What do you think of the Duggar family? They've been the subjects of a series on the Discovery Channel. they have 17, 18 or 19 children (they keep having them, so it's hard to keep up). I'd like to hear from atheists and Christians. Just curious.
> What do you think of the Duggar family? They've been the subjects of a > series on the Discovery Channel. they have 17, 18 or 19 children (they > keep having them, so it's hard to keep up). I'd like to hear from > atheists and Christians. Just curious.
I think they're crazy, not to mention irresponsible.
Counting on God for your family planning is wrong-headed foolishness. Although some unlucky people want kids and can't conceive them, the average couple without control will have enough kids to ruin lives (their own, or some of the kids).
Given that overpopulation is at the root of all our environmental ills, this is wrong-headedness that the world can ill afford.
I hope the Duggars will work out all right - they seem to have enough money, and that's a start - but I hope it won't become a family tradition and I hope no one follows their example.
> What do you think of the Duggar family? They've been the subjects of a > series on the Discovery Channel. they have 17, 18 or 19 children (they > keep having them, so it's hard to keep up). I'd like to hear from > atheists and Christians. Just curious.
It is their decision and we don't need to be judging them for it or call them crazy or irresponsible. We were made so that we can have as many children as we can so who are we to say what is the limit. Although it does seem unusual and perhaps taboo but that is all up to them and no one else
Interesting subject tho, i never heard about them before 5/5
> What do you think of the Duggar family? They've been the subjects of a > series on the Discovery Channel. they have 17, 18 or 19 children (they > keep having them, so it's hard to keep up). I'd like to hear from > atheists and Christians. Just curious.
> What do you think of the Duggar family? They've been the subjects of a > series on the Discovery Channel. they have 17, 18 or 19 children (they > keep having them, so it's hard to keep up). I'd like to hear from > atheists and Christians. Just curious.
As long as the Duggars can take care of their own kids, and get no special favors from the government, it is their right to spawn as many Duggars as they want. I see no basis for this *not* to be the case.
There are much worse parents with just one kid, and the Duggars do not seem to be ill-treating theirs, so it is really none of our business.
We've had this discussion before, and it boiled down to freedom to have kids and not be forced to adopt, or the forced social responsibility of limiting family size and adoption. I personally favor the latter, but it is a tough decision, because telling anyone that they can't do something like that *IS* a violation of freedom.
> What do you think of the Duggar family? They've been the subjects of a > series on the Discovery Channel. they have 17, 18 or 19 children (they > keep having them, so it's hard to keep up). I'd like to hear from > atheists and Christians. Just curious.
On Oct 15, 11:54 pm, Jake <jake3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We've had this discussion before, and it boiled down to freedom to > have kids and not be forced to adopt, or the forced social > responsibility of limiting family size and adoption. I personally > favor the latter, but it is a tough decision, because telling anyone > that they can't do something like that *IS* a violation of freedom.
It is a tough decision and at least a *limitation* of freedom, and one that this continent is not ready to adopt.
Unfortunately, overpopulation is a huge problem. To the point that I've yet to see a population control law that I couldn't support, and we've seen some dillies around the globe. Like mandatory sterilization after the 3rd kid, though they had to repeal it.
It has to end somewhere. If we don't get pop growth under voluntary control, it's just a question of how much irreparable damage we do and how many species we bring down with us before the dieback begins.
> On Oct 15, 11:54 pm, Jake <jake3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > We've had this discussion before, and it boiled down to freedom to > > have kids and not be forced to adopt, or the forced social > > responsibility of limiting family size and adoption. I personally > > favor the latter, but it is a tough decision, because telling anyone > > that they can't do something like that *IS* a violation of freedom.
> It is a tough decision and at least a *limitation* of freedom, and one > that this continent is not ready to adopt.
> Unfortunately, overpopulation is a huge problem. To the point that > I've yet to see a population control law that I couldn't support, and > we've seen some dillies around the globe. Like mandatory sterilization > after the 3rd kid, though they had to repeal it.
> It has to end somewhere. If we don't get pop growth under voluntary > control, it's just a question of how much irreparable damage we do and > how many species we bring down with us before the dieback begins.
The US Constitution guarantees that that individuals retain all rights that are not legislated by the federal and state governments in accordance with the Constitution.
Reproductive rights are such rights.
Further, this is about individual rights. You cannot legislate rights for just one family or one person - it is not constitutional. Yes, Congress tried to do this shamefully for Terri Schiavo, and it was unconstitutional then.
The Duggars are one extreme example of large families -- families with 4 or 5 kids are not that uncommon, and if you legislate, at what point do you draw the boundaries?
Yup, they use more of the natural resources than a family of three, but why single them out? Every family that owns a gas guzzler or a bigger house than they really "need" is guilty of the same.
Overpopulation is not a problem in the US. Will it be in the future? Not in the near future AFAICT. It'll be someday if technological advances stall, but the Duggars are hardly the cause.
So what's the problem?
That they are doing it because they are religious? They have the First Amendment that allows them to believe what they want.
That they are irresponsible to society? How? They are not on welfare, nor are they asking us to foot any bills.
Is overconsumption of resources bad? Yes, but why single them out?
Do the rich in this country "deserve" to have four and five homes some spanning hundreds of acres when there are homeless?
Should people be burning fossil fuel by driving their own car to work everyday?
Should people be able to afford basic healthcare? An education?
These are all social issues that need to be dealt far more urgently than how many times Mr. and Mrs. Duggar make whoopee.
They are not violating any law, just spawning like rabbits.
Education -- that's the way to teach people to be far-thinking -- you cannot legislate this.
You make good points, Simpleton, however, overpopulation is a problem in the US. Sure, we don't live in crowded slums, but when do you define overpopulated? Consider that 1 American will, on average, use 30 times the amount of resources as a single person in an underdeveloped country such as Nepal or Nigeria. I define overpopulation as when a society uses too many resources to sustain itself, not when the living gets crowded, and unless we can turn ourselves around we will be in a position where resources are definitely difficult to come by.
On Oct 15, 10:21 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
> On Oct 15, 9:06 pm, "Timothy 1:4" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 15, 11:54 pm, Jake <jake3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > We've had this discussion before, and it boiled down to freedom to > > > have kids and not be forced to adopt, or the forced social > > > responsibility of limiting family size and adoption. I personally > > > favor the latter, but it is a tough decision, because telling anyone > > > that they can't do something like that *IS* a violation of freedom.
> > It is a tough decision and at least a *limitation* of freedom, and one > > that this continent is not ready to adopt.
> > Unfortunately, overpopulation is a huge problem. To the point that > > I've yet to see a population control law that I couldn't support, and > > we've seen some dillies around the globe. Like mandatory sterilization > > after the 3rd kid, though they had to repeal it.
> > It has to end somewhere. If we don't get pop growth under voluntary > > control, it's just a question of how much irreparable damage we do and > > how many species we bring down with us before the dieback begins.
> The US Constitution guarantees that that individuals retain all rights > that are not legislated by the federal and state governments in > accordance with the Constitution.
> Reproductive rights are such rights.
> Further, this is about individual rights. You cannot legislate rights > for just one family or one person - it is not constitutional. Yes, > Congress tried to do this shamefully for Terri Schiavo, and it was > unconstitutional then.
> The Duggars are one extreme example of large families -- families with > 4 or 5 kids are not that uncommon, and if you legislate, at what point > do you draw the boundaries?
> Yup, they use more of the natural resources than a family of three, > but why single them out? Every family that owns a gas guzzler or a > bigger house than they really "need" is guilty of the same.
> Overpopulation is not a problem in the US. Will it be in the future? > Not in the near future AFAICT. It'll be someday if technological > advances stall, but the Duggars are hardly the cause.
> So what's the problem?
> That they are doing it because they are religious? They have the > First Amendment that allows them to believe what they want.
> That they are irresponsible to society? How? They are not on welfare, > nor are they asking us to foot any bills.
> Is overconsumption of resources bad? Yes, but why single them out?
> Do the rich in this country "deserve" to have four and five homes some > spanning hundreds of acres when there are homeless?
> Should people be burning fossil fuel by driving their own car to work > everyday?
> Should people be able to afford basic healthcare? An education?
> These are all social issues that need to be dealt far more urgently > than how many times Mr. and Mrs. Duggar make whoopee.
> They are not violating any law, just spawning like rabbits.
> Education -- that's the way to teach people to be far-thinking -- you > cannot legislate this.
> On Oct 15, 9:12 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote: > > What do you think of the Duggar family? They've been the subjects of a > > series on the Discovery Channel. they have 17, 18 or 19 children (they > > keep having them, so it's hard to keep up). I'd like to hear from > > atheists and Christians. Just curious.
On Oct 15, 9:34 pm, Jake <jake3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You make good points, Simpleton, however, overpopulation is a problem > in the US. Sure, we don't live in crowded slums, but when do you > define overpopulated?
This is now OT, but I'll respond anyway. Once.
The US is not overpopulated IMO -- there are plenty of inhabitable areas. India and Nigeria are two examples of what I would consider overpopulated.
The US growth rate is lower than the World growth rate too.
> Consider that 1 American will, on average, use > 30 times the amount of resources as a single person in an > underdeveloped country such as Nepal or Nigeria.
Nigeria has doubled its population from 70 million to about 140 million in the last 15 or so years!
So what is it that you would have the US do about restoring the balance (just with Nigeria), and why?
I am all for us not wasting resources, and doing everything we can to prolong the depletion of our natural resources (or the world's) so that science and technology gets that much more time to innovate so that current and future populations enjoy their lives at least as much as we do, so what exactly would you have the US do?
I get the live simply so that other may simply live part, and I'm all for it -- I try hard for my part, encourage my friends and family to do so as well, I try to educate who I can to do so likewise, but beyond that what is it that you want the US to specifically do?
Hypothetically, if you took the resources of the world, and divided it equally among every inhabitant, you'd have theoretically levelled the playing field.
What happens after that?
What will you do with the immediate imbalance that would follow with uneven population growths?
We certainly cannot go by basing resource consumption on the population, because that would be tantamount to rewarding bigger families. Why should India get a larger share of the scant resources than say Canada or Australia?
The US gets (deservedly) a bad rap for its intrusive wars, and we should end that.
But beyond that we owe no more to the rest of the world than a citizen owes to his neighbors. They do not follow our laws, and we do not follow theirs. At that point mutual cooperation is what we aim for. We trade our assets, ingenuity, goods, services, know-how, for theirs.
For mutual benefit. That's about it.
> I define > overpopulation as when a society uses too many resources to sustain > itself,
well, the US citizen uses more resources than an Indian one. but the US is not overpopulated, because the US citizen still does not need more than he can get. Not so with an Indian citizen. That might be a better way to distinguish that.
> not when the living gets crowded, and unless we can turn > ourselves around we will be in a position where resources are > definitely difficult to come by.
Yup, and education is the main way out of it, in my opinion.
> On Oct 15, 10:21 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 15, 9:06 pm, "Timothy 1:4" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Oct 15, 11:54 pm, Jake <jake3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > We've had this discussion before, and it boiled down to freedom to > > > > have kids and not be forced to adopt, or the forced social > > > > responsibility of limiting family size and adoption. I personally > > > > favor the latter, but it is a tough decision, because telling anyone > > > > that they can't do something like that *IS* a violation of freedom.
> > > It is a tough decision and at least a *limitation* of freedom, and one > > > that this continent is not ready to adopt.
> > > Unfortunately, overpopulation is a huge problem. To the point that > > > I've yet to see a population control law that I couldn't support, and > > > we've seen some dillies around the globe. Like mandatory sterilization > > > after the 3rd kid, though they had to repeal it.
> > > It has to end somewhere. If we don't get pop growth under voluntary > > > control, it's just a question of how much irreparable damage we do and > > > how many species we bring down with us before the dieback begins.
> > The US Constitution guarantees that that individuals retain all rights > > that are not legislated by the federal and state governments in > > accordance with the Constitution.
> > Reproductive rights are such rights.
> > Further, this is about individual rights. You cannot legislate rights > > for just one family or one person - it is not constitutional. Yes, > > Congress tried to do this shamefully for Terri Schiavo, and it was > > unconstitutional then.
> > The Duggars are one extreme example of large families -- families with > > 4 or 5 kids are not that uncommon, and if you legislate, at what point > > do you draw the boundaries?
> > Yup, they use more of the natural resources than a family of three, > > but why single them out? Every family that owns a gas guzzler or a > > bigger house than they really "need" is guilty of the same.
> > Overpopulation is not a problem in the US. Will it be in the future? > > Not in the near future AFAICT. It'll be someday if technological > > advances stall, but the Duggars are hardly the cause.
> > So what's the problem?
> > That they are doing it because they are religious? They have the > > First Amendment that allows them to believe what they want.
> > That they are irresponsible to society? How? They are not on welfare, > > nor are they asking us to foot any bills.
> > Is overconsumption of resources bad? Yes, but why single them out?
> > Do the rich in this country "deserve" to have four and five homes some > > spanning hundreds of acres when there are homeless?
> > Should people be burning fossil fuel by driving their own car to work > > everyday?
> > Should people be able to afford basic healthcare? An education?
> > These are all social issues that need to be dealt far more urgently > > than how many times Mr. and Mrs. Duggar make whoopee.
> > They are not violating any law, just spawning like rabbits.
> > Education -- that's the way to teach people to be far-thinking -- you > > cannot legislate this.- Hide quoted text -
On Oct 15, 8:34 pm, Sirius <kati...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It is their decision and we don't need to be judging them for it or > call them crazy or irresponsible. We were made so that we can have as > many children as we can so who are we to say what is the limit. > Although it does seem unusual and perhaps taboo but that is all up to > them and no one else
LL: Actually, it does matter to others. Large families take up more resources than small ones, and there is a finite supply of resources. We haven't reached the critical state, yet, but China felt that it had, so they put draconian limits on population in place because they thought the country could not support the growing increases in population. They were not wrong in their analysis, IMO.
The Duggars don't take welfare, it's true, but they do take a toll on finite resources. If your own children were deprived in order to support such large families, would you have the same hands off attitude? Not everything is obvious on the surface.
I, too, don't like the idea of government telling people how many children to have, but what would happen if the world did become too populated to function properly--to feed, clothe and shelter everyone? It's already be happening. We see the effects in 3rd World countries. We generally just prefer not to notice. It's the "I'm alright Jack" syndrome.
> > What do you think of the Duggar family? They've been the subjects of a > > series on the Discovery Channel. they have 17, 18 or 19 children (they > > keep having them, so it's hard to keep up). I'd like to hear from > > atheists and Christians. Just curious.
> On Oct 15, 8:34 pm, Sirius <kati...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > It is their decision and we don't need to be judging them for it or > > call them crazy or irresponsible. We were made so that we can have as > > many children as we can so who are we to say what is the limit. > > Although it does seem unusual and perhaps taboo but that is all up to > > them and no one else
> LL: Actually, it does matter to others. Large families take up more > resources than small ones, and there is a finite supply of resources. > We haven't reached the critical state, yet, but China felt that it > had, so they put draconian limits on population in place because they > thought the country could not support the growing increases in > population. They were not wrong in their analysis, IMO.
> The Duggars don't take welfare, it's true, but they do take a toll on > finite resources. If your own children were deprived in order to > support such large families, would you have the same hands off > attitude? Not everything is obvious on the surface.
> I, too, don't like the idea of government telling people how many > children to have, but what would happen if the world did become too > populated to function properly--to feed, clothe and shelter everyone? > It's already be happening. We see the effects in 3rd World countries. > We generally just prefer not to notice. It's the "I'm alright Jack" > syndrome.
> > Interesting subject tho, i never heard about them before 5/5
> > On Oct 15, 9:12 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > What do you think of the Duggar family? They've been the subjects of a > > > series on the Discovery Channel. they have 17, 18 or 19 children (they > > > keep having them, so it's hard to keep up). I'd like to hear from > > > atheists and Christians. Just curious.
> On 10/16/07, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Three words:
> > Get.
> > A.
> > Hobby.
> > On Oct 15, 9:12 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote: > > > What do you think of the Duggar family? They've been the subjects of a > > > series on the Discovery Channel. they have 17, 18 or 19 children (they > > > keep having them, so it's hard to keep up). I'd like to hear from > > > atheists and Christians. Just curious.
> On Oct 15, 9:06 pm, "Timothy 1:4" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 15, 11:54 pm, Jake <jake3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > We've had this discussion before, and it boiled down to freedom to > > > have kids and not be forced to adopt, or the forced social > > > responsibility of limiting family size and adoption. I personally > > > favor the latter, but it is a tough decision, because telling anyone > > > that they can't do something like that *IS* a violation of freedom.
> > It is a tough decision and at least a *limitation* of freedom, and one > > that this continent is not ready to adopt.
> > Unfortunately, overpopulation is a huge problem. To the point that > > I've yet to see a population control law that I couldn't support, and > > we've seen some dillies around the globe. Like mandatory sterilization > > after the 3rd kid, though they had to repeal it.
> > It has to end somewhere. If we don't get pop growth under voluntary > > control, it's just a question of how much irreparable damage we do and > > how many species we bring down with us before the dieback begins.
> The US Constitution guarantees that that individuals retain all rights > that are not legislated by the federal and state governments in > accordance with the Constitution.
> Reproductive rights are such rights.
> Further, this is about individual rights. You cannot legislate rights > for just one family or one person - it is not constitutional. Yes, > Congress tried to do this shamefully for Terri Schiavo, and it was > unconstitutional then.
> The Duggars are one extreme example of large families -- families with > 4 or 5 kids are not that uncommon, and if you legislate, at what point > do you draw the boundaries?
> Yup, they use more of the natural resources than a family of three, > but why single them out? Every family that owns a gas guzzler or a > bigger house than they really "need" is guilty of the same.
> Overpopulation is not a problem in the US. Will it be in the future? > Not in the near future AFAICT. It'll be someday if technological > advances stall, but the Duggars are hardly the cause.
> So what's the problem?
> That they are doing it because they are religious? They have the > First Amendment that allows them to believe what they want.
> That they are irresponsible to society? How? They are not on welfare, > nor are they asking us to foot any bills.
> Is overconsumption of resources bad? Yes, but why single them out?
> Do the rich in this country "deserve" to have four and five homes some > spanning hundreds of acres when there are homeless?
> Should people be burning fossil fuel by driving their own car to work > everyday?
> Should people be able to afford basic healthcare? An education?
> These are all social issues that need to be dealt far more urgently > than how many times Mr. and Mrs. Duggar make whoopee.
> They are not violating any law, just spawning like rabbits.
> Education -- that's the way to teach people to be far-thinking -- you > cannot legislate this.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Since we can't waste resources we should sterilize all the poor people.
> What do you think of the Duggar family? They've been the subjects of a > series on the Discovery Channel. they have 17, 18 or 19 children (they > keep having them, so it's hard to keep up). I'd like to hear from > atheists and Christians. Just curious.
> On Oct 15, 10:21 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 15, 9:06 pm, "Timothy 1:4" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Oct 15, 11:54 pm, Jake <jake3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > We've had this discussion before, and it boiled down to freedom to > > > > have kids and not be forced to adopt, or the forced social > > > > responsibility of limiting family size and adoption. I personally > > > > favor the latter, but it is a tough decision, because telling anyone > > > > that they can't do something like that *IS* a violation of freedom.
> > > It is a tough decision and at least a *limitation* of freedom, and one > > > that this continent is not ready to adopt.
> > > Unfortunately, overpopulation is a huge problem. To the point that > > > I've yet to see a population control law that I couldn't support, and > > > we've seen some dillies around the globe. Like mandatory sterilization > > > after the 3rd kid, though they had to repeal it.
> > > It has to end somewhere. If we don't get pop growth under voluntary > > > control, it's just a question of how much irreparable damage we do and > > > how many species we bring down with us before the dieback begins.
> > The US Constitution guarantees that that individuals retain all rights > > that are not legislated by the federal and state governments in > > accordance with the Constitution.
> > Reproductive rights are such rights.
> > Further, this is about individual rights. You cannot legislate rights > > for just one family or one person - it is not constitutional. Yes, > > Congress tried to do this shamefully for Terri Schiavo, and it was > > unconstitutional then.
> > The Duggars are one extreme example of large families -- families with > > 4 or 5 kids are not that uncommon, and if you legislate, at what point > > do you draw the boundaries?
> > Yup, they use more of the natural resources than a family of three, > > but why single them out? Every family that owns a gas guzzler or a > > bigger house than they really "need" is guilty of the same.
> > Overpopulation is not a problem in the US. Will it be in the future? > > Not in the near future AFAICT. It'll be someday if technological > > advances stall, but the Duggars are hardly the cause.
> > So what's the problem?
> > That they are doing it because they are religious? They have the > > First Amendment that allows them to believe what they want.
> > That they are irresponsible to society? How? They are not on welfare, > > nor are they asking us to foot any bills.
> > Is overconsumption of resources bad? Yes, but why single them out?
> > Do the rich in this country "deserve" to have four and five homes some > > spanning hundreds of acres when there are homeless?
> > Should people be burning fossil fuel by driving their own car to work > > everyday?
> > Should people be able to afford basic healthcare? An education?
> > These are all social issues that need to be dealt far more urgently > > than how many times Mr. and Mrs. Duggar make whoopee.
> > They are not violating any law, just spawning like rabbits.
> > Education -- that's the way to teach people to be far-thinking -- you > > cannot legislate this.- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> Since we can't waste resources we should sterilize all the poor > people.
> On Oct 16, 3:18 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Three words: Get a life.
> > On 10/16/07, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Three words:
> > > Get.
> > > A.
> > > Hobby.
> > > On Oct 15, 9:12 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote: > > > > What do you think of the Duggar family? They've been the subjects of a > > > > series on the Discovery Channel. they have 17, 18 or 19 children (they > > > > keep having them, so it's hard to keep up). I'd like to hear from > > > > atheists and Christians. Just curious.
> On Oct 16, 3:18 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Three words: Get a life.
> > On 10/16/07, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Three words:
> > > Get.
> > > A.
> > > Hobby.
> > > On Oct 15, 9:12 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote: > > > > What do you think of the Duggar family? They've been the subjects of a > > > > series on the Discovery Channel. they have 17, 18 or 19 children (they > > > > keep having them, so it's hard to keep up). I'd like to hear from > > > > atheists and Christians. Just curious.
> And look at the source. Evidently making bullshit posts is a better > expenditure of time than making reasoned ones according to Queef > MacNevermind.
> On Oct 16, 2:30 am, bonfly <anub...@aapt.net.au> wrote:
> > Keith: > > "Three words: Get a life."
> > ... that's at least 5 Keith.
> > On Oct 16, 3:18 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Three words: Get a life.
> > > On 10/16/07, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Three words:
> > > > Get.
> > > > A.
> > > > Hobby.
> > > > On Oct 15, 9:12 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote: > > > > > What do you think of the Duggar family? They've been the subjects of a > > > > > series on the Discovery Channel. they have 17, 18 or 19 children (they > > > > > keep having them, so it's hard to keep up). I'd like to hear from > > > > > atheists and Christians. Just curious.
> On Oct 16, 3:18 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Three words: Get a life.
> > On 10/16/07, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Three words:
> > > Get.
> > > A.
> > > Hobby.
> > > On Oct 15, 9:12 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote: > > > > What do you think of the Duggar family? They've been the subjects of a > > > > series on the Discovery Channel. they have 17, 18 or 19 children (they > > > > keep having them, so it's hard to keep up). I'd like to hear from > > > > atheists and Christians. Just curious.
|
