So, when is enough, enough-high risk pregnancy?

[Minnesota!]

My first child I went on bed rest at 36 weeks due to PIH and complications from gestational diabetes. I was induced at 37 weeks b/c of these issues.

I knew that I wanted at least one more child, but I knew that the complications were likely to arise again. So we waited a bit until my 1st was a little more independent (almost out of diapers, could get his own snack, etc). I delivered my 2nd child when my 1st was just shy of 3. Again, I had the same complications, started bed rest at 37 weeks . Following day I had an amnio to check lung maturity and all hell broke lose. My body went into shock, almost took me out.

My baby was born almost dead. His heartbeat was next to nothing (around 40 beats/minute). He was in the NICU for 2 weeks, 1/3 of his brain is dead. He wasn't supposed to live.

He will be 4 here soon.

Anyway, his birth made me realize that I had taken a huge huge huge risk with having a second since I had known issues. I almost left my older son motherless. My younger son is, of course, the light of my life, but I cannot responsibly go into having another child biologically. I cannot risk leaving my kids motherless.

So yes, I think that anyone who carries on to get pregnant with known medical issues and other children is irresponsible.

I am so blessed that God swung the cards in our favor in this instance. It could have easily been my older son and DH left alone on this earth.

 

[honugirl]

I really don't feel that a child has to be your "blood" to be yours, and one day I would very much like to be a parent.

I'm so sorry some of your family hasn't realized this-it is really their loss. I am a little weird and geeky, too-and my whole family is like that. You wanna hang out with us?

Sure! I'll come hang out with you guys!

It isn't just sad, it's ignorant. I thought this kind of thought went out in the dark ages of the last century. Our daughter is adopted. When she was just a few days old as I was rocking her, I thought, "My c-section is not hurting as much with this baby." Duh, because she was adopted I had not had a section. It just goes to show though that she was ours and she was loved as much as her two brothers were. If anyone had had a problem with her, I would have had nothing to do with them. A baby is a baby and to loving parents it doesn't matter whether they're blood related or not.

That's totally awesome!

I am very confused by the bolded Do you think being weird and geeky is tied to being adopted? Or do you just mean that your parents are more mainstream and you do not feel a blood relative of theirs would have a weird and geeky gene?

My parents are definately weird (in a dysfunctional sort of way), but not in a geeky way at all. I am not adopted but I have the weird/geeky thing going on (as does my daughter). I really can't see how being adopted or not would play in to it much one way or the other.

That said, I really am so sorry that there are people in your family who see you as not really a part of the family. That is terrible. I really cannot imagine thinking that way at all. It must be very hurtful to you.

Yeah, my family is not geeky at all. They are all sports people and very cool. On the other hand, I got brains and am really awkward. So if I was genetically related to them, chances are good I would have been much more cool than I am!

Thanks. It does hurt. I get ignored a lot. Fortunately I've sort of found my own "family" through friends and stuff. They think I'm cool and that's all that matters!

It's interesting though to see how different I am from everyone else. I literally feel like an alien at times. I really don't have much in common with people in my family.

 

[LaurenLC]

ONCE AGAIN-the issue is not how many kids they have or if they asked for help or not-the issue is would you risk your life, potentially leaving your children motherless to have another child. It isn't about driving in a car or other possible ACCIDENTS. This is about something that IS preventable.

? You basically told that poster that she was selfish and a bad parent! And I find that terribly judgmental and mean!
I am well aware of what this is about; I do not need you to 'dumb it down' for me. What are your thoughts on people who have cancer that run in their family? Should they not have children because they could get sick and possibly die? What about people that have genetic issues? People with a family history of mental issues? All those things could be problematic for a parent and lead to children being left without a mother. Should they not have kids too?

 

[DMRick]

So yes, I think that anyone who carries on to get pregnant with known medical issues and other children is irresponsible.

But none of us know what the medical issues are, and if bedrest negates it. Some people have issues that can be completely taken care of with bedrest.
Sounds like (since she didn't even know she was pregnant) the OP isn't a close enough friend to know all the particulars.
I too thought the original post was about if she took this risk, why should she be asking for help, as well if we would do the same (take this risk). I prob would not take the risk, if the circumstances were like yours (although obviously your risks really proved to be pretty serious by the second child, who knows about this gals). Would I help, no matter how she ended up needing bed rest? Yes. Would our church continue to offer help and send out emails? Yes.

 

[Mrs. Darcy]

OP I promise I'm not being snarky but why are you showing so much anger about this couple? Are you worried about them and this is the way it comes out in you? Just trying to understand.

 

[Inigo]

I am kind of curious about something.

If people want a large family, why don't more people consider adoption as an option? Especially if there is a health risk during pregnancy?

From the people I've spoken to personally, they don't want to adopt because they want a child of their own. Seriously. I guess their genes are just so wonderful they can't love anyone else who doesn't share DNA with them.

 

[golfgal]

OP I promise I'm not being snarky but why are you showing so much anger about this couple? Are you worried about them and this is the way it comes out in you? Just trying to understand.

I am not showing any anger-if you get that you are reading into the post way too much. It was a simple question-would you risk your life to have another baby leaving your children motherless, period, end of story. Nothing more. OTHER posters have taken this way out to the context of helping or not, how many kids they have or not, not me. I gave a little back ground information and that is all.

If we were still in town I probably would have visited the mom and brought some food. Their oldest children are in high school and are perfectly capable of helping out around the house, so that really isn't an issue. They have ONLY asked for rides to religion classes and the visits-very reasonable requests. Carpooling is done frequently in that town and no one would have an issue with that at all. Visits-in the past I have visited other friends on bed rest, no issues with that at all.

 

[DMRick]

From the people I've spoken to personally, they don't want to adopt because they want a child of their own. Seriously. I guess their genes are just so wonderful they can't love anyone else who doesn't share DNA with them.

Adoption is a really personal thing. We have lots of adopted children in our family, so I've watched it up close and personal. It's really not for everybody. Some people really do want their own blood in the baby, (or they want a baby, not a child..hard to come by nowadays) and that's good that they recognize that. I would say the higher percentage of adoptions, is because people can't get pregnant, not just because they want eight kids. That said, good luck around here even being able to adopt more than one or two kids without medical or physical problems. There are so few available babies that are healthy, that they tend to spread them around among different adoptive parents.
It's also, as I mentioned earlier, very expensive, no matter what type of adoption it is.

 

[mhsjax]

From the people I've spoken to personally, they don't want to adopt because they want a child of their own. Seriously. I guess their genes are just so wonderful they can't love anyone else who doesn't share DNA with them.

I don't think that is fair. I wanted the experience of being pregnant and having a baby that was mine genetically. However, if there were no other alternatives, yes I would adopt. But i would explore all other options of infertility first. I think it is very unfair and down right rude to assume that because you want a child that shares your genes, that you think that your DNA is the best.

I also had friends that at the time, after going through tons of infertility and the loss of a full term baby, decided not to adopt. They had been through enough of the ups and downs also financially drained. Had enough time passed, I am sure they would have reconsidered but they actually did get pregnant again and again and again. So please leave the judgements out f the conversation.

 

[si-am]

From the people I've spoken to personally, they don't want to adopt because they want a child of their own. Seriously. I guess their genes are just so wonderful they can't love anyone else who doesn't share DNA with them.

Nice. Judgmental people all around on this thread!

 

[golfgal]

From the people I've spoken to personally, they don't want to adopt because they want a child of their own. Seriously. I guess their genes are just so wonderful they can't love anyone else who doesn't share DNA with them.

In all fairness, unless they have had a close relationship with a child that is not theirs, I don't think people really understand the bond a person can feel with a child they are responsible for. I can easily understand why people THINK they will not be able to love an adopted child but I also think that pretty much everyone that feels that way would change their mind if they adopted, but adoption is NOT for everyone. Heck, my own DH said he probably wouldn't have much to do with our kids until they were 3 or so because he didn't like babies . That changed about 2 hours after our first child was born.

There are also plenty of people out there that can't love their biological children...

 

[DMRick]

I am not showing any anger-if you get that you are reading into the post way too much. It was a simple question-would you risk your life to have another baby leaving your children motherless, period, end of story.

I think if you had just asked the above, you would have had much different responses. Once you threw in the "He is also asking for help because she is on bed rest, AGAIN", the whole tone (to me) changed.

 

[luvsJack]

Its really no one's business why this couple chooses to have 8 children with high risk pregnancies. It is, afterall, their choice to continue to have children.

This is another "can't have it both ways" discussion. You cannot, on one hand, debate that a woman has a right to choose abortion; but not think that they have the right to choose to have a big family. Choice=choice regardless of what the choice being made is. It may not be YOUR choice, but it is HERS and that doesn't make it the wrong one.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

I just got an email from someone from our old town (through a mass email for an old church group). He was announcing that they are expecting child #8. He is also asking for help because she is on bed rest, AGAIN. The only child she has not been on bed rest is their first. I just can't imagine risking my life, and the life of an unborn child, leaving my 7 other children motherless. Would you do this if this were you?

My wife is a Type I diabetic - diagnosed at age 5. She had problems with both of our boys - almost died. She had agreed to have her tubes tied during her "C" while delivering our second. As the date got nearer, she started having second thoughts. Well, her OB (whom she had been seeing since her teen years) told her that if she didn't let him do the tubal ligation, he would no longer see her after this birth. He simply wasn't going to watch her kill herself. She agreed.

We have two healthy boys, and are grateful for that. My wife suffered with each, and lost something with each, but she is still here to raise those boys. It was worth the risk with only one child because she didn't know whether the problems would recur in a second pregnancy. After it happened twice, it would have been very foolish to tempt fate a third time. To do it for an eighth time - beyond stupid (IMO), but their choice to make.

 

[Scurvy]

I am not showing any anger-if you get that you are reading into the post way too much. It was a simple question-would you risk your life to have another baby leaving your children motherless, period, end of story. Nothing more. OTHER posters have taken this way out to the context of helping or not, how many kids they have or not, not me. I gave a little back ground information and that is all.

I apologize, OP, since I am one of the people who focused on the request for help. To answer your actual question: No, I definitely would not. To me, it seems selfish to be so focused on your desire to have another child that you knowingly risk leaving your existing child without a mother. To someone else, maybe it seems selfish to be so focused on your child having a mother that you don't try to provide them with a sibling. I don't know, and I'm not arguing that I'm right and they are wrong. It's just how I feel. And yes, everything in life is a risk. But to me there's a big difference between choosing to get in a car each day despite the risk of a wreck and choosing to do something that could worsen a health problem that could kill you. To me, that's more like choosing to drive in a car that you know has malfunctioning brakes.

 

[tessiemez]

I think it's great to have lots of kids if you can afford it (financially and emotionally). I think that if they choose to have children knowing they're going to need lots of extra help because bedrest is involved, then instead of asking for help all the time they should look into hiring someone to help them around the house. That would be the courteous and responsible thing to do. People who've helped them a lot before might tire of being asked again, and it's not as if the couple didn't know what they were getting into.

I hope they have a happy and healthy pregnancy!

ETA: Sorry, I realized what I said above is not what you're looking for--I misinterpreted your post. I should add, if you can afford it health-wise as well. If during a pregnancy it becomes clear that any future pregnancies will cause harm or risk of death to either the mother or the baby, that's a great time to stop having babies.

 

[KiminChicago]

What do we really know about the woman who is pregnant? Even multiple hospital visits during a pregnancy doesn't mean she's anywhere near dying and leaving the other 7 children motherless.

I got pregnant with my DS when I was 36, so I automatically went into the "high-risk" category. My doctors kept a very close eye on me, including weekly stress tests after I was diagnosed with gestational diabetes at 28 weeks. Every week I'd go in for my stress test and they'd tell me that I was having contractions (I never did feel them). So off I'd go to the hospital, they'd give me a shot of Breathane (sp?) an asthma medicine that also stops contractions, I'd stay there for a few hours and they'd send me home. Finally, at 36 weeks, they put me on complete bedrest and Breathane pills every four hours (I had to set my alarm to wake me in the middle of the night because it had to be taken every four hours, 24 hours a day). After two weeks of that, they stopped the meds since at 38 weeks, my baby's lungs were matured enough. I still went another two weeks before going into labor (yep, I made it the full 40 weeks). Then, when I was finally able to feel the contractions, they still weren't strong enough so I ended up getting pitocin.

Given all of that, my situation doesn't sound all that different (bed rest, multiple hospital visits, etc.) but my life, and my baby's life, were never in any danger, the doctors were just being cautious. Two years later, I got pregnant again and it pretty much followed the same pattern, except after the second stress test with contractions I couldn't feel and the second hospital visit, the doctors pretty much decided that they'd just leave me alone. I did end up with an emergency C-section, but only because my DD decided that she wanted to enter this world elbow-first and the doctors weren't able to convince her that sideways would never work (at one point I was almost standing on my head trying to get that elbow to slip back so they could turn her).

Unless you actually have the hospital records, and know that this woman is risking her life, there's no reason why she can't have as many kids as she and her husband want (and can afford, since apparently they aren't asking for money, just car rides and visits).

 

[Just*the*ten*of*us]

I have no problem admitting that I have issues when the world is overpopulated. I've said it before here and I'll say it again. You are legally entitled to have and support as many kids as you can, but it is really wise when the world's supplies are not endless. Sure, you can support your kids now, but what about their kids and so on? The world is not endless and neither is our planet's resources.

A. For all you know, my children might end up having 1, 2 or 0 children. Maybe some will be gay and adopt, who knows? Not you thats for sure.

B. My husband and I are both only children, so we can just say it evens out to both of our parents having 3 kids and us having 4...does that make you feel better?

C. We are an ever evolving planet and people, for all you know by the time my grandkids grandkids are alive, they might be living on the moon. Plenty of space in...space, no? Youre not psychic, have no idea what the future holds, and I'm guessing you down own a crystal ball either.

D. You would be salty if my 7th child cured cancer.


E. and finally, I can promise you, their need to be MORE children like my 8 children, that are kind, compassionate, sensitive, intelligent and respectful in this world, not LESS!

And youre saying im legally entitled to have as many children as I want, but then asking if its wise? I dont know, youre legally entitled to "DL: Twice a month for years / Multiple visits since birth / 1989 CM on Main Street / 2000 Disneyland Fairy Tale Wedding" but is it really wise when their are children in other countries that are starving? Peoples whos resources have ALREADY run out? Why dont you go be their champion instead of worrying about people having too many children. I'm just sayin......

 

[Pigeon]

Its really no one's business why this couple chooses to have 8 children with high risk pregnancies. It is, afterall, their choice to continue to have children.

This is another "can't have it both ways" discussion. You cannot, on one hand, debate that a woman has a right to choose abortion; but not think that they have the right to choose to have a big family. Choice=choice regardless of what the choice being made is. It may not be YOUR choice, but it is HERS and that doesn't make it the wrong one.

I'm as pro-choice as can be and I also think the world is overpopulated. There is no contradition at all. I do think people should be free to have as many children as they want, but that doesn't mean I think people like the OP describes are making good decisions. We live in a world with finite resources. There are lots of things that are and IMO should be pefectly legal. That doesn't make them desirable.

We saw a similar situation, where a woman who had three kids already, had infertility treatments that got her pregnant with five more. Against her doctor's advice, she wouldn't reduce. The babies were born with all sorts of special needs. An organization to which we belonged was constantly badgering us to bring dinners, babysit, clean their house, contribute money. Ahh, no thanks, if you do something that stupid, you can live with the consequences.

 

[luvsJack]

I'm as pro-choice as can be and I also think the world is overpopulated. There is no contradition at all. I do think people should be free to have as many children as they want, but that doesn't mean I think people like the OP describes are making good decisions. We live in a world with finite resources. There are lots of things that are and IMO should be pefectly legal. That doesn't make them desirable.

We saw a similar situation, where a woman who had three kids already, had infertility treatments that got her pregnant with five more. Against her doctor's advice, she wouldn't reduce. The babies were born with all sorts of special needs. An organization to which we belonged was constantly badgering us to bring dinners, babysit, clean their house, contribute money. Ahh, no thanks, if you do something that stupid, you can live with the consequences.

Again, just because it is not your choice doe not make it a bad choice. And it is a contradiction to say that you are "pro-choice" but only if its the choice you want to rally for. Can't have it that way.

In the woman's situation that you describe, I wouldn't reduce either. I am against abortion and could not/would not decide that some of the lives I was carrying should die. (that would be MY personal choice, your choice would not be wrong either).

It is also your choice not to help this couple and their children. My choice would be to help them at least with bringing dinners and cleaning. Neither of us would be wrong--just making different choices.