Maybe you’ve never heard of the Duggar family, but you may have run across their portrait: it’s a fundamentalist family with 15 going on 16 kids. Prof. Bleen has put together a hypothetical picture of the family, if they were living under the creationist theocracy they like so much. It’s not a pretty picture, and I think Bleen was optimistic.
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
I was sickened when I saw commercials for the “Raising 16 children” on the Discovery Health Channel. What were they thinking? Why in the world are we supposed to admire this broodmare and her “herd?”
This is the letter I sent the programming relations department for Discovery Health:
“It’s ironic that you show the program “Raising 16 children” on the Discovery Health channel. Not only is this woman contributing to overpopulation, which is surely a major health risk, but she’s also a Fundamentalist who is virulantly anti-science. As several websites have recently pointed out, if she and her husband had their way and shut down science … if they went back to an era without the discoveries made as a result of the understanding of evolution … several of her children would have died of smallpox, several more in childbirth, and she herself would certainly have died in the act of giving birth long ago. I am horrified and appalled that Discover Health considers this to be of legitimate interest to its viewers. This woman and her husband should be castigated for ignorance and irresponsibility, not celebrated.”
Not that they’ll listen, but at least I got it off my chest.
That poor woman. Those poor girls.
Reminds me of Children of The Corn for some reason.
I’m predicting that someone will complain that we actually want to see the kids dead. And missing the statistical situation for those “good ‘ol days” creationists wish to return.
Pandagon also was talking about this picture, but with the subtitle “the Vagina – not a clown car.” Which I thought was wrong, after all, it should have read “the Uterus – not a clown car” to be medically accurate.
Anyway, she got a real raft of crap for that one from people who thought it was wrong for more than medical accuracy. Specifically they didn’t like making fun of a family to make a political point. Also the whole mocking breeders thing is starting to generate a backlash among liberals who actually like children, which must only be, like 99% of them.
You’ll probably get a similar level of harassment, but I think once you make a discovery channel documentary about your weird huge family, you’re going to end up being talked about in public and that is fair.
(maybe I derailed it for you – we’ll see)
Just to add: The Discovery Health site for the duggars has an odd “Fun Fact”:
” Michelle Duggar, female head of the Dugger household, has been pregnant for 126 months of her life.”
My wife with with her three pregnancies would disagree that this constitutes as a “Fun” fact.
I love children. I have one myself. I don’t want 16.
They should be looked at like those kooky ladies that have 16 cats.
The kids aren’t the problem. It’s the looney parents.
I see “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy” potential though. How fabulous would that be?
Isn’t there some studies that show the more older brother you have the more like you are to be gay? And there’s 9 boys in this pack.
Not that there’s any comparison, but if it weren’t for families with double-digit numbers of kids, we wouldn’t have Stephen Colbert.
That said, the Duggars are insane and scary.
PZ wrote:
What Bleen ought to add are the labels on the live ones for “Crippled by Polio”, “Failure to thrive due to parasite load”, “Sterilized by Measles”, and “Heart Defect from Scarlet Fever”.
Maybe the kids can form a singing & dancing group and go on tour with the grand opening number of Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life [with a few changes]
“Every Sperm is Sacred”
…
I’m a
Roman CatholicFundamentalist,And have been since before I was born,
And the one thing they say about
CatholicsFundies is:They’ll take you as soon as you’re warm.
You don’t have to be a six-footer.
You don’t have to have a great brain.
You don’t have to have any clothes on. You’re
A
CatholicFundie the moment Dad came,…
This is sort of mean-spirited, but true. When I saw the Duggar family website http://www.duggarfamily.com/ the first image that popped into my mind was the “Alpaca compounding” http://www.alpacafarmer.com/compounding.htm charts used to persuade people that raising alpacas is a great investment and lifestyle choice. (I first noticed the alpaca sites back in 2001 or so; my theory was that they were hoping to persuade gullible, inexperienced people to buy alpacas that they’d have to dump cheap in about a year. I don’t know if that happened. Has the price of a breeding pair gone down?)
I’ve never met anyone from a really large family who thought it was a positive experience. It’s just not that much fun having parents who never have enough time for you, never have enough money, having sibs that you have to compete with, even as a little kid, because there’s just not enough of anything to go around, not even love or attention. It’s depressing to know that even your own parents don’t see you as anything special–just one more public demonstration of their piety in a crowd of them. It’s horrible to have to give up all your dreams as a teenager because of pregnancy–it’s worse when it’s not even your pregnancy.
There should be a follow-up article about the Duggars in 20 years–one where they interview the kids.
Another thought.
It could be equally valid to label all but the older child as
“Died from Rh Incompatibility”.
One point I think Bleen overlooks is that even without modern medicine, you could still cherrypick a family that was a statistical outlier. Even the Duggars are quite fortunate to have escaped all the disorders that medicine cannot currently cure. I only mention that because I think one of the most serious fallacies people fall prey to is to ignore chance as a cause. I am continually thankful that my kids were both born healthy, but I also knew that there were a large number of factors beyond my control and that of our doctor. For that matter, there will continue to be. Life is a long series of potential hazards. It makes me nervous, but I prefer it to having a false sense of security.
Molly: Is eight large enough for you? It’s not something I would attempt, but it wasn’t a terribly negative experience either. I guess I have nothing to compare it to. I was the youngest and it’s true that my parents’ resources did not go as far as they might have with a smaller number of kids. But I like to think I learned thrift as a result, and I certainly never felt neglected. It’s such a big part of my identity that I cannot really imagine saying I would like to have done it over differently.
Molly, NYC:
I also just want to add that I never, ever felt this way. Sure, I was maybe a little jealous of kids who got better toys and took more expensive vacations. I can’t speak for my siblings on this one, but you’re assuming an awful lot, not just about the Duggars but of every large family. My parents might have seen a large family in religious terms, but they never put anybody on display. It’s nonsense to say they didn’t see each of us as individuals. Can you think of eight or more friends, each of which has a very different personality that you can appreciate?
Again, this is not an experiment I have any desire to repeat. In fact, I honestly don’t know how you do it. Two kids seems to be more than my wife and I can handle. But I get annoyed at people just assuming that things have to turn out a certain way.
I confess. I’m a breeder. I’ve got three. I also grew up in a family of six kids.
The thing is that these large families can be happy environments in which to grow up, but either the parents have to be obscenely wealthy, or at least one of them is going to have to be a full time mom or dad. Even with three, not sixteen, the entire process is exhausting. Pregnancies are draining, babies and diapers and feedings are worse, and it doesn’t let up — when my kids were in elementary school and middle school, it was like we were constantly rushing about, getting them to doctor’s appointments or cub scouts or birthday parties or going to PTA meetings or just plain cleaning up after them.
>> Isn’t there some studies that show the more older brother
>> you have the more like you are to be gay? And there’s 9
>> boys in this pack.
Yes, those studies do exist, but they are far from conclusive. At best they seem to describe coincidence, rather than causality.
Of course, there would be statistical outliers in the other direction, too.
The notes to the Penguin edition of Dickens’s “Great Expectations” mention that the settings in the book are based upon actual locations. In one churchyard Dickens saw, there were thirteen gravestones of children all belonging to the same parents and who all died very young. Dickens borrowed this image for Pip’s family in the novel, but thought readers wouldn’t believe the figure of thirteen and reduced it to five in the book.
I love kids, but I can only eat one.
Oh wow. I checked out the Links page on their site and along side the obligatory Creation Science Evangelism and Wallbuilders links is a link to this….
Wholesome Wear.
uh
damn
Molly: Is eight large enough for you?
PaulC–I was thinking more like double digits. And I’m sure your folks loved you as much as they possibly could.
That said–how did your older sibs feel about it? Did any of them have big families? You don’t mention your age, but I’m guessing you’re in your 40s or older, since big families became a lot less common in the 60s, when birth control pills became common meds for married ladies–i.e., when parents started to have some say in the matter.(In the 50s or earlier, the Duggars wouldn’t have rated much notice.)
Suppose you and Mrs. C decided to have more kids. At what point do you think your resources would have been too stretched to give them what they needed–not just monetarily, but in terms of time, attention, etc?
My sister-in-law came from a family of 14 and she and her siblings seem to remember their childhoods fondly. But then they were non-fundie; my granddaughter is being brought up fundie and I would wager she will not remember large swatches of her childhood fondly, especially when she starts really butting heads at, I’d predict, about age 11-13.
How many pregnancies were lost early during gestation? We see no data only successful outcomes. According to fundamentalist traditions and scientific studies the loss of life must have been staggering to have resulted in 16 successful outcomes.
Instead of pointing out possible loss of life due to childhood illness, why not compare the family to one in another country where infant/childhood diseases are rampant. This would drive home the point.
Molly: I don’t really disagree with many of your observations, but your generalizations about large families struck me as presumptuous (btw, my wife’s last name does not start with a C).
Anyway, I’ve gone into way too much personal detail already, so I’ll leave it at that. I don’t personally recommend that anyone have a large family, but I also believe strongly in their right to do so, whatever I may think about it.
Of course, in the liberal atheist paradise, most of those kids would have been aborted.
Who ya kiddin?
No Emanuel, in an atheist paradise you wouldn’t abort, you wouldn’t get pregnant in the first place. (unless you planned to get pregnant) The choice isn’t between having children and aborting them. You can actually choose to have or not have children BEFORE concieving them. You can plan your conceptions. New idea, I know.
is that a bad joke or are you serious?
That was too Emmanuel not Jim.
Just ignore Emmanuel, it’s one of Legion’s aliases that it likes to bring out to troll boards. It was banned from Red State Rabble and it hasn’t nailed down a new bridge to sleep under yet.
statistically, at least one of these children will be gay, and i’m sure that at least a couple of them will be tempted to pursue knowledge and experiences beyond their home-schooled, christian-fundie upbringing.
if mrs. duggar is really so anti-science, she should stop going to the hospital for ultrasounds and delivery.
i’ve seen a couple of tv shows featuring this family, and there’s never any mention of what their father does and how he manages to generate the kind of income required to support the family (of course, their new home was built and furnished with the support of corporate sponsors).
In my experience (through cousins) the younger children in double digit families remember idylic childhoods while the older girls remember becoming surrogate mothers at a young age to help the mother out with the younger ones. I had one cousin, the oldest girl in a family with eleven children, who got married relatively young just to get away from her mother’s demands; she only wants two children. The oldest boy, who wasn’t required to do nearly as much childcare as the girls, wants a big family. The youngest five children all want big families. Birth order and gender make a big difference in the experiences of siblings in the same family.
Mr. Duggar has real estate investments that apparently earn him a very good living. If you’ve seen the most recent special about the Duggars (Sixteen children and Moving In) about their new custom built house, you get the definite idea that somehow they have money. I have a feeling the the father has used many of the not so great laws out there in Arkansas to build his nest egg. I mean he financed his own run for the Arkansas legislature (and lost), but he used to be a used-car salesman. Something doesn’t add up. He lives in Arkansas, I can tell you from experience that real estate is not worth that much down there.
BTW, the Duggars are probably paying very little in taxes cause they can write off all sixteen children. That’s alot of deductions!
Depends… if they fall under alternative minimum tax, all those deductions are disallowed.
They seem like nice people but they are fans of Hovind which shows that they are likely dupes as well.
I don’t suspect alot of critical thinking is going on there but I’m sure they are nice if a little odd.
OMIGOSH!!!! A MARRIED COUPLE THAT LOVES KIDS!!!! OH, THE OUTRAGE!!!! OH, THE INDIGNITY!!!! OH, THE HUMANITY!!!! BREEDERS!!!! FILTHY FUNDY BREEDERS!!!!
Oh, sorry. You sick minds must be rubbing off on me, PZ.
Hmm… If they were atheists instead of “fundies,” would you be berating their choice to have this many kids and calling them “breeders?” I doubt it.
Real nice pic, too. Definitely something that would appeal to your depraved fantasies.
Judy L.:
Except that statistics doesn’t work that way. Let’s assume 1/10 people are gay (that’s the high end of a reasonable estimate I think). Let’s further assume an oversimplified statistical model in which everyone is born with uniform 10% probability of being gay. If the Duggars have 16 kids, then each has 90% probability of being heterosexual. The probability that all 16 are heterosexual would be 0.9^16, which is just over 18.5%. In the simplified statistical model, it’s more likely that one is (reality is way more complicated though), but 18.5% is not such a low probability.
Sorry, I sort of get the point, and it would surprise me if this family turned out entirely to parental expectations. But you cannot conclude that “statistically, at least one” will be anything except to some level of confidence, in this case not all that high.
Who the fudge are you to judge them? Oh, sure. We “fundies” can’t judge people without being criticized by the likes of you, but hey, you can judge all you want! This couple loves their kids – they ain’t “poor.” Those girls (and boys) are greatly loved by their parents – they ain’t “poor,” either. Why don’t you take your stuck-up, condescending judgments and – well, you get the picture.
Jason:
Here in America, we are all allowed to judge and those who disagree are allowed to criticize us for our judgments.
Hey, its your holy book that says you can’t judge… so maybe you should listen to it and shut up.
Especially railing against someone who was speaking in terms of sympathy. You certainly don’t know all the circumstances they may have gone through in their life to have such a feeling, so your entire comment smacks of hypocrisy.
Oh and:
Why don’t you take your stuck-up, condescending judgments and – well, you get the picture
Kiss my ass.
Not poor economically. Poor because the mother is essentially a baby mill and the daughters are probably taught that it’s their main purpose in life.
Oh and their dad is a Demented Fuckwit. :)
Anything else?
It’s funny you guys are using smallpox as an example of something that would be around if Creationism were taught as science.
http://www.jennermuseum.com/overview/faq.shtml
Yep. Edward Jenner. Inventor of the smallpox vaccine and undoubtedly a Creationist.
The irony is amusing.
And the troll returneth again.
Jason is clearly desperate for your attention, PZ. And I bet you’re approval, as well. You should be honored. ;)
No, it actually doesn’t.
Considering you are grossly ignorant of what the Bible says, I don’t think I’ll take your advice. Thanks anyway.
Oops. YOUR approval.
(hear that? that’s the editing feature crying out to be born on this board! :) )
Gee and I always thought that:
“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you (Matthew 7:12).”
was pretty clear indication that you probably shouldn’t go around judging others. Of course I guess you could take it to be an open invitation for you to judge eveyone around you, but then I suppose you can’t be upset when you are judged in return and found wanting on just about every level…
What irony? He was a scientist wasn’t he? And he predated Darwin.
He was also an avid bird watcher and noted the Cuckoos mutation that allowed baby cuckoos to knock the competing host’s eggs out of the nest.
I think it’s ironic that he probably would have supported Darwin’s theory.
nice try though.
Robert:
The line I recall is “Judge not lest ye be judged.” In other words, if you judge others, others will also judge you–typically by the same standards. The point is the same as the aphorism “He who lives in a glass house shouldn’t throw stones.” I think it’s a misinterpretation to see this as a blanket condemnation of rendering any kind of judgment whatsoever.
Steve_C:
Typical.
Did I say anything about economics? Nope. So which of your orifaces did you pull that out of?
“Baby mill.” Real nice euphemism. Doesn’t betray your base hatred of motherhood and children. Nope.
In any case, whatever happened to your holy sacrament of “choice?” If this is what she is choosing to do when it comes to bearing children, shouldn’t you be praising her instead of condemning her? No, of course not. That would require you to be consistant and unhypocritical.
Yep. Woman chooses to have several abortions = good; promotes “choice.” Woman chooses to have several children = bad; screw “choice.”
No, I doubt it. I very seriously doubt it. Knowing they are fundamentalist Christians, they are most likely taught that their main purpose in life is to obey and worship God.
Why, of course he is! That removes you from any obligation to make any rational, reason-based arguments.
Sure. If they were atheists with this many kids, would you be so hateful of them?
Nowhere in your link on Edward Jenner does it say he was a creationist. Just because he was Christion (and in 18th century England everyone was Christian, so that doesn’t say anything) doesn’t mean that he didn’t view the stories as parables. From your own link:
Q. What made Jenner so clever?
He was different because he was a ‘lateral thinker’. He did not believe everything he was told, but wanted the proof for it. If he could not get that, he thought of better explanations and did the experiments to test them. He was also interested in lots of different things. And sometimes great discoveries come when you bring together knowledge in different sciences. He persisted with ideas that he believed in, even when opposed by ‘the establishment’
Yes, truly a great example of a fundimentalist. You have once again cowed us with your reasoning and wit
Hey Jinxy!
You keep avoiding me, but do you have time for two questions?
a) Do you believe, word for word, in the literal accuracy of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments?
b) Why do you not allow comments on your PZ-stalking blog?
I’m sure you’re very proud of your religion and your blog, so you shouldn’t have any trouble answering these questions, right? Don’t want people here thinking you’re just some weaselly troll who’s here for no reason than to insult people, right?
“If they were atheists with this many kids, would you be so hateful of them?”
Did we miss the part about overpopulation?
Reading the post before denigrating into hysterical lies, and ranting might improve your credibility.
Or it might get PZ to talk to you, which we all know is the real reason you come here and have the stalking blog. Crushing, much?
Oh yes, and Jinx? You didn’t answer the questions about this:
“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you (Matthew 7:12).”
Jason,
I know posting a comment to this entry might have seemed like a good idea, seeing as the lack of substance to your outrage might have stopped people from making specific points against it and make you look like a fool again*, but you obviously can’t stay on your first, vacuous statement.
Not to mention that your attempt to make your own reaction seem calm in contrast to PZ’s post with sarcasm (and all-caps) isn’t going to stick to anyone who read the original entry.
*Flight forward doesn’t really protect against that
You’re the one that said “they ain’t poor.”
Pretty easy to assume you meant economically. Otherwise you’re using poor grammar.
Where do you get I hate motherhood and children? I don’t.
I love my mommy AND my son.
I guess your part of the bigger is better camp. Whatever.
I’ll grant you that smallpox is a poor example of the detrimental results of fundie lunacy. If this bothers you, you can mentally substitute in cholera for smallpox.
Jenner might be excused, however, for being a creationist, since he died before Origin was published.
As usual, the fundie is only half right and makes extremely selective use of his source material. I believe the technical term is ‘quote mining.’
– JS
Where do you get I hate motherhood and children? I don’t.
You’re forgetting. To Jason, if you aren’t a fundy wingnut like himself, you hate the American family.
Jason, incapable like so many of his kind of making meaningful distinctions and understanding concepts of any complexity whatsoever, blathered:
Aside from bringing up the usual fundie false dilemma of “either it’s a big family, or rampant abortion,” allow me to give you a guided tour of reality. Just because a person is making a choice doesn’t mean we are obligated to praise the choice, even if, in matters of reproduction, we support the right of choice over the right of government interference in what should be private health matters. A woman might choose to have her vagina sewn shut and plugged with cement. I might support her right to choose such an insane activity, but I would certainly condemn it as a bad choice.
Supporting choice as a concept does not require support of individual choices made. This is the kind of complex idea that skips off the minds of fundamentalists, like a stone skipping across water. Murderers choose to kill people. Ken Lay chose to rip off thousands of his employees. Al Qaeda chose to crash planes into buildings, and Bush chose not to pursue bin Laden but undertake a bogus war against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 under false pretenses and fabricated evidence of nonexistent WMD’s. All of these were choices. That doesn’t mean anyone with any degree of sense would defend them.
If poor worn-out Mrs. Duggar indeed chose to churn out a litter of 16 kids, then, fine, hooray for her choice. But we see it as being a dumb and bad choice. We are free to offer our opinions that having such a ridiculously large family is grossly irresponsible and insane. If it were considered remotely normal, even in your own self-righteous circles, to have 16 kids, more people would be doing it. There’s a reason the average family has 2-3. 16 kids to one family is clearly outside the norm and beyond the pale. But you’re right in the sense, as it isn’t illegal, and if it’s their choice, okay, whatever. Let them make it and suffer whatever consequences come.
And in any event, the whole point of the original post was that here is a large family whose fundamentalist beliefs lead them to be virulently anti-science, and yet it is thanks to the advancements of science that such an unwieldy family can actually exist in the first place. The people in our culture who are the most ignorant and fearful of knowledge are the ones who are directly benefiting from its advances.
Here endeth the lesson.
Gee. What a great “choice.”
I was the oldest, and a girl of a family with seven children. My family was near-fundamentalist; unbearably sweet, and I did a huge amount of child care–essentially raised a couple of siblings–not happy memories. The families in the community that we grew up in, like the Duggins’ as far as I can tell, certainly “loved” their children, but the kids were (and still are) more of a representation of their parents virtue than people valued for themselves. So, for me and my ilk, if you chose to step off the straight and narrow, (especially if female) you’d get thrown out. Happened all the time. All the time. All the time. Not with every family, but often enough for it to be a serious threat. And, it was easy to step off the straight and narrow–the fact that someone as bookish and, uh, not talented at “trouble” managed, is saying something. I left, young. I did not have a happy childhood, and I suspect that the great bulk of oldest daughters in such situations do not.
Troll: “Knowing they are fundamentalist Christians, they are most likely taught that their main purpose in life is to obey and worship God.”
Martin: “Gee. What a great “choice.”
It’s interesting (and convienent) though that Troll leaves out what gods wants from his female worshippers.
“There are, however, areas in which God’s plan for women differs from that for men. In the family, God has appointed man to be the head (Ephesians 5:23). Man is to provide for the physical and spiritual needs of his wife and children (Genesis 3:17-19; 1 Timothy 5:8; Ephesians 6:4). Women have a special place in God’s plan that men do not have. Women are to be helpers to their husbands, teachers of their children and keepers of the home ( Genesis 3:16; Ephesians 5:22-24; Titus 2:4,5). Men and women are different physically and psychologically. The place that God has appointed for each best suits them as God made them.” (http://www.tftw.org/Tracts/women_church.html)
God wants them to be wives, mothers, and maids. Which is exactly what was said.
Other choice quotes:
“Paul gives two reasons why God has given the leadership in the church to men: (1) Adam was first formed, then Eve (2) And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, being deceived, was in the transgression. Man has leadership over woman because God created him first. Man was not created for woman, but woman was created for man (Genesis 2:18-25).”
Exactly where is the choice in this woman’s life if she is a fundamentalist xian?
Thanks Genie for that. Sounds quite rough.
It was exactly the point I was making when I said “those poor girls”.
That family is more a representation of how they think society should be.
And we know that’s messed up.
Yes Jason. Those creation believing parents are Demented Fuckwits.
Do you believe in Creation Jason?
Man has leadership over woman because God created him first.
Rough draft.
Jason:
Apparently “irony” escapes you. If it wasn’t for the science that fundamentalist religion is so opposed to, a sizable fraction of that family would have died along the way – whether by accident or disease that it took Rational Thinkers to discover cures.
In your haste to whine and bitch about how “persecuted” you are, it has clearly escaped you that if it wasn’t for that evil, atheistic thing we call scientific research, those “full quiver” families would be mostly dead before they reached adulthood.
Scientists are not necessarily atheists, but science itself is necessarily atheistic – it cannot presuppose any kind of deity. Theists seem to assume that because science is atheistic, it is therefore misguided.
“a sizable fraction of that family would have died along the way – whether by accident or disease that it took Rational Thinkers to discover cures.”
One thing bothers me: in the absence of these “cures”, I tend to assume that the “full quiver” family acts as a substitute against these accidents and diseases.
Numad – you are correct – a large family is a survival strategy that works very well in the absence of modern medicine.
My point remains that the wonderfully “oh-so-happy” family in the Duggar family pictures would be a lot smaller today if it wasn’t for the very science that the fundamentalists strive so hard to crush with biblical ignorance these days.
So, according to Jason, atheists are baby-hating monsters who want to outlaw pregnancies for everyone, whereas the regulars of this blog think that Jason and his ilk think that women should be treated as human puppy mills, destined to do nothing but keep the house tidy while churning out babies left and right, until osteoporosis sets in.
…
And people think my idea for holding out for asexual reproduction is silly.
I think we’re now past the point where Jason will make any comments. His MO is to drop a few turds in the middle of the thread then run away for a couple days when too many uncomfortable questions stack up.
I think giving birth to 16 children is simply demented. If the Duggans really wanted a big family, I’d have been a lot more impressed with their altruism if they’d adopted the kids. Though I’m not thrilled with people with that kind of medieval mindset getting to imprint that many defenseless children, no matter how they get them.
I used to receive a weekly news/advertising paper that carried ads for politicians every election season. Quite a few of the ads did not mention the party, or even the office being sought. But many of the ads said things like “Vote for me! I have 4 children!” and the next ad would say “No, no, vote for me! My wife is more fecund, having produced 6 children!”
(Well, maybe those are not exact quotes, but they preserve the meanings.)
This more or less happened to a friend of mine. Short version: she got into an unhealthy relationship, got pregnant on her way out of it, had an abortion for a number of reasons, foremost of them because she felt her child deserved better than she could have provided for it, her ex spread it around, and as a result of the way they reacted, she’s no longer on speaking terms with her parents or extended family. If anyone’s interested I can see if she’ll post her write-up of it somewhere.
Mostly off topic here- my Dad is one of 13 kids, all still alive except a son who died in a fire aged 9. This was over 60 years ago in the Aussie bush, with no contraception. The older ones helped raise the youngens in a small bush shack, with no connected water. As far as I know my Grandmother, who is still going strong in her late 80’s, had no misscarriges, baby deaths, problems etc. Man,I come from some hardy stock.
No excuse this day and age too spawn so many. I feel sorry for the mother, even if she wanted them all, how tired she must be.
By rejecting science, the matriarch sounds as ignorant as the leaders of China and South Africa claiming that HIV/AIDS is really not an epidemic. Look what is happening to those infected…
Gee, more false garbage in response to my posts. Imagine that…
Unsurprisingly, you leave out a couple key words: “Jenner was a very conventional Christian.” “Very conventional” Christians back then were 7-day Creationists. Or do you deny this?
Yes, Jenner was a great example of a fundamentalist Christian. Is there something in the [non-bigotted] definition of “fundamentalist Christian” that excludes the kind of man Jenner was?
I’ve already answered these questions. For the answer to the former, ask Canadian Cynic (who asked it originally, but didn’t like the way I answered it). For the answer to the latter, check past comments on this blog. For the proper definition and use of the word “stalking,” see the dictionary or even Wikipedia.
You mean the part about left-wing doomsday fantasies?
Someone else already did, so I felt I didn’t need to.
No, your reading comprehension skills are obviously lacking. You stated, “That poor woman. Those poor girls.” Contrary to your ridiculously prejudiced beliefs, I really am smart enough to know you weren’t speaking about monetary poorness. My response was meant to illustrate that people who love and are loved are not “poor” in the sense you used the word.
Then why use a vicious, explosive term such as “baby mill?” I wouldn’t refer to a woman who has had several abortions a “baby murdering factory.”
Not necessarily. I’m more part of the “motherhood is beautiful” camp. Big families certainly are great, but not for everyone. If you choose to have a big family, great! If you choose to have a small family (as my wife and I have), great! If you choose to have no children (not through abortion, though), great!
Equally ironic. Cholera is spread by bacterium, which were discovered by Leeuwenhoek. Joseph Lister advanced hospital sterilization. Alexander Fleming created the first modern antibiotics. Louis Pasteur advanced germ theory and bacteriology.
All these men were Christians it’s extremely likely they were Creationists. That didn’t hinder their work one bit.
Baseless, logically fallacious nonsense.
Lie much? Yes, you do. No, non-“fundy wingnuts” don’t necessarily hate the idea of parenthood. People who call people with big families “breeders” and the mothers “baby mills” obviously have something against parenthood.
You talk about reality, but immediately precede it with a big, fat falsehood – one that I and my wife, in fact, disprove. We have 2 kids. We’re not planning on having any more. Each of our parents had 4 kids. Not big families by a long shot. See, instead of trying to understand my point, you have engaged in smear tactics. No surprise, that. Reality, indeed!
The definition of “keepers of the home” is not “maid.
No, it’s not. What was said was the girls in that family were being taught that their primary purpose is to be wives and mothers. Being wives and mothers is secondary. And it is certainly not set in stone that all women are called to be wives and mothers, but that is what they are best-suited for (even according to evolutionary science).
She can choose not to have any more kids. Someday she will, I’m sure. She can choose to do whatever she wants, and what she has chosen to want is to be a mother.
Utterly false and completely disprovable. If you look at the greatest scientists in history, you’ll find that many [likely most] of them were fundamentalist Christians – even those working in the fields of biology. See my comments about cholera above.
Again, completely false.
No, I think that atheists who use terms like “breeders” and “baby mills” to describe people who choose to have large families are disgusting hypocrites, and the use of those terms betrays some level of hatred of mothers and children.
Yeah, you’ve said that many times before, and I’ve proven you wrong on it lots of times. Whoop! I did it again!
Whoop-dee-shiznit. What you “think” doesn’t matter. People in this country have the freedom to choose to have large families. If you don’t want a large family, good for you. You simply have no legitimate reason to condemn this couple for having a large family using the same freedom to choose that you are using to have few or no kids. You are, in fact, a hypocrite.
I didn’t bother to keep track of names in the above post, so don’t consider it a response to any one person. (Forgot to go back and clarify that before I posted it.)
a) Do you believe, word for word, in the literal accuracy of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments?
b) Why do you not allow comments on your PZ-stalking blog?
I’ve already answered these questions. For the answer to the former, ask Canadian Cynic (who asked it originally, but didn’t like the way I answered it). For the answer to the latter, check past comments on this blog. For the proper definition and use of the word “stalking,” see the dictionary or even Wikipedia.
Wow! Well done, Jinx! If one didn’t look too closely, one would never know you just FAILED TO ANSWER EITHER QUESTION, ONCE AGAIN!
Smooooth…
Answer the questions again, weasel. It’s your religion and your blog.
The first question only needs a yes or no:
a) Do you believe, word for word, in the literal accuracy of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments?
Just a yes or no, weasel. Too complicated?
As for the second, why aren’t you allowing comments on your PZ-stalking blog? Afraid?
Whoop-dee-shiznit.
Ooo, hip ghetto slang! Proves to me how hip YOU are!
What you “think” doesn’t matter. People in this country have the freedom to choose to have large families. If you don’t want a large family, good for you.
What a DEEP THINKER you are, Jinxy! I thought I could tell people how big their families could be, but in one stroke, you disproved that, and you proved how wonderful it is to have 16 children, and refuted all its drawbacks, without even discussing them.
Learn reading comprehension, dingbat. I said it’s demented, not ‘I should be able to prevent it’. Difference too subtle? I know, you don’t do ‘nuance’.
Seriously, Jinx, do you have issues with your father or something? The way you’re obsessed with PZ is very odd. I think you had some issue with your dad neglecting you or something, and now you’re trying to please stern male authority figures. PZ has displeased you, so you have to do this big adolescent rebellion act. Kinda pathetic, jinx.
Are these people real?
Here’s what the father recommends for financial security. I wonder how much of $100 per package he gets. The only person who gets rich in get-rich-quick schemes is the guy selling the scheme.
http://iblp.org/iblp/discipleship/financialfreedom/registration/
According to Jason’s logic, in that because Edward Jenner and Anton Van Leeuwenhoek were Christians, and because they lived before Charles Darwin was born, they were Creationists who opposed Evolutionary Theory with every fiber in their bossoms.
By this same logic, Noah and Moses were not Christians, and probably opposed Christianity with every fiber in their bossoms.
Right. I’m assuming that Jason knows nothing about Jenner and Van Leeuwenhoek’s beliefs, so he’s simply assuming that pre-Origin of Species, everyone in Europe was a ‘Creationist’. So he’s basically boasting that people who lived and died before Darwin was born ‘rejected Darwinism’.
Sort of like attacking quantum mechanics by pointing out that Newton didn’t believe in it.
Plus, Jason is painfully ignorant of the fact that Darwin was something of a fan of Van Leeuwenhoek, in that Darwin speculated that the Ancestral Organism was probably a microbe of some sort.
Actually, Jason, the reason most people don’t think large families are a good idea (or, to put it more snarkily, think they’re a stupid mistake) is precisely BECAUSE they love mothers and children. The stress of dealing with a family that large is something no parent should be subjected to (my wife and I are having enough trouble with one child, thank you) and mothers (and fathers) shouldn’t feel like they have some moral or social obligation to subject themselves to it, either because they’ve been taught to hate and fear contraception, or because they want to look good to their church buddies (having children for this sort of reason is where epithets like “breeder” come from).
Similarly, we feel that children deserve better, in both economic and emotional terms, than they would get in such a large family. My wife had four siblings, all of which have severe personal problems and two of which have severe substance abuse problems and criminal involvements. Part of this is due to the dysfunctional example of their mother, but the most severe influence seems to have been the fact that there were more children than their father could handle, once he FINALLY got custody of them, and so they received little or no parenting. I don’t doubt it would be better in a two-parent family (consisting of responsible adults who were either free of delusions or whose delusions were of a purely metaphysical nature), but come on; sharing the load can cause improvements but not miracles.
Similarly, I advised my now-wife to have an abortion when we learned that she was pregnant, not because I hate children but because I already loved any child I might have and knew that he or she would deserve a better life than we could reasonably expect to provide (things have turned out better than any sane person would have predicted at the time). My friend made her decision for the same reasons. And I now wish to limit my family size to one child, first and foremost because I don’t feel that I could be the parent I want to be to more than that.
Honestly. Is it really so fucking hard to accept that people might have legitimate, honest, and even ethically sound reasons for disagreeing with you on something? I resent being slandered because I’ve employed reasoned judgement in my determination of what is and is not a desirable approach to family size. And you wonder why people flame you…
Anyway, as to your comments about women: do you or do you not believe that women should sacrifice their careers to be wives and mothers?
Anyone want to bet on how many months it’ll take to get a straight answer out of him on that?
When we are out together we get questions like… “Is this a school group?”, “Are they all yours?”, “Are you Catholic or Mormon?”, “Don’t you know what causes this?” These questions give us many opportunities to share with others the hope that is in us, that children are a gift from God. We did not always view children as a gift. Michelle & I did not have any children for the first 4 years of marriage.
We chose to use the birth control pill. After our first child was born, Michelle started back on the pill, shortly after, she miscarried. We found that sometimes the birth control pill will allow you to conceive, but then cause a miscarriage.
We then realized we had the same heart attitude about children as those willfully choosing abortion (wanting to make our own plans, live our own lives, children could be a bother or interruption).
++++++++++++
Umm… wow.
Though British, my partner comes from a large, originally fundie, family. They’re all grown up now. The result- 1 (recent) Baptist, 5 atheists, and a hippy. Definatly NOT what their mother had hoped.
; )
“The definition of “keepers of the home” is not “maid.”
You’re right. They’re not paid, so the right term would be slave.
“Being wives and mothers is secondary. ”
Clearly, it’s not. You said their primary purpose is to worship their sky-fairy, and their skty-fairy tells them to be good little houe slaves and brood mares. How can you possibly fail to make this connection?
“She can choose not to have any more kids”
And the point sails over Troll’s head once again. She has been brainwashed for a very long time to be a slave to her husband. She has no choices if she is supposed to submit to him. How can you possibly fail to make THIS connection?
Still not getting your crush to talk to you, huh.
Atheists don’t want choice any more than any type of fundamentalist does.
Quit yanking my chain.
Like everyone else, they want control.
And when they get it, we see what happens. Gulags, brainwashing camps, firing squads, and “re-education” centers.
This has been the pattern of EVERY officially atheist government, but bring out your atheist apologetics arguments.
Hey, “re-education” camps…isn’t that a delicious phrase?
Just savor the possibilities.
But you know what I wish? That you would quit equating SCIENCE with ATHEISM because it is, well, a fucking lie.
Emanuel Trollstein
Is a very droll stein.
In his obsession with the enemies of God
He shows himself quite a sod.
The Church of England has always said that the greatest way to honour God is to study His creation. Many Anglicans before Darwin studied biology or geology, which lead them to a rejection of a literal interpretation of Genesis. Indeed, in the 17th to 19th centuries, the Church of England was the single greatest driver of scientific thought, and when science appeared to contradict the Bible (both of which were seen as obviously describing the same world), it was assumed that their interpretations of the Bible must be at fault.
This is why lots of country priests with time on their hands set out to study geology, confidently expecting that the world would turn out to be 6,000 years old, and recently inundated in a global flood, and slowly but inevitably discovered that that was absolutely not the case.
Adam Sedgwick, for example, was not only a parish priest in Truro, Cornwall, but also the first geologist to announce that no known rock formation could have been created by the Deluge; though he did hold out hope that such a strata would be found eventually.
William Smith was an Anglican who first identified otherwise identical rocks by their fossil content, and was one of the earliest people to suggest that fossils might be the remains of extinct animals.
Erasamus Darwin, Charles Lyell, Etheldred Bennet, Wallace Pitcher, John Phillips, William Buckland and many others who laid the foundations for modern evolutionary thinking were members of the Church of England; many of them actual priests. Yes, they were “creationists” in that they believed the world was created by God. But they certainly did not believe that the world had been created in seven 24-hour periods a few thousand years ago. Rather, they believed that the world had been created many millions of years ago, and that it had been done by such methods that science could show us how God had worked. They would have been rejected by any modern organisation that calls itself “creationist”, exactly as Jenner would have been.
Charles Darwin himself attended church every week, and considered himself a devout Anglican, and the Church of England clearly agreed, as they buried him in Westminster Abbey with full state honours, next to the archbishops and naval heros of this storied isle. Does being interred in an Anglican church mean that he, too, must have been a creationist?
It’s rather disingenious to say that “Jenner was a Christian and was even buried on church land, so he must have been a creationist, in exactly the same sense that I am”.
Time to reread Cyril M. Kornbluth’s, The Marching Morons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_M._Kornbluth
Isn’t God supposed to have produced the rest of Creation before going on to humans?
“Isn’t God supposed to have produced the rest of Creation before going on to humans?”
Well, so much for “being first means being boss”. I doubt Jason wants to answer to his dog. ;)
Bruce Thompson: From what I have heard, 16 births would require on average 48 additional failed pregancies, for a total of 64. Yikes.
By my reading of Genesis 1, then, the first organic form created and the one that must therefore rule over us all is grass.
It’s true that I usually hop to the bidding of my grass and mow it every week, but the drought out here has sort of killed my lawn. When I die and show up at the throne of judgement, will there be a little tuft of Kentucky Bluegrass (or maybe Big Bluestem) sitting there, inclining its stalk toward the screen replaying my life, and shivering in horror and disgust at the disaster that is my yard before flinging me down into hell?
So she is also a dead baby machine as well as a baby mill. Lovely.
And that’s according to Jason’s definition of what a baby is. Being
that a baby is apparently created at fertilization.
Gee someone who’s been pregnant for essentially 160 months,
(that’s 13.33 YEARS) referred to as a baby mill. How illogical.
I still think it’s logical that Jenner would have been a Darwinian.
He was more like Darwin than not.
i think it’s amusing and somewhat ironic that he used jenner’s smallpox vaccination as an example of “a creationist who uses real science” ……sorry to have to inform you, but if the cowpox virus wasn’t a relative of the smallpox virus this vaccination wouldn’t have worked
IOW this vaccine only worked because of common descent
Jason tried to weasel his way out of a corner by spouting the following:
Here is what you wrote in your original post:
Nice to know you don’t precede any of your arguments with big fat falsehoods or smears, nor do you engage in inconsistency or hypocrisy.
As to your disinclination to respond to the rest of my reply, well, I’ll just take it as a concession, as I’m too much of a gentleman to kick a man when he’s down.
We have 2 kids. We’re not planning on having any more.
We can all be grateful for that.
Doubt away. I’d call them breeders because that’s what they are. In my case, it would also carry negative connotations because I think they’re lunatics for it. But of course they are free to be lunatic breeders, just as I’m free to criticize them for it.
Speaking of freedom, please explain the difference(s) you perceive between the choice to have any number of children and the choice to have any number of abortions. (Note beforehand that nonsense based on unscientific ideas like “life begins at conception” or “humans have souls” will not be accepted.) It’s certainly unfortunate that a woman would want or need “several abortions”, but it’s also unfortunate that some women bear huge numbers of children because of religious delusion*.
*Before you protest (“she just likes kids!”), see the post by gmm; specifically, this sentence: “We then realized we had the same heart attitude about children as those willfully choosing abortion (wanting to make our own plans, live our own lives, children could be a bother or interruption).” The phrase “heart attitude” is signature Christian Fundamentalism, as is the allegedly divine proscription against “wanting to make one’s own plans, live one’s own life” regarding reproduction, etc.
Hmm… If they were atheists instead of “fundies,” would you be berating their choice to have this many kids and calling them “breeders?” I doubt it.
You’re a poor judge of human nature, Jinx. First, I can’t imagine an atheist couple having 16 kids (ONLY fundies and Catholics do that), and two, if I did encounter an atheist couple with 16 kids, I would indeed wonder why on earth they’d done something so insane.
Try again.
The amazing Jason spewed:
Yep. Woman chooses to have several abortions = good; promotes “choice.” Woman chooses to have several children = bad; screw “choice.”
“Several” and “almost a dozen and a half” are two very different things. Face it, the only reason that they are getting all of this attention is because they are like the freak shows at carnivals. People like to look at that stuff, as well as accidents on the highway. If this was normal no one would bat an eye, not even fundies. You guys are looking too!
By the way, I am a left handed atheist (the most evil of the lot, no?) who has had a heck of a lot of sex in my life and I never had an abortion. Why you may ask? Because of this new fangled thing called contraception. Granted it fails sometimes (like if you forget to take birth control pills which I suspect is the case for the Duggars) but not often. Not being the product of a redneck state education I was taught what it was and how to use it fairly early in life.
and the use of those terms betrays some level of hatred of mothers and children.
Actually the only hatred toward mothers that I have seen here seems to be directed at you, Jason. I’m not really sure that it’s hatred but let’s just say that we aren’t laughing with you.
So, get many hits at your blog site?
Hey, isn’t Emmanuel the same dingleberry who posted some weird rant to the effect that the reason scientists support stem cell research is because they want to take over the world with a genetically-engineered race of supermen, or some such demented shite? Or was that a different dingleberry? Whichever is the case, Emmanuel is still one of fundamentalism’s more benighted idiots, to be sure.
I say we leave him alone to enjoy his persecution fantasies.
I say we keep fueling them in the hopes of giving the arrogant little cockroach terminal histrionics… ;/
Although your abilities intrigue me, you are all quite honestly inferior, mentally, physically. In fact, I am suprised about how little real change there has been in human evolution in the past few centuries. Oh, there has been technical advancement, but how little man himself has changed.
You see, if you improve a technical device, you increase productivity. But IMPROVE MAN, and you gain a thousand fold!!
Yes, it appears WE will do well in this century.
The picture neglects the probable results of inbreeding.
I would say fundie Catholics as the more normal ones shy away from this as well.
He didn’t at the end, he died at best an agnostic.
I just have this to say! If these were other than redneck white backwards hilbillies they would not be celebrated by the media. My mother had nine sisters and that was in the 1930’s and early forties when people had large families, now women know more and should know better. Who is paying for all of these inbreds? The government is what comes to my mind. If these were Hispanics and Blacks that is what would come to the minds of others.
I think having a larage family if you love kids etc is great but 17 going on 18 almost scared me to the point of….that poor woman must be pregnant all the time and the kids seem to spend so much time taking care of each other that it seems a little unfair to me. I have no problems with 5 kids and that is alot but when you are at an age when you just keep procreating when will this stop for this poor woman and I am guessing there is no birth control here at all just the fact that if I get pregnant then that is what is meant to me. If that is the case she will keep having babies until she reaches menopause and I would guess looking at here she is still pretty much in her 40’s. Gosh I mean she could have another 7 or 8 kids or more. I feel the thinking process here is somewhat of not taking responsibility of being fair to the children and this woman. If they choose not to use birth control or modern drugs or whatever then do what the Ingels did on little house on the prairie whatever that was cos they only had 3 or 4 kids and were very happy spiritual loving family. What do families who want to hold on to their old fashioned values and not use modern birth control drugs etc do . I respect not wanting to use the modern day use of this aspect if you wish not to BUT in order not to keep procreating then you do what you must do as they did way back when, and had only a few kids here. I feel they want to live as a good abiding type family but it is totally unfair to this woman and the number of children regardless if they seem very happy or not when will this stop–when she reaches menopause or what…………? Can someone help this couple in that “department” so she is not spending her entire life PREGNANT. IF this is what she really wants then fine and i totally respect them all but somehow i feel she may not have a decision in this somewhre I could be wrong but I would reather see her not pregnant and be physically able to take care of her family without this burden falling on all of these kids.–Iether way if they are truly happy and can afford all this then fine it is theri life I guess.——
He didn’t at the end, he died at best an agnostic.
the first deathbed DEconversion story?
I think having a larage family if you love kids etc is great but 17 going on 18 almost scared me to the point of….that poor woman must be pregnant all the time and the kids seem to spend so much time taking care of each other that it seems a little unfair to me. I have no problems with 5 kids and that is alot but when you are at an age when you just keep procreating when will this stop for this poor woman and I am guessing there is no birth control here at all just the fact that if I get pregnant then that is what is meant to me. If that is the case she will keep having babies until she reaches menopause and I would guess looking at here she is still pretty much in her 40’s. Gosh I mean she could have another 7 or 8 kids or more. I feel the thinking process here is somewhat of not taking responsibility of being fair to the children and this woman. If they choose not to use birth control or modern drugs or whatever then do what the Ingels did on little house on the prairie whatever that was cos they only had 3 or 4 kids and were very happy spiritual loving family. What do families who want to hold on to their old fashioned values and not use modern birth control drugs etc do . I respect not wanting to use the modern day use of this aspect if you wish not to BUT in order not to keep procreating then you do what you must do as they did way back when, and had only a few kids here. I feel they want to live as a good abiding type family but it is totally unfair to this woman and the number of children regardless if they seem very happy or not when will this stop–when she reaches menopause or what…………? Can someone help this couple in that “department” so she is not spending her entire life PREGNANT. IF this is what she really wants then fine and i totally respect them all but somehow i feel she may not have a decision in this somewhre I could be wrong but I would reather see her not pregnant and be physically able to take care of her family without this burden falling on all of these kids.–Iether way if they are truly happy and can afford all this then fine it is theri life I guess.——
I had to add something else and another comment as I was reading some more.
I want to say following my long message about the 17 going on 18 kids and constantly being pregmant and the unfiar ness to her and all the kids constantly taking care of each other (which is a good moral trait to care for each other I beleive in very strongly), but i want to comment on the abortion thing mentiond earlier. I am against abortion and belive in life etc I Just find it unfiar to keep being in a state of pregnancy your entire life while trying to take care of your kids. I honeslty think 18 is such alot I feel for her and her kids from a compassionate standpoint and not judging. If they are truly happy then I applaude this bond of family life that I do not have being single and no kids which i would have loved. I admire this woman very very much indeed. ——