The Vine: September 22, 2010
Dear Sars,
One of my husband’s best friends (I’ll call him Kevin) is married to Kate. I feel close to both Kevin and Kate, although we only see each other every few months because we live in different cities. Kate and I aren’t best friends, but we definitely confide in each other; we have a tighter relationship than just tolerating each other because our husbands are friends.
Kevin and Kate have a two-year-old child, somewhat miraculously; the baby was delivered almost three months early, after Kevin came home to find Kate unconscious following a series of seizures and mini-strokes that resulted from the pregnancy. Kate also had post-partum depression, and it took her several months to feel any bond with the baby.
Everyone is now healthy and seemingly happy, but the baby’s birth was an incredibly scary and stressful time for all of them. They’d always wanted to have two kids, but had started talking about adopting a second because Kate’s doctors say another pregnancy would be too risky.
We were at a party with Kevin and Kate this weekend, and when our husbands stepped out of the room, Kate (who was very, very drunk) admitted to me that she desperately wants another baby, and she wants to get pregnant because they can’t afford to go through the adoption process or hire a surrogate.
Kevin is totally opposed to the idea; he told Kate that he watched both her and their baby nearly die when she was pregnant the first time, and he doesn’t want to lose her or for their kid(s) to grow up without a mother. I told Kate that I thought Kevin might have a point, there, but that they need to work through it together and figure out how to resolve it.
And then Kate said, “I think I might just have to trick him.” As in, secretly stop using birth control. I started to give a sympathetic laugh, but she was absolutely straight-faced, and I don’t think she was kidding.
The guys came back shortly after she dropped this bomb, and by the time we left, Kate was falling-down drunk, so I’m still not entirely certain that she was serious, and I have no idea if she’ll even remember our conversation.
I think I need to talk to Kate and reiterate that she and Kevin ought to be working this out together, probably with a therapist. But part of me worries that she’ll brush it off and pretend that she didn’t mean it, even if she did.
If that’s the case, do I butt out, or do I owe it to Kevin to tell him what she said? Or at least plant a seed with him (or ask my husband to do so) that they might not be on the same page and might benefit from a therapist? I generally like to mind my own business, and I don’t want to be disloyal to Kate, but if she’s truly considering such a huge betrayal of Kevin’s trust, is it wrong for me not to speak up?
Reluctant Meddler
Dear Med,
It’s not just the betrayal of Kevin’s trust; said betrayal, provided it results in a viable pregnancy, would put Kate herself in physical (and possibly emotional) danger.
I think you have to speak up — to Kate. Tell her that you feel very uncomfortable with that information, both the information itself and having it when her husband doesn’t. “Look, what you said the other night has been bothering me. I’m absolutely not judging you, but your doctor has told you that this is a bad idea, and going ahead with it by tricking your husband is a bad idea too. I’m really concerned.”
Then just sit there. Don’t threaten to tell Kevin, don’t suggest that she get therapy; just…wait. Wait to see what she says. Let her talk, and listen to her. It’s one of the hardest things to do, expressing an emotion and then resisting the urge to qualify it or to leap into the silence and “help” the other person out of the awkward situation — but she needs to hear that her “plan” is dangerous to her health and her marriage, and it won’t land if you try to bail her out of it socially all “but I’m sure you didn’t mean it” or “but I’m sure you’ll work it out.”
Because the other issue here is that she definitely meant it — in vino veritas — but the truths we tell under the influence don’t guarantee that we’ll do anything about those truths. In vino fortitudo as well, you know? No, pulling the goalie without telling Kevin isn’t going to work out very well for her, but you have to grade on the curve of alcohol-based big-talk wish fulfillment.
Talk to her, tell her it’s bothering you, and see how she reacts. If you get the feeling she’s going to go ahead with it in the cold light of day, maybe bring your husband into the cone of silence, with the caveat that you are primarily asking for his advice and support in a difficult situation, not giving him permission to dime Kate to Kevin…but drunk people talk a lot of shit that never goes anywhere. If I’d actually kicked every ass I’ve said I was going to with a snootful of pinot, I’d be the middleweight champion of the world, and: ain’t. That could very well be the situation here, so call her on it and see.
Tags: boys (and girls) friendships
I’m going to derail this thread to gloat a little bit about the effectiveness of the “sit and don’t bail the person out” strategy. My son was diagnosed with autism this summer; as a result my dad said some really crappy things about my parenting [ie, if we’d spank enough, he’d be fine]. I finally got the nerve up to call him on it, via email; he promptly doubled down on the crap, repeating it with extras.
I wrote back asking him respectfully to clarify his position in some places that he’d been ambiguous. I didn’t say “Of course you didn’t mean it to sound THAT violent.” He wrote back doubling down again…
I greatly doubt he’ll ever change at all, but the great thing is that this dialogue made me realize: I don’t exist as an actual person to my dad, and I never did. What affection/good times that happened were all just me bailing him out, over and over. It’s an incredible feeling of freedom to know that I don’t have to do that — he’s an ass, and that’s all there is.
Ack. This one struck a nerve, so my opinion here is DEFINITELY colored by my personal bias. Please talk to your friend, since this is bothering you. But under no circumstances is this something to tattle about. NO. Reproductive decisions are personal and hard to view from outside a relationship. Actually talking to the spouse or even threatning to is a bad move.
In vino veritas? When I drink, the alcohol doesn’t unlock some core in my brain containing only totally true thoughts, plans, and emotions. I have thoughts all day long that I wouldn’t totally subscribe to if challenged. All drinking does is make me more likely to say them. So, like a drunken one night stand doesn’t mean you *really* wanted to have sex with that guy, give sober Kate a *little* credit.
Sars: Great advice.
Is “pulling the goalie” a common expression, or one you made up? I’ve never heard it before, and I’ve heard a LOT of internet complaining about women who “trick” (or trick) men into having children.
The only thing I see that needs doing here it to explain to Kate what she said when drunk so she can be aware of it. Otherwise I entirely agree with Rachel. This is an area where friends should fear to tread. Don’t tell hubby, don’t tell anyone.
Some things to point out: if she is desperate for a second child, she can have it with anybody and nobody can stop her; every pregnancy carries some risk; and there are women out there for whom not having a second child left a permanent hole in their soul. Yes, from an outside point of view it seems like a Really Bad Idea to get pregnant, never mind by trickery, but this is a subject where only the inside point of view matters.
Also bear in mind that doctors in a litigious society have to urge caution whenever possible, but pregnancy-induced hypertension (which is what I assume caused her seizures), now that they know she gets it, is not always unmanageable and does not mean an automatic death sentence, if that is the basis of your concern.
@Allie: It’s common among my cohort; I don’t know how frequently it’s used out in the world.
this is a subject where only the inside point of view matters
Here’s the problem — if I’m the friend, and I know that she’s considering an undertaking that puts her in physical danger, one that her husband absolutely is against for that very reason, and then she goes ahead with it and something happens, I’m not going to get much comfort from “this subject is off-limits to outsiders.” I’m going to feel guilty and like I should have done something, even if I couldn’t have, really, in the end.
I agree that it’s sensitive and private and that Med shouldn’t interfere if she can help it, but it’s not like Med sought or wanted this information. Kate put it out there — yes, while drunk, but still. If only the inside point of view matters, keep it inside, then, or your friends are not exactly outside of their rights to be concerned.
I heard “I’m not ready to pull the goalie” on a TV show the other day and had no idea what it meant, so thanks to Sars for giving me a little more context. I will now add it to my mental slang dictionary.
I totally agree with Sars’ last comment. Sure every pregnancy carries a risk, but I think we can agree that being advised against a second pregnancy by a physician is well beyond the norm.
“Pulling the goalie” is a commonly used expression in my part of Canada.
There are a lot of different opinions about whether or not it’s a good idea to attempt a second pregnancy after severe preeclampsia. Meddler might wish to suggest to Kate that she get a second opinion from a perinatalogist, if Kate hasn’t done so already. Garden-variety OBs are often much quicker to advise against more children than are maternal-fetal medicine experts, simply because they’re less experienced.
Infertility is a really difficult thing, and can tear a marriage apart when both partners aren’t on the same page about it. No, it’s not fair to engineer a birth control failure, but it’s just as unfair for Kevin to issue a blanket veto on more babies. Kate’s a rational adult, and if another baby is important enough to her to risk her own life and leaving her child(ren) motherless, that’s worth taking into account too. Since Kate is the one whose health is potentially at risk, I actually give her vote a little bit more weight than Kevin’s in this department — her body, her decision, and all that.
I don’t endorse the “oops” strategy, but I also don’t think Kevin’s entirely in the right here, and Meddler should absolutely keep her nose out of the whole thing.
I agree with those who have to talk to Kate, and Kate only. The course of action she’s contemplating is unwise on many levels and, as her friend, I think you are well within your rights to discuss it with her again (when she’s sober) and tell her why you’re so concerned.
As somebody who is about to start down the IVF route after two unsuccessful years of trying to get pregnant, it totally boggles my mind that anybody would risk their life to have a baby when they already have a child. A friend of mine did exactly this a couple of years ago after trying to use a surrogate and pretty much bankrupting her family in the process: she then got pregnant naturally and, thankfully, the life-threatening condition that nearly finished her off when she had her first baby did not reappear. But it was VERY hard to be supportive of her decision because I thought it was really risky.
But Kate’s going to do what she’s going to do. Although I don’t condone it in the slightest, she certainly wouldn’t be the first woman in the world to ‘accidentally’ get pregnant. One thought I had was that Kevin might want to consider getting the snip if another pregnancy could be so dangerous for Kate. But again, that’s a big decision and they need to arrive at it together. I think that you doing anything beyond talking to Kate might really damage things between the four of you.
Look, I’m all for staying out of another couple’s problems, specially if it’s something this sensitive. Keeping in mind that she might lose their friendship in the process… this is obviously something that shouldn’t be ignored. But do talk to her first, and decide after that. I’m not saying husband is right about the decision, or that she is right, or wrong… it’s just… such a potentialy deadly consequence that can come from not saying anything that I think it is worth the risk of telling him.
I’m sorry, but no, the decision to risk leaving her child (or children) childless is not only up to Kate. The husband and child would be permanently affected – especially the kid, who’ll have to grow up without a mother… I’m not diminishing her desire to have another baby, I’m just thinking it doesn’t quite compare to death. In any case, it might be somewhat safe if she does it with the right medical care, I have no idea, but as far as Meddler knows, that’s not the case.
So I second the advice Sars gave you… only keeping in mind that if it does turn out she’s serious, you might need to do something about it – and not just out of your own guilt if something happened to her for her sake, but there are other people’s lives that would be affected here too.
BTW, I don’t think it’s unfair of Kevin at all to say no to more babies… if it had been Kate saying no, no one would be saying it would be ok for him to go ahead and sabotage her birth control in order for her to get pregnant (even without the whole health risk thing).
I think Sars’ advice is on the money, but I wanted to comment on Emma B.’s note. I think you (Emma) gave great advice about consulting a perinatalogist, but I disagree with the part of your second paragraph, where you say:
“No, it’s not fair to engineer a birth control failure, but it’s just as unfair for Kevin to issue a blanket veto on more babies.”
I don’t think these two items are comparable at all. I think Kevin is completely within his rights to decide that he doesn’t want to father a child with a particular person — lord knows we’ve spent decades asserting the right for women not to have pregnancy foisted upon them, and that fight still goes on in many parts of the world. It’s not just Kate’s risk — Kevin risks being left as a single father, and losing wife plus possible second child. I’m not saying they shouldn’t talk this out, of course.
Engineering a birth control “failure” (by either partner), on the other hand, is a total betrayal of marital trust. If I were married and discovered that my spouse pulled such a stunt, I’d be filing divorce papers the next day. Making new human beings is a big deal (or should be) and the thought of creating one through an act of betrayal rather than an act of love rather horrifies me.
I am with John here. I can understand Kate WANTING another child, but as a feminist, I am appalled at the other posters acceptance of a deception meant to remove choice from one half of a couple. Isn’t that the exact opposite of what we’ve been fighting for for the past century? You don’t demand equal rights and then dump those rights for the other half of the population just because it’s “your body.”
Sorry, but if having a baby is THAT important to Kate, and Kevin is not willing to watch her put herself through the danger of a high risk pregnancy (After almost losing her the first time around) then Kate REALLY needs to either suck it up and find a way to have that baby without Kevin (ie pay for in vitro with donor sperm and carry it herself)and losing her marriage, consider using a surrogate with their own egg/sperm contributions (are there no friends/family members who would be willing to surrogate for them? I would do it in a heartbeat for my sister or close friends), or consider adoption.
Yes, these things are expensive. So is having a child. Taking choice away from her husband is NOT the way to go about things. I’m shocked at the female posters who think that it is.
“Pull the goalie” was used in the movie “Marley and Me.” That was the first time I heard it in that context. Got a pretty good laugh from the audience, too.
Re: “Can’t afford the adoption process or a surrogate” Then how do they expect to afford a second child? I know that babies are born under less-than-stellar financial circumstances all the time, but if financial issues prevent adoption and such, how will they handle the hospital bills if she becomes ill, or God forbid, the baby is born ill?
What they haven’t considered is joining a foster program, helping a child in their area who would love a chance to be a part of their family. I wish them all good luck and good sense.
Just have to say, that as a child of a trickster, I know what she did and I will always hate her a bit and never fully trust her because of it. It’s indicative of an “I want what I want and fuck what anyone else wants” mindset. Lady needs therapy and fast.
And absolutely her husband has just as much right to decide his reproductive future as she does. Maybe get your hubby to poke around (metaphorically, of course) the vasectomy issue.
Mctwin, I thought that too. If they can’t afford adoption/surrogacy (and they are both really expensive)how is Kate planning to afford a high-risk pregnancy and birth, with all the attendant medical costs? They already have one child who needs attention and costs money. Depending on her insurance, she may even lose coverage if she goes ahead against medical advice (but I’m just blue skying that one, have no idea if that would happen.)
I’m with Sars and the rest in talking to sober Kate and determining how much was wine induced sadness/recklessness and how much was a kernel of plan being sounded out. Depending on the answer, her husband has a right to know. He’s not a sperm bank, he’s her spouse, partner, and father of her child.
I completely agree with John & Brigid in the context of Kate & Kevin’s decision — when it comes to the “More children?” question, the “NO” always carries. Nobody should ever be forced to create or gestate a child they do not want.
Kate needs to be called on her despicable plan, if only to be reminded that she threatened to carry it out. The depth of the betrayal to Kevin that it would be — and the awful position he would be in (a duplicitous, untrustworthy wife whose life was in danger, an unborn child he didn’t want in the first place and the presumable sense of responsibility to support them both … ugh) is so unspeakable and such a profound denial of any semblance of partnership …
If Kate is seriously considering this, I think they are in deep, deep trouble already.
I do so understand the desperate longing for another child of your own body. It is built into our DNA to yearn for that, in some ways. But sometimes critical thinking has to overcome desperate yearning, and this is one of those times.
Meddler, PLEASE call her on awful thing she thinks of doing. Their marriage, her current child’s security, Kate’s own life and any future child’s life are all far more important than any discomfort you are feeling about it, or even the dissolution of your friendship.
@John, I think Kevin’s perfectly within his rights to say that he doesn’t want to father another child. However, that’s not quite what he’s saying, at least in our limited information — he doesn’t want Kate to take the risks of another *pregnancy*. If they’ve been discussing surrogacy or adoption, presumably he is at least somewhat on-board with the idea of adding another family member. He’s not making decisions about their joint family, but about what physical processes she can or can’t participate in to get there. It’s a subtle difference, but I think it’s an important one.
I suffered some fairly severe complications (ovarian hyperstimulation) from the infertility treatment that produced my first pregnancy. When my husband and I began to discuss a second pregnancy, one of the things we had to settle out was whether we’d be willing to go through infertility treatment again if necessary. If he didn’t want to risk twins again, or spend the money, or go through the miserable roller-coaster ride? Perfectly legitimate objections. However, saying “I don’t want you to go through OHSS again” was NOT okay with me. I mean, I wasn’t very keen on it either, but I get the final deciding vote about which physical consequences are OK for me to undergo.
Kate’s position as a wife and mother doesn’t negate her agency, and she still has to make the decision that’s right for HER. Presumably, she’s also going to take into account the motherless-child factor in making that decision — there’s no indication that she’s a selfish monster who is incapable of thinking about her family’s needs. I really dislike the idea that just because she’s a parent, she no longer gets to make any choices which might have a negative impact on her family.
One other note on the financial aspects: it’s perfectly possible to be capable of raising a baby but not to afford surrogacy or adoption. Both of these options are very, very expensive — non-foster adoption usually runs you at least $10K depending on circumstances and country, and surrogacy is more like $60-80K. There’s no other single expense of child-rearing that even comes close. College tuition does, yes, but it’s not mandatory that you cough up the entire cost of your child’s potential college education, and you get 18 years to save up for it.
As for being a foster parent or adopting a foster child, these are very worthwhile things, but they’re not cures for infertility. Aside from increasing the number of people in the household, they have very little in common with having a biological child. That’s not to say that foster parenting is bad at all, just that it’s a completely different entity from giving birth to a baby. Physical infertility issues don’t magically make you well-suited to be a foster parent, any more than being unable to find a romantic partner makes you a good candidate to become a nun or a monk. Nobody should want to take a foster-care kid because they can’t get one any other way — they should do it because they want to be a foster parent, not because it’s their last-choice option.
I am shocked at everyone who thinks it’s fine and dandy to force a baby on someone who said no. Even freaking Dr. Phil says that if one person says no, it’s a no for everyone on this topic. I don’t think her need to have another biological baby should get to trump his worry about having a dead wife and 2 kids to raise. Hell to the no. That’s just crazy.
My recommendation would be to have it out with a sober Kate to see if she’s seriously gonna do it or not. If she is… to be honest, that is when I would tell Kevin. I know everyone is all “Every time a man has sex, he’s consenting to have a baby” blah blah blah, but they’re married, odds are he thinks he can trust her enough to keep up the BC and he’s not using a condom (and it might get some rude commentary if he was), and hell, if I were him, I would want to know. But man, I hope she didn’t mean it because that kind of betrayal would wreck a marriage.
And for the record: my parents were in this sort of situation (different medical issues though) and my dad unilaterally put his foot down, NO MORE BABIES. And you know what? It didn’t kill anybody for me not to have a sibling. My parents were fine, I was fine. It’s not the worst thing in the world to just have one kid. There’s plenty of other ways one can engage with other children even if they can’t afford other methods of getting to keep a kid legally. (And I second the “uh, if they can’t afford to conceive, how are they affording kid #2 and the medical bills?”)
The original context for “pulling the goalie” hasn’t been explained above, that I can see, so I just wanted to point out that it’s a hockey strategy for taking the goalie out of the game and getting an additional player on the ice for a better chance of scoring.
And heh, that particular game situation is never going to sound quite the same to me…
I think she has to mention it to Kevin. Only once and then back off unless he asks questions.
It’s not fair that she has to make this decision but since she can’t un-know what Kate said, I think this is the best way for her to deal with it.
I don’t think talking to Kate will help, because if she meant it, saying “I’m worried about you” is not likely to give Kate an epiphany when she’s been warned about death as a pregnancy side effect by a doctor.
I also 100% believe that Kevin has veto power. I remember hearing that it takes two yeses to deliberately make a baby but only one “No” to decide to not make one, and I completely agree.
It is fair to ask him to be in charge of birth control if he feels so strongly, but not to sabotage the BC.
@Emma B. — Thanks for the clarification, I understand the point you were making better now. I do feel for Kevin — if I ever saw my spouse in such a life-threatening situation, I’d do just about anything to prevent it from ever happening again. I think everyone agrees that this is something they need to talk through together. It’s just a shame we’re not giving this advice to them directly!
I really hope Kate was just trash-talking while drunk. If she were to get pregnant now by legitimate accident — my sister got pregnant while on the pill, it does happen — the letter-writer will always wonder how accidental it was.
I think Sars is absolutely spot-on, here. It may be that Kate is looking less to trick Kevin than for the ability to say to someone, “Maybe I’ll trick Kevin,” even if there’s an ocean between her saying it and her doing it. So I would not say anything to Kevin unless the LW is fairly confident that Kate is dead set on carrying out this plan, sober.
(It also occurred to me — not that this is any of our or the LW’s business — that Kevin may be the manager who makes all the goalie-pulling decisions.)
Emma B, Regardless of whether Kevin is fine with having another child a different way, the act of using deception to remove his right to make the choice to procreate with Kate in the traditional sense is no different than Kevin poking holes in his Kate’s diaphragm if the situation were reversed. Would you be ok with Kevin doing that if he was the one who wanted the child and she didn’t? Whether he would be ok with having a child by another means isn’t really relevant here – violating your partners right to choose is a HUGE betrayal of trust and one that you can’t “take back.”
@Brigid, no, I absolutely don’t agree with deception, which is why I said as much in my original post. I just don’t think Kevin gets to issue proclamations and close the discussion. He, and only he, gets to choose whether he fathers another child, but he doesn’t get the sole voice in deciding whether she has another *pregnancy*.
He, and only he, gets to choose whether he fathers another child, but he doesn’t get the sole voice in deciding whether she has another *pregnancy*.
I’m not sure I understand the distinction vis-a-vis another pregnancy *with him*. If she wants them to have another child, and he doesn’t, she has the right to ask him to hear her out — and to leave if she wants another child period more than she wants to stay married to Kevin. But if he doesn’t want her to get pregnant again *with a child of his*, I think he does get the sole voice there. We’re not talking about rearranging the furniture, after all.
Sars, what Kevin is saying is that “I don’t think you can be allowed take the risks of another pregnancy” — it’s the pregnancy-vs-baby distinction that I’m really keying into here. Maybe it’s just because I’ve actually had to address some permutation of that myself, but it feels to me like there’s a legitimate difference.
If he’s theoretically OK with the use of a gestational surrogate, then he’s on board with bringing another baby into their lives. Imagine that instead of a not-yet-conceived baby, we’re talking about frozen embryos which he helped to create. Is it OK for Kevin to say that they can be transferred into a gestational surrogate but not into Kate? At that point, the thing he is specifically objecting to is whether that happens *in Kate’s body* or not, and that’s where he doesn’t get the only vote. He doesn’t get to determine what is and isn’t “too risky” for her to do with her body.
Suppose they have a legitimate birth control failure and she turns up pregnant — can he insist that she have an abortion? Can he refuse to allow her to schedule an elective c-section, on the grounds that it’s riskier than a vaginal delivery? Force her to breastfeed, because it’s objectively better for the child? Of course he can’t, even though Kate’s choices in all of those situations will also affect him and/or their child(ren). Leaving aside the thorny question of fetal personhood, how is it any different if he’s making a unilateral decision prior to conception than in the first trimester, or the third, or after birth?
Basically, what it came down to for me is this: would you be OK if the Baby Fairy dropped one off at the doorstep? If the answer to that is yes, then you’ve got to trust me to make the judgment calls about the intermediate stuff needed to make that happen. Again, totally different story if the other partner genuinely doesn’t want another child, but I’m gnawing on the distinction between “I don’t want us to have another baby” and “I don’t want YOU to have another baby”. Does that make more sense?
Somewhat more. I’m not entirely on board with the argument — this is his wife, the mother of the child they already have, and I’m not comfortable with the idea that he gets no say at all in risks she takes, much less that she would assert her right to take those risks by tricking him into a pregnancy he’s ambivalent towards at best — but I see what you’re saying.
If another pregnancy will be life-threatening for Kate, then Kevin is within his rights to refuse to participate. It’s not a question of “I don’t want YOU to have another baby” so much as “I don’t want to help you kill yourself.”
@Emma B – Referring to your original post, I see a HUGE difference between someone saying “I don’t want you…” and “I forbid you…”
Not a perfect analogy, but: my husband didn’t *want* me to go off of BC (we’re not trying to conceive yet, but I wanted to let my hormonal cycle work itself out first). I noted his objection, we talked about it, and in the end, I did stop taking BC. If he’d said “I forbid you” or starting slipping pills into my morning tea, well, that’s something else.
Speaking as someone who went through a risky pregnancy and then almost died along with my baby during birth. I can understand Kate’s desire to have another baby. I had always wanted 2 children, I sometimes feel sad that my baby will be an only child. BUT, watching me go through this tramatized my husband. He ended up going into therapy to deal with watching me go through this, and his therapist thinks he has a form of PTSD from watching us almost die. It’s possible Kevin is in this situation as well, and he should be able (right now at least) to say no to another pregnancy and have a serious say in this situation. He does not deserve to be tricked into going into 9 months of thinking “I could watch my wife die at any minute”
Reluctant should say something to Kate, and really hope Kate was joking.
This is simpler than it looks:
Kate has the right to have another pregnancy.
Kate does not have the right to force or trick someone else into helping her have another pregnancy.
Meaning: if the pregnancy is planned by both people, fine. If it’s a legitimate accident, fine (because they took the risks). But the fact that he would be okay with another baby in theory does not obligate him to participate in a pregnancy with Kate that he is against for whatever reason. That is, he can’t tell her what risk she should be permitted to take with her own body, but he can’t be forced to help her do so with his own body.
April, I think you summarized it pretty well. Btw, wanted to comment on this part:
“At that point, the thing he is specifically objecting to is whether that happens *in Kate’s body* or not, and that’s where he doesn’t get the only vote. He doesn’t get to determine what is and isn’t “too risky” for her to do with her body.”
Actually I believe he does get a say… say this wasn’t about babies, but some other type of elective procedure that was life threatening. They are married. He does get a say, maybe he doesn’t get to make the final decision, but his opinion counts because they are married and have a child together. The risks she takes are not only her own as they affect very strongly his live and their child’s. Now, imagine that for said procedure to happen he had to sign some kind of consent form. He had absolutely every right to say “I will not be a part of this, I will not help you do something that can potentially kill you.” and here is what she is taking his ability to do – he should HAVE to consent to a child, and she is talking about taking a way that right. If a decision is made that the risk is worth taking, it should be made by the two of them. Not just her.
I’m down with the PTSD aspect of it — the whole thing was likely extraordinarily traumatic for Kevin. I think there’s a whole other discussion to be had about what kind of dad he would be to the second child if Kate did in fact die getting him/her here. Would he love that child or resent him/her; your letter doesn’t touch on what kind of dad he is now/whether he resents the first child.
She’s potentially putting the rest of their lives on a very different track, one she may not have any participation in. I think the assumption is that Kevin would raise these kids as a single parent in the event of her death vs. handing them off to someone else, so he’s well entitled to veto another pregnancy.
If their marriage ends and she goes on to have a child with someone else, then there’s a sticky wicket of how/whether he retains custody of his child should she not survive the pregnancy.
I definitely think she and her husband need counseling of some sort to resolve things so that they’re on the same page.
I understand that I may not be qualified to butt in, as I don’t have, and don’t want, any (biological) children, but I really don’t understand the “it’s her body” = her decision-arguments here. Don’t you usually agree, that if a person is in a (potentially) life-threatening situation, you are somehow obliged to interfere? If Kate had said “I’m thinking of testing this very dangerous drug” or pondering suicide, you wouldn’t just think “it’s her decision”, at least not usually. She is (or might be) considering a potentially lethal course of action as well as breaking her husbands trust – I think this has more to do with intervention than with meddling.
Re: “pull the goalie” – I use it, too, and like to add “flood the crease” to it ;).
Actually I believe he does get a say… say this wasn’t about babies, but some other type of elective procedure that was life threatening. They are married. He does get a say, maybe he doesn’t get to make the final decision, but his opinion counts because they are married and have a child together. The risks she takes are not only her own as they affect very strongly his live and their child’s. Now, imagine that for said procedure to happen he had to sign some kind of consent form.
Oooh, this is exactly what I object to — the idea that he has the legal and/or moral right to do more than express an opinion. Of course, Kate should listen to his opinion and take it into account in her decision-making process, the way partners should do over any important issue in a marriage. However, his opinion still doesn’t have any more weight than KATE chooses to give it. The idea of having him sign off on a metaphorical “consent form” to “allow” her to take on risks is, frankly, pretty repugnant to me.
Say I want to have a hysterectomy for my endometriosis. That’s an elective procedure (I won’t die without it), and it is a major surgery which carries some risk to my life. It impacts my husband and children — if I die during the surgery, I’ll leave him alone as a single parent to our three small children, and it forever ends his chances of having another child with me. If he says he doesn’t want me to have it, I’ll listen to him, and I’ll even put “DH doesn’t want me to” on my pros-and-cons list. He can and should argue his case, but I don’t think he gets any kind of veto power, legally or even unofficially.
Again, I fully support Kevin’s right not to father a child *for any other reason* than medical risk to Kate, and this is precisely why I’m anti-oops-pregnancy. Even if he continues to refuse to “allow” Kate to risk another pregnancy, Kate should still abide by that decision, rather than tricking him into becoming a father against his will. I think that’s a WRONG decision on Kevin’s part, but sometimes people do things we think are wrong, and it doesn’t give us the right to override them.
Marriage isn’t like the UN Security Council. You’re still entitled to do things that your partner really, REALLY disagrees with — yes, even if you are a wife and a mother, and even if those things have really big effects on your partner/children. You can’t force your partner to participate, but you get to decide for yourself.
Don’t you usually agree, that if a person is in a (potentially) life-threatening situation, you are somehow obliged to interfere?
Everything we do in life carries a mortality risk. An American’s risk of death in a car accident is roughly 0.015% (43,000 deaths/year in a population of 300 million), which coincidentally is about the same as pregnancy — roughly 1 of every 17,000 women die every year in the US from complications of pregnancy and delivery. However, I’m pretty sure we can all agree that our spouses don’t have the legal or moral right to forbid us from driving, even if it means we might die in a car crash and leave them as single parents. So, if a 1/15,000 risk of death isn’t enough to give our spouses veto power, can you please mathematically define the inflection point at which Kevin acquires the right to “save” Kate from herself?
Keep in mind that medical odds don’t work quite the way laypeople expect — a “life-threatening” pregnancy very rarely has a 100% chance of death, unless the mother is in an acute physical crisis (at which point it may well be too late to save her anyway). Kate’s absolute risk of death is probably on the order of 1%. Many women don’t get preeclampsia in a second pregnancy, those who do often have milder cases, and she will be followed much more closely and likely delivered at the first sign of trouble. Do you feel comfortable saying that a 1/100 risk of death gives Kevin the “obligation to interfere”? What if the risk is 1/10? 1/1000? 1/5?
Once you’ve granted that there are some situations where Kevin gets to override Kate’s health decisions, how far does that control extend? What if he demands that she not have (or have, depending on circumstances) a C-section, because it’s more dangerous? If they have a legitimately accidental pregnancy, would we endorse his right to demand that she have an abortion? What if she gets cancer, but doesn’t want to do chemotherapy? Would my husband be right to “demand” that I not have a hysterectomy, in the situation from my previous comment? If not, what’s the difference between that and Kate’s situation? Obviously, Kevin can open his mouth and spit out any demand he wants to, and it’s all completely meaningless from a legal standpoint, but what I’m interested in here is when you would agree that he’s “right, given that all of these situations are differences of degree rather than essentials.
Myself, I don’t think that there’s ever a good place to define a cutoff and say, OK, now you’re not competent to make this decision for yourself. When we say that Kevin gets veto power, that’s exactly what we’re saying — that Kate is not capable of arriving at the best decision, or that Kate’s decision is automatically wrong if it has negative impacts on her husband and/or children.
(Sorry to go on and on and on at such length, and I promise I’m done now. It’s just that as a wife and a mother and a person with an obstetric history several inches thick, I’ve spent a lot of the last five years thinking about these kinds of questions in a very non-academic way, and I came out of it with some very different opinions than I started with. Obviously it’s something I feel pretty strongly about.)
@ Emma B: I can’t quote statistics, but if you want to compare pregnancy to driving, I would be inclined to compare this potential pregnancy to drunk driving: the risk for disaster is noticeably bigger; would you let your friend drive drunk?
And I’m actually not at all discussing whether Kevin has “the right†to veto anything, I am talking about whether Reluctant Meddler should meddle or not. I think she should.
She should talk to Kate, stress that Kate should discuss things with Kevin – by all means get a second opinion from a skilled obstetrician – but she needs to hear that the tricking is a really, really bad idea. If Kate does not listen, and it sounds like she really means it – I think I still would meddle. If you were the one being tricked, wouldn’t you want to know?
As for the discussion whether Kate has the “right†to try for another child in this situation: How about the child that already exists? Does it have a say in the discussion (metamorphically speaking)? I think that Kate has a responsibility to the existing child not to take unnecessary risks. Yes, I do not think that another child is necessary, honestly.
To really give an extreme example – would you want your friend’s child to grow up, knowing that s/he wasn’t enough for the mother, and the mother died because she insisted on another child?
Emma, I see your point but I guess the difference here to me is that it takes two to make a baby, and unless she wants to divorce him, then he has veto power over her getting pregnant. What would you say if the husband wanted to adopt a child but the wife did not? Does she have veto power over that (assuming a world where both parents don’t need to consent)?
“Oooh, this is exactly what I object to — the idea that he has the legal and/or moral right to do more than express an opinion”
I… do not understand this. I will grant you that Kate has a bigger stake in this because she’s the one who could actually die, but they are married. They are a couple planning a family. They should be making the decision *together*. This is absolutely not a situation in which one person says ‘I really think this is a bad idea’ and the other person says ‘I appreciate your concern, but I’m doing it anyway’. If they had joint finances, and one party wanted to make a risky investment and they other said ‘no’, would it be okay if the other person just did it anyway, or more to the point agreed they wouldn’t do it and went ahead and did it anyway? Yeah, maybe it would work out and they’d make a million bucks. Or maybe they’d lose it all.
“Kate should listen to his opinion and take it into account in her decision-making process, the way partners should do over any important issue in a marriage.”
But it’s not *her* decision, it’s theirs. It’s her womb, but their family, their marriage, their theoretical and actual child. This is an undertaking that involves both parties, and the only way she can decide to make this happen without his consent is to deceive him.
I think @Meddler should say something to the woman, and if she’s not satisfied with the response, to the husband also, either directly or via her own husband (it’s his friendship that’s at risk too). It’s better to fall out with them now than to feel terrible afterwards if something goes wrong. The discussions about people’s rights to self-determination over their bodies are important but they don’t apply to @Meddler; she only has to decide how a good friend should act in this situation.
I hope my friends — and my husband’s friends’ partners — would say something to me in this situation and not agonise and do nothing.
Let’s hope it turns out to be the drink talking.