No offense, but it is moral for people to have 18 kids due to religious beliefs?

I'm not trying to ruin the party but I noticed this news story about the mother of the Duggar family giving birth to her 18th child (and wanting even more). Their website appears to suggest that their religious views scorn birth control and promote giving birth to as many children as possible.

Their website ( http://www.duggarfamily.com/ ) reads:

"We are so grateful to God to announce that Michelle is expecting our 18th child, due in January of 2009!

Psalm 127 says, Lo children are a heritage of the Lord, the fruit of the womb is His reward.” We believe that each child is a special gift from God and we are thankful to Him for each one."

Their family seems well cared for and genuinely loved for but I continue to get uncomfortable about their "as many humans as possible" idea. Is it moral for people to have so many children, especially considering how overpopulated the planet already is ? Is it possible to even give those kids the attention they need ? Is it right for religion to promote extremely large families ?

Maybe I'm just full of crap but I'm wondering if anyone else gets a sense of discomfort upon reading of such stories.

Update:

I'm not bashing the family, if you read my question folks. Nor am I saying that it should be illegal. I'm just wondering what others think about the idea of continuously having kids and opposing contraception over religious beliefs.

Update 2:

The Apostle: I don't legislate morals.

Update 3:

God Bless War: "Leave other people's bodies alone!"

I do, you little cad. Discomfort over an idea does not mean I seek to control others. I respect individual liberty.

29 Answers

Relevance
  • Favorite Answer

    I have never said this explicitly on Yahoo, but I am the third oldest out of twelve children, with another one on the way. My wife is one of five, and her sister, who also became religious after marriage, has seven. We have three. Sometimes having so many siblings wasn't that great, but usually, it was. I always had someone to go to for help when my parents weren't available, someone I could go for a walk with, someone who could help me with my homework, someone to talk to, someone to give me a hug when I was sad.

    I think my parents did an excellent job raising me and are doing an excellent job raising my siblings. My son loves that he has aunties and uncles and cousins and great-uncles spread around the globe (my father's and mother's families are also very large), and he is very amused that his uncle is going to be younger than his little sisters. You'd think that large families would create tension, but they don't - rather, we learn to ignore the little things that annoy other people in favor of maintaining the peace.

    As long as the Duggars are able to provide for their children without the help of the government, and to raise them to be productive members of society, I think they are fine. It is not their exclusive responsibility to take care of the orphaned children in the world. It is everybody's.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    The moral issue with birth control. BC works in 3 ways. First two ways prevent pregnancy, the third makes it to where if you do get pregnant the fertilized egg can't attach to your uterus, thus forcing an abortion of the egg. We don't use BC for this reason either. We too hope to have as many as the Lord provides, because He does tell us to be fruitful and multiply (amongst other scriptures).

    I think that it's really no one's business. For some reason people feel that they should get to tell others how to use their money, raise their kids, etc. If they see raising Godly children as a cause, then let them raise their children, as many as that may be, the way they see fit. They live debt free and without government assistance so I don't have any complaints about them. As long as she is in good health and the babies are fine, I see no reason for them to put the breaks on. And I have friends that are personal friends of the family and the children are not weird, unsocial freaks. They are a wonderful family and I wish half of the one or two children homes were raised as wonderfully as they are.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    My thoughts are about the resources that God has given us. If this family has the means to support 20 kids and the are kind and loving parents then why not? Myself, I choose to stop at two because my husband already had two. Together we are barely getting by, but if ever I'm on my own again, two would be all that I could reasonably handle. We have an obligation to God to take care of the blessings that He gives to us. Monetary or Children.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I saw a show about them on the Discovery Channel, or TLC or something when they had 16 kids. They are very caring and loving and seem like a happy family.

    I do not see how they can do it! We have three kids and have a hard time keeping up. I admire this woman for having the patience and the courage to have so many kids, but I ,personally, could not deal with it.

    I believe all children are a blessing! I don't know that their religion is promoting this idea. Maybe that is their own interpretation of the Bible?

    • Login to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    I saw that story as well and my immediate thought was how incredibly selfish it is for someone to bring in 18 children into a world when population control is already becoming one of the biggest problems humanity faces. We expect nations like China and India to get that under control, but here we have someone thinking it's a great idea to break the world record in how many children they can bear.

    Perhaps these folks just would like to have 50 or so grandchildren. This reminds me of someone I know, who is one of over 50 grand children to his grandfather, seriously!

    The person I'm referring to, coincidentally has so many cousins also as a direct result of religion. But the large difference is that his grandfather's children are from numerous wives (can you guess why?). The religion is Mormonism, and not long ago, it was accepted by them as a good thing and encouraged (because supposedly it was the will of God, same backward thinking as this story) to have as many children as possible, thus taking many wives, etc.

    In any case, this brings to mind one of the things that I feel is the among the greatest problems with religions today. Everything in their religion's 'ancient' teachings is still often taken literally and that is clearly a mistake.

    The present and the future absolutely should be taken into account, therefore, if religion is to be followed, for the greater good of the planet and for humanity, it should be more adaptive to change and the modern world (and not so literally to what the world was like hundreds of even thousands of years ago, when life was incredibly different than today).

    Bottom line. Using religion as an excuse to have as many babies as is humanly possible is ridiculous and if anything, should be frowned upon, not celebrated, though on a final note... if this woman had done this after some post apocalypse and repopulating the earth was important to the survival of our species, only then would I have an entirely different opinion.

    [Edit]

    btw... over population is not a myth, our world population has doubled just in the last 50 years, imagine it doubling again!! You are likely to see that in your own lifetime. It's not about having enough room to live somewhere (elbow room), it's about the problem worsening from here on out with pollution, water supply and food supply (energy demands I'm confident will be the one thing that we'll be able to solve in the next 35 years regardless of population). So given this... being two people that plan on putting 50 to a hundred more people on the planet over the next 50 years does more to contribute to our forseeable future crisis when population will most certainly be a major issue.

    People like that make me feel I should forget having more than two kids myself just to try and compensate for their selfishness. They are not making things better for the rest of the people on earth, they are simply manufacturing more consumers.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    People back in the old days used to have alot kids. My great grandmother was one of twelve.

    The Duggars like kids and are a close knit family their Mom even homeschools the kids herself - if they can afford it, why not? It's really no one else's business what they do-why worry about the choices other people make in regards to their own families? Who are you to be the judge of their actions? They seem to have a well oiled system of getting things done. In a family that size I'd be thinking about how to get away from all the attention ;)

    Continuously having youngins would be rough on my family, but if you can handle it why not?

    ~Repectfully

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Amy
    Lv 4
    4 years ago

    Questions to you.... Can a doctor guarantee that ANY medical procedure will work? If the child (or anyone for that matter) would receive this treatment and die, could the doctor be charged? Interesting...... I can sort of relate to this mother in Minnesota. If one of my children were recommended by a doctor to have a blood transfusion, I would refuse it. I support the Bible's command to abstain from blood. There are alternate treatments out there. Medical science has come a long way. This is not child neglect or abuse.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • BJK
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago

    Of course it is that family's business, but I can definitely voice my opinion on the matter in general. Their reasoning IS indeed very horrible. I also read their story a few months ago and I nearly fell out of my chair. I think it is in poor taste to have 18 children. I understand they are remorseful for having lost a child, but where do they get off by having more children than is absolutely necessary? I personally think it is selfish. You cannot give 18 children the same amount of attention they deserve.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Where does moral, legal or social questions arise from for a family that love all the babies they 'went in' to produce?

    The world will be full of food if corrupt people did not make life unbearable for others, who they have deprived of the opportunity to make a decent living with their devilish legislations.

    Source(s): There is enough food and all, to go round; some are wasting, others are throwing away, others are hoading. Do not control me, my desires and convictions the way you control food and the basics.
    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    It strikes me as being very selfish on the parents part. I agree with Death, Linz and Gorgeoust .

    Wouldn't it be more noble to care for the children that are already here, rather than creating more while others suffer?

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.