About 486 people have emailed me about a newsbyte making the rounds, the one alluding to the hypothesis of a Harvard biologist suggesting that mammalian gestation is a mortal combat between fetus and host over nutritive resources. It goes a little something like this:
Fetus wants food, and aggressively seeks to suck out as much as it can. Host requires same resources for own survival, and for that of previously hatched offspring, and so mounts her own chemical offensive to thwart the aggressive fetus. When the chemical balance goes haywire—and why shouldn’t it?—complications such as pre-eclampsia occur. This adversarial relationship between host and fetus, postulates the aforementioned Harvard biologist, may account for the half a million women a year who are essentially killed by their adorable infants in utero. There’s more to it, of course (read the article), but, having slept through all my bio classes in college, my eyes glaze over when the conversation turns to the functions of specific proteins and the shutting down of genes and what not.
None of which makes me reluctant in the slightest to impose a Twistification on what is clearly evidence of cosmic indifference to the female predicament. I have long taken a dim view of the evolutionary process that created the sick joke that is vertebrate reproduction. Female mammals, I aver, are essentially prisoners of their species’ disdain. And now, here’s potential proof of what I’ve maintained all along, that fetuses are amoral little self-absorbed shitpods who think nothing of sucking their mothers dry to improve their own chances, and that interested parties, such as human women, should take immediate steps to ensure that the dehumanizing and dangerous burden of pregnancy be removed from their purview with all possible speed.