pmd@cbsck.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (01/01/70)
YARM (Yet Another Response to Marcel): >> I don't see how the amount of choice involved justifies any stigmas. >> The couple I know had less of a choice than you. Their daughter >> was conceived out of wedlock and the woman was visibly pregnant at their >> wedding. The point is that the stigmas are equally unjust, it doesn't depend >> on who had what choice. In fact the lack of choice involved should make >> them seem more unjust because it should make it harder to argue from the >> irrelevant idea that "they brought it upon themselves". (You seem to >> be using a form of this argument in your own case: It's different >> because we took it all upon ourselves by making the choice.) > >There was choice involved in both cases. The decision was to proceed with >a socially disagreeable union. The couple you speak of had the option to >abort. They chose, for whatever reason, not to do so. Of two difficult options, >they chose the most palatable, to them. A woman pregnant as a result of rape >who is denied an abortion is denied any choice at all. I argue >she must be able to make that choice. I agree with you that other options, >adoption, keeping the child, etc, should be pointed out to her. However, >if she still chooses to abort, none of us has business judging >her or second-guessing that decision. My argument here has been that stigmas attached to you, my friends, or the child conceived as the result of rape are all unjust. No amount of saying who had what choice makes any difference in these cases. Your reasoning would seem to imply that a woman who chooses to keep the child bears part of the blame for the stigma that will be attached to her and the child. Are you really saying that, with regard to my friends, that some of the bigotry that they have to deal with is justified because they chose not to get an abortion? Are you saying that is also the case with your marriage? If so, it is at that point that we disagree. As to the woman who had been raped, you don't seem to understand yet that I am not arguing that the choice be denied. I would like to see a little more effort than just "pointing out the options". I would like to see some effort in making those options more workable. >Let's pick a hypothetical example: a woman is raped, discovers she is >pregnant. She comes into a counseling center, where she is briefed on >the options open to her: abortion, carrying the baby to term and giving it >up for adoption, and keeping the child. She goes home, thinks about it >for a couple of days, discusses it with sympathetic friends and family. >She then decides to abort. Is that acceptable to you? If not, why not? The scenario is acceptable on the face of it. My only objection might be in how she was briefed on the options. I think a reasonable attempt should be made to show her that the other options can be workable, and to make the commitment to support her should she choose those others. I'm repeating some of what I said in my response to Barbara Jernigan. Maybe you hadn't read that by the time you posted this. >> It isn't >> beyond human *capability*, necessarily, especially if there is more support >> than a woman typically gets in this situation. Don't our "expectations" >> have a way of determining what support we will give? Is the idea that >> this behavior cannot be "reasonably expected" related to the lack of >> support? What is the real reason for this lack? Who is determining >> the bounds you talk about? Is overcoming racial hatred beyond reasonable >> bounds for some? Is that supposed to lower our expectations on the issue >> of racial bigotry itself? It seems that you are arguing along these lines >> in the case of abortion and rape. > >Overcoming racial hatred is a morality issue that is completely separate >from the legal issue of equal rights for all. The Civil Rights act did *not* >outlaw bigotry, but made it an inadmissible basis for legislation. The difference >is crucial. You cannot expect people to love, or even not hate, one another. >You can and do expect them not to deny others a chance for self-advancement >on a basis other than ability. I'm asking you what you think about the moral issue, Marcel? I don't think I'm confusing it with any legislative issues. What legislation am I proposing in the above paragraph? While you may be correct in making this distinction, you cannot say that there is no relationship here. Barring bigotry as the basis of legislation (and hiring practices) has given much support to the moral cause of overcoming racial hatred, and it was this moral cause that was behind the Civil Rights Act in the first place. If the right to life of the fetus is to be recognized, there will be a similar effect, and this effect will have implications in cases of rape also (maybe not legal ones, but certainly moral ones. Morality plays a larger part in public policy, and the policy of social service organizations, than you imply). >The pro-choice position is that the *woman* should have as many options >as possible, >that no option should be denied to her because of what others believe. I can >agree with you on the need to make the woman aware of all options. Given >that, her decision, no matter what it is, cannot be criticized. That is >particularly important in the case of rape, where the woman had no say at all >over getting pregnant. I'm arguing that the humanity of the fetus has some implications for what options should be available. Where human life is threatened we generally limit the options of others or, at least, give greater support for options that preserve human life. Some people believe it's fine to own slaves. Their option to do so is denied because of what others believe. In the case of rape, I am making the same distinction you are. The woman had no choice about having sex, let alone getting pregnant. Rape is a crime in itself (been through this before). >> Does public policy have *nothing* to do with morality (a lot of people are >> sure that *foreign* policy does)? It seems that whether or not moral >> arguments seem a dry exercise in futility, depends on whose morality is being >> challenged more than just the fact that we are debating morality. You >> are using moral arguments (at least, arguing from moral premises, as I am), >> Marcel. It's a wonder you don't realize it. Where public policy reflects >> the moral treatment of human beings, I would think that discussion would not >> be a waste of time. > >At heart, the abortion debate is over who has primacy, the woman or >the fetus. The two are mutually exclusive. How is this so, Marcel? I think the heart of the debate is whether or not the fetus has the same right to live that we believe her mother has. >The pro-choice position, to my mind, >has a firm moral footing. So does the anti-abortion side. It all depends >on point of view. So no one is right and everybody is right. What is boils down >to, then, is which group has the greater political power; so policy >will *not* be based on morality, but on politics: policy will be set based >on the wishes of the most powerful group, and tempered by the wishes of the >minority. Now, do you want to find this happy medium or do you want to talk >about what is "right" until the end of time? Do you think someone should have explained this to Martin Luther King? He did a lot of talking about what was "right", Marcel. So is the Bishop Desmond Tutu. Should he keep his morality out of the politics of South Africa? What is the "happy medium" you propose on the abortion issue? The status quo? That argument wouldn't have held with the pro-choice camp before Row vs Wade. It didn't sit well with the abolitionists after Dred Scott either. Politics has no connection with morality only in the eyes of those who favor the status quo. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) (09/26/85)
I also watched the PBS special on abortion last week. While there are probably many things that could be said by people on both sides of the issue about certain aspects of the film, there is one thing that especially sticks in my mind. In the pro-choice film that followed "Concieved in Liberty", a woman related the story of how she had been the victim of a rape that resulted in pregnancy. In her final remarks she condemned the anti-abortion view as being one that would "force her to bear the child of a fiend". While not trying in any way to lessen the heinous nature of the crime of rape, I couldn't help but notice that her statement implied that she had projected her hatred for the rapist onto his child. Is this a legitimate thing to do? I wonder how many people are walking around today who are the sons and daughters of fiends in the same respect. The implication of the woman's comment is that there is all the more reason that their lives should have been snuffed out in the womb. Does the child conceived as the result of rape or incest somehow bear some the responsibility for the crime? Do pro-choice folks really support abortion on demand by sustaining this stigma? If that stigma is just for the fetus, how does it become unjust when that person is born (*if* it does)? The circumstances of conception haven't changed. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
kurtzman@uscvax.UUCP (Stephen Kurtzman) (09/30/85)
In article <5986@cbscc.UUCP> pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) writes: > >I also watched the PBS special on abortion last week. ... >In the pro-choice film that followed "Concieved in Liberty", >a woman related the story of how she had been the victim >of a rape that resulted in pregnancy. In her final remarks >she condemned the anti-abortion view as being one that would >"force her to bear the child of a fiend". While not trying >in any way to lessen the heinous nature of the crime of rape, >I couldn't help but notice that her statement implied that >she had projected her hatred for the rapist onto his child. >Is this a legitimate thing to do? > >I wonder how many people are walking around today who are the >sons and daughters of fiends in the same respect. The implication >of the woman's comment is that there is all the more reason that >their lives should have been snuffed out in the womb. Does >the child conceived as the result of rape or incest somehow bear >some the responsibility for the crime? Do pro-choice folks really >support abortion on demand by sustaining this stigma? If that >stigma is just for the fetus, how does it become unjust when >that person is born (*if* it does)? The circumstances of conception >haven't changed. >-- > >Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd Whether or not blaming the fetus/child is a legitimate thing to do it is a human thing to do. I do not claim to understand the psychology of rape, but it seems to me that when such a violent and invasive act has been perpetrated against a woman she may perceive questions of right and wrong in a totally different light than a man or non-raped woman. I watched that movie also. I did not get the feeling that the lady was trying to imply that the child would be a fiend. I got the feeling that she was psychologically unprepared for carrying the child of a rapist to term. Undoubtedly people will debate whether it is right to allow a woman to abort in such an event, regardless the psychological ramifications of forcing a woman to carry such a fetus/child to term are complicated and unfathomable for the person not in such a position. Paul, I think you misunderstood what the lady was trying to say. To put this in a little closer perspective I pose the following question for you: If your wife were raped and bore a child from that rape, could you love that child without thinking of the henious circumstances under which the child was conceived? No doubt you would be able to some (maybe most) of the time, but sometimes you would probably look at the child and have intense feelings of hate for the childs father. If you could overcome those feelings and not let that affect the way you treat the child then you are a good man. Probably, most people are not that good.
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (10/01/85)
In article <5986@cbscc.UUCP> pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) writes: > In the pro-choice film that followed "Concieved in Liberty", > a woman related the story of how she had been the victim > of a rape that resulted in pregnancy. In her final remarks > she condemned the anti-abortion view as being one that would > "force her to bear the child of a fiend". While not trying > in any way to lessen the heinous nature of the crime of rape, > I couldn't help but notice that her statement implied that > she had projected her hatred for the rapist onto his child. > Is this a legitimate thing to do? Is human psychology "legitimate"? I can easily understand how a pregnancy as a result of a rape would serve as a constant and humiliating reminder of a very painful episode. > Does the child conceived as the result of rape or incest somehow bear > some the responsibility for the crime? This sounds awfully funny coming from someone who probably believes in Original Sin and "sins of the fathers". To my mind, no. But to my mind, it's an irrelevant question. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
aardvark@nmtvax.UUCP (10/01/85)
In article <> pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) writes: > >I also watched the PBS special on abortion last week. While >there are probably many things that could be said by people >on both sides of the issue about certain aspects of the film, >there is one thing that especially sticks in my mind. > >In the pro-choice film that followed "Concieved in Liberty", >a woman related the story of how she had been the victim >of a rape that resulted in pregnancy. In her final remarks >she condemned the anti-abortion view as being one that would >"force her to bear the child of a fiend". While not trying >in any way to lessen the heinous nature of the crime of rape, >I couldn't help but notice that her statement implied that >she had projected her hatred for the rapist onto his child. >Is this a legitimate thing to do? > >I wonder how many people are walking around today who are the >sons and daughters of fiends in the same respect. The implication >of the woman's comment is that there is all the more reason that >their lives should have been snuffed out in the womb. Does >the child conceived as the result of rape or incest somehow bear >some the responsibility for the crime? Do pro-choice folks really >support abortion on demand by sustaining this stigma? If that >stigma is just for the fetus, how does it become unjust when >that person is born (*if* it does)? The circumstances of conception >haven't changed. >-- > >Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd Why should she be forced to carry the child of her attacker? The rapist committed a crime against her that some women kill themselves over (the shame, the fear, the horror of rape). Why should she want to give life to his seed that has that gene: the gene for rape! The thought of bringing another of HIS type into the world frightens *me*, to say nothing of how it affects her. Every time she wakes up with morning sickness she remembers the rape. The conflict of abortion versus carrying a (very) unwanted child to term has driven some women to suicide. The sins of the parents are visited upon their children. In a case like this, the *father* is the one who is guilty of the murder since *he* placed the child/fetus in an unsafe place. aardvark@nmtvax!unm-la!lanl!ihnp4...
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) (10/04/85)
In article <5@uscvax.UUCP> kurtzman@usc-cse.UUCP (Stephen Kurtzman) writes: > >Whether or not blaming the fetus/child is a legitimate thing to do it is >a human thing to do. I do not claim to understand the psychology of rape, >but it seems to me that when such a violent and invasive act has been >perpetrated against a woman she may perceive questions of right and wrong >in a totally different light than a man or non-raped woman. But I *was* asking if it was a *legitimate* thing to do. It's true that people perceive things like this in different ways, but you can't avoid the question of legitimacy just by saying that. >I watched that movie also. I did not get the feeling that the lady was trying >to imply that the child would be a fiend. ... That's not what I said, or meant to imply. She said "the child of a fiend". Of course that doesn't necessarily mean that the child *is* a fiend, but it does put a stigma on the child herself. What if someone referred to you as such? Would people generally interpret this has not being a bad reflection on you? >I got the feeling that she was >psychologically unprepared for carrying the child of a rapist to term. >Undoubtedly people will debate whether it is right to allow a woman to >abort in such an event, regardless the psychological ramifications of forcing >a woman to carry such a fetus/child to term are complicated and unfathomable >for the person not in such a position. ... "such" a child? What *sort* of child is this? I think you have slipped in the same way the woman did. We *do* attach a stigma to children conceived by rape. Whether or not the woman intended this, her message in the context of the film is clear. The issue is abortion, and the fact that the child was conceived as the result of a heinous crime somehow detracts from any human value the child might otherwise have. Rape cases seem to have a special value to the pro-choice camp in justifying abortion on demand as a whole. Because the case of rape differs from other pregnancy in that the woman has become pregnant by sex against her will, many will make a *practical* exception where abortion laws are concerned for this case. Rape itself is a crime (as abortion should be) and those who are opposed to any violation of human life should be equally opposed to both. The practical exception makes sense in that abortion in cases of rape can be fought by fighting rape itself. Yet, I think the pro-choice camp sees rape as a powerful tool to justify the present state of abortion law. Why aren't *they* offering a compromise? Who *is* psychologically prepared to handle the trauma associated with being the victim of rape? Does abortion really lessen the trauma? Might not it add to it. The woman *is* the mother of the child (though not a willing one) and the child that is being stigmatized is hers as well as his. Could abortion possibly add to the trauma of rape in some cases? The question of what is the best thing to do about the "psychological unpreparedness" of the woman seems to be being begged here. Is there anything that can or should be done to help a woman in this predicament that doesn't involve abortion? Is that really considered an option, or do we just default to abortion as a good solution? If the fetus is not to be hated because of the rape then there is a greater possibility of remorse from the abortion being added to the trauma of rape. This may explain the placing of the stigma on the fetus as a defense mechanism, an added justification for abortion. But even as such, I think it is misplaced and unjust. On top of these possibilities, the burden of how to deal with them seems to be placed completely on the woman (and may be shared by members of her family). Is she going to make the best decision for her and her child on her own? Is there much support for decisions other than abortion? It seems that nobody dares ask her these questions. >Paul, I think you misunderstood what the lady was trying to say. To put this >in a little closer perspective I pose the following question for you: If your >wife were raped and bore a child from that rape, could you love that child >without thinking of the heinous circumstances under which the child was >conceived? No doubt you would be able to some (maybe most) of the time, >but sometimes you would probably look at the child and have intense feelings >of hate for the childs father. If you could overcome those feelings and not >let that affect the way you treat the child then you are a good man. >Probably, most people are not that good. Should most people not try to be that "good"? Because rape is so often used as a club to beat our pro-life views into submission, my wife and I *have* thought about this possibility. We do not want it to happen, of course, but if it did we both realize that would be inconsistent to deprive the child of life or in anyway associate feelings of hatred with her because of the crime of her father. These things are wrong and because they are wrong we recognize that they should be overcome. That wrongness, and the necessity of overcoming wrong, has nothing to do with how "good" we are. Why should I feel intense hate for the father by looking at the child? Even if I did, why should that in anyway affect whether or not the child has a right to live? I can somewhat imagine my own daughter in this light. I think that as she grew and I got to know her more for who she *is, herself*--seeing her run and play, laugh and cry, etc.--I would become more convinced that any such association of hate with her would be totally unfounded. I know there are couples who have had this experience. The same may be said for stigmas that are attached to women and Blacks. We may take them for granted when we view such people as objects, but get to know some of them and you come to realize that stigmas are foolish. This is not to say that the process of overcoming them is easy. It isn't. But since when do we judge the right or wrong of such stigmas by their difficulty in being overcome? [As an aside, I would like to note that I have taken the implied alternatives you present at face value. I don't mind doing this, but I think it's important to note that aborting the child and having to raise her are not the only alternatives. If the parents are not "good enough" to overcome the stigma attached to the child themselves, this would be a much lesser burden for adoptive parents. At least then the child would have a life free from the stigmatization associated with the circumstances of her conception.] -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (Damballah Wedo) (10/06/85)
> Paul Dubuc: > > Who *is* psychologically prepared to handle the trauma associated with > being the victim of rape? Does abortion really lessen the trauma? > Might not it add to it. The woman *is* the mother of the child (though > not a willing one) and the child that is being stigmatized is hers > as well as his. Could abortion possibly add to the trauma of rape > in some cases? We don't know and will never know. Although your argument is valid on its face, I can also see the horrible scenario when the violation a woman has had to endure is visited upon her daily over some twenty years of raising this so very unwanted child. Should *she* not be the one to decide? What should the woman tell the child who asks "where/who is my father?" How does the woman, especially if she lives in a small town, deal with acquaintances and neighbors who know of the circumstances of conception? Yes, abortion might be the psychologically worse option. The point is *you don't know that*, the *woman* does. The pro-choice stand is that *she* should decide what to do with this product of her humiliation. > > If you could overcome those feelings and not > >let that affect the way you treat the child then you are a good man. > >Probably, most people are not that good. > > Should most people not try to be that "good"? But most people cannot be *legally* expected to be this good. > I can somewhat imagine my own daughter in this light. I think that as > she grew and I got to know her more for who she *is, herself*--seeing > her run and play, laugh and cry, etc.--I would become more convinced that > any such association of hate with her would be totally unfounded. I know > there are couples who have had this experience. The same may be said for > stigmas that are attached to women and Blacks. We may take them for > granted when we view such people as objects, but get to know some of them > and you come to realize that stigmas are foolish. This is not to say > that the process of overcoming them is easy. It isn't. But since when do > we judge the right or wrong of such stigmas by their difficulty in being > overcome? You are an admirable man, Paul. But consider what your reactions might be if this child were to become a rebellious, "problem" child. After all, one half her genes are totally unknown to you. I don't mean to suggest this will happen, but what if she gets into some serious trouble? Can you be sure your reactions will not for a fleeting moment be that "well, at least she is not mine." Even if you are absolutely certain you will remain a loving parent, can you legally require every other parent to be as admirable as you? > I think it's important to note that aborting the child and having > to raise her are not the only alternatives. If the parents are not > "good enough" to overcome the stigma attached to the child themselves, > this would be a much lesser burden for adoptive parents. There is still the matter of nine months of pregnancy to go through. -- Marcel-Franck Simon ihnp4!{mhuxr, hl3b5b}!mfs " Papa Loko, ou se' van, ou-a pouse'-n alle' Nou se' papiyon, n-a pote' nouvel bay Agwe' "
pmd@cbsck.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (10/07/85)
A response to Marcel Simon: >> Paul Dubuc: >> >> Who *is* psychologically prepared to handle the trauma associated with >> being the victim of rape? Does abortion really lessen the trauma? >> Might not it add to it. The woman *is* the mother of the child (though >> not a willing one) and the child that is being stigmatized is hers >> as well as his. Could abortion possibly add to the trauma of rape >> in some cases? > >We don't know and will never know. Although your argument is valid on its >face, I can also see the horrible scenario when the violation a woman has >had to endure is visited upon her daily over some twenty years of raising >this so very unwanted child. Should *she* not be the one to decide? > >What should the woman tell the child who asks "where/who is my father?" >How does the woman, especially if she lives in a small town, deal with >acquaintances and neighbors who know of the circumstances of conception? What does she tell her if daddy was a bank robber, or a drunk or a child molester? Do we really find any additional justification in saying that a child ought not to live because *we* would find it hard to tell her certain things. Is the child going to look her mother in the face and say, "Gee, Mom, you should have aborted me for having such a horrible father."? I know a woman from a small town who married a black man. The people in that town attach certain stigmas to blacks and to their daughter. What would you tell this couple when they want to go and visit her parents? There are plenty of people who have to deal with the uncomfortable presence of bigotry. We usually recognize it for what it is and don't advocate giving it any respectability by accommodating it. Does the child of a rapist merit the social stigma any more that any other child? >Yes, abortion might be the psychologically worse option. The point is *you >don't know that*, the *woman* does. The pro-choice stand is that *she* >should decide what to do with this product of her humiliation. I'm wondering if anyone knows. The pro-choice stand puts all the burden on her, that's for sure. I'm mainly driving at what I think is an unfair stigma that is attached to a child conceived under such horrid circumstance. If that stigma were seen as unjust, I think a lot of the certainty it gives about abortion being the right choice in these cases would go away. Assuming the woman needs help in making such a decision after such a terrible experience in her life, how would we help her? Would we dare to suggest that she explore alternatives to abortion? It seems to me that the pro-choice side as practically absolutized the rightness of that particular choice in the case of rape. To choose against it may bring all kinds of flattery about how "good" or brave, or admirable the woman is, but I doubt there would be much substantial support. Such cases do not provide the needed sympathy for abortion "rights" as a whole. The pro-choice films seemed to be using rape for all it is worth in that respect. The film we are discussing, "So Many Voices", was produced by NARAL. >> > If you could overcome those feelings and not >> >let that affect the way you treat the child then you are a good man. >> >Probably, most people are not that good. >> >> Should most people not try to be that "good"? > >But most people cannot be *legally* expected to be this good. Obviously. If you read my whole article, you would know that I wasn't making a legal argument. I'm making a moral argument against what seems to be a perceived virtue in attaching the "child of a fiend" stigma to someone. >> I can somewhat imagine my own daughter in this light. I think that as >> she grew and I got to know her more for who she *is, herself*--seeing >> her run and play, laugh and cry, etc.--I would become more convinced that >> any such association of hate with her would be totally unfounded. I know >> there are couples who have had this experience. The same may be said for >> stigmas that are attached to women and Blacks. We may take them for >> granted when we view such people as objects, but get to know some of them >> and you come to realize that stigmas are foolish. This is not to say >> that the process of overcoming them is easy. It isn't. But since when do >> we judge the right or wrong of such stigmas by their difficulty in being >> overcome? > >You are an admirable man, Paul. But consider what your reactions might be >if this child were to become a rebellious, "problem" child. After all, one >half her genes are totally unknown to you. I don't mean to suggest this will >happen, but what if she gets into some serious trouble? Can you be sure >your reactions will not for a fleeting moment be that "well, at least she is >not mine." Even if you are absolutely certain you will remain a loving >parent, can you legally require every other parent to be as admirable as you? No one can be absolutely certain that they will remain a loving parent with any of their children. I don't think the child of a rapist necessarily has any more chance of becoming a "problem child" than my own natural children would have. If I did have the reaction that you suppose, it still would not be justified in the least, and I think I would have to know that. Again, if you think I'm trying to make this a legal argument, go back and read again the parts of my article that you have not quoted here. >> I think it's important to note that aborting the child and having >> to raise her are not the only alternatives. If the parents are not >> "good enough" to overcome the stigma attached to the child themselves, >> this would be a much lesser burden for adoptive parents. > >There is still the matter of nine months of pregnancy to go through. I haven't overlooked that. But why is the stigma justified in the first nine months?
pmd@cbsck.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (10/07/85)
>Why should she be forced to carry the child of her attacker? The >rapist committed a crime against her that some women kill themselves >over (the shame, the fear, the horror of rape). Why should she want >to give life to his seed that has that gene: the gene for rape! The >thought of bringing another of HIS type into the world frightens >*me*, to say nothing of how it affects her. Every time she wakes up >with morning sickness she remembers the rape. The conflict of abortion >versus carrying a (very) unwanted child to term has driven some women >to suicide. The sins of the parents are visited upon their children. >In a case like this, the *father* is the one who is guilty of the murder >since *he* placed the child/fetus in an unsafe place. > >aardvark@nmtvax!unm-la!lanl!ihnp4... Every pro-choice response has seemed to agree that a fiendish child does not a rapist make, yet here is someone who seems to think it's genetic. Are you serious? What if the child's a girl? Maybe a jilting by a boyfriend has driven some young women to suicide? Do we condemn dating? I've gone into more detail in other articles about why I think the attachment of this stigma to the child is unjust. It is as unjust as if a woman were to take out her hatred for a wife-beater husband on his born children by beating them. Her behaviour might be more "understandible" in some sense, but still unjust. Anyway, it's interesting to see someone supporting the stigma (and on genetic grounds to boot!). I'm glad there aren't a lot of people who seriously believe that there are genes for criminal behaviour. There would be a lot more people thrown into jail as a "preventative" measure :-(. ... what was your name again? Paul Dubuc
barb@oliven.UUCP (Barbara Jernigan) (10/07/85)
> Who *is* psychologically prepared to handle the trauma associated with > being the victim of rape? Does abortion really lessen the trauma?[PAUL DUBUC] Does carrying the reminder of that rape to term lessen the trauma, either? Yes, Paul, the 'innocent fetus' *IS* stigmatized, 'justly' or 'injustly.' But the lines of 'Justice' get blurred when there's so much [violent] emotion involved. > >If you could overcome those feelings and not > >let that affect the way you treat the child then you are a good man. > >Probably, most people are not that good. > > Should most people not try to be that "good"? Are most people capable of being that "good"? I'm not so sure I am. > Because rape is so often used as a club to beat our pro-life views into > submission, my wife and I *have* thought about this possibility. We do not > want it to happen, of course, but if it did we both realize that would be > inconsistent to deprive the child of life or in anyway associate feelings > of hatred with her because of the crime of her father. These things are > wrong and because they are wrong we recognize that they should be overcome. > That wrongness, and the necessity of overcoming wrong, has nothing to do with > how "good" we are. But it does, Paul -- if you're equating "good" to personal strength in your beliefs. > I can somewhat imagine my own daughter in this light. I think that as > she grew and I got to know her more for who she *is, herself*--seeing > her run and play, laugh and cry, etc.--I would become more convinced that > any such association of hate with her would be totally unfounded. But how many people REALLY have the emotional fortitude to [let her] survive that long? Paul, your point is valid -- there is an injustice in transferring the guilt of the father onto the fetus. A terrible injustice. But the issue of abortion or not hinges upon the well-being of the mother. For many women pregnancy [especially the early months] is NOT a very pleasant experience. When the child is planned -- or at least a product of the woman's chosen actions -- the miracle of life outweighs the 'inconvenience.' But, on top of the trauma of being raped -- a fate 'worse than death,' to quote the Victorians [and most women would be inclined to agree] -- many, if not *most* women, are not emotionally equipped to put up with these changes. For some, it might be a lesser trauma to abort the fetus than to be reminded of the crime for nine months [assuming the baby is placed up for adoption]. For some, carrying the child to term would be to make *THEM*, the victim, pay for the crime. And what of the rape victims who are little more than children themselves? You and your wife have discussed the possibility, imagining the outcome. But -- 1. -- does imagining the emotional horror and experiencing it directly equate? I know we would all like to think so, but . . . . And -- 2. -- what of the women who DON'T have the loving support group you apparently enjoy? Many times the *rape victim* is as stigmatized as the offspring she might produce. This is why there MUST be choice. You speak correctly of justice and injustice [to the fetus], Paul, of rightness and wrongness. But, so often, our NATURAL sense of emotional and physical self-preservation outweighs those considerations. I am glad you have the fortitude to stand by your principles; but there are many more in the world who, when pushed against the wall by such a terrible emotional and physical violation, cannot. God forgive me, though I would *LIKE* to be as strong as you espouse yourself, I fear, when shove comes to full fisticuffs, my strength would crumple and I would seek the 'quick' way of erasing my body of the crime -- I cannot say for certain, unless faced with the reality. And THAT, I pray, will never arise. Barb Jernigan ("If you will practice being fictional for a while, you will understand that fictional characters are sometimes more real than people with bodies and heartbeats." R.Bach )
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (10/07/85)
> >Why should she want > >to give life to his seed that has that gene: the gene for rape! The > >thought of bringing another of HIS type into the world frightens > >*me*, to say nothing of how it affects her. Every time she wakes up > >with morning sickness she remembers the rape. > >aardvark@nmtvax!unm-la!lanl!ihnp4... > > Anyway, it's interesting to see someone supporting the stigma (and on > genetic grounds to boot!). I'm glad there aren't a lot of people who > seriously believe that there are genes for criminal behaviour. There > would be a lot more people thrown into jail as a "preventative" measure :-(. > Paul Dubuc While it is indeed silly to suppose that there is a specific gene which controls rape, it is equally silly to suppose that *no* factors are inherited and that a woman who has been raped can expect a child who has been sired by a degenerate to be every bit as bright, lovable and mentally stable as a child who has been sired by a carefully chosen spouse. It is also unreasonable to refuse to recognize that the burden of bearing a desperately unwanted child is *much* heavier than the burden of bearing a desired child. The upshot of this all is that a raped woman weighing the decision to abort or not can easily predict much higher costs and lower rewards for carrying the fetus to term than can a woman carrying a fetus sired by a man she loves. Another factor which may increase the proportion of assaulted women who decide to abort is the likelyhood that the abortion would happen in the first trimester. While pro-lifers may decide that none of these considerations are more important than the potential humanity of the fetus, they should not be suprised that many other women may not. Nor should they conclude, on the basis of the fact that more women who are pregnant as the result of rape choose abortion than women who haven't been assaulted, that these women are choosing abortion because they blame the fetus for their rape. This is just as reasonable as concluding that poor people blame their fetuses for their poverty, since a greater porportion of poverty-stricken women choose abortion. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j Silly quote: "There are a few off-the-wall extremists, who are shunned by us moderates." - Don Black
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (Damballah Wedo) (10/08/85)
> Paul Dubuc > > Me > >..... I can also see the horrible scenario when the violation a woman has > >had to endure is visited upon her daily over some twenty years of raising > >this so very unwanted child. Should *she* not be the one to decide? > > > I know a woman from a small town who married a black man. The people > in that town attach certain stigmas to blacks and to their daughter. > What would you tell this couple when they want to go and visit her parents? > There are plenty of people who have to deal with the uncomfortable presence > of bigotry. We usually recognize it for what it is and don't advocate > giving it any respectability by accommodating it. Does the child of a > rapist merit the social stigma any more that any other child? > [I did not quote two paragraphs of Paul's] Your example is particular vivid for me. I am black and married a white woman. Yes, there are tough times: quizzical looks, odd questions, hostile comments... It's not ewasy, even in supposedly liberal New Jersey. We knew this beforehand. It still hurts, but we felt and feel our relationship is strong enough to endure. The woman who was raped did not have that choice to make. I do not disagree with your point that her child should not be held responsible for the crime of the father. I argue, however, that to demand that the mother not resent this child goes beyond the bounds of what can reasonably expected of human beings. > >Yes, abortion might be the psychologically worse option. The point is *you > >don't know that*, the *woman* does. The pro-choice stand is that *she* > >should decide what to do with this product of her humiliation. > > I'm wondering if anyone knows. The pro-choice stand puts all the burden > on her, that's for sure. I'm mainly driving at what I think is an unfair > stigma that is attached to a child conceived under such horrid circumstance. [three sentences deleted] You accuse pro-choicers of putting the entire burden on the mother, yet you immediately claim that your primary concern is for the child. You are placing a huge burden on the mother by withdrawing the option to terminate this pregnancy, product of her humiliation. > >But most people cannot be *legally* expected to be this good. > > Obviously. If you read my whole article, you would know that I wasn't > making a legal argument. I'm making a moral argument against what seems > to be a perceived virtue in attaching the "child of a fiend" stigma to > someone. > Forgive my assumption. All my postings on the subject of abortion start by assuming that we are attemting to define a public policy acceptable to all of us. I am not interested in arguing morality, for that is a dry exercise in futility. The multiple megabytes that have already been expended on the morality or lack thereof of abortion should convince anyone that there is no single morality that all can agree on (see some messages I wrote in net.women that elaborate on this.) Given that impasse, if we are not trying to reach a compromise on public policy, why are we all wasting our time? -- Marcel-Franck Simon ihnp4!{mhuxr, hl3b5b}!mfs " Papa Loko, ou se' van, ou-a pouse'-n alle' Nou se' papiyon, n-a pote' nouvel bay Agwe' "
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (10/08/85)
> [Paul Dubuc] > Who *is* psychologically prepared to handle the trauma associated with > being the victim of rape? Does abortion really lessen the trauma? > Might not it add to it. The woman *is* the mother of the child (though > not a willing one) and the child that is being stigmatized is hers > as well as his. Could abortion possibly add to the trauma of rape > in some cases? ------ It might. But nobody is forcing the woman to undergo an abortion. Who is better qualified to decide how to minimize the trauma, the woman herself or YOU. ------ > The question of what is the best thing to do about > the "psychological unpreparedness" of the woman seems to be being begged > here. Is there anything that can or should be done to help a woman > in this predicament that doesn't involve abortion? Is that really > considered an option, or do we just default to abortion as a good > solution? ------ No default occurs. Adoption is another option, as is keeping the child. No one objects to giving women, rape victims or otherwise, information about adoption. It is the pro-lifers, not the pro-choicers, who eliminate options. ------ > If the fetus is not to be hated because of the rape then there > is a greater possibility of remorse from the abortion being added to > the trauma of rape. This may explain the placing of the stigma on the > fetus as a defense mechanism, an added justification for abortion. > But even as such, I think it is misplaced and unjust. On top of these > possibilities, the burden of how to deal with them seems to be placed > completely on the woman (and may be shared by members of her family). > Is she going to make the best decision for her and her child on her own? > Is there much support for decisions other than abortion? It seems that > nobody dares ask her these questions. ------ Oh, come on. You seem to think the way to relieve the burden of a difficult choice is to make one of the alternatives illegal. Just think of the possibilities of extending this way of thinking into other difficult decisions we must make. We could have the state decide where we will live, where we will work, etc., etc. Think of all the burdens we would then be relieved of. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) (10/08/85)
Of the women I know who have been rape victims, I know of only one who became pregnant as a result. She was ardently pro-life, and she was single. She had the child, then put it up for adoption. She said later that the decision wasn't painful - there really wasn't any decision to make. The child had done nothing for which it deserved to die, even if the father had. charli
pmd@cbsck.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (10/08/85)
>> Anyway, it's interesting to see someone supporting the stigma (and on >> genetic grounds to boot!). I'm glad there aren't a lot of people who >> seriously believe that there are genes for criminal behavior. There >> would be a lot more people thrown into jail as a "preventative" measure :-(. >> Paul Dubuc > > While it is indeed silly to suppose that there is a specific gene >which controls rape, it is equally silly to suppose that *no* factors >are inherited and that a woman who has been raped can expect a child >who has been sired by a degenerate to be every bit as bright, lovable and >mentally stable as a child who has been sired by a carefully chosen >spouse. I think it's silly to pass judgement one way or the other. In tearing down the totality of genetic determination, I am not discounting that the child will be like her father genetically. I would say that the environment has much to do with the kind of people we become. Is the woman who gets an abortion really performing genetic screening, Jeff? Neither of us knows. One thing we both know, however, is that she's leaving nothing up to the environment in which the child could grow up. >It is also unreasonable to refuse to recognize that the >burden of bearing a desperately unwanted child is *much* heavier than >the burden of bearing a desired child. I don't think I have refused to recognize this in the articles I have posted. Do you think I have done this simply because I suggest that the transfer of anger from rapist to child isn't really just, or because I suggest that abortion may not be the unquestionably best thing to do? > The upshot of this all is that a raped woman weighing the decision >to abort or not can easily predict much higher costs and lower rewards >for carrying the fetus to term than can a woman carrying a fetus sired >by a man she loves. Another factor which may increase the proportion of >assaulted women who decide to abort is the likelyhood that the abortion >would happen in the first trimester. While pro-lifers may decide that >none of these considerations are more important than the potential >humanity of the fetus, they should not be suprised that many other women >may not. I don't think anyone is surprised, Jeff. Some of us just wonder about why, where the fetus is concerned, predictions of the "cost and rewards" to others make the difference whether or not she is a rightful human being. We don't seem to make that distinction where other human lives are concerned. >Nor should they conclude, on the basis of the fact that more >women who are pregnant as the result of rape choose abortion than women >who haven't been assaulted, that these women are choosing abortion because >they blame the fetus for their rape. This is just as reasonable as >concluding that poor people blame their fetuses for their poverty, since >a greater proportion of poverty-stricken women choose abortion. >Jeff Sonntag It's not on the basis of statistics that I conclude anything. It's on the basis of the way rape is used by the pro-choice media to justify abortion on demand. The message of this media has practically absolutized the rightness of abortion in cases of rape. I gather that they don't want people suggesting otherwise. It's OK to tell them abortion is right for her, but not to suggest reasons why it may not be. The pro-choice media is not leaving the decision completely up to the woman. They only communicate that abortion is right in rape cases. Why is abortion touted as part of the remedy to poverty? The film, "So Many Voices" drove the viewer through poverty stricken neighborhoods, lamenting the condition of people with so many children. Maybe *we* are the ones who blame the children of the poor for the poverty of their parents (and the way to help *their* problem is if *they* have abortions). I agree that it's foolish. Paul Dubuc -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) (10/09/85)
Another response to Marcel: >> Paul Dubuc >> > Me >> >..... I can also see the horrible scenario when the violation a woman has >> >had to endure is visited upon her daily over some twenty years of raising >> >this so very unwanted child. Should *she* not be the one to decide? >> > >> I know a woman from a small town who married a black man. The people >> in that town attach certain stigmas to blacks and to their daughter. >> What would you tell this couple when they want to go and visit her parents? >> There are plenty of people who have to deal with the uncomfortable presence >> of bigotry. We usually recognize it for what it is and don't advocate >> giving it any respectability by accommodating it. Does the child of a >> rapist merit the social stigma any more that any other child? > >Your example is particularly vivid for me. I am black and married a white >woman. Yes, there are tough times: quizzical looks, odd questions, >hostile comments... It's not easy, even in supposedly liberal New Jersey. >We knew this beforehand. It still hurts, but we felt and feel our >relationship is strong enough to endure. The woman who was raped did >not have that choice to make. I don't see how the amount of choice involved justifies any stigmas. The couple I know had less of a choice than you. Their daughter was conceived out of wedlock and the woman was visibly pregnant at their wedding. The point is that the stigmas are equally unjust, it doesn't depend on who had what choice. In fact the lack of choice involved should make them seem more unjust because it should make it harder to argue from the irrelevant idea that "they brought it upon themselves". (You seem to be using a form of this argument in your own case: It's different because we took it all upon ourselves by making the choice.) >I do not disagree with your point that her child should not be held >responsible for the crime of the father. I argue, however, that to demand >that the mother not resent this child goes beyond the bounds of what can >reasonably expected of human beings. I'm not *demanding*, Marcel. I'm trying to reason it out. It isn't beyond human *capability*, necessarily, especially if there is more support than a woman typically gets in this situation. Don't our "expectations" have a way of determining what support we will give? Is the idea that this behavior cannot be "reasonably expected" related to the lack of support? What is the real reason for this lack? Who is determining the bounds you talk about? Is overcoming racial hatred beyond reasonable bounds for some? Is that supposed to lower our expectations on the issue of racial bigotry itself? It seems that you are arguing along these lines in the case of abortion and rape. >> >Yes, abortion might be the psychologically worse option. The point is *you >> >don't know that*, the *woman* does. The pro-choice stand is that *she* >> >should decide what to do with this product of her humiliation. >> >> I'm wondering if anyone knows. The pro-choice stand puts all the burden >> on her, that's for sure. I'm mainly driving at what I think is an unfair >> stigma that is attached to a child conceived under such horrid circumstance. > >You accuse pro-choicers of putting the entire burden on the mother, yet you >immediately claim that your primary concern is for the child. You are placing a >huge burden on the mother by withdrawing the option to terminate this >pregnancy, product of her humiliation. No, I'm not withdrawing the option, I'm asking that support for another one be provided. This other option will take support. I realize that pro-life folks are going to have to help. What about the pro-choice side? They seem to be pushing the path of least support. The point of my *article* may have been concerned with the stigma attached to the fetus, but *I* am primarily concerned for *both* woman and child. If I am a little unbalanced in my argument it is because I am arguing against a position that is *only* concerned for the woman. >> >But most people cannot be *legally* expected to be this good. >> >> Obviously. If you read my whole article, you would know that I wasn't >> making a legal argument. I'm making a moral argument against what seems >> to be a perceived virtue in attaching the "child of a fiend" stigma to >> someone. >> >Forgive my assumption. All my postings on the subject of abortion start by >assuming that we are attempting to define a public policy acceptable to all of >us. I am not interested in arguing morality, for that is a dry exercise in >futility. The multiple megabytes that have already been expended on the >morality or lack thereof of abortion should convince anyone that there is >no single morality that all can agree on (see some messages I wrote in >net.women that elaborate on this.) Given that impasse, if we are not trying >to reach a compromise on public policy, why are we all wasting our time? >Marcel-Franck Simon ihnp4!{mhuxr, hl3b5b}!mfs Does public policy have *nothing* to do with morality (a lot of people are sure that *foreign* policy does)? It seems that whether or not moral arguments seem a dry exercise in futility, depends on whose morality is being challenged more than just the fact that we are debating morality. You are using moral arguments (at least, arguing from moral premises, as I am), Marcel. It's a wonder you don't realize it. Where public policy reflects the moral treatment of human beings, I would think that discussion would not be a waste of time. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) (10/09/85)
In article <1333@ihlpg.UUCP> tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) writes: >> [Paul Dubuc] >> If the fetus is not to be hated because of the rape then there >> is a greater possibility of remorse from the abortion being added to >> the trauma of rape. This may explain the placing of the stigma on the >> fetus as a defense mechanism, an added justification for abortion. >> But even as such, I think it is misplaced and unjust. On top of these >> possibilities, the burden of how to deal with them seems to be placed >> completely on the woman (and may be shared by members of her family). >> Is she going to make the best decision for her and her child on her own? >> Is there much support for decisions other than abortion? It seems that >> nobody dares ask her these questions. >------ >Oh, come on. You seem to think the way to relieve the burden of a >difficult choice is to make one of the alternatives illegal. Just think >of the possibilities of extending this way of thinking into other difficult >decisions we must make. We could have the state decide where we will live, >where we will work, etc., etc. Think of all the burdens we would then >be relieved of. >-- >Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan Another one who doesn't bother reading the whole of the article (i.e. the portions he edits out of his response). Go and read again what I said about the legality of abortion in cases of rape. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) (10/09/85)
In article <427@oliven.UUCP> barb@oliven.UUCP (Barbara Jernigan) writes: >> Who *is* psychologically prepared to handle the trauma associated with >> being the victim of rape? Does abortion really lessen the trauma? >>[PAUL DUBUC] > >Does carrying the reminder of that rape to term lessen the trauma, either? >Yes, Paul, the 'innocent fetus' *IS* stigmatized, 'justly' or 'unjustly.' >But the lines of 'Justice' get blurred when there's so much [violent] >emotion involved. But are you trying to argue that there is no cause here to firm up the lines of justice? Why? The lines of justice get blurred in other emotional circumstances also. >> >If you could overcome those feelings and not >> >let that affect the way you treat the child then you are a good man. >> >Probably, most people are not that good. >> >> Should most people not try to be that "good"? > >Are most people capable of being that "good"? I'm not so sure I am. [A reference to this comment below - PMD] >> Because rape is so often used as a club to beat our pro-life views into >> submission, my wife and I *have* thought about this possibility. We do not >> want it to happen, of course, but if it did we both realize that would be >> inconsistent to deprive the child of life or in anyway associate feelings >> of hatred with her because of the crime of her father. These things are >> wrong and because they are wrong we recognize that they should be overcome. >> That wrongness, and the necessity of overcoming wrong, has nothing to do with >> how "good" we are. > >But it does, Paul -- if you're equating "good" to personal strength in your >beliefs. I'm not. The personal strength of a belief has little to do with whether or not we should think it's good. >> I can somewhat imagine my own daughter in this light. I think that as >> she grew and I got to know her more for who she *is, herself*--seeing >> her run and play, laugh and cry, etc.--I would become more convinced that >> any such association of hate with her would be totally unfounded. > >But how many people REALLY have the emotional fortitude to [let her] >survive that long? Some may not have the emotional fortitude to let their planned children survive. Does that speak any less of the value of those children as human beings? >Paul, your point is valid -- there is an injustice in transferring the >guilt of the father onto the fetus. A terrible injustice. But the issue >of abortion or not hinges upon the well-being of the mother. For many >women pregnancy [especially the early months] is NOT a very pleasant >experience. When the child is planned -- or at least a product of the >woman's chosen actions -- the miracle of life outweighs the 'inconvenience.' The third sentence is the crux. Why does the issue 'hinge' only on the well being of the mother? Why does another person's inconvenience determine whether someone else's live is "the miracle of life" or "a very unpleasant experience" (one to be gotten rid of)? >But, on top of the trauma of being raped -- a fate 'worse than death,' to >quote the Victorians [and most women would be inclined to agree] -- many, >if not *most* women, are not emotionally equipped to put up with these >changes. For some, it might be a lesser trauma to abort the fetus than >to be reminded of the crime for nine months [assuming the baby is placed >up for adoption]. For some, carrying the child to term would be to make >*THEM*, the victim, pay for the crime. And what of the rape victims who >are little more than children themselves? So, how do we really determine who the "some" are? Why is carrying the child to term "making the woman pay for the crime" and abortion not "making the fetus pay (with her life)"? This is the hump, and we haven't really gotten over it. It's such a clear cut choice for one who does not think that the fetus is a rightful human being in the first place. It is less clear for those who do. The determination of which humans have the right to live and which don't is not something we like to leave up to individual discretion. The pro-choice philosophy assumes that this *is* the case for the fetus, but no one else. How is this? Again, as I said in an article which you probably hadn't read yet, I think the trauma can be lessened by providing willing support for women for options that don't involve abortion. Do you have any objections to removing the part of that trauma that stems from the lack of support? >You and your wife have discussed the possibility, imagining the outcome. >But -- 1. -- does imagining the emotional horror and experiencing it >directly equate? I know we would all like to think so, but . . . . And -- >2. -- what of the women who DON'T have the loving support group you >apparently enjoy? Many times the *rape victim* is as stigmatized as the >offspring she might produce. This is why there MUST be choice. In reference to #1: Of course not. But there *are* people who have gone through it and have made the choice not to abort. If I have no grounds to suggest that avoiding abortion might be a better choice to support because I have not experienced the trauma involved, neither have you grounds to support the other choice if you haven't. You can ask me, "how do you know that you *would* be able to make the choice not to abort if it actually did happen?", and I can just as well say to you, "how do you really know you wouldn't have the strength?" Anecdotes cancel one another out. I'm trying to get beyond anecdotal reasoning. Regarding point #2: I think the better answer is to help more women get that kind of support. Without that it really isn't much of a choice for her, is it? >You speak correctly of justice and injustice [to the fetus], Paul, of >rightness and wrongness. But, so often, our NATURAL sense of emotional >and physical self-preservation outweighs those considerations. I am glad >you have the fortitude to stand by your principles; but there are many more >in the world who, when pushed against the wall by such a terrible emotional >and physical violation, cannot. God forgive me, though I would *LIKE* to >be as strong as you espouse yourself, I fear, when shove comes to full >fisticuffs, my strength would crumple and I would seek the 'quick' way of >erasing my body of the crime -- I cannot say for certain, unless faced with >the reality. And THAT, I pray, will never arise. I don't think abortion actually does anything to erase your body of the crime. The crime has been done. Nothing will change that. The 'erasure' involves the deprivation of life to another individual, who is as innocent of the crime as the woman. Again, for those reading this discussion for the first time, I am not advocating that abortion in cases of rape be made illegal. I have given my reasons for that. I *am* arguing against the way the pro-choice media uses the relatively small percentage of these cases to justify abortion on demand as a whole. I am arguing that whether or not abortion is justified in case of rape is indeed a topic that is open to discussion. I would argue that there is not enough support for the choice not to abort in these cases. If we reach a compromise that protects the unborn as a rightful human being in other cases, we have to deal with the rights of the fetus in this case as well. At least one step toward recognizing those rights is to dispel the justification for projecting the terrible nature of the crime onto the child of the rapist. If we come to value the humanity of the fetus *as a human being itself*, then this humanity must be given consideration for the fetus in cases of rape also. Since the fetus had no responsible part in the crime, her rights are not affected. This situation makes the decision of whether or not abortion is justified in cases of rape much less absolute than the pro-choice media makes it out to be. I am equally opposed to rape and abortion. Because rape is illegal, I can see making a *practical* concession to abortion in cases of rape, but I would like to see steps taken to make avoiding abortion a more viable option for women who do fall victim to rape because I still see the fetus as a rightful human being. I don't see much help coming from the pro-choice camp in that direction, since the more traumatic a pregnancy as the result of rape is seen to be, the more effectively it is used as an emotional tool to justify abortion on demand as a whole. The above paragraph is long, but I think it is necessary since some people are so easily overlooking this aspect of my pro-life view. I hope I don't have to make it a standard disclaimer in any further discussion of this issue. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
kurtzman@uscvax.UUCP (Stephen Kurtzman) (10/09/85)
In article <6032@cbscc.UUCP> pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) writes: > >In article <5@uscvax.UUCP> kurtzman@usc-cse.UUCP (Stephen Kurtzman) writes: >> >>Whether or not blaming the fetus/child is a legitimate thing to do it is >>a human thing to do. I do not claim to understand the psychology of rape, >>but it seems to me that when such a violent and invasive act has been >>perpetrated against a woman she may perceive questions of right and wrong >>in a totally different light than a man or non-raped woman. > >But I *was* asking if it was a *legitimate* thing to do. It's true that >people perceive things like this in different ways, but you can't avoid >the question of legitimacy just by saying that. > I wasn't trying to avoid the question of legitimacy. I was merely trying to point out that it may not be a legitimate for a male to decide legitimacy in this case. Would you force your wife to carry the child of a rapist if you knew that doing so might do more damage to her psyche? Only the woman faced with such a decision can make that decision. It seems unreasonable for a man to sit back and proclaim the sacredness of life when he will never know the pain of rape or being force to carry a child to term. >>I got the feeling that she was >>psychologically unprepared for carrying the child of a rapist to term. >>Undoubtedly people will debate whether it is right to allow a woman to >>abort in such an event, regardless the psychological ramifications of forcing >>a woman to carry such a fetus/child to term are complicated and unfathomable >>for the person not in such a position. > >... "such" a child? What *sort* of child is this? I think you have >slipped in the same way the woman did. We *do* attach a stigma to >children conceived by rape. Whether or not the woman intended this, >her message in the context of the film is clear. The issue is abortion, >and the fact that the child was conceived as the result of a heinous >crime somehow detracts from any human value the child might otherwise have. > "Such a child" refers to a child whose conception was an act of violence and hatred. That does not mean that the child is evil. It was meant to distinguish the child conceived through an act of rape as opposed to child conceived through acts of love or recreation. I'm sorry if you got the wrong impression. >Rape cases seem to have a special value to the pro-choice camp in >justifying abortion on demand as a whole. Because the case of rape >differs from other pregnancy in that the woman has become pregnant by >sex against her will, many will make a *practical* exception where abortion >laws are concerned for this case. Rape itself is a crime (as abortion >should be) and those who are opposed to any violation of human life >should be equally opposed to both. The practical exception makes sense >in that abortion in cases of rape can be fought by fighting rape itself. >Yet, I think the pro-choice camp sees rape as a powerful tool to justify >the present state of abortion law. Why aren't *they* offering a compromise? Not only the pro-choice camp, but many anti-abortionists use rape as a tool. Much of the proposed legislation against abortion has included provisions for exceptions in the event of rape. Why isn't pro-choice offering a compromise? The principle behind pro-choice is that a woman, not society, should have control over her own body. The principle behind pro-life is that society should have that control so that society can protect the life of the unborn. A compromise, like what I think you are implying, would be no compromise for pro-life (since society would still be in control), and abandonment of their position for pro-choice. Advocating choice only in those cases deemed appropriate by society is giving society the ultimate control over choice - i.e. it is not pro-choice. > >Who *is* psychologically prepared to handle the trauma associated with >being the victim of rape? Does abortion really lessen the trauma? >Might not it add to it. The woman *is* the mother of the child (though >not a willing one) and the child that is being stigmatized is hers >as well as his. Could abortion possibly add to the trauma of rape >in some cases? Yes, abortion could add to the trauma just as carrying the child of a rapist could add to the trauma. The pro-choice (and many pro-life) people advocate allowing the woman to make her own choice. Not having a choice in the matter could be even more traumatic than having an abortion. Clearly, different people will react differently. Allowing choice in the case of rape could very well contribute to the mental health of the assaulted woman. >The question of what is the best thing to do about >the "psychological unpreparedness" of the woman seems to be being begged >here. Is there anything that can or should be done to help a woman >in this predicament that doesn't involve abortion? Is that really >considered an option, or do we just default to abortion as a good >solution? Yes, many things can and should be done. But what would you like to have done? Certainly a woman should get counciling after being raped. Society can do a lot to assist a woman in getting this counciling (that is, if she will admit to being raped - which many will not for many psychological reasons). I don't think anyone called abortion a solution for rape. Abortion, however, does seem to be the way some women opt to handle the result of a rape. This in no way is meant to imply that the abortion will solve all of the psychological problems associated with rape - it may help some women with certain aspects of the trauma if they do not want to carry the child to term. The pro-choice side supports a woman's right to control her own body in this way if she desires. No one I know has every advocated mandatory abortion in cases of rape. >If the fetus is not to be hated because of the rape then there >is a greater possibility of remorse from the abortion being added to >the trauma of rape. Proper counciling should eliminate those women for whom abortion would compound the trauma. If a woman chooses to have an abortion she may very well feel great remorse. I understand that this is a normal reaction (from the women I know who have had abortions have had exactly this reaction - consequently they now use birth control). In any event, the woman must take responsibility for her actions - society cannot protect her from that. >This may explain the placing of the stigma on the >fetus as a defense mechanism, an added justification for abortion. Be serious! The woman does not set out to have an abortion and then justify it by hatred of the fetus. >But even as such, I think it is misplaced and unjust. On top of these >possibilities, the burden of how to deal with them seems to be placed >completely on the woman (and may be shared by members of her family). >Is she going to make the best decision for her and her child on her own? >Is there much support for decisions other than abortion? It seems that >nobody dares ask her these questions. > If the woman confides in her loved ones they will give her their best council. From all this and professional counciling, she can make her own choice. Would you trust society/government to make the best choice for her? Society/government is not concerned with individuals. It is concerned with the aggregate as a whole. People get trampled by society/government all the time. >>Paul, I think you misunderstood what the lady was trying to say. To put this >>in a little closer perspective I pose the following question for you: If your >>wife were raped and bore a child from that rape, could you love that child >>without thinking of the heinous circumstances under which the child was >>conceived? No doubt you would be able to some (maybe most) of the time, >>but sometimes you would probably look at the child and have intense feelings >>of hate for the childs father. If you could overcome those feelings and not >>let that affect the way you treat the child then you are a good man. >>Probably, most people are not that good. > >Should most people not try to be that "good"? People should try to be good. Facts are, many people don't make. Many more don't even try. > >Because rape is so often used as a club to beat our pro-life views into >submission, my wife and I *have* thought about this possibility. We do not >want it to happen, of course, but if it did we both realize that would be >inconsistent to deprive the child of life or in anyway associate feelings >of hatred with her because of the crime of her father. These things are >wrong and because they are wrong we recognize that they should be overcome. >That wrongness, and the necessity of overcoming wrong, has nothing to do with >how "good" we are. > >Why should I feel intense hate for the father by looking at the child? >Even if I did, why should that in anyway affect whether or not the child >has a right to live? > I don't disagree with what you have just said. But other people disagree with your answer to the question of when human life begins. Thus, they don't see the aborted fetus as a child whose life has been deprived. >I can somewhat imagine my own daughter in this light. I think that as >she grew and I got to know her more for who she *is, herself*--seeing >her run and play, laugh and cry, etc.--I would become more convinced that >any such association of hate with her would be totally unfounded. I know >there are couples who have had this experience. The same may be said for >stigmas that are attached to women and Blacks. We may take them for >granted when we view such people as objects, but get to know some of them >and you come to realize that stigmas are foolish. This is not to say >that the process of overcoming them is easy. It isn't. But since when do >we judge the right or wrong of such stigmas by their difficulty in being >overcome? > >[As an aside, I would like to note that I have taken the implied >alternatives you present at face value. I don't mind doing this, >but I think it's important to note that aborting the child and having >to raise her are not the only alternatives. If the parents are not >"good enough" to overcome the stigma attached to the child themselves, >this would be a much lesser burden for adoptive parents. At least >then the child would have a life free from the stigmatization associated >with the circumstances of her conception.] > >Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd I agree Paul. I personally favor adoption over abortion in most cases. I also favor education and choice. I would hope that an educated person (not propagandized or made to feel guilty by those who would impose their moral/religious beliefs) would choose to carry the child to term and put it up for adoption. But I can't ignore the fact that other people do not believe the way I do about this highly moral/religious issue. I also cannot ignore the fact that I am not a woman and thus I cannot fathom all of the facets of this issue. And since I cannot fully understand the female side of the issue I support a woman's right to choose.
regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (10/09/85)
>re stuff about "the child of a fiend". . . >Yet, I think the pro-choice camp sees rape as a powerful tool to justify >the present state of abortion law. Why aren't *they* offering a compromise? Like the pro-life camp sees "viability" determination as a powerful tool to justify outlawing abortion? Maybe the pro-choice camp isn't offering a compromise because they are interested in allowing the woman the choice for herself. >Who *is* psychologically prepared to handle the trauma associated with >being the victim of rape? Does abortion really lessen the trauma? Yes/no/maybe. Isn't the question really "What are the options available to the woman in lessening the trauma?" Currently, abortion is one of a NUMBER of options. Some (though not all) pro-life people would remove it from the list of options. Pro-choice people would not. >Could abortion possibly add to the trauma of rape >in some cases? Certainly. But in the current state of things, a rape victim is not forced to undergo an abortion. It is an option. In the film as well, I got the definite impression that the abortion experience was a trauma in itself, specifically because it wasn't a legal option, but an illegal one. Had it been legal, the woman in question may still have spoken out against rape, but I doubt we'd see her on TV supporting abortion because of the DOUBLE trauma she had to undergo. The question of what is the best thing to do about >the "psychological unpreparedness" of the woman seems to be being begged >here. Is there anything that can or should be done to help a woman >in this predicament that doesn't involve abortion? There is lots of counselling for rape victims available whether they are impregnated by the attacker or not. In most counselling situations, the woman may speak of any issues she wants -- including or excluding the pregnancy issue. What do you think is being deliberately avoided? >Is that really >considered an option, or do we just default to abortion as a good >solution? "We" don't do anything. "She" currently makes a choice. That choice is subject to the same constraints as other human choices -- excellent or faulty logic, personal understanding, listening to the good or bad advice of third parties, consideration of laws, culture, customs, personal preference. What on earth should "we" be able to have to do with her choice??? >If the fetus is not to be hated because of the rape then there >is a greater possibility of remorse from the abortion being added to >the trauma of rape. This may explain the placing of the stigma on the >fetus as a defense mechanism, an added justification for abortion. It certainly is a possiblity. One that I think a woman in that situation should take into consideration when she makes her choice. It is also a possibility that she could suffer equal remorse from the decision NOT to have an abortion. >But even as such, I think it is misplaced and unjust. On top of these >possibilities, the burden of how to deal with them seems to be placed >completely on the woman (and may be shared by members of her family). >Is she going to make the best decision for her and her child on her own? Define "best". Define "on her own". Do these conditions exist? >Is there much support for decisions other than abortion? It seems that >nobody dares ask her these questions. Well, I don't know about you. I personally don't know anyone who was impregnanted by rape (that they have told me about anyway) and therefore cannot comment conclusively on what "they" "dare" to ask "her". But it sure seems to me that you are ignoring a whole series of recent (past 20 years) developments in counselling, law enforcement and cultural expansion. Women USED to hide under haystacks and be ostracized by society if they acknowledged that they had been raped. In our western culture, we notice a real decline in this kind of thinking over recent years. I don't know what questions people ask a rape victim who is pregnant. I do know that people often ask a pregnant person early in her term, "Are you going to have it?" which implies a choice needs to be made, and does not imply any assumption of wanted/unwanted pregnancy. A minority ask, "When are you going to have it?" and I suppose there is also a minority (that I know nothing about) who ask, "When are you going to get rid of it?", both of which questions imply a choice has been made. I would presume a similar set of questions get asked of rape victims, with a heavier weighting on the "Are you going to get rid of it" since the assumption is that a rape- created fetus is ipso facto an unwanted fetus. Generally, I can't stand assumptions, since in the main, it's easy enough to discover the specifics. BUT, it does seem to me that this is a pretty safe assumption to make regarding a rape victim. It would also seem to me to be pretty obvious that the family/friends/professional counsellors of a rape victim who knew the victim was philosophically opposed to abortion would lend their support to her choice to carry the fetus to term. But this is just speculation.
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (Damballah Wedo) (10/10/85)
> > Me > Paul Dubuc > >Your example is particularly vivid for me. I am black and married a white > >woman. Yes, there are tough times: quizzical looks, odd questions, > >hostile comments... It's not easy, even in supposedly liberal New Jersey. > >We knew this beforehand. It still hurts, but we felt and feel our > >relationship is strong enough to endure. The woman who was raped did > >not have that choice to make. > > I don't see how the amount of choice involved justifies any stigmas. > The couple I know had less of a choice than you. Their daughter > was conceived out of wedlock and the woman was visibly pregnant at their > wedding. The point is that the stigmas are equally unjust, it doesn't depend > on who had what choice. In fact the lack of choice involved should make > them seem more unjust because it should make it harder to argue from the > irrelevant idea that "they brought it upon themselves". (You seem to > be using a form of this argument in your own case: It's different > because we took it all upon ourselves by making the choice.) There was choice involved in both cases. The decision was to proceed with a socially disagreeable union. The couple you speak of had the option to abort. They chose, for whatever reason, not to do so. Of two difficult options, they chose the most palatable, to them. A woman pregnant as a result of rape who is denied an abortion is denied any choice at all. I argue she must be able to make that choice. I agree with you that other options, adoption, keeping the child, etc, should be pointed out to her. However, if she still chooses to abort, none of us has business judging her or second-guessing that decision. > >I do not disagree with your point that her child should not be held > >responsible for the crime of the father. I argue, however, that to demand > >that the mother not resent this child goes beyond the bounds of what can > >reasonably expected of human beings. > > I'm not *demanding*, Marcel. I'm trying to reason it out. Let's pick a hypothetical example: a woman is raped, discovers she is pregnant. She comes into a counseling center, where she is briefed on the options open to her: abortion, carrying the baby to term and giving it up for adoption, and keeping the child. She goes home, thinks about it for a couple of days, discusses it with sympathetic friends and family. She then decides to abort. Is that acceptable to you? If not, why not? > It isn't > beyond human *capability*, necessarily, especially if there is more support > than a woman typically gets in this situation. Don't our "expectations" > have a way of determining what support we will give? Is the idea that > this behavior cannot be "reasonably expected" related to the lack of > support? What is the real reason for this lack? Who is determining > the bounds you talk about? Is overcoming racial hatred beyond reasonable > bounds for some? Is that supposed to lower our expectations on the issue > of racial bigotry itself? It seems that you are arguing along these lines > in the case of abortion and rape. Overcoming racial hatred is a morality issue that is completeley separate from the legal issue of equal rights for all. The Civil Rights act did *not* outlaw bigotry, but made it an inadmissible basis for legislation. The difference is crucial. You cannot expect people to love, or even not hate, one another. You can and do expect them not to deny others a chance for self-advancement on a basis other than ability. > No, I'm not withdrawing the option, I'm asking that support for another one > be provided. This other option will take support. I realize that pro-life > folks are going to have to help. What about the pro-choice side? They > seem to be pushing the path of least support. The pro-choice position is that the *woman* should have as many options as possible, that no option should be denied to her because of what others believe. I can agree with you on the need to make the woman aware of all options. Given that, her decision, no matter what it is, cannot be criticised. That is particularly important in the case of rape, where the woman had no say at all over getting pregnant. > >[I assume] that we are attempting to define a public policy acceptable to all of > >us. I am not interested in arguing morality, for that is a dry exercise in > >futility. The multiple megabytes that have already been expended on the > >morality or lack thereof of abortion should convince anyone that there is > >no single morality that all can agree on > >Given that impasse, if we are not trying > >to reach a compromise on public policy, why are we all wasting our time? > > Does public policy have *nothing* to do with morality (a lot of people are > sure that *foreign* policy does)? It seems that whether or not moral > arguments seem a dry exercise in futility, depends on whose morality is being > challenged more than just the fact that we are debating morality. You > are using moral arguments (at least, arguing from moral premises, as I am), > Marcel. It's a wonder you don't realize it. Where public policy reflects > the moral treatment of human beings, I would think that discussion would not > be a waste of time. At heart, the abortion debate is over who has primacy, the woman or the fetus. The two are mutually exclusive. The pro-choice position, to my mind, has a firm moral footing. So does the anti-abortion side. It all depends on point of view. So no one is right and everybody is right. What is boils down to, then, is which group has the greater political power; so policy will *not* be based on morality, but on politics: policy will be set based on the wishes of the most powerful group, and tempered by the wishes of the minority. Now, do you want to find this happy medium or do you want to talk about what is "right" until the end of time? -- Marcel-Franck Simon ihnp4!{mhuxr, hl3b5b}!mfs " Papa Loko, ou se' van, ou-a pouse'-n alle' Nou se' papiyon, n-a pote' nouvel bay Agwe' "
barb@oliven.UUCP (Barbara Jernigan) (10/14/85)
> >> Who *is* psychologically prepared to handle the trauma associated with > >> being the victim of rape? Does abortion really lessen the trauma? > >>[PAUL DUBUC] > > > >Does carrying the reminder of that rape to term lessen the trauma, either? > >Yes, Paul, the 'innocent fetus' *IS* stigmatized, 'justly' or 'unjustly.' > >But the lines of 'Justice' get blurred when there's so much [violent] > >emotion involved. > > But are you trying to argue that there is no cause here to firm up the > lines of justice? Why? The lines of justice get blurred in other emotional > circumstances also. I don't *think*, I'm trying to argue 'cause' or 'not' -- I just wanted to point out the difficulty of finding a clear-cut course of action in the above situation. Your later postings on the subject are also sensitive to this, Paul. I'm sorry that I misconstrued your initial artical as an attempt to define an 'every-case' action. > Some may not have the emotional fortitude to let their planned children > survive. Does that speak any less of the value of those children as > human beings? No, it doesn't. [You ask difficult questions, by the way, thank you.] > >Paul, your point is valid -- there is an injustice in transferring the > >guilt of the father onto the fetus. A terrible injustice. But the issue > >of abortion or not hinges upon the well-being of the mother. For many > >women pregnancy [especially the early months] is NOT a very pleasant > >experience. When the child is planned -- or at least a product of the > >woman's chosen actions -- the miracle of life outweighs the 'inconvenience.' > > The third sentence is the crux. Why does the issue 'hinge' only on the > well being of the mother? Why does another person's inconvenience determine > whether someone else's life is "the miracle of life" or "a very unpleasant > experience" (one to be gotten rid of)? It has a lot to do with the woman's emotional ability to carry the fetus to term. I'm not saying this is 'Right,' I'm saying this is the way it is. That this state of affairs is not carved in stone, as it were, leads, as you suggest, Paul, to a moral self-search and thense toward action to change the *status quo*. I am very much for counselling the various options available to a pregnant woman (whether that be by rape, a one-night-stand, or any other situation of intercourse) -- as I said in my first posting to the net some months ago. > Why is carrying the > child to term "making the woman pay for the crime" and abortion not > "making the fetus pay (with her life)"? This is the hump, and we haven't > really gotten over it. It's such a clear cut choice for one who does > not think that the fetus is a rightful human being in the first place. > It is less clear for those who do. I agree, fully. > The determination of which humans > have the right to live and which don't is not something we like to leave > up to individual discretion. The pro-choice philosophy assumes that > this *is* the case for the fetus, but no one else. How is this? Because the full "humanity" of the fetus is in question -- read the net. Also because of the fetus' dependence on the inner body of the woman, requiring her total submission for a period of nine months or so, to the nurturing of said fetus, THUS causing a need to weigh her, an adult human being, against the fetus, a potential human being. For many people, "Is" versus "Potential" decides the issue. [NOTE: This is less "Right" the more I carefully consider it, but I still would not urge that abortion be made illegal -- more difficult, yes, but *illegal*, I perceive, would not "solve" the "problem" and *would* add additional dangers to an extant situation.] > Again, as I said in an article which you probably hadn't read yet, I think > the trauma can be lessened by providing willing support for women for > options that don't involve abortion. Do you have any objections to > removing the part of that trauma that stems from the lack of support? Not at all. Indeed, I encourage such support. > > ...I think the better answer is to help more women get that kind of support > [to not abort in the case of rape]. Without that it really isn't much of a > choice for her, is it? As you can see above (I hope), I do support counselling including *all* the options. I agree with you, providing/supporting only one option is not grounds for choice. > ...If we come > to value the humanity of the fetus *as a human being itself*, then this > humanity must be given consideration for the fetus in cases of rape > also. Since the fetus had no responsible part in the crime, her rights > are not affected. This situation makes the decision of whether or > not abortion is justified in cases of rape much less absolute than > the pro-choice media makes it out to be. I am equally opposed to rape > and abortion. Because rape is illegal, I can see making a *practical* > concession to abortion in cases of rape, but I would like to see steps > taken to make avoiding abortion a more viable option for women who do > fall victim to rape because I still see the fetus as a rightful human > being. [I wanted to reprint this because I felt it was an IMPORTANT point, too easily swept under the carpet.] I thank you, Paul, for asking the hard questions. Keep doing so, I need such challenges, lest I use ignorance as an excuse not to think. Barb Jernigan