shape
carat
color
clarity

Duggars have 20th baby on the way!

Imdanny

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 21, 2008
Messages
6,186
PilsnPinkysMom|1320802762|3057416 said:
I say this in jest, of course, but they're raising quite the conservative army!

Joy. :rolleyes:
 

Nomsdeplume

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Mar 23, 2009
Messages
1,671
I'm sorry, but in this day and age this is simply not okay. Regardless of the freedom of choice argument, it's not okay to just keep procreating without any consideration for the consequences we are already facing due to overpopulation. :nono:
 

April20

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Aug 1, 2008
Messages
3,372
Do I agree with how they manage (or don't manage) birth control? Nope, not at all.

But as long as they aren't on public assistance, which I don't believe they are or have been, I could really care less how many they pop out.
 

wakingdreams53

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Jul 27, 2010
Messages
891
I'm not particularly fazed by this. I know families that are just as large due to their religious nature. They manage. I've visited and it's not the zoo you'd imagine. Every one helps one another, always oogling the baby (there's always a new baby). Truly, only menopause will stop them.
 

VRBeauty

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
11,210
Amber St. Clare|1320798086|3057347 said:
If one supports a woman's right to choose, than I think her choice should supported, whether we agree with her or not.

Uhhh... no. The fact that I agree with someone's right to make a particular decision does not mean that I have to agree with or support the way they use that choice. Two totally different things, in my book.
 

monarch64

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 12, 2005
Messages
19,213
kribbie|1320847741|3057708 said:
I'm sorry, but in this day and age this is simply not okay. Regardless of the freedom of choice argument, it's not okay to just keep procreating without any consideration for the consequences we are already facing due to overpopulation. :nono:

I fail to see how we are already suffering the consequences of overpopulation, but I don't live in an overpopulated area by any means. And, if it's not okay to just keep procreating, where would you draw the line, Kribbie? Just 2 children per household? You get into rather dangerous territory when you start telling people it's not okay to do what they're doing because YOU are not comfortable with their lifestyle, don't you think?
 

Sha

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jun 27, 2007
Messages
2,328
I'm torn on the whole thing. I admire how happy and well-adjusted and confident the children are, and I'm amazed at how they're able to get such a large family to work so smoothly and harmoniously. On the other hand, I agree that she may be putting herself and her future children at risk by continuing to get pregnant at her age. I wonder about the toll all these pregnancies have on her body. If you think about it, she's probably been either pregnant or breastfeeding every year for the last 20 years! :o

How do they even have the time/energy to have sex? :confused:

I guess the older children help out a lot, which is good, but still.... a bit of a burden for them to be 'mini-parents' at their age.

Here's another interesting article I found on Yahoo:

Duggar's 20th Pregnancy: Is It Safe?

Michelle Duggar's pregnancy with her 20th child is not only jaw-dropping; it is also risky, according to experts.

Duggar, who appears with her husband Jim Bob on the reality TV show "19 Kids and Counting," had a life-threatening experience with her last baby, Josie, who had to be delivered three and a half months early, weighing only 1 lb., 6 oz, according to news reports.

"The more pregnancies one has, the greater the risk of a bad outcome that could leave the children that are already born without a mother," said Dr. Philip Darney, director of the Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health at the University of California, San Francisco.

Worldwide, he said, as the number of births per women increase, so does the rate of maternal or neonatal death.

Duggar long ago earned a spot in the category doctors have created for women who have had many children. Women achieve what is called grand multiparity when they give birth at least five times, and, for these women, additional pregnancies bring special risks. [11 Big Fat Pregnancy Myths]

Doctors worry most that these women will hemorrhage after delivery, and doctors won't be able to get the uterus to contract to stop the bleeding, said Dr. Lois Brustman, an associate professor of clinical obstetrics and gynecology at Columbia University.

A woman's uterus, the organ within which the fetus develops, is a muscle, and each successive pregnancy stretches that muscle. As a result, after a woman has had many pregnancies, the muscle has a hard time contracting after the placenta — the organ that connects the fetus to the mother's blood supply — separates, Brustman said. This creates a risk of massive bleeding. Because the uterus has been weakened by successive pregnancies, drugs to cause this contraction are typically less successful, she said.

Scar tissue from past pregnancies within the uterus can cause problems with the placenta. This can create additional risks, including premature birth, according to Brustman.

Duggar is 45, and her age also brings increased risk of health problems during pregnancy, including hypertension, diabetes and preeclampsia, a condition unique to pregnancy that involves hypertension and protein in the urine, Brustman said. Duggar suffered from preeclampsia during her most recent pregnancy, according to news reports.

Her age also brings risk of chromosomal anomalies — a type of genetic problem — which can cause Down syndrome, miscarriages and other issues. This risk increases dramatically as a woman ages.

So is there a maximum number of pregnancies a woman's body can sustain? In her practice, Brustman has helped women deliver as many as 12 babies, but, she said, "I am not sure the uterus has a limit."

A woman can typically conceive about two months after giving birth. Regular breastfeeding can also act as a temporary form of birth control, she said.

Among Hutterites, a North American Christian religious group whose members do not practice birth control but accept modern medicine, the median number of births per woman was 13, according to Darney. Because a median represents the number in the middle of a distribution, this means that some women are having more than 13, he said.

This number demonstrates women's reproductive capacity under ideal conditions, he said. "That doesn't mean that having 13 children is the way to achieve the best possible pregnancy
outcome and that it is without hazard."
 

Nomsdeplume

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Mar 23, 2009
Messages
1,671
monarch64|1320856372|3057797 said:
kribbie|1320847741|3057708 said:
I'm sorry, but in this day and age this is simply not okay. Regardless of the freedom of choice argument, it's not okay to just keep procreating without any consideration for the consequences we are already facing due to overpopulation. :nono:

I fail to see how we are already suffering the consequences of overpopulation, but I don't live in an overpopulated area by any means. And, if it's not okay to just keep procreating, where would you draw the line, Kribbie? Just 2 children per household? You get into rather dangerous territory when you start telling people it's not okay to do what they're doing because YOU are not comfortable with their lifestyle, don't you think?

It has nothing to do with my personal level of comfort. It's about the high levels of unemployment, environmental degradation, poor quality of water, scarce availability of food sources, and other related issues. It's not something to disregard just because we don't all see it in our neighbourhood. Everyone is encouraged to ‘want’ and perceive that they ‘need’ to consume beyond the planet’s ability to provide. I know it's not a popular opinion, but nevertheless I do think a line has to be drawn somewhere.
 

monarch64

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 12, 2005
Messages
19,213
kribbie|1320858780|3057836 said:
monarch64|1320856372|3057797 said:
kribbie|1320847741|3057708 said:
I'm sorry, but in this day and age this is simply not okay. Regardless of the freedom of choice argument, it's not okay to just keep procreating without any consideration for the consequences we are already facing due to overpopulation. :nono:

I fail to see how we are already suffering the consequences of overpopulation, but I don't live in an overpopulated area by any means. And, if it's not okay to just keep procreating, where would you draw the line, Kribbie? Just 2 children per household? You get into rather dangerous territory when you start telling people it's not okay to do what they're doing because YOU are not comfortable with their lifestyle, don't you think?

It has nothing to do with my personal level of comfort. It's about the high levels of unemployment, environmental degradation, poor quality of water, scarce availability of food sources, and other related issues. It's not something to disregard just because we don't all see it in our neighbourhood. Everyone is encouraged to ‘want’ and perceive that they ‘need’ to consume beyond the planet’s ability to provide. I know it's not a popular opinion, but nevertheless I do think a line has to be drawn somewhere.

I understand what you're saying. However, what about the population controls already in place? Abortion is legal in many countries, there are wars happening, people are killed by others constantly, and of course we experience natural disasters which claim thousands if not hundreds of thousands of lives every so often. Heck, what about all the childless-by-choice families? I just feel that families like the Duggars are so few and far between and that this is not something likely to turn into a trend that saying "it's not okay" is unnecessarily harsh, kwim? I guess I just have more of a "live and let live" mentality these days.
 

ededdeddy

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jun 7, 2010
Messages
81
I've heard the family claims themselves as a church and pays no taxes whatsoever. That has to help. :o I've watched the show before and I don't see the mother and father doing much parenting, I see the siblings raising each other. I think one of the girls was in charge of the entire family's laundry. There is something like 6 or 7 washing machines and she was doing it all herself. Another episode there was a kid no more then 4 or 5 years old in charge of getting dinner rolls out of the oven.

Does anyone remember the McCaughey septuplets born in the late 90's? Two of them had cerebral palsy and I remember watching them on TV and it was obvious that the parents had no control over them. One of them was playing on a counter near a kitchen knife and the others were just everywhere.
 

Nomsdeplume

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Mar 23, 2009
Messages
1,671
monarch64|1320861223|3057871 said:
kribbie|1320858780|3057836 said:
monarch64|1320856372|3057797 said:
kribbie|1320847741|3057708 said:
I'm sorry, but in this day and age this is simply not okay. Regardless of the freedom of choice argument, it's not okay to just keep procreating without any consideration for the consequences we are already facing due to overpopulation. :nono:

I fail to see how we are already suffering the consequences of overpopulation, but I don't live in an overpopulated area by any means. And, if it's not okay to just keep procreating, where would you draw the line, Kribbie? Just 2 children per household? You get into rather dangerous territory when you start telling people it's not okay to do what they're doing because YOU are not comfortable with their lifestyle, don't you think?

It has nothing to do with my personal level of comfort. It's about the high levels of unemployment, environmental degradation, poor quality of water, scarce availability of food sources, and other related issues. It's not something to disregard just because we don't all see it in our neighbourhood. Everyone is encouraged to ‘want’ and perceive that they ‘need’ to consume beyond the planet’s ability to provide. I know it's not a popular opinion, but nevertheless I do think a line has to be drawn somewhere.

I understand what you're saying. However, what about the population controls already in place? Abortion is legal in many countries, there are wars happening, people are killed by others constantly, and of course we experience natural disasters which claim thousands if not hundreds of thousands of lives every so often. Heck, what about all the childless-by-choice families? I just feel that families like the Duggars are so few and far between and that this is not something likely to turn into a trend that saying "it's not okay" is unnecessarily harsh, kwim? I guess I just have more of a "live and let live" mentality these days.
Touché :))
 

phoenixgirl

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Mar 20, 2003
Messages
3,388
While I certainly don't want 20 kids, they seem like a happy, well-adjusted family. I'd rather see another Duggar kid born to a happy family that can provide than an oops teen pregnancy or a welfare mom with a bunch of kids from different fathers. But I guess I kind of expected that after the last scare (25 weeks is SOOOOO early! :(( ) they would quietly try to prevent, ya know? Mid 40s, 19 kids already . . . most of us would decide that's time to stop. But I'm guessing they really just believe they're supposed to procreate and heaven will take care of the rest. I really hope mom and baby stay healthy, and I secretly hope menopause jumps in soon so we don't have to see any kind of trainwreck.

ETA: I am personally concerned about overpopulation, and that plays a factor in my decision only to have two children. That said, I'm not sure I want to live in a country where we put a limit on population. First world nation growth tends to slow down on its own.
 

partgypsy

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Nov 7, 2004
Messages
6,622
I feel ambivelance about her having another child.
I don't feel they are "bad" parents. There are many ways to raise children so they are healthy and well-adjusted and their needs are met, and it seems like the kids are doing fine. Yes personally in my own family I would want to be able to give my own children more one-on-one, but there are other cultures where children are raised more cooperatively.

As far as someone wishing there would be a more liberal couple having that many children to counteract the conservative message of this, not gonna happen. The closest you'd find is Jolie-Pitt, of a couple adopting multiple children, children who are already born but need a good home. I know of more than one couple from my (liberal) college and current friends who decided to have no biological children because of the pressure the human population puts on this planet (7 billion and counting!) but who have adopted children instead. There are literally species going extinct every year from habitat loss. To have more children but allow a unique species to become extinct, yeah I can accept that it is a personal choice but I can personally think it is selfish as well.

I guess I come down to feeling, as long as her doctor feels it is safe for her to have another child, that it is between her and her husband. I guess I'm just surprised that her ob gyn has given her the go ahead given her age and potential complications which could leave 19 dependents motherless.
 

KaeKae

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
May 27, 2009
Messages
2,390
part gypsy|1320871628|3058028 said:
I guess I come down to feeling, as long as her doctor feels it is safe for her to have another child, that it is between her and her husband. I guess I'm just surprised that her ob gyn has given her the go ahead given her age and potential complications which could leave 19 dependents motherless.

This is part of what surprises me, that she has a doctor who approves of the huge number of pregnancies, including c-sections. I know of at least one doctor, who strongly recommends against having more than three c-sections. The last Duggar baby was an emergency c-section, and I believe some of the other deliveries were, too. Combine that, with the total number of pregnancies, and I would think no doctor would want to be responsible for her care? But, that's just my lay person's take on it.

On the other hand, my second pregnancy could have been like the last Duggar pregnancy. I didn't have preclamcia, but DD threatened to come at 27 1/2 weeks. Fortunately for us, my getting to the doctor quickly to halt the labor, and then spending the next 7 weeks in bed (with a three year old running around) resulted in a healthy, full term baby. Still, it was enough to scare me, and I stopped at two children. I got lucky once, and had a healthy baby to show for it. I wasn't going to take the chance of a preemie again.
 

amc80

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jun 18, 2010
Messages
5,765
ededdeddy|1320862605|3057894 said:
I've heard the family claims themselves as a church and pays no taxes whatsoever. That has to help.

Not that I've seen their tax returns, but I think this is just one of those rumors that goes around. They are part of a home church that switches houses every week, taking turns as to who is hosting. IF the church is a registered 501c(3) non-profit, they may be able to write off a small portion of household expenses related to the church. But it would be a pretty small amount. They do get to claim each of their kids who lives at home, so that probably helps out their tax return quite a bit.
 

Tuckins1

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Apr 13, 2008
Messages
8,614
Oh my lord, her poor hootinany!
 

Laila619

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
11,676
part gypsy|1320871628|3058028 said:
I guess I come down to feeling, as long as her doctor feels it is safe for her to have another child, that it is between her and her husband. I guess I'm just surprised that her ob gyn has given her the go ahead given her age and potential complications which could leave 19 dependents motherless.

It's not like she asked her doctor. No OB anywhere would say it was a good idea, especially after what happened with poor Josie. Just because she survived does not mean that she doesn't have lifelong issues.
 

zoebartlett

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
12,461
Phoenix -- I agree that the Duggar's seem like a perfectly well-adjusted family, and I also agree with Amber and Haven about supporting the Duggar's choice if we support a woman's right to choose. I can't say I'd make the same choice but I don't judge Michelle or Jim Bob for how many children they choose to have. I see Tacori's and other people's point about Michelle's health, but I assume she's receiving proper medical care along the way. I find it hard to believe that she'd knowingly put a child in jeopardy.
 

Maria D

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 24, 2003
Messages
1,948
Politically, I fully support this woman's right to choose to have as many children as she wants. Personally, I think she's nuts, but that's just my uninformed opinion; I've never watched the show.

I don't get all the concern over her and her future baby's health. This couple chooses this risky behavior and they are well equipped to handle the consequences. Should she die during childbirth, there are plenty of surrogate parents to take care of the existing kids. Should she lose the baby, she's got 19 other kids. If either of these things happen, or if the child survives but is profoundly hand-capped, this family will take it in stride and believe it was all part of god's plan for them. Why the worry?
 

HollyS

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
6,105
The simple fact of the matter is . . . this is completely, absolutely, positively . . . none of our business.

I, for one, will just keep my opinion to myself. It's their life.
 

Laila619

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
11,676
Maria D|1320881715|3058161 said:
Politically, I fully support this woman's right to choose to have as many children as she wants. Personally, I think she's nuts, but that's just my uninformed opinion; I've never watched the show.

I don't get all the concern over her and her future baby's health. This couple chooses this risky behavior and they are well equipped to handle the consequences. Should she die during childbirth, there are plenty of surrogate parents to take care of the existing kids. Should she lose the baby, she's got 19 other kids. If either of these things happen, or if the child survives but is profoundly hand-capped, this family will take it in stride and believe it was all part of god's plan for them. Why the worry?

Well, I think as a parent one should put their kids' needs first above their own desires. It would not be in her kids' best interests for them to be left motherless, or for the baby to be left disabled and/or have a poor quality of life.

But whatever, it's not my family, so she can do what she wants. I don't think it's a good idea but she didn't ask me. ;))
 
Be a part of the community Get 3 HCA Results
Top