Wednesday, January 13, 2016

Against Motherly Instinct

In the movie Rise of the Planet of the Apes, an experimental viral-drug ALZ-112 was administered to a chimpanzee named Bright Eyes, thus greatly increasing her intelligence. Although she was a tame animal, she suddenly became wild when forced from her cage, and went on a rampage. In the end she was killed. It wasn't until after her death that it was discovered that she had recently given birth, and it could be assumed that her reaction was that of a motherly instinct to protect her baby. 

In the animal kingdom, even very fierce predators such as tigers have the motherly instinct too. That motherly instinct is much more powerful than even the survival instinct. Tigers are not known to eat their own cubs even if they're at the point of starvation. However, they have no qualms in killing the babies of other animals, even if they know that that amounts to taking away the babies from their mothers. 

The motherly instinct of the tigers is only powerful enough to offset the survival instinct as far as dealing with their own cubs. But when dealing with the babies of other animals, the survival instinct reigns supreme, even if the tigers can appreciate that they're destroying the mother-baby bond of their preys. Such is the harsh living condition in the animal kingdom. 

Humans are born with the motherly instinct too; and I find it quite amazing that such instinct can sometimes last a lifetime. Perhaps tigers may protect their young ones for a number of years, but they will eventually let them grow and find their own ways. Some human mothers can also eventually let their children grow too, but I have seen some who just can't let go—their children will remain to be the driving passion of their entire life, and the "letting go" process will just never happen! 

Because we are slightly more intelligent than the animals—at least I hope we are—we can appreciate the motherly instinct not only in the context of us and our own children, but also that of others. When we see a woman—even if she's a stranger to us—ask for help to reunite her with her child, our instinct is to help her achieve just that. 

If ever I'm fated to end up with a failed marriage, let me just say now that I shall never deny my wife the right of custody to my daughter; although if I can help it, I would want to have at least a joint custody. That is because I can't see myself making my wife go through the pain of not having her child with her, regardless of whatever differences between the two of us. 

I think if this world is free of religions, money and social status, we can then see clearly that a woman deserves to be with her child. For deep down in our hearts, I know that none of us would take away a child from his or her mother, unless of course if there is evidence that that mother is a threat to the best interest of the child. Any legal system that prevents her that right is just so wrong. We are not like the tigers that only care for our own love for our own children, but couldn't care less about another woman's craving to be with her child. 

Well, I guess that's just wishful thinking; the reality is that religions, money and social status will always make us blind. How I wish that we can put aside religions, money and social status, and just do the right thing. Obviously not everybody agrees with me, and I respect the opposing opinions. If others are still convinced that the child should NOT be reunited with the mother, then so be it. I just hope that it's not done for the wrong reason.

No comments: