THE New York Times has lectured the world on the “right” to terminate a pregnancy (and the life of an unborn child) millions of times. The implication is that pregnancy is a grave inconvenience. Infertile couples willing to adopt newborns are abundant, so it’s not that a woman absolutely must be inconvenienced after she delivers her child.
Strangely enough (or logically enough), pregnancy is not at all considered an inconvenience if a woman is achieving something really impressive, perhaps reaching for some vanity goal that will make her the exciting and dynamic transcendence of stale old femininity, the perfect synthesis of male and female. In that case, pregnancy is so normal and natural and easy that women should carry on doing everything they normally do, even if what they normally do involves all the stresses that go along with extreme ambition. This weekend, reporter Lindsay Crouse effused about elite runners who train for marathons and other races while pregnant, athletes such as Alysia Montaño, an Olympian, who ran an 800-meter race in June during her eighth month of pregnancy:
“I wanted to help clear up the stigma around women exercising during pregnancy, which baffled me,” Montaño said. “People sometimes act like being pregnant is a nine-month death sentence, like you should lie in bed all day. I wanted to be an example for women starting a family while continuing a career, whatever that might be. I was still surprised by how many people paid attention.”
Ms. Montaño lives in some rabbit hole, not the real world, if she truly believes women are routinely advised to remain inactive during pregnancy. This idea of oppressive limitations imposed upon pregnant women is a straw man, used to justify blatant disregard for the welfare of children in the womb and the dignity and importance of gestation.
Clara Horowitz Peterson, above, has trained in the late stages of pregnancy. To her credit, Peterson, who is pregnant with her fourth child, believes having children while young is important, and an athlete obviously may be capable of this kind of exertion while pregnant. But Peterson is also willing to take serious risks with her children in utero. Even highly-tuned athletes trip. It’s not impossible.
To bounce back for the trials, Peterson said, she breast-fed her second child for only five weeks — finding that the hormones related to breast-feeding made her feel sluggish — and dropped the 20 pounds she typically gained during pregnancy in eight weeks without dieting. (She breast-fed her third child for six months.)
Interesting. Breastmilk doesn’t make a baby feel sluggish, quite the opposite. This, and Peterson’s immodest poses in skimpy and extremely unflattering track wear, suggests that while she may be physically maternal, her priorities are not always maternal.
She qualified for the 2012 United States Olympic marathon trials just four months after delivering her second child, and she logged a 2-hour-35-minute time at the race four months later.
I guess her children learned how to care for themselves quickly. That’s the great thing about infants. They are so darn independent. “See ya’ later, Mom.”
“We still don’t have good science to guide us,” said Dr. Aaron Baggish, associate director of the cardiovascular performance program at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which counsels elite athletes through pregnancy. “But unequivocally I think women should exercise through pregnancy, both for their baby and their own health. The body has evolved that way. Your baseline fitness level is the best guideline: Elite athletes start out with a higher threshold, so they can do more.”
Perhaps science will someday catch up with women such as this one, who is now suffering from incontinence due to running during pregnancy. Or perhaps science will catch up with women in less exalted careers such as the firefighter Christi Rodgers, women who push themselves during pregnancy and its immediate aftermath, even at the risk of their own lives.
Read More »
