Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbsck!cbscc!pmd
From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: "The child of a fiend"
Message-ID: <5986@cbscc.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 26-Sep-85 13:17:27 EDT
Article-I.D.: cbscc.5986
Posted: Thu Sep 26 13:17:27 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Sep-85 05:47:52 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories <SCCS>, Columbus
Lines: 29


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


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com