Michelle Duggar miscarries

[Conservative Hippie]

They don't practice NFP. The AAP may recommend that babies be breastfed for 12 months. That doesn't mean it's realistic for most women or required by any specific religion. Ultimately, switching to formula isn't going to force God to do anything.

Neither of my kids were breast fed, and they were and are, as adults, perfectly healthy.

The average American woman breastfeeds 2-3 months, because they have to return to work


Making that kind of statement doesnt win points for the pro-breastfeeding agenda, BTW
I was a "gung-ho" member of the La Leche league and only did 9 months and 6 months. Babies turned away-their choice.
I did find my kids were less sick that others I knew-but all the sicker kids attended daycare, and I was lucky to work from home.

I'm not saying formula-fed kids aren't healthy - this is what I am saying in regards to the topic we are discussing, which is Michelle Duggar and her pregnancies: I know from watching the show for several years that she has commented that she breastfed some of the babies for nine months before weaning them. I also know that is it possible to get pregnant while breastfeeding - I did it. My daughter was 2 years old and still breastfeeding when I got pregnant with #2. However by then I was nursing sporadically and not at least every 4 hours, which is the recommendation if you are using breastfeeding as a form of birth control. I got my period back at 3 months with her and continued to breastfeed. However I still have not gotten my period back from my second pregnancy with my son, and he is 17 months old. Yes, it is possible to get pregnant even if you are not having a period. Ok, so back to the topic at hand. She has commented that she breastfed some of the babies for nine months. She has 13-15 months between most of her births and 18 between 4 of them (not counting Josie's birth). Since we don't know the exact gestational age of the babies, we don't know exactly how long she had between a birth and getting pregnant again, but if we average 9 months gestational age, that is 4-6 months. It is recommended by the AAP that you breastfeed for 12 months. It is also recommended by the AAP that a mother wait 12 months after a birth before getting pregnant again. It is my opinion, based upon what I know about the family, what I know about how "natural minded" they are about other subjects, based upon their use of the "buddy system" for the babies, that Michelle weans her babies early (she weans them, they do not wean themselves, and she weans them early, before the recommended 12 months), so she can get pregnant again.

BTW, it is rare that babies do actually wean themselves before 12 months. It may have happened twice to the PP, but I cannot believe it's happened 18 times to Michelle Duggar. I practice self-weaning and my oldest nursed to 30 months, and my youngest seems to be done at 17 months. Babies are different. I'm not trying to make any sort of statement for the "pro-breastfeeding agenda." I am pro-breastfeeding, sorry if that offends you but I am. It is my belief that Michelle Duggar does her babies and herself a disservice by weaning them early so she can get pregnant again. Sorry if that offends you.

 

[Nancyg56]

Yes, actually there is. Her doctor TOLD her when she had her last c-section that her uterus was thinning and that could cause problems with future deliveries. There is MUCH medical evidence to support the fact that every c-section increases the amount of uterine scarring and reduces the elasticity of the uterus resulting in stress on mom and baby, poor fetal growth due to low blood suppy, ect.

I had had three c-sections. The Dr told me that I had a great deal of scarring and that the uterine wall was very thin. He said I was very lucky and that a forth pregnancy would involve great risk. No way would I chance leaving my children to grow without me in order to satisfy some need to continue to have more children.

 

[kidshop]

Obviously, you of the mindset that Michelle should not be criticized. No evidence anyone presents would make you think otherwise.

QUOTE]

I'm of the mindset that she should not be criticized using medical inaccuracies. There is no evidence this miscarriage or Josie's premature birth are due to the amount of children she has had. The fact is that most miscarriages in older women are the result of poor egg quality.

If you want to criticize her for having more children than you deem acceptable, go right ahead, just don't use fallacy arguments to do it. Personally, as long as the children aren't being abused or a dependent primarily on the state, I won't judge. In fact, I think the world use more Duggars based on the way they conduct themselves.

More people should put themselves and their children's lives on tv to make money? It's the exact opposite of modesty and humbleness.

why announce the miscarriage the second they find out, then ask for privacy? which is it?

 

[DWGal210]

Yes, I also found it odd that they announced the miscarriage that SAME DAY. Did they call their publicist at the doctors office?? I thought that was a bit odd.

 

[Conservative Hippie]

Yes, I also found it odd that they announced the miscarriage that SAME DAY. Did they call their publicist at the doctors office?? I thought that was a bit odd.

I am assuming the TLC crew was around for the ultrasound, as this was to be the "gender reveal."

 

[Tikitoi]

My heart goes out to that innocent life that was lost due to their carelessness and selfishness.

 

[DWGal210]

I am assuming the TLC crew was around for the ultrasound, as this was to be the "gender reveal."

Ohhhhh - that makes more sense, then. I bet you're right.

 

[3prettyprincesses]

I commented earlier upthread that I truly feel for their loss. A miscarriage is sad, no matter what the circumstances. And at 20 weeks? That means she's going to have to deliver a deceased baby which is very tragic and heartbreaking. I have a dear friend who delivered at 18 weeks and it was awful for her and those of us who cared about her.

I too think it's odd that they announced it the same day and then asked for privacy. That's the strange thing about these types of family reality tv shows. They let people into their personal lives for money and then expect privacy whenever they wish it. People probably feel entitled to every bit of news regarding the Duggars. It must hard to draw the line between what they're sharing for the world to see and what should be kept private. IMO, when they broadcasted the first time all the kids saw fragile Josie, that crossed the line. Some things should be kept private and it appears the Duggars have forgotton how to do that. I hope they choose not to share this miscarriage on their show. There are other ways to document your family's life, like using your own video camera and not TLC's.

I wish them the best in dealing with this sadness, especially the kids they already have.

 

[HonnyDipp]

I feel badly for them, but I do find it ironic that they have asked for privacy. They have chosen to make EVERYTHING about their life public but NOW they want privacy? I doubt it's gonna happen.

I agree with you. If they want privacy, then maybe they should STOP talking to the media! I do feel sorry for their loss, but good or bad, this family CRAVES attention!

 

[DisTeach1]

This woman has no common sense, and at best, is slightly crazy. After reading all these posts in sympathy for her, I think a lot of people on the DIS have no common sense either.

 

[Conservative Hippie]

Actually I would be surprised if they don't talk about the miscarriage on a show. The Duggars see their show as a "ministry" and they are very open about their lives. When Josie was born the cameras were there - at the point where they were filming they had no idea what the outcome would be and decided to continue filming. I believe that if Josie had died they would not have shown the footage. With this miscarriage, I believe that the crew was there filming the ultrasound appointment. Will they show that footage? I'm going to say no. But that explains how the word got out quickly, and how they are now asking for privacy - turning off the cameras for a while.

 

[badcramps]

I didn't realize we are now blaming women for losing babies. That seems awfully cruel. Also, it doesn't really matter if you agree with her decisions at all. I find it funny that my friends who are pro-choice (not saying if you are or not) are the ones most opposed to Michelle Duggar's RIGHT TO CHOOSE.

I've never seen any one on any thread about the Duggars offer an anti-choice stance about their choices. With regard to abortion, the pro-choice/anti-choice issue is about whether abortion ought to be legal--that is whether the govt. ought to be able to tell you that you must stay pregnant or not. Being pro-choice means believing that women ought to have the legal right to have an abortion (at least in the early part of pregnancy) without the government interfering.

Being pro-choice does not mean believing that every single reproductive choice a woman makes is always a morally good one or never criticizing a woman's choice (especially if the woman makes a point of going on tv and making money off of talking about/displaying her choices).

Consider octomom. Does anyone not criticize Octomom? I'd think there's something wrong in your head if you didn't think she'd done something wrong in having, what, 12 embryos transferred through IVF? Finding that particular choice to be irresponsible, risky, and stupid has nothing to do with being pro-choice.

Similarly I've never heard anyone suggest an anti-choice stand regarding the Duggars. EVERYONE agrees that only they (NOT the government) has the right to make reproductive decisions for themselves. No one has suggested forcibly sterilizing Michelle against her will or putting an IUD in her without her knowledge. No one has even suggested protesting at her OBs office or forcing her to watch a video of a woman dead from childbirth before getting her prenatal care (tactics that many anti-abortion groups have tried to use legally to discourage women from receiving abortions.) All that people are saying is that they think she makes bad, risky, irresponsible choices. Same as what virtually everyone thinks about octomom.


Re: the issue of other hollywood moms having babies at a late age. I think it's telling that most posters on this thread don't know who those women are--because those women have not made a point to make a living by displaying their reproductive life as a form of entertainment. It's hard to criticize a choice you don't even know is being made!

I also suspect in those cases that the medical situation is quite different. First many of them are likely using IVF with donor eggs. The donor egg means that many of the chromosomal issues that come with age in women won't be an issue in those pregnancies. In addition, though their uteruses/cervixes may be similarly aged or older than Michelle's, they have not birthed 19 children, a number by c-section. All of the potential issues about the thinning of the uterus in multiple pregnancies and cervix weakening over many pregnancies are not likely to be an issue for a 45 year old woman who has never had children or only has 1 or 2 compared to someone who has had 19. We also don't know if those women have had a history of pre-eclampsia or not. So those Hollywood moms might have much, much lower risk pregnancies than Michelle.


On the breastfeeding issue on the last few pages, I thought the major concern there was that essentially by not breastfeeding into toddlerhood (and not using "artificial" birth control) one allows one's body to get pregnant much more often than nature intended. In most societies through most of human history, wouldn't women have been breastfeeding well into toddlerhood? Hence the natural state of things would never have been for women to get pregnant as soon after a birth as Michelle typically does. (Of course long-term breastfeeding isn't foolproof as birth control, but even if it has a 50-60% success rate that is a lot better than using no birth control and not breastfeeding in which case there is no protection against pregnancy.)

So the point is that it is decidedly UNnatural to get pregnant that often/have 20 babies in essentially 20 years. Our bodies were not made to be able to do that. Just as they were also not made to carry 7, 8, 9 babies at a time. Advances in science and technology have allowed Michelle's 19 kids the same as it has allowed the higher order multiples of octomom. Both would be almost impossible without modern medicine. The chances of conceiving more than 3-4 babies at once without meds/IVF are extremely, extremely small. The chances of a woman living through 18 pregnancies in 20 years (given apparent problems with preeclampsia and breech babies/the need for c-sections) and keeping alive 19 babies without breastfeeding past 6 months (in order to get pregnant so often) are also slim. Much, much slimmer without modern c-sections, nicus, etc. Thus both having a litter of children at the same time (octomom) or having a litter that's spread out every year and a half (Michelle) are both likely to be very dangerous because our bodies did not evolve to do it.

We can see evidence of how unusual it is for pregnancies of both these sorts to occur naturally by looking at birthspacing in hunter-gatherer groups of humans as well as in great apes (which have similar lengths of gestation and time spent raising youths as humans do). I am seeing birth spacing patterns around 4 years+ in humans and apes. One source notes the finding of one gorilla who had only a 2.5 year birth interval. However, the authors note how unusual such a short interval is--in this case the gorilla's infant had died, hence stopping breastfeeding early, thus allowing her to become fully fertile much earlier than usual after a birth.

 

[princessmom29]

Actually I would be surprised if they don't talk about the miscarriage on a show. The Duggars see their show as a "ministry" and they are very open about their lives. When Josie was born the cameras were there - at the point where they were filming they had no idea what the outcome would be and decided to continue filming. I believe that if Josie had died they would not have shown the footage. With this miscarriage, I believe that the crew was there filming the ultrasound appointment. Will they show that footage? I'm going to say no. But that explains how the word got out quickly, and how they are now asking for privacy - turning off the cameras for a while.

I thin kthe WOULD have shown the fottage had Josie died. They would have used it as part of their supposed minitry to say "look what we have overcome becuase of our faith." They used her NICU stay and fragile health the same way, and showed all of that footage. I think they will use this miscarriage the same way, to tout that thier superior faith got them through it, it is God's will, ect.

 

[skater]

I'm disheartened by this thread.

 

[DisTeach1]

I'm disheartened by this thread.

Why? It has a lot of opposing viewpoints and is very interesting. I don't get your comment.

 

[tlbwriter]

My heart goes out to that innocent life that was lost due to their carelessness and selfishness.

While I agree the Duggar parents are both careless and selfish, there is no reason to think their actions caused the miscarriage. If the baby had been born prematurely due to a recurrence of pre-eclampsia or uterine rupture, I would have been right there pointing a finger with you, but neither Michelle's age nor her history of multiple pregnancies should have caused her child to die in utero before 20 weeks.

 

[Conservative Hippie]

On the breastfeeding issue on the last few pages, I thought the major concern there was that essentially by not breastfeeding into toddlerhood one allows one's body to get pregnant much more often than nature intended. In most societies through most of human history, wouldn't women have been breastfeeding well into toddlerhood? Hence the natural state of things would never have been for women to get pregnant as soon after a birth as Michelle typically does. (Of course long-term breastfeeding isn't foolproof as birth control, but even if it has a 50-60% success rate that is a lot better than using no birth control and not breastfeeding in which case there is no protection against pregnancy.)

So the point is that it is decidedly UNnatural to get pregnant that often/have 20 babies in essentially 20 years. Our bodies were not made to be able to do that. Just as they were also not made to carry 7, 8, 9 babies at a time. Advances in science and technology have allowed Michelle's 19 kids the same as it has allowed the higher order multiples of octomom. Both would be almost impossible without modern medicine. The chances of conceiving more than 3-4 babies at once without meds/IVF are extremely, extremely small. The chances of a woman living through 18 pregnancies in 20 years (given apparent problems with preeclampsia and breech babies/the need for c-sections) and keeping alive 19 babies without breastfeeding past 6 months (in order to get pregnant so often) are also slim. Much, much slimmer without modern c-sections, nicus, etc. Thus both having a litter of children at the same time (octomom) or having a litter every year and a half (Michelle) are both likely to be very dangerous because our bodies did not evolve to do it.

We can see evidence of how unusual it is for pregnancies of both these sorts to occur naturally by looking at birthspacing in hunter-gatherer groups of humans as well as in great apes (which have similar lengths of gestation and time spent raising youths as humans do). I am seeing birth spacing patterns around 4 years+ in humans and apes. One source notes the finding of one gorilla who had only a 2.5 year birth interval. However, the authors note how unusual such a short interval is--in this case the gorilla's infant had died, hence stopping breastfeeding early, thus allowing her to become fully fertile much earlier than usual after a birth.

Thank you, that is exactly what I was trying to say.

 

[princessmom29]

I've never seen any one on any thread about the Duggars offer an anti-choice stance about their choices. With regard to abortion, the pro-choice/anti-choice issue is about whether abortion ought to be legal--that is whether the govt. ought to be able to tell you that you must stay pregnant or not. Being pro-choice means believing that women ought to have the legal right to have an abortion (at least in the early part of pregnancy) without the government interfering.

Being pro-choice does not mean believing that every single reproductive choice a woman makes is always a morally good one or never criticizing a woman's choice (especially if the woman makes a point of going on tv and making money off of talking about/displaying her choices).

Consider octomom. Does anyone not criticize Octomom? I'd think there's something wrong in your head if you didn't think she'd done something wrong in having, what, 12 embryos transferred through IVF? Finding that particular choice to be irresponsible, risky, and stupid has nothing to do with being pro-choice.

Similarly I've never heard anyone suggest an anti-choice stand regarding the Duggars. EVERYONE agrees that only they (NOT the government) has the right to make reproductive decisions for themselves. No one has suggested forcibly sterilizing Michelle against her will or putting an IUD in her without her knowledge. No one has even suggested protesting at her OBs office or forcing her to watch a video of a woman dead from childbirth before getting her prenatal care (tactics that many anti-abortion groups have tried to use legally to discourage women from receiving abortions.) All that people are saying is that they think she makes bad, risky, irresponsible choices. Same as what virtually everyone thinks about octomom.


Re: the issue of other hollywood moms having babies at a late age. I think it's telling that most posters on this thread don't know who those women are--because those women have not made a point to make a living by displaying their reproductive life as a form of entertainment. It's hard to criticize a choice you don't even know is being made!

I also suspect in those cases that the medical situation is quite different. First many of them are likely using IVF with donor eggs. The donor egg means that many of the chromosomal issues that come with age in women won't be an issue in those pregnancies. In addition, though their uteruses/cervixes may be similarly aged or older than Michelle's, they have not birthed 19 children, a number by c-section. All of the potential issues about the thinning of the uterus in multiple pregnancies and cervix weakening over many pregnancies are not likely to be an issue for a 45 year old woman who has never had children or only has 1 or 2 compared to someone who has had 19. We also don't know if those women have had a history of pre-eclampsia or not. So those Hollywood moms might have much, much lower risk pregnancies than Michelle.


On the breastfeeding issue on the last few pages, I thought the major concern there was that essentially by not breastfeeding into toddlerhood (and not using "artificial" birth control) one allows one's body to get pregnant much more often than nature intended. In most societies through most of human history, wouldn't women have been breastfeeding well into toddlerhood? Hence the natural state of things would never have been for women to get pregnant as soon after a birth as Michelle typically does. (Of course long-term breastfeeding isn't foolproof as birth control, but even if it has a 50-60% success rate that is a lot better than using no birth control and not breastfeeding in which case there is no protection against pregnancy.)

So the point is that it is decidedly UNnatural to get pregnant that often/have 20 babies in essentially 20 years. Our bodies were not made to be able to do that. Just as they were also not made to carry 7, 8, 9 babies at a time. Advances in science and technology have allowed Michelle's 19 kids the same as it has allowed the higher order multiples of octomom. Both would be almost impossible without modern medicine. The chances of conceiving more than 3-4 babies at once without meds/IVF are extremely, extremely small. The chances of a woman living through 18 pregnancies in 20 years (given apparent problems with preeclampsia and breech babies/the need for c-sections) and keeping alive 19 babies without breastfeeding past 6 months (in order to get pregnant so often) are also slim. Much, much slimmer without modern c-sections, nicus, etc. Thus both having a litter of children at the same time (octomom) or having a litter every year and a half (Michelle) are both likely to be very dangerous because our bodies did not evolve to do it.

We can see evidence of how unusual it is for pregnancies of both these sorts to occur naturally by looking at birthspacing in hunter-gatherer groups of humans as well as in great apes (which have similar lengths of gestation and time spent raising youths as humans do). I am seeing birth spacing patterns around 4 years+ in humans and apes. One source notes the finding of one gorilla who had only a 2.5 year birth interval. However, the authors note how unusual such a short interval is--in this case the gorilla's infant had died, hence stopping breastfeeding early, thus allowing her to become fully fertile much earlier than usual after a birth.

great, great post, and ITA.

The Duggars don't beleive in evolution however, and neither do a lot of their supporters so all of this would be completely lost on them. They would just blow it off as scientific mumbo jumbo and just keep doing what they think God is telling them to do: Have as many babies as possible.

 

[Conservative Hippie]

great, great post, and ITA.

The Duggars don't beleive in evolution however, and neither do a lot of their supporters so all of this would be completely lost on them. They would just blow it off as scientific mumbo jumbo and just keep doing what they think God is telling them to do: Have as many babies as possible.

You don't have to believe in evolution to believe in natural birth spacing. Just replace "because our bodies did not evolve to do it" with "because that's not how God made our bodies." I believe that God knew exactly what He was doing when He designed babies to breastfeed into toddlerhood and breastfeeding to cause lactational amenorrhea.

 

[ead79]

This woman has no common sense, and at best, is slightly crazy. After reading all these posts in sympathy for her, I think a lot of people on the DIS have no common sense either.

Maybe it does mean I lack common sense, but I can't help but feel for any woman who loses a baby. It's a tragedy and is heartbreaking no matter who you are or how many kids you already have. I can offer my prayers and my sympathy without agreeing with every choice the Duggars make.