Against False Dichotomies, v2

[RiverNotch]

Against False Dichotomies


There's two kinds of neural tube defect
caused by a lack of folic acid
in the mother's diet, or else by failure
of the embryo's cilia to transport

the acid to where it's needed. First,
and most common, Spina Bifida,
where the tissue around or of the lower spine
is not entirely closed by vertebrae

and bulges out like some oversized
zit. Worse still
is when it's that other major mass
of central nervous tissue left exposed

and through the natural currents of the womb
the regions of the brain responsible
for memory, thought, and sensation
are sloughed off like a bit

of dandruff. This condition,
Anencephaly, is almost always fatal,
although there are those occasions where the child
is born breathing, crying, seeking out

its mother's touch, its mother's milk, and only
after a number of days does its soul
realize its place in the body
is worse than a prison, there are

no doors nor windows, so the heart
spontaneously stops.
The child dies. At no point would the mother
think she just lost a mere mass of cells

or some other kind of parasite -- she lost
a child -- and yet
to subject her to the sight
of exposed brains, of a skull

less than half the proper size,
of a struggle to breathe for which
the only miracle
is a death by hours, not days:

if all this was brought about
by our sinful nature, then
what use have we for your
misguided condemnation?

Hello RiverNotch,

The title is reminiscent of a classical/medieval discourse or argument.  It's an appealing title, but I cannot really discern what the "false dichotomies" are.  It implies there's more than one being discussed, but I can't locate exactly what/where they are in the poem.*  

Then there's the ending.  It's a surprise in that I have no idea who is making the "misguided condemnation" or what that condemnation consists of.

So those are my two biggest problems with the poem.

As a reader, this is what I experience reading the poem: it begins with a fairly detached description of the cause of two terrible types of birth defects.  However, beginning with the third stanza, the detachment is gone, and it becomes a passionate and painful to read description of the circumstances and outcomes of one of those birth defects, the "worst" one.  In the seventh stanza, it reaches a climax, with the description of the mother's experience and in particular, you mention exposing her to the results.  We then are confronted with that final stanza, and the possessive pronoun "your condemnation".  I'm not sure who is making the condemantion; it's certainly not me, the reader.  More importantly, I don't understand what's being condemned.

It may be that I lack the religious nature/background to understand the poem.  That's my best guess.  My worldview is that I would question the existence of a benevolent God who would allow such birth defects to go unchecked.  That's where I'm coming from when I approach this poem.  Maybe that's the condemnation you are referring to.  I just don't know.

TqB

*I've read the poem many times.  This last reading I perhaps see one dichotomy: the diffference between a "parasite" and a "child".  Am I getting close?

thanks for the response

yeah, the whole pro-life v pro-choice thing.
addendum: but in retrospect, it's interesting that this might also be read as questioning the idea of a benevolent God, even if that ain't my intention. thanks again!