Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site mhuxr.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!mhuxt!mhuxr!mfs
From: mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (Damballah Wedo)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: "The child of a fiend"
Message-ID: <455@mhuxr.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 7-Oct-85 22:30:52 EDT
Article-I.D.: mhuxr.455
Posted: Mon Oct  7 22:30:52 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 10-Oct-85 06:14:18 EDT
References: <5986@cbscc.UUCP> <5@uscvax.UUCP> <6032@cbscc.UUCP>, <450@mhuxr.UUCP> <1332@cbsck.UUCP>
Organization: The Poto Mitan in the Houmfor
Lines: 62

> 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' "