I was 4 1/2-5 weeks with both of my losses. Considered a "chemical" by doctor... to me, they were both losses. I don't look at them as being anything other than an angel baby.

This hadn't been a topic I've ever really thought about. It is interesting how different people have views that are similar and different. I have to say yes a loss is a loss.

I don't know how I feel on this subject.... It seems odd to me that some people invest themselves and all of their hopes so much in positive tests when they're not even late yet and then get so emotional at the loss of something that was still only a cluster of cells when there are women who get to 12 weeks, 20 weeks, some almost full term, have had ultrasounds and heard the heartbeat and lose theirs. I've had 3 chemicals that I'm aware of and I don't really get too emotional about it. Sure, it's heartbreaking but when I see so many women on here saying they have 9 angel babies I kind of feel like it's sometimes to get attention. I saw one person with 12 angel babies and, no offense, but I automatically wondered why you would put yourself through that when you were aware that there was quite possibly a medical or genetic reason for it? I get that it is a very emotional thing to find out you are pregnant and then suddenly get your period... But really, isn't that just our own fault for being POAS fiends?  

Well since last I checked the second you are pregnant it counts as a pregnancy so why does it matter how far along that pregnancy is as to if it counts as a loss or not? The only person who has the right to call it a loss or not is the person it happened to. If some mothers don't want to count it as a loss that is all fine and dandy to me but most mothers who find out they are pregnant that early actually did want that baby because they were trying for it.

Quoting Bettinas:" I don't know how I feel on this subject.... It seems odd to me that some people invest themselves and ... [snip!] ... out you are pregnant and then suddenly get your period... But really, isn't that just our own fault for being POAS fiends?  "

Last I checked, according to law it seems, all a baby is is a "potential person" or "a bunch of cells" until they are born. So then what would the difference be between being 3 weeks and being 12 weeks?

Quoting Bettinas:" I don't know how I feel on this subject.... It seems odd to me that some people invest themselves and ... [snip!] ... out you are pregnant and then suddenly get your period... But really, isn't that just our own fault for being POAS fiends?  "

The thing is, you're not getting your "period." To have gotten a positive pregnancy test, you had to have been pregnant. Your body doesn't make HCG otherwise and false positive are extremely rare. Some women get attached quicker than others, 2 of my losses have been at 5 weeks, technically still considered "chemical". My third at 7 weeks and some days. While I imagine it's not nearly as painful as someone who, say, carries their child to term and loses them, it doesn't make it "not" painful. They might have been a cluster of cells to you, but to me, they were my children. But in a sense, yes, it was my fault for testing early. But that still doesn't negate the pain I felt when they were suddenly gone.

I do think you can consider it a loss if, TO YOU it feels like you genuinely LOST something. However I do think it's a little naive for people to say that a loss at 4 weeks is just the same as a loss at 12 weeks, 20 weeks, 30 weeks, etc.

No. And I think a lot of "Chemical pregnancies" are people seeing evap lines, convincing themselves they are pregnant and then getting their period.

Quoting empire state of mind:" No. And I think a lot of "Chemical pregnancies" are people seeing evap lines, convincing themselves they are pregnant and then getting their period."

I could see that. But if you get multiple tests coming up as positive (especially when you almost never get evaps on those tests) then that is pretty hard core proof.

I do consider them an angel baby, but it didn't affect me as much as seeing the heartbeat and passing the miscarriage and seeing their eyes and arms and pink skin...

I do consider them all losses, but I guess just categorize them differently?

Quoting Raindancer:" I could see that. But if you get multiple tests coming up as positive (especially when you almost never get evaps on those tests) then that is pretty hard core proof."

I'm not saying it doesn't happen, because chemical pregnancies do....but I would put money on people just having AF.

Quoting Squid Kid:" I do consider them an angel baby, but it didn't affect me as much as seeing the heartbeat and passing ... [snip!] ... and seeing their eyes and arms and pink skin... I do consider them all losses, but I guess just categorize them differently?"

I def think it is harder on the person when you lose your pregnancy later on.

Quoting empire state of mind:" I'm not saying it doesn't happen, because chemical pregnancies do....but I would put money on people just having AF."

I can see that. My SIL is like that but she doesn't take the tests. Her breasts hurt or her stomach is upset before AF then she gets AF (even when it isn't a day late) she is like I had a MC.. That kind of smurf pisses me off.

Quoting Raindancer:" I can see that. My SIL is like that but she doesn't take the tests. Her breasts hurt or her stomach is ... [snip!] ... is upset before AF then she gets AF (even when it isn't a day late) she is like I had a MC.. That kind of smurf pisses me off."

Yea I hate stuff like that. I knew someone who would post her tests online...clearly nothing there although she saw something and she had 5 chemical pregnancies apparently.

Quoting empire state of mind:" No. And I think a lot of "Chemical pregnancies" are people seeing evap lines, convincing themselves they are pregnant and then getting their period."

Tests are rarely false positive and evap lines aren't super common. With my first Chemical pregnancy, I had one of those "But you can't even see it!" lines. I lost a bloody mucous plug on the day AF was due and started bleeding.