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: Re: "The child of a fiend" Message-ID: <6032@cbscc.UUCP> Date: Fri, 4-Oct-85 12:18:37 EDT Article-I.D.: cbscc.6032 Posted: Fri Oct 4 12:18:37 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 5-Oct-85 06:58:55 EDT References: <5986@cbscc.UUCP> <5@uscvax.UUCP> Reply-To: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) Distribution: net Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories , Columbus Lines: 116 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 Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com