Friday, August 22, 2008

What's In a Name?

There have a been a few posts lately in this side of the blogosphere by mamas who have lost and are now pregnant again. And the subject of names has come up. And since I almost went and did something so foolish as to make a long convulted post about how I felt on the subject manner on someone's blog comments I am here to make the post on my own blog.

I feel the need to get it out. There was a comment on one of them from someone saying that they knew their first child's name would be *such and such* not using the actual name. And when they lost their first babies, they just waited until one lived and gave it that name. I guess the idea of reincarnation comes up here, and I think that's a beautiful thing, perhaps that is what happened. Maybe the baby was trying to be born over and over again and finally it was.

But personally as much as I wish that was how I felt, it's just not. I think for some reason I want to see my babies as individual souls. That Sophie is Sophie, and my second baby will certainly not get her name because it would somehow "devalue" her in my mind. As though I am saying you are not important enough to keep this name because you didn't live. So your sibling now gets it. And I do think of them as siblings. Had Sophie lived I wouldn't have named her little sister Sophie right? Or at least most people wouldn't name their children the same thing. I think for me it's about regarding them as individuals. I worry that I would feel guilt about reusing a name, that it is hers alone to keep.

I want to stress that I have nothing against reusing the same name, and if the same baby is being reincarnated over and over well that's pretty cool, it gives you a sense of a really strong bond with the baby, because it's trying to be born so many times. But for me, I just can't see her as anything other than individual.

Then again on the other hand now that I think of it, people name their children after dead relatives all the time. So I suppose in that light, it might be an honour to give your living child their dead sister/brother's name. I think maybe I'd do it as a middle name or something if I went with that. I also love what Becky did with her boys names to give Lily a middle name.

In the end I think everyone should do what feels right for them. If you know that your baby is meant to be named something then that's the name they should have. As long as it feels right, there's no reason not to do it. And just to clear things up, I was only getting out my feelings about my babies. Not judging anyone. I can't say that I wish this baby was Sophie, because I already know it's not, but I can say that I love them both equally and that they are siblings. Who I know already love each other.

4 comments:

CLC said...

I wouldn't use the same name either. Not judging those who do, but it would be too confusing for me to refer to two children as Hannah, especially when one is not here. (that actually sounded positive on my part!)

Ya Chun said...

We have scrapped the entire list of candidate names that we had for Serenity. My top name for her (assuming that she was going to make it) will not be used for any other child. We actually came up with three names we both liked very quickly the other night (none of which were on our old list).

We have always had one boy name, put on the shelf when we found out that Serenity was a girl. That one is back in play, depending on what gender Macadamia is sporting.

niobe said...

We never got to the point of naming the boy we lost. Since he was stillborn, there was no need for a name for a birth certificate and it just seemed too hard for me to try to think of a name after he was already gone and I was so sick myself. But since our little girl lived for a few hours, we did have to give her a name.

Even though, at some level, though I know it doesn't make sense, I do feel that this new baby is the spirit of the boy twin coming back. But had this baby been a girl, I would never have used the same name as the girl we lost.

christyna said...

it depends, If I knew the sex and had a name specifically for that baby I probably wouldn't use it for asny other. BUT my baby had no sex yet really, I was less than 7 weeks and barely had a heartbeat. and while I wondered and it hurt to not know and not give it a name to greive in that manner, it wouldn't necessarily stop me from using any of the names we had in mind.
I am a person that always has 2 or 3 names in mind tho and names the baby when i see it, I did with A and I will with his brother. They have to look like what the name is I think and of the 3 names we had for A..only A would do.

But had this baby been a girl it would have been Peyton Grace or Grace Peyton, hands down...same as the last one would have been if it was a girl. BUT we will never know.

names are a funny subject, I'm cool with whatever as long as people aren't pulling the old "MIL eww thats a terrible name" crap on me ha ha...