Birth Again

First, nobody is afraid to talk about birth.

The fact that some folks just don’t want to look at Nicole’s hoo-ha and a turd coming out of her rectum is not an indication of fear.  I don’t want to see her have a bowel movement, either, and that’s a natural process.  Nor do I want to witness her menstrual period in living color.

Shall we have a public conversation about peeing?  Let’s all take close up photos of the process and put them on Facebook.

I have seen more births than Nicole has. (She has actually seen none at all, since you can’t really see very much if you happen to own the vagina where it’s happening.)  It’s a fascinating process, whether it’s human or bovine, but so are sex and digestion and brain surgery.

Not wanting to talk about it endlessly and view fifty million photos of the process doesn’t denote fear. It might just be due to boredom.

She’s going to ride this, though, because it’s her only claim to fame.  It’s her accomplishment.

But her foray into statistical analysis is even more fascinating.

Her math is all wrong.  Math is hard.

Did you get that?  Leaving out fetal deaths prior to twenty weeks gestation (what we call miscarriages, and the medical world refers to as spontaneous abortion), the fetal death rate is about 6 per 1000 pregnancies.

That’s a whopping 0.6%.  Not even 1%.

If you take Nicole’s data, leaving out the miscarriages (if they were in fact less than 20 weeks gestation, something we do not know for sure), she has had one fetal death in 12 pregnancies.  That is a fetal death rate of 8.3%.  That’s almost 14 times greater than the statistical data suggests.

Her attitude is so god damned cavalier. It’s as though that dead baby was disposable.  Oh, gee, you win most of the time, but occasionally you lose one. Oh well. . .

But really, that baby’s death was not an out-of-the-blue, unpredictable event.  It was as easy to see coming as a hurricane on the Gulf coast.

Click image to link to source

The perinatal mortality rate in the grand multipara group was 23.5%; there were no perinatal deaths among controls.

You see, this is the situation.

In the first statistic I cited, a fetal death rate of 0.6%, they are taking all pregnancies past twenty weeks into the database.  All of them. First pregnancies, 4th pregnancies, 6th pregnancies, 12th pregnancies.  They’re compiling the data as though all these pregnancies are created equal.

And they aren’t, of course.

The truth is that a woman’s reproductive organs age.  Time will do them in (I still have all mine and I’m quite sure they are shriveled up and horrible looking).  Live long enough and they will completely quit functioning.

Not only does time do them in, use does as well.  The more pregnancies you have had, the higher the risk to the fetus.

Let me say that again.

Every time you get pregnant, you are faced with a bit of an increase in risk to the fetus.  In those early years, especially if you’re not 35 when you have your first pregnancy, the risk is so slight as to be statistically meaningless.

But it begins to snowball, and by the time you’re a grand multip, the risk of fetal death is 23.5%, or at least, it was in that study.  I’ve seen studies with lower figures, but the risk of fetal death among grand multips is still quite a bit higher than the risk for earlier pregnancies.

Nicole Naugler is not a grand multip.  That’s a woman who has had five pregnancies prior to the current one. That ship sailed for Nicole long ago.

She is a great grand multip.

Yippee.  She’s “great” at something.

The fetal death risk for a great grand multip, by the most conservative data I could find, is four times greater than for women having their 1-5 pregnancy.

The risk gets greater as the pregnancies happen.  It’s a snowball effect.

I wrote about this before. More than once.  People warned her.  Even her humpers expressed concern. Right up until the last minute, people were telling her she needed to see a doctor.

And I will say it again. Nicole Naugler took a massive gamble by having that 15th pregnancy.  She gambled and lost. She could have suffered the ultimate loss and died.

If she tries it again, she’s suicidal. If Joe Naugler gets her pregnant knowingly (and with Nicole, that means if he has unprotected sex with her even once), he’s trying to kill her.

 

0

33 thoughts on “Birth Again”

  1. And just so FUCKING matter of fact about it….like she was unsuccessful at hatching some fucking chicks or breeding a dam dog. WTF is wrong with her? She is fucking insane….she is so convinced that she is the expert on pregnancy and home birthing with no prenatal care that she not only put her unborn child at risk she also put herself at risk and the other 11 children that would of been without a mother and left to be raised by the dope smoking non working non schooling HH! Look WTF it cost you Nicole….your child!!! Not a fucking chick a rabbit or a puppy! Your SON you stupid selfish mentally unstable idiot!! Here’s an offer for you dumb asses…..I will start a GFM for HH to get his balls clipped if it means YOU never conceive again!!! You do not deserve to be called parents!!

    0

  2. Let me help, Sally! As always, feel free to prune my post prior to publication.

    Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1997 Dec;59(3):213-6.
    Great grand multiparity: is it a risk?
    Abu-Heija AT1, Chalabi HE.
    Author information
    Abstract
    OBJECTIVE:

    To compare antenatal and intrapartum complications incidence among women delivering for the 10th time or more and to compare this with those of low parity (para 2-5).
    METHODS:

    The records of (154) women of great grand multipara (para > 10) were reviewed and compared with (308) women (para 2-5) delivered during the same period. Antepartum as well as intrapartum complications were compared, all occurring between 16 April 1994 and 15 January 1995.
    RESULTS:

    Great grand multiparous women are older. The incidence of diabetes mellitus, chronic hypertension and preterm labor are similar to those with low parity, while they have higher incidences of pre-eclampsia (7.1% vs. 2.69%) and intrauterine fetal death (5.2 vs. 1.3%) P < 0.025. There were no differences in the incidences of placental abruption, placenta previa, malpresentation, postpartum hemorrhage and operative delivery between the two groups. Great grand multipara also have a higher incidence of macrosomia (12% vs. 12%) P < 0.0001.
    CONCLUSION:

    Great grand multiparous woman are at increased risk of having pre-eclampsia, intrauterine fetal death and macrosomia.

    PMID:
    9486509

    BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013; 13: 241.
    Published online 2013 Dec 23. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-13-241
    PMCID: PMC3878019
    Grand multiparity: is it still a risk in pregnancy?
    Andrew H Mgaya,corresponding author1 Siriel N Massawe,2 Hussein L Kidanto,1,2 and Hans N Mgaya2
    Author information ► Article notes ► Copyright and License information ►

    Results

    Grand multiparas had twice the likelihood of malpresentation and a threefold higher prevalence of meconium-stained liquor and placenta previa compared with lower-parity women even when adjusted for age. Neonates delivered by grand multiparous women (12.1%) were at three-time greater risk of a low Apgar score compared with lower-parity women (5.4%) (odds ratio (OR), 2.9; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.5–5.0). Grand multiparity and low birth weight were independently associated with a low Apgar score (OR, 2.4; 95%, CI 1.4–4.2 for GM; OR, 4.2; 95% CI, 2.3–7.8) for low birth weight.
    Conclusion

    Grand multiparity remains a risk in pregnancy and is associated with an increased prevalence of maternal and neonatal complications (malpresentation, meconium-stained liquor, placenta previa and a low Apgar score) compared with other multiparous women who delivered at Muhimbili National Hospital.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3878019/ (it's worth reading the whole thing but I doubt Nicole will bother)

    It's been cited by six other articles:

    Grand multiparity: is it still a risk in pregnancy?
    Andrew H Mgaya, Siriel N Massawe, Hussein L Kidanto, Hans N Mgaya
    BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013; 13: 241. Published online 2013 Dec 23. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-13-241

    PMCID:
    PMC3878019

    Article PubReader PDF–243KCitation
    Is Cited by the Following 6 Articles in this Archive:
    Is time of birth a predictor of adverse perinatal outcome? A hospital-based cross-sectional study in a low-resource setting, Tanzania
    Andrew Mgaya, Januarius Hinju, Hussein Kidanto
    BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017; 17: 184. Published online 2017 Jun 12. doi: 10.1186/s12884-017-1358-9

    PMCID:
    PMC5469024

    Article PubReader PDF–407KCitation
    Frequency, Risk Factors, and Adverse Fetomaternal Outcomes of Placenta Previa in Northern Tanzania
    Elizabeth Eliet Senkoro, Amasha H. Mwanamsangu, Fransisca Seraphin Chuwa, Sia Emmanuel Msuya, Oresta Peter Mnali, Benjamin G. Brown, Michael Johnson Mahande
    J Pregnancy. 2017; 2017: 5936309. Published online 2017 Feb 21. doi: 10.1155/2017/5936309

    PMCID:
    PMC5339534

    Article PubReader PDF–493KCitation
    Reasons for current pregnancy amongst grand multiparous Gambian women – a cross sectional survey
    Patrick Idoko, Glenda Nkeng, Matthew Anyawu
    BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016; 16: 217. Published online 2016 Aug 11. doi: 10.1186/s12884-016-1016-7

    PMCID:
    PMC4982305

    Article PubReader PDF–629KCitation
    Contraceptive choices among grand multiparous women at Murtala Mohammed Specialist Hospital, Kano
    Ayyuba Rabiu, Idris Sulaiman Abubakar, Ibrahim Garba, Iman Usman Haruna
    Ann Afr Med. 2016 Apr-Jun; 15(2): 58–62. doi: 10.4103/1596-3519.176203

    PMCID:
    PMC5402824

    Article PubReaderCitation
    Maternal and newborn outcomes in Pakistan compared to other low and middle income countries in the Global Network’s Maternal Newborn Health Registry: an active, community-based, pregnancy surveillance mechanism
    Omrana Pasha, Sarah Saleem, Sumera Ali, Shivaprasad S Goudar, Ana Garces, Fabian Esamai, Archana Patel, Elwyn Chomba, Fernando Althabe, Janet L Moore, Margo Harrison, Mabel B Berrueta, K Michael Hambidge, Nancy F Krebs, Patricia L Hibberd, Waldemar A Carlo, Bhala Kodkany, Richard J Derman, Edward A Liechty, Marion Koso-Thomas, Elizabeth M McClure, Robert L Goldenberg
    Reprod Health. 2015; 12(Suppl 2): S15. Published online 2015 Jun 8. doi: 10.1186/1742-4755-12-S2-S15

    PMCID:
    PMC4464035

    Article PubReader PDF–419KCitation
    Pre-pregnancy high-risk factors at first antenatal visit: how predictive are these of pregnancy outcomes?
    Barthélémy Tandu-Umba, Muela Andy Mbangama, Kitenge Marc Brunel Kamongola, Armel Georges Kamgang Tchawou, Mawamfumu Perthus Kivuidi, Sam Kasonga Munene, Irène Kambashi Meke, Oscar Kapuku Kabasele, Bituemi Jackson Kondoli, Kibundila Rolly Kikuni, Simon Kasikila Kuzungu
    Int J Womens Health. 2014; 6: 1011–1018. Published online 2014 Dec 5. doi: 10.2147/IJWH.S69230

    PMCID:
    PMC4266255

    Pay particular attention to this one!
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4266255/

    Conclusion

    Pregnancy adverse outcomes are strongly influenced by either non-pathologic or pathologic pre-pregnancy risk factors at first antenatal visit booking. The recurrence potential of complications is one reason to establish the predictability and preventability of morbidity such that the most appropriate referrals and best options throughout the pregnancy can be determined.

    Major factors identified in our study as non-pathologic were primiparity, grand multiparity, single status, and maternal age ≥35 years, which are well known to put a pregnancy at risk.8–10 These factors significantly influenced the occurrence of complications such as urinary infection, hypertensive disorders, PROM, cesarean section, PPH, prematurity, neonatal distress, stillbirth, and macrosomia.

    0

  3. The thing that stood out the most to me in Nicole’s post is the self absorption. It’s all about her and the poor stillborn William seems secondary to her needs and beliefs. She describes William as just a “normal standard statistic.” Her statistics are wrong, probably made up off the top of her head, and I suspect used to simply excuse herself from any culpability.

    She has described herself as coming across as “cold.” It doesn’t get colder than that, imho.

    0

  4. Remember something about this. We’re not just talking about Nicole suffering a fatal hemorrhage, something that very likely won’t happen, or the baby dying, something that probably won’t happen either.

    Sadly, William did die. Nicole suffered a bad hemorrhage and very easily could have died. She just had to roll those die again, didn’t she?

    If she tries it again, she’s suicidal. If Joe Naugler gets her pregnant knowingly (and with Nicole, that means if he has unprotected sex with her even once), he’s trying to kill her.

    Naw. She’s fulfilling her destiny or something like that. She simply has to have more children than anyone in her family has ever had.

    I wonder if she can keep pace with one wing of my family tree. They had 15 children – no multiple babies – that lived. Most of those kids never married or had children. They went into monasteries and nunneries. They had already had their fill of children and knew full well how dangerous childbirth could be. In the 19th century, 15 living children was regarded as beating ALL the odds.

    0

  5. The more I read about sepsis causing DIC in pregnancy, the more I suspect that she knew the baby had died, or suspected it, and went into her oppositional defiant mode and just walked around like that for a few days until the DIC almost killed her.

    Just read about DIC killing a lady who thought she had aborted the fetus.

    It’s amazing she survived.

    0

  6. I always proof read my comments several times before I post. I want to make sure I have made my point, made sense and used correct grammar and spelling…I just don’t think she does that..and I am just floored that she referred to her Son as a “statistic” but then I consider the source.

    0

  7. It is considered normal for a mother to feel guilt when something bad happens, even when it’s not their fault. Call it a mom thing. If my baby fell down the stairs because I forgot to shut the door or close the gate I would feel guilt. I wouldn’t blame the baby. It was my job to make sure the gate or door was shut and my job to watch the baby. Heck, even if I wasn’t there and someone else was in charge of my baby I would still feel the guilt. I don’t call the baby falling down the stairs a learning experience for the child or try to make it somehow a statistical equation. In my mom brain I am in charge of the safety and well being of my child.

    It amazes me when I run into Moms like Nichole. I know three moms like her. They are my sister and sister in laws. They were so cavalier with motherhood that their combined 6 children came to live with us by age two. These women in their child bearing years (they are now all way past the age of childbearing) never felt any guilt or responsibility for the welfare of their children. If something went wrong it was always someone else’s fault. They didn’t feel guilt. My own sister, raised in the same house with me by the same parents, somehow grew to feel no guilt, ever, for anything. When she left her 2 week old baby in the back of her car for 7 hours, she couldn’t believe the fuss made by it. The baby was fine, get over it, was her attitude. She’s 60 years old now and still feels that way. I wonder if Nicole is missing the guilt gene. I wonder why I have an over abundance of it. I still feel guilt when something goes wrong with my kids. I have the “if only I had” on autopilot and my kids range in age from 27 to 42!

    It is sad that Nicole views the death of her child as a statistic. Does she ever feel guilt or blame herself for anything that has happened in her life? Does she ever think or learn from her mistakes? I wouldn’t want her to be guilt ridden about her baby, but I do have to wonder about her apparent lack of responsibility in the death of her baby.

    0

  8. The studies on great-grands are almost exclusively either from long ago, or from second or third world nations. Women in first world countries just don’t have that many children anymore, so there isn’t enough data to perform current research. I’ve read all the studies that give the statistics you cite, and a few more. I have yet to find a single modern study in a first world nation that is balanced. Most don’t make much of a distinction between women that receive prenatal care and those that do not. Nor does it make any distinction between the *quality* of prenatal care. A European mother pregnant with her 10th that sees a perinatalogist in addition to her OBGYN is going to have better care than the woman in Uganda that sees an OBGYN irregularly because care isn’t available at the regular intervals it is here (or the intervals aren’t different for a great-grand in that area). It is very clear that prenatal care makes an enormous difference in pregnancy outcome. Neither do these studies make a distinction between situations like 10 children born over 20 years and 10 children born over 10 years. Pregnancy spacing makes a TREMENDOUS difference in fetal as well as maternal outcome. A woman that has had back-to-back-to-back pregnancies for years is at a higher risk of many complications as well as spontaneous abortion.

    The general estimate is that 1 in 4 pregnancies end in miscarriage. NN has had 3 miscarriages, 1 stillbirth, and 11 live children (grouping miscarriages and stillbirths together) she’s at an 4/15 (because they count your pregnancies altogether, then evaluate outcomes). By that math she has just over a 25% “unsuccessful” pregnancy rate. I don’t say this in order to say her logic is sound, just point out that even logic her successful pregnancy rate isn’t all that impressive really. At best it is well within the normal range. Although, another factor is that no matter how many pregnancies you’ve had, the moment you reach that magical number 4 of unsuccessful pregnancies(even if those 4 are spaced over 20 years) you are automatically labeled with certain risks like possible genetic translocations and such.

    I had to go thru the entire genetics dance recently, so I had many long converstations with perinatalogists and geneticists about the specific risks of great-grands as well as multiple miscarriages. I went thru all the carrier testing because I wanted to give our children as much information as possible for when they start their childbearing/rearing years. We have a child with several health conditions, and I think knowing what his potential genetic lottery has in it can help us figure out what he potentially has, and what he couldn’t have. He was tested for CF about 3 times, and I’ve been tested innumerable times. I wanted to put certain potential diagnosis completely to rest for his sake (no to mention for his siblings, and future nieces/nephews/children)

    Making the distinction between the risks associated with parity, age, and pregnancy loss statistics is pretty important, and can’t be generalized very well (nor should it be). NN has the absolute jackpot of all three right now. The arc of complications and poor outcomes becomes much steeper the moment you touch 40, once you’ve had 4 losses, once you hit that great-grand status, and most especially when you have no prenatal care.

    I personally am just fine with large families if you can care for them and yourself well. Obviously I would be a complete hypocrite if I wasn’t fine with it since I have a large family myself. Where I part ways with the Ns is that I believe prenatal care, regular medical/dental/optical, and quality education are part of the overall wellbeing of the entire family. If you can’t (or won’t in the Ns case) provide those things you shouldn’t have any number of children.

    I understand the point you are trying to make, and I understand the points the Skeptical OB makes as well. I’ve read her blog off and on for years. I mostly take issues with generalizations. I’ve never been one to see absolutely everything as black/white; I want to know the range of information. My sister had innumerable complications in her one and only pregnancy, enough that she is never having another child because the risk is too great. Outside of pregnancy she is as healthy as women come, she just can’t have more children. My godmother had 8 children and no miscarriages or pregnancy complications (she’s a great-great grandmother now). If they were the same age, many would think on paper my sister was the lower risk person because of her primapara status when the reality is quite to the contrary.

    0

  9. She describes William as just a “normal standard statistic.”

    Well, when you employ the same reproductive strategy as oysters, it was a normal standard statistic. With the exception of the gestation time. Okay, that was unkind re: sexual maturity. Still, the evidence is in a few photos.

    many offspring, short gestation, less parental care, and a short time until sexual maturity

    0

  10. A normal, standard statistic in my opinion.

    Poor thing. Guess she forgets, opinions are like assholes, we all have them, and most of them stink.

    0

  11. “I ran into another mom who had a pregnancy loss, at Walmart”…is there a club that meets there? Surely she didnt walk up and say ” hey , lose a baby”

    0

  12. I mostly take issues with generalizations.

    This was not intended to be a scholarly treatise. It’s a blog, for pete’s sake. Take all the data you want. All of it. You won’t find a single study anywhere, in Idaho or Tanzania or the Philippines that says “Gee, having eleventy million pregnancies, back to back, is a great idea.”

    0

  13. I have no idea if she feels any guilt about the death of her kid, sometimes I think she does and other times like today I seriously doubt it. She justifys him as a statistic which is true in the sense she does it to try and say,, (well I had a child, I did not do any care and he was a statistic, he died and the kids buried him on land which is our homestead) I am sure none of you have a problem with it.
    I do wonder if we all will get a suprise once the Sperminator gets any action and were shocked to learn that he nogged her up again.
    She takes a stab at kids who actually go to a public school while her kids will wake up tomorrow with no hope of life outside of the compound, no hope of ever acheving much in life save for the one who knows how to use a ruler and can nail two boards together. but even that takes tools and a way to get from job to job. Does the boy even have a drivers license and another thing, do those two grifters even have drivers insurance, could you imagine that prick plowing into you and finding out he has no insurance,then your fucked.
    Come to think of it, they both had no problem fucking the hospital and saving her miserable ass, who thinks they would take any personal responsibility in having drivers insurance, Come on Nicole prove me wrong since you read here, or get your little toady charles the dick into relaying it.

    0

  14. This recent post says so much about Nicole. She is just a cold hearted bitch. I had my doubts about how she felt about her children. This post screams she doesn’t care.

    Theskyisfalling comments about mother’s feeling guilt. It’s true, heck my adult kid cut his finger a couple weeks ago. I had bought him new knives when I was visiting a few weeks ago. He called me and I felt horrible. He’s an adult, I was nowhere near him. And yet still I felt bad.

    Nicole keeps saying she did nothing wrong. Hell she was posting fucking memes within hours of her babies death. It’s fucking pathetic. And now she makes this post saying once again how awesome she is. Her baby died because of her arrogance. Her baby died because she is a neglectful, irresponsible bitch.

    Hopefully she won’t let another baby die. We all know she’ll get pregnant again, it’s all she can do. And we know Joe won’t keep his hands off her because he’s a worthless piece of crap.

    0

  15. Nicole is…weird and deeply pathetic. I maintain she really has very little anything for anybody except what she’s married to and herself, of course. Her stillborn baby was a statistic from off the top of her head coils. She talked to a pregnant woman who didn’t know anything about childbirth. ??? Nicole is the clinical expert on childbirth and wants society to talk about it. Why, pray tell?

    Naw, Nicole is suffering for attention and sympathy and wants it from her devoted followers by wowing them with made up numbers. And also from the probably imaginary pregnant woman who didn’t know anything about childbirth and who found her sage in the desperate whack-job that is Nicole. Nicole’s kids really hit the jackpot of rotten luck being born to Nicole and Joe.

    Now I suffered through statistics and learned to hate everything associated with math and calculators. Then I wanted to balance my checkbook and I got over it. But Nicole’s statistics seem to have a few gaps in them. What is her sample population? Is there a population of self-absorbed voluntaryist hippy rational not-really-Mormons who routinely deliver their babies in garden sheds to fat dumb-idle husbands while the children look on? Is she trying to say her sample includes normal women who get tested during their pregnancies and thus tend not to have stillborn children? I know, this is too much critical thinking for Nicole and her penniless cheering squad. My eyes have rolled back into my head.

    0

  16. Blog or not, the post as well as the comments are making generalizations. It is generalizations like that which give people like NN ammunition to argue. Her parity absolutely isn’t a bigger issue than her complete lack of prenatal care. A woman pregnant with her 2nd child that did what she did wouldn’t have had a much better chance of having a good outcome.

    Making this issue about her parity lessens the absolutely idiotic statements she made about not needing prenatal care or as she calls it “medical assistance.” Medical assistance makes it sound like a woman believes she can’t go thru pregnancy and delivery without physician supervision. The average woman doesn’t need delivery assistance because for the majority of women delivery happens no matter what (your Francis story about the achievement of birth highlights this issue well). Most prenatal visits are completely boring and prefunctry. Having prenatal care is about detecting possible issues that can’t be found without a trained physician monitoring and testing. Do the vast majority of women have complications during pregnancy or delivery? No, they don’t. Does that mean that all the prenatal care was worthless? No, it definitely doesn’t. The logic of NN is that because she has 11 “healthy” children, her logic that she didn’t need prenatal care was sound. That is akin to saying that unless you get into a car accident, every time you wear a seatbelt it is unnecessary; so why wear a seat belt ever? Prenatal care is hopefully just a seatbelt; for the majority of people its merely a precaution and completely unnecessary. Because NN uses this logic, she is incapable of seeing that she was basically going thru her pregnancy like a person driving 200 mph down a busy street without a seatbelt. Sure, she didn’t get into an accident for the first 11 blocks, but that 12th block was fatal for her “passenger” and nearly fatal for her.

    0

  17. My greater point is that if one looks at it as a situation where her uterus was a ticking time bomb no matter what because it was her 12th child/15th pregnancy you are missing the forest for the trees. If women are doing all their own prenatal “care” and using Ina May Gaskin books and Google to figure out what is going on so they can squat in a corner and deliver unassisted; it is a bad idea for your 1st child when you are 23, and a bad idea for your 12th in your early 40s. The danger is the lack of prenatal care; age and parity is just adding fuel to the already blazing inferno.

    This distinction is important to me because there are women that see people like NN and her seemingly “positive” record and think that means that it was an unavoidable fluke tragedy. The idea of women looking at her and truly believing that going without prenatal care is no big deal bothers me a great deal. It doesn’t matter if you are having your 1st or your 12th, or if you are 25 or 45, you need prenatal care. The need for that care is of course greater with your 12th, and if you are 45; but that doesn’t mean you are automatically “safer” going without care when you are 25 and pregnant with your 1st. Age and parity aren’t protection against the stupidity of intentionally eschewing prenatal care.

    0

  18. The studies on great-grands are almost exclusively either from long ago, or from second or third world nations. Women in first world countries just don’t have that many children anymore, so there isn’t enough data to perform current research.

    Well, as Nicole operates as though she is in a low-resource country with little to no access to medical care or birth control, they apply fairly well. Up to the point where an ambulance was summoned to save her hide.

    There are women in this country who have more than 10 kids. There was even an entire television show built around them that I have never seen as I refuse to pay for cable. With the super-creepy parents. Joe and Nicole would fit right in.

    0

  19. Age and parity aren’t protection against the stupidity of intentionally eschewing prenatal care.

    And I concur totally.

    0

  20. Blog or not, the post as well as the comments are making generalizations.

    Actually, if you follow this blog at all, I have made every point you’re making at one time or another, and I have done so repeatedly.

    0

  21. do those two grifters even have drivers insurance,

    Very likely not. They have a habit of not carrying insurance and not registering vehicles. They’ve been cited for it more than once.

    0

  22. Equating the still birth of a child who would be alive today if she had chosen prenatal care to her earlier miscarriages just makes my blood boil. Women are not broodmares. God she revolts me. And why the hell won’t anyone tell her that her latest pic does NOT show dreads…it shows really gross matted hair. And people commented “beautiful hair.” In what functioning world??

    0

  23. I have seen so many examples of Nicole saying cold, awful things to people who have lost children. I am in a similar state of wonder that she can refer to her own stillborn child as an imperfect birth and a “normal, standard statistic” on her Facebook page.

    Her level of disconnect is off the charts. Or should I say Off the grid? I can’t resist the joke, but at the same time, it truly creeps me out how detached she is.

    0

  24. “She has described herself as coming across as “cold.” It doesn’t get colder than that, imho.”

    That’s why Joe has called every woman in his life a cunt, but for Nicole – she lacks the both the depth and warmth required for such designation.

    0

  25. I believe Nicole is the type of mother that has children just to bolster herself. The kids are there for the emotional support of Nicole, as she shares all her complaints and problems with them. Any needs of, or concern about, those children always get spun immediately back to herself, with no regard for the kids’ well-being. She is so utterly self-absorbed and inappropriate, it doesn’t seem to matter that a baby died because of her behavior-that baby can’t support her.

    I hope the kids learn compassion and empathy through each other, it’s their only chance.

    0

  26. So when they finally can’t make payments on that property or someone finally gets cholera or typhoid from their living conditions, what are they going to do with little Statistic when they have to move away from the Blessed Little Shithole and into the Dog Washing Emporium?

    0

  27. What Nicole doesn’t want to acknowledge is that she too is expendable. If she does in child birth, Joe would hardly miss a beat. A GFM would be up so quick, it would make our heads spin. Next, he’d find a replacement, someone whose uterus is not worn out. She hooked up with a useless, lazy, selfish creep, but she won’t admit it, even to herself. I just hope at least some of those kids can escape their parents and that pathetic life.

    0

  28. Here’s the part of experience that NicNaug and Joe don’t get. Doing something doesn’t make you an expert. For instance, I can turn on a light, but it doesn’t make me an electrician. I can also use a computer and am pretty knowledgable with various software programs but it doesn’t make me a computer programmer or specialists in any computer engineering field. I, too, have been pregnant and have had babies, but that doesn’t make me an OB doctor. Now unlike NicNaug, I do research the hell out of every single thing I am interested in, so when I got pregnant, I did research all the ins and outs of pregnancy and child birth, but I would no more advise someone on how to birth than I would try to wire my house. For all those women who think NicNaug knows a little something about birthing remember, dear simple ones, that when the baby comes out, stuff can and probably will go back up in there, and before long you can have a colony of crap growing that will make you so sick you can die from it.

    As far as the birthing pictures that demonstrate NicNaug’s longingly artistic expression, somethings are just not meant to be seen by the naked eye: the eclipse, radiation exploding, and NicNaug’s vagina and anus. She is right, birth is a beautiful thing, but it’s the product and not the process that is beautiful. Snapshots of newborn babies are totally breathtaking; however, snapshots of her see you next Tuesday…not so much.

    0

  29. This may piss some people off, but it’s a strong opinion of mine. The world is overpopulated, average life expectancy is increasing, resources are finite. In this country with our healthcare and access to birth control, there is no logical reason to live a Duggar-esque lifestyle with 15+ biological children. I get so angry at people who cry ‘pro-life, adopt!’, yet have never adopted themselves and have 10 biological kids of their own. There are SO many underprivileged children in this country and around the world. In no way am I implying that you shouldn’t be able to have a big family. But if you have the resources, help those kids out as well. Yet I’ve also heard of women who don’t want children being told (for reasons I still don’t understand) that they are being selfish also. Go figure.

    I have no problem having an open discussion about birth. I do have a problem with how she discusses her child’s death like it was just an unfortunate occurrence. The coldness in that post astounds me. It was preventable. I’d like to have an open discussion about the quality of life of her children after they are born. That’s what most of us are so upset about.

    0

  30. TSOWOATNK

    Thank you. Very ineteresting and educational comments. The more I learn the better I am. The more everyone learns that Nicole’s promotion of her self proclaimed “superior” knowledge of pregnancy and birthing is bogus and potentially dangerous the better.

    0

  31. Here’s my own, more current “study” of gg multiparas. I know of or am acquainted with 14 women who have given birth to 10+ children. (I used to hang with a bunch of Mennonite, Beachy Amish and Gothardites.) Anyway, most of the women had a couple miscarriages mixed in with their regular pregnancies. But, all of them gave birth to at least 10 mostly healthy, live babies. (There was the occasional preterm that needed a little extra help.) Know what? All these women had prenatal care. Some needed bedrest or meds or whatever due to issues that prenatal care detected. Most were born in hospitals. A couple at birthing centers. And a few home births. All the women, as they got older, with multiple births in their past chose increased prenatal care and hospital births so things would be okay. 154 kids arrived because of good care. NN knows nothing. She should think about those stats.

    Also, only 148 remain living. A parent should never have to bury a child. I believe your odds increase the more you have. NN should really think about that one.

    0

  32. All the women, as they got older, with multiple births in their past chose increased prenatal care and hospital births so things would be okay. 154 kids arrived because of good care. NN knows nothing. She should think about those stats.

    Also, only 148 remain living. A parent should never have to bury a child. I believe your odds increase the more you have. NN should really think about that one.

    She hasn’t thought, reflected, budgeted or planned to date and I doubt she is going to start now. I hope that her children do so.

    0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.