Letters to the Editor
-
In Sickness and In Health
Here's how I see it:
the letter-writer's obligation is first to her children, herself, and her husband, because presumably, if they used traditional marriage vows, he vowed to support her in sickness and in health. It is her obligation to live up to those vows by caring for the family they have. And caring for herself so that she does not unnecessarily take on a potential cause of illness, especially given that he objects to it.
I would agree with this "it's her body" argument only if she were in an uncomitted relationship. Being married limits her choices. As it also limits her husband's choices.
I think the letter writer's obligation is to avoid what her husband considers self-destructive behavior. This is more important than her obligation to her sister, if such exists.
It would be different if the husband truly were being unreasonable, but he's not. The pregnancy, if one occurs, will be risky and could potentially result in illness. As others have said, I'm not convinced the letter-writer wants to sacrifice herself; she dreads being sick.
So in this case, if it's an obligation to another person that will convince her what to do, than the most important obligation I see to another adult is to her husband. Because it is not just to abuse the marriage vows by deliberately engaging in potentially harmful behavior over his strong objections.
I'd feel the same way if he proposed engaging in a risky behavior over her strong objections.
My personal background is that I've been married for 10 years and my husband and I both have significant illnesses, mine worse than his, and I have to be very careful to manage things as well as I can so that I don't cause undue stress for him. My problems are a source of stress for him anyway just by their existence. The way I handle them (by staying on top of things, or letting things slide) affects his well-being and happiness. It's hard to see him become stressed and unhappy when I have an episode of illness which requires hospitalization or other intensive treatment, which has happened a number of times since we've been married. So it's important to try to be as healthy as possible.
he has also been hospitalized and has been on long-term treatment and that was difficult as well.
I would really caution the letter-writer to think hard about this.
-
deering and skoot missed my point
In describing infertility as a problem, I was not talking about biology being destiny. I'm talking about the simple fact that failing to get pregnant when you want to be pregnant affects you on a very profound level--WHETHER OR NOT you ever defined yourself in terms of procreation. Illogical? Sure, but since when do emotions follow logic? For most of my life, I was far more obsessed with my ability or lack thereof to give birth to various artistic ambitions. And being from a fractured and rather unpleasant family, I also NEVER had any illusions about blood being thicker than water. Nor was I ever fixated on the experience of being pregnant--parenthood, not pregnancy, was the priority. And yet infertility still screwed me up royally. Maybe it was just the hormones, who knows? Even so, my point would still stand: that the LW's sister and anyone else in this situation needs to face and then start integrating the feelings of loss and helplessness BEFORE becoming an adoptive parent.
Otherwise you might find yourself pretending that adoption is just an issue-free substitute for biological parenting, and this attitude will not be fair or healthy for your adoptive children, who need acknowledgment that their situation, their origins, their process of identity formation are different than that of most of their peers. I am NOT saying that adoption is somehow automatically more problematic than biological parenting, and anyone who has both adopted and given birth will tell you that you love all your children exactly the same no matter how they came to you; but still, adoption is not the norm and can't be treated casually.
But back to the first point I made: it's rude and ignorant when random third parties casually tell an infertile couple "Just go adopt!" Of course, the upside is that it prepares you for all the rude and ignorant comments/questions you hear once you have adopted: "I bet her real parents were drug addicts." "Is his real mother in jail?" "How much did your baby cost?" etc etc.
-
Being unable to produce DOES feel abnormal
When the vast majority of women can have children and the vast majority of men have sperm that "works", how could one not feel like an outsider if one can't? It is never acceptable to tell a woman or a man to just get over the fact that he or she can't procreate. Yes, there are limits on what one should do to achieve this goal - people give up the fight each and every day. I don't understand the vitriolic reaction to people saying that they feel inadequate, incomplete, like a failure, etc. because they can't conceive. They're not saying they ARE inadequate, they're merely being honest about their feelings.
The last thing these people need is to be made to feel like assholes by people who clearly have no understanding of how devastating the infertility process can be.
-
Who cares what the husband thinks? Take it like a man
Two sides to this, it's either:
- Who cares what he thinks, her body, her life, he can go to hell for all we care. Womyn powa!!!
- Consider him and his feelings for the sake of the marriage.
We're divided on either side and there's no compromise in between.
So really she'll chose one camp or the other, if she hasn't already.
-
Nobody does crazy better than
the moronic letter writer. Hope he kicks her to the curb. What a bitch.
-
What will be your greatest regret?
It always amazes me how often responses to the letter writer attack and morally condemn. I guess when asked to give advice (or when one sees an opportunity to jump up on the righteous platform) a lot of us are are more eager to reveal our own biases and truths than we are willing to demonstrate empathy and objective help.
This is why Cary is good. He tends to sidle alongside the letter writer and guide them gently by the elbow to where they are often inevitably going anyway, as opposed to confronting them like a mad stranger on the street, shouting obscenities.
I can understand the sister wanting her own child as opposed to an adoptive one. On the surface, the big issue is the husbands 'dead set against it' stance. Will the surrogacy drive a wedge between the couple that may never be bridged? Or as Carey has said, is this nobel deed more important in the greater scheme of things than the husbands objections, both valid and irrational? And there are the letter writer's own children to consider, and the complications and discomforts of pregancy, not to mention the emotional toll of incubating but not mothering the baby within.
The letter writer seems to be heading towards choosing to carry her sister's baby. In years to come what will be the biggest regret? Not helping your sister or choosing to honor your husbands objections.