International Nesties
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
@ Duggars - Thoughts?
I accidentally just posted this on ML. I lurk on there occasionally. Busted.
What do we think of the Duggars having baby #20?
Re: @ Duggars - Thoughts?
Honestly? I wonder if she'll die in childbirth at some point. Or of complications. I thought that their last daughter's premature birth would be the sign from God they were looking for, that they should stop having babies. But if it isn't, I don't know what sign they'll need.
My other thought is that it's not about God at all - they're just addicted to pregnancy and small babies. And now the celebrity.
I agree with you. If having a baby born at 25 weeks wasn't a good enough sign to stop then I don't know what is. She's 45 and has been pregnant for half of her life.
I really don't care one way or the other if she has more kids. I've never watched the show and only know about their life from second- or third-hand sources on TB or the news that I occasionally stumble across. But the way people are talking about the topic ticks me off.
I think the way you expressed this was fine because you were saying that maybe it was a sign they were looking for, but I got really ticked off on TB's 6-9month board and on my month board when people were like, "How can she be so irresponsible as to have another baby when her last one was premature?" Um, what, so moms of premature babies are morally obligated to have no other children now? I'm itching to go round up the moms on the preemie board to give their 2cents worth on that opinion.
FWIW, I heard she had pre-e in her last pregnancy, and unless it was particularly severe, the chance of recurrence is relatively low and I'm guessing she doesn't have any higher risk of complications than any other 45 year old who has had multiple pregnancies (Medically speaking, is there a difference if you have 10 or 20 kids? I honestly don't know.).
I loved that someone on my month board said this:
"What I find most ironic, is when someone that is "pro-choice" starts judging the Duggar's. Seriously.
If you are pro-choice, you have no say in her bodily decisions and quite frankly, you should exit the conversation."
Because many (although certainly not all) of those who are getting upset about her having yet another baby are, in fact, pro-choice. What's the motto again? My uterus, my choice? You can't have it both ways. Either you want people to stay out of choices regarding your uterus and then you do the same for them, or you get upset because of their choices, voice your opinion, and have to accept that they'll do the same when they're upset about yours.
Yeh, it's her choice. I agree that she should be the one to make it. I think it's an irresponsible one, though. The premature baby wasn't her 1st baby, it was her 19th. Big difference in decision making for having a 2nd or a 20th.
Depends on your reasoning for saying it's ok to have a 2nd. If your reasoning is that it's ok if the parents feel the first child needs a sibling, then I agree that there is a difference between 2 and 20. If your reasoning is that it's ok if the parents are informed of the risks and are willing to accept them because of their desire to have another child, then I don't think there's a difference between 2 and 20.
By saying it's irresponsible to have a 20th because the 19th was premature but not irresponsible to want a 2nd if the first was premature, you're essentially saying that there is a certain number of children (whether 3, 10, or 19) that is ok for a family to want, and after that it's all just "bonus" children, so they should be willing to not have any more "bonus" children after they've reached that arbitrary limit. My condition has a much higher chance of recurrence than regular pre-e and has a 1% maternal and 10-15% fetal mortality rate. Am I being irresponsible by wanting another? You can see why this hits a nerve with me :-)
I agree with your point kelly, it is a woman's/family's choice in terms of how many children they have and prematurity of one child or maternal age in and of itself is not reason for a woman not to have a child.
That being said, I do feel a little sad for the whole situation. I mean, I know there are other families this size. I know it's their choice. But the media circus they seem to have a publicist drumming up for them is just kind of despressing. I also have a huge problem with any arguement based ont he will of god, because that is totally and completely illogical. Especially a choice that affects so many other people in the family.
My Blog
It's OK to have as many children as you want. I honestly don't care as long as they can afford it. My point was that their 19th baby almost died and the mom was very sick, too. So I'll stick with thinking having baby 20 is irresponsible.
this.
I think whether it was a 2nd or 20th child if the previous pregnancy had complications, logic would lead most to believe that earlier intervention and closer monitoring would be in place for subsequent pregnancies. Although this wouldn't necessarily eliminate any risks any issues would be caught earlier. It would mean that there is greater likelihood that the pregnancy would go further in gestation and giving the baby and mother a better chance of a "good outcome" (for want of a better term...)
[I had gestational cholestasis which was diagnosed 5wks before my due date. Looking back I had symptoms for the previous couple of weeks. This is highly likely to happen again but now I know what to look out for. (problem with my liver not getting rid of bile acids that cleared within hours of delivery - no effect on my dd from the drugs I had to take...) Nothing like pre-e I know...]
I watched a couple episodes of their TV show last night. Honestly, I am very pro-choice and I do agree this has to go both ways. If they aren't asking me for money and are grownups, I really don't get to have a vote on the number of children they have. Personally, I would be so excited to just get to have one at this point so it's kind of overwhelming to see someone who can just keep having children every year, but that's just my own issues right now!
However, I think having a reality tv show following your children around is terrible. With the older children in particular - they're already responsible to take care of a sibling with the buddy system they use, now they have all these camera men following them around the house. The whole thing makes me really sad.
BFP Apr 2012, EDD Dec 19 2012 * twin h/b at 6wk, 9wk scan * Baby A lost at 12wks, Baby B was my rainbow born at 36wks
Chronically hilarious - you'll split your stitches!
I wrote a book! Bucket list CHECK!
http://notesfortheirtherapist.blogspot.co.uk
I totally agree.
This! While I don't want to make any judgments about the number of children they're having, I do think it's ok to judge them subjecting their children to national scrutiny!
And for the record, I love you ladies. I didn't feel offended by any of your comments. It was some of the other boards talking about the same thing that got me up in arms. I also didn't want to make this about me personally since it's not. I think there is a big difference between a 2nd and a 20th child, but I disagree with using the prematurity argument since the prematurity in this case was based on something that can happen with any pregnancy and doesn't have a greater chance of recurring just because she's had so many kids. I would argue that I believe children need a minimum amount of individual attention from their parents in order to thrive, and I personally don't think that that minimum can be given for 20 children.
I have only seen their show once and while they looked like a lovely family and I like the idea that they are self sufficient I wonder about their reasoning for continuing mostly due to their age. I hadn't heard of the buddy system, but does a sibling really substitute for the actual parent? The complications she could experience based on her age alone scares me, it isn't my place to judge her decision but surely those children need their mother, all 19 of them.
Also, when the hell do they have time for all this sex? They have 19 children, I only have one and seriously DH just isn't that lucky.
Ha Ha!! My dh isn't that lucky either...
Personally, I think Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar are great parents. If the doctors gave her a green light for this pregnancy and they believe each child to be a blessing from God - more power to them! It seems like Baby #19 was a special case, and maybe baby #20 would be healthy.
But I do sincerely hope they stop at 20. I don't know if her body can take much more. It would be a tragedy for her to die giving birth and leave all those kids without a mother!
We're headed to the Maldives on Christmas Eve!
I'm 100% pro-choice in either direction (have the kid, abort it, whatevs). But that doesn't mean I won't side eye the hell out of whomever I choose.
I'm just a judgey heifer, but that doesn't mean I can make decisions for anybody but myself.
This! I think the fact that people say they raise their kids is actually incorrect. The older children help raise the younger ones. I think they should allow their older children be actual children without having the responsibility of the parents. They may put a roof over their heads and put food on the table but being a parent requires a little more than that.
That's what I said in my original post that made it on ML. Seriously though. They're like rabbits!
I really don't have a problem with them having a 20th, or 21st, child if that's what they want, or what they interpret as God's Will. I like the show (though it's not aired here), I like that they are self-sufficient and not flashing and galivanting around the way Kate (from John & Kate Plus 8) seemed to be.
I also trust my cousin's opinion of Michelle. The Duggars live not far from my cousins in NW Arkansas and Michelle has spoken to my cousin's mother's groups several times about raising children, and each time she has brought a few of her daughters. My cousin has mentioned more than once how quiet and soft spoken Michelle is, and how she is interested and genuinely concerned for all her children. It's just refreshing to have that kind of a role model, I think. I know my cousin has enjoyed speaking to Michelle and the girls.
As for the buddy-system, it's not new to the Duggars, the system was used by the Gilbreths as early as the 1910's -- mentioned several times in Cheaper by the Dozen and Belles on Their Toes. Also, I have friends who are from large families (10-15 children) and their families all used a variation of the buddy-system, if only to keep track of the children. In large families some kind of monitoring system is necessary. It's not that the older ones are "raising" the younger ones, but how many of you have younger siblings you "looked after?" It's the same kind of thing. I know I had an interest in my younger brother as he was growing up. I didn't raise him as such, but I did have my big sisterly eye on him, as my older brother looked out for me. It's a thing you do when you are the older sibling.
I have never seen the show, it holds zero appeal to me, but I have read about them and I think they are crazy for having another baby. I am pretty sure her doctors have told her she shouldn't have any more. I also am pretty sure this stopped being about God and religion a long time ago. I don't agree with having older siblings take care of younger ones (and, fwiw, my older brother didn't look out for me, it is not always something older siblings do). I also don't agree with their Quiverfull lifestyle, even thought they claim they aren't but it sure seems like they are -
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/03/16/extreme-motherhood.html
Personally, I can't imagine birthing 20 children, let alone raising them, but that's just me.
Now...perhaps a stupid question, but this is a non-mother talking. At some point, does it just stop hurting to give birth??
No. But I am pretty sure she is now having c-sections.
Edit: Many women have shorter labors the more children they have, so I guess technically the pain is shorter
I was not so lucky!
Thanks for the clarification! Not that I was going to see how many it would take to get to the "pain-free" zone, but I was curious.