Question re: Multiple Pregnancies

[liltwinstar]

So, I realized I have a dumb question.

When we talk about the Duggars and other QF types who choose to have lots of babies, the risks of multiple pregnancies are always brought up. I know it's been brought up in the Kristina thread, too. But I don't know what those risks are, so I thought I'd ask.

I understand that for some women, pregnancy itself is risky (because of underlying conditions). Also, if you have a c-section or multiple c-sections I know there are different risks associated with that. And finally, if you have PPD or PPP, obv stacking pregnancies would be a bad idea.

But other than that, what is "riskier" about being pregnant every year or every two years? I feel like I'm missing something.

[maybeizfundie]

Your uterus might get tired and run away. :D

I don't know any specific risk. But I think people might be looking at it as every pregnancy is inherently risky in some form even though the majority of women do just fine, so the more kids you have, the more you up your statistical chances of running into a problem.

[Jessica]

http://www.livestrong.com/article/41759 ... pregnancy/ Calcium loss.

[maybeizfundie]

That is true, but fairly easy to accomodate by taking in enough calcium.

[Deleted08]

I know this won't kill you but even one pregnancy you can develop pelvic floor dysfunction. I have it due to some problems (not babies lol) and it's a major pain in the crotch and butt!

I wouldn't be surprised Michelle Duggar will end up incontinent at some point due to this.

[PBrooke]

....Oh. For a moment I thought you were asking about the risks of having multiples. I could have gone on all day about that.

Honestly, I'm not sure. I know it's in vogue for people to say you should wait a year or so for your body to get back in shape, but my mother, who had Irish twins (I say this as a 4th-gen Irish so I am not trying to offend), always said that she felt fine and there weren't any added side effects from having a kid so soon, compared to any of her other pregnancies. Then again, she was pretty much built to breed and never had complications at all.

In theory, many pregnancies, total, increase the odds of prolapsed uterus and things like that, but again, a lot of the dangers have to do with whether you're really built to be pregnant in the first place. If pregnancies are hard on you in the first place, then more pregnancies make it even worse. If they sap all the life out of you, then you should give your body time to recover.

Even in the secular world with 2.4 kids it's not uncommon for people to plan so that their two kids are only 18 mos apart, which means they get pregnant when the first one's under a year. The reason I think people get so upset when it happens to fundies is because it's setting a precedent; the faster they have kids now, the more potential child-bearing years they have ahead. And if their body isn't necessarily taking the strain, their family might be, by juggling so many kids under a certain age with little help.

[Jencendiary]

It's a combination of things, really - the spacing of the kids and the sheer number of them. Pregnancy is one of the most dangerous things a woman can choose to do to her body. It only makes sense to allow the body to recover before you launch back into the million and one physical changes again.

[gustava]

100 years ago, Michelle would have died in childbirth. Today, she (and Josie) are alive due to modern medicine.

[Deleted03]

I agree with PBrooke, I think it depends on everyone's body. Especially if you get them every year, imagine the ones who have high intensity morning sickness (forgot the term) every year for 9 months you hurl all day long. don't think it's good for anyone even not pregnant...

You also have to add in the actual exertion of everyday life. If you're already pregnant (and thus burning more calories because of the foetus) and you're already being more tired, add to that raising a bunch of babies - time and energy consuming add taking care of a house and a dependent husband... and you've made a situation very exhausting for anyone...

[bananacat]

That is true, but fairly easy to accomodate by taking in enough calcium.

No, it's not that easy. That's a myth that fundies are feeding you. It's not just about the calcium that is used up the fetus. Hormones affect how dietary nutrients are absorbed and used.

[liltwinstar]

Thanks, everyone. Since I grew up fundie and was around QF women, sometimes my perception of reality is a little skewed, you know? Even though I live a normal life now, I still catch myself thinking things like "what's so bad/harmful about being pregnant 9 months of every year?" (says the woman who has never been pregnant...).

Anyway, yeah, I guess I'd forgotten about the fact that when you're pg you're, you know, growing another human, and that takes energy. Plus I've read about women who try to nurse the last baby while pregnant with the new baby, and I would imagine that would be really tiring, too.

[luckylibrarian]

My understanding is that Michelle was facing an increased risk of pre-eclampsia or full blown eclampsia because she had had pre-eclampsia before. That's a pretty serious complication. Scar tissue from a previous c-section can cause uterine rupture. Scar tissue inside the uterus can cause placenta previa, placenta accreta, and miscarriage. Scar tissue on the Fallopian tubes can cause an ectopic pregnancy. Grand multiparity also increases the risk of hypertension, diabetes, and hemorrhage.

[fundifugee]

100 years ago, Michelle would have died in childbirth. Today, she (and Josie) are alive due to modern medicine.

Or today, if they happened to live in Uganda instead of the USA.

[Katiebug]

Even in the secular world with 2.4 kids it's not uncommon for people to plan so that their two kids are only 18 mos apart, which means they get pregnant when the first one's under a year. The reason I think people get so upset when it happens to fundies is because it's setting a precedent; the faster they have kids now, the more potential child-bearing years they have ahead. And if their body isn't necessarily taking the strain, their family might be, by juggling so many kids under a certain age with little help.

Yes, among our family and most of our friends the trend is to have 2 kids in 2 years or less and be done with it. This may be because the majority have not married until their late 20s or early 30s, then wait a year to have time "alone" and then try for a baby. If a woman is in her mid or late 30s when you have your first, she doesn't necessarily have the time to wait very long for a second child with regard to fertility and ease of conception.

However, nearly all of the couples we know openly state that they are done with two two children and IRL we only know one couple in our social circle with three kids. So while having two babies 18-24 months apart is tough on one's body and is physically taxing, it's two and done for all of these folks. It's a tough couple of years with two in diapers, a huge daycare bill, etc. but it's a limited thing. For the fundies, there's generally no daycare bills to worry about :lol: but it must be terribly taxing on the mother, both emotionally and physically, to have more than 2 kids so close in age. Having 2-3 children in diapers at one time? No thanks!

For what it's worth, most researchers feel that waiting 18-24 months (but no more than 5 years) after delivering a baby to try to conceive the next is optimal for the health of the mother and of the subsequent baby.

We're waiting to try for our next baby until our now-1 year old is around 2, for a number of reasons, so it looks like our kids will be around 3 years apart in age (we're 50/50 on whether we will eventually try for three kids). I work full time and breastfeed, and the thought of being pregnant again so soon sort of boggles my mind. I was exhausted and severely nauseated until my 2nd trimester the first time around and there's no way I could handle a tough early pregnancy again while juggling a 40 hour work week and a toddler who's still nursing! All of my husband's relatives were pregnant with baby #2 by their first babies' birthdays - at Little Bug's recent birthday party I got tired of all of the questions of when we'd be having another kid.

[maybeizfundie]

No, it's not that easy. That's a myth that fundies are feeding you. .

Actually, I just read the whole article. Which didn't imply that pregnancy results in permanent, unfixable, killer lack of calcium, but that it's important to ingest enough calcium during pregnancy to avoid such a deficiency.

[Wolfie]

Actually, I just read the whole article. Which didn't imply that pregnancy results in permanent, unfixable, killer lack of calcium, but that it's important to ingest enough calcium during pregnancy to avoid such a deficiency.

And if you ingest too much, you can bring on other health issues like kidney stones.

My mom's body didn't handle three pregnancies back to back (we're all 20 months apart) and a subsquent pregnancy while caring for an infant and two toddlers, and she got very ill and nearly died of pneumonia. (and lost the baby.) Different bodies react in different ways, but hers reacted by trying to die.

[Rowan]

100 years ago, Michelle would have died in childbirth. Today, she (and Josie) are alive due to modern medicine.

She would have likely died before she was even pregnant with Josie - weren't a few of the girls before Josie transverse? Prolonged labor, extensive bloodloss and the lack of technology to remedy these issues = :angelic-blueglow:

(not that I think dead J'chelle would become an angel, I couldn't find a better "death" smiley)

[Guest Anonymous]

I've had 9 babies. AFAIK, the only real risk is an increased risk of hemorrhage because the uterus doesn't snap back as easily. Most of the other risks are the same, your just exposed to them more often if that makes sense.

I don't have morning sickness or other problems that would make me at risk for a nutritional deficiency. From what I understand from dr.s and midwives, calcium and iron are the biggies.

If a mother didn't take good care of herself, though, I can see how back to back pregnancies could run someone down. I have a friend like this - multiple back-to-back pregnancies, but her diet is very poor and her babies have been born earlier and earlier, with her last 2 being dx as failure to thrive. But she really does not take care of herself at all during pregnancy, I really think that's related.

[Deleted03]

She would have likely died before she was even pregnant with Josie - weren't a few of the girls before Josie transverse? Prolonged labor, extensive bloodloss and the lack of technology to remedy these issues = :angelic-blueglow:

(not that I think dead J'chelle would become an angel, I couldn't find a better "death" smiley)

she had pre eclampsia for Jana and JD I think and had to have a Csection so maybe we can even say Josh would be motherless!

[debrand]

It's true that some women are able to have several children without problems. But many women can't. The quiverful mentality encourages women, regardless of their individual physical ability, to have multiple pregnancies. That's a dangerous mindset

Michelle Duggar would never tell us if she had physical problems due to her many pregnancies. She is too intent on selling her lifestyle to us.

[Shoobydoo]

I think that the big reason people complain about Michelle Duggar is that she's had pre-ecclampsia several times, which gets worse every occurrence. I am not sure, but I think that played a role in Josie being born so very early. If she were to get pregnant again, the likelihood of her getting pre-ecclampsia again very early and very badly would basically spell a death sentence for her, the baby, or both. Add to that the fact that she is getting on in years and at her age the risk of serious genetic defects and dangerous pregnancies goes up exponentially...

If you have a history of safe, easy pregnancies then it's probably not that big a deal.

[PBrooke]

Unless she's keeping a secret, which is always possible, she had pre-eclampsia twice. Once, with her second pregnancy, when she was pregnant with Jana and JD; the second time, her seventeenth pregnancy, 20 years later, with Josie. While I think having pre-eclampsia once does raise the likelihood of having it again, I think we can mostly agree that the majority of her pregnancies seemed fine.

[Shoobydoo]

Unless she's keeping a secret, which is always possible, she had pre-eclampsia twice. Once, with her second pregnancy, when she was pregnant with Jana and JD; the second time, her seventeenth pregnancy, 20 years later, with Josie. While I think having pre-eclampsia once does raise the likelihood of having it again, I think we can mostly agree that the majority of her pregnancies seemed fine.

Oh, I didn't realize the incidents were that far apart. I guess while the risk is still present she could just be getting old. I seem to recall there being some kind of hubbub about what happened with Josie being a possible problem with future pregnancies, but someone who's more of a Duggar follower than I am would probably know better.

[Wolfie]

It's true that some women are able to have several children without problems. But many women can't. The quiverful mentality encourages women, regardless of their individual physical ability, to have multiple pregnancies. That's a dangerous mindset.

This. Not all womens' bodies are the same.

[Kitty]

Oh, I didn't realize the incidents were that far apart. I guess while the risk is still present she could just be getting old. I seem to recall there being some kind of hubbub about what happened with Josie being a possible problem with future pregnancies, but someone who's more of a Duggar follower than I am would probably know better.

Given that Josie is a micro-preemie and requires a LOT of care, more so than most infants, Michelle and JB simply haven't had time to do much. Of course, Michelle is in her 40's now so she's likely not as fertile as she used to be. On top of that miscarriages and defects are far more likely in women in their 40's, so Michelle might just be avoiding sex to avoid disappointment.