I just read something that gave me chills.
It was in a Q and A interview in the San Fran Chronicle with a writer named Ayelet Waldman who wrote “Bad Mother: A Chronicle of Maternal Crimes, Minor Calamities, and Occasional Moments of Grace.”
Waldman’s previous claim to fame came from writing an essay in 2005 saying she loved her husband, the writer Michael Chabon, more than her children which got her on Oprah. (I hope her children can’t read.)
But as much as her saying that disturbed me, that’s nothing compared to the sad,
bold, and confused things she has to say about murdering her own child. This really disturbed me:
Q: How hard will it be to talk about your abortion on your book tour?
A: I don’t know how I’ll get through that. Of all the things I’ve revealed about myself, that’s the absolute scariest, not because I’m ashamed of it, but I feel horrible about that decision. I’m completely convinced that I did the right thing, and I’m completely convinced that I killed my baby and there was nothing wrong with him. It’s this duality, this horrible ambivalence.
But if there’s one woman who’s going through this alone and reads this essay and realizes it’s not her private agony, or it is but she shares this with other people, then it’s completely worth it.
What? At one moment she’s saying it’s emotional and scary and then she says she’s ambivalent.
This woman is obviously very sad and confused. I fear, however, that she’s more indicative of our time than we know.
May 7, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Very strange, she’s “not ashamed of it”, but she “feels horrible about that decision?”
Confused may not be a strong enough word. The woman is unhinged. Very sad.
May 7, 2009 at 12:55 pm
“…she’s more indicative of our time than we know.”
And excellent point. Ten-fifteen years ago, I thought for sure we would win the abortion war in short order because technology was making it more and more clear that a fetus was a baby.
Unfortunately, in their twin addictions to sex and convenience, the pro-aborts simply admit “Yes, it’s a baby. But we don’t care. Kill it anyway.”
May 7, 2009 at 1:07 pm
I had the same thought. Once everyone sees, the debate will be over. But many just don’t care. What kind of callousness is that?
May 7, 2009 at 1:11 pm
I don’t understand why it bothers people when she says she loves her husband more than she loves her kids. I love my wife more than I love my 3 wonderful daughters. This doesn’t mean I don’t love/like/cherish my kids. Loving your spouse more than your offspring is, I believe, correctly ordered in the sight of God.
After all, in marriage, man and woman become one flesh. That one flesh may produce fruit (children), but the one flesh should remain one flesh, bonded together for life. To say that mothers or fathers should love their children as much as/more than their spouses introduces a false third element into a marriage. Children may demand/need more time/attention/affection than a spouse, but your spouse needs that unique, primary, sacramental love.
The best example parents can give their children is to love each other first and foremost. Children will understand that their parents’ love being given first and foremost to each other creates the stable, loving environment they need and crave.
Now, Ms. Waldman is certainly confused, to put it charitably, regarding abortion and its repercussions. However, I think she’s (perhaps unwittingly) spot on about loving her husband.
May 7, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Micheal you are 100% correct, there is a hierarchy on who we love.
Love God first then spouse and then kids and any turn around in that order will lead to problems
May 7, 2009 at 1:49 pm
there’s something wrong with you two. I’m serious.
May 7, 2009 at 1:57 pm
“What? At one moment she’s saying it’s emotional and scary and then she says she’s ambivalent.”
Ambivalence is not the absence of emotion. The definition of ambivalence is the simultaneous experience of conflicting thoughts/feelings. Psychiatrists,psychologists, and confessors deal with this all the time. Seems she’s simply being public with her pschological and moral situation whereas most people deal with it privately.
May 7, 2009 at 2:16 pm
“I’m completely convinced that I did the right thing, and I’m completely convinced that I killed my baby and there was nothing wrong with him”
You don’t see something wrong with that statement?
May 7, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Arthur, I’m assume you’re addressing Smiley and me. Of course I see something wrong with abortion and her cold-hearted assertion that “I killed my baby and that was the right thing to do.”
I never stated anything else. All I said was that her stating in 2005 that she loves her husband more than her kids should not be controversial. That’s not condoning her abortion at all. In fact, I would argue that if she truly loved her husband she wouldn’t have even considered aborting their child. What’s your specific beef with what Smiley or I wrote?
May 7, 2009 at 2:30 pm
I see abortion as wrong totally wrong, i don’t accept abortion under any circumstances not even rape.
I agree with the writer when she says she loves her husband first. As i said and I will say it again there is a hierarchy of loves and when this hierarchy is upset then problems arise.
May 7, 2009 at 2:32 pm
I always assumed that, once everyone recognized the humanity of the unborn, the feminists and other abortion supporters would merely shift the goalposts. That’s what appears to be happening.
May 7, 2009 at 2:40 pm
she said she loves her husband “more.”
Love should not be measured out in teaspoons. Our love for our children and spouse should be ever expanding.
No sane person should ever think who do i love more, my children or my spouse.
May 7, 2009 at 2:42 pm
No Authur
Love should be unconditional but we are humans and hence since we cannot by oursleves love unconditionally we do love in measures.
Love is not a feeling it is an action hence a thought and thus it can be measured.
But i think we are hijacking this thread.
May 7, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Smiley,
I agree we are hijacking but just to make one last pt.
Putting your wife “first” is not the same as loving her more.
Peace out.
May 7, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Maybe “more” is the wrong word. Properly ordered people should strive to love GOD, their spouse, then their children with the same intensity, but different kinds of ‘love’ —- Pope Benedict talks about those in his first Encyclical Deus Caritas est.
As to that person who sees nothing wrong with murdering their own baby — now we see openly a mortal sin, I guess. And, yes, this is totally indicative as well as symptomatic of our times where all understanding of sinfulness is lost. Why do you think it is that Pope Benedict asked the bishops to increase the number exorcists their dioceses performing exorcisms?
The War is on – Bishop Finn mentioned this recently, I believe, but that language was also used immediately after the elections.
We need St. Michael and his fellow Holy Angels more than ever.
Blessings, Mum26
May 7, 2009 at 5:21 pm
She may lover her husband “more” but that “more” cannot include allowing him to abuse her children. I think applying a heirarchy here can produce some unhealthy situations.
If her “more” means not letting the kids play the parents off one against the other, then I say huzzah!
On the other hand, if that “more” means “I love my husband more than my children, so I will turn a blind eye to Suzy being molested and Bobby being beaten.” I have an “issue” with that.
Of course, I do have an “issue” with that because my mother chose the second course, above. So I can’t say that I’m “normal.”
May 7, 2009 at 5:27 pm
to the Last Anumynous who had a not so nice daddy and a scared mommy. I am sorry you had to go thorugh life like that. I dont know what your mum was thinking or why your dad did what he did. I do mean the first option not the second one. if either parent is abusive the other parents needs to protect the child and yet at the same time some how (and this is not easy) still be there to take care of the abusive spouse (the for better or worse part of the vows)
May 7, 2009 at 5:52 pm
I would think that, in such extreme cases, the only truly loving thing to do would be to leave with the children. This not only protects the children , but prevents the abusive spouse from committing repeated mortal sin – a loving act indeed.
May 7, 2009 at 7:30 pm
Based on her views on abortion its hard to say what she means by loving her husband more. However, I tend to agree with Michael. Our children are the fruit of our love, and its imperative that we love our spouse first in order to truly love our children. So, I’d say there’s an order in the Love but would not quantify it in terms of more or less.
There’s no greater joy on the face of my daughter than when she smiles at the affection between my wife and I. Her face lights up beautifully.
Once again, who knows if that’s what Ayalet meant but it was my first interpretation of her comments.
May 7, 2009 at 9:35 pm
Based on the article in the Washington Post yesterday about the author, I suspect that part of her “love my husband more” statement comes from her disappointment that the drudgery of motherhood wasn’t more personally satisfying. She feels courageous in exposing the myth of the bliss of motherhood. When people talk about “the bliss of motherhood” they are pointing out the satisfaction of using one’s talents in a meaningful way (nuturing another human being) not the actual tasks themselves. It’s rather like an Olympic athlete exposing the mindnumbing repetition of practice – well, duh we knew that.
All of which points to her ignorance of vocation and how life is about doing the right thing not about her convenience.
I find her abortion story horrifying – how many women is she going to encourage in this evil path? My deepest darkest fear: Would her testimony weaken my resolve to do the right thing if I were in her situation? Don’t those people who always said they only supported abortion in case of rape, incest and the health of the mother realize this is the slippery slope we predicted?