Archive for the ‘genes’ Tag
The creator makes no two humans alike, but, if one chooses to think in terms of the Holy book, then it’s important to note that the hairs on each of our heads are counted and known, indicating that each of us is a treasured product of creation. If I’ve understood the holy writings correctly, no one is rejected by the creator for being imperfect.
Or, maybe like the potter whose bowls all have the stamp of approval, not one is recognized as perfect, but each is recognized for its particular value – even its peculiarities.
We humans don’t particularly like that truth as we try to impose dichotomies like good/bad, worthy/unworthy, normal/abnormal, Republican/Democrat, even male/female. But that misleading convenience can lead us into a cruel trap. Why? Because it just plain isn’t accurate. And no human being has the Godlike authority to make it true by declaring that only two sexes, male and female, will be legally recognized.
I personally am most comforted by, even fascinated by, science — the ability given to us by whatever is our creative source to think and carefully study the product of creation. So I question friends with more knowledge than mine (like Dan Ress), and I read. Right now I’m on page 92 of Adam Rutherford’s A Brief History of Everyone Who Ever Lived:The Human Story Retold Through Our Genes. No, I couldn’t possibly pass a test on the content that’s passed through my brain in those 92 pages. What I have learned is that truth is infinitely greater than our feeble human desire to simplify. Like the awe I feel when I read the more-than-I-can-remember content shared by Neil de Grasse Tyson’s Astrophysics for People in a Hurry. But then there’s an area where I do feel a degree of competence – human personality.
In teaching the psychology of women, I loved learning of the many hormonal response stages of fetal development where things can vary from dichotomous expectations. But these days there is a general enthusiasm for one particular measure of human genetic variety, the X and Y chromosomes. The assumption seems so conveniently simple, there are only two possible beginnings, XX or XY, one developing into a female and the other a male. Those in authority even take it on themselves to declare that those are the only two legally acceptable gender indicators — male or female — anything else being a “hoax.” Taken a step further it’s convenient to conclude that one born with an XX combination is unequivocably a female and an XY is male.
But wait! The creator has given us much more variety. Here’s a list of survivable combinations: XO (a single X), XXY, XXX, XYY, and everyone’s favorite XX or XY. Notice there is no survivable YO or YY combination. That’s because the Y chromosome doesn’t have enough genetic material to support life. It has a very important function though — to create male reproductive organs and secondary male characteristics by having its signals recognized at the appropriate time in fetal development. Occasionally, though, things don’t work out in the usual way and the responsible gene, probably the SRYgene, moves off its intended chromosome. In that case the XY person develops with no scrotum, no fully descended testes, even a vaginal canal. Identified at birth as a female, the XY person has the appearance and mind of a female, grows up as a female, and, to all intents and purposes, is a female, and is still a female after some dedicated chromosome detective discovers the XY source only when some authority deems it necessary to do the test. The problem lies in the reliance on that XY method of measuring gender, ignoring all the other measurement options that define her.
This is just one example of the problem of getting stuck on one dichotomous assumption that fails to appreciate the complexity of humanity. Actually I feel sorry for the folks who choose the simplistic either/or gate beyond which they don’t want to go. There’s so much fun and excitement to be found on the complex other side.
“I know it’s hard on a woman,” my acquaintance/friend said, “but I’m thinking of the baby who needs a chance to live.” “Funny thing,” I’m thinking. “Caring for the life of the potential baby/ child/ person is one of the most significant reasons from my point of view for leaving abortion decisions to the people and situation directly involved.” Forcing a child to be born into a situation of being unwanted is nothing short of child abuse that in the long term affects not only that particular individual, but the culture and government that will potentially be dealing with the consequences.
As my sister, the mother of two adopted boys, once said. “A baby is not a Lifesaver” and I would add that a woman’s womb is not just a warm, cuddly container. Okay, forget for the moment about the potential damage to the body that harbors the womb. Forget that part of the process is change to the immune system that prevents the expulsion of the zygote, embryo, fetus, with the potential for long-term effects on the mother’s health. Just focus on the damage to the well-being of the potential person being bathed in the stress hormones circulating via the mother’s blood stream and transmitted by the connecting placenta.
Or maybe the potential mother is sufficiently healthy and well supported that she manages to carry off a relatively stress-free pregnancy. Then the baby has lived for approximately nine months in a comfortable environment from which it is shockingly expelled at birth. Now here’s where we see a lovely diaper ad in which the baby is placed gently on the mother’s breast and, at the best, gazes lovingly into her eyes, drawing on the new source of comfort and support. But this is a baby who started out unwanted. For whatever reason it can’t remain there. Torn, or even gently removed, from that cozy place, it begins life in a condition of grief. And no, that baby is not unfeeling – that body memory will stay with him or her, maybe to be recalled years later in a deep therapy session but always, consciously remembered or not, to be a source of pain. No, a baby is not just a piece of candy to be passed around, no matter how caring adoptive caretakers may be. Have you noticed all the stories lately of adults seeking to learn more about their birth parents, longing for contact with that initial nine-month home?
“But unwanted babies can always be adopted” my acquaintance/friend claims. Really? Show me the evidence. But if that is the case, then the people who would force the birth of an unwanted child should be supporting massive research into the understanding and support of adoptive situations. Especially the adoption of babies with major, or even minor, birth anomalies calling for special care – often expensive. Or racially complex situations. Yes, I have read news stories of exceptionally loving and giving foster care or adoptive parents who have successfully pored love into the development of several children. They are in the news because, like all news, it is exceptional – out of the ordinary. As my sister said, “babies are not just Lifesavers.” Logic, even morality, would require that those who would ban abortion should be ready to support equally strict governmental legal and financial support to all involved.
I sometimes think that those who oppose abortion have in mind the vision of an attractive young woman in her early twenties who engaged in unprotected sex and now doesn’t feel up to devoting a life to the care of her love baby. Of course, I find myself confused when I say this because, as I understand it, those who fight to ban abortion would also ban contraception. Be that as it may, there are many reasons why people seek abortion. How about rape? Or family rape called “incest?” Not too nice for the child born with the genes of a rapist. Or youth — a young body not quite ready physiologically to sustain a pregnancy and birth and certainly without the wherewithal to commit to a lifetime of support? Or body anomalies that lead to a life of suffering? Or a family’s loss of a mother who dies in pregnancy or childbirth. Yes, that does happen. There are so many other reasons that a seasoned medical person could describe.
But at bottom lies poverty. It’s not the wealthy who will, in general, suffer under abortion bans. As my former husband used to say, “Money can buy anything.” And certainly it can buy an abortion. The fact is, those who suffer under abortion bans – in addition to medical practitioners who are not free to put care of their patients first – are those living in poverty.
Well now we’ve hit on the ways in which government could be helping to avoid the damage of abortion bans. If caring for the child is really at the root of such laws, then there will be active campaigning for that same government to support paid maternal medical care for all, extended parental leave, and family support to guarantee all families adequate healthy housing and provision of food. Plus full and expert mental health care for adults suffering the effects of being unwanted for one reason or another.
Exploring the issues related to abortion bans is not easy – much too complicated to be solved by decree. But there is one thing clear. Those who will suffer are babies born into a world that doesn’t want them. So back to my acquaintance/friend who feels sorry for the mothers but cares about the child. Are you willing to think again?
monagustafsonaffinito 