# For or Against: Spaying/Neutering Your Children



## Jax's Mom (Apr 2, 2010)

With technology today, it's perfectly possible to freeze embryos as well as sperm and eggs. So how come no one has explored spaying and neutering their kids before they mature to cut down on all of those potential health concerns? 
Women with a mutated BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene carry a risk between 25% and 60% of developing ovarian cancer depending on the specific mutation and in the United States, between 7,500 and 8,000 diagnoses of testicular cancer are made each year, so are we not being irresponsible parents by not putting a stop to it in our kids at an early age? 
I've always wondered...


----------



## Konotashi (Jan 11, 2010)

Didn't they already do this? Eugenics?


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

Well naturally...the human race doesn't really need to continue on. 

Really?


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

Konotashi said:


> Didn't they already do this? *Eugenics*?



hmmmm...now there is an interesting subject. Forced sterilization of poor southern women because being poor meant they were to stupid to reproduce. Experiments done on races other than white people. Oh..and my favorite...did you know Hitler sent his henchmen over here to STUDY our eugenics program? He admired the United States for it.


----------



## Rerun (Feb 27, 2006)

Can anyone say Hitler? (not you, just the idea)


----------



## KZoppa (Aug 14, 2010)

has anyone seen Demolition Man with Wesley Snipes? Thats pretty much what they do in that movie. Genetic testing and certain risk factors people arent allowed to have kids. There's no touching or anything.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

But the neighbor did once mention to DH..."if I had to do it all over again I would have drowned them in a 5 gallon bucket" :rofl:


----------



## Konotashi (Jan 11, 2010)

Anyone seen GATTACA? They take the absolute best genes from both parents and make the most superior offspring possible and any 'natural' offspring is considered inferior. It's a good movie.


----------



## Rerun (Feb 27, 2006)

On the flip side of it, there was that ridiculous movie that illustrated how as society evolves, many of the "smartest" people are climbing the career ladder and not having kids, or not having many, and the stupid people are all reproducing so the world just gets stupider and stupider as time goes on until before long all of society has a ridiculously low IQ.


----------



## Jax's Mom (Apr 2, 2010)

Rerun said:


> On the flip side of it, there was that ridiculous movie that illustrated how as society evolves, many of the "smartest" people are climbing the career ladder and not having kids, or not having many, and the stupid people are all reproducing so the world just gets stupider and stupider as time goes on until before long all of society has a ridiculously low IQ.


Strange... I lived in a city like that LOL


----------



## Heagler870 (Jun 27, 2009)

Okay, I haven't voted or anything because I saw the last poll question " I realize this poll is tongue in cheek." Am I totally missing the point or is it a real poll?


----------



## Rusty_212 (Apr 21, 2010)

Rerun said:


> On the flip side of it, there was that ridiculous movie that illustrated how as society evolves, many of the "smartest" people are climbing the career ladder and not having kids, or not having many, and the stupid people are all reproducing so the world just gets stupider and stupider as time goes on until before long all of society has a ridiculously low IQ.


Not so ridiculous of a movie, I say. The older I get, more and more examples of wastes of space pop up on this earth. Good example: the octomom or whatever they call her. What is it, 14 kids and counting?


----------



## Klamari (Aug 6, 2010)

Konotashi said:


> Anyone seen GATTACA? They take the absolute best genes from both parents and make the most superior offspring possible and any 'natural' offspring is considered inferior. It's a good movie.


I saw that movie in my first semester English class, I liked it too. I dont think I would like to live in that kind of world, no physical differences, defects....those kinds of things affect who you are. I like differences between people


----------



## AbbyK9 (Oct 11, 2005)

I meet a lot of people who probably should not be reproducing. XD


----------



## Jax's Mom (Apr 2, 2010)

Heagler870 said:


> Okay, I haven't voted or anything because I saw the last poll question " I realize this poll is tongue in cheek." Am I totally missing the point or is it a real poll?


I didn't think anyone would actually vote to spay and neuter their kids so I added the last option 
GSD Fan asked in another thread what people's opinions were on spaying and neutering children so I got to thinking... other than for birth control, if spaying and neutering is so great for health benefits, why don't people do it to their kids? 
Most people only have kids like other people have pets anyway, as opposed to contributing a functioning member of society (you can spot the children of these people really easily, they have those ridiculous names that were never intended to be put on a resume), so what would be so wrong about just having their kids fixed right away? (again, tongue in cheek)


----------



## KZoppa (Aug 14, 2010)

Rusty_212 said:


> Not so ridiculous of a movie, I say. The older I get, more and more examples of wastes of space pop up on this earth. Good example: the octomom or whatever they call her. What is it, 14 kids and counting?


 
19 Kids and counting and she's expecting again if i heard right. freaking insane. how much can a persons body takes before it just breaks? I think she's trying to die in childbirth. and i agree octomom is a waste of space.


----------



## Konotashi (Jan 11, 2010)

KZoppa said:


> 19 Kids and counting and she's expecting again if i heard right. freaking insane. how much can a persons body takes before it just breaks? I think she's trying to die in childbirth. and i agree octomom is a waste of space.


What kills me is the people that buy into this media. And to have 20 kids - that's ridiculous. I'm amazed she's alive. There's no way that's healthy. Look at mill bred dogs. :/


----------



## Heagler870 (Jun 27, 2009)

KZoppa said:


> 19 Kids and counting and she's expecting again if i heard right. freaking insane. how much can a persons body takes before it just breaks? I think she's trying to die in childbirth. and i agree octomom is a waste of space.


I personally know a woman who had 28 children. The Duggar's aint got nothing on her!


----------



## GSDElsa (Jul 22, 2009)

:rofl:


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

childbirth and puppy birth are natural. 

Puppy mill bitches do not look awful because of being bred too many times, they look awful because they live in a poor environment, and are fed junky foods. 

I do not have any kids so I must be one of the smart people too busy for brats. 

I think that spay/neuter should be mandatory for all felons. And if a felon is pregnant when she goes to prison, her child is adopted out and she has no recourse to get it back. There should be repercussions for going beyond a certain point. We do not need play school wards in prisons.


----------



## KZoppa (Aug 14, 2010)

Konotashi said:


> What kills me is the people that buy into this media. And to have 20 kids - that's ridiculous. I'm amazed she's alive. There's no way that's healthy. Look at mill bred dogs. :/





Heagler870 said:


> I personally know a woman who had 28 children. The Duggar's aint got nothing on her!


 
see my great grandmother had 9 kids. thats the most anyone in the family has had. Everyone else generally stops at a maximum of 4 but dont usually go past 3. the fact that she pops out one and then is pregnant again almost exactly the 6 weeks later is not healthy. her body hasnt even really been given much chance to recover and bounce back. and the last two they've had have had some pretty serious medical problems. That alone should be a clue to stop. the people who say "God will stop allowing us to get pregnant when its our time to stop" are insane and stupid IMO. not to mention a drain on the society because there is no way without them being a millionaire that they're not getting money from the government to help pay for all those kids. There just comes a point some people should be snipped. and the fact their oldest son has brainwashed his wife into wanting to do the same thing!!! nope. can you imagine xmas gatherings?! holy moly! now if they were sets of twins it would make a little more sense but still!!! 28 kids.... nope.... still too many.


----------



## Syaoransbear (Sep 25, 2008)

Two provinces in Canada enforced eugenics too, but they did it based on your IQ. If your IQ was too low, no babies for you! The act was still in place until 1972.

(I am aware this is tongue in cheek, but...: )

People can make the choice to not give birth without being sterilized, so I don't think you should spay or neuter your children. I do think that people should get tested for diseases like huntingtons prior to having children, and people should look at themselves honestly and say, "Am I _really_ a good candidate to spread my genes?" and, "Am I really that perfect of a human specimen that I should have _many_ children?" Too many people have children just because they can, and too many people have LOTS of children when they really shouldn't be having any. There's plenty of children that need to be adopted, we don't need to be making more of them right now.

I don't think I would be a good candidate to continue the species. Physically I'm 'up to standard' and with no major health concerns and no family history of health concerns, but my temperament is _awful_.


----------



## Zoeys mom (Jan 23, 2010)

Let's see I am the oldest of 8 (Catholic parents), and have given birth to two superior children....I am done. 2 of my sisters swear they will never reproduce, the other 3 want at least 1, my youngest brother has 1 son, and my oldest brother is gay- no kiddos coming from him My daughter swears she wants no kids so she can keep all her money,lol yes she's 9, and my son thinks dirls are gross- notice dirls not girls. The girls already find him cute though so I know he's a lost cause. While I wouldn't speuter them I do want a stun gun that works for the hours between 5-9pm.


----------



## cassadee7 (Nov 26, 2009)

Can we vote to spay and neuter OTHER peoples' kids??


----------



## Whiteshepherds (Aug 21, 2010)

Jax's Mom said:


> (you can spot the children of these people really easily, they have those ridiculous names that were never intended to be put on a resume


:spittingcoffee:


----------



## Rerun (Feb 27, 2006)

Selzer, I would agree with that, and I wouldn't be opposed to parents being able to put IUD's , etc in their daughters. I am not sure that much if anything could be done for sons, but if all teenage girls had an IUD it could at least prevent teenage pregnancy.

Felons - no kids.


----------



## Greydusk (Mar 26, 2010)

Rerun said:


> Selzer, I would agree with that, and I wouldn't be opposed to parents being able to put IUD's , etc in their daughters. I am not sure that much if anything could be done for sons, but if all teenage girls had an IUD it could at least prevent teenage pregnancy.
> 
> Felons - no kids.


This I agree with, if I ever have kids I fully intend on putting my daughter on some kind of birth control. Same goes for sons if they ever come out with the male version of the pill.


----------



## JudynRich (Apr 16, 2010)

There is genetic testing on embryos now...you can IV only the healthy embryos and stop many genetic diseases...just my 2 cents! As for unplanned pregnancies...60% of ALL pregnancies in the US are unplanned...makes the US not look so very smart! Teen pregnancies are at an all time low...(I research this stuff for my job!)


----------



## doggiedad (Dec 2, 2007)

i have 2 daughters. i would have them spayed if
i didn't like their boyfriends. :crazy:.


----------



## Heagler870 (Jun 27, 2009)

KZoppa said:


> 28 kids.... nope.... still too many.


Yep, I know! She was a little old mexican lady. Well, she is. My grandmother and her are bffs. lol


----------



## shannonrae (Sep 9, 2010)

I have tried to convince my doctor to spay me. 

Nobody want's to spay a 25 year old woman with no children! :/


----------



## Heagler870 (Jun 27, 2009)

selzer said:


> I think that spay/neuter should be mandatory for all felons. .


What about felons that have a felony and shouldn't have one? This was back in the 70's but my cousins husband has a felony charge against him, and he didn't even do anything! He was at a local dollar store *There were no cameras* and 2 guys came in and it was armed robbery. Well, they left after they went in and did what they came to do left very quickly. The cops showed up and a few witnesses pinned it on my cousins husband. It was all hearsay and the town was a sh*tty town and the cops were crooked. They charged him with armed robbery even though there was no evidence. He is now a felon for life even though he did nothing! He has 2 beautiful children and lives a normal life. Legal rights may be taken away from felons, but human rights are not and never should be. What then would the US America be? Assuming you're from America. Not *YOU* persay but in general *you*


----------



## Emoore (Oct 9, 2002)

Rerun said:


> Selzer, I would agree with that, and I wouldn't be opposed to parents being able to put IUD's , etc in their daughters. I am not sure that much if anything could be done for sons, but if all teenage girls had an IUD it could at least prevent teenage pregnancy..


110% in agreement on mandatory birth control, but not IUD's. Mine tore a hole in my uterus, migrated out, and was poking into my kidney. Had to have surgery to remove the stupid thing.


----------



## PupperLove (Apr 10, 2010)

I have to say I would be 100% against mandatory birth control, or forcing birth control upon a daughter of mine if I had one. The truth is, it can be DANGEROUS. Putting hormones in the body that aren't normally there all the time can cause life threatening problems- I have had WAY too many close calls and bad experiences with birth control and refuse to take it now. After all, we are always wondering what the best time to spay/neuter our pets is to prevent removing their hormones too early, what about putting unnecesary hormones into our children? Couldn't that be harmful in the long run as well? Probably. I think extensive education on STD statistics would make teens choose much more wisely and be MUCH more careful. 

I AGREE that felons (of violent crimes) should have to be steralized. For one, they are not fit for society, therefore not fit for parenthood. Two, who knows what kind of disorders they have that are apparently a threat to society, could they potentially pass on?

I was thinking about this one day and here's a perfect place to bring it up:

I know two young moms, both in their early 20's. Both have children fathered by physically abusive men (men are not related). The children fathered by these men from BOTH mothers are EXTREMLEY out of control. The fathers are NOT active in the children's lives AT ALL. The kids are throwing tantrums, hitting, yelling, and I can tell you that there is something more than just "nurture" that goes on with these boys in their heads that seems "off" and not normal "terrible 2's or 3's" I have seen them get into the "zone" and just FREAK OUT...I honestly don't know what I would do if I had to put up with that.... Could it be that they are single moms raising kids alone and just don't have enough help? Or lack of discipline? Maybe...But I tell you these kids are something else. My 3 year old son ran to me CRYING after watching the 1.5 year old boy torment his 4 year old sister....that really says something! It wasn't normal children's play behavior he was used to seeing- what he saw literally scared him!!


----------



## Uniballer (Mar 12, 2002)

No. The traditional "modest proposal" is to eat them, not just prevent them from breeding.


----------



## Ruthie (Aug 25, 2009)

It is funny how people are all for freedom of choice unless it is someone's choice to have a lot of children. So what if the Duggars have more children? They are all loved and cared for and financially supported without tax money, so why is their choice anyone else's business.

It really aggrivates me that any online articles are followed by an outcry of how she should not be "allowed" to have more children. Really? That gets my dander up. It always amazes me that people are all for freedom unless someone doesn't agree with THEM.


----------



## Heagler870 (Jun 27, 2009)

Ruthie, Good point!


----------



## Jessiewessie99 (Mar 6, 2009)

Well, I want kids and hoping to have at least 4, if I happen to have twins, hopefully 2 sets of twin.lol.

As for convicts, yes, most should be spayed and neutered. But what if you like bad boys?lol(Just kidding!)


----------



## CaliBoy (Jun 22, 2010)

I don't buy into the population control myth. I think the worse problem in western civilization is that people have so limited their reproduction over the last 30 years that we stopped replacing ourselves many years ago. Now, we have more and more people who have no one to take care of them and who are already burdening the healthcare system. 

The more pressing question is not whether to neuter the kids, but how us older folks are going to be euthanized. After 40, we have had our fun and used up enough resources. We should voluntarily check into centers where we can "check out" and allow the kids and young folks to enjoy the earth and not have to worry about maintaining us.

Most of us even in our 40's are already seeing doctors, with the beginning stage or full blown high blood pressure, cholesterol, heart issues, diabetes, arthritis, or female issues, such as menopause and pre-menopause stuff. Don't even get me started on cancers. For those of us who have not actually contributed children to society, there should simply be no expectation to be cared for. The singles should be the first ones selected for selective reduction of the general population.

I would just hope that the young folks would not build gas chambers. That would be the more efficient and practical means of disposal, because then thousands of us could be gassed for pennies on the head. Although not at all cost effective, it would be nice of the younger folks to let us go more peacefully with the lethal injection. 

The immediate euthanization of everyone over 60 would completely eliminate the need for either healthcare reform or a bailout of Social Security. The exceptions, of course, would be those who actually 1) reproduced and 2) whose offspring would be willing to completely take care of their elderly. If you have kids or grandkids who will not look after you, then you too should just go peacefully into the night.


----------



## kiwilrdg (Aug 26, 2010)

If we don't start the spey/neuter programs will we rely on local baby shelters, or would baby rescue groups be the main way to rehome the unwanted babies?

What if new registries are formed to get around the human kennel club's rules?

What will happen to the babies who can't perform in conformation, can they still be in work or agility trials? Can we still breed them as pets? My dogs would each want one and we don't have room to care for that many.

:help: I am trapped in politically incorrect satire.


----------



## Emoore (Oct 9, 2002)

Ruthie said:


> It is funny how people are all for freedom of choice unless it is someone's choice to have a lot of children. So what if the Duggars have more children? They are all loved and cared for and financially supported without tax money, so why is their choice anyone else's business.


Because there are lots and lots of people having a lot of children who _can't_ support them. The Duggars I'm not worried about. 

At my boxing gym, most of the kids live in government-supported housing (due to the nature of the sport and where the gym is located). Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single one who has less than 4 brothers and sisters. Every year we have a benefit to help out the kids whose parents can't afford to pay for their school supplies-- which is most of them. I don't have a problem helping the kids and certainly don't blame them for their parents' irresponsibility, but it _is_ irresponsible to have kids if you can't afford to care for them.


----------



## Emoore (Oct 9, 2002)

Ruthie said:


> It is funny how people are all for freedom of choice unless it is someone's choice to have a lot of children. So what if the Duggars have more children? They are all loved and cared for and financially supported without tax money, so why is their choice anyone else's business.


I don't have a problem with the Duggars. Have as many kids as you want, if you can afford to feed and clothe them and take care of your medical needs. It's the ones who can't afford them but have them anyway that drive me crazy.


----------



## Klamari (Aug 6, 2010)

Emoore said:


> I don't have a problem with the Duggars. Have as many kids as you want, if you can afford to feed and clothe them and take care of your medical needs. It's the ones who can't afford them but have them anyway that drive me crazy.


I agree. It's the 16 year old mothers who come into county hospitals to give birth, while on welfare, and baby-daddy comes in to say "hey" for 5 minutes then leaves. And she tells her nurses "I want to have as many kids as I can!!"........are you serious!?!? 

I don't know if I would go as far as forced sterilization though. Even for felons. That doesn't sit right with me. 
But then, I really wanted to forcfully sterilize some parents I saw come through the Pediatric ER I worked. After 3 bad child abuse cases in a row, I wanted to sterilze them ALL myself.


----------



## Syaoransbear (Sep 25, 2008)

Klamari said:


> I don't know if I would go as far as forced sterilization though. Even for felons. That doesn't sit right with me.


We just need lots of anti-baby propaganda so they'll willingly sterilize themselves! 

Get a vasectomy: Free gas for a year!

Tie your tubes: Win a car!


----------



## StellaSquash (Apr 22, 2010)

Syaoransbear said:


> We just need lots of anti-baby propaganda so they'll willingly sterilize themselves!
> 
> Get a vasectomy: Free gas for a year!
> 
> Tie your tubes: Win a car!


that right there is funny, I don't care who you are


----------



## Jax's Mom (Apr 2, 2010)

Syaoransbear said:


> Get a vasectomy: Free gas for a year!


According to my calculations, if you get a vasectomy you get free gas for 300 years! LOL
...Slightly less if you're only paying child support.


----------



## Rerun (Feb 27, 2006)

Emoore said:


> 110% in agreement on mandatory birth control, but not IUD's. Mine tore a hole in my uterus, migrated out, and was poking into my kidney. Had to have surgery to remove the stupid thing.


I can understand that, but there are very few methods of birth control that wouldn't require serious supervision of sorts to ensure it was being used properly and actually utilized.

The pill, I suppose you could watch her take it once a day at a designated time. That could turn into a real battle for many kids though.

Everything else needs to be taken out and put in with use or with each cycle. Not something most parents really want to supervise!

The depo shot, I don't know anything about, I think it lasts a number of years, that might work.


----------



## Zoeys mom (Jan 23, 2010)

I have a huge problem with the Duggars...sorry. If they didn't make a media circus out of the clown car they run they couldn't support all those kids, nor do I think their living conditions those first few years when the money was just coming in was good. I also don't see their parenting style as a good way to prepare those children for the real independent world and feel sorry for those kids. However, the problem with seriously sterilizing anyone based on income is that individual incomes change so much. 

When I was 8 months pregnant with my daughter my ex cheated on me and I left big belly and all. I had no money, a crappy degree, and soon a new born to care for. We never excepted government handouts and instead I worked two jobs and got my Masters. I make 5x what I did when I had her, but had I been judged then and sterilized my son wouldn't be here. Looking at our economy we can see many examples of people who had all the money in the world and a picture perfect family to boot. 6 years later their homes have been foreclosed on, they are jobless, and begging for handouts. Economic status is not permanent and therefore should not be a determining factor for those who are worthy of birth and those who are not. Of course yes your ghetto mom with 5 baby daddies is probably always going to be ghetto, but not all


----------



## Zoeys mom (Jan 23, 2010)

I got prego with my daughter on depo.......not full proof,lol


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

Rerun said:


> The depo shot, I don't know anything about, I think it lasts a number of years, that might work.


Three months, last I knew. And I know several women whose cycles were messed up because of it. My sister for one. She spent a few months in foster care in her late teens where she was required to get the shot. So this girl went from regular as a clock to no periods and unable to get pregnant for years.


----------



## Heagler870 (Jun 27, 2009)

The eldest of the Duggar children seem to be making it perfectly fine in the real world, independent and all.


----------



## Ruthie (Aug 25, 2009)

Zoeys mom said:


> I have a huge problem with the Duggars...sorry. If they didn't make a media circus out of the clown car they run they couldn't support all those kids, nor do I think their living conditions those first few years when the money was just coming in was good.


Actually...the Duggars were debt free before they signed up for their TV show. As for their living conditions prior to building their new house, they had a roof over their heads, food to eat, and parents that love them. Sounds like they had all they NEED. Many kids in this country pray to be so lucky.

As for not preparing them to be in the "real" world, I have never understood what that means. What skills do you think they are not learning to prepare them for the "real" world? Are you saying that you just don't agree with their conservative values? You are against home schooling?


----------



## Rerun (Feb 27, 2006)

Jax08 said:


> Three months, last I knew. And I know several women whose cycles were messed up because of it. My sister for one. She spent a few months in foster care in her late teens where she was required to get the shot. So this girl went from regular as a clock to no periods and unable to get pregnant for years.


I stand corrected!  I know nothing about the shot, I thought there was one that lasted a few years but perhaps not. There really isn't a good solution, unfortunately.

I don't really have an issue with the Duggars since we're on the subject. They support them, the oldest seems to be well adjusted to society, and all the kids are well behaved and polite. Can't fault 'em there!


----------



## Jessiewessie99 (Mar 6, 2009)

As for the Duggars, thats just alot of kids to handle.


----------



## Zoeys mom (Jan 23, 2010)

I believe home schooling can most certainly be as enriching in many ways as choosing to school your children outside of the home so no that is not what I meant. I feel that parents should be their children's leaders and primary care givers though. Expecting your children to help raise your other's degrades their childhood on many levels. I believe children should have play dates, time and money for extracurricular activities, and exposure to others outside of their home and community. The saying everything I needed to know I learned in Kindergarten rings very true. Children learn how to socialize and navigate their relationships, work, and personal responsibility by having to cope in environments, and with people that are not their family. 

My kids do chores and have to help each other out- thats teaching them to be decent and responsible in their home, and with their loved ones. However, when they are hurt, need guidance, and a snuggle I am there for them. 2 parents can not provide the proper emotional stimulation more than 16 children need, and because of this duties that should be restricted to the parents are forked off on children who by all means should just be getting to be kids. They run a neat and tidy ship at their own children's expense and I find them disgusting honestly. You can be conservative, religious, and home school without enslaving your children because you created a family too big to care for emotionally. These should be kids not mini mommies and daddies


----------



## Klamari (Aug 6, 2010)

Zoeys mom said:


> I believe home schooling can most certainly be as enriching in many ways as choosing to school your children outside of the home so no that is not what I meant. I feel that parents should be their children's leaders and primary care givers though. Expecting your children to help raise your other's degrades their childhood on many levels. I believe children should have play dates, time and money for extracurricular activities, and exposure to others outside of their home and community. The saying everything I needed to know I learned in Kindergarten rings very true. Children learn how to socialize and navigate their relationships, work, and personal responsibility by having to cope in environments, and with people that are not their family.
> 
> My kids do chores and have to help each other out- thats teaching them to be decent and responsible in their home, and with their loved ones. However, when they are hurt, need guidance, and a snuggle I am there for them. 2 parents can not provide the proper emotional stimulation more than 16 children need, and because of this duties that should be restricted to the parents are forked off on children who by all means should just be getting to be kids. They run a neat and tidy ship at their own children's expense and I find them disgusting honestly. You can be conservative, religious, and home school without enslaving your children because you created a family too big to care for emotionally. These should be kids not mini mommies and daddies


That was very well said. However, even with a family of 4 or 5 children, the eldest do take on some responsibilities for the younger. Being the eldest of four, I know I had much more responsibility for my younger siblings than the eldest of 2 children would have. I had extracurricular activities for sure. But I probably didnt have as many as a single child because my parents simply didnt have the time when there were four the had extra activities.

I do think it is virtually impossible for 2 parents to emotionally be there for all those children (19 now!). And the eldest are probably given more respsibility than is ideal. But I dont think the fact that the kids lives arent always perfect, means they are psychologicaly damaged. If you talked to the older Duggar siblings, I'm sure some of them are aware that they miss out on some things and dont see their parents as often as they might like. But would they trade the existence of their younger siblings for those activities? I dont think so. 

But then some feel like they missed out on things by NOT being part of large family. There are sacrifices and pro and cons either way. What is ABSOLUTELY neccesary in a child's ubringing (beside food, shelter, and protection) is very subjective, and will vary vastly depending on what part of the world youre in too.


----------



## Ruthie (Aug 25, 2009)

Zoeys mom said:


> I believe home schooling can most certainly be as enriching in many ways as choosing to school your children outside of the home so no that is not what I meant. I feel that parents should be their children's leaders and primary care givers though. Expecting your children to help raise your other's degrades their childhood on many levels. I believe children should have play dates, time and money for extracurricular activities, and exposure to others outside of their home and community. The saying everything I needed to know I learned in Kindergarten rings very true. Children learn how to socialize and navigate their relationships, work, and personal responsibility by having to cope in environments, and with people that are not their family.


Their children do have exposure to others outside their home. They have others they attend church with, they have company over often (I think they said once per week), they a form of hockey once per week...

Their duties of being one of their sibling's "buddy" doesn't mean they are the primary care giver. I am the youngest of five and my oldest sister helped a lot with my care. I really don't think that she felt cheated out of her childhood because she got me dressed every morning. Kids at school and summer camps often have a "buddy" to help keep track of lots of kids. 



> 2 parents can not provide the proper emotional stimulation more than 16 children need, and because of this duties that should be restricted to the parents are forked off on children who by all means should just be getting to be kids. They run a neat and tidy ship at their own children's expense and I find them disgusting honestly. You can be conservative, religious, and home school without enslaving your children because you created a family too big to care for emotionally. These should be kids not mini mommies and daddies


You are absolutely entitled to your opinion, but this is not a fact that 2 parent CANNOT provide proper emotional stimulation for more than 16 kids. Where are the statistics to prove that? I know a lot of parents with one child who can't provide proper parenting.

Both of the Duggars are full time parents. They are with their children 24/7. They stay up late spending time with their older children while the younger ones are in bed. Considering that 30% of America's children live in single parent homes and many others in households with 2 working parents, I don't think there is that huge of a difference in time spent with the kids.

I think "enslaving" is really harsh language. Having chores to do is pretty far from being "enslaved". But, compared to the majority of kids their ages who are self centered and lazy I could see how it might look that way in comparison.


----------



## Deuce (Oct 14, 2010)

AbbyK9 said:


> I meet a lot of people who probably should not be reproducing. XD


LOL me too.


----------



## Kagogi (Nov 12, 2010)

Ruthie said:


> Their children do have exposure to others outside their home. They have others they attend church with, they have company over often (I think they said once per week), they a form of hockey once per week...
> 
> Their duties of being one of their sibling's "buddy" doesn't mean they are the primary care giver. I am the youngest of five and my oldest sister helped a lot with my care. I really don't think that she felt cheated out of her childhood because she got me dressed every morning. Kids at school and summer camps often have a "buddy" to help keep track of lots of kids.
> 
> ...


Actually, in their tv show they said they try to spend like 3 minutes with each kid every day. It was some ridiculously low number like that. MINUTES a day! That's it! My phone conversations with my mother even now are more than just a couple of minutes. Kids need one on one time with their parents. It's important, and yes, even people with only one kid underestimate its importance all the time. Can't imagine why the therapy industry is booming....

Enslavement seems about right for what the girls are taught. These kids are sheltered beyond belief. They're taught to wear dresses, and only spend time with "good" church-going others. Kids need to know what the world really is. These kids are taught to be judgmental to anyone who doesn't conform to their idea of "modesty" (most of the world). Don't believe me? Watch the episode of Say Yes to the Dress where they appear. Then there was the marriage of the oldest son. The bride's dad took her aside and went on and on about how glad he was that she would have a new man to tell her what to do. These girls aren't learning to be independent, they're learning to be slaves to men. The bras have been burned, and they should have a choice if they want to be submissive or not. They are not taught any other way though. They are not taught to learn about the world. That to me, is a tragedy. 

I have no desire to tell anyone who can or cannot reproduce or how many kids they can have. I do, however, have a problem with all parents who think women aren't as valuable as men. It can be so destructive to the female mind. I also have a problem with people thinking it's perfectly acceptable to force sterilization on anyone. I don't care if it's a felon or someone with a disorder *you* (general you here) don't approve of. I don't like people telling me to spay my dog and I don't like people telling me members of my family should be neutered. 

And just because I'm a complete hypocrite, I will be spaying/neutering my children. It just seems like the best course of action, since I already know they're going to be just like their dad.


----------



## Heagler870 (Jun 27, 2009)

Just FYI, before people go spouting off what the Duggars as parents can or cannot do emotionally, physically, blah blah blah, maybe you should make a treck up here to Northwest Arkansas and ask them yourself and their children. I'm sure a lot of you would have a rude awakening. I think it's in no way your place to say those children don't get emotional support they deserve because you do not know. To say something without fact is ignorant. Maybe people should be more bash happy about the Westboro Baptist Church's children. They are the ones that need some emotional stability from their parents! Now that's obvious when you watch their disgusting protests.


----------



## Good_Karma (Jun 28, 2009)

I would never want a law passed that took away my right to decide whether or not to have children. As it is I have decided NOT to have any, and luckily my husband feels the same way (or I would not have married him). 

That being said I do wish that there was incentive for people to choose not to have kids, as much as there is incentive to have them. 

It would also be nice if there were mandatory parenting classes for moms and dads to be, involving more than just basic care and feeding, but also psychology and development classes. And also free counselling services available for parents and children.

I also wish people would eat less meat and drive less, since I'm out here wishing for things.


----------



## Heagler870 (Jun 27, 2009)

Good_Karma said:


> I would never want a law passed that took away my right to decide whether or not to have children. As it is I have decided NOT to have any, and luckily my husband feels the same way (or I would not have married him).
> 
> That being said I do wish that there was incentive for people to choose not to have kids, as much as there is incentive to have


:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## Klamari (Aug 6, 2010)

Heagler870 said:


> Just FYI, before people go spouting off what the Duggars as parents can or cannot do emotionally, physically, blah blah blah, maybe you should make a treck up here to Northwest Arkansas and ask them yourself and their children. I'm sure a lot of you would have a rude awakening. I think it's in no way your place to say those children don't get emotional support they deserve because you do not know. To say something without fact is ignorant.


Just my two cents here. I was not raised the Duggars raise their girls. My mother is a very strong willed working woman, who raised me (with my dad) how she saw fit. I have a Bachelors degree and have no problem being single, living on my own, and supporting myself.
However, I personally know a family who raise their kids identically to the way the duggars raise their children (this family of 10 kids have actually met the Duggars). They girls all wear dresses, wait to leave home until theyre married, etc. I know these girls personally, we played on some of the same sports teams for years. They believe that a woman should behave differently than I do sometimes, but they are in no way condescending or judgmental to the way I live. And those girls are not "enslaved". They whole-heartedly believe that they way they were raised is the way the Bible teaches women to live. These girls are very, very happy with the way they live and how their parents raised them. Just because they are more submissive in the public eye does NOT mean they do not make their opinions known to their husbands. They have a lot of say in the way their households are run. 

I am not saying I agree with EVERYTHING they teach. I am much more independent minded. But that doesnt mean that just because they choose to live that way, that they are wrong or "enslaved". I am positive that every parent on this board will agree that they did not raise their kids perfectly. And I am also sure that no parent on this board will be in agreement on every aspect of child rearing. Everyone is different. Not wrong.

I have personally seen "wrong" parenting. When you have personally seen severe child abuse, you know what "enslavement" actually is. The Duggars are not abusing or enslaving their kids.

This is a generalization, Im not pointing fingers to anyone here. But.....I dont know why we are preached at in school and society to be "accepting" of other cultures practices, to acknowledge that some cultures have very different gender roles than we are used to here in America. And some accept and acknowledge that....and then turn right around and will jump on people like the Duggars for their differences. It doesnt make sense to me.


----------



## Ruthie (Aug 25, 2009)

Wow! I almost don't even know where to start



Kagogi said:


> Actually, in their tv show they said they try to spend like 3 minutes with each kid every day. It was some ridiculously low number like that. MINUTES a day! That's it! My phone conversations with my mother even now are more than just a couple of minutes. Kids need one on one time with their parents. It's important, and yes, even people with only one kid underestimate its importance all the time. Can't imagine why the therapy industry is booming....


I have seen almost every episode of their show, and I really don't remember them saying that. But...if they did, they meant 3 minutes of alone time. She spends more time with them that schooling. They also spend time with the kids in groups. Just because they are not one-on-one, doesn't mean that they aren't getting attention.



> Enslavement seems about right for what the girls are taught. These kids are sheltered beyond belief. They're taught to wear dresses, and only spend time with "good" church-going others. Kids need to know what the world really is. These kids are taught to be judgmental to anyone who doesn't conform to their idea of "modesty" (most of the world). Don't believe me? Watch the episode of Say Yes to the Dress where they appear.


The kids are not taught to be judgmental. They are taught the opposite. Some of the little kids make some rash statements sometimes because they don't understand what they are saying. Mrs. Duggar often says that this is THEIR choice of modesty. They don't expect that other people abide by their standards or "conform" as you call it.

It amazes me how big of a double standard and prejudice there is against conservative people. In the same paragraph that you bash them for wearing only dresses, you call THEM judgemental for their opinion of a wedding gown. They never called a PERSON immodest in that episode. They said the DRESS was immodest. How is that judgemental? Are you saying that they are not allowed to have an opionion or a standard of modesty?



> Then there was the marriage of the oldest son. The bride's dad took her aside and went on and on about how glad he was that she would have a new man to tell her what to do. These girls aren't learning to be independent, they're learning to be slaves to men. The bras have been burned, and they should have a choice if they want to be submissive or not. They are not taught any other way though. They are not taught to learn about the world. That to me, is a tragedy


He did NOT say that she would have a new man to "tell her what to do". Yes, women should have a CHOICE. Not be dictated to that they HAVE to be dependent. Not all women want a career or to be single. Whay are they "slaves" because they choose not to be a "bra burner". Anna wants to be a house wife and mother. Why is her choice less valuable or right than a choice to be independent?



> I have no desire to tell anyone who can or cannot reproduce or how many kids they can have. I do, however, have a problem with all parents who think women aren't as valuable as men. It can be so destructive to the female mind. I also have a problem with people thinking it's perfectly acceptable to force sterilization on anyone. I don't care if it's a felon or someone with a disorder *you* (general you here) don't approve of. I don't like people telling me to spay my dog and I don't like people telling me members of my family should be neutered.


People who hold traditional views of marriage, like the Duggars. Do NOT believe that women are less valuable then men. In fact, sometimes it is quite the opposite. Women are to be highly valued and treated with respect.


----------



## irongrl (May 24, 2010)

Rerun said:


> On the flip side of it, there was that ridiculous movie that illustrated how as society evolves, many of the "smartest" people are climbing the career ladder and not having kids, or not having many, and the stupid people are all reproducing so the world just gets stupider and stupider as time goes on until before long all of society has a ridiculously low IQ.


 
I think the movie you are talking about is Idiocracy...That movie is actually pretty scary, in that some of the scenarios in it are kind of happening now, or could happen soon.


----------



## Syaoransbear (Sep 25, 2008)

I just have a problem with them pawning their children off on the older children. I would have a tough time making it through high school/university having to look after a kid as if it were my own child. Plus, mother/fatherhood is for when you have a kid, not when you are a kid.

I just think parents shouldn't expect their children to take care of the rest of their children like that, it's not the kids problem that the parents like making babies. If you can't handle more children without help, then don't have anymore. 

And at some point I think it does get pretty dangerous for the mother to have so many children so frequently. It would be devastating for all those young and old children to lose a mom because she wanted more children. I think that's kind of selfish, but it's not my life so whatever.

I also think we all need to be responsible about the increasing population. The world would be in a much better place if the population was down to about 2 billion. People like the Duggars really aren't helping, and if everyone followed their beliefs we'd all die off.


----------



## Klamari (Aug 6, 2010)

Syaoransbear said:


> I also think we all need to be responsible about the increasing population. The world would be in a much better place if the population was down to about 2 billion. People like the Duggars really aren't helping, and if everyone followed their beliefs we'd all die off.


Ok this is totally off topic but......

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, many countries are in a negative population growth (Europe, Chine, Japan). And the annual growth rate worldwide has been steadily declining since the 1960s. So if this tread keeps up, we wont be have an increasing population at all. Exponential increases arent good, but neither is too much decline. 

The Duggars "beliefs" arent what made them decide to have 19 children. And I really don't think one family of 19 children is affecting whether were having an increasing world population. It obviously isn't, if our annual growth rate is declining.


----------



## Zoeys mom (Jan 23, 2010)

A voice of reason and exactly my point. It is not a child's job to rear another- it's their job to be children, observe the world, and begin to learn responsibility at home. I also agree that having that many kids becomes dangerous and what would happen if she died having number 20? Sure their would be 10 little mommies at home, but how fair is that. We call ladies with 20 cats hoarders......and we call this family healthy? Okay to each their own Children need to be exposed to different cultures, ways of thinking, and experience life outside of the home- is it abusive if they don't? Depends on your definition of abuse I guess, but I find it borderline. It's not their conservative views or homemade attire either for me. It's their underexposure to the workings of the world around them. Are they learning how to cope with people different from them, are they learning independence, and can or will they be able to reason and navigate a world that works much more differently from their's? 

Everyone chooses to raise their children differently and even the most wonderful parents sometimes spawn some cruddy children- conversely some of the crappiest parents birth the most amazing children. I can't say how each of these kids will turn out, but I can say I feel their upbringing may hinder them later down the road when they move away from their compound and meet the real world


----------



## Ruthie (Aug 25, 2009)

Syaoransbear said:


> I just have a problem with them pawning their children off on the older children. I would have a tough time making it through high school/university having to look after a kid as if it were my own child. Plus, mother/fatherhood is for when you have a kid, not when you are a kid.
> 
> I just think parents shouldn't expect their children to take care of the rest of their children like that, it's not the kids problem that the parents like making babies. If you can't handle more children without help, then don't have anymore.
> 
> And at some point I think it does get pretty dangerous for the mother to have so many children so frequently. It would be devastating for all those young and old children to lose a mom because she wanted more children. I think that's kind of selfish, but it's not my life so whatever.


Spoken like someone who is not from a big family.  



> I also think we all need to be responsible about the increasing population. The world would be in a much better place if the population was down to about 2 billion. People like the Duggars really aren't helping, and if everyone followed their beliefs we'd all die off.


Certainly entitled to your opinion, but there is no science to support that.

Since we are tossing out opinions... IMO, The world would be a much better place if people raised responsible, hard working children with character and values...like the Duggars.


----------



## vat (Jul 23, 2010)

Rerun said:


> On the flip side of it, there was that ridiculous movie that illustrated how as society evolves, many of the "smartest" people are climbing the career ladder and not having kids, or not having many, and the stupid people are all reproducing so the world just gets stupider and stupider as time goes on until before long all of society has a ridiculously low IQ.


Hmmm, are you sure that was a movie and not real?


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I have no problem with the Duggars. They are practicing what they believe. Of course you will raise your children in your beliefs. That is why the family as an institution is such a vital part of society.

Someone mentioned that the mother could die from having so many children. My friends buddy's wife died in childbirth with his first child. It happens. Another person could say that it is selfish to raise an only child, because someday mom and pop will be dead, and that only will have no siblings. I have always felt sorry for onlies. But families with a bunch of kids, I find normal. Ok, maybe not nineteen. My brother's wife was one of fifteen. My parents had just six. 

From the outside looking in, we might feel that the children doing chores or being responsible for younger children is hard on them. I think it raises up responsible children, but that is how we were raised. 

I came home from Jr. highschool, carried my sister home in my newspaper bag from the babysitters. In highschool, I came home and cooked dinner every day so my parents could go to college at night. My younger brother and sister were then my responsibility until they came home at 10:30 PM Monday through Thursday. If I wanted to make money, I took them with me to babysit other people's kids, and then I forked over half of whatever I made to my mother. My brother was almost seven years younger than me and my sister almost eleven years younger than me. This was how it was until I finished high school at the end of the eleventh grade. 

I came from working parents, and that was how I was programmed. Maybe I would have liked to be a stay at home mom, a housewife. My youngest sister is struggling with this now. 

I think that while many people judge these people for raising up their daughters to be wives and mothers first, we could be judged ourselves for raising up our daughters to be professionals with little time for our homes and children.

I think in the end, we raise our kids to what we believe and to some extent what our experience was. If our experience was not good, we might go the opposite way. I do not necessarily think one better than the other, maybe just different.

Amish people have their kids work the farm from a pretty young age. They raise their daughters differently then their sons. Few go beyond grade eight. It is a society of people living what they believe. Those kids grow up, and some of them choose to walk away, some choose to continue, and some choose to rock the boat a little bit.


----------



## Klamari (Aug 6, 2010)

Zoeys mom said:


> Are they learning how to cope with people different from them, are they learning independence, and can or will they be able to reason and navigate a world that works much more differently from their's?


You are very much entitled to your opinion on how you think they would turn out. But in my personal experience, because I KNOW a family that raises their kids this way, those kids were able to do all the things you listed above. All 10 of them were in some sport or another (sometimes 2 for one child), PLUS they all played some type of muscial instrument. Most, if not all, of the peers they interacted with in these two setting were kids in the "real world", who were homeschooled, private schooled, and public schooled and from all religions and walks of life. They were able to cope very well interacting with the many people in our program who were very different than they were. They didn't just interact, they were good friends to alot of the kids in our sports program who had all different philosophys on how to raise kids. I count them among the nicest,most bubbly, and polite people I know. 

The oldest daughter of this family does have independence. She has her own car, she is self-employed as a music teacher and she also does volunteer work and gives private lessons in ASL. Many of her clients for music lessons are those people that are very different than she is. She just lives with her family, that his her choice, she is over 18 and she could move out if she wanted to.



Zoeys mom said:


> I can't say how each of these kids will turn out, but I can say I feel their upbringing may hinder them later down the road when they move away from their compound and meet the real world


Well, I can't say I know how each of the Duggars will turn out either. But I do know the oldest seems to be doing pretty fine so far to me. Living on his own dime, started a family, is expanding his own business in the "real world" with "real world" clients every day. Many young people his age aren't doing half as well.


----------



## overtgabby (Aug 2, 2010)

Rerun said:


> On the flip side of it, there was that ridiculous movie that illustrated how as society evolves, many of the "smartest" people are climbing the career ladder and not having kids, or not having many, and the stupid people are all reproducing so the world just gets stupider and stupider as time goes on until before long all of society has a ridiculously low IQ.


 That is not as ridiculous as it sounds.... I live in a town like that also


----------



## Zoeys mom (Jan 23, 2010)

I should add I am the oldest of 8, but my family worked a little different than the Duggars,lol We had chores and had to help each other out, but were never responsible for one another- more like accountable. We have a huge family that watched over us, dozens of cousins to play with, and were lucky to have parents that afforded us a pretty normal life. We all played sports, musical instruments, traveled, and were allowed to develop into the people we wanted to be. The few times I have watched the show I've had to turn the channel sorry they just rub me in all the wrong ways.


----------



## Jessiewessie99 (Mar 6, 2009)

Anyone read the book the Giver? Now that book was weird and interesting at the same time.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

yes. Society determined who bred, how many children, who raised the children, what children got at what age, what children did for their life's work. They felt that they could create eutopia by managing these things. 

Babies who did not make the grade were euthanized.


----------



## Jessiewessie99 (Mar 6, 2009)

selzer said:


> yes. Society determined who bred, how many children, who raised the children, what children got at what age, what children did for their life's work. They felt that they could create eutopia by managing these things.
> 
> Babies who did not make the grade were euthanized.


Yep that one. There was a sequel, Gathering Blue. I am not sure about after that book. It was sad, weird, and interesting.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

did not read that one, not sure I enjoyed The Giver


----------



## Jessiewessie99 (Mar 6, 2009)

My 6th grade teacher read us both. I read the Giver again later on in Middle school, though I kept seeing it everywhere.


----------



## Syaoransbear (Sep 25, 2008)

Klamari said:


> Ok this is totally off topic but......
> 
> According to the U.S. Census Bureau, many countries are in a negative population growth (Europe, Chine, Japan). And the annual growth rate worldwide has been steadily declining since the 1960s. So if this tread keeps up, we wont be have an increasing population at all. Exponential increases arent good, but neither is too much decline.
> 
> The Duggars "beliefs" arent what made them decide to have 19 children. And I really don't think one family of 19 children is affecting whether were having an increasing world population. It obviously isn't, if our annual growth rate is declining.


Even with a steadily decreasing growth rate, you can still have an increase in population because despite the steadily decreasing growth rate, the population has went from 3 billion to 6.7 billion since the 1960s. If the decreasing trend keeps up, hopefully there will be a population decrease, but as of now it's still increasing.

Also, I thought the duggars had so many children because they believed god wanted them to have as many children as they could?



Ruthie said:


> Spoken like someone who is not from a big family.


Nope, my mom came from a large family and decided she didn't like it(she was the second oldest), so she only had 3 kids. A lot of people I know that have been from large families are opting to have small families or no children at all. Maybe they had their fill of changing diapers when they were teenagers. :crazy:

Can't people just adopt if they want such large families? Why do children need to have your DNA to be special?



Ruthie said:


> Certainly entitled to your opinion, but there is no science to support that.


All of my biology, geology, and geography professors have said the same thing, so I think there is science to support that.


----------



## Klamari (Aug 6, 2010)

Syaoransbear said:


> All of my biology, geology, and geography professors have said the same thing, so I think there is science to support that.


If you talked to 100 people, you would have professors, engineers, and scientists on both sides of the global warming and natural resources arguments, all with research to support their opinion. Just because a professor says something and he has a research study that supports what he says, that doesnt mean he's right. There are plenty of badly done, inaccurate research studies. 

Some pretty convincing support that a population decline might not be such a good idea is how the countries who are in a negative population growth have responded to their decreasing population. Russia, Australia, Japan, France Italy, Germany, and Poland all offer financial incentives and subsidies to encourage women to have children.

The powers that be in these countries might be seeing economic and societal problems occuring in their countries that make them want to halt this decline. If a decreasing population is so great, why are these countries trying to reverse it?


----------



## Ruthie (Aug 25, 2009)

Klamari said:


> If you talked to 100 people, you would have professors, engineers, and scientists on both sides of the global warming and natural resources arguments, all with research to support their opinion. Just because a professor says something and he has a research study that supports what he says, that doesnt mean he's right. There are plenty of badly done, inaccurate research studies.
> 
> Some pretty convincing support that a population decline might not be such a good idea is how the countries who are in a negative population growth have responded to their decreasing population. Russia, Australia, Japan, France Italy, Germany, and Poland all offer financial incentives and subsidies to encourage women to have children.
> 
> The powers that be in these countries might be seeing economic and societal problems occuring in their countries that make them want to halt this decline. If a decreasing population is so great, why are these countries trying to reverse it?


Beat me to it.  Just because a professor says it, doesn't mean it is true. There is a lot of rhetoric that gets passed from teacher to student that is philosophy or theory passed off as fact.


----------



## Klamari (Aug 6, 2010)

Ruthie said:


> Beat me to it.  Just because a professor says it, doesn't mean it is true. There is a lot of rhetoric that gets passed from teacher to student that is philosophy or theory passed off as fact.


And then so much more that is just plain not true OR has no bearing on the reality of the world we live in and the profession you are studying in. You would think nursing schools (kind of important life and death stuff here) would get it right. But no, they don't. Some of the stuff they preach as gospel, I get to an actual hosptial, none of the nurses do it that way. And I am paying these people thousands of dollars to teach me things I will never use. 

Sorry, rant over. Can you tell I'm not an academic?


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

It is good that you have your eyes open. Sometimes our halls of learning are places for people who spend their whole lives within them, and do not know what actually is happening in the real world.


----------



## Syaoransbear (Sep 25, 2008)

Klamari said:


> If you talked to 100 people, you would have professors, engineers, and scientists on both sides of the global warming and natural resources arguments, all with research to support their opinion. Just because a professor says something and he has a research study that supports what he says, that doesnt mean he's right. There are plenty of badly done, inaccurate research studies.
> 
> Some pretty convincing support that a population decline might not be such a good idea is how the countries who are in a negative population growth have responded to their decreasing population. Russia, Australia, Japan, France Italy, Germany, and Poland all offer financial incentives and subsidies to encourage women to have children.
> 
> The powers that be in these countries might be seeing economic and societal problems occuring in their countries that make them want to halt this decline. If a decreasing population is so great, why are these countries trying to reverse it?


I'm aware of that, there's plenty of things my professors say that I disagree with(including global warming). Scientists may be pretty divided about global warming, but most believe that the total earth population should be decreased to preserve resources and specie diversity. It's not like the earth is getting any bigger! 

Countries don't want the population to decline because the economy goes to pieces. You can't really start killing off old people, so you have an imbalance of young working people and old retired people. Improving the world's environment is not a government's priority, they'd rather have a stable economy. 

Back to the real topic; I think any girl who is sexually active would be happy to go on birth control, all the parents need to do is ask. I think the day your daughter gets her period, you should ask her if she'd like to go on birth control, or give her to option to ask you anytime if she'd like to go on it after she gets it. The reason why most don't is because it's embarrassing to ask, it's basically like saying HEY MOM/DAD I'M HAVING SEX. It's better if the parents bring it up. Forcing it on them seems unnecessary. I can't imagine most 12 year old girls being like, "No! I want to get pregnant instead!"

I don't know what to do about boys though :crazy:. They've figured out how to reverse aging in mice, but they can't do anything about sperm. Sheesh.


----------



## Kagogi (Nov 12, 2010)

Ruthie said:


> Wow! I almost don't even know where to start
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, I completely hate housewives and consider them less valuable. That was exactly what I was trying to say. Nevermind the fact I AM ONE. What I was actually saying is they are sheltered. But then again, I was fortunate to be raised in a circle of friends where I was the only one born in the country, the only one with English as a first language. Who knows, maybe to me, every average joe lived a sheltered life, save those exposed to huge cities with lovely crime rates. 

I think for a person to be able to make the most informed decision, they really need to see what's out there. I don't think that can be accomplished with home schooling and church (except Unitarian Universalist (sp?) churches, those people cover some ground LOL). I don't know, maybe I just feel bad for them because they don't have the mother I did. She's a real special lady. My mom is a Christian woman and tried to initially raise me as the Duggars raise their kids (yeah, your whole attempt at labelling me a conservative hater was ridiculous). Dresses, braids...she realized I needed more. I find it hard to believe of all of those kids not a one has ever had an interest in other things that Mrs Duggar wouldn't approve of. 

As much as you'd like to think 3 minutes (and I actually think he said a minute and a half, so I'm being generous here) is adequate, what about the difficult times? With that many kids, they'd all be going through the crappy stages close together. Did anyone actually enjoy being a teenager? How many times do they lose out on their whole couple of minutes? There are just some topics that many people have issues discussing with their whole family right there. 

Unlike most people who gripe about the Duggars, I am not saying they shouldn't have their kids, or shouldn't keep going until Mom finally bursts. I would never even attempt to make that choice for someone, let alone someone that, no, I don't know personally. I am however entitled to an opinion on views expressed on a television show. They probably aren't as annoying in person. Editing is a crappy, undocumentary thing. So calm down, take a deep breath, and realize I simply hate the "TV Duggars" and don't have an opinion on "Real Life Duggars".


----------



## elisabeth_00117 (May 17, 2009)

shannonrae said:


> I have tried to convince my doctor to spay me.
> 
> Nobody want's to spay a 25 year old woman with no children! :/


If you find one, let me know!


----------



## GSDolch (May 15, 2006)

Klamari said:


> The Duggars "beliefs" arent what made them decide to have 19 children. And I really don't think one family of 19 children is affecting whether were having an increasing world population. It obviously isn't, if our annual growth rate is declining.



Actually, yes, they are. They are a "quiverful" family, the point is to have as many kids as to fill their gods quiver in this world. She will have kids until god makes her stop. 

They are not the only family like this, they are the only one in the spotlit.

I'll leave my personal feelings on it aside for now though.


----------



## LaRen616 (Mar 4, 2010)

This cracks me up!

I always say "Spay and Neuter your children, it keeps the population down."

I dont like kids, I dont like that there are so many people in the world and that everyday more and more of wildlife is getting cut down and taken over because there are more and more people in the world. 

Someday we wont have wild animals, because we are going to destroy all of their homes.

In less than 20 years there will be no more wild Tigers. :teary:


----------



## PaddyD (Jul 22, 2010)

Rerun said:


> On the flip side of it, there was that ridiculous movie that illustrated how as society evolves, many of the "smartest" people are climbing the career ladder and not having kids, or not having many, and the stupid people are all reproducing so the world just gets stupider and stupider as time goes on until before long all of society has a ridiculously low IQ.


Pretty good evidence of it in here. Just look at the spelling and grammar.
Correctness has become unimportant.


----------



## Klamari (Aug 6, 2010)

GSDolch said:


> Actually, yes, they are. They are a "quiverful" family, the point is to have as many kids as to fill their gods quiver in this world. She will have kids until god makes her stop.
> 
> They are not the only family like this, they are the only one in the spotlit.
> 
> I'll leave my personal feelings on it aside for now though.


I hadn't heard that. Did they say that on the show? I saw a clip of an episode and Mrs talked about one of their first pregnancies was a miscarriage and it was very traumatic for them so they decided to not prevent and future pregnancies, so I assumed that was the reason.


----------



## LaRen616 (Mar 4, 2010)

I have been asking my DR. to spay me ever since I was 18 years old! He wont do it 

I had a miscarriage when I was 20 years old and it was by far the worst pain I have ever been in, in my life!

Because of my disease I cannot have birth control because it would kill me.


----------



## GSDolch (May 15, 2006)

Here are some sites about quiverful families.

Are Jim Bob & Michelle Duggar "Quiverfull"? - Vyckie Garrison - Open Salon

Quiverfull - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

QuiverFull .com

I remember seeing an episode of theirs long ago where they talked about it, but I don't remember which one.


----------



## kiwilrdg (Aug 26, 2010)

Originally Posted by *Rerun*  
_On the flip side of it, there was that ridiculous movie that illustrated how as society evolves, many of the "smartest" people are climbing the career ladder and not having kids, or not having many, and the stupid people are all reproducing so the world just gets stupider and stupider as time goes on until before long all of society has a ridiculously low IQ._

I think we are almost there now. If I am thinking about the same movie it involved salt on all the farms because they wanted the plants to have electrolytes. Last month a salesman tried to sell me a car wax that he said was the best on the market because it used electrolytes and had no chemicals in it.


----------



## Ruthie (Aug 25, 2009)

Kagogi said:


> Yes, I completely hate housewives and consider them less valuable. That was exactly what I was trying to say. Never mind the fact I AM ONE. What I was actually saying is they are sheltered. But then again, I was fortunate to be raised in a circle of friends where I was the only one born in the country, the only one with English as a first language. Who knows, maybe to me, every average joe lived a sheltered life, save those exposed to huge cities with lovely crime rates.
> 
> I think for a person to be able to make the most informed decision, they really need to see what's out there. I don't think that can be accomplished with home schooling and church (except Unitarian Universalist (sp?) churches, those people cover some ground LOL). I don't know, maybe I just feel bad for them because they don't have the mother I did. She's a real special lady. My mom is a Christian woman and tried to initially raise me as the Duggars raise their kids (yeah, your whole attempt at labelling me a conservative hater was ridiculous). Dresses, braids...she realized I needed more. I find it hard to believe of all of those kids not a one has ever had an interest in other things that Mrs Duggar wouldn't approve of.
> 
> ...


Didn't say that you are a "conservative hater". I said your statement was prejudiced. Hey, I am a conservative and I assume everyone loves me. LOL! 

Yes, you absolutely are entitled to your opinion. The issue I had with your post is that you stated your opinion as fact, as a person who loves to argue and one that has a differing viewpoint, I just couldn't leave it alone.

IMO you don't have to throw your kids out in the "real world" for them to be able to survive in it when they grow up. I think it is the parent's responsibility to shelter their kids from the cold realities of the world until they are able to handle them.

Although...I am not sure what everyone is saying the Duggars are not prepared to handle because they are so sheltered.


----------



## CaliBoy (Jun 22, 2010)

This thread is very typical of any discussion about population and who should reproduce or how many kids they should have. Some of you don't realize how really scary you are, because a part of you is so fascist.

Of course, the pretext/excuse behind the fascism is that "I have a right to be upset about your reproductive choices because I pay taxes."

What people conveniently ignore is that at a certain point, your taxes will not cover the cost of caring for a senior, and then you will happily mooch on the money and resources of the younger generation, some of whom you were not sure should have been born. Talking out of both sides of your mouth and not realizing it.


----------



## koda00 (Apr 27, 2009)

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:


Good_Karma said:


> I would never want a law passed that took away my right to decide whether or not to have children. As it is I have decided NOT to have any, and luckily my husband feels the same way (or I would not have married him).
> 
> That being said I do wish that there was incentive for people to choose not to have kids, as much as there is incentive to have them.
> 
> ...


----------



## GSDolch (May 15, 2006)

CaliBoy said:


> This thread is very typical of any discussion about population and who should reproduce or how many kids they should have. Some of you don't realize how really scary you are, because a part of you is so fascist.
> 
> Of course, the pretext/excuse behind the fascism is that "I have a right to be upset about your reproductive choices because I pay taxes."
> 
> What people conveniently ignore is that at a certain point, your taxes will not cover the cost of caring for a senior, and then you will happily mooch on the money and resources of the younger generation, some of whom you were not sure should have been born. Talking out of both sides of your mouth and not realizing it.



Yup, I think you make some very good points.

I'll be honest, I don't like what the Duggers are doing, I do not agree with it and have my own thoughts on it (if you are easily offended, do not ask!)...however, regardless of how I feel about that, I wouldn't tell them to stop doing what they are doing.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I am surprised by the quiverfull comment. 

There is a proverb about children being like arrows, and happy is the man who has a quiver full of them. I do not have it word for word, but that is the jist of it.

Anyhow, I know that in Genesis, there is a command from God to be fruitful and multiply or to fill the earth with offspring, something to that effect. There has always been debate on whether or not birth control was ok. 

The sin of Onan, where his brother died without leaving a son, so the brother's wife had a claim on him to give her a son for her husband. And he went and made as to comply but deliberately made sure that there would be no child. For this he was in trouble with God. I think the sin was in refusing to allow conception to take place so as to cheat his brother and his wife out of the inheritance, a widow with no children was in a bad situation. But various religions have used this story to suggest that at no time is it ok to prevent conception. 

Anyhow, I do not see a problem with 19 kids. Small families have their plusses and minuses and so do large families. I think that kids are pretty resilient and manage to do ok in whichever family they are dropped into 

I wonder how many serial killers were onlies, one of a few, one of many, one of a hoard? I think on either extreme, one or many, children may get a raw deal, but a child with a decent temperament will figure it out.


----------



## Zoeys mom (Jan 23, 2010)

I don't believe anyone should be told how many kids they can and can't have I'm just not into any government control of social freedoms. I don't agree with the way the Duggars are raising their kids, but it's their right


----------

