Editor:
I write in response to Clayton Perkins’s letter to the editor (“Nature Chose Moms and Dads,” June 24).
Perkin’s insists that nature chooses heterosexual couples to raise children by simple biology – those who are gay cannot reproduce and therefore nature has chosen them not to.
Whatever gave him that idea? My ability to reproduce is still intact and should I choose to procreate, I am able. Just because I happen to love, live with, and build my life with another woman makes no impact on my ovaries.
By this simplistic logic, those who are physically unable to reproduce should not be allowed to raise a child – by simple biology, they shouldn’t adopt because they weren’t meant to procreate.
Further, biology also tells us it’s impossible to conceive of a child outside of our ethnic background. So, therefore, people of one race shouldn’t be allowed to raise children of another race or ethnicity. Nature didn’t want it so.
Nature did choose to have a man and a woman conceive. However, the rearing of those children are an entirely different statistic, especially when you consider how many children are left by one or both of their biological parents sometime in the child’s life. Did nature choose to let unwanted children die rather than being cared for by non-biological parents? Did nature mandate that no one else could raise a child save its’ natural birth parents?
The great thing about humankind, especially in this day and age, is that we have the mental capacity to determine what is acceptable or not for the best interests of our children. Using basic biology obviously doesn’t matter much to a child born to a crack addicted single mother and waiting to be adopted by loving parents that could care less about the child’s background – but are only interested in giving that child a loving and stable home. I wouldn’t consider that selfish.
Connie AnastUniversity Hospital Staff
