Many years ago, she had a husband who died at the young age of 26, leaving her with four young children. Her husband had a genetic heart defect, and all four children had inherited the same defect. The cardiologist had told the widowed mother that none of her children would live to see 30.
Now, the point of her story was a happy one, as the youngest child had just turned 30, thus proving the doctor wrong on all four counts. But I couldn’t get past what I felt was huge flaw in the story.
If I knew that The Agent had some disease that would likely end with death at an early age, I'm sure that I still would have married him. I think I definitely still would have tried to get pregnant. The adoption probably wouldn’t have been an option, since we had to pass a health screening before getting qualified. So, it would have been me and The Agent and Bug, and I would have been happy with that, for whatever time we had together.
But FOUR children? With someone you knew wouldn’t get to see them grow up? I don’t think I could have done that.
Of the four children, two of them don’t have any memories of their father at all, and the other two only have broken fragments, tarnished by the illness that eventually killed him. They never got to know their father, and their early memories of their mother are of a woman filled with grief and worry for the future. I think that’s really sad.
And I think it’s a little selfish.
It’s one thing to live life to the fullest because you never know what’s going to happen. I’m all for that. But to have not one, not two, but four children, and to KNOW you likely won't live to see them grow up… I don’t know. That’s like being 80 years old and deciding to have a baby.
I know, it’s none of my business. Just like it’s none of my business that the Duggars are pregnant with their 20th child, or the 94-year-old from India who just fathered a child. To each their own, it doesn’t affect me at all, blah blah blah. And one could make the argument that anyone who lives in fear of what might happen someday misses out on a lot. I agree with that, too. I’m just writing out my thoughts.
What do you think? Good for that couple for having four children while they had the time together? Or shame on them for adding four children to an already hopeless situation?
Did they know about the defect before he died? Because that really would change my family planning strategy if I knew I was married to someone who was going to die so young.
ReplyDeleteI don't think I can honestly answer this question. I've learned to never say never and I thank God I don't have to make such a heart wrenching decision.
ReplyDeletei always think that celebrities and the like that have kids when they are so much older are selfish. they may never see that child grow up. and that child may not genuinely know their parents.
ReplyDeleteWhen I first read the story, I assumed they didn't know about the heart defect until it was too late. Even if they knew, I see both sides. I'm sure the wife didn't want to live life alone as a widow. My MIL was widowed twice. The first time, she had no children. The second time, she had one son. My husband was raised without a father from 11 on. But he was all that his mom had. I don't see how she would have found the strength to go on in life without her one and only son. I guess I still consider the people in your story a family, even if they're missing the father. So many children are raised in broken homes today. What's really the difference? I think I would have tried to cherish my husband as long as possible and tried recreating him in the children I see every day. The husband gave his wife the gift of family.
ReplyDeleteNow when it comes to 20 children, I think that's absolutely ridiculous. She will eventually die in childbirth. The older siblings are the ones raising the younger kids, not the mother.