Abortion in the 1800's?

[thessalonian]

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

[God Conquers]

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.

[thessalonian]

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

[toledo_jesus]

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.

[homeschoolmom]

yep... the suffregettes were very pro-life

[Socrates]

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.

[God Conquers]

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.

[CatholicforChrist]

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.

[CatholicforChrist]

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"?

[God Conquers]

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.