At 12:14 AM 8/6/99 EDT, you wrote:
>Okay, lets get the issue straight. The early feminist, Susan B. Anthony
>opposed abortion, as do I, but backed the right to vote and have an
>education, ect. Alice Paul, the author of the original ERA said
>that"Abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women." So don't confuse
>supporting abortion with being a feminist.

Well, I'm glad you have finally told me what you think the real issue is. According to you, "the issue" is not about abortion, but it is about Anti-choice activists wanting to have their claims of being feminists to be taken seriously.

First, I encourage you to find out about the 19th century feminists. May I suggest you begin with Sarah Grimke's Letters on the Equality of the Sexes, then move along to the speeches of Lucretia Mott, the writings and speeches of Anthony and Stanton, then finish up with Matilda Joslyn Gage's Woman, Church, and State.

Most 19th century (and earlier) feminists came to feminism through their activism in other areas. In 19th century America, it was common for women to become involved in either the abolition or the temperance movements (or both) before coming to the conclusion that before they could be effective activists for their chosen cause, they would have to first enlarge the public arena in which women were permitted to act - they had to make a safe, public space where women could engage in political activities.

Anthony came out of the temperance movement, the 19th century equivalent of women against violence against women movement. The temperance movement was oft-times driven by women who saw husbands drink away the family's income, leaving their wives and children destitute, and, often, forcing them to endure beatings, condoned by the law, administered in a drunken stupor. The Grimke sisters and Stanton came out of the abolition movement, driven in part by their knowledge that slave women were often raped by their owners, and any one who the master permitted to rape them. There was a strong double standard: women's honor resided almost exclusively in her remaining a virgin until marriage, then having sex only with her husband. Such feminists (and there was a whole other stream of feminism exemplified by Wollstonecraft, Wright, and, later, Woodhull) almost uniformly decried the double standard in morality - if women were not permitted to enjoy sex, then men should not be permitted to enjoy sex either.

Abortion and contraception were common at the time although there is some debate about the safety of the procedure in the 19th century. Women had been safely having abortions since antiquity. But in the 19th century, the village midwife who knew her patients and who was known by her patients was long a thing of the past and transient quacks often sold ineffective, dangerous potions claiming they were "to bring on the courses." There was no FDA to ensure that medicines were both safe and effective and many women fell victim to poisons administered to them by sweet-hearts who just wanted to get rid of "the problem", by getting rid of the woman, if necessary. Indeed, the earliest anti-abortion laws prohibited the sale of *potions* which induced abortions *after* quickening. The legislators were reacting to several notorious cases in which women had been poisoned, possibly deliberately, by supposed abortificients. (Potions for abortions before quickening were not restricted. Indeed, it was not until late in the 19th century, when the medical community wanted to drive the midwives out of business, that laws were enacted restricting abortion before quickening.) Antibiotics had not yet been discovered, so surgical abortion could also be dangerous.

The church claimed that the "marital act" was a "marital debt" - that a man had a right to sex on demand from his wife. Many women were beaten, and worse, for not being willing to have sex with their husbands, and most people accepted that men were entitled to chastise their wives in such a manner for failing to pay the marital debt. Marriage was for life, and a woman who married a man who battered her was usually stuck for life, unless he abandoned her, as they often did. (As an aside, I am constantly amazed at how the right criticizes the epidemic of divorce in the current era. Yet, marriages failed in the 19th century. One party or the other just walked out the door and didn't return, often moving to a new city or town, assuming a new identity, and taking a new spouse or just living with another partner. That is why "abandonment" is referred to as "the poor man's divorce.")

The nineteenth century was also the hey-day of the "cult of true womanhood" and "Republican motherhood", both of which glorified women for their roles as mothers. Most women did not have access to either an education or a career until late in the century, so they could look forward to only having one career option - motherhood.

It was in this atmosphere in which Anthony and Stanton operated. They did indeed oppose abortion, in part because abortions could be very dangerous in unskilled hands. However, they both believed, as did most of the feminists of their time, that women should have complete control over their reproductive lives by restricting access to sex. They strongly believed that women, even married women, had the right to refuse to have sex, without fear of any consequences. Believing strongly in the "cult of true womanhood", they believed that women had abortions because unscrupulous men impregnated, then abandoned, innocent women.

Most of the 19th century feminists were women who were willing to learn from their life experiences and to adapt to changing times. I have no doubt that if they had lived to see the day when women had access to safe, effective contraceptive, and had the freedom to presue an education and a career as we women of today have, they would have embraced the new technology, encouraging women to use contraception and, accepting the necessity for safe, legal abortion.

> Lots of women disagree on the
>abortion issue, but want the right to vote and everything else.

Yes, they do. Unfortunately, anti-choicers do not understand that if a woman cannot control her own reproductive lives, having access to an education and a career means nothing. And, as you yourself admit, there is no moral difference between abortion and many forms of contraception. If you succeed in outlawing one, you will succeed in outlawing the other.

> They just
>don't believe in the special right to murder.

Most pro-choice, pro-contraception women don't believe in a "special right to murder", either.

>What have I done to further the cause and issues of women? Unlike you, I'm
>at the abortion clinics offering real help to women in a difficult spot.

Oh, you are badgering the women who go to the clinic for whatever reason.

> My husband and I have opened our home up to these girls and let them stay here
>before and after their baby was born.

How generous. Are you going to have your checkbook open when the child turns 18 and needs some money for a college education?

> We support a maternity home that also helps with job training and mentoring.

Great. Much better than so many anti-choicers I have talked to.

> I work with my state lawmakers to pass laws that protect women and children.

For some reason, I have trouble believing that all, or even most, of the laws that you encourage lawmakers to pass will truly help women and children. If you wnat me to believe your claim, you will have to go into much detail about each law to convince me that they do indeed help women.

> I do post abortion counsoling with women who are grieving their childs death.

Why do I get the feeling that you only make them feel worse, not better?

> I have taken the pro-life
>message to college campus on truth tours, I teach chastity message at public
>schools. I have gone with Operation Rescue to NY, to confront the abortion
>industry.

So now we get to the heart of the matter. The above does not qualify in my book as something that helps women.

>I am also currently trying to get our city council to put filters on the
>internet at the public library to prevent kids from accessing porn.

Unfortunately, people like you generally define pornography much too broadly, like in the recent Communications Decency Act (which was subsequently declared unconstitutional) that tried to outlaw all discussion of abortion on the internet. If you stuck to the magazines that showed sexually stimulating pictures in conjunction with violence, you'd have my support. Unless, of course, you want to add material by neo-Nazis, Holocaust deniers, Christian Reconstructionists, and the ranting and ravings of such radical right luminaries as Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Oliver North.

> I'm also working to get the strip clubs and topless clubs closed in my town, with
>zoning and trying to get tougher restrictions in place. We are trying to get
>support to open a house where women who were dancers and hookers can get out
>of the life, and find healing and hope.

There is a long feminist tradition in support of working to help women escape prostitution. See Josephine Butler's work in England for starters.

>I'm also trying to get colleges to open dorm rooms where girls who choose
>life can stay with their babies, and to open daycare for them on the campus.

Great.

>I also collect food for our local food bank.

Great again.

>The problem with talking to abortion fanatics, is you guys can't be honest.

Don't you mean, you can't be honest.

>The biology of reproduction is easy. The sperm, a part of the male body is
>"alive" in the sense that it is a living cell, same for the egg. Only when
>they fuse does a new and independant life come into being. A zygote, or a
>baby, the only difference is time.

There is a profound difference between the egg and the chicken, remember. If there is no difference between a fertilized egg and a child, why aren't women's used sanitary napkins collected at the end of each month and given a proper burial? After all, the vast majority of fertilized eggs never implant in the womb and those poor little precious popets are being flushed rather uncermoniously down the commode each month. Why aren't you picketing In-vitro fertilization clinics where unclaimed, unwanted fertilized eggs are disposed of regularly? Why doesn't the Pope demand that his nuns carry those otherwise unwanted little tykes to term? Why don't you volunteer your womb to host one of the precious little tykes?

> The zygote is a separate person at
>conception and as such, deserves the full protection of law.

Well, even if I would concede that the products of conception deserve the full protection of the law (which I do not), that doesn't do much for the products of conception. You see, under American law no one has the right to use some one else's bodily resources against their will.

Just for the sake of argument, suppose a baby was born and the newborn needed a thimbleful of blood from its father to live. There is no court in this country that would require the father to donate even one drop of blood to save that already-been-born child's life. No we may look askance at the father, but he is well within his rights under the law to deny the already-been-born child even a drop of his blood. So, if a man cannot be forced under the laws of our country to save his own child's life by donating even one drop of blood, how do you propose to use the law to force women to endure an unwanted pregnancy?

> As for outlawing birth control, I'm not for that.

Well, why not. According to you, little children are being murdered. Using your definitions of murder, women who use the pill are even bigger murderers than women who rely on abortions as their primary form of birth control. After all, a fertile woman on the pill might be responsible for murdering 12 or more children each year while a woman who relies on abortion may only murder 1 or 2 in a lifetime. Think of the slaughter of innocent, unborn children you are condoning.

> I just think that people should be clear on what they are debating.

Me, too. Now do you want to talk about murdering little children or not?

> I think that for Christians it is an issue of who is in control of your life, you or God?

Well, I am a Christian and I think I am in control of my life, with a little guidance from God. And the Bible is completely silent on abortion and contraception. Indeed, I think it is even silent on infanticide as a means of birth control. (And contraception, abortion, and infanticide were common in the early Christian era.)

> For those of you who are not, better the pill than deliberate murder at the clinics.

Oh, so you mean true Christian women can not be on the pill.

> At least if break through ovulation does occur, the murder is accidental, not a planned >and deliberate thing.

Thanks for your understanding. By the way, what punishment do you advocate for women murder their children by having an abortion or by taking the pill?

>I know that your information about Post abortion is incorrect.

My dear, there have been 30 million abortions since Roe v. Wade legalized abortion. If even 1% of those women had remorse after their abortion, about 300,000 women would be suffering from post-abortion trauma. Now, I would believe that you can go into any city in this country and find a handful of women who suffer from post-abortion trauma, but added all together, I don't think they would amount to even 1% of all women who have ever had an abortion. If so, I'd see some indication that post-abortion trauma centers were doing a thriving business. I live in an area of, at least, 1 million people and I know of *no* clinic that specializes in post-abortion trauma - because there is insufficient demand for that service for such a clinic to be a viable commercial concern.

> Check out
>WEBA and other groups. Most women in these groups don't have a political or
>social agenda,

What planet do you live on?

> they are just hurting from an act that degraded and hurt them,
>trying to get help and get past the mess they have made.

The best thing they can do is get away from people like you who prey on their fears and their guilt.

Sunny

>Carole LaFreniere

Back to Mail

e-mail sunshine@pinn.net