So, there are different kinds of parents. Some parents have all of their children named before they're even conceived (haha Jeff and I), and other parents want to wait until the child is here, you know, to see what he or she is like. Both types are great.
Today is a double birthday for Jeff and I. It is my brother Danny's birthday, and it is also Jeff's sister Jill's birthday. Jill stopped moving two days before she was born and was stillborn. Her name is Jill Marie Collett, and she's Jill Halley Collett's namesake.
So, in honor of her birthday, we went to the cemetery where she is buried. (Danny was honored as well; we talked on the phone.) She was buried in the part of the cemetery that used to be dedicated only to babies and small children. Two tombstones there particularly stood out to me. They both had last names, but one just said "Baby Girl" and the other said "Infant."
Since Jeff and I name our children way ahead of time (like way, way ahead of time), this was pretty foreign to me. So my initial reaction is that we would never have a tombstone like that. Any stillborn or miscarriage we have (if gender is already known) would already be named.
But then I thought about it longer. If we do have a stillborn or miscarriage, would we want to use the name later for a living child? Jeff and I have done a good amount of genealogy, and it is pretty common back in the day for children to have the same name as a dead sibling.
Now I'm thinking that I wouldn't want to use it, that I would let our deceased child keep the name, because I know my son or daughter still exists in heaven.
So anyway, what do you guys think?