Give us another J!

Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar of Tontitown, Ark., had their eighteenth child Thursday – Jordyn-Grace Makiya, who joins the rest of her J-named siblings.

Jordyn-Grace was born via C-section at Mercy Medical Center in Rogers, weeks before her due date of Jan. 1. She weighed in at 7 lbs, 3 oz and was 20 inches long.

"Mother and baby are resting and doing well," says a rep for the Duggar family, whose crowded house is featured on the TLC network show 17 Kids & Counting.

The newest Duggar has a lot of names to keep straight.

The other kids – who range in age from 20 years to 17 months – are Joshua (who married Anna Keller in September and says he is looking forward to the "blessing of children" of his own), twins John-David and Jana, Jill, Jessa, Jinger, Joseph, Josiah, Joy-Anna, twins Jeremiah and Jedidiah, Jason, James, Justin, Jackson, Johannah and Jennifer.

Their parents married when Michelle was 17 and Jim Bob was 19. (Her mother had to officially sign permission.) After birth-control pills were blamed for a miscarriage, the couple decided to throw them out. They've had a new baby approximately every 18 months since.

"What really works for me is swaddling a baby and snuggling up," Michelle told PEOPLE in an interview last year. "I love that time of just bonding and nursing a little baby. And, with a new baby, I realize that I don't need as much sleep as I used to think I did. You learn. This time goes by so quickly. I look at my older children and wonder where the time went."

A special on Jordyn-Grace's birth will air Dec. 22 at 10 p.m. on TLC.

Source: http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20247340,00.html?xid=rss-topheadlines


--------
So, wow. I really dunno how I feel about this. 18 children? haha..... i know i couldn't do it.

what do you guys think?

it's cuz they don't believe in birth control and can't keep their paws off each other so they say it's GOD wanting them to have more children..


silly people. i'll never understand it. can't say as a man, i'd wanna have sex with something that's stretched out 18 damn times.

I've met the Duggars personally and they are extremely nice and awesome people. They own their house, they work hard, own their own business, and they rely on ZERO welfare or support to raise their kids.

They also work as a TEAM to raise the kids. Some people disagree with that concept but like the old saying goes..."it Takes a village..." It's a concept lost on modern society that would heal a lot of the world's ailments if more people had that attitude.

They don't need welfare because TLC is probably paying them a ton of money for the show.

they don't need welfare because they own their house as well as a VERY Successful real estate business. Even without the TLC show, they were doing very well.

After that many kids I'm suprised babies don't just pop on out. Sheesh. They did an interview with her a few weeks ago and they said they plan on having more *sighs*

Sausage down a hallway.

I mean it's good and all that they can have that many children without having any debt, but seriously? From what I've read and seen about them, the parents rely on the older children to take care of the younger ones.

I dunno if anyone else has said it but uhh...

Man, that lady loves J's doesn't she?

LOL WEED JOKE

I've come to the conclusion that criticizing them or disagreeing with them is just silly. The Duggars don't care what people think. They are doing what they think is best, it's part of their worldview and their religious beliefs, and it's their business.

It does seem difficult to come up with the names though...do some of them have to be so similar? I'm just saying it seems that would be confusing. :-P

They're just having kids to get on TV now. Next month she'll be pregnant again with #19 (possibly #20 too since she has two sets of twins might as well have another set). JK! LOL! Geesh, though. A lot of mouths to feed.

Thing is instead of actually looking after their children, they dump them on older siblings.

even small families sometimes "dump" the little ones on the older siblings. Not just big ones, ya know. ;-D

point being?

You say that parents that have a lot of children basically depend on the older siblings to take care of the little ones, right? Well, so do parents of a smaller family.

That's my point, yo.

True dat! I'm the second of 7 and there's never been a time when I didn't help out with my younger siblings.

Aww I think it's sweet! Crazy, but sweet.

oh geez.. how hard is it to wrap the willy??

They don't beleive in birth control.. they feel that if God wants to bless them with a child it will happen. They asked them on one of the shows when they planned to stop having children and/or consider a form of birth control. She's said even if it gets to the point that with numerous c-sections it'd pose a risk to her health.. she'll continue to have children if God blesses her.

Personally I can't think of anything worse than going through labour EIGHTEEN TIMES (or having to care for that many kids for that matter), but given that they're able to fund the care of the kids themselves, and aren't relying on benefits, I guess it's their choice. I do have slight concerns about the safety of that many pregnancies though, and I'm not entirely sure it's responsible of the mother to risk her health (and potentially leave her existing children without a mother) just so as she can keep having babies.

I do have a problem also, with families having lots of children, and then expecting the government to pay to look after them all (such as some families here in the UK). But it appears the Duggars aren't doing that, and I think they deserve some credit for that.

I wonder about the health aspect also-in the sense that it takes time for someone to recover, and that's a lot for her body to go through. She is 43 years old. I wouldn't want to be having more babies at her age-but I suppose with their beliefs, any child conceived is meant to be and so they accept everything that goes with that. I don't have that kind of faith, myself.

I do have a problem also, with families having lots of children, and then expecting the government to pay to look after them all (such as some families here in the UK).

I thought you supported the almighty welfare-state.

*Sigh* I wasn't going to dignify this with a reply, but seeing as it's such a difficult concept for you to understand (another example of your seeing things in black and white, while I see shades of grey), I shall try and explain it...

Being in support of a welfare state means supporting helping those who NEED it... not necesarrily anyone and everyone who can't be bothered doing anything for themselves. I do NOT support the abuse of the benefits system (such as by families who have lots of kids so that they can get a big house from the government, but have never worked a day in their lives!). I think most people who believe in a welfare state still believe it should be tightly controlled. As, for the most part, it is here. But unfortunately some people (such as the families I describe) will still find a way to abuse the system. Just because I support the system does not mean I support people abusing it. That would be ridiculous.

*Sigh* I wasn't going to dignify this with a reply, but seeing as it's such a difficult concept for you to understand (another example of your seeing things in black and white, while I see shades of grey)..

I don't see things in "black and white" (that's the favorite phrase used by those who don't adhere to moral/ethical absolutes), but in terms of the reality of the human condition. It's not a difficult concept for me to understand that you want to pick and choose who gets the benefits of a welfare-state and who does not. I already knew that. But my comment was in reference to the fact that in previous postings on this forum you defended the welfare-state with great passion as if it were flawless and yet now you're complaining because people abuse it.

Being in support of a welfare state means supporting helping those who NEED it... not necesarrily anyone and everyone who can't be bothered doing anything for themselves.

Yet that's always what happens with any kind of welfare-state. Socialism doesn't anticipate human nature. That's why it doesn't work. People will always abuse the system precisely because they are people. In fact, most of the people on welfare have low self-control behavior patterns to begin with and thus are more likely to engage in criminal activities.

With that in mind, why are we surprised when they abuse the system? Complaining that people abuse the welfare-state is akin to complaining that someone stole your car after you left the doors unlocked with the key in the ignition.

I do NOT support the abuse of the benefits system (such as by families who have lots of kids so that they can get a big house from the government, but have never worked a day in their lives!).

Yet if they've paid taxes at some point in their lives, then why shouldn't they be allowed to take benefits from the government? In this respect, the welfare-state doesn't promote equity at all because not everyone who pays taxes is allowed to reap the benefits. In contrast to private donations to charities, people are forced to pay taxes to the government literally by threat of violence/arrest.

I think most people who believe in a welfare state still believe it should be tightly controlled.

Which part of the welfare-state are you talking about? I ask this because in our earlier discussions you supported socialized medicine (which is an extension of the welfare-state) and said that no one should be denied medical treatment. Your comment above is certainly in stark contrast to what you've said before.

Just because I support the system does not mean I support people abusing it. That would be ridiculous.

I understand that, but my comment was designed to make you think with respect to the welfare-state as a whole. This particular aspect of it which you complain about is not an isolated thing. It's symptomatic of the welfare-state as a whole. That being said, the welfare-state is also indicative of government abusing its own powers for its own ends. Since taxation is not voluntary, there really is no real accountability, especially when massive numbers of the electorate are dependent upon government assistance.

I don't believe I ever claimed the welfare state system is flawless. And in fact I think most of my previous comments have been isolated to 'socialised medicine', which is just one specific part of the welfare state. I DO believe our national health system works well. But even it is not flawless. Yet I believe it is better than the alternative.

I also never said I was surprised that people abuse the system. Of course I'm not. I just said that I do not approve of them doing so. I also do not think it changes the fact that for the most part, the system works well. No system is perfect.

Many of the families I am referring to have never paid taxes as they've never worked. But that is beside the point, paying taxes at some point does not entitle someone to abuse the system.

Yes, I believe that EVERYONE should be entitled to medical treatment. That is because I believe medical treatment should be a right, and not a priviledge. As for the welfare state as a whole, there has to be limitations, as there is simply never going to be enough money otherwise. Limitations are also necessary to try and prevent abuse of the system. But unfortunately some people will still manage to abuse it. STILL, I believe this is better than the alternative.

Anyway, this thread is not on the issue of the welfare state (and the family we are discussing don't rely on government hand outs), so I am ending this discussion here. I know you are completely incapable of doing the adult thing, and ending a debate and moving on... so I of course expect you to reply to this, but I will discuss it no further.