Michelle Duggar miscarries

[Wadecool]

 

[Coconut36]

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.

My OB would disagree with you regarding it being an exception and I have to be honest in that I figure she has 30 years of experience and likely is a bit of an expert there This isn't really the discussion at hand IMO as it is not a reliable means of birth control and I don't think it matters when she weans based on how unreliable it is and hasn't she already stated she has gotten pg while nursing? My understanding is that she has stated either in a book or online that she gets her cycle back by 6-8 weeks pp so it really doesn't matter if she nurses for 3 years or weans at 3 months..she could still get pregnant quite early on and her timing to wean has nothing to do with her having children.

 

[Conservative Hippie]

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.

She had pre-e with her second pregnancy, the twins John-David and Jana. Actually that would be her third pregnancy since she had a miscarriage between Josh and the twins.

 

[Conservative Hippie]

My OB would disagree with you regarding it being an exception and I have to be honest in that I figure she has 30 years of experience and likely is a bit of an expert there This isn't really the discussion at hand IMO as it is not a reliable means of birth control and I don't think it matters when she weans based on how unreliable it is and hasn't she already stated she has gotten pg while nursing? My understanding is that she has stated either in a book or online that she gets her cycle back by 6-8 weeks pp so it really doesn't matter if she nurses for 3 years or weans at 3 months..she could still get pregnant quite early on and her timing to wean has nothing to do with her having children.

And my midwife would disagree with your OB. I still think she weans early, ensuring she starts ovulating again, to have as many children as possible. Do I know that to be a fact? Of course not. It's still what I think based upon what I know.

 

[kidshop]

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.

I think she wants...oops! she thinks God wants her to have a nice even 20, so we may have a few years of this. actively trying is not letting God decide, anymore than actively preventing. But she may very well keep getting pregnant followed by varying problems each time. God may not flip a switch as she might hope for an easy end to her reproductive life.

 

[Conservative Hippie]

I think she wants...oops! she thinks God wants her to have a nice even 20, so we may have a few years of this. actively trying is not letting God decide, anymore than actively preventing. But she may very well keep getting pregnant followed by varying problems each time. God may not flip a switch as she might hope for an easy end to her reproductive life.

I agree. I am going to sit under an oak tree and hold out my hands and catch as many leaves as God decides to let fall into my hands. I am not going to drop a single leaf. But wait...no leaves have fallen in a while. Better shake the tree!

 

[usnuzuloose]

I agree. I am going to sit under an oak tree and hold out my hands and catch as many leaves as God decides to let fall into my hands. I am not going to drop a single leaf. But wait...no leaves have fallen in a while. Better shake the tree!

Have you read about the quiverfull movement? That explains it all.

 

[badcramps]

My OB would disagree with you regarding it being an exception and I have to be honest in that I figure she has 30 years of experience and likely is a bit of an expert there This isn't really the discussion at hand IMO as it is not a reliable means of birth control and I don't think it matters when she weans based on how unreliable it is and hasn't she already stated she has gotten pg while nursing? My understanding is that she has stated either in a book or online that she gets her cycle back by 6-8 weeks pp so it really doesn't matter if she nurses for 3 years or weans at 3 months..she could still get pregnant quite early on and her timing to wean has nothing to do with her having children.

Has your OB said that breastfeeding is *bad* birth control method (as in, it is not nearly as reliable as hormonal methods)? Or did she say that it offers no protection whatsoever?

The latter just does not seem to fit any of the information I can find online. Even planned parenthood (certainly not anti-"artificial" birth control) says that breastfeeding (if it follows very strict guidelines at least for 6 months after birth) is about 98% effective. Better than condoms, diaphragm, etc. Almost as good as hormonal methods. But only that good for 6 months and requires strict following of guidelines about constant breastfeeding. (The strictness of the guidelines probably leads to many more failures than if it were done perfectly. This is probably the reason why it's good advice to consider an easier to use birth control method in addition if you really don't want another child at that time. Similarly NFP if done perfectly does not have such a horrible rate of failure; the issue is that it is difficult to use it 100% correctly. Female condoms, I believe, are also something where there is a large degree of user error which makes it not a very good method overall.)

If the OB said the former than this is compatible with a wide degree of effectiveness levels for breastfeeding past 6 months. Withdrawal for instance is a really unreliable method of birth control, but it is literally better than nothing. (I think there is an 85% chance of pregnancy in a year for users of no birth control, more like 30% for users of withdrawal.) Long-term breastfeeding might be a bad/unreliable method, but even if it's effectiveness is = to withdrawal's, it will still on average in a large group of women lead to longer birth spacing than the Duggar's have.

Say that is the effectiveness is even worse than withdrawal--say 40% get pregnant in a year. Take 100 hunter/gatherer women breastfeeding constantly. 2 unlucky ones will get pregnant within 6 months after birth. Of the other 98 who make it to 6 months postpartum without a pregnancy, 40% of those will get pregnant within the next year, so about 39 women will get pregnant by 18 months after birth (probably spread out throughout those 12 months). That means the majority will NOT be pregnant within 18 months after birth. (In comparison, if breastfeeding offered *no* protection whatsoever, then we would expect 85% of the women to be pregnant within 1 year after the birth. In fact, we KNOW that this is not the case in hunter/gatherer societies or amongst great apes. Births do not occur nearly that close together in "nature.")

Now if Michelle really does routinely getting her period back only 6-8 weeks after birth despite constant breastfeeding then indeed she could probably not expect breastfeeding to give her much protection. She would perhaps be one of the 2 unlucky hunter-gatherers who got pregnant within 6 months of birth despite constant breastfeeding. And in "nature" if she was that unlucky she and her babies would probably end up suffering greatly--with the babies less likely to survive and her dying given so many pregnancies.

In any case, if her full fertility really does return that quickly, I don't think that is representative of most women. Certainly we could not have survived as a species if our ancestors routinely got pregnant only 8 weeks after giving birth. Long birth-spacing without modern medicine/food is important to giving the babies the best chance at survival. How is your average not very well-nourished early human/ape supposed to nourish both a toddler and infant through breastfeeding (as would be necessary in nature without formula/ability to cook foods to make them soft) and a growing fetus plus keep herself alive?

 

[princessmom29]

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?

This is a totally different situation. Of COURSE they KNEW this was the likley outcome of this pregnancy. Multiple medical professionals have advised her that she is putting her life and the life of any unborn children at risk by continuing this, yet she still chooses to continue. She DID KNOW that it was a HUGE risk and she had to do a LOT of shopping around to find a doctor that would even treat her for this pregnancy. NO one wanted to take on that kind of risk. Continuing to try to concieve despite the overwheling evidence that it is not safe irresponsible and selfish and I do feel like anything that happens as a result of the decision to continue IS their fault. I would say so about anyone who makes the same decision when faced with the kind of evidence she has that continuing to reporduce is insanely risky.

 

[Conservative Hippie]

Have you read about the quiverfull movement? That explains it all.

Yes, and I also have one friend who is Quiverfull. But I still believe that "shaking the tree" is not the same as letting God give you as many children as He sees fit. I hope I'm not getting too religious, but there are religions that actively try to have as many children as possible, and they will tell you that that is exactly what they believe. I think that is what the Duggars are doing, however they claim they just want as many children as God wants to give them, which is not the same thing.

 

[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.

We may be talking about two different things. Regardless, I'll disagree with you, but I won't judge you for your view.

 

[YodaGirl]

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.

And when I miscarried, I told those who knew the same day, as well. When you're grieving the loss of a child, the last thing that you want is someone calling you and asking how it's going.

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.

No common sense for feeling sorry for a family who is grieving the loss of a child? That's pretty callous and a perfect example of the mean undertones in this thread. You can disagree without being rude.

 

[gator75]

I have my best flame suit on so flame away, but yes the loss of a baby is devestating , but these people have no right. If they are going for being the biggest freak show on the planet they have long ago suceeded. I hope that she takes this as a signthat just maybe they should put their baby making days behind them. A womans bayby making parts aren't like a fine wine they don't get better with age.

They need to concentrate on getting josie the srongest and healthiest tshe can be.the world isn't going to end with an uneven number of kids

 

[princessmom29]

We may be talking about two different things. Regardless, I'll disagree with you, but I won't judge you for your view.

mabye we are. I think there is a difference between judging someone's opinion to be incorrect or invalid and basing your entire opinion of them as a person on that.

 

[dngnb8]

I read the article, and I found it funny that they asked for privacy.

HELLO!!!!! YOU PUT YOUR WHOLE DAMN LIVES ON TV!!!!!!!

I LOL'd

 

[tlbwriter]

I still think she weans early, ensuring she starts ovulating again, to have as many children as possible.

Personally, I suspect she weans early so she can pass the babies down to their siblings to care for. Jinger can't breastfeed, as far as we know...

 

[punkin]

I read the article, and I found it funny that they asked for privacy.

HELLO!!!!! YOU PUT YOUR WHOLE DAMN LIVES ON TV!!!!!!!

I LOL'd

Yes, I can just bet they want privacy. at least until they announce her next pregnancy! What a circus. Oh, and I do feel sorry for her because I would feel sorry for anyone who miscarried. That doesn't stop me at the hypocrisy.

 

[YodaGirl]

Personally, I suspect she weans early so she can pass the babies down to their siblings to care for. Jinger can't breastfeed, as far as we know...

And that would be my guess.

Let me preface this by saying, I have no problem with kids doing chores. In fact, I think that kids should do chores. However, I think that there comes a time when things aren't fair for those involved. I think that there's a difference between doing chores and having older kids watch younger kids and having older kids running around like maids and nannies.

I've noticed that the larger the families, the less parenting that the parents do (they tend to manage the house and delegate many of the "labor tasks" to the younger ones), and the more parenting that older siblings do. I'm sure that it's just the nature of large families, but at some point, it becomes not fair.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

The baby is dead. Is it possible to have a thread that doesn't degrade into something else? Can't we just mourn the death of a baby? Is it really that hard?

 

[dngnb8]

Yes, I can just bet they want privacy. at least until they announce her next pregnancy! What a circus. Oh, and I do feel sorry for her because I would feel sorry for anyone who miscarried. That doesn't stop me at the hypocrisy.

Let me really translate what they're saying


We milked you all for a lot of cash, and will use this event to milk you for more, but when we want to be alone, GTHO, at least until we want more money.