Ark. mom of 14, with one on the way, is honored.

[Beastt]

I have not been in this families house, but I think the judging is just a bit quick here. How can we be sure these children do not get enough time from their parents? How can we say that they abuse resources?
You speak of the average American using up this much... this family doesn't look very average to me.
If you can support, love, and care for 15 children, why would it be wrong to have them?

Perhaps because the world's resources are limited and seem to be insufficient for the current human population. Over 15 million children currently starve to death each year.

Were you to be invited to a dinner with places for 10 people and you decided to bring 5 uninvited friends along, would you not be limiting the food for everyone? Deciding how many children to have involves the same concept but on a grander scale. America accounts for approximately 5% of the world population yet we consume 20-25% of the world's resources. As Ghandi said, "the world has enough for everyone's need, but not enough for everyone's greed." Having that many children is a blatant display of greed.

A few examples;

It is said that the average American diet involves the death of 28 animals per person per year. Let's assume that each of these 14 children lives to the age of 70 and that they consume an average diet.

14 x 70 x 28 = 27,440 animals

Now consider that, in the case of cattle, each 1-pound of beef requires that the cow consume 16-pounds of grain and that well over a ton of fresh water will be involved in the production of each pound of beef. The huge quantity of resources consumed begins to become clear.

No, certainly I'm not suggesting that the average person eats 28 cattle per year or even one cow but the point remains that each pound of animal flesh requires that the animal consume several times that one pound in nutrients. The resources necessary multiplies with each step in the food chain. By the time you've met just the dietary needs over a lifetime for 14 people, you've taken a sizeable chunk of resources out of the world's limited supply.

The most recent information I've read states that the average American consumes 129 pound of beef per year. (This is up from 50 pounds of all meats in the 1950s.) Now let's take that 16-pounds of grain for each pound of beef and multiply that by the 14 children for 70 years.

14 X 70 X 129 X 16 = 2,022,720 pounds of grain. That's just for the beef!

Now you can begin to add in the resources necessary for each car, home, lifetime supply of clothing, etc. What would be wrong with having 2 children and caring for them properly instead?

I hope this helps to explain the concerns expressed by so many.

 

[neocon]

People starve not because of a lack of resources but because of corrupt Governments and false religions.

 

[fabuleuse]

If this family wants 15 kids and can look after them properly, then good for them. I'm more worried about their taste in names - Jinger? - and the fact that the boys and girls (mum included) were dressed in identical outfits!

 

[faerieevaH]

Perhaps because the world's resources are limited and seem to be insufficient for the current human population. Over 15 million children currently starve to death each year.

Were you to be invited to a dinner with places for 10 people and you decided to bring 5 uninvited friends along, would you not be limiting the food for everyone? Deciding how many children to have involves the same concept but on a grander scale. America accounts for approximately 5% of the world population yet we consume 20-25% of the world's resources. As Ghandi said, "the world has enough for everyone's need, but not enough for everyone's greed." Having that many children is a blatant display of greed.

A few examples;

It is said that the average American diet involves the death of 28 animals per person per year. Let's assume that each of these 14 children lives to the age of 70 and that they consume an average diet.

14 x 70 x 28 = 27,440 animals

Now consider that, in the case of cattle, each 1-pound of beef requires that the cow consume 16-pounds of grain and that well over a ton of fresh water will be involved in the production of each pound of beef. The huge quantity of resources consumed begins to become clear.

No, certainly I'm not suggesting that the average person eats 28 cattle per year or even one cow but the point remains that each pound of animal flesh requires that the animal consume several times that one pound in nutrients. The resources necessary multiplies with each step in the food chain. By the time you've met just the dietary needs over a lifetime for 14 people, you've taken a sizeable chunk of resources out of the world's limited supply.

The most recent information I've read states that the average American consumes 129 pound of beef per year. (This is up from 50 pounds of all meats in the 1950s.) Now let's take that 16-pounds of grain for each pound of beef and multiply that by the 14 children for 70 years.

14 X 70 X 129 X 16 = 2,022,720 pounds of grain. That's just for the beef!

Now you can begin to add in the resources necessary for each car, home, lifetime supply of clothing, etc. What would be wrong with having 2 children and caring for them properly instead?

I hope this helps to explain the concerns expressed by so many.

*smiles* In posts after my first one, I have adressed a few of those issues. The needs of every family aren't the same. Nor does everyone find it necesary for each child to have for example a car at 16, or to have meat on the table each day.
I have gone into this more elaborately in previous posts. Patterns in spending and the use of resources are only partly determined by your social economical environment, and partly by choice.
While there is nothing wrong with the choice of having two children. There's nothing wrong with the choice of having fifteen either. Maybe it 'balances out' all the people who chose not to have any, or can not have any.

Don't forget, as I've pointed out repeatedly in other posts, that the overpopulation in general is not a problem in the industrialised countries. On the contrary, there we often see an inverted population pyramid which predicts problems as big as the overpopulation in other countries.

 

[Miss Mayberry]

Before I read the article, let me guess: She homeschools all her children, and they're a Christian family. *peeks into the article* HAHA. I was right.

In response to Tengnefedd's first post: It's not "daft" to have that many children, if you can take care of them all. Homeschooling your children (which she does) gives them the quality time they need with you, the parent/teacher.

With her 14 children in tow and pregnant with her 15th, Michelle Duggar waddled into Arkansas' Capitol on Wednesday

That word was rude and terribly un-called for. What was the writer of this article thinking? "Oh, let's just poke fun of an overweight Christian woman. She won't retaliate."

Anyway...Congratulations to the Duggar Family!!

 

[praying]

Before I read the article, let me guess: She homeschools all her children, and they're a Christian family. *peeks into the article* HAHA. I was right.

In response to Tengnefedd's first post: It's not "daft" to have that many children, if you can take care of them all. Homeschooling your children (which she does) gives them the quality time they need with you, the parent/teacher.



That word was rude and terribly un-called for. What was the writer of this article thinking? "Oh, let's just poke fun of an overweight Christian woman. She won't retaliate."

Anyway...Congratulations to the Duggar Family!!

No pregnant women waddle and that is how evrybody describes it, the pregnant waddle.

 

[Beastt]

*smiles* In posts after my first one, I have adressed a few of those issues. The needs of every family aren't the same. Nor does everyone find it necesary for each child to have for example a car at 16, or to have meat on the table each day.
I have gone into this more elaborately in previous posts. Patterns in spending and the use of resources are only partly determined by your social economical environment, and partly by choice.
While there is nothing wrong with the choice of having two children. There's nothing wrong with the choice of having fifteen either. Maybe it 'balances out' all the people who chose not to have any, or can not have any.

Don't forget, as I've pointed out repeatedly in other posts, that the overpopulation in general is not a problem in the industrialised countries. On the contrary, there we often see an inverted population pyramid which predicts problems as big as the overpopulation in other countries.

I'm glad to see that we have areas of agreement but I think perhaps there is a short-sightedness in feeling that such large families aren't detrimental in nature. You mention that these children don't need cars when they are 16 years old. That's very true but, barring a catastrophe, they'll all live much more than 16-years and will, eventually need a car, a house, food, clothes, stereos... all the things we enjoy. It doesn't matter that they don't live under the same roof as their parents when they first receive these things. The resources are still required.

As for the idea that over-population isn't a problem in undustrialized countries -- you're right. But that overlooks the fact that the over-population in industrialized countries cause resource shortages in the unindustrialized nations. We don't all live in separate nations. We all live on one planet and resources are exchanged from nation to nation. The country with the most money will get the hog share. But supply is only there to satisfy demand. If we demand less, supplies swell, prices drop and those in less wealthy countries have a chance at the resources they need.

Perhaps an example is helpful here. What area contains over half of all the species, both classified and unclassified in the entire world and perhaps holds the most promise for the medications of the future?

The answer; the rain forests. As we're all aware, the rain forests are being lost, (slashed and burned), at an alarming rate. Why people aren't more inquisitive as to the reasons for this is shocking. Why would people choose to wipe out such a valuable, saturated ecosystem? Any guesses?

It's to raise cattle for cheap beef in the United States. The land is cleared since cattle can't graze in rain forests. The land is replanted with grasses for the cattle. But rain forests have only 3 to 4 inches of fertile soil. The nutrient cycle must be very rapid for the wealth of life to continue. Grasses simply draw the remaining nutrients from the soil and then the area becomes and eroded wasteland, unable to support life. So.... more rain forest is slashed, burned and planted with grasses to serve two or three years as pasture before becoming wasteland. If we demanded less, there would be no market for the destruction of these astounding habitats. It's a world we need to share and if we insist on always having the hog share, we will deplete the world of it's most precious resources. Raising a family, like any other worthwhile pursuit, should be seen as a great responsibility. And not just to the children of our own, immediate family. But to all children in all the families of the world. We need to learn to share.

 

[Blessed-one]

there were many large families in the older days, but now.. in such a materialistic world, i think having 14 children can be quite a financial drain especially when the children grow older. Having more siblings also tend to increase family problems unless it is a really loving family.. not impossible, but just harder.

 

[Skummer]

It doesn't bother me that a family has 15 children as long as they take care of them. However, the problem I see with this situation is the religious aspect.

They say they gave that part (breeding) of their life to god. Translation: We take no responsibility whatsoever concerning birth control. I mean come on, does god really have a hand in the mating habits of a Tennesee couple?

I think that mentality is a very bad example to their broodlings. Now consider that they intend to home school their offspring... <shudder>

 

[harrietvane]

These posts keep talking in circles about over population and lacking resources, so I'm sure there is just no way we can all agree on this. However, I did want to point out that the US does have a population level that only breaks even (as others have already pointed out)--and the only reason it breaks even is because of immigration from other less fortunate countries. As for our consumption levels: the US produces more resources (especially food-wise!) than other countries because we are good at it. If you take for example a food staple like rice and grain, the US produces plenty of food for its own citizens--and what it imports actually helps the economies of other countries. I think what would be more valuable than trying to enforce population controls that we don't need would be putting more weight on farming and food production programs in third world countries. Almost all of these countries have the space and the ability to grow plenty of food to be self-supportive and independent of world handouts with a little bit of education on effective crop growth.

 

[harrietvane]

I was raised to respect the planet and understand that our resources are limited. I have to respect the fact that not everyone shares that idea, and in fact most people spit in the face of a substainable society because they want their giant SUV, or this case, a family large enough to feild a hockey team.

To me everyone who lives in an industrial nation is guilty of hording resources, this family is just taking the idea to a new level.

I blame this on the Monte Python "Ever sperm is scared" skit.

I have to agree about the SUVs The first thing I've agreed with you yet on. But, I do realize that is my personal opinion. Just out of curiosity, is it because we live in an industrialized country that we are guilty? Is this a no-win situation? If so maybe we just need to all move to a third world country to assauge our consciences. Well, hmmmm...I don't feel guilty, but, for those that do......

I had no idea that Monty Python was such a powerful influence in our society!