C.H. Spurgeon

Sinners, let me address you with words of life; Jesus wants nothing from you, nothing whatsoever, nothing done, nothing felt; he gives both work and feeling. Ragged, penniless, just as you are, lost, forsaken, desolate, with no good feelings, and no good hopes, still Jesus comes to you, and in these words of pity he addresses you, "Him that cometh unto me I will in no wise cast out."

Comment Policy: No profanity or blasphemy will be posted. You do not have to agree, but if you would like your comment posted, you will have to adhere to the policy.


Friday, August 03, 2007

A Few Brothers and Sisters

LITTLE ROCK — An Arkansas couple had a baby daughter Thursday — their 17th child and seventh girl — and the pair say they're still not ready to give it a rest.

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

21 comments:

BEAST said...

Breeding and breeding like pigs in a pigsty. I can't, in due honesty, understand your meaning of posting this.

As a baptist, I have encountered Christian kids with more than a dozen siblings, and most of them are often in the midst of constant wrangling and fighting.

Unless you are filthy rich and capable of looking after a huge brood, breeding uncontrollably is the surest way to breeding disgruntled kids, and it gets worst when parents don't actually have the financial capability to send all of them to school (as attested by my mother, who quited school because of the deference of 7 other boys, i.e my uncles, none of whom got any higher than a primary school education).

Writer, Splinters of Silver.com said...

Actually I know a couple of families that have more than five children and they all live peaceably and are much disciplined. They are also home schooled which takes discipline, and are a very close family.

In contrast, I know of families which have only one child that is out of control and defies them with all of their being. These children cause fights with other children and have no respects for adults or their parents.

I just thought it was interesting that a family has seventeen children and are able to enjoy and take care of them.

So, I would have to disagree that having more children is the *surest way* to produce disgruntled children.

There is not always a deeper meaning to my posts.

BEAST said...

Sure. Things always look calm on the surface, just like a tsunami. The kids in my aunt's baptist church look normal too, until they start bawling and screaming into their siblings' face. I remember growing up and seeing them grow up all insolent and angry. One of them was caught smoking and drinking when he was 14, and had to be hauled in front of Sunday school to "confess" his sins. Doh!

Many families who tend to have large families like this cow tend to come from low income, religious families. They have to scrimp and scrimp to make all ends meet. They can't provide enough for their children, and their children suffer.

Home schooling tend to breed stupid Creationist children, something which I really do not encourage, unless the parents are qualified teachers who aren't exactly folks who believe that the Earth is flat.

My mother is a good living example. That was why she stopped at three.

Also, having too many children is detrimental for mothers. Spending 126 months in labor is what I consider abnormal. This is a human being we are talking about, not a pig.

Writer, Splinters of Silver.com said...

Is it necessary to call this lady a cow simply because she has decided to have more children than some may believe is right or necessary or appropriate?

Can we please keep the comments less personal and more about discussion of ideas? I believe it would allow commenters to better stay on topic and to stay objective with a lesser chance of frustration, anger, and inappropriate comments being made.

I do agree that if one cannot financially, mentally, physically care for their children, they should consider the thought that they should refrain from having more. But I find no reason to deny or speak against those which have the ability and the means and desire to have as many children as they are able.

Home schooling comes with material that must be taught, learned, and tested upon. Also, the idea of Creationism does not hinder ones ability to live in society, have a good job, or be a model citizen. But, I do agree if the parent(s) is unable to adequately teach the course material (at what ever level it may become), they should find a tutor for the children or another avenue to ensure the learning of their children.

We also cannot judge every family by what we may have observed in others. You note you have seen bad, I note I have seen good, so it appears both do exist.

BEAST said...

Creationism, like the flat earth belief, is not based on scientific evidence.

Seeing a kid telling me that the planet is 6000 years old is enough reason why we shouldn't be teaching kids the sheer stupidity of right-wing movements.

Of course, having 17 children does not equate a cow. More like a pig, really.

Spending ten years of her life in intense labor......now, if this is not masochistic and silly piety, I don't know what is.

I don't see Bill Gates' wife bearing a hundred kids.And it is usually the Christian and the Muslim women who do that.

This is the 21st century, Tim. Children are not prone to dropping dead from polio or some other disease. There is no need to propagate like a sow (female pig) to replace lost children, like our forefathers did lose, so that they can have enough children to look after their crops or property.

BEAST said...

You are a myopic person. I don't even believe in your judgement, considering that you believe that the Earth is 6000 yrs old (tsk tsk).

Anonymous said...

Hi,

I realize that this is "writer, splinters of silver.com"'s blog, but this comment is actually more for Beast.
Why do you have to be so cruel all the time to get your point across? As an atheist, I tend to agree with *most* of the things you say, or at least the ideas behind them, but I cannot understand why you feel the need to be so unpleasant all the time. I feel like you're giving atheists a bad rap. Sure, we wish that people could see things our way, but we're not all so eager to name-call and lambaste.
There's nothing I enjoy more than a really good debate. But the writer of this blog is clearly not stupid. He is eloquent and uses good grammar, and always presents his side clearly and rationally, however irrational we may percieve his beliefs to be. Even if he WAS stupid and ignorant and all the other things you claim him to be, I'm sure he gets the message by now.
If you just presented your arguments in a more factual, non-antagonistic approach, there would be more room for healthy debate and lively discussion, and maybe then you could get some of the answers you're looking for.
Also, Mrs. Duggar would not have spent 126 months in labour for 17 children. Even if she laboured an entire day for each of them, that's only 17 days. If you were talking about how long she was pregnant, that's 153 months. Which, granted, is a really long time, but is nowhere near as bad as being in labour that long :)

The Alpha said...

Personally, I disagree with the amount of children this family has chosen to have. Given that the amount of resources on the planet are limited, I think society should address ways to efficiently use limited resources and address issues of population control. We can't recklessly continue at the current rate of consumption and population growth without addressing how and what our children are going to survive off of. With that said, I still believe the amount of children an individual wishes to have is an individual choice. I'd rather not force my own personal opinions upon others and I simply choose to live differently.

Blog Guy said...

I see no fault with raising as many kids as you please just as long you are able to supply their needs.
Anyone has the right to have as many children as they wish.
Home schooling is not bad when done right. The age of the earth is debatable. I agree with writer of the blog, while you may not. The thing is that even in public schools a parent should have a right to choose what their kids learn.
If you are to teach the evolution theory , the big bang and theories if liking, then you should teach the Christian point of view also. Let children decide what to grow into believing. I believe that the parents in the end will have the most influence on the child.
Back to the picture. If they can handle it then go. It's not the number that a parent has but it is the quality at standards at which they can raise them. I don't think she is a pig, cow or anything else than a loving human mother though.

John P said...

I'm with Alpha on this one.

It's irresponsible for any two people to have 17 children, and then justify it as god's gift. I don't care if they have the resources to provide adequately for them. If that was the criteria for responsible parenthood, then Bill gates should have a couple thousand. And most of the people in South America shouldn't have any.

Nope, those people are not thinking of anything but themselves. The world be damned.

Writer, Splinters of Silver.com said...

So, let me see if I understand.

Alpha,
You believe, “the amount of children an individual wishes to have is an individual choice” and “I'd rather not force my own personal opinions upon others”, but at the same time you, “think society should address ways to efficiently use limited resources and address issues of population control.”

Wouldn’t this take what is a personal issue of choice that you do not wish to force people to follow a certain way, but would like society to turn it into a nonpersonal issue where we would all have to be forced to follow someone’s plan (other than our personal choice) of population (having children) control?


John P,
What makes having children irresponsible? It is only irresponsible when people that cannot support, do not want, etc. children that continue to have them. This family appears to be fully responsible for all of the children they have chosen to have.

Who said the criteria was the more resources you have means the more children you have to or need to have?

Who are you thinking of when you say this family should not have this many children?

BEAST said...

No sane woman will ever give birth to 17 children over a staggering period of 19 years, 10.5 of which is spent in the doldrums of pregnancy.

Besides ruining the health of the woman, the woman is rendered nothing more than a baby-making machine.

In days gone past, there was a need for women to breed and have kids, so that they can have enough hands to work on the fields and tend to the family chores. There was also the problem of disease, which tends to kill of a large portion of their brood.

21st century Science has facilitated our lives in many ways, and this includes decreasing the risks of infant mortality. There is no need to breed like a sow to replace lost children. And most people living in cities cannot afford the high costs of sustaining and providing quality education for so many kids.

Home education, did I hear? Sure, up to what level? University? Or are they going to be home-schooled in biblical indoctrination, the kind which breeds fundamentalists and young earth Creationists?

Sure, have as any kids as this family wants. But I am against promoting this kind of archaic lifestyle. It speaks of a time when backwardness and inadequateness rein supreme, and no one in his or her right mind will want to go back to such ill-advised lifestyles.

The Alpha said...

Wouldn’t this take what is a personal issue of choice that you do not wish to force people to follow a certain way, but would like society to turn it into a nonpersonal issue where we would all have to be forced to follow someone’s plan (other than our personal choice) of population (having children) control?

I'm not advocating that people be forced to follow someone's plan. Society can address issues (i.e. engage in an ongoing and open discussion about population control) without forcing people to adhere to a specific plan.

I think if people were more aware of the specific level of impact they have on the world's resources when they have an excessive amount of children, they'd exercise a bit more caution. Knowing that although one can afford 12 children, that they've effectively made less resources available around the world may make people think twice and excercise a bit of restraint.

To me it's not solely about whether people can afford to take care of the numerous children they have. It's also about the impact on global resources and how its felt disporportionately in the underdeveloped countries.

Writer, Splinters of Silver.com said...

Alpha,

How is this family having 17 children personally "felt disporportionately in the underdeveloped countries"?

The Alpha said...

How is this family having 17 children personally "felt disporportionately in the underdeveloped countries"?

This family, as well as everyone else, is part of the “global village.” The amount of resources they expend has an impact on the supply level of resources and waste globally. Americans need to think beyond the man-made country borders and realize that what we do has an impact elsewhere in the world. For example, pollution and its impact doesn’t tend to restrict itself to its country of origin. The countries that are least able to combat the ramifications of insufficient resources and increased pollution are the underdeveloped countries that cannot afford to.

While this family may be able to afford the number of children they have, having so many children still drains the world’s limited resources and they are inevitably producing some form of waste. Technology and lifestyles that reduce our environmental impact on the world are important and they should be discussed. People should think about more than just their own family and consider how the size of one’s family impacts the lives of others.

John P said...

What makes having children irresponsible? It is only irresponsible when people that cannot support, do not want, etc. children that continue to have them. This family appears to be fully responsible for all of the children they have chosen to have.

When there are so many children out there that need to be adopted, when we know that the earth's resources are limited, when we know that the world is already overpopulated, it is irresponsible to have 17 children. That's my opinion, and I'll stick to it. There is no rule book. If they want to have 17 children, that's fine. But I don't have to agree with their smug appearance of responsibility, or their facile belief that the children are gifts from god. They are not gifts from god, they are the result of their sexual union, something they can limit.

It is extremely egotistic for them to think that their genes are something special. Give their love to a child that will not have it otherwise - Adopt!

Who said the criteria was the more resources you have means the more children you have to or need to have?

I do. It's purely subjective. If you don't agree, that's your subjective opinion.

Who are you thinking of when you say this family should not have this many children?

This family. Think of the wear and tear on that woman's body, at the very least. Think of how they have to allocate their time with each child, who will get only 1/17 of the parents time, on average.

Sorry. I have far more admiration for people who adopt than for people who show the world that they are no better than rabbits.

Writer, Splinters of Silver.com said...

John P,

Maybe you should fight for the price and easability of adaption to go down so people can adopt. It is no wonder people are going outside of the US to adopt, the US has simply made it overly difficult. I know this from people who have tried.

John P said...

No. The big problem is that most people who adopt want cute, cuddly, healthy, white, babies. Older children, and babies with physical and mental problems are not deemed adoptable. And there are not enough of these cute, cuddly, healthy, white babies to go around, so people have to go outside the country to get them. Russia is a big source for them.

Sure, there is an expense to adoption. State laws are designed to ensure that children are adopted by appropriate individuals, not, for instance, pedophiles. So there is an expense. But having adopted a child with congenital birth defects, I can tell you it is very much worth it. And if I could get the cost down, I'd do it, but there are forces beyond my control.

If you'd like to adopt a nice 12 year old black child, I'm sure I could get you a deal. I'd handle the legal fees for free, even.

Writer, Splinters of Silver.com said...

I agree most families would most likely wish to adopt a younger child, but I don't know if I would say, only white. The family I know just adopted an oriental child. Noted that a twelve year old would most likely be a little more difficult (not necessarily though) than a child that has not grown up feeling not wanted or passed around here and there. I also know a family that has adapted a boy with mental problems and they love him just the same.

I realize the state has to be careful as to who they allow to adopt, but it seems that the price is unncecessarily high. But I am not currently in a position to adopt or have other children at the moment.

Blog Guy said...

John P,
What makes an individual an approiate parent? You said...
"Sure, there is an expense to adoption. State laws are designed to ensure that children are adopted by appropriate individuals, not, for instance, pedophiles."
This statement seems to point toward those who lack funds to adopt are pedophiles. If that is what you are saying then it is wrong. People of all incomes are pedophiles. Just because someone has better resources than others does not make them the appropriate person to adopt. Money is helpful but being able to place the child into your care and to commit to them is worth more than money.

John P said...

This statement seems to point toward those who lack funds to adopt are pedophiles. If that is what you are saying then it is wrong.

No, BG, that's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying that there is a (some might say, high) cost for adoption, because the state, which controls the adoption process, has determined that they must set in place a process for weeding out unqualified people as adopters, to ensure good homes for the children. That process adds to the cost.

I know pedophiles run the gamut of the social and economic strata, and hopefully, if the process works, they will all be weeded out.

In any event, pedophilia was just an example. The process also looks for other indicators of non-suitability, such as other forms of mental illness, suitability of the homes, etc.

John Bunyan

To be saved is to be preserved in the faith to the end. 'He that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.' (Mt. 24:13) Not that perseverance is an accident in Christianity, or a thing performed by human industry; they that are saved 'are kept by the power of God, through faith unto salvation.' (1 Pet. 1: 3-6) But perseverance is absolutely necessary to the complete saving of the soul…. He that goeth to sea with a purpose to arrive at Spain, cannot arrive there if he be drowned by the way; wherefore perseverance is absolutely necessary to the saving of the soul.