dencc has bathed their brain tissues and nerve cells with thernnatural equivalent of happy dust for months, and the act ofrnnursing triggers a maternal response that manv women describernas erotic. By the time the moon-tide of hormones hasrnsubsided, returning their minds to a normal state of hunran indifference,rna habit of care and affection has been so ingrainedrnthat no threat or temptation, ordinarily, can induce them tornpart with the little sa-age, and within a year or two a surprisingrnnumber of women begin to think so warmly of the experiencernthat they arc willing to go through the whole thing a secondrntime.rnFor men it is harder to construct a rational justification forrnparenthood. Most sensible men arc willing to confess, whenrnthev are alone at the club or watching a game in the neighborhoodrnsaloon, that they do not much care for any childrenrnbut their own. If they are good fathers—by which I meanrnstern and exacting—their children have occasion to wonder ifrndad has made an exception in their case. I once spent severalrnvears minding a hundred other people’s children, and my experiencernas headmaster left me with the permanent habit ofrncorrecting and admonishing the liberated brats who plaguernour supermarkets and movie theaters. However, as mv ownrnchildren have reached the ears of indiscretion, I grow lessrnconfident of my own abilities in this line.rnA man’s only excuse is his pardonable—though morallyrndangerous—desire for immortalitv. Since our expulsion fromrnEden, sex and death have been the twin poles of human existence.rnIt is a condition we share with our neighbors on thernscala naturae; as sexual beings, each guppie, snail, or Homornsapiens is incomplete in itself—as Plato recognized long ago inrnthe Symposium—and in order to enjoy the benefits of genctrcrndiversification, we have had to sacrifice our chance for indi-rn’idual immortalitv on the biological plane.rnWe derive real advantages from the swap. Sexual reproductionrnenables individuals to carry traits that may be of nornuse to them but ma turn out to have great sur ival value forrntheir descendants; it also helps to make possible all those littlernvariations which, when summed up, result in higher complcxitv.rnWhile we might envy the amoeba its infinitely subdividedrnimmortality, our own social life, to say nothing of ourrncultural varietx’, is somewhat richer.rnSince the day of our “general mother” and our adjutant father,rnthe human story has been one long liebestod punctuatedrnby christenings, weddings, and funerals. But man is bv naturerna conservative creature, and our nostalgia extends notrnmereU to the lost innocence of our savage and agrarian ancestorsrnbut even further to the forsaken immortality of onecelledrnorganisms. Children are, in this sense, the highlv inexpedientrnremedy we have devised to numb the pangs of death,rnalthough more than one parent has concluded that our ancestorsrnmade a bad bargain.rnThe obligation to care for one’s children is a universal humanrnnorm, if we are willing to leave out of considerationrnthe instances of pathological individuals and the few casesrnof pathological social classes and societies that have beenrndegraded by the excesses of either poverty or wealth. Infanticidernof newborns is not unattested, but the custom—vv’herc itrnis legitimate—has generally been directed against defectivernor superfluous children who strain the family’s carrying capacity.rnMotives for infanticide, obviously, vary from individualrnto individual, liut the ancient Greeks (to take only the most familiarrnexample) did not display their contempt for childrenrnand family by exposing a child. Quite the contrary, it was, asrnW. K. Laeev puts it in The Greek Family, their concern forrnthe “needs of the oikos [household]” that “dictated the size ofrnthe family.”rnReligious and philosophical literature on moral obligationrnwithin families has emphasized the duties of children more oftenrnthan the obligations of parents. “Honour thy father andrnthy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which thernLord thy God giveth thee” (Exodus 20:12) is a commandmentrnto which there is no corresponding admonition of therntype “Take care of thy children.” A cursory review of thernGhristian Scriptures and the Greek classics would result in arnsimilar observation.rnThere are various reasons for this lack of proportion. As arnmatter of fact, moral exhortation is quite properly directedrntoward the unformed young, whose moral development—so itrnwas believed—must be spurred and curbed by maxims,rnthreats, and blows. Since children arc universally regarded asrnfamily property, there is scarcely any need to instruct parents inrntheir obligation to take care of the persons who will provide forrntheir old age and perpetuate their identities. It is no surprise torndiscover, therefore, that the classic handbooks on ehildrearingrn—from Erasmus to Dr. Spock—are devoted to the bestrnmeasures for insuring the physical and moral health of thernchild. Thev waste little time on admonishing parents not tornkill, injure, or seduce their children.rn1 he early Greeks, who took parental responsibilities forrngranted, regarded the parent-child relationship as reciprocal,rnsince these roles would be reversed when the child, grown intornan adult, would take care of his aged parents. The witchrnMedea, as she contemplates murdering her own children, realizesrnthat there will be no one to take care of her in old age,rnand Ilesiod, in prophesying a nightmarish future for the ironrnrace of men, can think of nothing more terrible than familialrndiscord:rnAnd father will not accord with sons nor friend withrnfriend,rnnor will a brother be dear as in times past.rnAnd men will not honor their parents, coming swiftlyrnto old age.rnAnd thev will reproach them, abusing them with harshrnwords.rnWretches, that they are, and without fear of divinernvengeance,rnnor will they repay their aged parents the price of theirrnrearing.rnWherever parents regard their offspring as a retirementrnplan, a contribution to the household economy, and an investmentrninto immortality, the murder or abuse of childrenrnought to be a rare phenomenon. Under ordinary circumstancesrna man does not destroy his tools, set money on fire, orrnabuse his draft animals, whatever he may think of work, paperrnmoney, or horses. And when natural affections—for irrationalrnas they are, love of our own children is a natural and biologicalrnmechanism for insuring survival and propagation—when thesernnatural affections are added to practical considerations, wernare justified in asking what all these horror stories mean.rnIt is possible to argue that human beings have always mistreatedrntheir children. According to a much-quoted sentencernlANUARY 1993/17rnrnrn