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!linus!decvax!ucbvax!ucdavis!lll-crg!dual!qantel!ihnp4!cbosgd!cbsck!cbscc!pmd From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: "The child of a fiend" Message-ID: <6057@cbscc.UUCP> Date: Wed, 9-Oct-85 12:33:18 EDT Article-I.D.: cbscc.6057 Posted: Wed Oct 9 12:33:18 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 12-Oct-85 08:14:06 EDT References: <5986@cbscc.UUCP> <5@uscvax.UUCP> <6032@cbscc.UUCP> <427@oliven.UUCP> Reply-To: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) Distribution: net Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories , Columbus Lines: 158 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