U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-04-2010, 12:01 PM
 
9,856 posts, read 13,026,487 times
Reputation: 5443

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiaomao View Post
Because she's continually tempting fate. She's nearly 45 years old, just got done having an extremely premature, sick child who will require a lot of specialized care (she's lactose intolerant) and likely have neurological/developmental problems (hope notbut we'll see), when you're over 35 your chances of having a child with Down's and other problems increase, yet she still thinks she should have a 20th child.

The parents are not thinking that next time, they might lose their child- they aren't thinking about the welfare and safety of their potential children. They aren't thinking "One of my kids could be born severely mentally retarded and require lifelong, intensive care that I can't give them if I keep focusing on getting pregnant" What if they end up having another child and this does happen? Will it make them realize then that maybe it wasn't the best idea to 'keep going'?

How is that not irresponsible at all?
I understand your point and agree to an extent, I simply think they are much more responsible than many families with children.

I guess my point was that they at least take care of the kids they have, which is more than can be said about many parents.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-04-2010, 12:02 PM
 
5,748 posts, read 10,511,564 times
Reputation: 4494
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiaomao View Post
Because she's continually tempting fate. She's nearly 45 years old, just got done having an extremely premature, sick child who will require a lot of specialized care (she's lactose intolerant) and likely have neurological/developmental problems (hope notbut we'll see), when you're over 35 your chances of having a child with Down's and other problems increase, yet she still thinks she should have a 20th child.

The parents are not thinking that next time, they might lose their child- they aren't thinking about the welfare and safety of their potential children. They aren't thinking "One of my kids could be born severely mentally retarded and require lifelong, intensive care that I can't give them if I keep focusing on getting pregnant" What if they end up having another child and this does happen? Will it make them realize then that maybe it wasn't the best idea to 'keep going'?

How is that not irresponsible at all?
Those risks are inherent in any pregnancy, first, second, or twentieth. The Duggars seems like a wonderful, loving family who are paying their own way through life. If they want to have another child, it's really none of my business.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2010, 12:09 PM
 
Location: Texas
141 posts, read 243,070 times
Reputation: 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq View Post
I understand your point and agree to an extent, I simply think they are much more responsible than many families with children.

I guess my point was that they at least take care of the kids they have, which is more than can be said about many parents.
Well of course I don't think they have bad intentions. They're following their religious views. But I think that they also need to take into consideration the possible problems that could arise from blatantly defying nature.

Quote:
Those risks are inherent in any pregnancy, first, second, or twentieth. The Duggars seems like a wonderful, loving family who are paying their own way through life. If they want to have another child, it's really none of my business.
Except the risks go up exponentially for a child with severe complications after the mother is 35 or so.

No doubt they take care of their kids well, and raise them to be good people, but they need to really think hard about what happened with their 19th, next time, they may not be so lucky.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2010, 12:24 PM
 
5,748 posts, read 10,511,564 times
Reputation: 4494
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiaomao View Post
Well of course I don't think they have bad intentions. They're following their religious views. But I think that they also need to take into consideration the possible problems that could arise from blatantly defying nature.



Except the risks go up exponentially for a child with severe complications after the mother is 35 or so.

No doubt they take care of their kids well, and raise them to be good people, but they need to really think hard about what happened with their 19th, next time, they may not be so lucky.
Michelle is 43-years-old. At this point, her risk of having a child with a genetic anomaly is about 1 in 38. However, it's also important to understand that fertility begins to drop off at age forty, too. Not only is it much, much harder to get pregnant, but miscarriage rates are also higher.

I don't feel comfortable making judgments about whether or not someone should attempt to have a child. It's a personal decision. If the Duggars are lucky enough to buck the odds against a successful pregnancy, and she and her husband want and can afford to raise another child, then more power to them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2010, 12:32 PM
 
Location: Long Beach, California
354 posts, read 589,907 times
Reputation: 319
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfkIII View Post
Josie Duggar may be home, but she has a more than eighty percent chance of having learning problems and/or cerebral palsy. If she plans to homeschool this one, she will need a lot of support services to come in, and Josie will need a lot more attention than your average child--which should preclude her having another one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2010, 12:34 PM
 
556 posts, read 672,913 times
Reputation: 849
I've always enjoyed the Duggers. They seem to be the happiest most contented people I've ever seen. I've never seen her look like she needed to get a break from her kids and I've never seen the kids screaming for an xbox game! lol. I've always said i wish I could be more like them, minus about 17 kids!

As for them having a 20th baby, I think it's soon. Is she pregnant already? Or are they just saying that they are willing to have another? Either way, IMPO, I wouldn't do it. But I also know that, as of now, I am not cut out to raise a special needs child. Maybe they are.

I think a lot of the jokes and pure hatred towards the family are uncalled for no matter what. They aren't hurting anyone. They are raising beautiful, caring, well mannered children that will one day be adults in this country. I'll take 20 Duggers to 20 Lohans, or Jacksons, or even Smiths up the street!

Remember, it was that long ago in this country that 20 kids wasn't that big of a deal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2010, 12:35 PM
 
Location: Long Beach, California
354 posts, read 589,907 times
Reputation: 319
Quote:
Originally Posted by formercalifornian View Post
Michelle is 43-years-old. At this point, her risk of having a child with a genetic anomaly is about 1 in 38. However, it's also important to understand that fertility begins to drop off at age forty, too. Not only is it much, much harder to get pregnant, but miscarriage rates are also higher.

I don't feel comfortable making judgments about whether or not someone should attempt to have a child. It's a personal decision. If the Duggars are lucky enough to buck the odds against a successful pregnancy, and she and her husband want and can afford to raise another child, then more power to them.
I don't know about you, but a 1 in 38 chance that my child will have neurological problems (and the chances increase with the increasing age of the mother) is too much of a chance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2010, 12:35 PM
 
Location: Toledo
3,861 posts, read 7,422,042 times
Reputation: 3646
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq View Post
I guess my point was that they at least take care of the kids they have, which is more than can be said about many parents.
Financially yes, however a lot of the child rearing is left to the older girls.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2010, 12:40 PM
 
556 posts, read 672,913 times
Reputation: 849
Quote:
Originally Posted by yayoi View Post
Financially yes, however a lot of the child rearing is left to the older girls.

Yes, but it is their culture ans religion. Who are we to say that's wrong? They look totally happy and content to be doing what they're doing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2010, 12:43 PM
 
5,748 posts, read 10,511,564 times
Reputation: 4494
Quote:
Originally Posted by mayalevi View Post
I don't know about you, but a 1 in 38 chance that my child will have neurological problems (and the chances increase with the increasing age of the mother) is too much of a chance.
For me, too. My first pregnancy, at age 28, ended because of severe birth defects. Genetic tests confirmed that my chances of having another child with the same problem were approximately 1 in 200. I went on to have two perfectly healthy children and then stopped. I know my boundaries, but I won't project them onto somebody else.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top