thessalonian Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 I heard something, I think on Protestant radio last night that blew me away. Abortion was legal and rampant early in this countries history. 20-30% of all pregnancies were ending in abortion in the early 1800's. Here's the real kicker. It was the femnists of the day and the AMA (American Medical Association) that got laws passed to ban it. Feminists were outraged that men who were permiscuous were almost forcing women to get abortions and doctors saw the health risks to their patients. They actually cared. Blessings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
God Conquers Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 I'm highly skeptical of those numbers. Just because it wasn't "illegal" doesn't mean it was sanctioned by the government. Marijuana and other drugs weren't illegal at that point either. Feminists circa 1820 WAAAAAAY different than feminists circa 1975. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thessalonian Posted October 27, 2004 Author Share Posted October 27, 2004 Looking at an online article that number does seem very high. It may have been the percentage of women who died in abortions. Here's an article supporting the contentions of the show. [url="http://www.holysmoke.org/fem/fem0419.htm"]http://www.holysmoke.org/fem/fem0419.htm[/url] You are quite correct. Femnism was a different word in that day. Blessings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toledo_jesus Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 they were true feminists back then...arguing for the unique dignity of woman. Nowadays it's all male-bashing and trying to orchestrate a gender-neutral society...blah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homeschoolmom Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 yep... the suffregettes were very pro-life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 I'd like to see where this radio show got its information from. Haven't done the research, but it sounds quite dubious to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
God Conquers Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 I would agree with the death rate statistic, medicine wasn't so far advanced in 1828. But I'm quite certain 20% of mothers did not get abortions. I'm also sure that abortion has ALWAYS, then and now, been a tool to enslave women to sex and to subjugate them to men. Far from being liberated, the prevalent sexuality today is only good for making it easier for men to exploit women. It's way easier to do if abortion and birth control prevent a man from having to exploit a (much more obviously) child as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicforChrist Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 Feminism circa 1820 is also very different than feminism from antebellum to 1919 (and afterward). One was (at least from what I have read) fighting for the true dignity of women and the other is fighting for so-called "rights" of women. Once any movement starts talking about "rights" it [b]almost [/b]always goes downward. The reason I say this is that dignity and justice are different in connotation from the concept of "rights" especially since 1919 and definitely since the (anti) feminist movement in the 60s and 70s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicforChrist Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 God Conquers, aren't women subjugated (subject) to men in the denotative definition, "to make subservient"? Isn't subservient the same as subject? "Wives be subject to your husbands"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
God Conquers Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 I mean it in a negative sense. The proper word to use would probably be "enslaved", or "domineered by" or "controlled by" or "exploited" which I did use later. To "be subject to" I believe is different than subjugated, although the root is the same. Maybe it's just the way I percieve the words. I think you know what I'm talkiing about though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now