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!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mfs From: mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (Damballah Wedo) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: "The child of a fiend" Message-ID: <457@mhuxr.UUCP> Date: Thu, 10-Oct-85 09:05:07 EDT Article-I.D.: mhuxr.457 Posted: Thu Oct 10 09:05:07 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 12-Oct-85 17:45:33 EDT References: <5986@cbscc.UUCP> <5@uscvax.UUCP> <6032@cbscc.UUCP> <450@mhuxr.UUCP> <1332@cbsck.UUCP> <455@mhuxr.UUCP> <6049@cbscc.UUCP> Organization: The Poto Mitan in the Houmfor Lines: 105 > > Me > Paul Dubuc > >Your example is particularly 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 easy, 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 don't see how the amount of choice involved justifies any stigmas. > The couple I know had less of a choice than you. Their daughter > was conceived out of wedlock and the woman was visibly pregnant at their > wedding. The point is that the stigmas are equally unjust, it doesn't depend > on who had what choice. In fact the lack of choice involved should make > them seem more unjust because it should make it harder to argue from the > irrelevant idea that "they brought it upon themselves". (You seem to > be using a form of this argument in your own case: It's different > because we took it all upon ourselves by making the choice.) There was choice involved in both cases. The decision was to proceed with a socially disagreeable union. The couple you speak of had the option to abort. They chose, for whatever reason, not to do so. Of two difficult options, they chose the most palatable, to them. A woman pregnant as a result of rape who is denied an abortion is denied any choice at all. I argue she must be able to make that choice. I agree with you that other options, adoption, keeping the child, etc, should be pointed out to her. However, if she still chooses to abort, none of us has business judging her or second-guessing that decision. > >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. > > I'm not *demanding*, Marcel. I'm trying to reason it out. Let's pick a hypothetical example: a woman is raped, discovers she is pregnant. She comes into a counseling center, where she is briefed on the options open to her: abortion, carrying the baby to term and giving it up for adoption, and keeping the child. She goes home, thinks about it for a couple of days, discusses it with sympathetic friends and family. She then decides to abort. Is that acceptable to you? If not, why not? > It isn't > beyond human *capability*, necessarily, especially if there is more support > than a woman typically gets in this situation. Don't our "expectations" > have a way of determining what support we will give? Is the idea that > this behavior cannot be "reasonably expected" related to the lack of > support? What is the real reason for this lack? Who is determining > the bounds you talk about? Is overcoming racial hatred beyond reasonable > bounds for some? Is that supposed to lower our expectations on the issue > of racial bigotry itself? It seems that you are arguing along these lines > in the case of abortion and rape. Overcoming racial hatred is a morality issue that is completeley separate from the legal issue of equal rights for all. The Civil Rights act did *not* outlaw bigotry, but made it an inadmissible basis for legislation. The difference is crucial. You cannot expect people to love, or even not hate, one another. You can and do expect them not to deny others a chance for self-advancement on a basis other than ability. > No, I'm not withdrawing the option, I'm asking that support for another one > be provided. This other option will take support. I realize that pro-life > folks are going to have to help. What about the pro-choice side? They > seem to be pushing the path of least support. The pro-choice position is that the *woman* should have as many options as possible, that no option should be denied to her because of what others believe. I can agree with you on the need to make the woman aware of all options. Given that, her decision, no matter what it is, cannot be criticised. That is particularly important in the case of rape, where the woman had no say at all over getting pregnant. > >[I assume] that we are attempting 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 > >Given that impasse, if we are not trying > >to reach a compromise on public policy, why are we all wasting our time? > > Does public policy have *nothing* to do with morality (a lot of people are > sure that *foreign* policy does)? It seems that whether or not moral > arguments seem a dry exercise in futility, depends on whose morality is being > challenged more than just the fact that we are debating morality. You > are using moral arguments (at least, arguing from moral premises, as I am), > Marcel. It's a wonder you don't realize it. Where public policy reflects > the moral treatment of human beings, I would think that discussion would not > be a waste of time. At heart, the abortion debate is over who has primacy, the woman or the fetus. The two are mutually exclusive. The pro-choice position, to my mind, has a firm moral footing. So does the anti-abortion side. It all depends on point of view. So no one is right and everybody is right. What is boils down to, then, is which group has the greater political power; so policy will *not* be based on morality, but on politics: policy will be set based on the wishes of the most powerful group, and tempered by the wishes of the minority. Now, do you want to find this happy medium or do you want to talk about what is "right" until the end of 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' "