Woman gives birth to 17th child

Forty-year-old Michelle Duggar from Tontitown, Arkansas (USA) gave birth to her 17th child (a girl) on August 2nd , 2007. Both mom and child are doing great. Michelle and her husband, Jim Bob (age 42), now have 10 boys and 7 girls in the family (including two sets of twins). The oldest is 19 years old and the youngest (before the recent newborn) is 2. They are planning to have more children in the future. All the names of their children begin with the letter �J�.
The newborn has been named Jennifer and joins siblings Joshua, 19; John David, 17; Janna, 17; Jill, 16; Jessa, 14; Jinger, 13; Joseph, 12; Josiah, 11; Joy-Anna, 9; Jedidiah, 8; Jeremiah, 8; Jason 7; James 6; Justin, 4; Jackson, 3; Johannah, almost 2.

WOW, that�s a lot of mouths to feed! Congratulations to them!

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070803/ap_on_fe_st/17_kids


Duggar Family

Holy mother! She has been pregnant for 10.5 years of her life.
"Nothing on television tonight, darling." 
"Then what shall we do?"
"Need you ask?"

I salute her.

That husband must be earning a damn good wage. But hey, if they are doing a good job of supporting those kids then full credit to them, we need more like that in the developed world to keep birthrates at replacement level.

They must also be big on discipline. It's a credit to them to be able to keep that many children in order when some couples can't even make one or two clean up after themselves.

Originally posted by Patch Originally posted by Constantine XI That husband must be earning a damn good wage. But hey, if they are doing a good job of supporting those kids then full credit to them, we need more like that in the developed world to keep birthrates at replacement level. They must also be big on discipline. It's a credit to them to be able to keep that many children in order when some couples can't even make one or two clean up after themselves.   In the UK it is the reverse, the mothers who have most chidren usually don't have a regular partner and live on council estates.  The mothers get more benefit money the more children they have, hence the poor have an incentive to many children.

In Australia our welfare state is like Britain's in that respect, but I don't think the American welfare system goes to that same length. And yes, it is the poor who typically have the most children, though I think that has more to do with lifestyle choice or (lack of) family planning. Still, the poor breed where the wealthy are often too comfortable or too busy to alter their lifestyle to bring sufficient numbers of children into the world to keep the population at replacement level.

Originally posted by Aelfgifu I do by the way think it is not essentially that much harder to keep a big family in line than a small one. Here in the Netherlands, having families of up to 7-10 children was quite normal for catholic families up to the 50ies and 60ies, and my parents have 5 and 6 siblings. In a family that big, the older kids help raising the smaller ones. There is a much larger 'social restraint' from doing wrong, and more supervision on kids by older siblings.

I'm going a bit off topic here, but I wanted to question whether we can still expect parents to raise their kids with the same ease as was once the case 50 years ago. Increasingly the chance of couples not staying together is greater. The removal of most unskilled or low skilled labour jobs overseas has put a burden on parents to educate their kids to a higher level so they can participate in the knowledge sector. Also, while giving your kids a good thrashing was once considered quite alright, these days I think people tend to be less tolerant of such an authoritarian style of parenting. I also think that kids these days are just a hell of a lot more expensive to satisfy in order to appear a part of popular culture.

I do agree about the siblings playing a part in raising the kids. Parents often put a lot more of their fervour into the first child(ren), then go easier on the following children. The result is usually the eldest children are especially aware of responsibility and the socially acceptable.

Originally posted by Aelfgifu It also teaches each member of the family that sharing is always a must, that attention is something you have to cherish but cannot demand, and that some things cannot be had and a no is a no. Which are some of the essentials of raising a child apparently.

A lot of psychological research has concluded single children are a lot less likely to grasp concepts like sharing or understand how goodwill works. Though they seem to gravitate more towards their elders in social interaction. Unsurprisingly, eldest children of multiple child families are more likely to make effective leaders, younger children are most likely to have a good grasp of diplomacy.

I remember an asyrian woman in Turkey who give birth to more than 40 child..(Dont ask me how she did it, I just saw it at a television.)

Edited by Mortaza - 04-Aug-2007 at 11:13

Originally posted by Maharbbal Also, while giving your kids a good thrashing was once considered quite alright, these days I think people tend to be less tolerant of such an authoritarian style of parenting. True (the UE is about to ban spanking) but I don't see the point.

The reason I mentioned that was because that in order to enforce discipline in a larger family, there may be a greater need to resort to corporal punishment. Sitting each child down and reasoning with them individually is hard to do with more children.

Originally posted by Maharbbal I also think that kids these days are just a hell of a lot more expensive to satisfy in order to appear a part of popular culture. It is not true. Food represents in Europe a far lower portion of the average family budget, so basically you are spending the money you save on carrots on video games.

That's interesting, as food here has also decreased in real value prices. But I wonder whether a decrease in the real cost of food is equivilent to the increase in the real cost of childrens' material demands (e.g. video games, "cool" clothes and shoes, an allowance (I get the impression that more children used to do housework for this a couple of generations ago rather than peremptorily demand it is a right).) A lot of what children had back in the 50s and 60s looks like your standardised mass production clothing and toys, whereas today they seem to go for things which have a more exclusive (and expensive) flavour to them.

wow, I think this couple are preparing to break the records.

Originally posted by The_Jackal_God reminds me of the beginning of Antz

It reminds me of how much patience and work it takes to raise so many children. They all seem to be very well-adjusted and organized within their environment. However, I wonder how they relate to their peers in their community and how actively they particiate in a setting outside the home. IMO, as they are all home schooled, that may be detrimental to their social development within a different environmental setting.

In any event, when you love children as much as this couple seems to, then having so many kids is a blessing for them.