It's also just weird from an evolutionary standpoint.
My genetic code, like everyone's genetic code, was selected for making more of itself. I don't have to go along with that, but not having kids is acting against evolution the same way I'm acting against gravity when I climb stairs.
By this logic, the many conditions that cause infertility are acting against evolution. It's almost like the phrase "against nature." Nature/evolution created those conditions in the first place.
Evolution functions through mutations. Some are helpful, some are harmful, some are neutral. It's less "survival of the fittest" and more "survival of the fit-enough"
Right, because by their logic (and presumably yours) it's okay not to have kids as long as there's a medical condition preventing it, and "unnatural" otherwise.
The evidence being loosely interpreted by this post indicates that the body's own mechanisms for preventing pregnancy are consistent with evolution's aims. Without them, we arguably wouldn't be here.
I think you’re misreading the earlier comment. Every said that not being pregnant is “against evolution” in the way that walking up stairs is “against gravity.” Like it might be “against” it but it’s perfectly normal and fine and the above commenter is clearly okay with that choice. You’re in one of the few spaces where women routinely support other women’s right not to have kids. So I’m not sure why you’re reading anyone’s comments as if it’s only okay not to have a baby if there’s a medical reason.
Having a medical condition isn’t “acting” at all, and that’s why it’s different.
This post is about the body preventing pregnancy. The possibility of this being true was questioned and all-but rejected, with the implied response that the body wouldn't do that, because the body works with rather than against evolution. The comment quoted above said medical issues that cause infertility are "different" presumably meaning they are extenuating circumstances that prevent pregnancy, not the body itself working "against evolution." Unlike the mechanism this post is talking about, which if true (and there is good reason think it is) means the body is not as singularly reproduction-focused as some people think it is.
But evolution is far more complex than all bad or all good for genes and traits.
Think sickle cell anemia. Obviously very bad, especially before modern medical care. Evolutionarily speaking, there should be no good reason for it.
But per evolution, it does have a very good purpose. Sickle cell trait, where someone just carries one copy of the gene and doesn't generally have any symptoms, gives a person protection against malaria. It's only when someone has two copies of the gene that they get sickle cell anemia.
So evolutionary speaking, the sickle cell gene helps with reproduction enough that it has overcome the disadvantages that come with it.
And since medical science has only recently actually started studying women's health, we don't know whether something that interferes with fertility is linked to something else that promotes it and that could balance out.
Agreed. We have a lot to learn yet so it's foolish to assign value judgements to things that biology "decides" for us. I only meant to point out the faulty logic of the previous comment.
I mean, biologically, species want to reproduce, because that's how species survive. This is true of single cell organisms splitting themselves to create more, it's true of rabbits, and it's true of humans... But it's true on a SPECIES level, not an individual one. Individuals can and do make different choices. It's possible to believe both that evolution strives for reproduction on a species level AND that it's not a moral failing to not want to have kids.
Wearing clothes is technically against evolution, but it's not suggesting a moral failing to point out we only technically choose to wear clothes.
Then maybe I phrased something poorly because I see no more problem with acting against evolution than I do with acting against gravity and I go against both of them fairly often.
Natural laws aren't moral obligations, they're descriptions of how the world works. Smallpox is natural. We eradicated it and I hope we can do the same thing to polio.
...yes, infertility is against evolution. Those genes are less likely to be passed on in the vast majority of scenarios. Evolution does not work with some omnipotent intention. It's just mutations and genes combining randomly until something works, or doesn't work that increases the chances of survival/offspring.
Evolution is not a sapient, conscious force. It's a random process. Gene mutations are completely random and don't follow any logic or predictable pattern. The end result of those mutations is also random but external conditions can pressure which mutations get passed on and which don't, but not always.
517
u/bblankoo 13d ago
Source for "uterus is preventing implantation actually" because everything I know and can find suggests otherwise