AITA for telling my sister who can't have kids that she does not get to be a part of naming mine and my wife's babies?
From a young age, the older sister carried a quiet weight in her heart—a profound longing for motherhood that fate cruelly denied her.
Born without the organs to bear children and barred from adoption due to health uncertainties, her dreams of nurturing life were carefully tucked away alongside lists of cherished baby names, symbols of a future she hoped to one day share.
Now, as her brother and his wife prepare to welcome their first child, her silent hope surfaces once more.
She clings to the possibility of naming their daughter, a fragile thread connecting her to the motherhood she yearned for but never had, and the subtle disappointment in her eyes speaks volumes of love, loss, and unspoken dreams.
Subscribe to Our Newsletter
No spam, unsubscribe anytime. Privacy Policy
Strong Takes and Sharper Words from the Crowd:
Support, sarcasm, and strong words — the replies covered it all. This one definitely got people talking.
The original poster (OP) is facing a difficult situation where their sister, who cannot have children due to medical reasons, strongly desires a significant role in naming the OP's first baby.
The central conflict arises from the OP and his wife's desire to maintain full autonomy over naming their child, which directly clashes with the sister's deeply felt, unmet longing for motherhood, leading to emotional distress for the sister and accusations of lacking compassion from the mother.
Is the OP justified in firmly setting a boundary that only he and his wife will name their child, prioritizing parental autonomy over accommodating the sister's emotional needs regarding her inability to have children, or is the OP being unnecessarily cruel by denying his sister a cherished, meaningful form of involvement in the next generation?