The Duggars are expecting their 20th child. God bless them. I don’t watch the show often but when I do I’m amazed how good and happy the kids seem and how kind the parents are.
But, of course, all those people who demand “choice” are freaking out over the Duggar’s announcement.
The LA Times ran the headline: “Duggars expecting baby No. 20; congrats, horror, finale ensue.”
The birth of a 20th baby from one set of parents is bound to raise some eyebrows — or drop some jaws and spur some expressions of horror. Add to the total number of children these tidbits: Mom is 45; the last Duggar addition — born in December 2009, three months early and at 1 pound, 6 ounces — began life in a neonatal intensive care unit; and the size of the family and its continued growth are the basis for a reality show.
On Tuesday, tweets included the unkind variety — “sick,” “stupid” and “out of control”…
The Metro published this nasty piece:
Someone please stop Michelle and Jim Bob Duggar. The reality TV couple and human rabbits announced yesterday on “Today” they are expecting their 20th child this spring — this after their 19th baby, Josie, was born at only 25 weeks and survived a host of expensive and life-threatening medical problems. Michelle also suffered preeclampsia and gall-bladder problems through that pregnancy.
“We are so excited,” said Michelle, 45, who is three and a half months into her new pregnancy.
Jim Bob, 46, echoed his wife’s sentiments, saying, “Michelle and I both feel like some of the most blessed parents in the world.”
“We didn’t want to stop on an odd number,” he added.
Whew. Here I thought they wouldn’t have a good, medical reason for putting Michelle’s life at risk and adding to an already crowded world. Being particular about an odd versus even number is totally logical.
You know, I’m starting to think that libs aren’t all that fond of human beings, especially of the tiny drooling cutey in diapers variety.
November 9, 2011 at 2:14 am
Having 20 kids is a bit on the high side, but it used to be fairly common with farm families and such. St. Catherine of Siena's mom and dad had 24 kids. (She was #23.)
November 9, 2011 at 2:21 am
God Bless the Duggars! I am always reminded of something Our Lady had said "The more children you have , the better it will be " . I think she's speaking contrary to abortion , I could be wrong though. I'm quite sure IT IS better for the duggers. They seem very happy.
November 9, 2011 at 2:27 am
As a parent of half a Duggar, I applaud their courage. It has gone from choice to if you can afford them to how dare you. In truth, it was always, how dare you.
November 9, 2011 at 2:44 am
Go, Michelle! Exercise your reproductive rights!! Don't let anyone try to tell you what to do with your body!!
What a bunch of hypocrites. Yeah, a woman has a right to choose to kill her babies, but how dare she actually want to bear a lot of children.
I saw the interview on the Today show. I thought Michelle looked fantastic, very healthy and very happy. And I think Jim Bob was kidding when he made that crack about stopping at an odd number (duh). It was his way of making light of the extremely rude and snarky questions Ann Curry was pelting them with.
November 9, 2011 at 2:52 am
I just don't understand the very strong reactions people have had to their news. Especially CONSERVATIVE people I know-Liberasls I can understand. They're not on welfare. So what if their 19th baby spent time in an "expensive" NICU? Did Jim Bob or Michele ask others to pay their medical bills? If you don't like them, don't watch their show. The "pro-life" people I know who make most snide comments are those who really wish they had had more children than they did.
November 9, 2011 at 5:06 am
I always thought the negative attitude towards the Duggars stemmed from the Duggars' unapologetic faith in God and the fact that their 19 children behave better and are happier than the conventional couples' 1.3 children.
Jen in OK
November 9, 2011 at 5:12 am
Don't get me wrong, we should certainly welcome and celebrate the latest Duggar child into the world, but as a general rule, should women at 45 lean toward adoption as a means for raising children given the inherent medical risks? Especially in their case, after having such serious complications with the previous pregnancy.
November 9, 2011 at 6:45 am
St. Gianna Molla carried her baby to natural birth in spite of her having terminal cancer, bringing another soul to God is the most beautiful thing a married couple can do! More power to them! May Our Lord grant Mrs. Duggar and her new little one a safe and healthy pregnancy and delivery.
November 9, 2011 at 8:24 am
I tend to think the Duggar clan causes so much outrage because they are so darn happy! They certainly have their work cut out for them and they don't seem to try to project the 'we're perfect' of other reality-show multiple moms, they just go along and do their thing for God and for each other. There probably, (God forbid) isn't a dramatic meltdown of their marriage in sight which is what certainly gets under the skin of the MSM types who like to comment on them.
November 9, 2011 at 12:14 pm
I was all for the Duggars, but after the last pregnancy, where Michelle was so sick and they had to take the baby at 26 weeks, I think it would have been prudent for them to stop.
I only hope that this doesn't end in a tragedy. Those children need a mother. Michelle and JimBob Duggar are reckless and arrogant
November 9, 2011 at 2:14 pm
Love the comment about reproductive rights. This just shows how dishonest most of the left are. They don't care about reproductive rights, they care about the right of someone to off their unborn baby.
November 9, 2011 at 2:28 pm
The Duggars aren't reckless and arrogant. They trust in God.
November 9, 2011 at 2:38 pm
OH please… God gave women a natural infertility moment of when to stop having children and it's called menopause. Unless she hits it, let her have as many kids as she wants! Her age has nothing to do with medical risks. Women in their 20's have just as many medical risks as women in their 40's. The only difference is women in their later years tend to run the "risk" (if you even want to call it that) of having twins. Big whoop.
Pre-elampsia can happen to any woman, at any age, in any pregnancy. I know many woman that developed it in their first pregnancy and they were in their early 20's.
I'm glad for the Duggars. They stand in the face of society and thumb their noses by saying "We follow God and we're happy." And it drives liberals NUTS! I wish i could have just a smidge of the peace the Duggars have when announcing another pregnancy in the face of hostile comments of people telling me I "need to stop" (and I'm pregnant with just #6)
November 9, 2011 at 3:22 pm
Who can deny anyone when they are seeking the Will of God? It is a strange thing for someone who is not intimate with this family to judge what they see as a higher good. The birth of their last child was a greater good, for it showed the world that a child no matter the size is a blessing and is truly a human being. God used this premature birth to show humanity to the world. Many will only believe if they can see. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.
November 9, 2011 at 7:11 pm
God also gave us a brain, and free will. When you already have 19 healthy, beautiful children, are 45 years old, and had an extreme premature birth due to preeclampsia, it is NOT prudent to continue to have children.
What happens when the next pregnancy kills the baby, or kills her? And then her 19 children are left without a mother.
Michelle is reckless and arrogant. Perhaps her sacrifice is not to keep having children, but to stop.
November 9, 2011 at 9:57 pm
With all due respect, "anonymous", any pregnancy could end up being a premature birth. Any pregnant woman can develop pre-eclampsia. If she is now healthy, her youngest the last I read was nearly two and doing quite well, I don't see how you mean she isn't being "prudent."
I also am laughing at the age issue. If she was a movie star who had undergone fertility treatments, and this was her first or second baby, the media wouldn't be worrying about it.
November 9, 2011 at 10:33 pm
Those gripers … they're just jealous …
November 10, 2011 at 7:42 am
Why, may I ask, is Michelle (and no mention of Jim Bob) being "reckless and arrogant?"
It seems to me that the whole fertility issue is resting with Michelle when last time I checked it takes a man and a woman.
Women don't spontaneously have children.
I think it's silly to view pregnancy as a disease or fertility as something that's bad. Yes, there's a risk, but there's always a risk. I've known many friends half Michelle and Jim Bob's age who have lost children during pregnancy. The number of children you already have has nothing to do with it either.
November 10, 2011 at 2:32 pm
And, I never see anyone ask how selfish you are being if you only have one child. Really? This is so ridiculous.
I am happy for them. I just love how much they trust in God.
November 10, 2011 at 9:28 pm
I don't understand how it's selfish to have 20 children, citing that it affects everyone on the planet's access to resources, but it's not selfish to terminate a pregnancy and effect the life of everyone who would ever had come into contact with that human being.