Hot discussion on MSN: Can a family be too big? (References to Duggars)

The original page contains comments by Lily Tomlin, Liz Smith, and others. Here that is:

http://lifestyle.msn.com/your-life/bigger-picture/articlewow.aspx?cp-documentid=9299812

Now here's the first page of the discussion. As I write this, the number of posts exceeds 3,000 over more than 250 pages:

http://boards.live.com/Lifestyleboards/thread.aspx?threadid=759961&boardsparam=Page%3d1

Unfortunately, the responses seem to be running about 3 to 1 in favor of the Duggars. Many pooh-pooh the environmental objections to overpopulation, often with the standard fundie line that "God will provide"...

Your obedient servant K-Man posted a response on page 53, but it got lost amid all the noise. The posts were coming fast and furious just as soon as the moderators first posted the question for discussion, and within two hours the number of pages was over 100. I had come in when there were only 8 pages.

It's absolutely amazing how many people in this day in age, amid all the warnings about ecological concerns, still say that having a quiverful of children is absolutely acceptable and to be admired. Just amazing.

That's because those people don't care about the environment. All that matters is the almighty baybee...in many cases, the more baybees the better. These people disgust me, K-man. Breeders hae this entitlement attitude an doG fobid that someone might think that children are not necessary or desirable.

For every child you choose to have, you add one more house to the planet in addition to your own, considering that around 70% of Americans own their own homes. (OK, 7 houses for your 10 kids, technically). Let's say it's a free-standing home (as opposed to an apartment in a big building).

Let's say you have 1 kid.

Most Americans marry. That's 2 people, your kid and their spouse/partner, that start out in the house. If each works, each needs a car, like as not (unless in a very dense urban area). You didn't birth the spouse/partner, but you do have to take responsibility for your own kid's car.

Now you've added a house and a car to the planet, in addition to your own house and car. Freestanding homes are the least energy-efficient of all types of housing. The child, now a home-owning adult, needs 70-80 years' worth of food, clothes, shoes, and all the other things in a normal life.

Now you've added a house, a car, and decades of food and supplies, most of which stuff is moved around the country by semi trucks getting 5-7 miles to the gallon, to get to the stores in your child's neighborhood. Imagine ALL THOSE THINGS, house, car, decades of stuff, piles and piles, in your own backyard. Yikes! Would it even fit? How much energy went into making all those things? How much trash will be generated by them?

Now in this thought experiment, compare the piles and heaps of stuff we imagined in the parent's backyard, and compare it to a childfree person's backyard. Let's peek over the fence, here...

It's empty.

Yeah, a family can definitely be too big. The Duggars are shitty parents...they may be able to support their brood (I have a feeling one or both Duggar parents MUST be doing something illegal to pay for their 18 or so brats), but all Momma Duggar does is shit out a baby and have it off to one of the older daughters. She doesn't even take care of her own kids - she expects her eldest to do the cunt work while she keeps shitting out babies and lapping up the media attention. A family is too big when you are dependent on your older kids to take care of your younger kids.

Between the serial breeders, the non-vax crowd, and the me-me-me attitudes of current youth, we are in for a very bleak future.

I recall reading something from Dear Abby a long time ago about "how to deflect rude comments about the number of children we have". One woman spoke of how she was on her eighth or ninth child and how people would come up to her and go, "You know what causes those, don't you?" and she would smile smugly and answer, "Yes, but DH and I are only halfway through the Kama Sutra! Tee-hee!". Oh really? Since when did having sex equate to tossing protection to the wind? That collection of letters made me sick - these serial breeders don't need back-pats, they need clue-by-fours and stealth sterilizations. They SHOULD be ashamed of themselves, but since we just lurrve the baybees in this country, they are put on pedestals for proving they got laid more than once. It's so disgusting.

I only made it to about the 10th page and had already seen EVERY bingo I could ever want to hear. The one that PISSES me off the most is it's their "God given right". I don't recall seeing any bill of rights in The Bible. If I hear how their kids are "gifts" one more time I am afraid I might burst a blood vessel. The fundies take one word, phrase, or sentence from The Bible, out of context half the time, and spin it for their own personal and selfish reasons. I read an article by a fundie a while back and I think it was entitled, "Deliberate childlessness; A moral rebellion?". It even pissed off other fundies who had a host of reasons they haven't reproduced such as being a member of the priesthood or a nun, having genetic medical problems they didn't wish to pass along to offspring, a life dedicated to some fundie group orphanage, they had never been married, etc.....He was also called out that HE only had two kids himself, which doesn't fall into line with letting God plan your famblee nonsense they preach.

So, he came out with a follow up article a few years later that essentially his views didn't "count" toward the fundies who had complained, but that IF, IN THE CONTEXT OF THE LIFE OF A MARRIAGE, that they should be "open" to procreating, but it was "ok" to space out children with birth control and only have those you could afford. Hence, giving him an "out" regarding his comments that sex without the intent to procreate was rebellion against God. Since neither he or his wife are "fixed", and she hasn't reached menopausal age, and they only have the two kids, he OBVIOUSLY hasn't not had more kids because he wasn't having sex with her. That's "ok" though, because for HIM, it's "different" since he had "welcomed" the two kids he has within the "life" of the marriage.

Fundies are so fucked up in the head and they never cease to amaze me how they dance around issues like this when they are called out on it by their own kind.

I believe the Duggar's property, and home are a "church" and therefor tax free. Daddy Duggar was a state legislator and is in real estate, or some such nonsense. When you breed an entire workforce, it's pretty easy to have your own slave labor to do shit like build a house and make clothes for free. Oh, and they live on the crappiest crap cheap shit food possible.

"It truly is the one commonality that every designation of humans you can think of has, there's at least one asshole."
--Me

They are trying to get in the Guinness Book of World Records.

The Guinness Book, eh? For biggest brood? Michelle's got a long way to go -- last I checked, the record of children born to one woman in her lifetime without IVF was 69, and this was with a whole lot of multiples. Hopefully Michelle's uterus will fall out or she'll die in childbirth before she gets to such a horrific number.

Every time I hear about the Duggars, I always hope that at least ONE of their daughters will completely shun the lifestyle she grew up in when she becomes an adult, and will move to a big city, leave the church, get tonnes of higher education, become a high-paid executive or CEO or lawyer for women's rights, and live in a modern upscale apartment as a happily single, childfree career woman - just because it would piss off her uber breeder parents so much.

I would love if one of the duggers daughters would be the next gang bang queen, god i would love that!!!

Geez, what a bunch of selfish hypocrites!

That Mrs. Duggar is such a cunt!

I think she was brainwashed and everything.

Her insides would probably hang out like a man's privates and she still WOULDN'T be done!