Murphy101 Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 :iagree: with LMA How did this thread reach the conclusion that the next child will end her life?? We don't have access to medical records nor can anyone make that conclusion. A lot of stuff said here is just based on speculation. Pre-eclampsia can happen with any pregnancy. It has nothing to do with the number of pregnancies. It happened with my first. Gallbladder problems can happen at any age. My friend's neighbor had hers out at 27 and died from the operation because of sepsis. My husband's great aunts each had at least 12 children. Each aunt lost children in their infancy from various diseases. I think we all take it for granted that our children will survive their infancy. My sister-in-law's sister had her first daughter at about the same time in her pregnancy as Michelle Duggar. The baby weighed 1 pound 4 ounces in 1977, when this was unheard of. That baby is now 32 and is fine. My sister-in-law says it was by the grace of God that the baby survived. Louise Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gardening momma Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 (edited) How did this thread reach the conclusion that the next child will end her life?? We don't have access to medical records nor can anyone make that conclusion. A lot of stuff said here is just based on speculation. I never said that. I said, what if her pregnancies reached the point where each one was producing a 1 lb. baby (that doesn't live) or a miscarriage? At what point would you stop trying, for the sake of those children? That hasn't happened to her--I was saying What If? (And the question is directed at anyone, not just referring to Michelle Duggar) Edited December 15, 2009 by gardening momma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cathmom Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 Well, I've known MANY people (married and not, but the vast majority, strangely enough, married, and often with one or more kids already) who talk as if regular intercourse with no preventive measures but WITHOUT the "plan" of getting pregnant = "not trying." I think there's something ridiculous about talking that way. It's not like, say, buying a car, which one is unlikely to go out and purchase without realizing what one is doing. One's "intentions"/"plans" are not really part of the equation: one doesn't have to be "planning" to get pregnant in order to get pregnant. I find the use of language silly, frankly. I'm not sure you finished your first sentence, but your opinion is clear. I think people mean by "not trying" that they are not specifically timing intimacy to result in a pregnancy. People who are "trying" do all sorts of things like chart their cycles, use ovulation predictors, etc, while people who do not use artificial birth control or Natural Family Planning do not do those things, because they are not trying to conceive, they are just being married. I don't find it silly - how else would people distinguish between these two situations? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asta Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 If I can presume to step into Michelle's mind, I'd have to submit that her immense responsibility to her children is not her top priority, nor should it be. Her top priority is doing God's will, regardless of what a doctor or anyone else on earth thinks about it. And I also assume that she trusts God more than she trusts any doctor to know whether or not the next pregnancy might end her life. The degree of trust and submission to God that has brought them to bear 19 children is astounding to me. I doubt that will change. This always blows my mind. The mere concept that the health and welfare of the child that I brought into this world and swore to raise and protect should not be my first priority is such a completely, utterly foreign idea that I can't even wrap my mind around it. Deities don't raise children. Mothers do. a Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EthiopianFood Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 Make that three risk factors, assuming you meant in relation to future potential pregnancies. From www.preeclampsia.org: "Preeclampsia occurs in 5-8 percent of all pregnancies, though it is most common in first-time pregnancies. Some research suggests that one's risk of preeclampsia is increased with a first pregnancy with a new partner/husband, however recent research suggests that the key factor in that increased risk is not the new husband, but in fact increased maternal age. The most significant risk factors for preeclampsia are: Previous history of preeclampsia, particularly if onset is before the third trimester History of chronic high blood pressure, diabetes or kidney disorder Family history of the disorder (i.e., a mother, sister, grandmother or aunt who had the disorder) Women with greater than 30% Body Mass Index (BMI). To determine your BMI, click on the following link http://nhlbisupport.com/bmi/bmicalc.htm and follow the instructions there. Multiple gestation Over 40 or under 18 years of age Polycystic ovarian syndrome Lupus or other autoimmune disorders such as rheumatoid arthritis, sarcoidosis or MS." As far as we know, Mrs. Duggar has two of the eight risk factors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stacie Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 Make that three risk factors, assuming you meant in relation to future potential pregnancies. I took multiple gestation to mean a twins or more pregnancy. Hmmm...:confused: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stacie Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 Terabith, She had the gallbladder problem and then they discovered pre-eclampsia which is why they delivered her. It's interesting that HELLP, one of the most severe forms of preeclampsia, presents with symptoms similar to a gallbladder attack. I had a coworker almost lose her life being treated for gallbladder when she actually had HELLP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osmosis Mom Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 I'm not sure you finished your first sentence, but your opinion is clear. I think people mean by "not trying" that they are not specifically timing intimacy to result in a pregnancy. People who are "trying" do all sorts of things like chart their cycles, use ovulation predictors, etc, while people who do not use artificial birth control or Natural Family Planning do not do those things, because they are not trying to conceive, they are just being married. I don't find it silly - how else would people distinguish between these two situations? Well, I think in many such cases what it means is that if they conceived it'd be fine, if not, not a big deal. I mean, if I did not want to get pregnant, you betcha I'd be aware and know what to do, but I have had times when it was OK either way (of course leaning towards wanting more, but rationally understanding that age might have become a factor). I agree with Asta in the other post, but that is probably clear by now as well! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fivetails Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 Okay, so this has nothing to do with the pregnancy thing - but I just caught part of this show (I rarely ever get to see it) and OMGosh I want a giant hill. And a big tarp. And a hose. That looked like so much fun! :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenny in Atl Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 This always blows my mind. The mere concept that the health and welfare of the child that I brought into this world and swore to raise and protect should not be my first priority is such a completely, utterly foreign idea that I can't even wrap my mind around it. Deities don't raise children. Mothers do. a :iagree: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stripe Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 I'm not sure you finished your first sentence, but your opinion is clear. I think people mean by "not trying" that they are not specifically timing intimacy to result in a pregnancy. People who are "trying" do all sorts of things like chart their cycles, use ovulation predictors, etc, while people who do not use artificial birth control or Natural Family Planning do not do those things, because they are not trying to conceive, they are just being married. I don't find it silly - how else would people distinguish between these two situations? I find it silly to be surprised by a pregnancy, when the only thing separating someone who is "trying" from "not trying" is the thoughts in their heads. Not ANY difference in behavior whatsoever. These are not people with fertility problems who had any plans to do charting, use ovulation predictor kits, or take fertility drugs. "Trying" consists, to them, solely of having it in their head that they want to get pregnant. I know someone with seven children, each a singleton and each a TOTAL surprise! It's as if it's still a mystery where babies come from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pip Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 I only know of one total surprise. I have a friend who MAY be carrying a gene for a nerve disorder. She and her husband were use BCP's, condoms and a diaphragm at the same time. She became pregant. The baby does not carry the problem gene. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LMA Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 I never said that. I said, what if her pregnancies reached the point where each one was producing a 1 lb. baby (that doesn't live) or a miscarriage? At what point would you stop trying, for the sake of those children? That hasn't happened to her--I was saying What If? (And the question is directed at anyone, not just referring to Michelle Duggar) I don't know who brought it up. I didn't say who either. Dwelling on What If... is not healthy. The point at which a couple stops/starts trying is their own business. It is not as if she posted on this forum asking us this question. And no one knows the answer to any What If question. So it's still pure speculation if the Duggars will keep trying or will stop. I know many couples who have done artificial methods of conceiving and ended up each time with a preemie in the one-two pound range even after having their own naturally conceived children. Some babies survived. Some babies died. No one asked them at what point they are going to stop trying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lionfamily1999 Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 (edited) I don't know who brought it up. I didn't say who either. Dwelling on What If... is not healthy. The point at which a couple stops/starts trying is their own business. It is not as if she posted on this forum asking us this question. And no one knows the answer to any What If question. So it's still pure speculation if the Duggars will keep trying or will stop. I know many couples who have done artificial methods of conceiving and ended up each time with a preemie in the one-two pound range even after having their own naturally conceived children. Some babies survived. Some babies died. No one asked them at what point they are going to stop trying. I believe the question was something along the lines of, 'if it endangers her life (her being a generic term for any female, since as of yet, males are unable to become pregnant) or the life of any child she may carry, then would that constitute sinful behavior.' It's a question. There's lots of hypothetical questions in this world. The idea of suicidal behavior, and what constitutes suicidal behavior, and whether or not that then equates itself to suicide (or murder as the case may be), is something that gets pondered over amongst some of my family members because we have lost family members to both suicide and suicidal behavior. We aren't dwelling to an unhealthy point, just wondering over what counts and what doesn't, iykwIm. I saw this as very much like any other question that Christians ponder (is soda sin, it DOES wreak havoc on the body/temple, do smokers go to hell, is gluttony as bad as fornication). I didn't think she was attacking anyone, just posing an interesting question. Edited December 15, 2009 by lionfamily1999 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EthiopianFood Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 I took multiple gestation to mean a twins or more pregnancy. Hmmm...:confused: Hmm. It should have been "multiples gestation" or "multiple gestations." I'm thinking you're right though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melinda in VT Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 This list of symptoms clarifies that the risk is being pregnant with more than one fetus at a time, and that you are in fact at more risk for pre-eclampsia in a first pregnancy. What Makes Pre-Eclampsia More Likely? The following can predispose you to developing pre-eclampsia, but many cases occur without any risk factors at all. * If it is your first pregnancy * Pre-eclampsia in a previous pregnancy * Age under 20years or over 35years * Short stature * If you suffer from migranes * Family history of pre-eclampsia or eclampsia * Previous hypertension * If you have Raynaud's disease * If you are underweight * If you have systemic lupus erythematosis (SLE) * Multiple pregnancy (eg. twins) * Hydatidiform mole Of course, having pre-eclampsia in one pregnancy is a risk factor for pre-eclampsia in every pregnancy after that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.