Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbsck.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbsck!pmd From: pmd@cbsck.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: "The child of a fiend" Message-ID: <1359@cbsck.UUCP> Date: Wed, 31-Dec-69 18:59:59 EDT Article-I.D.: cbsck.1359 Posted: Wed Dec 31 18:59:59 1969 Date-Received: Sat, 12-Oct-85 18:50:26 EDT References: <5986@cbscc.UUCP> <5@uscvax.UUCP> <6032@cbscc.UUCP> <450@mhuxr.UUCP> <1332@cbsck.UUCP> <455@mhuxr.UUCP> <6049@cbscc.UUCP> <457@mhuxr.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories , Columbus Lines: 137 YARM (Yet Another Response to Marcel): >> 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. My argument here has been that stigmas attached to you, my friends, or the child conceived as the result of rape are all unjust. No amount of saying who had what choice makes any difference in these cases. Your reasoning would seem to imply that a woman who chooses to keep the child bears part of the blame for the stigma that will be attached to her and the child. Are you really saying that, with regard to my friends, that some of the bigotry that they have to deal with is justified because they chose not to get an abortion? Are you saying that is also the case with your marriage? If so, it is at that point that we disagree. As to the woman who had been raped, you don't seem to understand yet that I am not arguing that the choice be denied. I would like to see a little more effort than just "pointing out the options". I would like to see some effort in making those options more workable. >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? The scenario is acceptable on the face of it. My only objection might be in how she was briefed on the options. I think a reasonable attempt should be made to show her that the other options can be workable, and to make the commitment to support her should she choose those others. I'm repeating some of what I said in my response to Barbara Jernigan. Maybe you hadn't read that by the time you posted this. >> 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 completely 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. I'm asking you what you think about the moral issue, Marcel? I don't think I'm confusing it with any legislative issues. What legislation am I proposing in the above paragraph? While you may be correct in making this distinction, you cannot say that there is no relationship here. Barring bigotry as the basis of legislation (and hiring practices) has given much support to the moral cause of overcoming racial hatred, and it was this moral cause that was behind the Civil Rights Act in the first place. If the right to life of the fetus is to be recognized, there will be a similar effect, and this effect will have implications in cases of rape also (maybe not legal ones, but certainly moral ones. Morality plays a larger part in public policy, and the policy of social service organizations, than you imply). >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 criticized. That is >particularly important in the case of rape, where the woman had no say at all >over getting pregnant. I'm arguing that the humanity of the fetus has some implications for what options should be available. Where human life is threatened we generally limit the options of others or, at least, give greater support for options that preserve human life. Some people believe it's fine to own slaves. Their option to do so is denied because of what others believe. In the case of rape, I am making the same distinction you are. The woman had no choice about having sex, let alone getting pregnant. Rape is a crime in itself (been through this before). >> 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. How is this so, Marcel? I think the heart of the debate is whether or not the fetus has the same right to live that we believe her mother has. >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? Do you think someone should have explained this to Martin Luther King? He did a lot of talking about what was "right", Marcel. So is the Bishop Desmond Tutu. Should he keep his morality out of the politics of South Africa? What is the "happy medium" you propose on the abortion issue? The status quo? That argument wouldn't have held with the pro-choice camp before Row vs Wade. It didn't sit well with the abolitionists after Dred Scott either. Politics has no connection with morality only in the eyes of those who favor the status quo. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd