Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site oliven.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!oliveb!oliven!barb
From: barb@oliven.UUCP (Barbara Jernigan)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: "The child of a fiend"
Message-ID: <429@oliven.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 14-Oct-85 13:30:21 EDT
Article-I.D.: oliven.429
Posted: Mon Oct 14 13:30:21 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 16-Oct-85 05:27:08 EDT
References: <5986@cbscc.UUCP> <5@uscvax.UUCP> <6032@cbscc.UUCP> <427@oliven.UUCP> <6057@cbscc.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino, Ca
Lines: 108


> >> 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.

I don't *think*, I'm trying to argue 'cause' or 'not' -- I just wanted to
point out the difficulty of finding a clear-cut course of action in the
above situation.  Your later postings on the subject are also sensitive to
this, Paul.  I'm sorry that I misconstrued your initial artical as an attempt
to define an 'every-case' action.  

> 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?

No, it doesn't.  [You ask difficult questions, by the way, thank you.]

> >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 life is "the miracle of life" or "a very unpleasant
> experience" (one to be gotten rid of)?

It has a lot to do with the woman's emotional ability to carry the fetus
to term.  I'm not saying this is 'Right,' I'm saying this is the way it is.
That this state of affairs is not carved in stone, as it were, leads, as you
suggest, Paul, to a moral self-search and thense toward action to change the
*status quo*.  I am very much for counselling the various options available
to a pregnant woman (whether that be by rape, a one-night-stand, or any other
situation of intercourse) -- as I said in my first posting to the net some
months ago.

> 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.  

I agree, fully.

> 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?

Because the full "humanity" of the fetus is in question -- read the net.
Also because of the fetus' dependence on the inner body of the woman, 
requiring her total submission for a period of nine months or so, to the
nurturing of said fetus, THUS causing a need to weigh her, an adult human
being, against the fetus, a potential human being.  For many people, "Is"
versus "Potential" decides the issue.  [NOTE:  This is less "Right" the more
I carefully consider it, but I still would not urge that abortion be made
illegal -- more difficult, yes, but *illegal*, I perceive, would not
"solve" the "problem" and *would* add additional dangers to an extant
situation.]

> 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?

Not at all.  Indeed, I encourage such support.

> 
> ...I think the better answer is to help more women  get that kind of support 
> [to not abort in the case of rape].  Without that it really isn't much of a 
> choice for her, is it?

As you can see above (I hope), I do support counselling including *all* the
options.  I agree with you, providing/supporting only one option is not
grounds for choice.

> ...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 wanted to reprint this because I felt it was an IMPORTANT point, too
easily swept under the carpet.]

I thank you, Paul, for asking the hard questions.  Keep doing so, I
need such challenges, lest I use ignorance as an excuse not to think.

Barb Jernigan