Mother of slain children - pregnant

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it odd. Like replacing something that clearly not be replaced.

Are you a parent?
If I lost 2 children, I would want to have another child. I don't think it's odd.

Yes, I am a parent. I could not imagine explaining to the child conceived out of tragedy that the only reason s/he exists is due to the deaths of other children. IMO it doesn't honor the memory of the dead. It's a bandaid for incredible pain and puts a child in a position, to be seen as 'replacement.'

You're sort of attaching all of your own assumptions and issues to this. You don't know what these people went through or why they did decide to have children again. Maybe it's not a bandaid or an attempt to replace her children or an attempt to honor the dead. Maybe it's just life going on. How long should people wallow in sorrow and not move on? Are you the type of person who just wants to wallow and linger in tragedy, pp? These people wanted to have children, and now they will have children again.

[Anonymous]

New child coming to the world is a brand new person that is not a bandaid or replacement to anyone. He or she will have her very own life. Is she/he comes to this world, that was meant to be.

[Anonymous]

^^^IF she/he comes to this world, that is meant to be.

[Anonymous]

People forget, losing a child, especially to illness, was once very very common. People were expected to move on and have other children and go on with their lives, because death was something everyone had to deal with more often.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is very common for couples who have suffered the tragic loss of a child to try to get pregnant quickly in order to heal. I think you could say it is an important part of the quest for life for many couples. Good for them!

That cant be healthy. They should first deal with their emotions/ grief.

They will be dealing with their emotions and grief for the rest of their lives. The decision to have another child shows their commitment to living and not letting the psycho nanny take away any more of their life than she already has taken. They also have another child, and likely want to give her a sibling. I think this is wonderful news.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it odd. Like replacing something that clearly not be replaced.

Are you a parent?
If I lost 2 children, I would want to have another child. I don't think it's odd.

Yes, I am a parent. I could not imagine explaining to the child conceived out of tragedy that the only reason s/he exists is due to the deaths of other children. IMO it doesn't honor the memory of the dead. It's a bandaid for incredible pain and puts a child in a position, to be seen as 'replacement.'

The youngest child in this family was very young at the time of the tragedy. Who's to say that they didn't hope for more children before losing the other two? And if not, why wouldn't they explain to the child that he or she was wanted in part because Leo and Lulu made them realize how wonderful it is to have children, and they wanted more of that wonderful?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is very common for couples who have suffered the tragic loss of a child to try to get pregnant quickly in order to heal. I think you could say it is an important part of the quest for life for many couples. Good for them!

That cant be healthy. They should first deal with their emotions/ grief.

Their grief is not something one can "deal with" and put to rest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it odd. Like replacing something that clearly not be replaced.

Are you a parent?
If I lost 2 children, I would want to have another child. I don't think it's odd.

Yes, I am a parent. I could not imagine explaining to the child conceived out of tragedy that the only reason s/he exists is due to the deaths of other children. IMO it doesn't honor the memory of the dead. It's a bandaid for incredible pain and puts a child in a position, to be seen as 'replacement.'

How do you arrive at the conclusion that the "only reason" is due to the deaths of other children? For all we know, they always wanted more. Maybe they're a loving couple who continued to love, support, and hold each other, despite the tragedy, and a child was the natural result. I don't think intentionally remaining childless would have been honoring the deceased children, nor do I think it as required that they have another. DCUM posters so often criticize other posters for "judging" others. I think your post is particularly offensive.

[Anonymous]

Honestly, I'm not sure this is such "wonderful news." I believe they were negligent, at best, leaving their now dead children with that nanny in the first place. They KNEW she was dangerous and mentally unstable. Not exactly "great parents."

It's like Rusty Yates--he knew that it was NOT ok to leave the kids with Andrea, that she was dangerous and mentally unstable...but he did anyway. And now, he's remarried with a new family and honestly, I haven't heard/read anyone saying how wonderful it is for him. Most people (that I know) are horrified.

Same for the Krims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it odd. Like replacing something that clearly not be replaced.

Are you a parent?
If I lost 2 children, I would want to have another child. I don't think it's odd.

Yes, I am a parent. I could not imagine explaining to the child conceived out of tragedy that the only reason s/he exists is due to the deaths of other children. IMO it doesn't honor the memory of the dead. It's a bandaid for incredible pain and puts a child in a position, to be seen as 'replacement.'

Who cares what other people think?! It's not the Krinn's responsibility to manage other people's perceptions abou ttheir children. They obviously love kids - they had three of them before two of them were murdered. They wanted another child in their lives. So what? Why is that so hard to understand and appreciate? Why can't you be happy for these people and let them be?

Really, the judgment on this forum of this family is absurd. None of you know what you would do in a situation like theirs, so enough with the speculation finger wagging. And yes, even people who are sad can have sex. Sex between two loving people is loving and comforting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it odd. Like replacing something that clearly not be replaced.

Are you a parent?
If I lost 2 children, I would want to have another child. I don't think it's odd.

I am quite certain that they don't feel they can "replace" their dead children. Geez.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is totally common. My great-grandmother lost 9 children to illness, all within the span of a week. She had three more after that, and that is why I am here today.

1918 flu pandemic?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it odd. Like replacing something that clearly not be replaced.

Are you a parent?
If I lost 2 children, I would want to have another child. I don't think it's odd.

Yes, I am a parent. I could not imagine explaining to the child conceived out of tragedy that the only reason s/he exists is due to the deaths of other children. IMO it doesn't honor the memory of the dead. It's a bandaid for incredible pain and puts a child in a position, to be seen as 'replacement.'

Who cares what other people think?! It's not the Krinn's responsibility to manage other people's perceptions abou ttheir children. They obviously love kids - they had three of them before two of them were murdered. They wanted another child in their lives. So what? Why is that so hard to understand and appreciate? Why can't you be happy for these people and let them be?

Really, the judgment on this forum of this family is absurd. None of you know what you would do in a situation like theirs, so enough with the speculation finger wagging. And yes, even people who are sad can have sex. Sex between two loving people is loving and comforting.

Agree. What a bunch of weird posts on this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Obviously, I never lost any children but I have lost loved ones unexpectedly. I was unable to sleep for months. I was down, not clinically depressed though. I just can't imagine wanting sex while my kids were newly dead. I would be too disturbed for that.

Why don't you tell us how you feel when your child dies. When my child died, I wanted to get pregnant ASAP and did and it was the best thing that ever happened to us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it odd. Like replacing something that clearly not be replaced.

Are you a parent?
If I lost 2 children, I would want to have another child. I don't think it's odd.

Yes, I am a parent. I could not imagine explaining to the child conceived out of tragedy that the only reason s/he exists is due to the deaths of other children. IMO it doesn't honor the memory of the dead. It's a bandaid for incredible pain and puts a child in a position, to be seen as 'replacement.'

How do you know they weren't planning to have more kids even before this happened?