Letters to the Editor
alarajrogers
Published Letters: 447 Editor's Choice: 87
-
Humans *are* supposed to have sex without procreating.
[Read the article: Anne Lamott on the rights of the born]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]We are one of very few species on the planet where females are sexually receptive when we are not in fact fertile. We are designed to have more sex than any species except our close cousins the bonobos, and given what bonobos use their hypersexuality for, and given human reactions to sex and to lack thereof, odds are good that we are also supposed to use sex to strengthen interrelationships between humans and cut down on conflicts. We're not as good at it as bonobos are, but we're better than orangutans or gorillas.
We are one of very few species on the planet where childbirth can very frequently be fatal, and usually involves a fair degree of damage to the mother's health. The only other species I can think of as badly off as we are (or worse) is the hyena, which tries to give birth through an enlarged clitoris that looks like a penis.
We are one of very few species on the planet where the young will die without extensive, long-term investment from, usually, more than one adult. Most mammals get along fine with just one parent. We're closer to penguins in that regard, where the hostile conditions enforce that mom and dad cooperate for baby's survival, than we are to, say, cats or sheep.
We are the only species on the planet both intelligent enough to predict our own death or suffering from our actions, and capable of creating tools to solve the problem.
Evolution designed us to be far more sexual than is healthy for us. Fortunately evolution also gave us a tool to solve the problem -- our intellect. Some of us may choose to solve the problem by overriding our desire for sex with our fear of death or harm, but given the intensity of the sex drive and how many mental problems can be caused by celibacy and repression, this may not be the best choice. Birth control is the absolute best choice, but birth control fails sometimes. Thus, abortion.
Other species have the ability to abort at will or because circumstances are poor for childbirth (eg, rabbits.) We don't. Arguably, given how dangerous childbirth is to human women and how much more effort it takes to raise a human baby than a baby rabbit, we needed it more, but evolution is too stupid to give us a really useful skill that never turned up in our ancestry just because we need it more than the beings that got it. (We also, as bipeds, could really use tails, and we didn't get them because we evolved from the wrong kind of monkey.) Evolution gifted *us* with the intelligence to solve a problem that evolution failed to give us an inborn solution for.
So, given that we were designed to have a lot of sex, that we may have been designed to *need* a lot of sex or else kill each other a lot, that our children require vast amounts of parental involvement, but that they are an enormous physical drain on the mother's health and therefore almost require that the mother be able to recruit at least one other dependable person to help her, and that we are intelligent enough to avoid giving birth if we're not ready... we are obviously designed to do so. From an evolutionary standpoint, just as we're "supposed" to eat a lot less meat and sugar than most Americans do, we're "supposed" to have sex without procreating.
So yes, humans have an absolute right to have sex without bearing children, so long as humans retain the intellect to give themselves that ability. Given that we have *not* been able to solve the high rates of miscarriage, however, babies do not have an absolute right to be born, from an evolutionary standpoint.
-
If men could get pregnant...
[Read the article: Anne Lamott on the rights of the born]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...there is no reason to assume abortion would be a sacrament, as human history is full of male culture inflicting extremely painful or dangerous trials on men in order to prove their masculinity.
If men could get pregnant it is just as likely that pregnancy would be considered a noble and holy calling, that poets would glorify it and the pain and blood involved would be considered a sign of toughness, and that abortion would be considered cowardice. And that men who died in childbirth would get their names carved on walls as "heroes".
Male culture has been about getting men to get themselves killed for fairly stupid reasons for thousands of years. I see no reason why male pregnancy would necessarily alter that.
-
Only affluent women of one race?
[Read the article: The "white" mommy wars?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]She doesn't have any kids, but I would have sworn that Condoleeza Rice's shoe shopping spree while New Orleans drowned would have cured anyone of assuming that rich privileged black women cannot be every bit as shallow and materialistic as rich privileged white women.
If she did have kids, I'd bet dollars to donuts, Rice would have a nanny, and very likely a pricey stroller.
It's about the wealth *and* the sense of entitlement (entitlement as in "The world owed me my wealth because I'm better than you", not "I worked hard for my wealth and I'm not guilty about having it.") Black people, because they have had to fight so long against institutionalized racism, are probably less likely to feel entitled to wealth once they achieve it... but obviously, the sense of entitlement is alive and well in Ms. Rice, and I would guess she is not the only one.