Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Elizabeth and John Edwards had children after their first child died. Same with John Travolta and his wife.

I think though in both cases it was an attempt to keep a marriage from imploding from the tragedy. I know Travolta's hasn't but that who knows with CoS what kind of crazy control it has over their marriage--since they're both CoS. But I digress. Having kids to save your marriage after a tragic death of a child rarely works--the lingering anger and blame just is too much...but I hope it does work for them.

So let me get this right, parents who lose a child should not have any more children because otherwise nit wits like the two of you will think that they are trying to replace their dead child OR that they are trying to save their marriage. Interesting.

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.'

I'm pretty tolerant of the multiple moronic responses posted on DCUM but I have to respond how utterly inane your comment is. Try imagining how close-minded, presumptious and judgemental you must be to say something as stupid and insensitive as this.

Anonymous wrote:I can't believe some of these posts. How those parents handle their lives is their business. Some of you should be ashamed of your judgments.

Me too.
Good for them. In their situation I dont know what I'd do. No judgement from me. Wish them the best.

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.

Ok. Are you from the Ozarks? Or Utah? Or the 1930's dust bowl?

Anonymous wrote:

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

Elizabeth and John Edwards had children after their first child died. Same with John Travolta and his wife.

I think though in both cases it was an attempt to keep a marriage from imploding from the tragedy. I know Travolta's hasn't but that who knows with CoS what kind of crazy control it has over their marriage--since they're both CoS. But I digress. Having kids to save your marriage after a tragic death of a child rarely works--the lingering anger and blame just is too much...but I hope it does work for them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I have no idea, although that may be it. She went out of town to a family member's wedding, and came home to find all her children deathly ill. I can't imagine a more nightmarish scenario. People used to have to deal with the death of children far more often, and having more children was a typical response. I don't think anyone could "replace" 9 children or whatever pp is saying.

Did she have more than 9 at the time and some survived, or did she have 9 and lose them all? It's just so unimaginable, especially in this day and age.

No, she had 9 children at the time, and they all died. Then she had 3 more after that. She said she had a dream where God told her that none of her descendants would lose a child and what happened to her would never happen again.

I can't believe some of these posts. How those parents handle their lives is their business. Some of you should be ashamed of your judgments.

Well said 9:23.

This whole thread is like a treatise on Humanae Vitae.

Until a couple generations ago, sex was universally understood as being unitive and possibly procreative. Everyone knew that children could result from sex, which was supposed to be an act of love.

Now that procreation has been so thoroughly removed from sex, children are a commodity, a means to an end. You CHOOSE to ACQUIRE a child for some purpose, rather than just opening yourself up to the possibility of new life.

Maybe this couple simply loves one another, and a result of their love is children.

My neighbor got pregant when her 2-year-old daughter was in the final stages of a brain tumor. She was 4 months pregnant when her daughter passed away. While I can't imagine wanting to have sex while going through a traumatic experience (death of a child, terminal illness of a child, etc), I don't think anyone can say for sure how they would react until it happens to them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I have no idea, although that may be it. She went out of town to a family member's wedding, and came home to find all her children deathly ill. I can't imagine a more nightmarish scenario. People used to have to deal with the death of children far more often, and having more children was a typical response. I don't think anyone could "replace" 9 children or whatever pp is saying.

Did she have more than 9 at the time and some survived, or did she have 9 and lose them all? It's just so unimaginable, especially in this day and age.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I have no idea, although that may be it. She went out of town to a family member's wedding, and came home to find all her children deathly ill. I can't imagine a more nightmarish scenario. People used to have to deal with the death of children far more often, and having more children was a typical response. I don't think anyone could "replace" 9 children or whatever pp is saying.

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.

And you would know, since I'm sure you've lost two children to murder at the hand of their nanny. Let them live how they want to- really, who are we to judge how they grieve or move forward?

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 understand that your problem is assuming.

Ok, let me see if I have this straight....

According to some of the PPs, when one loses a child, one must abstain from sex and remain completely overcome with debilitating grief for an undefined period of time.

I suppose, following the same logic, if one loses a spouse, remarriage is unthinkable.

Really??!!

I had an early MC, which was devastating for me and Dh. I can only imagine the magnitude of grief the Krim's are dealing with. In our grief, Dh and I found comfort in each other, and, yes, in sex. Not just to conceive, because we had 0% chance of conceiving on our own. Everyone deals with grief differently. Why is this such a difficult concept. Oh, yeah, this is DCUM, where everything is controversial and ripe for judgement.