Ooo-good question. And that point does give rise to the question of whether a more subtle symbiosis than the physical one occurs- the physical I still think is parasitical (is that a word?) perhaps less so in humans because we are capable of understanding and abstraction.
Let's see- my mother-in-law has both natural and adopted children and she says she loves them all the same. We talked about it a lot when Dan and I almost adopted and I think she was very honest with me because the issue was so important.
I think, if it became socially acceptable to incubate externally, that some women might choose to do so and that they would have no trouble bonding at all. Can't you just see visiting hours at the incubation factory?
You, my dear friend, are essentially a romantic. I was also when I was pregnant. Our pregnancies, like Neo's, took place in ideal circumstances. We wanted to believe in the spiritual aspect, and so I think we had it. The woman who didn't want a baby, who gives birth and leaves the infant in a dumpster, did not have any kind of spiritual bonding at all, so it's not an automatic product of carrying a baby, and it seems parental love does not depend on the physical pregnancy as in adoption.
So I guess I think we could see this in vitro process carried further.
Personally I loved being pregnant and wouldn't trade any of it. I sang, read poetry, and listened to my babies for hours. We had a stethoscope and Dan would listen to the heartbeat, and all the swishy sounds of their home, and talk to them. It was a magic time and so it's hard for me to think about it logically. |
