From a simple evolutionary perspective a mother nurtures her child so
that the child may grow up and reproduce, spreading the genes of the
mother. But what if the child will not likely reproduce?

The evolutionary psychologist may explain the motherly nature as
instinctive, not conditioned by unlikely events, so that in this case,
where the child suffers some defect, the mother herself becomes an
anomaly, a contradiction of what she is supposedly, as we first
defined motherhood as a tool for evolution.  In this text I want to
argue that it is presicely these contradictions with nature that
captures the essence of what we are as human beings.

In the case of the mother, she nurtures the child, not out of
evolutionary motives, but out of love for the child.  If you take away
her child she will suffer from loss, and more.

From an objective scientific perspective, the mother is the cause of
the child to come into life.  But from a philosophical perspective the
child is also the cause of her becomming a mother.  So who is then the
maker, the mother or the child?  If the child was born dead, she would
never exist as a mother for the child, and the child would never exist
as more than a memory of what it could have been.

The mother that nurtures the disabled child is not a contradiction of
her role as a vessel for evolution.  It is precicely the contradiction
with nature that captures the essence of her existence.

Because, now that we know that she will nurture a disabled child, we
also understand that her motivation to nurture a healthy child was
never motivated by the passing of her genes.  It is not merely
psychological or instinctive either, for she is consciously
considering the possibility of loosing the child.  Her choice to
preserve the life of the child is her desperate attempt at saving
herself from being unborn as a mother.

This theory can be applied to all human behaviour that percievably
violate the natural order of things.

Homosexuality is, from a simple evolutionary perspective, irrational,
because homosexual couples cannot reproduce.  Attempts have been made
to rationalize homosexuality with group evolution theory, as to
explain why it exists, on the premise that if it exists as a natural
phenomenon it must be rational. 

The correct assesment, I would argue, is to accept homosexuality for
what it is, capture the essense and reapply this to the rational case,
where reproduction is involved.  By doing this we see a contour of man
forming independent of natural selection.

- lindus