saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley, Univ. of Waterloo) (03/01/84)
In this section, I will refer to "punitive-pregnancy"
groups as groups who are advocating using forced pregnancy
as a punishment for people who have not "behaved" properly.
People of such beliefs are to be found both in the pro-life
and pro-choice groups.
_0._1. _T_h_e _c_r_i_m_e
Even though in most people's minds the crime is quite
clear: lack of a responsible attitude while having sex, it
is not very easily defined, and the definition varies from
person to person, as the responses to my questions showed
(which I didn't post, but I can tell you that they were
varied). Basically it seems that each person has her/his own
definition of "sexual responsibility", and some people
believe that they should impose their view of responsability
on other people. There is nothing new about this, except
that the means used in this case are very debatable. I will
talk a bit more about responsability later on, but for the
purpose of the present chapter, I can safely (I hope) say
that the crime in question here is "having the wrong atti-
tude about sex and parenthood".
_0._2. _T_h_e _c_r_i_m_i_n_a_l_s
The criminals can be defined as "the people who are
guilty of the crime and who will be punished if caught". In
most cases - except when one of the sexual partners lied to
the other about their use of birth control or attitudes
about parenthood - the people who are guilty of the crime
are both sexual partners, yet of the two, the woman is the
one who is punished the most severely if the pregnancy is
not allowed to be terminated. If the child is given up for
adoption, she will be punished physically by being foced to
stay pregnant against her will. The father will not be pun-
ished. If the child is not given up for adoption, not only
will she be punished during her pregnancy, but she will be
punished afterwards for the next 20 years or so, taking care
of a child she did not want. The father will be punished in
the sense that he will have to support the child finan-
cially, but this is the only legal punishment reserved for
him.
Notice that I am not talking about the actual punish-
ments, as some fathers might decide to marry their lover to
provide a home for the child, or might decide to share the
mother's punishment by taking an active role in the preg-
nancy, childbirth and care of the child, but I am talking
about the "legal" punishments: except for the financial sup-
port of the child, the father is not punished by the law for
his crime; as any parent knows, financial support is useful,
but is nothing compared with all the rest of the work
involved in bringing up children. Therefore the punitive-
pregnancy legal systems to date have been very anti-women,
punishing only mainly the woman of the guilty couple. This
is not to say that an equitable (in a sense) punitive-
pregnancy legal system could not be devised whereby both
partners could be as much as possible equally punished, but
simply that no such system has existed yet to the best of my
knowledge, and that groups concerned about punishment of
this specific crime have not been too concerned about the
equitability of their punishment system, justifying the
feminist accusations of rampant women-hating in these
groups.
Turning my attention to the selection of the guilty
couple. It is interesting to note that the only couples
being punished for their crimes are those where the mother
actually becomes pregnant. If society is interested in the
punishment of this particular crime, it should, if it is
equitable, also punish those who are found by other means to
have commited the crime, and the punishment should be the
same as the one for those who get pregnant: forced preg-
nancy. Yet, the mere suggestion of such a punishment is
revolting to most for many different reasons most of which
could be used as pro-choice arguments. I will not list them
here as I will (or have already) mentioned these arguments
somewhere along the way in this monologue (if I am wrong,
please correct me).
Again this is not to say that it would be impossible to
devise a punitive-pregnancy system whereby all guilty people
could be punished whether or not they get pregnant, but sim-
ply that such a system is not being seriously considered by
people interested in punitive-pregnancy systems. This could
mean a few things:
1 that punishment of this crime is not worth setting up
such a system, in which case, why set up the system in
the first place if not to make a few people suffer or
to use those people for deterrence purposes?
2 That the punishment system is just an excuse for some-
thing else, in which case, why not be honest and state
the real purpose? maybe there are better ways of
obtaining what is wanted.
3 That only pregnant women are sufficiently guilty to be
punished. The only difference between them and other
women who commited the same crime, is their fertility,
something they probably have no control over. This
would also justify some feminist claims of complete
disrespect for women's fertility by society.
_0._3. _T_h_e _p_o_l_i_c_e
As only pregnant women are punished under current
punitive-pregnancy systems, the policing for this crime is
be very easily done. The women's own bodies take care of
it. This implies, that women who do not whish to have many
children will consider their own bodies and fertility as
alien to themselves, waiting to catch them doing something
wrong. This paranoid schizophrenic attitude about their own
bodies is already quite common among women who practise
birth control, as birth control is a power fight between
women's will and their bodies. The methods used to silence
the body are more or less forceful and harmful but they are
antagonistic, and create a mistrust of their own bodies by
women. Using their own fertility as a watchdog over women
will only reinforce this antagonism. The result will often
be self-hate and a feeling of being trapped by one's own
anatomy, something we are barely starting to come out of,
thank god.
This self-hate is a very powerful tool for anybody
interested in the subjugation of women, this is why it is so
important to really look very closely at our motives for
proposing such a punitive-pregnancy system. If the system
is not completely equitable, then one has reasons to wonder
whether it is not simply an excuse to hit a specific group
people.
(..... to be continued ........)
Sophie Quigley
..!watmath!saquigley
March 1, 1984mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (03/04/84)
Sophie's analysis of the prohibition of abortion as punishment of the
mother (and perhaps father) for irresponsible attitudes is very acute.
Perhaps is should be extended, because the child whose birth is forced
is equally being punished by being brought into the world unwanted
and probably unloved. Such a child may well wish s/he had never been
born. To be brought up unwanted can truly be a fate worse than death.
So the punishment the "moralists" want to visit upon the unfortunate
parents is probably the only true case of the sins of the fathers being
visited upon the sons.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmtpmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (03/06/84)
[from Sophie Quigley:] > In this section, I will refer to "punitive-pregnancy" > groups as groups who are advocating using forced pregnancy > as a punishment for people who have not "behaved" properly. > People of such beliefs are to be found both in the pro-life > and pro-choice groups. ... > ... If the child is given up for > adoption, she will be punished physically by being forced to > stay pregnant against her will. The father will not be pun- > ished. If the child is not given up for adoption, not only > will she be punished during her pregnancy, but she will be > punished afterwards for the next 20 years or so, taking care > of a child she did not want. The father will be punished in > the sense that he will have to support the child finan- > cially, but this is the only legal punishment reserved for > him. ... Sophie, I don't know how you can expect pro-life people to listen to an argument that totally ignores the issue of whether or not the fetus is human and has rights of its own. I do not see this as an issue of "punishment" for those who have not "behaved" properly. People should be able to accept the natural consequences of their behaviour, whether or not its result is what they had intended; especially where the life or death of another human being (the fetus) is concerned. Those using imperfect birth control methods should be able to accept the fact that pregnancy is still a possiblity. Sure, removing abortion as a legal and "safe" alternative will affect the "sexual freedom" of some. But I think that human lives weigh much heavier in the balence than that kind of "freedom". I don't think rape justifies abortion either. This doesn't mean I don't regard rape as a hateful act. I just don't think that killing an innocent fetus is the answer, or even helps the situation. I think it may even compound the problem more than the pregnancy. (But what do I know? I'm a man. Well, I've heard it from plenty of women.) Emotion aside, what real justification is there for making an innocent child bear the brunt of our hate and hurt resulting from rape? I think our efforts are better spent trying to combat the occurence of rape in our society than making abortion part of the supposed solution. The circumstances under which the pregnancy comes about don't make any difference in a consistent pro-life stand. (Although it's possible that the medical condition of the pregnancy might make a difference.) With regard to sexual conduct and abortion, where do you place such groups as "Feminists for Life" who take the position that abortion on demand supports the image of the woman's body as being a "reusable" sex object? (Think about it. It might make sense.) Also, you portray pregnancy and child raising as a burden and "punishment" without regard to the not-so-rare complications of abortion. Are such consequences also to be considered "punishment"? From whom, and for what? If the fetus is a human being with equal rights, then yes the the mother should be "forced" not to kill her child in the womb. (That's another way of looking at it isn't it?) And the father should be "forced" to bear financial responsibility. If that isn't possible, alternatives to abortion can still be worked out. (Yes, it will cost some people some money, but I think it's worth it. I will, and do, contribute willingly). If you still think this to be "punishment", well, you can *call it* whatever you want. If the child is not adopted then the parents are not being punished. No one forced them to keep the child. It sure is hard to let go of your baby after you've seen it, but if you're going to hate taking care of it for the next 20 years, then giving is to a couple who would love to take care of it (there are plenty of those. There's a seven year waiting list in Columbus) is a more responsible decision than "terminating" it. The courts see plenty of justification in taking children away from parents who abuse them because they consider such parents to be irresponsible. (This is only to show that the law does rule on what it considers to be responsible behaviour in parents.) For what crime is the fetus being punished with death? (Trying to keep the issue in focus.) Paul Dubuc
saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (03/06/84)
Paul Dubuc,
If you read the preliminary articles I posted on the subject, you will see
that the particular article on Sex and punishment was addressed at people
in the pro-choice camp who were willing to let women have abortions depending
on how "hard" they had tried to control their fertility. As I said in my
first article on the subject in net.women, I am not adressing my articles
to people like you who have a completely different ethical system from mine;
In your system, life is THE most important value. In mine, it is alright
to kill under certain conditions. I am trying to explore what are those
conditions and how valid they are. Please read my original articles and you
might get a better idea of what I am trying to do.
Sophie Quigley
...!{decvax,allegra}!watmath!saquigleycej@ll1.UUCP (Chuck Jones MMOCS) (03/06/84)
[] Paul, I yield you your right to your opinion, but I really am amazed that you would not allow a women to have an abortion after a rape that caused a pregnancy! I do agree with you that the ultimate answer is to prevent rape. I do object, however, to your comment that pro-choice people think that abortion is "part of the answer". (Apparently part of the answer to the question of rape.) Let's not put words in the pro-choicer's mouths. Abortions after the fact will obviously not do anything to prevent rape. However, to condemn a woman to carry the fetus of a rapist??! To make carry a constant reminder of the assault she suffered? To make her have the baby of a man who committed the ultimate violation of her person and her spirit? A rape must be the hardest of traumas to overcome, even if the woman was not seriously harmed. And you really believe that it is better for her to have this baby, and ruin here life, and the child's, than to have an abortion? (Yes I said ruin the child's. I can't imagine that most woman could really ever love this child, and I can't imagine that they would treat their body properly during pregnancy (probably damaging the child), if they could even withstand it mentally. And, yes I believe that this kind of stress will damage the fetus.) I'm kind of in the middle on the rest of the issues, but of this I'm sure; no woman should be forced to bear her rapist's child. This is the ultimate punishment of the ultimate victim. ...we13!ll1!cej Chuck Jones