Michelle Duggar miscarries

[skater]

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

I love a good discussion and unlike some, I'm able to discuss religion and politics with different types of people without getting upset. This feels different and ugly. I guess I love different views until they get judgemental. I seem to have a problem with judgementalness .

 

[princessmom29]

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.

You are right in that it is a tragedy, but i just cannot bring myself to feel sorry for them. I feel horrible for the children, and for the life that was lost, but i just cannot be sympethetic to Michelle and Jim Bob. They did this. It is their fault. They KNEW going in what they were doing and chose to do it anyway. I think they have to bear responsibilty for thier poor choices.

 

[DrPierreMcDuck]

The one good thing about Michelle is that she isn't the type who would go to an abortionist simply because she didn't want another child. Being moderately pro-life, I respect that. However, having nineteen kids in front of millions of people isn't exactly screaming family values to me.

Thinking about it more, the gay issue really bothers me. Odds are overwhelmingly good that at least one of their children is homosexual. It will be extremely difficult for that child to come to terms with his or her sexual orientation with that kind of family and in front of millions of people. Sigh.

 

[badcramps]

I should say also though, even though I think criticizing aspects of the Duggars choices is acceptable and I strongly disagree with their choices, I still have sympathy regarding the miscarriage for them. (And note it is not just the parents who will suffer, the other children who had no choice in the pregnancy decision also are experiencing a loss.)

We just found out that one of our twins (around 14/15 weeks pregnant) has died. It's easier for us, I think, because the other twin appears to be healthy and so we will most likely have a healthy baby in the spring. Also I think 20 weeks (especially the need to go through labor) is very different than 14 weeks. But still it is sad, and not just for us but for our families (grandparents-to-be) who have been planning for and expecting two babies.

 

[princessmom29]

I love a good discussion and unlike some, I'm able to discuss religion and politics with different types of people without getting upset. This feels different and ugly. I guess I love different views until they get judgemental. I seem to have a problem with judgementalness .

Different views are by nature judgmental. You are making the judgment that you are in the right, and what you feel or beleive is correct. You wouldn't believe it if you didn't feel it was the best viewpoint. Those that don't beleive as you do are therefore incorrect. You cannot express a viewpoint without being judgmental on some level. Life is about judgements and choices. There is implicit judgment in takingf a stance on anything. With some things we can say "live and let live". For some issues, especially when someone else's choices effect us or other innocent people (i.e the 19 other Duggar kids) it is much harder to do that.

 

[Coconut36]

You are right in that it is a tragedy, but i just cannot bring myself to feel sorry for them. I feel horrible for the children, and for the life that was lost, but i just cannot be sympethetic to Michelle and Jim Bob. They did this. It is their fault. They KNEW going in what they were doing and chose to do it anyway. I think they have to bear responsibilty for thier poor choices.

I am astounded someone would say something like this. They did not necessarily "know" it would happen anymore than anyone else does. They did not "cause" this.

Do you feel this way about people who try to conceive but have repeated losses because the "knew it could happen" so they deserve no compassion and sympathy either?

Or is it only when you have a certain number of kids (and Michelle has only had 1 loss prior to this loss and had 1 issue with Josie's birth out of 20 pregnancies prior to this one). Honestly if anything the odds would tell you 18 out of 20 pregnancies were healthy and normal and they did not know this would happen. It's a risk in any pregnancy regardless of how many kids you have had.

My 22 year old niece had one when she got pregnancy with her 2nd child..should she have "known" it would happen and she would lose the baby at 12 weeks or is it OK because she only had 1 kid prior to that?

I personally feel it is a sign from her body that it can't handle pregnancies anymore but I do NOT think they should have "known" this based simply on her pre-e issues with Josie as plenty of women have that happen and go on to have healthy and successful pregnancies after. I know one later who delivered at 24 weeks as a result of pre e who then when on to have a perfectly healthy and normal pregnancy with her 2nd child. Should she have never had another child because of what happened the first time?

 

[punkin]

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.

OK, breastfeeding does cause amenorrhea BUT, it is a very unsafe method of birth control. It does a wonderful job in large populations of women in spacing out children generally, statistically, but for any one woman it is a crapshoot. This has little to do with the Duggars, just a PSA for people reading.

 

[ead79]

You are right in that it is a tragedy, but i just cannot bring myself to feel sorry for them. I feel horrible for the children, and for the life that was lost, but i just cannot be sympethetic to Michelle and Jim Bob. They did this. It is their fault. They KNEW going in what they were doing and chose to do it anyway. I think they have to bear responsibilty for thier poor choices.

As a disclaimer, let me say first of all that I disagree with the Duggars beliefs on the use of birth control. I am a conservative Christian myself, but this is an issue where the Duggars and I strongly disagree. That being said, if they truly feel that the Lord has convicted them to not use birth control or ANY other method of pregnancy prevention, then I can understand their desire to remain faithful to what they believe the Lord has called them to do. Hence, they do not feel it is a poor choice at all, but rather remaining faithful to their convictions that they believe are from God. I don't agree with their interpretation of the science behind birth control pills nor do I agree that using birth control methods is sinful, but if they deeply and honestly believe that God has told them not to use any type of birth control (and I think they honestly do believe it wholeheartedly), then I can at least understand why they choose to avoid any and all types of birth control pills.

As I said, from my perspective, grief is grief and they deserve my sympathy and prayers the same way anyone else faced with the indescribable pain of losing a baby in utero would. But that's just my own opinion.

 

[Coconut36]

OK, breastfeeding does cause amenorrhea BUT, it is a very unsafe method of birth control. It does a wonderful job in large populations of women in spacing out children generally, statistically, but for any one woman it is a crapshoot. This has little to do with the Duggars, just a PSA for people reading.

Totally agree..you also ovulate before you bleed so you can easily ovulate and get pregnant before you ever have a full cycle. It is an extremely unreliable "form" of birth control and one should not use it as such unless they are completely comfortable with another child that soon. My grandparents can tell you how ineffective it is as they had a 2 year old, 11 month old and newborn all at the same time..sure didn't work for them.

 

[Conservative Hippie]

Totally agree..you also ovulate before you bleed so you can easily ovulate and get pregnant before you ever have a full cycle. It is an extremely unreliable "form" of birth control and one should not use it as such unless they are completely comfortable with another child that soon. My grandparents can tell you how ineffective it is as they had a 2 year old, 11 month old and newborn all at the same time..sure didn't work for them.

It is not full-proof, but when used correctly you will have less of a chance of becoming pregnant than you would if you did nothing at all. You can only rely on lactational amenorrhea if you consistently never go more than 4 hours between feedings, around the clock. Once you start going 5 or 6 hours between feedings you cannot rely on lactational amenorrhea. Which is why people who use it as a form of birth control typically use other methods of natural family planning, like recording basal temperatures and cervical mucous. My parents used NFP and got three kids 3 and 4 years apart.

 

[JaneBanks]

For those of you who are saying that Michelle and Jim Bob shouldn't hold some responsibility for this, I have a question.

My cousin, who is a normal, healthy woman, has had 3 babies. Tragically, 2 have passed away from the same genetic disease at around the same age (2yrs old). Her living child, thank goodness, is a perfectly healthy child. My cousin also had HELPP syndrome.

Her doctor told her never to have children again because of the genetic disease. She listened to her doctor but what if she hadn't? What if she had another baby and the baby was born with this disease and died?

Wouldn't my cousin and her husband hold some responsibility in what happened? She was flat out told never to have biological children again because the chance the baby would end up sick and die was 50%.

I would feel HORRIBLE for her loss, I would love her no matter what but in the back of my mind, I would know that she made this decision and knew the risks and CHOSE to chance losing another child.

I feel the same way about the Duggars.

 

[NotUrsula]

Full disclosure: My DD was born when I was 45. No drugs, no IVF, just nature taking its course. My 2 children are 10 years apart, and I had several miscarriages in the years between. It hurts no matter how many times it happens, and no matter what I might think of the Duggars, I still feel badly for their loss.

The odds are quite high that the child the Duggars lost had a trisomy. At 45, her eggs are a lot less viable now, and as someone who has BTDT, I can attest that doctors know that the odds of miscarriage go way up for chromosonal irregularities as eggs age. In my second to last pregnancy I did end up with a life-threatening condition, but it was not due to my own health, but that of the child, caused by a fatal trisomy. It is a fairly likely bet that the Duggars would not undergo early invasive testing, given their views.

I think that the reason one's life is in danger has great bearing on decisions like these. My personal feeling is that when her own medical issues mean that pregnancy has begun to be a predictably major life risk for Mom, then it is irresponsible for a woman with existing children to deliberately risk it again. In this case I'm sure that the perspective is that the extended family would care for the younger children if their mother died, but a parent is a parent, and the loss of one in childhood is devastating. As Michelle has a history of pre-eclampsia, I think that she falls into this category, and for the good of her family it is time to stop now.

As to a vasectomy, it won't happen. He won't do it because IF she dies, then he will want to remarry within the Quiverfull movement, and no woman within the movement is going to want to marry a man who has been sterilized.

 

[Coconut36]

It is not full-proof, but when used correctly you will have less of a chance of becoming pregnant than you would if you did nothing at all. You can only rely on lactational amenorrhea if you consistently never go more than 4 hours between feedings, around the clock. Once you start going 5 or 6 hours between feedings you cannot rely on lactational amenorrhea. Which is why people who use it as a form of birth control typically use other methods of natural family planning, like recording basal temperatures and cervical mucous. My parents used NFP and got three kids 3 and 4 years apart.

Again..it is not a fully reliable method. I can tell you my grandma was most certainly feeding her 2 month old more frequently than every 4 hours yet she still ended up pregnant within 8 weeks of birth with #3. Same goes with the first child (she was only 4 months old when grandma got pg with #2). The point is that one should only use it if they are OK with another child. If not they need to look at other methods of BC or NFP (as breastfeeding alone isn't enough).

 

[shaylyn]

It's truly awful to have people mention your pregnancy after you lose your baby. I can understand why they did not wait to make the announcement.

Two years ago, I delivered my baby early in the 2nd trimester. He had an umbilical cord accident. I think about him every-single-day, even after going on to have other babies. The children you already have and the children who follow will never take the pain away from the one you lost.

My heart aches for Michelle and the entire family

 

[skater]

Different views are by nature judgmental. You are making the judgment that you are in the right, and what you feel or beleive is correct. You wouldn't believe it if you didn't feel it was the best viewpoint. Those that don't beleive as you do are therefore incorrect. You cannot express a viewpoint without being judgmental on some level. Life is about judgements and choices. There is implicit judgment in takingf a stance on anything. With some things we can say "live and let live". For some issues, especially when someone else's choices effect us or other innocent people (i.e the 19 other Duggar kids) it is much harder to do that.

There is a way to express a different view without being judgemental. I can believe something is wrong without being nasty about someone who made that choice. I don't always believe that people who believe differently than me are incorrect (sometimes, but not always ), and I don't feel mean towards that person. Some people on here have been downright mean.

Admittedly, if someone else's choice hurt my family, I might tend to be a little meaner . But I still maintain that I can take a stance on something without being judgemental which means something different to me than making a judgment on an issue.

 

[Coconut36]

Full disclosure: My DD was born when I was 45. No drugs, no IVF, just nature taking its course. My 2 children are 10 years apart, and I had several miscarriages in the years between. It hurts no matter how many times it happens, and no matter what I might think of the Duggars, I still feel badly for their loss.

The odds are quite high that the child the Duggars lost had a trisomy. At 45, her eggs are a lot less viable now, and as someone who has BTDT, I can attest that doctors know that the odds of miscarriage go way up for chromosonal irregularities as eggs age. In my second to last pregnancy I did end up with a life-threatening condition, but it was not due to my own health, but that of the child, caused by a fatal trisomy. It is a fairly likely bet that the Duggars would not undergo early invasive testing, given their views.

I think that the reason one's life is in danger has great bearing on decisions like these. My personal feeling is that when her own medical issues mean that pregnancy has begun to be a predictably major life risk for Mom, then it is irresponsible for a woman with existing children to deliberately risk it again. In this case I'm sure that the perspective is that the extended family would care for the younger children if their mother died, but a parent is a parent, and the loss of one in childhood is devastating. As Michelle has a history of pre-eclampsia, I think that she falls into this category, and for the good of her family it is time to stop now.

As to a vasectomy, it won't happen. He won't do it because IF she dies, then he will want to remarry within the Quiverfull movement, and no woman within the movement is going to want to marry a man who has been sterilized.

I thought she only had 1 instance with pre-e. If that is it I don't consider that a "history" just yet because it was only the one time but if it has happened before I can see there being a known pattern..it was my understanding this was her first instance of it though.

 

[punkin]

Full disclosure: My DD was born when I was 45. No drugs, no IVF, just nature taking its course. My 2 children are 10 years apart, and I had several miscarriages in the years between. It hurts no matter how many times it happens, and no matter what I might think of the Duggars, I still feel badly for their loss.

The odds are quite high that the child the Duggars lost had a trisomy. At 45, her eggs are a lot less viable now, and as someone who has BTDT, I can attest that doctors know that the odds of miscarriage go way up for chromosonal irregularities as eggs age. In my second to last pregnancy I did end up with a life-threatening condition, but it was not due to my own health, but that of the child, caused by a fatal trisomy. It is a fairly likely bet that the Duggars would not undergo early invasive testing, given their views.

I think that the reason one's life is in danger has great bearing on decisions like these. My personal feeling is that when her own medical issues mean that pregnancy has begun to be a predictably major life risk for Mom, then it is irresponsible for a woman with existing children to deliberately risk it again. In this case I'm sure that the perspective is that the extended family would care for the younger children if their mother died, but a parent is a parent, and the loss of one in childhood is devastating. As Michelle has a history of pre-eclampsia, I think that she falls into this category, and for the good of her family it is time to stop now.

As to a vasectomy, it won't happen. He won't do it because IF she dies, then he will want to remarry within the Quiverfull movement, and no woman within the movement is going to want to marry a man who has been sterilized.

Oh, I don't know...a widow with 10 or 15 children of her own may see it as a Godsend. Of course, he'll probably want someone young and fertile anyway. I often wondered whose crazy this is, Jim Bob's or Michelle's?

 

[Coconut36]

Oh, I don't know...a widow with 10 or 15 children of her own may see it as a Godsend. Of course, he'll probably want someone young and fertile anyway. I often wondered whose crazy this is, Jim Bob's or Michelle's?

Oh I suspect it is his crazy mostly. It strikes me in their marriage or faith that he makes the decisions/rules things and she it to be dutiful and follow along happily. At this point however I would think she was sharing the crazy cup or I don't think they would have got to almost 20 kids (and I think she has her own obsession issues related to being pregnant/having a newborn).

 

[NotUrsula]

I thought she only had 1 instance with pre-e. If that is it I don't consider that a "history" just yet because it was only the one time but if it has happened before I can see there being a known pattern..it was my understanding this was her first instance of it though.

My understanding is that she had had less serious cases in the past. This last time was the first where it became a deliver-or-die situation.

The younger you are the better the odds that serious pre-eclampsia won't repeat. Once you get past 35 other health issues tend to contribute to it. My sister nearly had a stroke at age 35 due to pre-eclampsia (as they were prepping for her C her systolic pressure climbed well into the 200's) and with my first pregnancy my doctor watched me like a hawk because of that family history. (As it happens it was never a problem for me.)

 

[Conservative Hippie]

Again..it is not a fully reliable method. I can tell you my grandma was most certainly feeding her 2 month old more frequently than every 4 hours yet she still ended up pregnant within 8 weeks of birth with #3. Same goes with the first child (she was only 4 months old when grandma got pg with #2). The point is that one should only use it if they are OK with another child. If not they need to look at other methods of BC or NFP (as breastfeeding alone isn't enough).

Yes it happens, but that is the exception, not the rule. I got my period back at 3 months with my daughter and I was nursing more like every 2 hours around the clock. It happens, but it is the exception, not the rule.

The point, as it relates to the topic at hand, which is Michelle Duggar, is that she claims to allow God to give them as many children as is in His plan. However, she weans her babies early, ensuring that she starts ovulating soon after a birth, so she can get pregnant again. She does not follow God's ( or "nature's") design of allowing for natural birth spacing by lactational amenorrhea that results from breastfeeding a baby for an extended period of time. So she is not allowing God to give her as many children as is in His plan, she is trying to have as many children as possible.