Actually, the risk DOES decrease for subsequent births – not the actual risk, but our quantification of it, which is at issue here. We would say that the risk of preeclampsia is x%, based on similarly-aged women in similar physical shape. But now we know that HER risk of preeclampsia is dramatically smaller. It’s true that it’s non-zero, and that the die rolls with each successive pregnancy, but as I suggested above, the issue is not whther risk exists at all – obviously it does – but whether a cost-benefit analysis suggests the risk is acceptable.
If you’ll allow me another post-
That’s one of the problems- they haven’t weighed any risks, they haven’t thought about pros or cons, at all. Per Jim Bob himself, they are having kids becasue its God’s will, period. No thought at all on their part on what they want, or what’s good for them, the kids, the world, nothing. They are doing what God wants.
Which is as I already noted. Right there in the bit you quoted, in fact.
She is free to do whatever she likes. I am not over there with a picket sign chaining myself to her cooter to stop her from having more children. She has the right to have as many kids as she can squeeze from her vagina just like I have the right to think that this kind of behavior makes her and her husband a bit nutty. I don’t have to agree with her decisions to think she has a right to make them.
And beyond that they keep thrusting their family and their choices into the limelight over and over again. If they don’t want people to judge them maybe they should send the camera crew elsewhere. I don’t feel sympathy for them being judged any more than I do for Brittany Spears when she calls the reporters and tells them she is going to the grocery store so that they can be sure to get her antics on film.
And yet, it remains true.
The man owns an insurance company, I don’t think they need worry on that front, but you keep digging that hole if you like.
Again, the only ‘donations’ they take are hand me down clothes. Where I come from we call that recycling and pat each other on the back for being all green and everything.
And myskeptic, you made the claim, either back it up or suck it up, I’m not finding your cites for you, sorry.
And QED
, really, that’s what you’re going with as ‘evidence’?
That is a very simplistic conclusion to draw.
I grant you it’s possible.
But when people pray, one aspect of praying is meditative. Praying is an excellent way to think about things. Because Jim Bob chose to characterize their choice as “leaving it to God” does not mean that they didn’t weigh these factors, perhaps couched as “what God is sending us to deal with.”
From an evolutionary viewpoint, they are making excellent choices. Their genes will be in evolutionary play in 18 offspring, all of whom (so far) are healthy and show every evidence of being able to reproduce in turn. What’s not to admire?
You are obviously mistaken. For one thing, you do not personally know what they have or have not “thought” about, unless you’re psychic, which of course you are not. For another,** their own statements are direct evidence that they HAVE weighed the risks.** In their calculus, the risk of incurring the wrath of God and placing their immortal souls in peril outweighs the other risks. One presumes as well that a woman who has given birth 17 times probably HAS heard the risks involved in pregnancy - she’s been around enough doctors - and she chooses to go ahead anyway.
You may disagree with their personal risk/reward decisions, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have a risk/reward equation at all; it’s just different from yours. That’s the great thing about living in a free country.
I doubt I’ll get one, given the bullshit you’ve responded with in the past, but … cite?
Why wouldn’t it decrease? We don’t know the risk for a given individual ex ante, but we can make some predictions about future risks after we’ve seen a few performances. So the best estimate of the risk after four kids could very well be lower than the estimate after none.
Specific example that I am sadly all too familiar with. The risk of preeclampsia in a first pregnancy is about 10%. If you’ve had it once, the risk in a second pregnancy is substantially higher (although still less than 50%), while if you haven’t had it, the risk in a second pregnancy is vanishingly low. If you’ve had it twice (according to my perinatologist), the risk of having it a third time exceeds 95%. Other complications often follow the same pattern.
The Duggars get to decide after each child whether they’re going to have another, based on the information they have from the previous ones. While you may be able to say for a given childless woman that her risk of dying is greater if she has 18 children in the future than if she has one (or at a minimum, at least as great), you cannot say that a woman with seventeen children necessarily has a greater risk associated with having one more than a childless women has of having her first. The opposite is likely to be true.
To Really Not All That Bright - thank you for providing an actual cite - I didn’t see it while I was typing. I will read it now. Perhaps you and Q.E.D. should exchange usernames.
See the post immediately preceding yours. Unless you’re disinclined to believe the WHO, that should put an end to your whining for a cite.
I notice you have abandoned the argument concerning finances – which is wiese, because they are comparatively wealthy, and could undoubtedly sustain their family without needing handouts at all.
Of course, you’re free to adopt whatever opinion you wish. And by posting your opinions here, I in turn am free to comment on your opinions, right?
I’d like to note that I’m pretty sure Jim Bob never went to college, positive that Michelle didn’t, and since they’re so comfortably off that way–sincerely doubt that any of the children will. Just because people keep harping about the costs of 18 college educations.
Oh, so he provides a cite which backs my assertion, yet somehow I’m still stupid and wrong? Whatever. :rolleyes:
That cite seems to focus on world-wide risks, with particular attention to third-world countries.
Since we know Mrs. Dugger is in the United States, perhaps we could find some sense of numbers that are more relevant to her situation and standard of health care she receives.
So gay couples who raise children will always end up with kids who are gay as well? They are so comfortable that way…
Were they able to sustain the family bills withouth handouts before the Discovery Channel specials? If they were, then why take the handouts if they weren’t needed?
Another problem, even if Jim Bob were rich, is that his income at most provides food and shelter and clothing and not much else. Not even getting into extravagances like Xbox’s and Ipods, wouldn’t you want to be able to give your kids things like trips to the beach, amusement parks, mountains, things like that, that you could do if you had four kids but can’t do with 20? All things considered, isn’t it wrong to prevent your kids from having things or experiences that are denied them simply by your insistence on having more kids? Are we to believe that the day to day experience in the Duggar compound exceeds the benfits of seeing the outside world? It’s one thing for a kid to not be able to do extra things because the family is poor, its another when they can’t do it because you keep having kids.
elbows, where are you getting that he owns an insurance company? If he is rich from owning an insurance complany, why take church handouts you don’t need?
Another Duggar thread, eh? Has it been nine months already?
As far as I’m concerned - since I know we had a thread about J16 and J17 - this has become one of the Dope’s long-running unresolveable debates, and I’m punting this thread to GD as a result.
A number of posts here have either crossed the personal insult line or gotten right up next to the line and done the hokey pokey. Rather than wade through this whole thing again, I’m going to remind everybody: insults are not allowed outside the Pit, so keep it civil or open a new thread in that forum.
Yes, I would say that providing an actual cite would tend to go with “Q.E.D.”, while providing handwaving and “It stands to reason!” would be associated with… whatever. The fact is you couldn’t be bothered to find a cite until someone went looking for one for you.
In addition to being based on third-world data (as pointed out by Bricker), the WHO article does not separate the risks of women who have had at least four uncomplicated pregnancies from those who have had complications in the past. Nevertheless, it does at least provide data, which has been sadly lacking in your posts to date.
ETA: Once again I cross with a relevant post. I’ve been trying to attack the argument, not the poster, but I concede that I’ve gotten pretty close to the line, and I apologize for that.
elbows - I meant find a cite backing YOUR side if you’re so sure you’re right. Cause I could give a crap less, cites or not, I can’t see how putting your body through that stress, regardless if the body is designed to handle it, that many times, doesn’t carry some risk.
No one in this thread is going to convince the “other side” that they are correct in thinking the Duggars are normal/crazy.
And Wee Bairn got it right, at least to me. The Duggar family is not inherently poor. But the more kids they have, the less they have to give them. And they could stop having them if they chose to. I think it’s unfair to their children to deprive them of stuff they could have and instead have 2 baseball teams living in the same house.