I have been reflecting on the kind of mother I have become since the birth of the boys: decidedly different. The number of children born into our family 10 weeks ago has necessitated a busier, more multi-tasking, less present mother than I ever was with my daughter. These thoughts were not coming together in prose; a style departure is in order.
The day you emerged from me, you were pulled away.
Your tiny bodies were not laid on my breast.
I mothered you through thick plastic and
Hated the leaving of you in a place not your home.
Your three new lives broke me open into four pieces,
Each piece regenerating and growing stronger.
I am one mother moving in many directions, all at once.
I am less able to hold each of you, but able to hold more of you each day.
You hear my voice singing to you less, but hear me soothing your brothers constantly.
Does that soothe you too?
I am spread too thinly now, but wider, longer too.
Like spilled milk, vast and white, smoothing out the rough edges.
You, my three glorious boys have but one mother to nourish and nurture you
Whose body makes your milk yet cannot feed all of you at once.
I hope when your tiny hands touch, you draw comfort from each other and
You understand that I wish I could always hold you, always feed you, just us.
I learn from you each day how to make each moment, each interaction
Thick and warm and sustaining.
I am different this time, not ideal, but perfect for us, I hope.
You three are perfect for me.
Are you a different mother than you'd imagined? Are you still trying to become a parent? What is your ideal role? Do you have peace about your mothering?
Showing posts with label Ponderings. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ponderings. Show all posts
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Small Rant (About an NYT Article on Twins)
I read the New York Times online for my news most days. I think their Health articles are especially good and send them to friends often (a habit I am sure they do not enjoy always). Last night an article called "21st Century Babies: The Gift of Life, and its Price" by Stephanie Saul caught my eye. I called my husband over to my laptop and we read it voraciously, both of us indignant at the tone of the article and incredulous over the claims it makes.
The article focuses on twins. More specifically, how IVF can result in twins and how multiple pregnancies are infinitely more risky, and often result in preterm birth. While briefly acknowledging that most twins are completely healthy, there are still risks associated with prematurity. It begins with this:
"Scary. Like aliens. That is how Kerry Mastera remembers her twins, Max and Wes, in the traumatic days after they were born nine weeks early. Machines forced air into the infants’ lungs, pushing their tiny chests up and down in artificial heaves. Tubes delivered nourishment. They were so small her husband’s wedding band fit around an entire baby foot."
After I read that, all I could be was angry. I am quite sure that this woman who had gone through a fertility treatments and a difficult pregnancy did not just think her newborns looked like aliens. I would be she thought they were also the most perfect, desired and loved beings she'd ever seen. And I bet she was extremely grateful for fertility treatments allowing her to become pregnant.
It discusses the irresponsibility of Reproductive Endocrinology and how the "Fertility Doctors" transfer too many embryos to inflate their birth rates and "lure" more customers. It discusses the promising research on Single Embryo Transfers (SET) which are more successful as they are better able to grow embryos to blastocyst stage.
Another major focus is the cost to "society" of preterm infants and how insurers should not have to pay for babies' care conceived via fertility drugs or IVF. It alluded to a national health crisis caused by the cost of caring for babies in the NICU. The article allows for comments, and I read over 100t this morning. Most people wrote something along the lines of "Outrageous! Irresponsible and dangerous industry" or "Just adopt!" as though one could just run out and adopt a child, and not spend many years and many thousands of dollars trying to do just that. Many people wrote horror stories of higher- order multiples, selective reduction and severely disabled twins. A few were more level-headed, and acknowledged the risk of twins but also pointed out that people who underwent fertility treatments were also extremely cautious and well-cared for prenatal patients.
In response to some of these idiotic or ignorant comments, a woman wrote this, and I cheered:
" ... if you, personally, deem care of babies produced via fertility processes just too expensive to pay for, then heck, I guess I'll just deem the exceptoinal costs associated with treating cigarette addicts, overweight diabetics, and any manner of self-inflicted sicknesses out of bounds.
Really, how selfish to continue with your unhealthy and costly habits when you could just adopt an apple."
Go give this article a read, and leave the editors a comment letting them know what you think. Apparently, this article is first in a series and I really hope the Times has something better in store for the remainder.
The article focuses on twins. More specifically, how IVF can result in twins and how multiple pregnancies are infinitely more risky, and often result in preterm birth. While briefly acknowledging that most twins are completely healthy, there are still risks associated with prematurity. It begins with this:
"Scary. Like aliens. That is how Kerry Mastera remembers her twins, Max and Wes, in the traumatic days after they were born nine weeks early. Machines forced air into the infants’ lungs, pushing their tiny chests up and down in artificial heaves. Tubes delivered nourishment. They were so small her husband’s wedding band fit around an entire baby foot."
After I read that, all I could be was angry. I am quite sure that this woman who had gone through a fertility treatments and a difficult pregnancy did not just think her newborns looked like aliens. I would be she thought they were also the most perfect, desired and loved beings she'd ever seen. And I bet she was extremely grateful for fertility treatments allowing her to become pregnant.
It discusses the irresponsibility of Reproductive Endocrinology and how the "Fertility Doctors" transfer too many embryos to inflate their birth rates and "lure" more customers. It discusses the promising research on Single Embryo Transfers (SET) which are more successful as they are better able to grow embryos to blastocyst stage.
Another major focus is the cost to "society" of preterm infants and how insurers should not have to pay for babies' care conceived via fertility drugs or IVF. It alluded to a national health crisis caused by the cost of caring for babies in the NICU. The article allows for comments, and I read over 100t this morning. Most people wrote something along the lines of "Outrageous! Irresponsible and dangerous industry" or "Just adopt!" as though one could just run out and adopt a child, and not spend many years and many thousands of dollars trying to do just that. Many people wrote horror stories of higher- order multiples, selective reduction and severely disabled twins. A few were more level-headed, and acknowledged the risk of twins but also pointed out that people who underwent fertility treatments were also extremely cautious and well-cared for prenatal patients.
In response to some of these idiotic or ignorant comments, a woman wrote this, and I cheered:
" ... if you, personally, deem care of babies produced via fertility processes just too expensive to pay for, then heck, I guess I'll just deem the exceptoinal costs associated with treating cigarette addicts, overweight diabetics, and any manner of self-inflicted sicknesses out of bounds.
Really, how selfish to continue with your unhealthy and costly habits when you could just adopt an apple."
Go give this article a read, and leave the editors a comment letting them know what you think. Apparently, this article is first in a series and I really hope the Times has something better in store for the remainder.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Privacy, Protection and Publicity
Pregnancy update: My cervix is stable! I had a negative fFN! And the boys are all looking great, practicing breathing and I have a growth scan on Friday.
A few months ago, I read an especially appropriate post by Cassandra at Baby Smiling in Back Seat about using images and identifying information of oneself and one's children on a blog or other Internet-based forum. The question she posed to us: Do you/will you post images of your children on your blog? Facebook? Why or Why not?
At the time, I was at a loss. I have read many infertility-followed-by-healthy-baby blogs and always pictured myself following the progression of many of these. The entries sometimes begin with the IVF protocol (or the pregnancy), move to ultrasound and nursery images, belly shots and then when the miracle of the birth occurs: baby pictures! Sometimes pictures of tiny ones hooked up to wires in isolettes and sometimes bigger babies sleeping on a parent's warm chest.
Because I am 28-ish weeks pregnant with triplets, I seem to be especially excited to see photos of these threesomes when they come out on others' blogs. It is helpful to me to see what babies born at 29 weeks versus 34 look like so I can prepare for the birth of our own boys. (Aside from that, it is insanely cute to see triplets snuggled together in their crib.) Perhaps I am looking to see that they can really be born and come home into our family, which I still struggle to believe. At any rate, I look forward to these photos, and I somehow assumed I would post photos to share with my readers.
Cassandra's post, however, caused me to reevaluate this assumption. As you all know, I have a three-year-old daughter whose name or image has never been revealed on the blog. I have posted a picture or two of her back, but have protected her face, just as I choose to post headless belly pictures of myself. I made a conscious decision to never show the face of any of my family members. I do not refer to my husband or daughter by name, either, and never plan to.* Yet I somehow had imagined announcing the birth weight and name under a perfect picture of each of our babies.
Why the contradiction? Why did I assume that I would share photos of the babies, while protecting the likeness of everyone else in our family? Do I think it is some kind of reward for readers who have followed our journey, and support me immensely? Perhaps I felt that people would not want to follow our lives anymore if there was not photographic documentation along with my words. What I have come to realize is, once these boys (God willing) make their entrance into the world, I will be as fiercely protective of their faces as I am of my daughter's and I will not post pictures of our sons.
While I will want to shout from the rooftops and the Internet, "I had real babies! They survived! You want proof: here they are!!" if the boys do arrive safely, my desire to protect these innocent faces will override my desire to share pictures. I understand completely why parents would choose to share these images, also. Our friends and families read my blog, checking it for updates on the pregnancy, and it would be a very simple way to share pictures of the boys, and how they are changing. I personally love to see the adorable images of babies as they grow, and blogs are wonderfully easy to access (usually) and anyone you direct to your blog can see them.
What frightens me is what can happen to the images once they are online. I know how easy it is to "right-click" on an image and save it to my hard drive, allowing me to do with it what I wish. I never want anyone to have a picture of my child's face whom I do not know and trust, and the only way to avoid that is to not put them on my blog in the first place.
Many have suggested alternatives: use Facebook or another social networking site. Create a new blog and make it invitation only. I think for now, we will plan to share images of six little feet in snuggly socks, or a tiny hand curled around a grown-up finger, but not the identifiable faces attached to them. Unfortunately, this means the people whom I do trust and know, many of you, will not get to see their little faces.
This leads me to the next conundrum I am pondering: what will happen to this blog if the babies arrive safely? It could remain my home, and morph into a parenting-after-infertility blog, one that tells the story of our family as a novel with the many chapters of miscarriage, infertility, treatment, pregnancy and (hopefully) parenting multiples. I could also write somewhere else but leave this blog intact as a resource for anyone who many find it useful. Obviously, these musings warrant another post on another day.
What are your thoughts on the changing nature of an infertility blog? Should bloggers continue to tell their story, wherever it leads, from their original URL, children and all? Does a blog need a label like "Infertility" or "Parenting Multiples"? Should they set up shop somewhere else to spin a new narrative? What have you done? What would you do?
*I have realized how awkward it is to refer to my daughter as "A" and my husband as "My Husband", so I will be coming up with more appropriate pseudonyms for each of them. The babies will also be given some nicknames which will only emerge after I have the pleasure of getting to know them outside the womb a bit. Mel at Stirrup Queens has maintained nicknames for her children and it works seamlessly as it allows her to share stories and updates without revealing identifying information. Much to consider.
A few months ago, I read an especially appropriate post by Cassandra at Baby Smiling in Back Seat about using images and identifying information of oneself and one's children on a blog or other Internet-based forum. The question she posed to us: Do you/will you post images of your children on your blog? Facebook? Why or Why not?
At the time, I was at a loss. I have read many infertility-followed-by-healthy-baby blogs and always pictured myself following the progression of many of these. The entries sometimes begin with the IVF protocol (or the pregnancy), move to ultrasound and nursery images, belly shots and then when the miracle of the birth occurs: baby pictures! Sometimes pictures of tiny ones hooked up to wires in isolettes and sometimes bigger babies sleeping on a parent's warm chest.
Because I am 28-ish weeks pregnant with triplets, I seem to be especially excited to see photos of these threesomes when they come out on others' blogs. It is helpful to me to see what babies born at 29 weeks versus 34 look like so I can prepare for the birth of our own boys. (Aside from that, it is insanely cute to see triplets snuggled together in their crib.) Perhaps I am looking to see that they can really be born and come home into our family, which I still struggle to believe. At any rate, I look forward to these photos, and I somehow assumed I would post photos to share with my readers.
Cassandra's post, however, caused me to reevaluate this assumption. As you all know, I have a three-year-old daughter whose name or image has never been revealed on the blog. I have posted a picture or two of her back, but have protected her face, just as I choose to post headless belly pictures of myself. I made a conscious decision to never show the face of any of my family members. I do not refer to my husband or daughter by name, either, and never plan to.* Yet I somehow had imagined announcing the birth weight and name under a perfect picture of each of our babies.
Why the contradiction? Why did I assume that I would share photos of the babies, while protecting the likeness of everyone else in our family? Do I think it is some kind of reward for readers who have followed our journey, and support me immensely? Perhaps I felt that people would not want to follow our lives anymore if there was not photographic documentation along with my words. What I have come to realize is, once these boys (God willing) make their entrance into the world, I will be as fiercely protective of their faces as I am of my daughter's and I will not post pictures of our sons.
While I will want to shout from the rooftops and the Internet, "I had real babies! They survived! You want proof: here they are!!" if the boys do arrive safely, my desire to protect these innocent faces will override my desire to share pictures. I understand completely why parents would choose to share these images, also. Our friends and families read my blog, checking it for updates on the pregnancy, and it would be a very simple way to share pictures of the boys, and how they are changing. I personally love to see the adorable images of babies as they grow, and blogs are wonderfully easy to access (usually) and anyone you direct to your blog can see them.
What frightens me is what can happen to the images once they are online. I know how easy it is to "right-click" on an image and save it to my hard drive, allowing me to do with it what I wish. I never want anyone to have a picture of my child's face whom I do not know and trust, and the only way to avoid that is to not put them on my blog in the first place.
Many have suggested alternatives: use Facebook or another social networking site. Create a new blog and make it invitation only. I think for now, we will plan to share images of six little feet in snuggly socks, or a tiny hand curled around a grown-up finger, but not the identifiable faces attached to them. Unfortunately, this means the people whom I do trust and know, many of you, will not get to see their little faces.
This leads me to the next conundrum I am pondering: what will happen to this blog if the babies arrive safely? It could remain my home, and morph into a parenting-after-infertility blog, one that tells the story of our family as a novel with the many chapters of miscarriage, infertility, treatment, pregnancy and (hopefully) parenting multiples. I could also write somewhere else but leave this blog intact as a resource for anyone who many find it useful. Obviously, these musings warrant another post on another day.
What are your thoughts on the changing nature of an infertility blog? Should bloggers continue to tell their story, wherever it leads, from their original URL, children and all? Does a blog need a label like "Infertility" or "Parenting Multiples"? Should they set up shop somewhere else to spin a new narrative? What have you done? What would you do?
*I have realized how awkward it is to refer to my daughter as "A" and my husband as "My Husband", so I will be coming up with more appropriate pseudonyms for each of them. The babies will also be given some nicknames which will only emerge after I have the pleasure of getting to know them outside the womb a bit. Mel at Stirrup Queens has maintained nicknames for her children and it works seamlessly as it allows her to share stories and updates without revealing identifying information. Much to consider.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)