Re: Lifeless births


"Lesley Robertson" <l.a.robertson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:30d67$486896d7$83b4502b$24489@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Don Moody" <dpmoody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:-sWdnfPXU9ctcPrVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@xxxxxxxxx


In any case, genealogically stillbirths do not, by definition,
contribute any descendants to the family tree so what is the urge
to find them?


By that definition, genealogically speaking, I'm not worth including
either - no kids!


Not so. You are worth including precisely because you have lived a
life and done something with it. The stillborn have not done anything
in life, and neither have they had kids who might in their life have
done something notable. So NEITHER possible form of contribution to
family history is available to them.

And if you go down the route of recording 'stillbirths', where do you
stop? How early a miscarriage do you count and record? How do you
record cases where the woman herself doesn't realise it is a
miscarriage but thinks it's just a heavy period? As soon as you get
into nit-picking over recording you create more problems than you
solve.

As a matter of family history, one of my lines is well-supplied with
maiden aunts, and they all terrify me. I suspect they were clones
because they all seemed to fit the description of Aunt Susan as 'Half
whalebone, half iron.' Tough nuts who got things done in their own
lifetime rather than waiting to have kids who could do things. Yet,
oddly, nearly all involved in some way in educating and preparing for
life the kids of others.

Don


.