Monday, August 20, 2012, 9:00 PM, 19 Kids, 1 Emergency


The kids must fend for themselves when Gil rushes Kelly Jo to the hospital after realizing she's dealing with more than just the flu. As the family prays back home for a safe and speedy recovery, how will they handle life at home without mom and dad?

30 minutes

16 comments:

Nancy said...

This was covered on the Bateses' blog. Not to completely spoil it for anyone who doesn't want to go slogging though the blog, Kelly's issue is something common for women over 40 who have had a few kids (or more).

Hint: Michelle Duggar had the same issue in the past.

Canadian Fan said...

Fend for themselves? If I'm not mistaken, there are a few 20-somethings in the family who could easily take care of the little ones in their parents' absence.

Seriously? said...

Another example of why anyone with half a functioning brain STOPS having annual babies into their 40's. It's not the responsibility of 20Somethings to raise their own siblings just because ma and pa think it's cute to pop out bambinos as much as humanely possible, going for the Ripley's Believe It Or Not" award for human reproduction.

Wonder if JimBob gets a cut/commission/Finder's Fee for introducing TLC to their newest 'reality' caricatures.

Michael de los Santos said...

I just love the bates. this family knows what its like to struggle to make ends meet. The Bates know that things are not just handed to them, unlike the Duggars. there is also a level of excitement in the eyes of the bates about doing this tv show. The duggars lost that excitement years ago. Its almost like a hassle or a chore when the duggars have to film. If only they knew you shouldnt bite the hand that feeds you. More people are going to watch the Bates because of this. Unlike the duggars (especially the older children), the bates actually want to do the show. They come from a good place and it shows. When Ms. Bates looks into Gills' eyes you can really tell that she loves him and is not just doing it because she is on tv. I hope they get the ratings they deserve and TLC gives them another season! Keep it up the Bates family!

Alberta Rose said...

Another example of why anyone with half a functioning brain STOPS having annual babies into their 40's.

I was born in 1968. I grew up hearing how women could have a career first and wait until their 30's or even 40's to start having children. Not "a child", children.

Nancy said...

The ratings are in for both episodes. Rather, they're not. Neither episode cracked the top 100 cable shows (around a 0.2 share). Heck, they got beaten out by a 1am airing of Diners, Drive-ins and Dives.

Not looking good for renewal.

tulip said...

Well, so much for the ratings then...too bad, although TLC didn't do well with setting up the episodes I have to admit after actually watching them, it was way better to see Gil with the letters, and the family interaction overall than sitting through the Duggars. I honestly think there are some real die-hard Duggar fans that are offended the Bates are now in the game, and might purposely not tune in, so as not to put the Duggars in danger of losing their popularity to the new kids on the block. What in the world would they do without Jim Bob & Michelle and Josh & Anna modeling the "proper" way family life should be?

Alberta Rose said...

What in the world would they do without Jim Bob & Michelle and Josh & Anna modeling the "proper" way family life should be?

What they did before the show, read what Michelle writes in magazines or online. When the show goes off the air, there will still be magazine articles and blogs to read, lectures to go to or read about. The Duggars were known before TLC and will be known whenever the show goes off the air.

Beth Anne said...

Re:
"I was born in 1968. I grew up hearing how women could have a career first and wait until their 30's or even 40's to start having children."

We're about the same age, and there is some truth to your statement. I think the difference lies in what one of the other posters said - about having ANNUAL babies into their 40's. Maybe not one every twelve months, but one about every 1.5 years, in the Duggars case. Not to mention, the 15-16 TOTAL pregnancies prior to hitting the age of 40. That many pregnancies and births take a huge toll on a women's body, and she becomes less and less able to carry a baby to full term, without complications, the older she gets.

I think even the advice of "have a career first" was based on the notion of maybe having 2-3 kids in one's later 30s, a number which is much closer to the "norm."

Nancy said...

What's wrong with waiting to have some security and stability in your life before having kids? There was no way I was ready to have kids in my 20's, so I waited until I felt equipped to give any children I might have their best shot at a good life. I never successfully carried a pregnancy to term due to physical issues.

Ironically, my parents went fundie-lite when I was in high school in the early 80's. My formerly "feminist" mother, who was forced to raise my 3 older sisters on her own for several years due to an early marriage - and 3 kids before she was 25 - that turned abusive, became more supportive of women who married young and had a passel of kids before they were 30, although they threw me out to fend for myself when I was 18. IOW, I was sent very mixed messages about what a "woman's role" was, so I made up my own rules. And seeing both sides, I chose security and stability. Not every man is ready to start a family when he's 22, either right out of college, trade school, or working at Daddy's business.

Is Josh Duggar really a father? He uses his kids as props, just as his parents did for much of his life. The only reason he's reasonably secure is due to TLC, not because of anything he did on his own. Same goes for Jim Bob's car lot. He doesn't even run that. Frankly, he's a spoiled, immature brat and you couldn't pay me to marry him, or anyone like him.

sandi said...

Just a thought here,but...as far as waiting to have children,(in general),there is a 1 in 2000 chance of having a baby with Down's Syndrome in a woman's 20's,a 1 in 200 chance in her 30's,and it drops to 1 in 20 in the 40's.JAT.

Nancy said...

Both Kelly and Michelle refuse amnios, so they've been willing to take the risk of a Trisomy-21 baby....many, many times over.

A woman who merely chooses to have a kid or two later in life is also more likely to have an amnio to be prepared for any handicaps the baby might have. My SIL had an "oopsie" baby at almost 45 and was emphatic about having an amnio. My niece is now 9 and at the top of her class. But had something been wrong, this couple had the resources to properly take care of her, unlike what I'm afraid would happen as a kid late in the Bates or Duggar lineup.

Josie, for instance, only got interventions because of her status as a micropreemie, but compared to other babies, she didn't have nearly the amount of therapy or other treatments that a family whose concentration was more focused could have.

I think more than one of Kelly's kids and one or two of Michelle's have some learning disabilities that have been thrown by the wayside in the fixation on having as many children as possible.

There's also the side of this in which younger women have a few kids then STOP. If they got lucky and had secure lives, good on them. A lot of this is dependent on culture and cost of living. Women in the South marry much earlier, on average, than women in the Northeast or West Coast (average age in my area for woman's first marriage is 31).

Different strokes. I just happen to think Kelly and Michelle are [indiscriminately] breeding just for the sake of breeding.

Sharla said...

Found some ratings for this week's episodes and the show that followed for comparison. Worse than last week's ratings.

9:00 0.686 million viewers, 0.326 million adults 18-49 (0.3 rating)

9:30 0.644 million viewers, 0.342 million adults 18-49 (0.3 rating)

Big Tiny (10:30)
0.616 million viewers, 0.332 million adults 18-49 (0.3 rating

Big Tiny (10:00)
0.560 million viewers, 0.279 million adults 18-49 (0.2 rating)

Nancy said...

Ouch, those numbers are not promising. At.all.

Alberta Rose said...

What's wrong with waiting to have some security and stability in your life before having kids? There was no way I was ready to have kids in my 20's, so I waited until I felt equipped to give any children I might have their best shot at a good life. I never successfully carried a pregnancy to term due to physical issues.

There shouldn't be anything wrong with any woman's reproductive choices. If women truly have freedom of choice, whether they start their family at 20, 30 or 40, whether they decide to stop at 25 or continue until menopause, that choice should be respected, not condemned.

Alysa said...

Both Kelly and Michelle refuse amnios, so they've been willing to take the risk of a Trisomy-21 baby....many, many times over.
------------
And this is a bad thing? Many non-fundamental people would do this. I wouldn't get one -- and I'd happily welcome a child with an extra chromosome.