Pharyngula

Posted by: Steve_C | August 14, 2006 10:35 AM

That poor woman. Those poor girls.

Reminds me of Children of The Corn for some reason.

Posted by: quitter | August 14, 2006 10:44 AM

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)

Posted by: Steve_C | August 14, 2006 10:54 AM

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.

Posted by: Ahcuah | August 14, 2006 11:19 AM

PZ wrote:

It's not a pretty picture, and I think Bleen was optimistic.

Posted by: PaulC | August 14, 2006 11:30 AM

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?)

Posted by: Ahcuah | August 14, 2006 11:42 AM

Another thought.

It could be equally valid to label all but the older child as
"Died from Rh Incompatibility".

Posted by: PaulC | August 14, 2006 11:50 AM

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.

Posted by: amk | August 14, 2006 12:42 PM

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.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 14, 2006 12:58 PM

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

Posted by: QrazyQat | August 14, 2006 1:11 PM

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.

Posted by: PaulC | August 14, 2006 1:20 PM

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.

Posted by: jim | August 14, 2006 1:44 PM

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.

Posted by: Lya Kahlo | August 14, 2006 1:45 PM

That was too Emmanuel not Jim.

Posted by: Judy L. | August 14, 2006 1:58 PM

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).

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | August 14, 2006 2:03 PM

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.

Posted by: PaulC | August 14, 2006 2:11 PM

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.

Posted by: Jason | August 14, 2006 2:25 PM

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.

Posted by: Jason | August 14, 2006 2:31 PM

That poor woman. Those poor girls.

Reminds me of Children of The Corn for some reason.

Posted by: Steve_C

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.

Posted by: Robert | August 14, 2006 2:43 PM

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

Posted by: Jason | August 14, 2006 2:49 PM

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

Q. What religion was Edward Jenner? Dr Jenner was a very conventional Christian, worshiping in the town's parish church (Church of England) next to his home and Berkeley Castle. He and his family are buried there, in the church of St Mary the Virgin, Berkeley, right next to the altar.

Yep. Edward Jenner. Inventor of the smallpox vaccine and undoubtedly a Creationist.

The irony is amusing.

Posted by: Jason | August 14, 2006 2:51 PM

Hey, its your holy book that says you can't judge...

No, it actually doesn't.

so maybe you should listen to it and shut up.

Considering you are grossly ignorant of what the Bible says, I don't think I'll take your advice. Thanks anyway.

Posted by: Robert | August 14, 2006 2:57 PM

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...

Posted by: PaulC | August 14, 2006 3:00 PM

Robert:

Hey, its your holy book that says you can't judge... so maybe you should listen to it and shut up.

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.

Posted by: Robert | August 14, 2006 3:04 PM

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

Posted by: Lya Kahlo | August 14, 2006 3:12 PM

"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?

Posted by: Numad | August 14, 2006 3:26 PM

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

Posted by: JS | August 14, 2006 3:31 PM

Yep. Edward Jenner. Inventor of the smallpox vaccine and undoubtedly a Creationist.

The irony is amusing.

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

Posted by: Martin | August 14, 2006 3:36 PM

Jason, incapable like so many of his kind of making meaningful distinctions and understanding concepts of any complexity whatsoever, blathered:

Yep. Woman chooses to have several abortions = good; promotes "choice." Woman chooses to have several children = bad; screw "choice."

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.

Knowing they are fundamentalist Christians, they are most likely taught that their main purpose in life is to obey and worship God.

Gee. What a great "choice."

Posted by: Lya Kahlo | August 14, 2006 3:56 PM

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?

Posted by: Molly, NYC | August 14, 2006 4:14 PM

Man has leadership over woman because God created him first.

Rough draft.

Posted by: Numad | August 14, 2006 5:01 PM

"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.

Posted by: Stanton | August 14, 2006 5:18 PM

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.

Posted by: mark | August 14, 2006 5:31 PM

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.)

Posted by: coz | August 14, 2006 7:58 PM

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.

Posted by: Jason | August 14, 2006 9:31 PM

Gee, more false garbage in response to my posts. Imagine that...

Nowhere in your link on Edward Jenner does it say he was a creationist. Just because he was Christion

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, truly a great example of a fundimentalist.

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?

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.

Did we miss the part about overpopulation?

You mean the part about left-wing doomsday fantasies?

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)."

Someone else already did, so I felt I didn't need to.

You're the one that said "they ain't poor."

Pretty easy to assume you meant economically. Otherwise you're using poor grammar.

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.

Where do you get I hate motherhood and children? I don't.

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."

I guess your part of the bigger is better camp.

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!

If this bothers you, you can mentally substitute in cholera for smallpox.

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.

Jenner might be excused, however, for being a creationist, since he died before Origin was published.

Baseless, logically fallacious nonsense.

You're forgetting. To Jason, if you aren't a fundy wingnut like himself, you hate the American family.

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.

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.

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!

God wants them to be wives, mothers, and maids.

The definition of "keepers of the home" is not "maid.

Which is exactly what was said.

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).

Exactly where is the choice in this woman's life if she is a fundamentalist xian?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Again, completely false.

So, according to Jason, atheists are baby-hating monsters who want to outlaw pregnancies for everyone

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.

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.

Yeah, you've said that many times before, and I've proven you wrong on it lots of times. Whoop! I did it again!

I think giving birth to 16 children is simply demented.

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.

Posted by: George Cauldron | August 14, 2006 9:36 PM

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?