Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 60

Thread: Fertility rates and its affects both personal and national

  1. #21
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Æmeric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    Britain, Ulster, Germany, America
    Subrace
    Dalofaelid+Baltid/Borreby
    Y-DNA
    R-Z19
    mtDNA
    U5a2c
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Indiana Indiana
    Gender
    Age
    57
    Family
    Married
    Politics
    Anti-Obama
    Religion
    Conservative Protestantism
    Posts
    6,269
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    571
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    519
    Thanked in
    227 Posts
    I don't think most women are capable of having 20 children. Even in the early days of America when large families were the norm, 7 to 9 seems to have been the average. Going through my own genealogical records, 14 was the most any of my female ancestors had. And I come from a long line of fertile pioneer women.

    As for how many children a woman should have; that depends on the woman. There are some woman who are not suited to motherhood & shouldn't have any. Then there are those like Michelle Duggar who has 17. It would be nice if woman like Mrs. Duggar who want to have large families could. The fact the Duggars are ridiculed shows how times have changed. It use to be childless women who thought to be "not normal."

  2. #22
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Online
    Tuesday, November 11th, 2008 @ 08:44 AM
    Subrace
    Faelid
    Gender
    Posts
    1,478
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Rassenpapst View Post

    I didn't say that you must have 20 children. However, it is perfectly natural and healthy to have twenty children and I wish that there were no stigma attached to large families.
    No. It. Is. Not. You realize doctors consider pregnancies that aren't at least 18-24 months apart from eachother high risk to both the mother and the baby? Or again, how about that prolapsed uterus and bladder.


    The following conditions can cause a prolapsed uterus:

    Pregnancy/multiple childbirths with normal delivery through the vagina

    Other risk factors:

    Caucasian women more commonly affected; African Americans and Asians affected less often

    Various stresses can cause the pelvic muscles and ligaments to weaken and lead to uterine or bladder prolapse. The most significant stress on these muscles and ligaments is childbirth. Women who have had multiple pregnancies and vaginal delivery are more likely to develop prolapse.

    Hysterectomy has been considered the treatment of choice for women experiencing significant symptoms as a result of uterine prolapse. In fact, the significance of uterine prolapse as a woman's health care issue can be gauged by the fact that it was the third most frequently reported cause for hysterectomy in the U.S. Uterine prolapse is a progressive condition that gets worse over time, if not treated.
    How does a woman get treated for this condition if she is continually getting pregnant and having children? It will more than likely lead to the need for a hysterectomy.

    The odds are also high enough to assume a woman with 20 pregnancies will require at least a few c-sections, which brings up the possibility of even more problems.

    With every Caesarean there is risk, as it is a major abdominal surgery. However, the more Caesareans that are performed, the more likely Placenta Accrete can develop. Placenta Accrete is a condition where the placenta actually imbeds into the muscles of the uterine wall. This increases the chances of hemorraging and even a hysterectomy.

    Repeat Caesareans can also be more difficult to perform because of the increasing amount of scar tissue left from previous Caesareans.

    So how many are actually safe? It isn't quite known just how many Caesareans are safe for both the mother and the baby. With Caesareans, the increased risk of persistent pulmonary hypertension in infants is to be considered.

  3. #23
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Online
    Tuesday, November 11th, 2008 @ 08:44 AM
    Subrace
    Faelid
    Gender
    Posts
    1,478
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Americ View Post
    The fact the Duggars are ridiculed shows how times have changed. It use to be childless women who thought to be "not normal."
    Actually I think they're more ridiculed for being overly-conservative, fanatical Christians, who seem to want to raise a little army of evangelical children without giving them any individuality.

  4. #24
    Senior Member Rassenpapst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Online
    Monday, February 18th, 2008 @ 04:49 AM
    Gender
    Age
    35
    Posts
    377
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by mischak View Post
    No. It. Is. Not. You realize doctors consider pregnancies that aren't at least 18-24 months apart from eachother high risk to both the mother and the baby? Or again, how about that prolapsed uterus and bladder.
    The risks still remain small and the benefits are far greater.

    How does a woman get treated for this condition if she is continually getting pregnant and having children? It will more than likely lead to the need for a hysterectomy.

    The odds are also high enough to assume a woman with 20 pregnancies will require at least a few c-sections, which brings up the possibility of even more problems.[i]
    Nearly all women can have 6-10 children without any significant danger to their health.

  5. #25
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Online
    Tuesday, November 11th, 2008 @ 08:44 AM
    Subrace
    Faelid
    Gender
    Posts
    1,478
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Rassenpapst View Post
    The risks still remain small and the benefits are far greater.
    What do you not understand about high risk?


    Nearly all women can have 6-10 children without any significant danger to their health.
    That can be true, but that's not what you said and not what I was replying to, so let me remind you

    Originally Posted by Rassenpapst
    However, it is perfectly natural and healthy to have twenty children

  6. #26
    Senior Member Rassenpapst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Online
    Monday, February 18th, 2008 @ 04:49 AM
    Gender
    Age
    35
    Posts
    377
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by mischak View Post
    What do you not understand about high risk?
    Without a numerical estimation of the risk it is meaningless to talk about it.

    That can be true, but that's not what you said and not what I was replying to, so let me remind you
    Well, you have yourself said that you only want 2-3 children. Why?

  7. #27
    Senior Member SineNomine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Last Online
    Sunday, November 9th, 2008 @ 05:25 AM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Subrace
    Mediterranid
    Country
    England England
    Location
    Nord du pays
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Family
    Single
    Occupation
    Student
    Politics
    Libertarian
    Religion
    MYOB
    Posts
    2,132
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Well, it's not really that off topic.

    Anyway, I think anyone seriously suggesting that 10 - 20 children, or anything more than 5 for that matter, is a viable option to carefully think about it. It is essentially transforming the family into a biological factory. I cannot think of anything more de-humanizing. As Americ noted, differing families have differing limits. For some anything above one child will be excessive, for others much larger numbers will be sustainable. To a large degree, many children are only possible if a) the family is high income and/or b) has many "anchor" members (e.g. a grandmother or aunt willing to help the parents bringing up the children.) If anything, what should be done is the facilitation of the movement of children from families which do not want them to those that do and more voluntary institutions ought to develop to encourage/aid child-rearing, and a movement away from state dependence, back to familial foundations. I still think anything above 5 children is excessive, but for those willing to carry it through, my proverbial hat is off to them. I am not fond of children, doubt I would make a good parent and even if I chose to do so, I would not want more than two children.

  8. #28
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Online
    Tuesday, November 11th, 2008 @ 08:44 AM
    Subrace
    Faelid
    Gender
    Posts
    1,478
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Rassenpapst View Post
    Without a numerical estimation of the risk it is meaningless to talk about it.
    Women can maximize their chances of having healthy babies by spacing their pregnancies at least 18 months but no more than five years apart, according to a new report.

    Researchers reached that conclusion after an analysis of 67 international studies involving more than 11 million pregnancies.


    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12373321/


    Well, you have yourself said that you only want 2-3 children. Why?
    Personal preference. It's what would best suit my personality and the family I want. I'd want my child to have siblings, but for me, having more than 3 is unnecessary.

  9. #29
    Senior Member Rassenpapst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Online
    Monday, February 18th, 2008 @ 04:49 AM
    Gender
    Age
    35
    Posts
    377
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by mischak View Post
    Women can maximize their chances of having healthy babies by spacing their pregnancies at least 18 months but no more than five years apart, according to a new report.

    Researchers reached that conclusion after an analysis of 67 international studies involving more than 11 million pregnancies.


    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12373321/
    "The analysis found that for each month under 18 months between pregnancies, the risk of premature birth increased 1.9 percent."

    The risk is both small and inconsequential as prematurely born babies usually stay alive today.

    Personal preference. It's what would best suit my personality and the family I want. I'd want my child to have siblings, but for me, having more than 3 is unnecessary.
    When most women are equally selfish the consequence is national decline as I already explained.

  10. #30
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Online
    Tuesday, November 11th, 2008 @ 08:44 AM
    Subrace
    Faelid
    Gender
    Posts
    1,478
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Rassenpapst View Post
    "The analysis found that for each month under 18 months between pregnancies, the risk of premature birth increased 1.9 percent."

    The risk is both small and inconsequential as prematurely born babies usually stay alive today.

    Again, you must be completely ignorant of the problems premature infants face even if they do survive.

    Premature birth is a serious health problem. Premature babies are at increased risk for newborn health complications, as well as lasting disabilities, such as mental retardation, cerebral palsy, lung and gastrointestinal problems, vision and hearing loss, and even death. Many premature babies require care in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), which has specialized medical staff and equipment that can deal with the multiple problems faced by premature infants.
    When most women are equally selfish the consequence is national decline as I already explained.
    No, what's selfish is you thinking you have the right to determine how many children women should have.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Fertility Rates Climb Back Up in the Most Developed Countries
    By Verðandi in forum Parenthood & Family
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Friday, August 7th, 2009, 02:31 AM
  2. World Fertility Rates: Statistics
    By Bridie in forum Parenthood & Family
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: Wednesday, November 29th, 2006, 03:22 AM
  3. Scientists Find DNA Region That Affects Europeans' Fertility
    By Todesritter in forum Medical & Behavioral Genetics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Tuesday, March 8th, 2005, 12:06 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •