Apparently the previous eight paragraphs of my reply were material you did not wish to reply to. I will not speculate as to why that might be.
I suggest that the material in the previous eight paragraphs of my post might be worth your consideration. I would certainly appreciate a considered response to them.
I would suggest that in terms of my previous point, you might consider some of the pioneering work of Judith Herman, who has done considerable research and psychotherapy with incest survivors. If I remember correctly, she was also one of the people who was instrumental in getting the Elizabeth Stone House started in the Boston area, and a pioneer in Feminist Psychotherapy. She would probably be quite sympathetic to your feelings of anger about how the demands for women to conform to standards of beauty by the society are damaging to women themselves and the culture, too.
For all I know, she might even agree with you about the case as a whole. She's an extraordinarily bright woman and a widely respected thinker. If you aren't familiar with her work, as a woman who has strong feelings about the way women are treated, you might find yourself interested in what she has to say.
You can still stay steamed at me, after all.
About incest, women really have gotten a terrible deal in more ways than I can talk about here, including its being massively underreported, and often having it disbelieved when it is reported. Whether or not it's a factor here — lets say it's not, because I don't want to get off the issue of the decision about who decides about living and dying — it's a massive factor in the psychological undercurrents of the country. Not just this country, all of them, near as I can tell, though I'm stretching the research to say that, since the cross-cultural research is stuff I'm not familiar with.
Oh well, I'm way off the topic here. I'm sorry everybody, but it's a topic that I find upsetting and actually underdiscussed. No wonder.
Sincerely yours, Bob Kaven