I have to share this passage from a book, Mother Nature: Maternal Instincts and How They Shape the Human Species, by a sociobiologist, Sarah Hrdy, whose most recent book, Mothers and Others: The Evolutionary Origins of Mutual Understanding, provided a foundation for my own thoughts on human sociality....

It is profoundly incorrect to equate "genetic" with "biological," a term that covers far more than just genetic processes. It is also incorrect to treat nature and nurture as separable entities, as in saying "The genes interact with the environment," or "Nurture does not matter." This is why it is unfortunate to hear the label "biological mother" applied to a woman who has given birth to a child and given it up for adoption, or, worse, just provided the donor egg. Such a woman is more nearly the genetic or gestational mother. By contrast to a genetic donor, the biological mother nourishes, nurtures, and provides the environment in which the infant develops both physically and psychologically.
In this intelligent picture of things, care of a child is more biological than giving birth to a child. Perfect sense can be made of this with only a moment of thought; yet how uncommon it is to see things in this practical way. If you see human sociality (care, friendship, concern, cooperation) as the actual biological process, you will see even better how empty and worthless the concept of "pro-life" is.
Two young humans cuddling on the 48 bus.
  • Two young humans cuddling on the 48 bus.