” life because she was homeschooled. . . Though D was very helpful over the years, I never put her in charge of a particular sibling. She didn’t take on parental duties like bathing or helping with homework. She only changed diapers if I was out of the house. She babysat a lot but she never complained because she received privileges/$$ in exchange. D loves her younger sibs and misses having little kids around at college. She actually feels sorry for friends from small families–Too quiet. So boring. And parents always breathing down their necks. . . (I’ve seen older girlsfrom large families that were so burned out on parenting by the time they got out of high school that they never wanted to have kids–I did not want that to happen to my D, so I didn’t ask too much of her.)</p>
<p>Regarding boys vs girls help–two small examples. When he was 11, I asked oldest S to (simply) sit on the couch to prevent the baby from rolling off–while I went to the bathroom. Thirty seconds later–Clunk. . .WAH, WAH, WAH! S’s excuse? “Oh. The baby. . .I forgot.” (At that time his 8yo sister could probably have run the house.) Years later, when S#2 was 12-13 he regularly watched his 1-2yo sister while I took his older sister to sports. As soon as I went out the door, he fed her cookies and candy to keep her quiet–then went and played computer games. . . In my experience: Boys+Childcare= 
(However, Boys+ Lawnmowing= 
)
I know many big homeschooling families. Without exception, the families that function best had several girls at/near the head of the line. (Not saying that there aren’t some very helpful big brothers out there, but if I were choosing teams for childcare or any kind of household help, D#1 would be my first pick–and D#2, age 10, would rank above H!)</p>
<p>About adoption, I’m sure you’re joking, but. . .the Duggars likely have too many kids already to be approved for adoption. (A friend in AR recently told me she was approved to adopt 2 kids–she has 8 of her own still at home–she said they were allowed to have up to 10 in the home.) Folks who are well off and have only one or two older kids would be better able to adopt than a family with many young children still at home. I have looked into adoption. Most of the kids available through the state are older and come with a lot of issues. . .they might have brain damage from mother’s pre-natal drug abuse, or they have been physically or sexually abused, they have learning disabilities, behavior problems, or other handicaps. While my heart goes out to these children, I don’t want to bring in problems that I am unprepared to handle–especially of the psychological/sexual/abusive nature that will have a negative impact on the whole family and could be dangerous for my younger kids. (Many of the profiles suggest that the adopted child must be the “youngest” or “only” child in the home–maybe because the kid has a history of abusing younger children?)–I am not tough enough for the job. God bless those who are. </p>
<p>If the Duggars are able to raise 19 children who are healthy, literate, drug free, hard working, law-abiding good citizens–then they have done a great service for their community–and they’ve done 2-19X times as much work as the rest of us.</p>
<p>and they’ve done 2-19X times as much work as the rest of us.</p>
<p>How do you figure?</p>
<p>I do volunteer work in the community- with education and environmental groups( restoring habitat for fish and wildlife)- how is that less important than producing another consumer who uses non renewable resources?</p>
<p>[Family</a> planning: A major environmental emphasis | News and Communication Services | Oregon State University](<a href=“Oregon State University”>Oregon State University)</p>
<p>Actually, justamomof4, I don’t think the Duggars are like the Amish. Amish kids are allowed some contact with the outside world- they get rumspringa when they’re about 16. I get the impression that the Duggar kids have very little contact with the outside world. They are home schooled, home churched (OK, that’s probably not a word) and I don’t think they do outside activities such as soccer, scouting, etc. I don’t think a Duggar child would be given the opportunity to go to an outside school, even if it were a christian school. </p>
<p>Of course larger families were more common even 50 years ago. Birth control was not as common and extensive as it is now and not as many women worked outside the home. However, even then, I think 19 kids would be viewed as extraordinary.</p>
<p>Talking only about the work of raising kids. (I know people who are worn out raising two. You gotta admit, it is hard work). I’m not commenting on the value of any other kind of work, paid or unpaid-- though the unpaid work of parents/homemakers is often disregarded in our society. (BTW, Our family does volunteer environmental work, too. )</p>
<p>Remember, consumers are also producers, and producers/workers are also consumers. If all the Duggars went to work to save the environment, would their existence be justified? </p>
<p>To greatly reduce our impact on the environment, mass suicide is the most efficient option. That would quickly eliminate consumers and preserve resources for wildlife.
Truly, had we never been born, we’d be so much greener.</p>
<p>The US reproduction rate is just barely at replacement level. If not for immigration, and the slightly larger families of immigrants, we’d be shrinking. Families with 7+ kids are 1/1000. They are rare–thus the fascination with big families, all the TV shows.
Childless singles/couples are extremely common</p>
<p>“We can make reasoned choices about when and how many children to have- we aren’t rabbits.”
Yes, we can all do that. People who choose to have large families aren’t rabbits, either. They do make reasoned choices about their family size–not the same choice as the majority of people, but a reasoned choice nonetheless.</p>
<p>I don’t personally get the venom that is often directed against the Duggars. While I wouldn’t lead that lifestyle myself, it’s of no more consequence to me than any other lifestyle one might lead. I’m sure those kids are far better cared for than many kids in the ghetto, for example. As a mother of premies myself, I wish her new baby well.</p>
<p>Hanna – Of course I respect the Duggar’s choice, I am just saying that neither my parents nor I would have made the same choice. As I have never actually seen their show, I should refrain from any comment. But my experience with the media is that the whole story is usually not presented, usually just a “hook” and whatever supports it.</p>
<p>Emeraldkity4 – My wife does a lot of genealogical research. She is constantly showing me census reports which document very large (>16 children) families from the 1860s through the 1920s. I think the largest family that she has come across had 24 children. Whether these large families were “fairly unusual” can be debated as I have no statistical data. But from my wife’s experience in researching through census records, she tells me that families with >10 children were fairly commonplace, at least in this country in that time period. Oh, and the “we aren’t rabbits” comment, nice touch.</p>
<p>RadDad1,
I would be very interested to know how many mothers were typically involved in the birthing of the very large families from the 1860s through the 1920s you describe. If you visit cemeteries from that era, you will often see that one man had 2,3 or more wives. The wives often died in childbirth or from complications of childbirth. I mention this not to make a point about present day families, but to point out that the comparisons to the past may not be as useful as they appear.</p>
<p>So does anyone know how the baby is doing??</p>
<p>Baby? What baby?</p>
<p>OH MY GOD, WE FORGOT THE BABY!!!</p>
<p>^Don’t you mean, “Manifestation of God’s will?”</p>
<p>I do hope that it’s doing all right.</p>
<p>[Duggar’s</a> 19th Child Born Prematurely](<a href=“http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/dec/09121504.html]Duggar’s”>Duggar’s 19th Child Born Prematurely - LifeSite)</p>
<p>Sounds like the baby is stable and doing relatively well at this stage of the game. Looks like Michelle had pre-eclampsia which was discovered only because she was being checked for gallbladder problems.</p>
<p>I am the oldest of 10 children. In my view, very few people are capable of adequately parenting that many children. I’m annoyed by the Hollywood stereotype that large families are a barrel of fun. Yet, as an adult, I feel that my large immediate and extended family (my father’s family had 11 children, my mother’s 8, most of these aunts/uncles had 7-11 children) is a source of richness in my life and, even more, in my children’s lives. Small families seem so barren to me, with well over 100 first cousins.</p>
<p>It’s all what you know! I have a whopping total of 2 first cousins. My twins have a total of 4 cousins – 3 on H’s side and 1 on my side. Hearing about tons of first cousins also seems just as strange to me as a handful of first cousins must seem to you.</p>