Procreation—A Discussion

Procreation—babies. Having babies, not having babies (Kulish). Deciding to not have a baby (Stuart). Not being able to have a baby, then being able to have a baby through fertilization (Abassi, Notman). Adopting a baby (Balsam). Not being able to adopt a baby (Balsam). Being pregnant (Otte). Giving birth to a creation, rather than procreation (Stuart). And for each, a plethora of conscious and unconscious meanings. And for each, a challenge to the continuity and productivity of an analysis.

In the paradoxical fashion in which pathology seems to draw much of our analytic attention, more of the content of this issue on procreation is about failures in having babies, rather than successes. Kulish's excellent lead paper focuses on childlessness. Beginning with Lear's curse on his daughter Goneril: “Into her womb convey sterility!” Kulish describes the depressive, mournful, tragic state of three women in their forties, Frida Kahlo's unforgettable artistic rendering of the agony of miscarriage, and a man who decried his failure to extend his lineage. Kulish and the authors that follow select the treatment of procreation they choose to develop to edify an analytic readership, but I note the absence of references to the quiet joy or exuberant fulfillment of many pregnancies and births. As an example of the positive affective turn on by the experience of pregnancy and birth (in this case twins), I can cite my patient Sonya, whose previous severe depression and avoidance of men I have described (Lichtenberg, 2005; Lichtenberg, Lachmann, and Fosshage, 2002). Sonya's becoming pregnant also exemplifies a positive utilization of artificial reproductive treatment (ART) about which Notman has written a remarkable “textbook” primer I would advise every colleague to use to educate themselves and their patients. My experience with Sonya introduces another factor for outcome that may have been lacking in a number of the problematic cases (Abbasi, Kulish, Otte, Stuart) and stories (Bals