Would you characterize Leanne as "not being all that upset by it" because she still wanted to continue her life as planned with Ross, and create a larger family?
(there actually is a term for babies couples decide to have later, despite the pure agony of losing the first. It's "rainbow babies". Couples numb with pain of loss create joy out of the ashes of their sorrow, and in memory of, their darling lost first one)
I am familiar with the term "rainbow babies" and to me you are twisting it. It generally refers to babies born after the first child died of some tragic and UNPREVENTABLE illness/cause. Not further babies born to a parent/parents RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR FIRST CHILD'S DEATH! Would a second child born to parents whose first child died in a meth lab on their property be a "rainbow baby"? Of course not! That would be preposterous, and demeaning to parents who lost a baby to leukaemia or another such UNPREVENTABLE cause!
(caps for emphasis, not yelling)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk