Why? Suddenly it's wrong to share ones personal beliefs and opinions? If so then why are you sharing yours?

I'm a human being with my own moral code. The same moral code that keeps me from robbing banks or eating children.
They do seem to be doing well in their exclusive family, but it's the exclusivity of the family that I take exception to, because there's no such thing. No person or group of people is exclusive. Our actions always effect someone else, even if in only some small way.

They might certainly have no intention to, but they do nonetheless.

What you have just done here is demonstrate the same isolationism that perpetuates world poverty. The Duggars are indeed providing well for their family. But where does that provision come from? The world's resources are limited; finite. Anytime something is consumed from that pool of resources there is less available for everyone no matter where they are. Every dollar you put into your pocket comes out of somebody elses.

No, but that would be one fewer butterfly to migrate and breed. That could mean 50 fewer next year, 2500 the next. 2500 butterflies is a lot. That could feed a sparrow for a year. A sparrow that could also migrate and breed...
The point being there is no such thing as an isolated incident. Every action has a consequence. Sometimes that consequence isn't predictable or easily preventable, but I think in the case of the Duggars it is. It's a simple subtraction equation.

They may be adhering to a philosophy, but it's a philosophy of ignorance. It's a philosophy of faith without comprehension. They are adhering to an ideology without examining or questioning the potential consequences of their actions. Essentially they're having a lot of kids because they believe god wants them to. They get to have a big happy family because they can eschew thought and responsibility by putting it down to "the will of God".

You're jumping to conclusions. I'm not saying it's wrong to share your opinions or your beliefs, but it is unethical to push karma on a group of people who do not believe in it (i.e. the Duggars).

Eating children? This thread is close to being Godwin'd.
Hippie, this family is exclusive in that it is caring for its own, alone. Sure, they aren't subsistence farming like the venerable Pygmy, but that does not mean they are doing "harm to Gaea."

Show me how, without your karmic distribution flowchat, s'il vous plait.

Sir, I ask you to rephrase this with less general terms ("everyone", for example, as well as "every"). I feel so guilty now that I know that spending time online talking to you has killed 5 children in Mozambique. I feel utterly devastated. Perhaps I should just go off of the grid forever, live off the earth. But wait, the money it would take for me, or for 300 million Americans to do just that would be astronomical, and might just kill every person in the Old World by limiting their food. Godwin'd enough for you yet, Sir Extreme Example?

I just farted. I'm sure the ozone layer is over 9000 times less stable now.

It's their path, man. It is their choice to do this, and no matter how unethical you see it to be, it is a viable view of life and the path to the afterlife. The Duggar family probably does question the consequences of their actions. Mr. Duggar probably just sells more and more houses to pay for more kids coming along. Mrs. Duggar is probably very keen on how to raise children by now. Moreso than you may be. We could all have something to learn from the Duggars, so let's not kneejerk admonish them, nor write them off completely until we know the entire story.

We all have something to learn from each other. I'm not condemning the Duggars as unnatural people worthy of nothing but scorn. They're probably very lovely, caring people. I simply disagree with their ideology, because it exists through the ignorance of the reality of the modern world.

Incidentally I'm glad you were amused by my extreme example. That's why I used it.

It's no more selfish than the assholes who have one or two kids (or none) and then live in 5,000 sq. foot homes with two laundry rooms and four cars.

What do you mean by "farming their children?" Are you suggesting that people should breed labor and that so long as they are using that labor to produce food for the world, it would be acceptable?

If so,

1) Ew

2) Shortage of farmworkers is not what is causing the food shortages.

1) I agree wholeheartedly.

2) No I was paraphrasing Johnthan Swift. I was being ironic.

3) Ew is right.

But do you want a President with a bad haircut? Wouldn't it be difficult for her colleagues and other nations leaders to take her seriously if she shows up to meetings looking like she was styled by Bozo the clown?

And yes I am joking.

You're probably right, the state of her genitalia shouldn't be the centre of discussion, though it is more relevant to the subject than Hilary Clinton's hair is to her politics. (ie Michelle Duggar could never have borne 18 children without her vagina. Hilary Clinton could certainly walk around shimmering, glorious locks yet have no political leaning whatsoever.)

Every time I hear about this family that's the first thing that pops into my head.

Eighteen C-sections does sound a bit far-fetched.

Even if they were all delivered surgically, there's still only one way for her husbands genetic material to enter her uterus.

The thread won't be complete without ol' faithful...

I beg to differ.

Not that their religion would allow such things, I imagine.

And even then it's most usually done through the vag.

Hmm I wonder what her quickest birth is from water breaking to child?
Quickest birth