The World’s Smallest Mother Pregnant With Baby #3
Posted by: Amelia McDonell-Parry
Filed in:
news
1:30PM, Tuesday November 10th 2009
Stacey Herald, 35, is, at just 2 feet 4 inches tall, the world’s smallest woman. She is also the world’s smallest mother, as she is pregnant with her third child, despite warnings from doctors that having another child could kill her. Her first child with husband Will—who is 5’ 9”—was born with her same condition, Osteogenesis Imperfecta. Her second child was born healthy and was more than half her mother’s height/length at birth. Currently, both children are bigger than Herald and her third child, a boy, is expected to be born healthy—and thus larger—as well. Doctors were concerned another baby “would grow so large inside her tiny body it would eventually crush her organs, strangling her from the inside out.” The Heralds, however, view their children as “blessings from God” and don’t worry about the possible dangers. I think it’s lovely that this couple has found love despite their physical differences, but the chances of handing down her condition, not to mention the threat to her health and thus her ability to actually parent her kids, makes me wary of them continuing to procreate naturally. What do you think? [The Sun]
TheFrisky.com is part of the Turner Sports and Entertainment Digital Network
Goldfinch86
wrote on November 10 2009 @ 01:35 pm: [report]
When you start in on conversations like this it leads to a dangerous place about peoples rights to procreate and begins to get into dark subject matter that will cause a heated debate. Personally she has her rights the same as a mother with AIDs has rights. What about the rights of the family on TLC with dwarfism? Should they have not had kids either? You need to look at the statistics of her passing on this gene as well. Obviously you could also take it in the direction that if two people carried the gene should they be allowed to mate if there is a chance their child could have it but neither parent has the condition? I think this topic is better suited for a medical class where they have all the facts on her condition than the general public.
MuchoMacho
wrote on November 10 2009 @ 01:37 pm: [report]
yeah im grossed out but i dont think we can forbid her from having kids… way too nazi for me. i wish stupid people wouldnt breed. i wish you needed a license to have kids. but since we dont have either of those things, i dont think you can keep this woman from having kids.
Perceptible
wrote on November 10 2009 @ 01:38 pm: [report]
If they’re good parents and are financially, physically and emotionally able to raise 3 (or more) children, why shouldn’t they be able? Anyone who has a baby has a chance of something going wrong. Every pregnancy can result in trauma to either the child or the mother. Plenty of seemingly healthy women die in childbirth.
I think it’s kind of inspiring that this woman is able to overcome her handicap and become a mother if that’s what makes her happy. Look at that TLC show, Little People Big World, where they’re both little people and 3 of their 4 children are average height. Maybe people thought they should stop “procreating naturally” too. They’re supporting and parenting their children just fine. Plus, there are plenty of average sized, non handicapped people who have children and are terrible parents, obviously.
Jenn27549
wrote on November 10 2009 @ 01:41 pm: [report]
I don’t think its asking if she should be BANNED from having more kids. I think its asking (or the way I read it) if her having another child was the responsible thing to do—not just because she could pass the condition on—but because doctors said it could kill her. My answer to that question is no its not responsible, but like everyone else on here, its her decision to make (and life to risk). But that’s not the best idea, but its too late now, isn’t it?
Amelia McDonell-Parry
wrote on November 10 2009 @ 01:45 pm: [report]
Yes, please don’t misunderstand. I’m asking if having children is responsible not at all proposing that she should be told what to do with her body.
tigerstripe
wrote on November 10 2009 @ 01:49 pm: [report]
I hope everything turns out ok for her and her kids. I don’t think I would be trying to have kids if I were her, though.
Megangerard
wrote on November 10 2009 @ 01:52 pm: [report]
It is her right as a human being to procreate if she so wishes. As long as she is making an informed decision about her pregnancy and its possible health risks, then the rest is up to her.
cidonie
wrote on November 10 2009 @ 01:53 pm: [report]
I think in this situation, you do have to ask yourself what responsibility you have to your existing children. Barring risky jobs (e.g. law enforcement, military), do most people do things that would purposely jeopardize their lives? I think they were blessed with 2 healthy children, why risk it? If things don’t work out, what can the dad say to the children about the choice that they made?
spatula
wrote on November 10 2009 @ 02:01 pm: [report]
@cidonie: my thoughts, EXACTLY.
theattack
wrote on November 10 2009 @ 02:03 pm: [report]
Obviously she can make her own decisions, and she should and is allowed to. I’m not a mother, and I’m only 20, so what do I know? But I think if and when I become a mother, I will be so intent on protecting the children I already have and being there for them, I would do all that I could to make sure I stayed alive FOR THEM and not just for me. That would include things like not doing extreme adventurous sports without the proper equipment and trained people, getting help for any existing medical threats, not stepping out in front of moving vehicles, and not putting my body through any unnecessary distress if my doctors tell me I shouldn’t. If she wants another child, she could try to adopt? Or even think of becoming a foster parent. Ultimately, she knows what’s best for her and her family, but that’s not the way I would choose to handle that.
theattack
wrote on November 10 2009 @ 02:04 pm: [report]
@cidonie & spatula: I just took too long typing that. You got to that point first. haha I totally agree with you.
LilMissSunshine
wrote on November 10 2009 @ 02:15 pm: [report]
Having a genetic disease (Marfan Syndrome) that leaves me with the same risks of passing on the disease to children as well as possibly dying during pregnancy. It’s not as clear cut as people can make it sound in articles. I’m assuming this woman had genetic counseling at some point. When you have genetic counseling they look at all your medical files compare it with all the data they have about other people with your disease. They tell you percentages specific to you, about your risks and the babies (or potential baby) risks. It’s not always 50/50 like it can be made to sound in high school biology. And sometimes you know all the risks and take all the precautions and life happens anyway. I could write a ton about all things you think about, agonize over, pray over, when your in this situation. It’s not easy.
LilMissSunshine
wrote on November 10 2009 @ 02:32 pm: [report]
Also the common reply of they could always adopt if they wanted to enlarge their family annoys me. It is insanely hard and expensive to adopt even if both you and your spouse are in perfect health. If you already have one biological child it makes it exponentially harder to adopt. Now add in the fact that at least one of you has health issues. Also take into consideration that when you’re adopting every time you adopt they want both spouses to have college degrees, be between the ages of 25-40, own they’re own home, etc. God forbid you fall in love with someone with an age difference. Or don’t need a college degree to follow your life path.
But hey you could possibly adopt an older child who at the least has some social and emotional issues but more likely has some pretty serious either mental, emotional, or physical disabilities or all three.
workerbee
wrote on November 10 2009 @ 02:33 pm: [report]
I agree with the people that say that you owe it to your existing children to act in a responsible manner. It’s different when you’re thinking about having a first child. Then weighing the risks and agonizing over the decision is more difficult (IMO) because you have no way of knowing how it will turn out, but after two children, when the doctors are telling you that they’re worried trying for a third will kill you, you have a responsibility to stay healthy for your first two children. Rolling the dice and playing with your life to have a third child is selfish. It’s no longer just your life, you live for your children and you owe it to them to care for yourself in a responsible manner in order to provide them with a stable upbringing. (The same applies to drug users and such)
bethlynn00
wrote on November 10 2009 @ 02:40 pm: [report]
But overall it sounds like she is pretty healthy and the kids are healthy, even with one having her condition. I mean if the family is okay with the outcomes that should be all that matters. I wish them the best of luck and hopefully Stacey will have a healthy pregnancy.
Goldfinch86
wrote on November 10 2009 @ 02:41 pm: [report]
Little Miss Sunshine you are spot on about adoption, I was wondering what planet people lived on when the suggested that. No person would give a child to these people based on the woman’s health problems and the fact that they have two children, one of which that already has a problem. They might not make enough money and as you listed there are so many other reasons people are disqualified for adoption.
theattack
wrote on November 10 2009 @ 02:50 pm: [report]
True, adoption is a very difficult process. I said she could look into doing it, not that she could do it easily. I think she’s already been blessed with two healthy children, and she’s still healthy. Of course she should have the choice to make for herself, but I think sometimes you just need to be an adult and make the best decision for what you have put in front of you and worry less about the things that would make you even happier. She’s already happy with the children she has now. If she’s not alive to love them and watch them grow, it’s not doing anyone any favors. I’m all for living the life that you want to have, but once you bring children into the world, they have to come before your wants. They need their parents, and it’s not fair to them to risk your life for something that wasn’t necessary.
LilMissSunshine
wrote on November 10 2009 @ 02:53 pm: [report]
@Goldfinch86- Thanks.
I also agree with the other posters who said that her priority is to the children she has already brought into the world. Having a family and being a mother means your life isn’t just about you anymore.
I personally would have a very hard time continuing a pregnancy, knowing my risks, if I already had a child. Whether the child I already had was biological or adopted.
LilMissSunshine
wrote on November 10 2009 @ 02:55 pm: [report]
I wanted to add the thought. Why have a child if you risk not being there to enjoy watching them grow up?
Goldfinch86
wrote on November 10 2009 @ 03:15 pm: [report]
LilMissSunshine you bring up a good point, I think many are willing to take that risk. Some people think bringing children into this world is the most important thing you can do, others do it because they feel that biological need, people do it for the love, some for attention, and others do it because they are forced to by laws and lack of funds to abort. That said I think it’s such an answer you would have to ask this lady to her face to see what it is. I have a feeling for her it’s about love and making her family bigger and bringing more joy to her life and to the lives of her children.
eden
wrote on November 10 2009 @ 03:21 pm: [report]
If you already have two children and the doctors worry that a third may kill you, you probably should call it a day and try to stick around for the other two ‘blessings’, perhaps?
BlueVibe
wrote on November 10 2009 @ 03:37 pm: [report]
OK, if *I* had a condition this serious, I would consider it my responsibility *not* to pass it along to a child.
Otherwise, as long as they are prepared to shoulder the medical costs, etc., associated with the pregnancy and any special care the resulting children may need, it’s nobody else’s business.
Oh Kathryn!
wrote on November 10 2009 @ 05:22 pm: [report]
I don’t think you or anyone else has the ability to judge their procreation.
cooldad
wrote on November 10 2009 @ 05:45 pm: [report]
Since the basic topic is well covered, I’ll risk being skewered and point out that her husband is 3’5” taller than she is. For you ladies with an average height of 5’4”, that’s a partner who’s 8’9” tall, just 2 inches shorter than the tallest man ever (follow this link to see a pic of him with 2 ladies - http://www.maniacworld.com/robert-wadlow-picture-6.htm)
Food for thought
melissaann
wrote on November 10 2009 @ 06:59 pm: [report]
All children kill their mother’s once smokin’ bodies, kill their social life, kill their sex drive, kill their financial situation… sounds like all babies end up killing their mother somehow.
hlh22
wrote on November 10 2009 @ 09:42 pm: [report]
I question whether she can effectively parent three children. What happens if something happens to her husband and she’s both the sole breadwinner and the sole caregiver? Not that you ever want to think about that, but I think that all parents have a responsibility to make sure that they *could* provide for their children in that worst case scenerio.
frostie
wrote on November 11 2009 @ 02:43 am: [report]
What if it wasn’t planned? My best friend in high school wasn’t planned, her parents already had 3 children and her mum had (and still has) serious medical issues. She was told that aborting would be her best option as she would most likely die or at least be left paralyzed and her child would almost definitely be born brain damaged. She refused for religious reasons. My friend was born healthy and although her mother suffered some spinal damage she is still able to walk and carry on a normal happy life.
Whether planned or unplanned this woman has every right to have as large a family as she likes. I think she’s an inspiration and it’s sad that people are criticizing her for leading a normal happy life
LilMissSunshine
wrote on November 11 2009 @ 12:14 pm: [report]
@frostie If you follow the link and read the original article you will find that this was an unplanned pregnancy. They only planned on having two kids.
Raugiel
wrote on November 11 2009 @ 12:33 pm: [report]
If octo-mom can be artificailly inseminated, despite her total lack of ability to care for her many children, then this woman can certianly have children through her own natural processes! We don’t make decisions about who is a fit parent in the US unless there is actual abuse or neglect (if we did, there’d be a lot more people who no longer had their children). The only reason this is even being discussed is because of the mother’s small size.
retro chic
wrote on November 11 2009 @ 12:47 pm: [report]
Amelia, darlin,’ it comes down to the same thing: reproductive rights. That trumps all other considerations I seem to read about on this site. They’re happy, productive, financially stable. Why should we stick our nose there?
Thank you, @Oh Kathryn
plasticrose
wrote on November 11 2009 @ 12:54 pm: [report]
She has every right to have as many children as she wants. Yes, she has a responsibility to the children she’s already given birth to and certainly she should consider the risk that she could leave her other children parentless, but we don’t know how high the risk actually is. It’s not okay to assume that she’s just irresponsible and not thinking about the consequences. Maybe she decided the risk was worth taking. Pregnancy is somewhat risky for every woman, that doesn’t mean it should stop you.
As for passing on her condition, so what? She’s healthy and happy and living her life despite disability, and any children who were born with her condition could do so as well. Telling disabled people they shouldn’t have kids is just a step towards eugenics and I’m not okay with that.
Jitterbugs232
wrote on November 11 2009 @ 02:46 pm: [report]
Well good for her for over coming the odds twice, wish her all the best!
theattack
wrote on November 11 2009 @ 02:52 pm: [report]
@plasticrose: I don’t think anyone’s saying that someone should tell her she shouldn’t have kids because she’s disabled. Most of the arguments disagreeing with her decision recognize that she has her right to reproduce if she chooses.
@retro chic: I disagree that this is an issue of reproductive rights. It’s just about whether or not we personally think it was the best decision for her to make - what we would have done in her situation, with the information we have.
Melania
wrote on November 11 2009 @ 02:57 pm: [report]
Nice for her, but i am still grossed.
And no its not really, you know with so many kids out there…ok humans have a breeding problem, but why breed when you KNOW you have medical issues that you pass on, and that your children will pass on.
I call it ...
‘‘THE NEED TO BREED’’
SEXXYBUTTERFLY
wrote on November 11 2009 @ 07:44 pm: [report]
I THINK THREE IS ENOUGH!!! YES BABIES ARE BLESSING BUT YOUR HEALTH IS AT RISK AND THERE IS A CHANCE YOU WON’T BE HERE TO SEE THEM GROW JUST STOP. LOVE THE BABIES THAT GOD BLESSED YOU WITH!!!
Kate134
wrote on November 12 2009 @ 12:23 am: [report]
Nobody ever wants God’s foster blessings, which is pretty hypocritical. Why are some blessings trash and other’s worth risking your life (and your children’s futures) for?
DancingGeek
wrote on November 12 2009 @ 08:52 pm: [report]
I admire her bravery- her stomach is almost as big as she is poor thing- I wonder if it’s painful for her.
og217
wrote on November 13 2009 @ 05:09 am: [report]
It looks horrific. The aesthetics asice, there should really be some sort of a minimum standard enforced to allow people to have children. Its irresponsible for one person to tie up so much healthcare staff and tax dollars by popping out a completely superfluous kid who will always need crazy amount of care. This woman is fortunate in that she has a family, but if no one takes on her disabled child, who will take care of it when it gets older? who will provide and finance for that person? I don’t see why I should, with my money. I think its crazy that to adopt an animal from the pound, you have to be quizzed and visited and can be rejected, but to have kids, its like, everyone has rights. Where does it say that? And why should they? In the animal kingdom, breeding is not a right but a privilege only the “best” get - the others either die or aren’t selected as mates. there is no “natural law” that says everyone, no matter how unfit, “deserves” a child.
fatbikez
wrote on November 14 2009 @ 08:44 pm: [report]
is the father a little person as well ?
bettyboo
wrote on November 17 2009 @ 06:51 am: [report]
Personally I think it’s great, they’ve found love despite her disability, and they’re doing what comes naturally and raising a family. She’s not ‘unfit’ as og217 seems to be suggesting as this child was concieved naturally with the man who loves her which is as natural as it gets. The main thing I see in the picture is a proud and happy expectant mother showing her bump to her excited child, her size is secondary to that. I’d imagine, given her problems they will have given serious considerations to the issues everyone has raised before they had the first child and will have contingencies planned for all the different situations. For example, I imagine there will be a plan to induce the birth/carry out a caesarian section early if the mother gets into difficulties, just like there would be if a ‘normal’ mother had problems. Alot of fuss seems to be focused on what this family ‘might’ cost the tax payer, which seems from an outsiders point of view (I’m in the UK) an extrordinarily petty and selfish reason to suggest a woman should restrict her family, it seems very prejudiced to assume that just because if her size she won’t have the money or the ability to care for her family.
vanya
wrote on November 17 2009 @ 09:43 pm: [report]
Most couples with a disabled child who requires lifetime care establish a trust fund - called a Special Needs Trust and also guardians of that trust - to be used for their disabled adult child’s care for the rest of his/her life, should the child outlive both parents. Given that people with disabilities many times have shorter lifespans than those without, it’s not always the case that the child outlives both parents; and the funds in the Special Needs Trust fund are rolled back into the estate.