|
Post by princessjo1988 on Dec 11, 2009 5:15:21 GMT -5
Well, the news isn't terribly good, I am afraid. A number of blogs/forums are saying that Michelle gave birth (via emergency c-section) to a baby girl sometime in the past 24 hours. At 24 weeks, she is (according to some) only 1 pound 6 ounces ...... Once again, I hope that is another rumour. But, then again, this is all sounding very familiar: starting with "rumours" and 'reports from friends": cumulating in an official press release/video with a positive spin. I was cynical of the "good news story" the first time round (when she was hospitalised) and I remain so. Why can't they be honest? Are they truly that obsessed with image etc? And are they that afraid of the criticism that will surely come if this report is proven correct, and which would only intensify if (heaven forbid: not something I would wish on my own worse enemy) J19 passes away? Jo
|
|
|
Post by pandapaws on Dec 11, 2009 8:34:31 GMT -5
I hope that isn't true. I can't imagine what they are going through.
|
|
|
Post by princessjo1988 on Dec 11, 2009 9:46:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rosa on Dec 11, 2009 9:50:07 GMT -5
Oh no Jo, they may have waited because they were processing the news. I hate to give the Duggars any benefit of the doubt, but dealing with a premature birth (especially if it's unexpected, which it sounds like this was) is pretty traumatic. And the way they want to find spiritual faults to explain real-world losses (like blaming miscarriages on previous birth control use) has got to make it even harder. I know for us, when I was diagnosed with pre-eclampsia the hospital made us learn about preemies and look at pictures and talk to parents who'd given birth there, and even *that* was so scary, we just told everyone else "oh no, everything's fine, just need more rest". And that was at 28 weeks.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Dec 11, 2009 11:08:14 GMT -5
that's so rough... I so hope Josie will be ok, but at 24 weeks.... well, it'll be touch and go I'm sure.
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Dec 11, 2009 18:56:54 GMT -5
Oh my goodness I hope the baby is okay, I have known a few children born at that week of gestation and it is a looooong haul. I also hope they use some birth control until they have that baby healthy and well. There is a real danger of getting pg even earlier after a premmie birth with breastfeeding limited to expressing for a while etc.. This is one baby she is not going to be able to hand over to a teenage girl to take care of at 6 months. It's a terrible shock when you've had good births before to have something like this happen. I wish them all the best for recovery.
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Dec 11, 2009 18:59:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Dec 11, 2009 19:17:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by pandapaws on Dec 12, 2009 9:56:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Dec 12, 2009 12:29:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by hopewell on Dec 12, 2009 13:06:33 GMT -5
Like everyone else, in spite of snarking on them, I really am praying for Michelle and baby Josie. I'm also praying for Grandma and the 4 oldest girls who are holding down the fort at home for "duration". I really hoped with # 18 that she would have to have a hysertectomy and be done. The younger kids will grow up very differently from the elder ones and #19 may be the most indulged of all with her scary start in life. I'm with the rest of the jaded crew though and feel certain we will be hearing in the not-too-distant-future of the impeding arrival of #20.
|
|
|
Post by visualsyntax on Dec 12, 2009 15:32:01 GMT -5
This might be awful of me, but didn't they start this quest to have 2 dozen children after a miscarriage? Fine, Michelle might not care if she lives or dies, or "god will save her", but does that extend to the kid? Will god save the kid too? What happens if the kid dies?
Will it become obvious to them that they might bring the death of another child if they keep this up?
It just seems like Michelle is taking way too many risks to keep having kids.
|
|
|
Post by coleslaw on Dec 12, 2009 16:31:39 GMT -5
From:http://www.acog.org/publications/patient_education/bp173.cfm
Babies born weighing between 501 and 750 grams (1.10–1.65 pounds) have a 55% chance of survival. Of the babies who survive, 65% have serious health problems.
Babies born weighing between 751 and 1,000 grams (1.66–2.20 pounds) have an 88% chance of survival. Of the babies who survive, 43% have serious health problems.
|
|
|
Post by redheadedskeptic on Dec 12, 2009 16:40:15 GMT -5
I have a hard time with this. On the one hand, I understand the fundamentalist, trust in God for everything mindset. On the other hand, I agree with commenters around the internets that they rolled the dice so many times, of course something was going to go wrong. They discussed "what if Downs syndrome/other special needs" at one point, and I remember thinking that they sounded so SURE, somehow. That they were so committed to trusting God that they didn't think it would really happen, and therefore didn't take it seriously. That was the tone they used anyways, even though they used the "right" words. And I agree it's selfish to put doctrine over other children that need mom and dad. Fayetteville is more than 3 hours from Little Rock. Their youngest are just babies who won't understand why mom and dad are gone. Of course it's not their fault directly, but Michelle has SO many risk factors at this point and they KNEW it. And it may have been fine for them to have a special needs kid, but what about to that kid who has to deal with disabilities and to the other kids who will have to suffer getting even LESS of mom and dad's time? Of course, again, it's not their fault, but they also knew that this was a risk. All of this, to me, makes it difficult.
So what's the solution? Do you excuse their reckless behavior because of their beliefs? It seems as though most people are doing this: afraid to say, "WE TOLD YOU SO!" because it seems so tacky. But TLC romanticizes this sort of lifestyle, and I think people need to call it what it really is: reckless, dangerous, and stupid WHILE simultaneously hoping everything turns out all right. Of course, what is "all right" really? Alive? Undamaged? It's hard to say, and totally depends on our own values.
Of course, I hope Josie gets better. I would never wish them harm. But at the same time, I couldn't feel the least bit sorry for them if they don't take this as a warning. Logically, if that first miscarriage was some sort of twisted punishment from God, it only logically follows that this should be some sort of warning. But I know that for whatever reason, the first miscarriage was a warning to stop using that evil birth control out of selfishness, but somehow, this is going to be written off as "just his will." And that hypocrisy is what utterly disgusts me. I will even admit it makes me ANGRY. Yes, they are going through a rough time and it's not nice to feel angry, but I do. If they seriously injured a child after racing through a residential neighborhood going 100 mph trusting God to guide their car, people wouldn't be so nice to them. We wouldn't feel sorry for them. We would be quite happy to voice our opinions at their carelessness. But really, is what they did any less reckless?
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Dec 12, 2009 19:11:29 GMT -5
From:http://www.acog.org/publications/patient_education/bp173.cfm Babies born weighing between 501 and 750 grams (1.10–1.65 pounds) have a 55% chance of survival. Of the babies who survive, 65% have serious health problems. Babies born weighing between 751 and 1,000 grams (1.66–2.20 pounds) have an 88% chance of survival. Of the babies who survive, 43% have serious health problems. Girls do better when prem than boys, so that's one thing in her favor.
|
|
calulu
Junior Member
Posts: 76
|
Post by calulu on Dec 12, 2009 20:33:56 GMT -5
This is probably going to sound cruel and heartless but it's not meant in that spirit... but.. if you keep rolling the reproductive dice something is bound to happen outside the norm eventually. The older the mother gets and the more babies the more the odds shift.
I've been wondering how on earth they are going to afford the hospital bills. Bills for a preemie can easily top a million dollars before this is over with. And that's not counting if poor Baby Duggar is one of the 60-40% that end up with ongoing health issues. Somehow I doubt that they have health insurance.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Dec 12, 2009 21:02:51 GMT -5
they actually qualify for state health insurance, so taxes are paying for it. Which, I mean, would be fine, if everyone could get on that plan too, but it's pretty unfair (though that's not their fault.) At least they are lucky that insurance won't be a factor.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Dec 12, 2009 21:03:54 GMT -5
From:http://www.acog.org/publications/patient_education/bp173.cfm Babies born weighing between 501 and 750 grams (1.10–1.65 pounds) have a 55% chance of survival. Of the babies who survive, 65% have serious health problems. Babies born weighing between 751 and 1,000 grams (1.66–2.20 pounds) have an 88% chance of survival. Of the babies who survive, 43% have serious health problems. Girls do better when prem than boys, so that's one thing in her favor. Girls are less likely to miscarry than boys too, I wonder how much the pre-term effect is the same as that one.
|
|
|
Post by coleslaw on Dec 12, 2009 21:49:27 GMT -5
From:http://www.acog.org/publications/patient_education/bp173.cfm Babies born weighing between 501 and 750 grams (1.10–1.65 pounds) have a 55% chance of survival. Of the babies who survive, 65% have serious health problems. Babies born weighing between 751 and 1,000 grams (1.66–2.20 pounds) have an 88% chance of survival. Of the babies who survive, 43% have serious health problems. Girls do better when prem than boys, so that's one thing in her favor. "Girls who are born at the 25th week of pregnancy and weigh about 700 grams (1 1/2 pounds) may have a higher chance of survival than boys born at the same age and weight." I don't know if girls do any better than boys at younger ages/lower birth weights, both of which apparently apply in this case.
|
|
|
Post by redheadedskeptic on Dec 12, 2009 23:02:54 GMT -5
I've heard a couple people say they're on state insurance. Does anyone know where this is coming from?
I am not sure that they WOULD qualify for it. For a family of their size (as long as the older kids who still live at home count as part of the household), they have to be making under $98,965.80 per year for it to be a free ride. They can get partial coverage if they are under $148,820.88 annually. They may, but between book sales, TLC, other media appearances, and commercial real estate, do they really make less than that? That would surprise me, at least for the first. Maybe not the second.
|
|
jlp
Junior Member
Posts: 54
|
Post by jlp on Dec 12, 2009 23:42:55 GMT -5
I wish Michelle Duggar would use birth control. How is she and her husband going to be able to give all the time and attention each child needs. Otherwise the children are going to have to raise the children.
|
|
bree
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by bree on Dec 13, 2009 0:36:42 GMT -5
I read their book and in it they said they buy private health insurance. Maybe TLC has a plan, too?
I am sorry for the innocent baby who is in danger of ill health. But I also really really feel sorry for the 4 teenaged girls whose slave labor job just got increasingly harder.
|
|
sarie
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by sarie on Dec 13, 2009 5:10:47 GMT -5
I thought that Vyckie's post shed a lot of light on the sense of protection offered by the assumption that God will never give a woman more children than her body can handle. The Voltaire quote at the end was particularly appropriate.
I do wonder, however, whether the birth of an extremely premature baby would cause a woman to rethink this attitude. One of my aunts essentially has a QF philosophy of childbearing - she believes that the number of children she has is ultimately up to God. However, she also finds it unconscionable to knowingly create situations in which babies are likely to be premature or sick. One of her sons was born several months before his due date (and is today a healthy twelve year old with minimal issues) and the experience was an eye opening one for her. She's prevented pregnancy at times when it would be medically inadvisable, because she doesn't want to risk the health of another child.
My aunt isn't a member of a religious movement which pressures her to choose a particular path, so it's easier for her to trust her own instincts in this situation. However, Vyckie has also pointed out that traditional QF families are unlikely to participate in the media - not only are they too busy, they are often concerned about how they will be portrayed. I wonder what this means for the Duggars, who have become more mainstream since their first specials aired. Will they decide that it is now too dangerous to add to their family? Or will they choose to go forward, seeing themselves as examples? I'd like to think that it could go either way, but, realistically, the latter seems the most likely possibility.
|
|
|
Post by rosa on Dec 13, 2009 10:44:24 GMT -5
I got it from the freejinger board, and the poster said they qualify because of JimBob's job in the legislature - but i can't confirm it anywhere else, they have mentioned having insurance in print, they have mentioned going into debt for medical bills (that one was cited as a Larry King Live appearance). I have been trying to figure out if it's likely - Arkansas state legislators earn points in their public employees retirement program, and that program includes health benefits, but JimBob didn't serve very long. It's kind of fascinating to me that something that would be such an obvious concern for pretty much anyone would not have been covered clearly in any of their many, many episodes, specials & press releases.
|
|
|
Post by amyrose on Dec 13, 2009 11:17:06 GMT -5
All over the web, this is bringing a whole round of "The Duggars are so nice" and "their kids are so well-adjusted" and "they are such good examples of living their values" and "it's not what I would do, but they aren't harming anyone".... And I want to scream. This family has successfully made the QF lifestyle look all fabulous and lovely. What about the daughters? Girls who spend their lives caring for younger siblings, receiving a warped and minimal education and then being sent off to marriages that are more or less arranged. How can so many people just shrug their shoulders at that? How can they have watched the "wedding special" and have seen poor Anna look beyond terrified on the way into that hotel with a man-boy she barely knew and say it's all okay?? What about this baby and the issues she may face if she survives? All because they have to prove to the world that family planning is evil. Of course, the kool-aid drinking loyal viewers are all convinced that Michelle won't have any more children if it's going to endanger her or them. And don't even bother trying to tell them otherwise. I'm just plain angry.
|
|