Duggars miscarry 20th child

[deleted account] ( 64 moms have responded )

http://tv.yahoo.com/news/michelle-duggar...

The Duggars were given heartbreaking news on Thursday.

According to People, during a routine check-up where Jim Bob and Michelle were supposed to find out the sex of their 20th child, their doctor was unable to find the baby's heartbeat. Michelle was told that she had miscarried in her second trimester.

"After the appointment, we came back home and told the children," the 45-year-old mother of 19 told the mag. "We had just been talking about baby names last night and they were getting excited about naming a boy or a girl. It has been a real sad disappointment."

Jim Bob also released a statment confirming the tragic news to Access Hollywood , saying, "Earlier today at a routine doctor's appointment, Michelle and I received the sad news that we lost the baby. Michelle is resting comfortably at home with the support of the entire family. We are grateful for all the thoughts and prayers, but ask for privacy during this difficult time."

The Duggar matriarch said they will still name the baby after they find out of it was a boy or a girl and they plan to hold a funeral service.

"I feel like my heart broke telling my children," she continued. "They have all been so excited about this baby and looking forward to April coming around and having a new little one in our arms. That was the most difficult. The Lord is the giver of life and he can choose when that life is ready to go on and be with Him."

This is Michelle's second miscarriage. She previously lost a baby during her second pregnancy, when she was reportedly taking oral birth control. According to the mag, this incident caused the couple to let the number of children they have be "up to God."

In addition to their youngest daughter, Josie, who was born in December 2009, the couple is also parents to Joshua, 23 (who has two children, Mackynzie, 2, and Michael, 4 months, with wife Anna, 23), twins Jana and John-David, 21; Jill, 20; Jessa, 19; Jinger, 17; Joseph, 16; Josiah, 15; Joy-Anna, 14; twins Jedidiah and Jeremiah, 12; Jason, 11; James, 10; Justin, 8; Jackson, 7; Johanna, 6; Jennifer, 4; and Jordyn, 3.

------------------------

So, I wasn't going to post his because I feel like no matter how many children someone has a miscarriage is hard. Then I read the comments on the story and it's full of people saying "this is a sign for them to stop breeding" and stuff like that.

My question is: For people like the Duggars, who leave the number of children they have "up to God" or whatever term you want to use, would a miscarriage be like God telling them not to have more? What do you think?

I'm really on the fence about this because I feel like how many kids they have is none of my business. They support themselves and their children are well-cared for (even if I don't agree with some of their teachings, I would never say those children are abused or neglected). Who's to say they shouldn't have more if that's what they want? But at the same time, I think they are being environmentall irresposible to bring more people in the world and I think they are being irresponsible to their existing children to go through a pregnancy at this late age (since it puts Michelle's health at risk more too). I'm not on the fence about many things, but this one I just can't seem to choose a "side."

MOST HELPFUL POSTS

Charlie - posted on 12/10/2011

11,203

111

401

Your uterus and muscles stretch with each birth, the more the pregnancies the more worn out the uterus and muscles become this is why women who have many births are at higher risk with each child to have Post-partum hemorrhage and death.
Because of the several births, stretched muscles and couple that with more than one C section she is also at risk of placental abruption and placenta accreta.
And then there is Maternal depletion syndrome for women who have had many births this puts them at risk of pre term birth.
Lets throw maternal age on top of the pile and its a cocktail for tragedy.

Charlie - posted on 12/10/2011

11,203

111

401

It's important to also note that having short birth intervals more than once is also detrimentle to the mothers health and increases risk of early death for the mother, these are based on several studies done in developed countries.

Charlie - posted on 12/12/2011

11,203

111

401

Exactly Jodi,

"Your uterus and muscles stretch with each birth, the more the pregnancies the more worn out the uterus and muscles become this is why women who have many births are at higher risk with each child to have Post-partum hemorrhage and death.

Because of the several births, stretched muscles and couple that with more than one C section she is also at risk of placental abruption and placenta accreta.

And then there is Maternal depletion syndrome for women who have had many births this puts them at risk of pre term birth.

Lets throw maternal age on top of the pile and its a cocktail for tragedy. "

These are all seperate risks that the average woman may face one or two of in their life not all of them together at the same time.

Its a stockpile of risk and complication that has arisen from her situation and choices she has made.

How can you ignore basic reproductive health and biology? Because the duggars said so on TV ?
Several obstitricians have spoken out about the dangers she is risking including Dr. George Macones, chair of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology’s obstetrics for the very reasons mentioned above.

As well as several other Obstitricians and midwives concerned for her saftey and the saftey of future children.

"Dr. Nancy Snyderman, NBC's chief medical editor, said that Michelle Duggar's age means her doctors should keep close watch on her pregnancy. "She’s a high-risk pregnancy because she’s 45, and because that uterus can’t have any spring in it anymore," Snyderman said on TODAY's Professionals. "I mean, really, it’s gotta be like a water balloon that has no tensile strength.”

Any woman expecting her 20th baby is going to be an older mother, which carries its own risks no matter how many children she’s delivered"

It isnt about these risks as individual problems , it is about having many, many risks on top of each other and not having the common sense or care to act accordingly when you already have 19 lives depending on you.

[deleted account]

I just don't understand how someone can reason not to interfere with procreation by using contraception. Yet continue to do so with medical intervention such as c-sections and keeping her daughter in the hospital when she was born ill.

[deleted account]

Heres a question. If she took her first miscarriage as a sign from god not to use birth control, why not her need for a c-section a sign to stop having kids. Or even go so far as to say the c-section itself is interfering with gods will. Its kind of hypocritical to pick and choose what signs to take seriously.

If you see this, leave this form field blank.
Powered by RESPECT not THUMPS

64 Comments

View replies by

Tammi - posted on 09/27/2013

2

0

0

God and the duggars could only know what God is telling them. So sad it isnt easy to go through my heart goes out to them. She is an amazing women and mother god bless her.

Merry - posted on 12/15/2011

9,274

169

248

Johnny I'm so sorry! That's awful to have to go through, I hope you are doing ok. {{{{{{hugs}}}}}}

Charlie - posted on 12/15/2011

11,203

111

401

Im glad you overcame and had 4 kids, well done ( sincerely)
But comparing your situation with a woman whos situation is completely different ? well it's apples and oranges.

I don't believe anyone suggested doctors were gods however medically speaking they know somewhat a bit about the human body.
Biology is biology, the human body breaks down this isnt a doctors diagnosis of a genetic pre disposition or an abnormality that makes pregnancy difficult from the get go it is simply the breakdown of the human body and reproductive system as a result of many, many births and age just to name a few these are things that happen as a fact, as a law of nature.

I think you will also find that no one here is under the impression it is ours or anyone elses decision or that the duggars are going to say "hey a bunch of women online think what I am doing is dangerous I better stop "

This is however a debate board the topic being a family who have made their lives open to the public and so open to discussion hence the debate on the duggars and her lifestyle choices.

[deleted account]

I'm well aware of the risks, but I also think Michelle Duggar is receiving adequate medical care. I've also said all along in other threads that my greatest condition for her is placenta percreta or accreta, since that is a mommy-killer. However, risk doesn't equate to certainty. I was expressly advised by my doctor NOT to try to have children. I was told that I would be unable to carry any child and that I would have stillbirth after stillbirth. I was told to spare myself "the pain" of losing children. Guess what? I have four healthy children from two (mainly) uneventful pregnancies. Doctors aren't gods -- they have very little control over what actually happens with any pregnancy or medical event.

I also recognize that it's not my decision regarding whether she should try to have more children. It's also not the doctor's decision. It's Michelle Duggars decision to continue to have children. I'm sure she is also well aware of the risks and is counting on god to protect her. You may consider it foolish, but it's her right to be foolish.

Jodi - posted on 12/14/2011

26,310

36

3891

Oh, Johnny, sorry to hear about your loss :( I hope you are doing okay? {{hugs}}

Jodi - posted on 12/14/2011

26,310

36

3891

"80% (if not more) of woman loose their first or second baby to miscarriage"

Please, if you are going to quote a statistic like that, could you please at least back it up with fact? Because that statistic simply does not add up. Where did you get your information from?

Johnny - posted on 12/14/2011

8,686

26

318

I just had a miscarriage last week. It makes me want to be more cautious and careful with anything within my control. I can't understand taking the kinds of risks they are choosing to take. I've only had one miscarriage before, prior to my first daughter, and I don't have any particular risk factors for it. I find it really fascinating that people who seem to be so "pro-life" would take purposeful actions to create a life that might well have a higher chance of being miscarried, pre-term or other potential complications. I may be pro-choice, and thus they have the right to do what they want, but I actually think I take the whole thing just a little more seriously. But perhaps believing in an after-life makes you less respectful of this life.

Jaime - posted on 12/14/2011

291

0

22

As a woman who has had 3 miscarriages and took 4 years to get pregnant again - it only makes my faith in God stronger knowing that I have the two healthy children as being a true blessing for me. Yes I will always think about the babies I lost, but if something was wrong with them - god knew what was best for them was to be with him and not suffer.

80% (if not more) of woman loose their first or second baby to miscarriage without any fault of birth control or medication.

Stifler's - posted on 12/12/2011

15,141

154

597

I agree with Sal and Jen. It's just common sense that humans cannot breed like a rabbit and get away with it.

[deleted account]

Hello -- all religious people pick and choose "signs" from god. The Duggars are no different. I'm sure from their perspective they would say that the doctors were guided by God's hands in safely delivering their babies v. c-section.

Sal - posted on 12/12/2011

1,816

16

33

Jen I don't think common sence is their strong suit, and on one hand I agree that picking and choosing "gods signs" is hypocritical we all do it when it suits us I guess we might not go to the extremes like the duggars but I think we all do it....

Jodi - posted on 12/12/2011

26,310

36

3891

I don't think anyone said her c-sections had to do with her maternal age. However, having said that, the chances of needing a c-section do increase with maternal age. So her chances of needing another c-section are HIGHER than the average person. The reason the c-sections have been mentioned here is that she has already had 4, which will also increase risk factors.



Ultimately, I do agree that they will go on to have another pregnancy. Whether it will be a healthy one or not, we will just have to wait and see.

[deleted account]

It doesn't relate to maternal age. If god didn't wanted her to have that many children, why didn't he position all the babies properly so they could come out. Why did she end up getting a c-section when that is basically defying gods will. She basically allowed the doctors to play god and save her and her children. If he wanted her have all those kids, she would have been able to without any complications. She shouldn't be ignoring signs from god is my point.

[deleted account]

With the exception of the last one, each one of her prior c-sections was due to poor positioning. The first was with twins, the second was presenting shoulder first, the third was transverse, and the fourth was an emergency c-section because of preeclampsia (so she wasn't actually in labor for that one). I don't see how poor positioning relates to maternal age. In terms of her age being a factor, keep in mind that she had six kids after age 35 and they were all healthy. And she had 13 healthy pregnancies before that. Granted, Josie was born early, but that was due to preeclampsia, which can happen at any age and her medical conditions are related to extreme prematurity (not due to some other issue, like a genetic defect or disease). Because I watch the show a lot, I would guess that they will continue to get pregnant for as long as she can and leave the rest up to god. I also wouldn't be at all surprised if she gets pregnant again and goes on to deliver a perfectly healthy baby.

[deleted account]

I agree. There are no such things as signs but it does seem to be common sense that a human female was not made to breed like rabbits. My fervent hope for this situation is that she goes into early menopause or he gets permanent ED.

Charlie - posted on 12/11/2011

11,203

111

401

Caitlin you cannot compare her progression of pregnancy with the average woman who miscarries.

Hers is a unique situation with a combination of dangerous and now lethal consequences that are in my mind closely related to the myriad of risks she has taken due to her situation, this isnt the average womans body it has been under much more pressure than most and at an advanced maternal age.

Merry - posted on 12/11/2011

9,274

169

248

If I had 19 previous children? One miscarriage? And four csections? And one baby born barely viable? And I was 45?
Darn freakin straight I'd quit!
Now if I was 45 and had no kids? I would continue.
Or even if she had 19 kids but no c sections and all babies were born healthy then maybe I'd continue if I believed like them.
But she has so many children! And her reproductive health is sliding into the dangerous zone.
I really hope they can count their blessings and abstain from sex if she continues ovulating.

Jodi - posted on 12/11/2011

26,310

36

3891

I would have if I was 45. Especially when I know the miscarriage rate is 80%.

Caitlin - posted on 12/11/2011

1,915

5

171

Would you have given up after 1 miscarriage? I don't think so.. how is it different after the first or 20th child? it shouldn't be any different.. If you (not you specifically, but in general) give up after 1 failure, you'd never get anything done!

Merry - posted on 12/11/2011

9,274

169

248

I agree Caitlin. Which is why moms who carry deadly genetic diseases usually don't get pregnant only to let the baby die.
At this point I really think Michelle will not be able to carry a baby to term!
Getting pregnant again is practically a death sentence to the baby. She's got like a 60% miscarriage risk along with a myriad of other complications.
I'm not against the duggars, I've defended them many times. But after Josie and now this baby dying I early think she is not going to be able to carry a healthy baby.

Caitlin - posted on 12/11/2011

1,915

5

171

Babies die allt he time! That's a ridiculous statement. What with abortions, miscarriages, selective termination, malnutrition - heck - even those poor little fertilized embryos frozen in labs that never get used - there are tons of ways i'm sure thousands of babies die every day - and not on purpose i'm sure. No mom gets pregnant with the goal of losing her child!

Merry - posted on 12/11/2011

9,274

169

248

I'd rather more babies not have to die before they think enough is enough. But as I said I wouldn't be surprised to hear another pregnancy

Caitlin - posted on 12/11/2011

1,915

5

171

I don't think it's a "sign" or anything. IT's unfair to call it that. Though personally I feel they definately pushed the limit, there are people out there who have multiple miscarriages before succeeding in having one child. This could be a complete fluke. As previously metioned, it's not like she went into preterm labour or anything, there was simply no heartbeat and that could be for a plethora of different reasons, relating to the mothers condition, or the baby!

Now if this was her third or fourth miscarriage after the debacle with her last child i'd jump on the band wagon and say "ya sure - she should stop now" but after one, there really isn't a "trend" to base my opinion on.

Merry - posted on 12/11/2011

9,274

169

248

Yeah emma i couldn't imagine having two that close together let alone 18 on top of eachother! I mean seriously what was it like having twins that were 18 months and having a newborn? And then more and more and more I swear I'd loose my mind! I want two yearsin between. Four years in between if I ever got twins. My goal is a big family with the best quality of mom time with each baby before adding a sibling. Maybe I over think it but I want my babies to be able to be my number one for their whole baby stage.

Stifler's - posted on 12/11/2011

15,141

154

597

Honestly.. I have 2 kids 16 months apart and I feel like that has stuffed with my body/hormones enough. Let alone having 20 that are one year apart each or whatever.

Merry - posted on 12/10/2011

9,274

169

248

I think the majority of humans sort of know just by instincts that having 20 kids is pushing it.
I would go so far as to say that your average healthy woman who takes care of herself could safely carry about 10 babies. But doubling that is a huge difference. Shes done a great job having 18 perfectly healthy babies and one who is a survivor but now she is really pushing it. I do believe in God but I believe God doesn't physically control our bodies, that's why he gave us brains and ambitions and control. He made us to be able to think through our actions and take care of ourselves. I believe we should take care of our bodies and at this point it seems that by conceiving more babies Michelle is not taking good care of her body.

I won't be surprised if they conceive again but I will be surprised if they have a healthy baby again.

Jodi - posted on 12/10/2011

26,310

36

3891

Ok, whatever, whether she has delivered it yet or not is irrelevant. I can't blame her for wanting to deliver it naturally either, but it doesn't alter the facts.

[deleted account]

She hasn't delivered it yet based on the last reports I saw as well. The last report said they were going to name the baby and have a funeral once it was born.

Rosie - posted on 12/10/2011

8,657

30

315

i dont' think sh'es given birth to the baby yet. she lost it and said that she was going to wait to deliver it naturally instead of having drugs to help induce it. of course she might have and not told the media, which i wouldn't blame her one bit, but last i knew she hadn't delivered the baby.

Merry - posted on 12/10/2011

9,274

169

248

"Women older than age 35 have a higher risk of miscarriage than do younger women," the Mayo Clinic explains. "At age 35, you have about a 20 percent risk. At age 40, the risk is about 40 percent. And at age 45, it's about 80 percent." Paternal age plays a role as well.

Merry - posted on 12/10/2011

9,274

169

248

Pos[edit]Children
Name Date of Birth Notes
1 Joshua "Josh" James March 3, 1988 (age 23) Married to Anna Keller on September 26, 2008
2 Jana Marie January 12, 1990 (age 21) Birth via C-section
3 John-David
4 Jill Michelle May 17, 1991 (age 20)
5 Jessa Lauren November 4, 1992 (age 19)
6 Jinger Nicole December 21, 1993 (age 17) Homebirth
7 Joseph Garrett January 20, 1995 (age 16) Homebirth
8 Josiah Matthew August 28, 1996 (age 15)
9 Joy-Anna October 28, 1997 (age 14)
10 Jedidiah Robert December 30, 1998 (age 12)
11 Jeremiah Robert
12 Jason Michael April 21, 2000 (age 11)
13 James Andrew July 7, 2001 (age 10)
14 Justin Samuel November 15, 2002 (age 9)
15 Jackson Levi May 23, 2004 (age 7) Birth via C-section; featured in Discovery Health special
16 Johannah Faith October 11, 2005 (age 6) Birth featured in a Discovery Health special
17 Jennifer Danielle August 2, 2007 (age 4) Birth featured in a Discovery Health special
18 Jordyn-Grace Makiya December 18, 2008 (2 years 11 months) Birth via C-section
19 Josie Brooklyn December 10, 2009 (2 years 0 months) Birth via emergency C-section; featured in a TLC special

So she had one c section then tons of vbacs then more csections as she got older. Seems like a pattern to me

Merry - posted on 12/10/2011

9,274

169

248

I think both sets of twins were c sections and one more.....not sure who or why but yes that's a lot of c sections too. Her uterus is very scarred and very used from how many placentas it's held. She should have it removed and bronzed

Jodi - posted on 12/10/2011

26,310

36

3891

I have to agree with Laura here. They weren't studying a case where there had already been 19 pregnancies. The fact that the results showed "the frequency of hypertension, diabetes, placental complications, operative interventions at delivery, macrosomic infants, chromosomal abbreviations and fetal/neonatal anomalies increased with increasing birth order" would indicate that for the group studied, this wasn't an issue.



BUT, it wasn't studied with the view that someone might be inclined to have 20 children. The very fact that it WAS found that these risk factors increased with each subsequent child might be dangerous in the case of the Duggars.



Secondly, the study also concluded that "risk assessment should be based on past and present history and not simply on the basis of parity." So what we have here is a situation whereby she gave birth to a child at 25 weeks. THEN she miscarried/gave birth to a dead fetus at around 20 weeks (yes I calculated it). So she is now in a situation where she should take her past history seriously.



You are right, they don't know what caused the baby to die. And we probably will never know. But give her AGE, it is a very big possibility her placenta was not functioning properly (that happens with age). Miscarriage is also significantly higher, as are genetic/chromosomal defects (which are frequently the cause of miscarriage). Add these two age based complications into the equation with her last two pregnancies, and I'd take the risk assessment very seriously.



Now, I have also discovered that at least THREE of her other children were born by c-section. I can't say if there were more - I was only able to confirm that. So that is now not only 20 pregnancies, BUT also 4 c-sections. SO yes, the risks ARE high. I can't see how anyone can even deny that.

[deleted account]

Dyan - I’ve never seen an article in any medical journal that states that multiple pregnancies are detrimental to your body (or that it turns a women’s uterus into “ground meat”). Unless you’ve personally examined Mrs. Duggar’s uterus, I don’t think you can make statements about its condition. You simply do not know. On the other hand, there are abundant articles stating that having multiple children (even 10 or more children) is not dangerous if taking place in a developed country and if the mother is receiving adequate prenatal care (see two references below). I don’t think I’m the one that is being willfully ignorant of the facts. Quite the contrary. Mrs. Duggar is an intelligent woman and is capable of assessing the risks to her own health in continuing to attempt to get pregnant.
[3] The clinical outcome in pregnancies of grand grand multiparous women.
AUTHORS: Juntunen K; Kirkinen P; Kauppila A
AUTHOR AFFILIATION: The Family Federation, Infertility Clinic of Oulu, Finland.
SOURCE: Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1997 Sep;76(8):755-9
CITATION IDS: PMID: 9348253 UI: 98006476
ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: To longitudinally evaluate maternal and neonatal complications with relation to birth order, with specific emphasis on grand grand multiparity (at least 10th para). METHODS: The maternal and neonatal outcome of 1200 pregnancies/deliveries in 96 grand grand multiparas was longitudinally investigated in 4 stages of the mothers' life: the primiparas, the multiparas (2nd-5th paras), the grand multiparas (6th-9th paras) and the grand grand multiparas stage.
RESULTS: The frequency of hypertension, diabetes, placental complications, operative interventions at delivery, macrosomic infants, chromosomal abbreviations and fetal/neonatal anomalies increased with increasing birth order, being at a maximum in grand grand multiparas. The preterm delivery and perinatal mortality rate did not differ between the 3 groups of multiparas. Perinatal outcome was good in each group.
CONCLUSIONS: Grand grand multiparity carries the risk of hypertensive and diabetic complications, which, in turn, often lead to induced or operative deliveries and placental complications. However, grand grand multiparity is not a major problem in societies with a good maternal health care system.
Grandmultiparae in a modern setting.
British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2002 Mar;109(3):249-53
Bugg GJ, Atwal GS, Maresh M.
St Mary's Hospital, Manchester, UK.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the incidence of antenatal and intrapartum complications and neonatal outcomes among women who had previously delivered five or more times (grandmultiparous) with that of age-matched control women who had previously delivered two or three times (multiparous).
CONCLUSION: This study suggests that in a developed country with satisfactory health care conditions, grandmultiparity should not be considered dangerous,and risk assessment should be based on past and present history and not simply on the basis of parity.
PMID: 11950178 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Rosie - posted on 12/10/2011

8,657

30

315

i'm not understanding why you are choosing to ignore facts about what multiple pregnancies does to your body. or how her age causes an 80% increase in the chance for miscarriage.
her uterus has no more area that isn't scarred for the placenta to implant properly. every time she gets pregnant she increases the chances of something happening to the next child. 19 kids made her uterus into ground meat. it's not functional anymore. are you choosing to be willfully ignorant of the medical facts because you like them so much? i dont' get it...

[deleted account]

Without knowing the particular cause of death for this particular fetus, I don't think it's reasonable to ascribe the death to her age or the previous number of pregnancies she had. Based on what we know, the fetus had no heartbeat. That doesn't exactly sound like her womb just couldn't hold it in anymore. It's not like she went into preterm labor. She could have picked up an infection for all we know (particularly since she traveled to foreign countries during her pregnancies).

[deleted account]

I'm sorry they lost a child, that's sad. I do wish she'd stop. I think she needs psychiatric intervention for wanting child after child after child. To me, it's like animal hoarding only cleaner.

Rosie - posted on 12/09/2011

8,657

30

315

um, it's totally a sign. its medical science your body is not able to successfully carry that many babies. it's sheer luck that she's been able to carry as many as she has, and that her last one didnt die. how people can't see that is beyond me.
i feel bad for them, miscarriage is heartbreaking-especially one that far along. i wouldn't wish it on anyone-i do wish however that they would stop trying to make children before it kills her or another child.

Merry - posted on 12/09/2011

9,274

169

248

But it's not her first child. A woman with 17 previous pregnancies and 18 healthy kids delivers a micro preemie who barely survives. Then she conceives again and looses the baby a few weeks before she delivered the previous one! I think it's definetly a pattern. The first miscarriage? Fluke. This one? At her age' with her amount of pregnancies and children and considering Josie was so early, it's no coincidense.
Her body can't hold a pregnancy anymore!
It's not a fluke it's a definite pattern of her reproductive system shutting down due to use and age.
If she was on her first pregnancy st her age she might have a chance at another healthy pregnancy but considering the amount of use her uterus has had AND her age AND her last pregnancy barely making it to viability. That is a sign

Melissa - posted on 12/09/2011

378

25

4

i think maybe its a sign saying it is her body having enough in her case because she had a difficult pregnancy with the last. hhowever in tmost cases i would not believe that because most people don't have that many children already. If they believe they are intended to have more children adopt or foster other children!

Bonnie - posted on 12/09/2011

4,813

22

257

Personally, I don't think it is a sign. Women have miscarriages all the time whether it's their first, fifth, or twentieth child in this case. No one is going to tell a couple who has a miscarriage during their first or second pregnancy that it is a sign and they should just let it go. People will be devastated no matter how many children they have, but they will get over it soon enough with their 19 other children.

I think they likely should have stopped because of Michelle's age and how tough Josie's situation was. I doubt they will stop even now though.

Lacye - posted on 12/09/2011

2,011

31

160

I don't see it as a sign that God is telling her not to have any more but as a sign that she wasn't meant to have this particular child. Rather like her first miscarriage, he didn't mean for her to forgo birth control but he didn't mean for that child to be born. IMO, the miscarriages were God's way to make her stronger as a person.

I feel terrible for the Duggers though. Not just her but her whole family because they have lost a being that was important to them. It doesn't matter if the child was born or not, they still loved it and they all have to be hurting right now. :(

Sal - posted on 12/09/2011

1,816

16

33

No a miscarriage isn't gods way of telling her no more because it can happen at 18 with a first bub or as here 45 with her 20th its just this time baby wasnt viable for what ever reason and in 21 pregnancies the odds of having a miscarriage must start to appear.
I think her health and medical advice should be taken more seriously as a reason to stop rather than a "sign from god" such as this, however I doubt that modern medical advice will get to the dugar like a " sign" will

[deleted account]

The loss of an unborn childs life is always devastating.It does not matter if its the first child or the 20th child.



I have to ask myself do some of these people have a heart?



We are mothers.



Who have experienced the joy a child brings and i know i would never want to experience the other side of that.



I think we need to be understanding and respectful.

Its a horrible part of pregnancy that many go through unfortunately.I wish them all the best.I hope they can heal.Best wishes to them.From one mother to another.



I have only watched one show on the Duggars.I believe shes entitled to make her own decisions.Shes an adult.She does not deserve nasty/hateful comments.No one deserves that period.

[deleted account]

"Any loss is devastating. Nobody ever has the right to dismiss a mother's grief. "

I agree 100% with this statement whether it would have been baby #1, 5, 7, or 21. The comments left behind are deplorable, IMO. I do not care for the Duggar family at all for a plethora of reasons, but that does not warrant harrasing, hateful comments. A woman lost her baby. She also happens to be a woman in the public spotlight. I hope the Duggar family can move past the grief. But I do not feel Michelle Duggar should be putting her body and this Earth through any more pregnancies.

If you see this, leave this form field blank.
Powered by RESPECT not THUMPS

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms