"My ghost son keeps pace with me ..."
I recently came across these two posts about abortion at Ambivablog. While I disagree with this blogger's ultimate position on abortion (that early, first-trimester abortions should remain legal), I found her recounting of her personal experience with abortion both moving and morally serious:
One way to measure the magnitude of what’s banished by an abortion is to try to imagine your life without just one of the significant people in it: one friend, one lover, one sibling, one child. I don’t mean if they died, God forbid; I mean what if you had never known them? What if that face and voice and humor and trouble and insight had never crossed your path or woven into the texture of your consciousness? It wouldn’t be your life as you know it. You wouldn’t even be the same you. That’s what an individual is: the most life-changing thing you will ever encounter.
I used to believe, like the well-indoctrinated Ivy League student I was, that accomplishments, technological inventions, scientific discoveries, voyages of exploration, great works of art, great acts of state, were what most changed the world. I am now convinced that nothing comes close to changing the world as much as bringing a new individual into it. (And that holds for fathers as well as mothers.) Individuals are what the world is made of, and what makes the world. It’s not just that all the abovementioned accomplishments come from individuals. It’s the simple fact that each life stunningly and uniquely impacts the lives closest to it, and these impacts ripple outward, interacting to make the complex and particular patterns we call the world. Add or remove one individual, and you change everything – not only the sight and sound and story of the world, but its inner dimension, too. A human being displaces a lot of nothingness. Like a special-effects superhero leaping out of nowhere, each one shoulders apart the air, opening a boundless space where the whole universe is newly rooted, where its meaning will be uniquely relived and reworked. (That’s what we do: process meaning the way earthworms enrich soil.) When someone who was going to be here isn’t here, the air stays sealed at that spot, like the Pied Piper’s mountain, without even an x to mark the site of amputation. A whole world that would have opened up within the world remains forever closed. Am I making any sense?
So the Ground Zero in my life and heart is completely invisible. Yet among the casualties buried in that non-place are not only my son’s whole life, and the mother I would have been, but also the friends who never knew him, the cousins whose whole generation would have been reshaped by his presence, the lovers who would have loved him, the children he might have fathered, and also his ancestors on his father’s side, who are now entombed in the past, with not even a tendril to the future.
One way to measure the magnitude of what’s banished by an abortion is to try to imagine your life without just one of the significant people in it: one friend, one lover, one sibling, one child. I don’t mean if they died, God forbid; I mean what if you had never known them? What if that face and voice and humor and trouble and insight had never crossed your path or woven into the texture of your consciousness? It wouldn’t be your life as you know it. You wouldn’t even be the same you. That’s what an individual is: the most life-changing thing you will ever encounter.
I used to believe, like the well-indoctrinated Ivy League student I was, that accomplishments, technological inventions, scientific discoveries, voyages of exploration, great works of art, great acts of state, were what most changed the world. I am now convinced that nothing comes close to changing the world as much as bringing a new individual into it. (And that holds for fathers as well as mothers.) Individuals are what the world is made of, and what makes the world. It’s not just that all the abovementioned accomplishments come from individuals. It’s the simple fact that each life stunningly and uniquely impacts the lives closest to it, and these impacts ripple outward, interacting to make the complex and particular patterns we call the world. Add or remove one individual, and you change everything – not only the sight and sound and story of the world, but its inner dimension, too. A human being displaces a lot of nothingness. Like a special-effects superhero leaping out of nowhere, each one shoulders apart the air, opening a boundless space where the whole universe is newly rooted, where its meaning will be uniquely relived and reworked. (That’s what we do: process meaning the way earthworms enrich soil.) When someone who was going to be here isn’t here, the air stays sealed at that spot, like the Pied Piper’s mountain, without even an x to mark the site of amputation. A whole world that would have opened up within the world remains forever closed. Am I making any sense?
So the Ground Zero in my life and heart is completely invisible. Yet among the casualties buried in that non-place are not only my son’s whole life, and the mother I would have been, but also the friends who never knew him, the cousins whose whole generation would have been reshaped by his presence, the lovers who would have loved him, the children he might have fathered, and also his ancestors on his father’s side, who are now entombed in the past, with not even a tendril to the future.
31 Comments:
I've sometimes thought something similar (though not so articulately) about friends who have chosen to remain childless.
I've also thought we should have had more children. Who will the "onlys" turn to with no siblings? Who will their children turn to, with no aunts and uncles and cousins?
Very sad.
Clarence: Strange, isn't it? Each man's life touches so many other lives. When he isn't around he leaves an awful hole, doesn't he?
Yeah, WD. That's what I thought about, too.
I've been a silent reader of Rumpus for quite some time and have never felt compelled to comment until now.
Having children is not something to be taken lightly, as all of you very obviously know. It is evident that you all adore your children and would do whatever it takes to ensure their happiness and well-being.
Though I'm sure you would love to see childless friends/family enjoy the love that is shared by having a child, please look at it from the other point of view. Most of the people who are childless have given very serious thought to this subject.
Many have medical reasons - the inability to conceive and the unwillingness to undergo fertility treatments for fear of "playing God", health issues that make it impossible to carry a baby to term, cancer treatments that have damaged eggs, etc.
Some don't have the stable family life that a child needs. Some people are uncomfortable raising a child alone, some have a spouse/partner that doesn't have to have children. Many don't want to have a child because it will change their lifestyle too much. While this at first sounds like a selfish thought, give it another chance. A baby drastically changes your life, no matter how much a person may say it won't happen. If a baby is brought into a situation such as that, resentment toward the child may build, possibly leading to neglect or even abuse. (I'm not saying this happens in every instance, but that possibility is there.) That is not the way a child should be raised - something you already know.
Some people simply don't want to have children. I'm sure that's a puzzling thought to many, but there are some people who have absolutely no desire to reproduce. And that's okay. Just because God has given us the ability to procreate doesn't mean we all HAVE to do it. I consider people who fall into this category to be incredible individuals. They have taken a strong look at themselves and made a choice - one that should not be disregarded by their friends or family. A choice to remain childless is not harming that person (like substance abuse or other addictions) and the decision should be respected, not questioned.
The "onlys" in the world will not grow up unloved. They will not be alone in this world as they get older. Many people who have multiple siblings might as well be "onlys" because of how little assistance/support they get from those siblings. It's the extended family you have - friends, family through marriage, neighbors, coworkers, people at church, whomever - that help people get through the tough times. These same people are there for the good times as well. And the "yet another boring day" ones in the middle.
Whether the "onlys" happened because of medical issues, financial situations, or simply the desire to focus solely on the upbringing of that one child, it's for a reason. And as in the case of those who are childless, the decision should be supported by friends and family.
It's hard enough making the choice to have children and then deciding how many to have. Don't second-guess yourself or anyone else for those choices. Don't regret the decision either. Know that you did the best you could at the time the choice was made. There will always be "what if" times in life and you can't go back and change things. Make the most of the time you have with the people in your life instead of wondering what it would be like if you'd taken a different turn in the road.
(I shall not clutter up your time/space any longer.)
Lisa,
Thank you so much for commenting on Rumpus -- and for doing it so thoughtfully and eloquently. I hope you'll do it more often.
For what it's worth, I agree with everything you've said about people's personal decisions whether or not to procreate. I think my links to Ambivablog's two blog posts make it clear that I was interested in the issue of abortion (in which procreation has already taken place) -- not in the issue of deciding not to conceive/have children in the first place.
You've reminded me, though, that one of my husband's best friends is an "only child" who has just asked my husband to be the godfather of his son. This particular friend has always seemed to realize that "it's the extended family you have - friends, family through marriage, neighbors, coworkers, people at church, whomever - that help people get through the tough times." He's been as loyal as a brother to my husband.
I had my husband watch The Godfather in preparation for his role. :)
Anyway, Lisa, thanks again for your comments. I really enjoyed reading them. And please comment more often in the future!
"I think my links to Ambivablog's two blog posts make it clear that I was interested in the issue of abortion (in which procreation has already taken place) -- not in the issue of deciding not to conceive/have children in the first place."
I'm sorry. I neglected to indicate that my comments were more geared to those written by Conservative in Virginia, instead of that of the original post. I believe I went a little tangential there!
I appreciate your willingness to listen to other points of view, regardless of whether they coincide with your own. This blog is one of the more thought-provoking and well-written ones on the internet.
Now I'm blushing, Lisa. We don't deserve the high praise -- but thanks!
And I'm sincere about hoping you'll comment again and often. We like to clown around here, but we also like a thoughtful discussion.
No need to Blush, Kate Marie, she is obviously talking about the colletive writings of the Dogs Stew and Wonder.
I wonder how many others out there read us and don't comment. I love stalkers.
But in all seriousness, Lisa, it is great to have your comments added and we look forward to you diving in more in the future.
SD
"No need to Blush, Kate Marie, she is obviously talking about the colletive writings of the Dogs Stew and Wonder."
It's the banter like this that makes it amusing. There is such a diverse group writing here that it keeps it fresh and interesting. Your topics are often subjects that I either haven't yet learned about or haven't had time to delve into. (Lack of time being the primary culprit.)
"I wonder how many others out there read us and don't comment. I love stalkers."
I think the term is "lurker". But thank you - "stalker" makes it sound so much more insidious.
And thank you for the welcome! I shall continue to read, though the likelihood of commenting often remains to be seen. Sometimes it's better to lurk and not be heard.
Uh.huh...try making a positive comment about The Democratic Party or Hillary Clinton here Lisa....and you will see a veeeerrrry, different scene...
LOL...
Now, that is SO unfair, Temp.
I can make a positive statement about the Democratic Party . . . uh, . . . ummmm, . . . John Edwards has a nice head of hair?
"try making a positive comment about The Democratic Party or Hillary Clinton here Lisa....and you will see a veeeerrrry, different scene..."
I shall take that into consideration, Mr. Peck. Thank you for the "warning", though I doubt it will be an issue. No, I'm not revealing anything about my political views, just that I don't intend to incite any riots.
Much to everyone's dismay, I'm sure.
Yeah,Mr. Templeton Peckerwood! No one wears glasses on his nose like Chuck Shumer. Hillary is Flexible. Al Gore makes successful movies. Obama is the next Jack Kennedy. Hubert Humphrey had the same 3 initials. Bill Clinton is a good talker. Everett Dirkson had a great voice. Need I go on?
See Lisa?....I rest my case!!
Okay, Temp, I challenge you to say something nice about a Republican. And it doesn't count if you say something nice about me, Stew of Dog, Dog of Wonder, or Darryl Ann. We know *we're* fabulous!
Oh the choices! Do I:
a) send you all to separate corners to think about the way you're treating each other?
b) put you all in time-out?
c) remind you of the "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all" rule?
d) just sit back and laugh as you all go at each other?
Decisions, decisions.
I choose "d".
(Sorry Ms. Kate Marie. It would appear this post has gone about as far off course from the original topic as it can possibly go.)
Temp is a Hollywood actor...sigh...I love the guy but...'nuff said.
On the contrary, Lisa, you put some energy into this thread and gave it a life of its own. You truly "let the dogs out". Whoo Whoo!
Lisa, take it from a non-Rumpuser: once you get involved with these unsavory characters, you are doomed. Doomed!
Jeff, Merriam-Webster's 4th definition of 'savory' is "pungently flavorful without sweetness". Hence, by calling our merry band of typing brigands "UN" savory, you have expressed an opionion that we are sweet. Thanks, I didn't know you cared!
Well..."There's more to life than a little republican retoric, you know," Marge says. "Don't you know that? And here ya are, and it's a beautiful day. Well, I just don't understand it."
"Temp is a Hollywood actor..."
I'm familiar with Mr. Peck's work. (There's mention of his real name somewhere in the archives and it rang a bell with me.)
Mr. Jeff, I'm sure there are worse ways to be doomed.
And since Mr. SDog has informed me that I let the dogs out, it's time to round you all up and put you back in your kennels! I always do my best to clean up the messes I make!
See what I mean? You try to insult them, and like nerdy lawyers, they turn to the dictionary. Unsavory--and yet endearing...
Jeff, I consider you an honorary Rumpuser, and that's about the biggest insult I can fling at you . . .
Lisa, the dogs need a good run every now and then, but there's little hope, alas, that they'll ever be sufficiently house-trained.
Lisa just "outed" Templeton Peck. Won't be the first, nor the last time . . (not that there's anything wrong with it).
Oh. My.
I didn't think it was a secret, Mr. SDog. Or Mr. Peck.
Now what was it I said about cleaning up messes?!
Might be best to return to "lurker" status, where I can read and not be heard!
Have no fear, Lisa! It's not a secret.
no secret at all I'm sorry to say.....my sordid hollywood past is the sin I must live with...and now I only find my thrills in being able to "stir the pot" here on occasion. Woe is me..
TP was reborn as a mortgage broker. Take it from me. He "gives good refi"!
Thanks for the visual, Mr. SDog. When I watch reruns of Mr. Peck's shows, I shall think of him in a whole new light.
Sorry Mr. Peck. Blame Mr. SDog for that one!
Oh, that "visual" would be a suit and tie.
Knowing the roles you've had, Mr. Peck, those aren't quite what you would have worn.
Post a Comment
<< Home