Posted on 04/20/2006 11:13:07 AM PDT by Incorrigible
For your review
I personally doubt I could handle something like that. The sad thing is that couple is from our hometown. Craziness.
I fully and completely understand why someone would.
Doesn't sound like the healthiest situation. It seems like it would just reawaken grief more and more. If a loved one of yours died, would you want pictures of them right after they died? Granted, you would have other types of pictures. But, this just doesn't seem healthy.
The picture is invaluable and gives the mom something to hold onto when her baby is gone. It eases the suffering to have the picture.
One friend whose baby was stillborn was not even allowed to see the baby when it was delivered and for years and years she was so saddened by that fact.
I'm glad I have the ultrasound pictures of my babies who died in utero. I haven't looked at them in several years but I'm glad I have them.
If those pregnancies had gone to term and I'd lost my babies it would be so much worse and how much more I'd treasure pictures.
In the nineteenth century death pictures were common - just read today about an old house where they found stereopticon (double, 3D) images of all the family members who had died. Photographer came into the parlor where they were laid out.
God bless this photographer in her work of charity.
This is really sad, and being a new parent myself, I completely undertand why these unfortunate mothers and fathers would want to have their stillborn infants' memories preserved through photography before they are lain to rest.
I do too. Imagine not having pictures of your child.
The photograph of a still born child or a older deceased infant/child was highly prized in the late 1800's and early 1900s. This is not new to our society.
If it provides comfort to the parents, who am I to judge if they should have such photos?
I have been in the situation.
Mom didn't want to see the baby she lost.
We carefully dressed and wrapped him in a blue blanket.
The photo's were for a few months down the road when Mom changed her mind.
Most of them do.
Being a young fella with no kids, at first glance I thought this was pretty creepy. After reading some of the posts here, I think I can understand.
I'm not sure if it would be for me, but I'm glad that it helps some people.
I don't know, maybe I'm wrong but I think this might be due to the movement away from God. They think a photo is all they have or all that ever existed of that Soul. Then again, if I had a child that died shortly after birth, I'd probably like a photo myself... not much difference. A terrible loss anyway you slice it.
jw
In the early days of photography, adults were often photographed in their coffins with members of the family gathered around; it was likely the only photograph ever taken of the deceased.
A friend has a few photos of her full-term stillborn daughter and they give her great comfort. But she keeps them privately tucked away. I can't imagine displaying them in the living room.
There are parents who have devoted websites to their stillborn children. My wife (ever the cynical one) showed me one impressively sappy pink fluffy page with a midi file playing a melody over the top. Yikes! Seems to me that that's a little over the top.
This thread is hard to read without tearing up. I'm for whatever gives comfort. If pictures do it, then bless those who take them.
I used to help out in a support group and the horror stories of callus a-holes wondering aloud what all the fuss about 'a dead baby' made me wonder why the murder rate is not a lot higher. I had a Chiropractor tell me my daughter would have lived if I had taken her into him for a 'chiropractic adjustment' -- and to this day I am amazed I did not remove his skull from his neck.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.