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---

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?

[TranquillityBase]

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?

[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!

[RiverNotch]

v2

yeah I don't really like that ending either. I tried my hand at making it clearer, like

whatever choice she makes,
she is already damned.
Those who damn her further
only damn themselves.

but I find it too, idk, didactic? proverbial? obvious?

[TranquillityBase]

v2



yeah I don't really like that ending either. I tried my hand at making it clearer, like



whatever choice she makes,

she is already damned.

Those who damn her further

only damn themselves.



but I find it too, idk, didactic? proverbial? obvious?

I think the first stanzas (1-3) are didactic.  If you could condense those, or find a way to dispense with them, and get right to Anencephaly, I think it would improve the poem.

I like the first two lines of the proposed ending, so what about something like:

if all this was brought about
by our sinful nature, then
whatever choice she makes
she is already damned.

Then perhaps another stanza, about those who would condemn/propagandize her?


what use have we for your
misguided condemnation?        gratuitous, redundant?

and two more lines, somehow summing up? a final statement about false dichotomies?

[brynmawr1]

v2

yeah I don't really like that ending either. I tried my hand at making it clearer, like

whatever choice she makes,
she is already damned.
Those who damn her further
only damn themselves.

but I find it too, idk, didactic? proverbial? obvious?

Hi Rivernotch,

I have two suggestions that might help.  The first is to shorten the first part describing the conditions.  To my ear, the specifics of each aren't needed to set up the situation you examine in the second half.  Then expand the ideas behind what puts these women in this situation of being forced to carry these doomed fetuses to term only to watch them die eg that these conditions aren't diagnosed until mid pregnancy and the false elevation and politicization of that issue for cynical politics.  Finally, I don't think the title helps though I see where you are going.  The other theme that just occurred to me, and what you might be referring to, is the idea of religious freedom and how one side cries foul and then uses laws to forces their beliefs on others.
Good luck
Bryn

[Mark A Becker]

Hi Notch-
I am OK witth the title, but you sure take the long way around to making your point.  I think you can cut the first several stanzas and pick it up here:

Against False Dichotomies

There are some conditions
that are almost always fatal,
although there are those occasions where the child 'those' is not needed
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 a soul really in a body? I don't know either.
is worse than a prison, there are

no doors nor windows, so the heart
spontaneously stops.  maybe 'just' instead of 'spontaneously'
The child dies. At no point would the mother I know the child has died
think she just lost a mere mass of cells

or some other kind of parasite---she lost  don't think you need the parasite part
a child---and yet
misguided faith subjects 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 more merciful death.   (just a suggestion for an ending)

is a death by hours, not days---


I think you can still maintain the quatrains while paying better attention to your line breaks- several of them seem haphazard.
I appreciate that you have tackled such a difficult subject.
Thanks-
Mark

[RiverNotch]

Hello,

Thanks again for the feedback, y'all! I'm still attached to the longer version, but I find much value in shortening it, too. The plan is to have both versions here, with the longer version "2.5" (and this version, having that last strophe follow Tqb's advice) and the shorter version the one continued to be worked on (or, at least, the version 3), and leave it to the (as of now hypothetical) final editor/publisher to choose. This has been the plan since I absorbed Mark's feedback before the new year, I just keep forgetting to post back -- pretty sure I have both versions in a txt file on my computer proper xD