Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site uscvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!hplabs!sdcrdcf!uscvax!kurtzman
From: kurtzman@uscvax.UUCP (Stephen Kurtzman)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: "The child of a fiend"
Message-ID: <74@uscvax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 9-Oct-85 14:53:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: uscvax.74
Posted: Wed Oct  9 14:53:14 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 12-Oct-85 18:37:37 EDT
References: <5986@cbscc.UUCP> <5@uscvax.UUCP> <6032@cbscc.UUCP>
Reply-To: kurtzman@usc-cse.UUCP (Stephen Kurtzman)
Distribution: net
Organization: CS&CE Depts, U.S.C., Los Angeles, CA
Lines: 203

In article <6032@cbscc.UUCP> pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) writes:
>
>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 wasn't trying to avoid the question of legitimacy. I was merely trying to
point out that it may not be a legitimate for a male to decide legitimacy in
this case. Would you force your wife to carry the child of a rapist if you
knew that doing so might do more damage to her psyche? Only the woman faced
with such a decision can make that decision. It seems unreasonable for a man
to sit back and proclaim the sacredness of life when he will never know the
pain of rape or being force to carry a child to term.

>>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.
>

"Such a child" refers to a child whose conception was an act of violence and
hatred. That does not mean that the child is evil. It was meant to
distinguish the child conceived through an act of rape as opposed to child
conceived through acts of love or recreation. I'm sorry if you got the wrong
impression.

>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?

Not only the pro-choice camp, but many anti-abortionists use rape as a tool.
Much of the proposed legislation against abortion has included provisions
for exceptions in the event of rape. Why isn't pro-choice offering a
compromise? The principle behind pro-choice is that a woman, not
society, should have control over her own body. The principle behind pro-life
is that society should have that control so that society can
protect the life of the unborn. A compromise, like what I think you are
implying, would be no compromise for pro-life (since society would still be 
in control), and abandonment of their position for pro-choice. Advocating
choice only in those cases deemed appropriate by society is giving society
the ultimate control over choice - i.e. it is not pro-choice.

>
>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?

Yes, abortion could add to the trauma just as carrying the child of a rapist
could add to the trauma. The pro-choice (and many pro-life) people advocate
allowing the woman to make her own choice. Not having a choice in the matter
could be even more traumatic than having an abortion. Clearly, different
people will react differently. Allowing choice in the case of rape could
very well contribute to the mental health of the assaulted woman.

>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?

Yes, many things can and should be done. But what would you like to have
done? Certainly a woman should get counciling after being raped. Society can
do a lot to assist a woman in getting this counciling (that is, if she will
admit to being raped - which many will not for many psychological reasons).

I don't think anyone called abortion a solution for rape. Abortion, however,
does seem to be the way some women opt to handle the result of a rape. This
in no way is meant to imply that the abortion will solve all of the
psychological problems associated with rape - it may help some women with
certain aspects of the trauma if they do not want to carry the child to term.
The pro-choice side supports a woman's right to control her own body in this
way if she desires. No one I know has every advocated mandatory abortion in
cases of rape.


>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.

Proper counciling should eliminate those women for whom abortion would
compound the trauma. If a woman chooses to have an abortion she may very
well feel great remorse. I understand that this is a normal reaction (from
the women I know who have had abortions have had exactly this reaction -
consequently they now use birth control). In any event, the woman must take
responsibility for her actions - society cannot protect her from that.

>This may explain the placing of the stigma on the
>fetus as a defense mechanism, an added justification for abortion.

Be serious! The woman does not set out to have an abortion and then justify
it by hatred of the fetus. 

>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.
>

If the woman confides in her loved ones they will give her their best
council. From all this and professional counciling, she can make her own
choice. Would you trust society/government to make the best choice for her?
Society/government is not concerned with individuals. It is concerned with
the aggregate as a whole. People get trampled by society/government all the
time.

>>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"?

People should try to be good. Facts are, many people don't make. Many more
don't even try.

>
>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 don't disagree with what you have just said. But other people disagree
with your answer to the question of when human life begins. Thus, they
don't see the aborted fetus as a child whose life has been deprived.

>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


I agree Paul. I personally favor adoption over abortion in most cases. I
also favor education and choice. I would hope that an educated person (not
propagandized or made to feel guilty by those who would impose their
moral/religious beliefs) would choose to carry the child to term and put it
up for adoption. But I can't ignore the fact that other people do not
believe the way I do about this highly moral/religious issue. I also cannot
ignore the fact that I am not a woman and thus I cannot fathom all of the
facets of this issue. And since I cannot fully understand the female side of
the issue I support a woman's right to choose.