World's smallest mom gives birth (again)

Sherri - posted on 07/06/2012

I responded not realizing this thread is 2 1/2yrs old. So I deleted it.

Sarah - posted on 07/06/2012

While I think she should go on birth controll, seriously who are we to feel we can decide weather or not they should re-produce? This is an innate, instinct and desire, all human beings possess! I'm sure she loves and values her own life so why would she feel as though not exsisting would be better than a wanted child? She wouldn't! Her and her offspring are valuable human beings, despite their disabilities! I mean come on, crackheads have child after child after child, these are just two people who want to reproduce and love their offspring. I would risk dying to carry my offspring, but on the same note 3 is enough! In her case I think one is enough, but I also realize this is not my decision... we shouldnt judge

Christy - posted on 01/04/2010

i just read through this entire posting and can't believe how off topic people have gone, even turning it into a religious debate a couple of times.

anyways, here's my opinion: many women want to be mothers badly, some of us even dream about it when we're still children. i can understand the selfishness that would make this woman try for her first child. i don't think it's right, but i can't honestly say that i would be above it. that being said, after she was lucky enough to have one baby live through prematurity AND the contraction of her debilitating disease i find it very wrong that she had not just one but two more children. when i had my daughter she changed my whole life. i don't think about myself any more, i think about her. this woman went into 2 subsequent pregnancies knowing that she could leave her previous children motherless...i can't even comprehend this. and there was really no guarantee that her children would even live since they were definitely going to be preemies. what if she would have (pardon the odd way this will sound) a premature preemie? she already knows it won't be full-term but what if there were complications that would make it come earlier still? i think this woman was irresponsible in having more than one child for the children sakes.

?? - posted on 12/30/2009

There are no gaurentee's but there are plenty of risks that are not worth taking, a lot of pain, hurt, emotions wasted on something that is completely 100% unnecessary. After she had her first child, that child should have been her priority... her second child was a risk she should NOT have taken... her third child was absolutely stupid to have risked and she says that she's open to another risk because she'd like to have another..... there is no condoning that attitude in my mind. Her 'want' and 'need' to keep having babies does not come before the 3 kids she already has... it's an unnecessary, stupid, foolish, selfish and irresponsible risk. She should be getting her tubes tied or he need to be snipped, either way, they need to take the ultimate preventative step at this point so that they don't leave the 3 children they already have without a mother or a 4th child wishing they hadn't killed their mother...

Heather - posted on 12/30/2009

Esther, I hear ya, and I'm not saying that I think its ok. If she were to get pregnant again...I would have more of an opinion about it, but the fact is that these children have been born, and there is no point to debate whether or not she should have children, she has three...I think , along with her Dr's and mother, that it was a huge risk that she took with each pregnancy, but, the children are here, she, and her 3 children survived. Another point, is that even the healthiest woman can have a baby who has a debilitating illness or disease, or a premature birth. There are no guarantees when it comes to childbirth, healthy or not.

Esther - posted on 12/30/2009

Quoting heather:

I think, as mothers, it is our natural response to feel strongly about this. No one, especially a mother, wants to hear about a child being born with an illness. Its heart breaking, however, as another post mentioned, maybe the mother dosent see her illness as being that debilitating, it all boils down to quality of life. If these children still have a good quality of life, who are we to say they should not have been born? I am a nurse who has taken care of many, very sick kids, and, most of the time, even though they are sick, they are still happy, and they still have some quality of life. I personally would not risk having a sick baby, when the odds are 50/50. I would try to adopt, or something like that...but who am I to tell another person that they should not have children, as long as the children were being taken care of properly and not being abused or neglected.

But my problem is that her disease is just one of 3 (generally speaking) risks she is knowingly chosing to expose these kids to. The others are (1) health issues resulting from being born prematurely and (2) mom (or mom & baby) dying in the process because of her disability.

Heather - posted on 12/29/2009

I think, as mothers, it is our natural response to feel strongly about this. No one, especially a mother, wants to hear about a child being born with an illness. Its heart breaking, however, as another post mentioned, maybe the mother dosent see her illness as being that debilitating, it all boils down to quality of life. If these children still have a good quality of life, who are we to say they should not have been born? I am a nurse who has taken care of many, very sick kids, and, most of the time, even though they are sick, they are still happy, and they still have some quality of life. I personally would not risk having a sick baby, when the odds are 50/50. I would try to adopt, or something like that...but who am I to tell another person that they should not have children, as long as the children were being taken care of properly and not being abused or neglected.

Jaime - posted on 12/28/2009

Quoting Mary:

Quoting Cathy:

I don't feel that the issue here is whether or not a genetic conditon or illness will be passed on. It happens all the time. If only people with perfect bloodlines were allowed to reproduce maybe undesirable conditions would be eliminated but most the world would be up in arms about their basic human rights taken from them.

The issue I have here is the same that I have with any mother, who have suffered from life threatening issues as a result of pregnancy. I know a mother who having struggled to concieve her first child later on in life (already in her 40's), went through a very tramatic birth. She developed high blood pressure, preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, and before her son was born went into kidney failure. Her son had to be induced a month early, c-section was not even an option due to her condition. So after making a full recovery (it was very touch and go), having a beautiful healthy child, she still wanted to try for another. To me, that seemed totally insane. You've got a child, your priorty is to him. You don't risk your life again. Be a mother to the child you have and be grateful that you have him, he deserves to have a Mum!

I completely agree!  For me, the chances of her passing on her condition were a non-issue.  As I'm sure we all know, there are no gaurantees that any of our children will be healthy, regardless of our genetic make-up.  At least for this mother, she has lived into adulthood, and her health has been decent enough to survive 3 pregnancies.  She's more than equipped to help her children that have inherited this disorder learn how to cope as well as thrive.

It is only the decision by both parents to risk her life for another child that I take exception to.  As I've said earlier, I really don't understand it.  There is no greater joy, or priority for me than tkaing care of my daughter. I cannot understand, condone, or excuse a mother who does not see that she is so very lucky with what she already has, and would risk it all for more.

 

I also agree that this issue is not about her passing on a debilitating disease, so much as risking her life to have a child.  But, coming from a family with a mother that has suffered much of her life with a debilitating disease, would have made me think about having children if it had been passed to me and I had the potential to pass it on to my offspring.  I was lucky not to have it passed on to me.  I would never ever judge or emotionally condemn a person for choosing to have a child if they had a debilitating illness or disease because it comes down to choice (not I nor anyone can take that freedom away).  My mother chose to have children and so did my sister who also has NF 1...and now my nephew...       I respect their decisions and hope that one day there will be more known about their condition to help ease, if not cure the disease altogether.  I agree that it would be difficult to respect the choice of a mother that knowingly puts her life at risk to have another child, when there are two other children that need her to be alive.  And I guess this goes a bit in line with my frustration at a mother that continues to have child, after child, after child (even if she's healthy)...because it all comes down to selfishness---I want, I want, I want without thinking about the other children that already exist and require so much of your attention already.  If it's a matter of wanting more children, then I believe adoption makes the most sense...if it's a matter of wanting more biological children...then it's not really about the children, it's about the want.

Mary - posted on 12/23/2009

Quoting Cathy:

I don't feel that the issue here is whether or not a genetic conditon or illness will be passed on. It happens all the time. If only people with perfect bloodlines were allowed to reproduce maybe undesirable conditions would be eliminated but most the world would be up in arms about their basic human rights taken from them.

The issue I have here is the same that I have with any mother, who have suffered from life threatening issues as a result of pregnancy. I know a mother who having struggled to concieve her first child later on in life (already in her 40's), went through a very tramatic birth. She developed high blood pressure, preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, and before her son was born went into kidney failure. Her son had to be induced a month early, c-section was not even an option due to her condition. So after making a full recovery (it was very touch and go), having a beautiful healthy child, she still wanted to try for another. To me, that seemed totally insane. You've got a child, your priorty is to him. You don't risk your life again. Be a mother to the child you have and be grateful that you have him, he deserves to have a Mum!

I completely agree!  For me, the chances of her passing on her condition were a non-issue.  As I'm sure we all know, there are no gaurantees that any of our children will be healthy, regardless of our genetic make-up.  At least for this mother, she has lived into adulthood, and her health has been decent enough to survive 3 pregnancies.  She's more than equipped to help her children that have inherited this disorder learn how to cope as well as thrive.

It is only the decision by both parents to risk her life for another child that I take exception to.  As I've said earlier, I really don't understand it.  There is no greater joy, or priority for me than tkaing care of my daughter. I cannot understand, condone, or excuse a mother who does not see that she is so very lucky with what she already has, and would risk it all for more.

Veronica - posted on 12/23/2009

Ok - my first post was rather irrational - it was my immediate reaction to most of the posts on here. I was very taken a back, and some of it hit a nerve. I apologize for the name calling, and lack of a more mature response.

As for my religious part, I wasn't telling anyone what they should and shouldn't believe, i was simply putting in my opinion, and in my own faith how i felt about this. I think I have that right to voice my opinion from my religious stand point, as everything in my life is viewed through "what would Jesus do" - type of life. Some may take it as offensive, as I can take non-believers descriminating my Lord - as an offense, but even the non-believers are entitled to their right to not believe -- that is NOT my place to judge or tell them otherwise.

So - with that off my chest - The first question I would like to answer - "God must be a jerk, if he allows pain suffering, etc." (not exact quote, but its to the same affect) In my belief the pain and suffering and death in this world are a pure result of the first original sin - Adam and Eve eating of the tree of knowledge. Therefore, we were made to live off the land, toil, women to have painful birth, and death to all of us. So stems the diseases, suffering and turmoil we all endure in our lives. Therefore, Satan is who has put this upon us, as he was the serpent who tempted Eve., and God - giving us free will of choice - otherwise he could not unconditionally Love us - had this happen to fulfill the greater prophecy later in life - Jesus Christ.
I think things do happen for a reason, there is a greater purpose for it in life. If God didn't put the blind, deaf, and crippled here - then the prophecy of Jesus and his healings wouldn't have been able to be fullfilled. And that goes for everything that happens in this world - good and bad. It all ties into one- to fullfill the Lord's prophecies that will eventually lead to the end of days.
Enough of that for now -- that is how I VIEW the world in my Faith - how i feel the world ticks, why i feel the way I do in my life and the surrounding - I AM NOT TRYING TO TELL ANYONE WHAT TO BELIEVE OR THAT IM ALL KNOWING -- because Im not -- this is my explanation of how I veiw life.

NOw that that is cleared -- I simply would like to say this. Thinking about this woman's situation - I really do not understand why she would put herself/children through this at all. Let alone not just have one child, but three. Its baffeling to me, also. However, just because I do not understand her situation, her mind, or her heart - and I certainly do not understand God's will for us -- so it's hard to make any comment about this particular case. Im guessing to, regardless if she has one child or the three or even more -- she probably won't live very long anyways with the condition she is living with - so maybe in her own way - she wanted to make the most of her life - including having children - for as long as she could. Children can survive without a mother - and I would just pray that the family and her husband have that in their best interest for the what ifs.

And adoption does sound like a wonderful choice, but honestly - would the adoption agency allow someone in her health condition to adopt? To be capable of taking care of children? Especially when the doctors didn't even want her having children of her own? The adoption stuff isn't like the puppypound folks, there are tons of considerations when it comes to adoption - including finances, background/history, medical etc etc. So the adoption option was probably out for her.

Its a hard call here, there are rights, and there is the right thing to do - i agree. But i don't have anything against having faith that things will turn out right either.
A very strong issue. What I ultimatlly feel, is there was a reason she was able to conceive, three times! and all the babies survived, and that is where I will leave it.

Cathy - posted on 12/23/2009

I don't feel that the issue here is whether or not a genetic conditon or illness will be passed on. It happens all the time. If only people with perfect bloodlines were allowed to reproduce maybe undesirable conditions would be eliminated but most the world would be up in arms about their basic human rights taken from them.

The issue I have here is the same that I have with any mother, who have suffered from life threatening issues as a result of pregnancy. I know a mother who having struggled to concieve her first child later on in life (already in her 40's), went through a very tramatic birth. She developed high blood pressure, preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, and before her son was born went into kidney failure. Her son had to be induced a month early, c-section was not even an option due to her condition. So after making a full recovery (it was very touch and go), having a beautiful healthy child, she still wanted to try for another. To me, that seemed totally insane. You've got a child, your priorty is to him. You don't risk your life again. Be a mother to the child you have and be grateful that you have him, he deserves to have a Mum!

Jaime - posted on 12/23/2009

Quoting Jo:

Quoting Jaime-Leigh:

Quoting Jo:

Quoting Jaime-Leigh:
Although it is not the same, I have to include that women that are infected with HIV or AIDS (although they are still not prevented from reproducing) are strongly advised NOT to have a child. And for all the god speak in this thread, would it be condoned if a woman chose to have a baby knowing that she was HIV positive?

I just wanted to address this because I know a few people who are HIV positive and I don't know the extact level, or whatever it is called, of their infection who are given the full on go ahead to have children and their children are born without being infected. There are ways to prevent passing HIV onto your children - I honestly don't know all the details and exactly what they have to do with all of it or if there is only a certain type of the virus you can have where it won't be passed on, but people with HIV are able to have babies without infecting their children.

I realize that there are women that can have healthy babies and not infect them with HIV but my comment was more to the point of addressing what everyone is bothered by---the risk of passing on a debilitating disease, etc, etc.  And like it or not, a woman that is HIV positive can still pass on the disease to her unborn if the anti-retroviral medication she takes does not work...so the risk is still the same and that is what I am talking about.  I don't know that a doctor would advise a woman with HIV to have a child...they certainly wouldn't prevent it from happening, but I doubt they would advise her to go ahead and procreate knowing the risk she poses to the fetus.  I don't know enough about this yet to know if what I am saying is accurate, so please take this comment with a grain of salt...I mean no disrespect to anyone...I was just trying to point out another instance where a woman's desire to have a child is not so readily supported.

I agree with you :) sorry if it sounded like I was disagree'ing with you lol that wasn't my intent at all - simply pointing out that there are ways to minimize the risk of passing on HIV where as with these other diseases.. like brittle bone disease... there is nothing a person can do to minimize the risk just hope the odds are on their side. And that is one reason why I would say it is even more negligent than someone with... say... MS, or arthritis, or bad vision! to purposely have children knowing that their genes may pass along these health issues.

No worries Jo, I just wanted to make sure I was clear on what I was saying because sometimes I can ramble off on a tangent and make no sense.  I can see your point about HIV having proven measures to significantly minimize the risk of passing it along to offspring...although the risk factor is still there.  My mom has a disease called NF 1(neurofibromatosis which is non-life threatening) and three of my sisters and now my nephew have all been diagnosed with the same disease.  I did some extensive research on it when I was in university for a biology project, and learned that there is a strong correlation between severe learning disabilities and this disease (impaired or delayed motor function, poor coordination, etc).  Along with that, NF causes benign tumours to grow on the nerve endings, which although they can be extremely painful, can more seriously hinder physical mobility and almost certainly cause bone deformities (scoliosis in the spine in particular).  If I had been diagnosed with my mom's disease I don't know wheter or not I would have had my child because I have watched her suffer for many years (both emotionally and physically).  It's not enough that she has tumours on her nerve endings, but there are soft bumps that cover her entire body, which cause serious self-esteem issues and can also inhibit sight, hearing or speech.  One time my mom was shopping and a lady came up to her and wanted to recommend a wart specialist so that she could have her bumps removed!  I though, first of all lady you have no idea if these are even warts, and second of all, wtf? Is it really that horrible that my mother's face is covered in bumps? They don't seep, they don't smell, they aren't hairy and gross...they are just raised skin all over her body....With that being said, NF 1 is not impossible to live with, as my sisters have all managed thus far, but the disease is a result of genetic mutation and it is unclear what can or will happen generations from now if it is continually passed on through my family.  My nephew is three and had been diagnosed, but it is unclear as to how it will affect him.  The real kicker with this disease is that it doesn't start to display many of the symptoms until puberty (the change in hormones triggers something) and also, when a woman is pregnant it can cause a spike in the symptoms because of the change in hormones.  I have twin sisters that both have NF 1 and my sister Victoria has two kids.  She has significantly more bumps on her body than my sister Carol-Ann who does not yet have children.  I do everything that I can to learn about NF 1 and go to genetic counselling when there are more discoveries or research being conducted so that I can help them and be supportive of their struggles.  It's not easy for them going through it and it's especially not easy to sit back, helpless and watch.

Keenan - posted on 12/23/2009

Quoting Cathy:

Quoting Keenan :

Its unfortunate that your child does have autism. I have a cousin with a form of autism, called Asbergers Disease. (I believe thats how it is spelled.) I was using that as an example. If I offended you at all then I apolgize. We are all imperfect. Thats all that I am trying to say. There is no such thing as a "perfect child", or person. My son has an anger problem, although he was born,  "healthy", by no means is he perfect. Although, I would like to think so, because he is my heart and joy. And I bet your child is your heart and joy. Its just sad that the world is full of things that really cant be prevented. Such as autism, cerebal palsy, and cancers..to name a few. But I do apologize once again if I have offended you. I didnt put that there to offend any mothers. That was not my intention.

You need to pick your words more carefully. I've never considered it "unfortunate" to have a child with autism but a learning experience. You learn to appreciate far more simple things and see great potential in their unique abilities. I'm much more open minded about all disabilities as a result . Please DO NOT compare disabilities to diseases. It is Aspergers syndrome not disease.

I accept that were not dilberately trying to offend.

 It is just said that the world is full of things that cannot be prevented . That is all I am trying to say. I know children with are autisim and they are very bright.  I am not saying it is unfortunate for YOU because your child is autistic. Thats not at all close to what im saying.  And your right, EVERY CHILD is a gift!

?? - posted on 12/23/2009

Quoting Jaime-Leigh:

Quoting Jo:

Quoting Jaime-Leigh:
Although it is not the same, I have to include that women that are infected with HIV or AIDS (although they are still not prevented from reproducing) are strongly advised NOT to have a child. And for all the god speak in this thread, would it be condoned if a woman chose to have a baby knowing that she was HIV positive?

I just wanted to address this because I know a few people who are HIV positive and I don't know the extact level, or whatever it is called, of their infection who are given the full on go ahead to have children and their children are born without being infected. There are ways to prevent passing HIV onto your children - I honestly don't know all the details and exactly what they have to do with all of it or if there is only a certain type of the virus you can have where it won't be passed on, but people with HIV are able to have babies without infecting their children.

I realize that there are women that can have healthy babies and not infect them with HIV but my comment was more to the point of addressing what everyone is bothered by---the risk of passing on a debilitating disease, etc, etc.  And like it or not, a woman that is HIV positive can still pass on the disease to her unborn if the anti-retroviral medication she takes does not work...so the risk is still the same and that is what I am talking about.  I don't know that a doctor would advise a woman with HIV to have a child...they certainly wouldn't prevent it from happening, but I doubt they would advise her to go ahead and procreate knowing the risk she poses to the fetus.  I don't know enough about this yet to know if what I am saying is accurate, so please take this comment with a grain of salt...I mean no disrespect to anyone...I was just trying to point out another instance where a woman's desire to have a child is not so readily supported.

I agree with you :) sorry if it sounded like I was disagree'ing with you lol that wasn't my intent at all - simply pointing out that there are ways to minimize the risk of passing on HIV where as with these other diseases.. like brittle bone disease... there is nothing a person can do to minimize the risk just hope the odds are on their side. And that is one reason why I would say it is even more negligent than someone with... say... MS, or arthritis, or bad vision! to purposely have children knowing that their genes may pass along these health issues.

Cathy - posted on 12/23/2009

Every child IS a gift. In risking her life for every subsequent pregnancy after having her first, she risked leaving a child motherless. Her motivation WAS selfish. Her choice was not in the best interest of her living child/children. It was her own desire for more.

After all is said and done though, I wish her and her children good health.

Cathy - posted on 12/23/2009

Quoting Keenan :

Its unfortunate that your child does have autism. I have a cousin with a form of autism, called Asbergers Disease. (I believe thats how it is spelled.) I was using that as an example. If I offended you at all then I apolgize. We are all imperfect. Thats all that I am trying to say. There is no such thing as a "perfect child", or person. My son has an anger problem, although he was born,  "healthy", by no means is he perfect. Although, I would like to think so, because he is my heart and joy. And I bet your child is your heart and joy. Its just sad that the world is full of things that really cant be prevented. Such as autism, cerebal palsy, and cancers..to name a few. But I do apologize once again if I have offended you. I didnt put that there to offend any mothers. That was not my intention.

You need to pick your words more carefully. I've never considered it "unfortunate" to have a child with autism but a learning experience. You learn to appreciate far more simple things and see great potential in their unique abilities. I'm much more open minded about all disabilities as a result . Please DO NOT compare disabilities to diseases. It is Aspergers syndrome not disease.

I accept that were not dilberately trying to offend.

Iris - posted on 12/22/2009

I have to agree with the majority here. I can't see a reason for this woman to have the second and the third child knowing she will be putting both herself and her unborn child in danger. There are plenty of children in the world in need of a family, why not adopt a child instead of taking the risk of leaving your child without a mother.
It's our responsibilities as mothers to take care of them emotionally and physically until they become adults. How is she going to do that if she keeps on knowingly risking her life? Why isn't one child enough when you know the risks? In the end her luck will run out.

Jaime - posted on 12/22/2009

Quoting Jo:

Quoting Jaime-Leigh:
Although it is not the same, I have to include that women that are infected with HIV or AIDS (although they are still not prevented from reproducing) are strongly advised NOT to have a child. And for all the god speak in this thread, would it be condoned if a woman chose to have a baby knowing that she was HIV positive?

I just wanted to address this because I know a few people who are HIV positive and I don't know the extact level, or whatever it is called, of their infection who are given the full on go ahead to have children and their children are born without being infected. There are ways to prevent passing HIV onto your children - I honestly don't know all the details and exactly what they have to do with all of it or if there is only a certain type of the virus you can have where it won't be passed on, but people with HIV are able to have babies without infecting their children.

I realize that there are women that can have healthy babies and not infect them with HIV but my comment was more to the point of addressing what everyone is bothered by---the risk of passing on a debilitating disease, etc, etc.  And like it or not, a woman that is HIV positive can still pass on the disease to her unborn if the anti-retroviral medication she takes does not work...so the risk is still the same and that is what I am talking about.  I don't know that a doctor would advise a woman with HIV to have a child...they certainly wouldn't prevent it from happening, but I doubt they would advise her to go ahead and procreate knowing the risk she poses to the fetus.  I don't know enough about this yet to know if what I am saying is accurate, so please take this comment with a grain of salt...I mean no disrespect to anyone...I was just trying to point out another instance where a woman's desire to have a child is not so readily supported.

Wanda - posted on 12/22/2009

I feel the need to weight in on this debate again. As I said in my original post I am the mother of a micro preemie and he will be an only. I don't have a debilitating disease to pass on, I have what is called incompetant cervix (unfortunately it can't be diagnosed until after you're pregnant). If I get pregnant again I WILL have another preemie. There are preventative messures (cerlage, complete bed rest) but no guarantees. How would it be fair to my son to have his mom flat on her back all day and not able to look after him? My son spent 114 days in hospital. How would it be fair to my little guy if I was constantly leaving him at home to make trips to the hospital to visit the new baby? And there are a lot of issues that go along with preemie babies. We got lucky and my son is healthy, since coming home no issues. Would I take that risk again? NO! I became close to several other families during our hospital stay and am all too familiar with the health issues associated with prematurity. There was one family with a set of triplets who all have cerebal palsy. There's another little guy with cerebal palsy and cystic fibrosis, the CP affects his ability to swallow so he'll have to eat puree for the rest of his life, he's also being checked for nerological problems. There was one family that lost their son to an infection called NEC (very commonin preemies). There are too many risks involved, I saw and went throught too much, I couldn't do it again.

I know there are moms out there with multiple preemies and I'm by no means judging them. All I'm saying is that I couldn't do it again. And then to throw a dibilitating disease into the mix - no way could I do it. I want to be here to watch my son grow.

Diana - posted on 12/22/2009

Quoting Jaime-Leigh:

"She may have had the right to have her kids, but that doesn't mean it was the right thing to do."
I saw this quote posted and then re-posted by others a few times--and for good reason. This quote does the best job of describing just what it is that bothers so many people about a woman's choice to have three children, knowing the high risk of debilitating disease and premature birth defects being passed on to the children.
When I started out reading this thread, I was on the fence, not quite sure how strongly I should feel against a woman's right to have children. But as I read, I realized that there is a realistic and sound argument against this woman. Although it is not the same, I have to include that women that are infected with HIV or AIDS (although they are still not prevented from reproducing) are strongly advised NOT to have a child. And for all the god speak in this thread, would it be condoned if a woman chose to have a baby knowing that she was HIV positive? A child won't die from poor eye-sight or have poor quality of life if they have to wear glasses to read (90% of the population needs glasses). It stands to reason that although a woman can reproduce, does NOT mean that she should....it's just not a rational mind-set. And furthermore, when discussing the issue of happiness...if you need to have 3 children born from your uterus in order to be happy (despite disease, defect and decreased quality of life to each child) then perhaps you're missing the point of happiness. You don't have children to be happy...you have children in addition to your happiness...children don't make miserable people suddenly happy as clams--it just doesn't work that way!

I think this is an extremely important point. Children are not there solely for the purpose of making us happy. They certainly can and do, but that is not their entire purpose. It's like getting more money or more stuff or losing more weight-those things in themselves can't make someone happy. That's one of the things that troubled me so much about the lady with 8 babies-she talked about a "hole" that she wanted all these kids to fill-and it's not their problem.

And I still don't understand why she couldn't just adopt-especially after having one child born of her own body. Because, after that point, she's experienced the joy and anticipation of pregnancy-and also the inevitable feeling of NOT beating the odds.

Also, as several people have pointed out, this is a *debate* forum. We debate about all sorts of things-and this just happened to catch the Esther's eye and make her wonder what others think. We're not bothering this woman-we're simply debating how we feel about her choices-and it's not even just her, because as Jo pointed out, there are many other women in situations like this who make the same decision. She just happens to be the person that the news story was about. I won't debate about religion, because it has NO place in this argument. NONE. Your religion does not and cannot effect my feelings on an issue. The only acceptable place it has in an argument like this is for your own reasoning-not to berate others or beat them over the head with your own personal belief system.  The fact that I disagree with you doesn't mean that I need to go read the Bible or that I need to be ashamed of myself.



Edited to add: I should point out that there's a general you in the last paragraph-I'm not directing that at you, Jamie-Leigh!

?? - posted on 12/22/2009

Quoting Keenan:

Maybe she thought the odds were in her favor. Who knows. People are saying maybe she should have tried for one then just stopped.

Keenan - posted on 12/22/2009

A child is a gift, a true blessing. When you have a child, it changes you as a person, for the better. It DOES make you appreciate life. When I look down at my son, I am still amazed that I had part in creating such a beautiful, loving baby boy. He is an amazing joy. Its such a amazing feeling when you feel the first kick, or movements of your child when pregnant. Giving birth, although painful, is worth every bit of pain when you see the little miracle you've created in love. I bet that woman wanted to feel and go through what we all have gone through. Yes, she took a chance. I dont think it was her putting her happiness before her childs health though. I dont think any parent is selfish enough to do that. She just wanted her own little blessing wishing it was healthy of course. Maybe she thought the odds were in her favor. Who knows. People are saying maybe she should have tried for one then just stopped. If she had though, she wouldnt have had a second child that was perfectly fine. Nor would her child have had a sibling that was blood related. I dont know, I guess I am the type of person who sees the good in everyone and believes they shouldbe able to make thier own decsions without being harshly criticized. And I hope that her 3rd child is just as healthy and fine as her 2nd was. Her first is just as big of a blessing as the others. And my heart goes out to her and her entire family.

Mary - posted on 12/22/2009

I hadn't looked at this thread in days, and was surprised at the turn it had taken. I'm surprised at the people who so vehemently support this woman's choice to have a 3rd child. Not first, but third.
I have to admit, I don't understand. We all approach motherhood from different avenues of life, and the importance of it varies from woman to woman. Depending on our past and present, some of us may be a little more appreciative of what a true gift a child is, but also what a gift it is to BE a mother. Perhaps because I spent so very long hoping and dreaming for a baby, I relish and revel in not just her, but in the joy of being her mommy. She is the miracle I never thought would happen, and, for me, she is more than enough. So no, I really can't understand another woman risking that. I could never knowingly do something that could jeopardize or negatively impact my daughter's future, well-being, or happiness. I love her enough to understand that she needs me today, tomorrow, and for a long time to come. I owe it to her to not take needless risks like this woman did, so that I can ensure that I will be there for her for as long as I possibly can.

Not saying I'm right. Not passing judgement on anyone else. That's just my view of my responsibility to my child...and it's why I could never condone this woman's actions.

?? - posted on 12/22/2009

Quoting Jaime-Leigh:

Although it is not the same, I have to include that women that are infected with HIV or AIDS (although they are still not prevented from reproducing) are strongly advised NOT to have a child. And for all the god speak in this thread, would it be condoned if a woman chose to have a baby knowing that she was HIV positive?

Jaime - posted on 12/22/2009

"She may have had the right to have her kids, but that doesn't mean it was the right thing to do."
I saw this quote posted and then re-posted by others a few times--and for good reason. This quote does the best job of describing just what it is that bothers so many people about a woman's choice to have three children, knowing the high risk of debilitating disease and premature birth defects being passed on to the children.
When I started out reading this thread, I was on the fence, not quite sure how strongly I should feel against a woman's right to have children. But as I read, I realized that there is a realistic and sound argument against this woman. Although it is not the same, I have to include that women that are infected with HIV or AIDS (although they are still not prevented from reproducing) are strongly advised NOT to have a child. And for all the god speak in this thread, would it be condoned if a woman chose to have a baby knowing that she was HIV positive? A child won't die from poor eye-sight or have poor quality of life if they have to wear glasses to read (90% of the population needs glasses). It stands to reason that although a woman can reproduce, does NOT mean that she should....it's just not a rational mind-set. And furthermore, when discussing the issue of happiness...if you need to have 3 children born from your uterus in order to be happy (despite disease, defect and decreased quality of life to each child) then perhaps you're missing the point of happiness. You don't have children to be happy...you have children in addition to your happiness...children don't make miserable people suddenly happy as clams--it just doesn't work that way!

JL - posted on 12/22/2009

I had complications with the birth of both of my children. I was told after my second child by 4 different OBGYN's that I should not get pregnant again. It was a high risk to my life to put my body through another pregnancy and therefore any child I would be carrying would also be at risk. They told me though that while that was their recommendation it was my choice and I could surely get pregnant again if I wanted to and take the risk if I wanted.



I chose the route that I think is the one a responsible parent would choose. I had 2 kids at home who needed me alive and well so I found it completely irresponsible for me to gamble and take the risk of getting pregnant again and die in the process leaving 2 kids at home without me and possibly putting an unborn child through a harrowing experience that would lead to their death. NO way I made the responsible choice and decided NO MORE BABIES for me.



I find it hypocritical and judgemental that some women would jump into this discussion to just take the time to berate other women for having an strong opposing opinion about the choice that was made. And I don't think having 6 kids makes anyone a friggin expert on the RIGHT opinon of when someone should or should not have a kid..it is just another opinion like all the other opinions expressed on here.



If you really don't want to thoroughly debate an issue and you would rather just comment about how dispicable you find others opinions just because YOU don't agree then perhaps you should stick to the Welcome page where every one likes to judge eachother. Perhaps you should find a group where everyone agrees and spends all their time patting one another on their back for the choices they have made.



I find it insulting when people of faith use their believe in God to uphold their right to judge others. You base your judgements and the path you take on your religious ideals..that is great for you but not all of us have the same religious ideals or have any religious ideals at all. YOur believes do not make your opinion the RIGHT one it makes it RIGHT FOR YOU but not RIGHT for ME.



If I am not mistaken we do have free will and I am exercising mine. And lets get real here about the people are so worked up about what some women have posted because the indignant responses about name calling and judgement are RIDICULOUS seeing how the I am better than you posts are also full of the same thing they were claiming to find abhorrance to....judgements and name calling..



I mean come on using the term pigs to refer to the women who made comments about the Duggar chick....is a form of judgement in itself. Probably more offensive since it was directed at the women you were having a direct convo with and not directed at some generalized woman that people just know of us as a reality star. When you choose to put your life out their on reality TV or in newspaper articles you should fully expect people to disagree with the choices you make and for them to talk about it, but if you are secure in your ideals then those opinions won't mean anything to you.

?? - posted on 12/22/2009

Except she doesn't have 3 perfectly normal healthy kids... she has 1 that has the same condition as she does, 1 that doesn't and her newest (unless there's been a news release saying either way since this topic was posted) is still to be determined whether he has it too. And they have said that they want more too...



Same with the Duggars who's 19th child was born 4 months premature because her body has done this so many times that her body is unable to bring a baby to full term anymore -- every baby from now on - as I understand it - will be born premature...... and they have said that they will welcome any more pregnancies that come.



Both women are choosing to put their children at risk by continuing to have babies. And there are more women that are just like them with different reasons, different diseases, different conditions, different circumstances that are also still willing to risk their unborn baby and their own lives too just because they either won't take birth control, get it tied up or just keep their damn legs closed.



It pisses me off and it makes me sad. I may only ever get to have 1 baby because my body doesn't want to let me get pregnant... I would cherish any baby... I know what it's like to want a baby and be totally unsure of whether I will get to have one or not. Now I have one... I want another some day but I might not be able too - but if a doctor told me 'there is a chance that having a baby will mean you or the baby, or possibly both of you will die..." I would say no f'ing way. I wouldn't leave my son here without a mother just because I want another baby and be damned if some possibility is gonna stop me. That's just plain stupid.



My son is alive, he needs me, I need him! This 'maybe' baby in the future... I will make sure that the possibilities are more positive than they are negative before I let myself get pregnant again. If I go ahead and get pregnant knowing there is a possibility that it might kill me or my unborn child, I am not being a good parent to my son who is already here, and already needs me.

La - posted on 12/22/2009

No I wouldn't pat her on the back either...she took a chance and LUCKILY it worked in her favor that she or her child didn't die. To congratulate her on that would be supporting her decision to take those risks in the first place. I hope she doesn't plan on having more kids...three perfectly normal healthy kids are not always easy for a fully capable mom let alone one who needs assistance herself with kids who are special needs also.

?? - posted on 12/22/2009

Yea I understand that, but even if she's done well - who's to say that her child will? That's what I meant when I said people who think of it as something you can just 'deal with it' like it's not a big deal, because you're doing fine so she might too... there's just too many maybe's.......... there's nothing more heart breaking than seeing your child picked on, ridiculed, bullied, made to feel less than human over something they had no control over and in a situation like these where the mother knows how hard it CAN be... putting 1, 2, 3 and POSSIBLY more babies lives in the position to deal with those same hardships, even if she did alright - it's cruel.



And I'm not even ONLY talking about THIS woman, I'm talking about in general. It's not the mothers mindset that matters - just because the mother doesn't think it's a 'debilitating disease' - fact is, it IS a debilitiating disease. It IS a lot of hardships and a lot of pain and a lot of unknown hurt and social lonliness to knowingly thrust an innocent child into.



Her mindset, ultimately, will be what helps the child in the long run -- but if this woman or other women continue to put themselves at risk of dying during pregnancy or birth -- that positive attitude is gone and those children are left alone, devastated that their mother is gone, and that positive influence isn't there anymore... I know that if it were my mom, and she chose to continue to have children knowing it would kill her, and it did kill her and I was left without a mom..... I would be PISSED. ESPECIALLY if I had been the child that ended up with the same disease she had.



It's all way too many CONS and not nearly enough PROS for me. I wouldn't do it myself and I certainly won't pat a woman on the back for going against the odds and playing russian roulette with multiple babies lives, health and happiness.

La - posted on 12/22/2009

I'm by no means defending the mother, but maybe she doesn't view the condition as negatively as we as outsiders do. If I knew my child was going to have a 50/50 shot at having her disease I personally wouldn't want to chance it, but since she has the condition herself and has been able to live with it maybe she doesn't think it's that debilitating.

?? - posted on 12/22/2009

I think it's definitely a hard decision for anyone to make -- I also think there is a HUGE difference between that condition being found out AFTER the child is concieved and/or born, and purposely going into a pregnancy, knowing very well that your child has a very real chance of inheiriting that condition.



To me, it seems cruel, irresponsible and selfish to knowingly put your unborn child in a situation where the bad possibilities overshadow the good possibilities in so many ways, during pregnancy, during birth and after birth. In each section of life, the cons outweigh the pros on so many different levels - it no longer matters that the mother 'has the right to be happy too', to me. That child deserves more than that mother is able to give them from the get-go.

La - posted on 12/22/2009

Quoting Jo:                                                                                                                                           Please note that I am NOT talking about people that have managable conditions - like down syndrom or autism or CP or dwarfism or anything like that - those people grow and learn and lead 'normal' lives. I'm talking about the extreme cases where children would be born into a situation where their capacity of 'living' goes no further than laying there in a vegetative state.


Laura, I would just like to say thank you for asking to clarify rather than assuming :) I appreciate it!

No prob :)  I've never been in the situation where I learn that my unborn child had a severe diease or defect, but I have seen some horribly disabled people when I was doing clinicals at one of the state developmental centers. It was truly sad to see people that are 60 years old and they have been in a vegetative state for their whole lives!  I'm not advocating for or against abortion, but I have wondered at what point is it more of a disservice to your child to bring them into this world to be confined to a bed and hooked up to machines for the rest of their lives.  Is it fair to make them live a life in a completely debilitating condition that I would not wish upon anyone?

?? - posted on 12/22/2009

Quoting Keenan :

First of all Jo, I am not a know it a "know it all". Nor do I claim to be one. Sorry you feel that way. Nor do I care whether you reply to any of my posts. I am just simply stating my opinion, and while doing that, I am trying not to offend anyone. If I have offended you, then I AM extremely sorry.  I am not going to agree with you people, just like you arent going to agree with me. I am just trying to get a point across. I think it is very interesting that we all have our own opinions on certain matters. We def are all uniquely different.

Keenan, when I read your posts I don't see you trying to not offend anyone, I see you trying to make sure that people know that you think your opinion is the only right opinion and that everyone else lacks compassion and the intelligence to even remotely know how to come to the 'right opinion' on this matter. And THAT is the 'know-it-all' attitude that makes me  want to ignore everything you're saying.

I'll give you a couple examples of what I am talking about;

#1 - How dare you! She has the right to happiness as well.
#2 - Whether you agree with me or not, alot of you should be disapointed in yourselves.
#3 - It seems that some of you just dont have any compassion at all!
#4 - This is HER LIFE, HER CHILDS LIFE, an HER AND HER CHILDS FUTURE. NOT OURS. So ppl, lets be a little more compassionate and understanding please. Bottom line.
#5 - Maybe some of you woman need to catch up on your bible reading instead of speaking on a matter which you apparently know nothing about.

And you said this in your initial post -- So if it doesnt bother them, why should you let it bother you?

That is what we are discussing - why it bothers us. I don't care that it doesn't bother them. I think that it should. It should bother ANY mother who gives a damn about their childs health. If your childs health and well being comes AFTER your happiness, you are an irresponsible parent and THAT bothers me. That these children are being made and WHO KNOWS if they will survive the pregnancy let alone all of the health issues that they COULD end up having because mommy needed to be in the spotlight just ONE MORE TIME.

THAT BOTHERS ME. And it SHOULD bother me, I would be worried if it DIDN'T bother me, because I CARE. I care about children and their right to be happy and their right to be healthy and I DO NOT CARE about mommy's selfish desire to be 'the smallest woman to have the most babies.' THAT is disgusting. And that there aren't MORE people telling her to be more responsible bothers me too. That people CONDONE her putting babies at risk of her condition and MORE because they WILL BE born premature... THAT BOTHERS THE EVER LOVIN EVERYTHING OUTTA ME.

?? - posted on 12/22/2009

Quoting Laura:

Jo, based on the last paragraph I quoted you on are you saying that if a random person found out while they were pregnant that they were going to have a child with a painful handicap that would not allow them to have a happy normal existence do you believe they should have it aborted? I'm just curious if that's where you are going with that.

Keenan - posted on 12/22/2009

Quoting Cathy:

Quoting Keenan :

First of all. I know everyone has their own religious beliefs. I dont think that this has anything to do with God at all. But because, God was brought into this, I feel it is my duty to say that he is NOT the reason why children, or any person has an illness or is sick. Im just soo surprised at how people can think that God has anything to do with this. Its just disgusting to me. Maybe some of you woman need to catch up on your bible reading instead of speaking on a matter which you apparently know nothing about. And when you are brushing up on your bible reading, you'll learn that God does have a name as well. No offense to any of you woman out there. Im just so shocked. Once again, she knows the risks, she is not stupid, she obviously must have taken alot of time considering whether or not to have children, and the amount to have. I dont know why everyone is up in arms about this. One, it has nothing to do with you. Two, its not your life. Three, she has every right to reproduce if she pleases. I do, however, understand where some of you are comming from. It is risky and why would you want to risk your childs life. But, the world we live in again is far from perfect. We are all imperfect. Autism is on the rise, cerebal palsy, to name a couple. This world is full of unfortunate things. Its because of the system of things that we are living in. Now lets just say, she had accidently gotten pregnant. You woman would tell her to get an abortion??  When you decide to have a child, not just her, but for us all. Its kind of a chance you are taking. Obviously, you hope your child is happy and healthy. But you never know. Leave this woman and her children alone. As well as the decisions she makes regarding her children.

Please explain what mean by this statement?

Are you suggesting that my child is imperfect because he has autism? As the mother of an autistic child I would never risk leaving him without a mother, if I knew that carrying another child could be life threatening.

Its unfortunate that your child does have autism. I have a cousin with a form of autism, called Asbergers Disease. (I believe thats how it is spelled.) I was using that as an example. If I offended you at all then I apolgize. We are all imperfect. Thats all that I am trying to say. There is no such thing as a "perfect child", or person. My son has an anger problem, although he was born,  "healthy", by no means is he perfect. Although, I would like to think so, because he is my heart and joy. And I bet your child is your heart and joy. Its just sad that the world is full of things that really cant be prevented. Such as autism, cerebal palsy, and cancers..to name a few. But I do apologize once again if I have offended you. I didnt put that there to offend any mothers. That was not my intention.

Jenny - posted on 12/22/2009

I'm not getting into the god stuff as that is ridiculous to this discussion.



If you are likely to die while pregnant and you do not that does make for a miracle, it makes for luck. If the chances are even 1 in a billion you will die there is that one who won't. Not miracle, just beating the odds.



If I was the child I would be PISSED that my parent is risking their life for another child. What would that do to their self worth? My mom doesn't think I'm special enough to stick around for so she's going to try for another? The mom is being selfish and narcissistic, plain and simple.



If I found out I had anything wrong with my body that could risk my life or my potential child's the uterus would be shut down then and there. Adoption needs to be taken much more seriously by wanna be parents.

Keenan - posted on 12/22/2009

Quoting Jo:

Keenan, can you at least some what attempt to knock off the know-it-all attitude, your opinion gets lost in the air of snottiness that you present it. I've decided that I'm not even gonna reply to your posts until I see that you can present your opinion without your nose in the air.

As for "leave her alone it's her life and she can do as she pleases" and we're no one to judge -- hello? You're judging just the same, you just come to a different conclusion than other people. The point of the forum is to discuss the topic at hand -- and it doesn't even have to be directly regarding the person in the OP.

I THINK - anyone that has an extremely debilitating condition and decides to take the chance of having children even though they know 1) the baby WILL be born premature, 2) there is a huge risk of passing on the same condition and 3) there is a very real possibility of one or both mom and baby dying in the process of giving birth -- they are being selfish, irresponsible and taking too big of a chance with a life that their duty is to protect, nourish, nurture and love in the first place.

I think that anyone who says "she has the right to be happy too" is right - she sure as shit does - but not at the expense of her childs health and happiness.

I think that anyone who says "it's in God's hands" needs to think about personal responsibility, we as humans have the ability to make decisions of our own that affect our lives everyday - birth control, in this situation, that eliminates the risk of harming a child that deserves every chance in the world to be healthy and happy - something that is less likely to happen than that child being born with health problems.

I think that anyone that argues that it is acceptable to knowlingly put children into the position to be in pain, be handicapped, be unsure of being able to live a full, happy and 'normal' existence -- and that's **IF** the child even survives birth... and then says that the people who disagree with them have no compassion... I think they have it backwards.

I have ALL the compassion in the world. Not for the 30+ yr old selfish irresponsible mother that cares more about her 'happiness' and need to have babies and be in the spotlight. I have compassion for the babies of ALL situations like this.. where the mother puts her own selfish WANT before the NEEDS of her unborn children.

I agree absolutely with what Krista said;

"She may have had the right to have her kids, but that doesn't mean it was the right thing to do."

First of all Jo, I am not a know it a "know it all". Nor do I claim to be one. Sorry you feel that way. Nor do I care whether you reply to any of my posts. I am just simply stating my opinion, and while doing that, I am trying not to offend anyone. If I have offended you, then I AM extremely sorry.  I am not going to agree with you people, just like you arent going to agree with me. I am just trying to get a point across. I think it is very interesting that we all have our own opinions on certain matters. We def are all uniquely different.

La - posted on 12/22/2009

Quoting Jo:

I think that anyone who says "she has the right to be happy too" is right - she sure as shit does - but not at the expense of her childs health and happiness.

I think that anyone who says "it's in God's hands" needs to think about personal responsibility, we as humans have the ability to make decisions of our own that affect our lives everyday - birth control, in this situation, that eliminates the risk of harming a child that deserves every chance in the world to be healthy and happy - something that is less likely to happen than that child being born with health problems.

I think that anyone that argues that it is acceptable to knowlingly put children into the position to be in pain, be handicapped, be unsure of being able to live a full, happy and 'normal' existence -- and that's **IF** the child even survives birth... and then says that the people who disagree with them have no compassion... I think they have it backwards.

I agree. IMO, if this woman needed children to make her happy she could have adopted. 

I find it annoying when people use the expression "it's God's will" or "it's a miracle of God" whenever something goes right...funny how you never hear them say "it's God's will" when something goes wrong.  How about they just say that in life things go wrong and things go right.  If a crackhead who used the whole time she was pregnant gave birth to a healthy baby that wasn't effected by the drugs that doesn't mean it was a miracle of God...it means she was lucky. 

Jo, based on the last paragraph I quoted you on are you saying that if a random person found out while they were pregnant that they were going to have a child with a painful handicap that would not allow them to have a happy normal existence do you believe they should have it aborted?  I'm just curious if that's where you are going with that.

Cathy - posted on 12/22/2009

Quoting Keenan :

First of all. I know everyone has their own religious beliefs. I dont think that this has anything to do with God at all. But because, God was brought into this, I feel it is my duty to say that he is NOT the reason why children, or any person has an illness or is sick. Im just soo surprised at how people can think that God has anything to do with this. Its just disgusting to me. Maybe some of you woman need to catch up on your bible reading instead of speaking on a matter which you apparently know nothing about. And when you are brushing up on your bible reading, you'll learn that God does have a name as well. No offense to any of you woman out there. Im just so shocked. Once again, she knows the risks, she is not stupid, she obviously must have taken alot of time considering whether or not to have children, and the amount to have. I dont know why everyone is up in arms about this. One, it has nothing to do with you. Two, its not your life. Three, she has every right to reproduce if she pleases. I do, however, understand where some of you are comming from. It is risky and why would you want to risk your childs life. But, the world we live in again is far from perfect. We are all imperfect. Autism is on the rise, cerebal palsy, to name a couple. This world is full of unfortunate things. Its because of the system of things that we are living in. Now lets just say, she had accidently gotten pregnant. You woman would tell her to get an abortion??  When you decide to have a child, not just her, but for us all. Its kind of a chance you are taking. Obviously, you hope your child is happy and healthy. But you never know. Leave this woman and her children alone. As well as the decisions she makes regarding her children.

Please explain what mean by this statement?

Are you suggesting that my child is imperfect because he has autism? As the mother of an autistic child I would never risk leaving him without a mother, if I knew that carrying another child could be life threatening.

?? - posted on 12/22/2009

Keenan, can you at least some what attempt to knock off the know-it-all attitude, your opinion gets lost in the air of snottiness that you present it. I've decided that I'm not even gonna reply to your posts until I see that you can present your opinion without your nose in the air.



As for "leave her alone it's her life and she can do as she pleases" and we're no one to judge -- hello? You're judging just the same, you just come to a different conclusion than other people. The point of the forum is to discuss the topic at hand -- and it doesn't even have to be directly regarding the person in the OP.



I THINK - anyone that has an extremely debilitating condition and decides to take the chance of having children even though they know 1) the baby WILL be born premature, 2) there is a huge risk of passing on the same condition and 3) there is a very real possibility of one or both mom and baby dying in the process of giving birth -- they are being selfish, irresponsible and taking too big of a chance with a life that their duty is to protect, nourish, nurture and love in the first place.



I think that anyone who says "she has the right to be happy too" is right - she sure as shit does - but not at the expense of her childs health and happiness.



I think that anyone who says "it's in God's hands" needs to think about personal responsibility, we as humans have the ability to make decisions of our own that affect our lives everyday - birth control, in this situation, that eliminates the risk of harming a child that deserves every chance in the world to be healthy and happy - something that is less likely to happen than that child being born with health problems.



I think that anyone that argues that it is acceptable to knowlingly put children into the position to be in pain, be handicapped, be unsure of being able to live a full, happy and 'normal' existence -- and that's **IF** the child even survives birth... and then says that the people who disagree with them have no compassion... I think they have it backwards.



I have ALL the compassion in the world. Not for the 30+ yr old selfish irresponsible mother that cares more about her 'happiness' and need to have babies and be in the spotlight. I have compassion for the babies of ALL situations like this.. where the mother puts her own selfish WANT before the NEEDS of her unborn children.



I agree absolutely with what Krista said;



"She may have had the right to have her kids, but that doesn't mean it was the right thing to do."

Dana - posted on 12/22/2009

Quoting Keenan :

. 

First of all. I know everyone has their own religious beliefs. I dont think that this has anything to do with God at all. But because, God was brought into this, I feel it is my duty to say that he is NOT the reason why children, or any person has an illness or is sick. Im just soo surprised at how people can think that God has anything to do with this. Its just disgusting to me. Maybe some of you woman need to catch up on your bible reading instead of speaking on a matter which you apparently know nothing about. And when you are brushing up on your bible reading, you'll learn that God does have a name as well. No offense to any of you woman out there. Im just so shocked. Once again, she knows the risks, she is not stupid, she obviously must have taken alot of time considering whether or not to have children, and the amount to have. I dont know why everyone is up in arms about this. One, it has nothing to do with you. Two, its not your life. Three, she has every right to reproduce if she pleases. I do, however, understand where some of you are comming from. It is risky and why would you want to risk your childs life. But, the world we live in again is far from perfect. We are all imperfect. Autism is on the rise, cerebal palsy, to name a couple. This world is full of unfortunate things. Its because of the system of things that we are living in. Now lets just say, she had accidently gotten pregnant. You woman would tell her to get an abortion??  When you decide to have a child, not just her, but for us all. Its kind of a chance you are taking. Obviously, you hope your child is happy and healthy. But you never know. Leave this woman and her children alone. As well as the decisions she makes regarding her children.

That's absurd, I don't think anyone would tell someone they need to get an abortion.  You're all over the place. 

Krista - posted on 12/22/2009

Quoting Keenan :

Quoting Krista:

Quoting Veronica:

In my opinion. Here I am again - and Im going to put God in the middle again. This to me is the basis of anything. First of all - I don't think any baby is created and lives and dies on accident - I believe the Lord has the final say whether an egg fertilizes or not - whether a baby/person survives and lives or not. It's more of a miracle that this woman could even get pregnant at all, with her disease - but she did, and she had two more. That to me is a miracle. I don't think this woman is selfish at all.
And i cannot stand it when anyone sits here and talks about how its selfish to their children. Im sorry - but my soul, and my responsibility in my life and spirit is for God first - NOT my children. I will live my life, according to him first - before my children. I am not tying my tubes - for my kids - or for you - to sabotage my soul - because a person thinks that I shouldnt have anymore

Sigh....Veronica, like you said, that's YOUR opinion, and you have a right to your opinion just like we have a right to ours. You think that God decides what babies live or die. I think that bad things just happen for no reason, and that if there IS a God, and he lets little babies suffer and die, then he's a real jerk and not worth worshiping anyway.   I think that this woman took a GIGANTIC gamble with her health, with her babies' health, and with the well-being of her existing children. If she had died, or if those babies had died, would you still be so supportive, saying that obviously, it was God's plan? I'm thinking you would, as you've indicated that your responsibility is to God before it's to your kids.  And I can't understand that viewpoint -- that you put a yet-to-be-proven faith system over your kids' well-being.  Like I said, I can sympathize with her, but I think it was foolhardy in the extreme for her to take such a life-and-death risk on herself and her babies, when there are so many children out there who need good homes. 

First of all. I know everyone has their own religious beliefs. I dont think that this has anything to do with God at all. But because, God was brought into this, I feel it is my duty to say that he is NOT the reason why children, or any person has an illness or is sick. Im just soo surprised at how people can think that God has anything to do with this. Its just disgusting to me. Maybe some of you woman need to catch up on your bible reading instead of speaking on a matter which you apparently know nothing about. And when you are brushing up on your bible reading, you'll learn that God does have a name as well. No offense to any of you woman out there. Im just so shocked. Once again, she knows the risks, she is not stupid, she obviously must have taken alot of time considering whether or not to have children, and the amount to have. I dont know why everyone is up in arms about this. One, it has nothing to do with you. Two, its not your life. Three, she has every right to reproduce if she pleases. I do, however, understand where some of you are comming from. It is risky and why would you want to risk your childs life. But, the world we live in again is far from perfect. We are all imperfect. Autism is on the rise, cerebal palsy, to name a couple. This world is full of unfortunate things. Its because of the system of things that we are living in. Now lets just say, she had accidently gotten pregnant. You woman would tell her to get an abortion??  When you decide to have a child, not just her, but for us all. Its kind of a chance you are taking. Obviously, you hope your child is happy and healthy. But you never know. Leave this woman and her children alone. As well as the decisions she makes regarding her children.

We ARE leaving her alone. It's not like we're writing her letters or calling her on the phone, telling her what we think. We're just discussing it amongst ourselves, on a DEBATING thread. 

And not one person here has said that she has no right to reproduce. She has the right to have 20 kids, if she wants to. But that's not going to change the fact that I have the right to think that she took a terrible, terrible gamble with her life and the lives of her kids. 

This would be a piss-poor debating thread if every topic was answered with multiple renditions of "Oh well, it's none of our business, so we shouldn't talk about it." 

Keenan - posted on 12/22/2009

Quoting Krista:

Quoting Veronica:

In my opinion. Here I am again - and Im going to put God in the middle again. This to me is the basis of anything. First of all - I don't think any baby is created and lives and dies on accident - I believe the Lord has the final say whether an egg fertilizes or not - whether a baby/person survives and lives or not. It's more of a miracle that this woman could even get pregnant at all, with her disease - but she did, and she had two more. That to me is a miracle. I don't think this woman is selfish at all.
And i cannot stand it when anyone sits here and talks about how its selfish to their children. Im sorry - but my soul, and my responsibility in my life and spirit is for God first - NOT my children. I will live my life, according to him first - before my children. I am not tying my tubes - for my kids - or for you - to sabotage my soul - because a person thinks that I shouldnt have anymore

Sigh....Veronica, like you said, that's YOUR opinion, and you have a right to your opinion just like we have a right to ours. You think that God decides what babies live or die. I think that bad things just happen for no reason, and that if there IS a God, and he lets little babies suffer and die, then he's a real jerk and not worth worshiping anyway.   I think that this woman took a GIGANTIC gamble with her health, with her babies' health, and with the well-being of her existing children. If she had died, or if those babies had died, would you still be so supportive, saying that obviously, it was God's plan? I'm thinking you would, as you've indicated that your responsibility is to God before it's to your kids.  And I can't understand that viewpoint -- that you put a yet-to-be-proven faith system over your kids' well-being.  Like I said, I can sympathize with her, but I think it was foolhardy in the extreme for her to take such a life-and-death risk on herself and her babies, when there are so many children out there who need good homes. 

First of all. I know everyone has their own religious beliefs. I dont think that this has anything to do with God at all. But because, God was brought into this, I feel it is my duty to say that he is NOT the reason why children, or any person has an illness or is sick. Im just soo surprised at how people can think that God has anything to do with this. Its just disgusting to me. Maybe some of you woman need to catch up on your bible reading instead of speaking on a matter which you apparently know nothing about. And when you are brushing up on your bible reading, you'll learn that God does have a name as well. No offense to any of you woman out there. Im just so shocked. Once again, she knows the risks, she is not stupid, she obviously must have taken alot of time considering whether or not to have children, and the amount to have. I dont know why everyone is up in arms about this. One, it has nothing to do with you. Two, its not your life. Three, she has every right to reproduce if she pleases. I do, however, understand where some of you are comming from. It is risky and why would you want to risk your childs life. But, the world we live in again is far from perfect. We are all imperfect. Autism is on the rise, cerebal palsy, to name a couple. This world is full of unfortunate things. Its because of the system of things that we are living in. Now lets just say, she had accidently gotten pregnant. You woman would tell her to get an abortion??  When you decide to have a child, not just her, but for us all. Its kind of a chance you are taking. Obviously, you hope your child is happy and healthy. But you never know. Leave this woman and her children alone. As well as the decisions she makes regarding her children.

Krista - posted on 12/22/2009

Quoting Veronica:

In my opinion. Here I am again - and Im going to put God in the middle again. This to me is the basis of anything. First of all - I don't think any baby is created and lives and dies on accident - I believe the Lord has the final say whether an egg fertilizes or not - whether a baby/person survives and lives or not. It's more of a miracle that this woman could even get pregnant at all, with her disease - but she did, and she had two more. That to me is a miracle. I don't think this woman is selfish at all.
And i cannot stand it when anyone sits here and talks about how its selfish to their children. Im sorry - but my soul, and my responsibility in my life and spirit is for God first - NOT my children. I will live my life, according to him first - before my children. I am not tying my tubes - for my kids - or for you - to sabotage my soul - because a person thinks that I shouldnt have anymore

Sigh....Veronica, like you said, that's YOUR opinion, and you have a right to your opinion just like we have a right to ours. You think that God decides what babies live or die. I think that bad things just happen for no reason, and that if there IS a God, and he lets little babies suffer and die, then he's a real jerk and not worth worshiping anyway.   I think that this woman took a GIGANTIC gamble with her health, with her babies' health, and with the well-being of her existing children. If she had died, or if those babies had died, would you still be so supportive, saying that obviously, it was God's plan? I'm thinking you would, as you've indicated that your responsibility is to God before it's to your kids.  And I can't understand that viewpoint -- that you put a yet-to-be-proven faith system over your kids' well-being.  Like I said, I can sympathize with her, but I think it was foolhardy in the extreme for her to take such a life-and-death risk on herself and her babies, when there are so many children out there who need good homes. 

Diana - posted on 12/22/2009

"She may have had the right to have her kids, but that doesn't mean it was the right thing to do."



Thanks, Krista-I don't think I could've said that better myself. I think it's selfish of a woman to have baby after baby when there's a high chance of pasing on a debilitating disease and there's a 100% guarantee that the baby will be a preemie. I have a preemie-and it's scary business. My son has luckily had few problems, but that's not the case for many preemies. My current thinking is that if I want another child one day I'll adopt-there are plenty of children out there who need to be adopted, and my chances of having another preemie are pretty high, which to me is not worth the risk. Sorry, but I think she's just plain selfish.

Esther - posted on 12/22/2009

Quoting dana:

[ ] If my son wanted to have a child and there was a 50% chance he would pass it on.  I would tell him to make sure he was prepared to possibly give his own child this disease, I mean completely understand it.  If that child was passed the disease and then my son wanted to try another time I'd tell him to stop and that he's being selfish.  Even if his first child was fine I'd tell him not to risk a second one. 

I would like to add that I am understanding.  I understand that this woman is possibly bringing a child into this world with a *known* disease.  I understand that I feel bad for that CHILD.  Not the mother for risking her unborn children's lives. 

I wanted to add again (and I'm totally repeating myself) that it's not JUST the genetic disorder she's at high risk of passing on. There is also the risk of dying during pregnancy or child birth (leaving her kids motherless and possibly killing the baby she's pregnant with in the process) and the guarantee of having to deliver the baby early with all the health implications of that. 1+1+1 = BAD idea.

Dana - posted on 12/22/2009

Quoting Keenan :

I think all of this has gotten WAY out of hand. Yes, everyone is entitled to thier own opinion..i get that. Ladies..jeesh! It seems that some of you just dont have any compassion at all! Yes, the chance that she is putting herself and her child at risk is high. But she already gave birth to a perfectly normal child. I feel its nobodys business what this woman and her husband decide to do. As long as she is a good mother, what does it matter? She probably wishes that she didnt have that disease and her children were all born happy and healthy just like every other parent out there. Put yourselves in her shoes for a minute. Now lets say your fine and healthy. You give birth to a beautiful child but he has some sort of disease. He later grows up, gets married, and decides he wants to have children of his own. Keep in mind this is your own son, lets say. So your going to tell your child he is selfish, and shouldnt have children of his own. Just go out an adopt a child?? YOU would be being the selfish one. No one wants to see thier child ill, or have a disease. This world is full of sickness. Anyone that has a child is pretty much taking a chance. Just beacyuse you and your partner are healthy, doesnt mean you are he may not have an underlying condition you may not know about. Beacuse she has this sickness, I think she would teach her child how to cope with it, and get through everyday life. If I were her, I probably would not try to conceive. Thats just me. But everyone is different. I am behind this woman 100 percent and what she decides to do. This is HER LIFE, HER CHILDS LIFE, an HER AND HER CHILDS FUTURE. NOT OURS. So ppl, lets be a little more compassionate and understanding please. Bottom line.

I'm confused about your post here.  

If my son wanted to have a child and there was a 50% chance he would pass it on.  I would tell him to make sure he was prepared to possibly give his own child this disease, I mean completely understand it.  If that child was passed the disease and then my son wanted to try another time I'd tell him to stop and that he's being selfish.  Even if his first child was fine I'd tell him not to risk a second one. 

I would like to add that I am understanding.  I understand that this woman is possibly bringing a child into this world with a *known* disease.  I understand that I feel bad for that CHILD.  Not the mother for risking her unborn children's lives. 

Esther - posted on 12/22/2009

Quoting Keenan :

This is HER LIFE, HER CHILDS LIFE, an HER AND HER CHILDS FUTURE. NOT OURS.

That's right. It's HER CHILDS LIFE and HER CHILDRENS FUTURE. Not just hers. Bottom line. And yes, I would without a doubt tell my son he was being selfish and irresponsible if he was in those shoes and making those decisions.

Keenan - posted on 12/22/2009

I think all of this has gotten WAY out of hand. Yes, everyone is entitled to thier own opinion..i get that. Ladies..jeesh! It seems that some of you just dont have any compassion at all! Yes, the chance that she is putting herself and her child at risk is high. But she already gave birth to a perfectly normal child. I feel its nobodys business what this woman and her husband decide to do. As long as she is a good mother, what does it matter? She probably wishes that she didnt have that disease and her children were all born happy and healthy just like every other parent out there. Put yourselves in her shoes for a minute. Now lets say your fine and healthy. You give birth to a beautiful child but he has some sort of disease. He later grows up, gets married, and decides he wants to have children of his own. Keep in mind this is your own son, lets say. So your going to tell your child he is selfish, and shouldnt have children of his own. Just go out an adopt a child?? YOU would be being the selfish one. No one wants to see thier child ill, or have a disease. This world is full of sickness. Anyone that has a child is pretty much taking a chance. Just beacyuse you and your partner are healthy, doesnt mean you are he may not have an underlying condition you may not know about. Beacuse she has this sickness, I think she would teach her child how to cope with it, and get through everyday life. If I were her, I probably would not try to conceive. Thats just me. But everyone is different. I am behind this woman 100 percent and what she decides to do. This is HER LIFE, HER CHILDS LIFE, an HER AND HER CHILDS FUTURE. NOT OURS. So ppl, lets be a little more compassionate and understanding please. Bottom line.

Esther - posted on 12/22/2009

Quoting Veronica:

Think about all that you say about people in these postings/forums - etc. Is this what you are teaching your own children to think? How to judge and condemn others, and dictate what is right or wrong over other's lives??
What do you know about truth and parenting - most of you have one child that is barely a year old - and you talk as if you wrote the book of life - of parenthood -- just because something made sense to you in your life, now you can tell all of us that we are wrong, selfish and irresponible.

That is more rediculous to me, than this lady having 3 children in her condition.

I do try to teach my son what I think is right & wrong in the world just like every other parent does. This to me is wrong. And if I feel that someone is doing a huge disservice to their children then you BET I will judge, whether they do it under the cloak of religion or not. I'm a little sick & tired of people thinking they should be granted some kind of immunity from scrutiny because what they do is based on their religion. Debating you on your posts cannot go anywhere but to another religious debate and to me that was not what this thread was about so I will just leave it at this.