Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ttidcc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!dual!lll-crg!seismo!cmcl2!philabs!ttidca!ttidcc!regard
From: regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: "The child of a fiend"
Message-ID: <758@ttidcc.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 9-Oct-85 16:05:03 EDT
Article-I.D.: ttidcc.758
Posted: Wed Oct  9 16:05:03 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 12-Oct-85 21:45:15 EDT
Organization: TTI, Santa Monica, CA.
Lines: 97

>re stuff about "the child of a fiend". . .
>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?

Like the pro-life camp sees "viability" determination as a powerful tool
to justify outlawing abortion?  Maybe the pro-choice camp isn't offering
a compromise because they are interested in allowing the woman the choice
for herself.

>Who *is* psychologically prepared to handle the trauma associated with
>being the victim of rape?  Does abortion really lessen the trauma?

Yes/no/maybe.  Isn't the question really "What are the options available
to the woman in lessening the trauma?"  Currently, abortion is one of a
NUMBER of options.  Some (though not all) pro-life people would remove
it from the list of options.  Pro-choice people would not.

>Could abortion possibly add to the trauma of rape
>in some cases?

Certainly.  But in the current state of things, a rape victim is not forced
to undergo an abortion.  It is an option.  In the film as well, I got the
definite impression that the abortion experience was a trauma in itself,
specifically because it wasn't a legal option, but an illegal one.  Had it
been legal, the woman in question may still have spoken out against rape,
but I doubt we'd see her on TV supporting abortion because of the DOUBLE
trauma she had to undergo.

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?

There is lots of counselling for rape victims available whether they are
impregnated by the attacker or not.  In most counselling situations, the
woman may speak of any issues she wants -- including or excluding the
pregnancy issue.  What do you think is being deliberately avoided?

>Is that really
>considered an option, or do we just default to abortion as a good
>solution?

"We" don't do anything.  "She" currently makes a choice.  That choice is
subject to the same constraints as other human choices -- excellent or
faulty logic, personal understanding, listening to the good or bad advice
of third parties, consideration of laws, culture, customs, personal
preference.  What on earth should "we" be able to have to do with her
choice???

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

It certainly is a possiblity.  One that I think a woman in that situation
should take into consideration when she makes her choice.  It is also a
possibility that she could suffer equal remorse from the decision NOT to
have an abortion.

>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?

Define "best".  Define "on her own".  Do these conditions exist?

>Is there much support for decisions other than abortion?  It seems that
>nobody dares ask her these questions.

Well, I don't know about you.  I personally don't know anyone who was
impregnanted by rape (that they have told me about anyway) and therefore
cannot comment conclusively on what "they" "dare" to ask "her".  But it
sure seems to me that you are ignoring a whole series of recent (past 20
years) developments in counselling, law enforcement and cultural expansion.
Women USED to hide under haystacks and be ostracized by society if they
acknowledged that they had been raped.  In our western culture, we notice
a real decline in this kind of thinking over recent years.  I don't
know what questions people ask a rape victim who is pregnant.  I do know
that people often ask a pregnant person early in her term, "Are you going
to have it?" which implies a choice needs to be made, and does not imply
any assumption of wanted/unwanted pregnancy.  A minority ask, "When are you
going to have it?" and I suppose there is also a minority (that I know
nothing about) who ask, "When are you going to get rid of it?", both of
which questions imply a choice has been made.  I would presume a similar
set of questions get asked of rape victims, with a heavier weighting on the
"Are you going to get rid of it" since the assumption is that a rape-
created fetus is ipso facto an unwanted fetus.

Generally, I can't stand assumptions, since in the main, it's easy enough
to discover the specifics.  BUT, it does seem to me that this is a pretty
safe assumption to make regarding a rape victim.  It would also seem to
me to be pretty obvious that the family/friends/professional counsellors
of a rape victim who knew the victim was philosophically opposed to
abortion would lend their support to her choice to carry the fetus to
term.

But this is just speculation.