How Religious Conservatives Made Reproductive Rights A Political Issue

After "grab em by the genitalia" and Dana DeLoach's comments, it's all out in the open. The "family values" was always a shtick, and the only thing white evangelicals care about is political power. I've taken to calling them "evilgelicals," and Herschel Walker, Ben Carson, and Candace Owens have one character they each exemplify in Harriet Beecher Stowe's novel, "Uncle Tom's Cabin": Sambo.

"In Stowe’s 1852 book, the character of Sambo was one of the slave overseers that work for the cruel slave owner, Simon Legree. Uncle Tom, a god-fearing slave with a compassionate heart, was tormented and beaten to death by Sambo, who regretted his act even as Tom forgave him as he was dying. Although Stowe had higher aims with her book, the depiction of Black characters as matronly and subservient further added to stereotypes that persist today."

https://blackamericaweb.com/2017/01/11/lit...

I have to agree with your view when you connect Herschel Walker, Ben Carson, and Candace Owens have one character they each exemplify in Harriet Beecher Stowe's novel, "Uncle Tom's Cabin": Sambo.

Sambo is a derogatory label for a person of African descent in the English language. Historically, it is a name in American English derived from a Spanish term for a person of African and Native American ancestry. After the Civil War, during the Jim Crow era and beyond, the term was used in conversation, print advertising and household items as a pejorative descriptor for Black people.

What's all that have to do with the so-called "right" to kill babies?

Wait a minute Steve, did you see this video presentation? So if, which one of these men do you think is walking closer to The works of The Lord, Herschel Walker or Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.)?

"Which one of these men do you think is walking closer to The works of The Lord?"

Your question makes me cringe Ron. My faith is in the Buddha, and Science. Dr. Goodwin is no scientist and neither are you. The science of life is that the fusion of sperm and egg creates a new person. That new person is nurtured by the mother and she cannot shirk her duty. If she kills it before birth it's no different than murdering a helpless infant, because that's just what a fetus is.

I see that Herschel Walker is a man of faith, because he values and protects life. Rafael Warnock is a fake, a man of no faith, a false prophet, an ignorant man.

So you are saying that Herschel Walker is a man of faith. Do a man of faith hold a gun to his girlfriend head, threatening to kill her. Do a man of faith neglected children like this man has? By your standards this man Herschel Walker has blood on his hands already and the he LIES about it, remembering nothing.

It takes his son to tell you about his Dad.

What they don't tell you Ron, is when his first wife (Christian's mother) tells the reporter about the incident with the gun, Herschel is sitting right next to her.

Steve, at this point, all I see is talk. Now you know for a fact that you can back up what you just said with a link to back up what just said. You got a link, Steve?

I'll get it.

For the first time, the 46-year-old former professional football player reveals in a book published this week, "Breaking Free," that he has a rare and controversial mental illness called dissociative identity disorder — or D.I.D. — formerly known as multiple personality disorder.

"I had it the whole time, I just didn't know what it was," Walker said.

Advertisement

Top Stories
Deliberations resume in trial over Jones' Sandy Hook liesUS producer price inflation eases to still-high 8.5%3 officers injured, suspect killed in Philadelphia shootingPolice: 2 officers, 1 suspect shot in central Illinois city
EXPLAINER: What's next in the Florida school shooter trial?
Will to live, life jackets: Boaters survive 28 hours, sharks
EXPLAINER: What's next inthe Florida school shooter trial?

Police: 2 officers, 1 suspect shot in central Illinois city
The athlete who played 15 seasons of professional football in the NFL and USFL and pushed a bobsled for the 1992 U.S. Olympic team in Albertville, France; the family man who married his college sweetheart; the man who once danced with the Fort Worth Ballet; the business man — Walker says none of those guys were him. Not really. Those were his "alters," he says -- alternate personalities.

Walker's family, former teammates and fans reacted to the revelation with shock.

"I know him better than anybody 'cause I raised him," Walker's father, Willis Walker Sr. told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution in January. "This is my first knowing about that."

The disorder usually has its roots in childhood trauma.

"I was a fat little kid with a speech impediment," Walker told Woodruff. "I used to get beat up, not just picked on."


Walker's therapist Jerry Mungadze, said he met Walker's alternate personalities, or alters, in therapy. "They will come out and say, I am so-and-so. I'm here to tell you Herschel is not doing too good ... When he finishes, it would just disappear back in him, and Herschel comes out."

Walker and Mungadze believe the disorder actually helped Walker — who started for a number of NFL teams, including the Minnesota Vikings and the Dallas Cowboys — succeed on the gridiron.

Mungadze offered a theory about the subconscious logic in Walker's head. "Since people are laughing at you, we're going to make you so strong, so fast, so talented, that you're going to be above everyone. And that is what went into building this super athlete."

But shortly after retiring from football, Walker descended into mental mayhem. At one point, Walker says he sat alone at his kitchen table and played Russian roulette with a loaded pistol. Walker told Woodruff, "To challenge death like I was doing, you start saying, there's a problem here."

Recent Stories from ABC News

Top Stories
Deliberations resume in trial over Jones' Sandy Hook liesUS producer price inflation eases to still-high 8.5%3 officers injured, suspect killed in Philadelphia shootingPolice: 2 officers, 1 suspect shot in central Illinois city
EXPLAINER: What's next in the Florida school shooter trial?Will to live, life jackets: Boaters survive 28 hours, sharks
Police: 2 officers, 1 suspectshot in central Illinois city

Police: 2 officers, 1 suspect shot in central Illinois city
Walker's diagnosis answered a lot of questions for Walker's ex-wife Cindy Grossman, who was married to Walker for 16 years before she knew about the illness.

"Well, now it makes perfect sense, because each personality has a different interest. This one has an interest in ballet, this one has an interest in the Marines, this one had an interest [in the] FBI, this one had an interest in sports," she said.

Grossman recognized different sides of her husband, even different voices. "It's hard to explain, but even his physical countenance would change. ... There was also a very sweet, lovable [personality]. That's the one he told me I married. He told me I didn't marry Herschel."

But there were darker moments.

"We were talking and the next thing I knew," Grossman remembered, "he just kind of raged and he got a gun and put it to my temple.'"

Recent Stories from ABC News

Walker's ex-wife now believes one of his alternate personalities was in control at that moment. "There was somebody there that was evil."

Walker says he does not remember the event, and many others, including — shockingly — the highlight of his collegiate football career, winning the Heisman Trophy in 1982.

https://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=...

Well I Be "#$&@"! This other side of Herschel Walker just pop's up anytime and he don't remember a damn thing that he did including — shockingly — the highlight of his collegiate football career, winning the Heisman Trophy in 1982, as well as putting a gun to the person he claims he LOVED head, at anytime this could happen and you want to get behind this man, WHY STEVE?

Talk to me Steve.

No Ron, that's all in the past. Jesus has healed him now. This interview was done on April 14, 2008 Ron.

Jesus got him now Steve, NOW you understand the power of The Lord. Then you should have no problem answering this question: Wait a minute Steve, did you see this video presentation? So if, which one of these men do you think is walking closer to The works of The Lord, Herschel Walker or Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.)?

I watched it Ron. Preacher Scarborough is the most morally superior bean of the bunch.

Scarborough is not in the question Steve, Stop being weak and answer the question:

Wait a minute Steve, did you see this video presentation? So if, which one of these men do you think is walking closer to The works of The Lord, Herschel Walker or Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.)?

I'm not qualified to say Ron. I can tell you wich one I'd vote for. Scarborough's inept moralizing is nauseating. And trying to tell us anti-abortion started because of Carter? Rubbish.

OK! if you could vote in Georgia which one of these men you would vote for then Steve, Herschel Walker or Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.)?

Walker is the Republican so of course I'd vote for Walker.

Why Steve? Why would you pick Walker?

I used to watch Herschel play Ron, from his college days on, and I was always a fan. That's why I'd vote for him. Now he seems to be genuinely a man of faith, and that's another reason. And of course, he has the endorsment of someone who knows him very well, President Trump.

Regardless if Herschel not supporting his four other children, putting a gun to the mother of his children head to threaten her life. You will pick a man with a troubled past, over a man who has been working with the needy for decades, Pastor of the Ebeneezer Baptist church, which is the same church Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. provided over, now that is interesting!

Just look at the things you will do for the orange Jesus, WOW!!!

What's wrong with four children Ron? Who made you judge? You know NOTHING about the WOMEN Herschel has been involved with. You have NO idea how they have used and abused him. What kind of woman would take the private affairs of a 13 years in the past relationship and air it to the world through a piece of **** rag like the Daily beast? What kind of fake Deacon would speak such garbage against one of his supposed (brothers?)

A Deacon that is looking at the truth in Herschel Walker and that is a FACT and I don’t see it here. The difference between the two is it wide is the Grand Canyon and that is funny that you refuse to acknowledge it, WHY?

You think that Herschel is the wrong kind of colored man.

Steven, I asked you a question and you ran like hell from it so, from the top. I 'am A Deacon that is looking at the truth in Herschel Walker and that is a FACT and I don’t see it here. The difference between the two is it is wider than the Grand Canyon and that is funny that you refuse to acknowledge it, WHY?

YOUR COMMENT: You think that Herschel is the wrong kind of colored man.

MY REPLY: Don't you ever, try to put words in my mouth again because that shows the people here on Black In America that you are weak as HELL and it show the people that you have nothing on your mind but my foot up your back-side.

Steve, I think that color had nothing to do this anything to do with How Religious Conservatives Made Reproductive Rights A Political Issue.

I disagree Ron, and my answer remains the same. You think that all the colored folk should stick together and Herschel has broken ranks. It's that simple and nothing more. And furthermore, I'm well aware of everyone who is looking at this blog. Don't think that can ever disturb me.

I think Herschel Walker is wrong for the Senate seat representing the people of Georgia, color has nothing to do with good representation. I know you know that don't you?

Explain this term that you used, what do you mean by this, "the wrong kind of colored man?"

I explained it Ron. An African-American man that breaks rank with the brothers like you. You should have watched the video I posted of Herschel speaking yesterday.

Maybe I Did miss it. so, did you see this blogs video presentation, Steve?

Maybe I Did miss it so, did you see this blog's video presentation, Steve?

Yes Ron, I saw your video and Joe Scarborough is a disgusting moralizer. Also, the title of your blog, "How Religious Conservatives Made Reproductive Rights A Political Issue," is FALSE. Reproductive rights ARE a political issue, INHERENTLY. They have nothing to do with evangelicals, Jimmy Carter, or 1979. The question is about the rights of the unborn viz-a-viz the rights of the mother. It's a moral issue Ron, whether one is a (yuck) Southern Baptist like Pastor Joe, an Atheist, a Buddhist, or any other IST.

Steve, something this important to the health of the mother, is an issue that should stay between the woman and her doctor and not the woman, her politician and her doctor.
Steve, do you remember why the abortion law came into law in the first place?

Ron, because we believe the fetus is a person and should not be ripped up limb to limb.

NO Steve, Before 1840, abortion was widespread and largely-stigma-free for American women who could afford the processor and the poor took to The Backyard Abortions until 1973 with the passing of Roe v. Wade.

How do you know abortion was widespread before 1840?

Before 1840, abortion was widespread and largely-stigma-free for American women.

The first anti-abortion advocates in the United States were male physicians who sought to make abortion illegal to push out competition from midwives and female healers.
The idea that fetuses have rights and those rights trump those of living women and girls is a relatively new concept, historians say.

Steve, take a look at my research and you too will know the answer to your question: The History of Abortion Rights in the U.S. https://www.healthline.com/health-news/the...

Now we both know, Right?

The first thing I want to know Ron, is what you consider "widespread," in the years before 1840.

"Widespread"
general · extensive · universal · common · global · worldwide · international · omnipresent · ubiquitous · wholesale · all-embracing · all-inclusive · all-around · across the board · far-reaching · predominant · prevalent · rife · broad · blanket · sweeping · rampant · catholic · inescapable · pervading · pervasive · permeating · epidemic · preponderate

Got It!

Get serious Ron. You cut and past and call that an answer. I say your assertion is bull ****.

Let's see you prove any of this Ron:

According to historians like Holland, before 1840, abortion was widespread and largely-stigma-free for American women. It was so commonplace that newspapers advertised abortion services to cure “obstructed menses” with herbal remedies.

As was customary at the time, laws reflected British common law. When it came to abortion, the legal system used the quickening doctrine to decide on the legality of abortion.

“Quickening” is generally defined as the moment when the fetus’s movement can be detected, usually around weeks 22 to 24 of pregnancy. Without the tools of modern medicine, this was the only way to confirm pregnancy. Fetuses were only considered potential lives, and the belief of life beginning at conception was not a concept. Before quickening, fetuses were only considered potential lives.

“The key point here is that no one can really tell the woman when quickening has happened because only she herself could know because she’s the one who feels it,” Hamlin says.

Abortions post-quickening were illegal, but only considered a misdemeanor. Historians believe these laws were intended to protect the life and health of the pregnant woman – not the fetus – since abortions performed at later stages required instruments and death was more common than with the herbal concoctions used for abortions pre-quickening. Prosecutions were rare since the only person who could confirm fetal movement was the pregnant woman.

Steve stay on the topic. We are not talking about abortion laws in Britain. No, bring your focus back to the United States of America and it’s history on abortion. Follow the journey of abortion law in the United States — from criminalization in the late 1800s to legalization in the early 1970s — and the ongoing battles for abortion access.

1847: Formation of the American Medical Association (AMA)

In 1847, doctors banded together to form the AMA. It became the male-dominated authority on medical practices. The AMA scrutinized reproductive health care workers, like midwives and nurses, and the obstetric services they provided were phased out.

AMA members believed they should have the power to decide when an abortion could be legally performed. At the same time, the AMA was composed of physicians who lacked expertise in pregnancy and reproductive health.

AMA members launched a full-fledged criminalization campaign against abortion and female abortion providers. State legislatures moved to ban abortion.

1973: Roe v. Wade

In a landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution protects the right to abortion.

In particular, the Supreme Court recognized for the first time that the constitutional right to privacy “is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.”

Roe v. Wade protected the right to abortion in all 50 states, making abortion services safer and more accessible throughout the country. The decision also set a legal precedent that affected dozens of subsequent Supreme Court cases.

Massachusetts, 1648: Execution for infanticide
Another giant of American history, John Winthrop, observed the plight of a twenty-one-year-old servant Mary Martin, seduced by a married man who was “taken with her, and soliciting her chastity. …” The man “obtained his desire … divers times,” Winthrop wrote; Miss Martin soon was “with child, and not able to bear the shame of it, she concealed it.” Although a midwife who observed the pregnant woman was suspicious, tight binding kept the concealment intact until December 13, 1648. Then, “in the night, and the child born alive, she kneeled upon the head of it till she thought it had been dead. …” But horror was not yet done: “the child, being strong, recovered, and cried again. Then she took it again, and used violence to it till it was quite dead.”

Mary Martin did not get away with her crime. The suspicious midwife confronted her and called the authorities. Miss Martin could have burned the tiny corpse, but “search being made, it was found in her chest,” that place where unmarried women stored their most precious belongings in an attempt to keep hope alive. When a surgeon found a fracture in the skull, and Miss Martin “confessed the whole truth,” she was executed.

Please, Steve, I thought we were talking about the history of Abortion country-wide and you went off-course like this? Make or case, if not, I can't help you. SORRY!

Come on Steve you can do better than this.

I can do better Ron.

Maryland, 1663: Rape and abortion
Seven Maryland residents signed depositions charging a Maryland surgeon, Jacob [aka John] Lumbrozo, with committing an abortion on his twenty-two-year-old maidservant, Elizabeth Wieles. The incident allegedly began with rape; it was said that Lumbrozo had thrown Miss Wieles on a bed, covered her mouth with a handkerchief, and had “the use of her body.” Later he gave her a strong abortifacient, and she soon passed “a clod of blood as big as a fist.”

Details were vivid: Joseph Dorroseol testified that Miss Wieles said “the Physick that the doctor did give her did kill the child in the womb … the doctor did hold her back for she was in such pain and misery that she thought that she would die.” Richard Trew testified that Miss Wieles had told him of the rape and the use of an abortifacient that made her feel as if “her back broke asunder.” George Hams said that Miss Wieles told him “that the Doctor took her to bed and had lain with her whether she would or no, whereof before she could consent to lie with him, he took a book in his hand and swore many bitter oaths” that he would marry her.

After hearing such testimony, a jury of twelve men charged Lumbrozo with a felony because “she was with child when John Lumbrozo, he did give her physick to destroy it. …” Lumbrozo evidently married Elizabeth Wieles, as he had promised earlier, and in that way disqualified her from testifying; all the depositions had to be treated as hearsay, and Lumbrozo escaped punishment.

Maryland is not countrywide, OK! Let's try this.

1847: Formation of the American Medical Association (AMA)

In 1847, doctors banded together to form the AMA. It became the male-dominated authority on medical practices. The AMA scrutinized reproductive health care workers, like midwives and nurses, and the obstetric services they provided were phased out.

These men doctors wanted Abortions to be Illegal because they wanted to make some big money from the practice of Abortions. At that time religion did not come into the picture at that time.

Abortion was illegal in 1663 Ron. That's before 1840. Your reference is nothing but propaganda, whereas I have found the actual historical record.

I see that you did not read this: The History of Abortion Rights in the U.S. https://www.healthline.com/health-news/the...

You keep showing me a couple of states that made Abortion illegal but the keyword in the reach is "WIDESPREAD" and it appears you don't want to accept that truth as fact.

So far Ron, I've given you 2 of the 13 colonies. Here's another.

New York, 1719: Murder of a newborn
Anna Maria Cockin said a man had gotten her “half Drunk,” promised her a pair of shoes, and impregnated her. She argued, however, that she was no murderer. While in agitated labor, she said, she had gotten out of the bed and the baby “fell from her upon the ground.” She said she did not know whether the baby was stillborn or had come out alive. There was no proof of infanticide. A jury acquitted her of murder but sentenced her to thirty-one lashes and banishment from the county.

Steve, I have put the FACTS in front of your face and you have not read the history of Abortions in this country with any understanding at all, WOW!!! OK! Stay ignorant if you want, when the facts about The History of Abortion in this country was in your face and you still refuse to see the truth.

If you feel conformable running from the truth like that, then carry on Steve.

Thank you Ron.

Chapter 1: Seduced, abandoned, and pregnant
In January 1973, as the Supreme Court was announcing its Roe v. Wade decision, construction began in Philadelphia on a shopping mall and restaurant complex known as the New Market. An entire city block along Pine Street had to be excavated. During the excavation, a brick­lined privy pit was uncovered at the rear of the property that is now 110 Pine Street. Archaeologists who dug into the pit found fragments of over one thousand ceramic, glass, and metal artifacts, along with a variety of pins, beads, buttons, dresshooks, lead counters, and wax seals from the 1750-1785 period. The pit also contained over eleven thousand pieces of bone, most of which were animal bones left over from long-ago dinners. However, archaeologists were surprised to discover fifty-two human bones which, after study, were seen to represent the remains of two infants who had been victims of late-term abortions or infanticide.

Were those killings rare occurrences, or were they part of an early American quilt of death? Solid statistics concerning early abortion and even unwed pregnancy are unavailable, but I have looked at enough pre-1800 records of infanticide and abortion to see a pattern emerging; let’s look at some typical cases.

Virginia, 1629: Suspicion but insufficient evidence
Many of us read about Captain John Smith in elementary school but we probably did not hear about the time he was called in to hear depositions concerning Dorcas Howard. Miss Howard, an unmarried servant, was arrested after she gave birth in secret to a son who was soon found dead; he may have been America’s first recorded victim of abortion, or he may have died during birth or through infanticide immediately after birth. Miss Howard was found out after Elizabeth Moorecode and other neighbors saw the dead baby and testified that “the mould of the head was bruised. …” In this case John Smith and others found there was insufficient evidence to determine whether the child had died of natural causes or foul play. Similarly ambiguous incidences were scattered through the seventeenth century. However, colony records of October 27, 1665, do show an “indictment against a man and woman for killing a bastard child.”

You are welcome Steve, what is your point?

Ron, I'm looking at the historical record and it doesn't support this assertion, "how did religious conservatives began using reproductive rights as a political issue." Reproductive rights have always been a political issue in America, since its founding.

Massachusetts, 1670-1807: Fifty-one infanticide convictions
Massachusetts colonial records show that children who were illegitimate at birth made up a high-risk population. Only about 2 percent of all Massachusetts children during the colonial period were illegitimate; 90 percent of the neonates legally found to have been murdered were. A typical tragedy: unwed Elizabeth Emmison of Haverhill, Massachusetts, was executed in 1693 after she slept with Samuel Lad, became pregnant, gave birth to twins in her father’s house, and murdered them.

There is much more in the colonial records, but even this group of episodes shows why colonial officials expressed concern about the number of unmarried woman servants who had “been gotten with child” and then compounded the crime with killing. Maidservants repeatedly were urged to maintain chastity or at least to demand, prior to intercourse, a written promise of marriage. (If the evidence satisfied the court, an unmarried freeman had to marry her or “recompense her abuse.”) Courts in Virginia showed sympathy to female servants: When Margaret Connor charged her master with attempting to “prostitute her body to him,” the court accepted the charge and forced her master to provide a cash bond to secure good behavior. But infant killings continued. The case of one unmarried woman, Anne Barbery, who was called up “upon suspicion of felony” when her baby died shortly after birth, had hundreds of echoes. (Miss Barbery had hid her newborn in a tobacco house and said she had planned to take the baby to Joseph Edlow, the father of the child. There was no mark on the baby, and since the child may have died from lack of proper care, the accused received thirty lashes but was not convicted of murder.)

The records suggest that, overall, infanticide was probably the most frequent way of killing unwanted, illegitimate children. Ballads do not always reflect actual practice, but the existence in both America and England of many ballads about infanticide—such as “The Cruel Mother”—is suggestive:

There was a lady come from York / All alone, alone and aloney, / She fell in love with her father’s clerk / Down by the greenwood siding.

When nine months was gone and past / Then she had two pretty babes born. … She took her penknife keen and sharp / And pierced those babies’ tender hearts.

She buried them under a marble stone / And then she said she would go home. / As she was in her father’s hall / She spied those babes a-playing at ball.

“O babes, oh babes if you were mine / I would dress you up in silks so fine.” / “Oh mother dear when we were thine / You did not dress us up in silks so fine.”

The ballad concluded, “You took your penknife keen and sharp / And pierced us babies’ tender hearts.”

Physical and social reasons made abortion the less preferred mode of infant murder. Surgical abortion was virtually a guaranteed double­killer due to poor knowledge of anatomy and the great risk of infection. Abortifacients were known and used in early America, however. Along with oil of savin, Tansy Oil (Tanacetum vulgare) was “a tradition among American women for its certainty as an abortifacient,” one doctor recalled in later years. Although pharmacologists today know of tansy as a deadly poison capable of killing not only unborn children but their mothers as well, southern doctors reported that it was “commonly cultivated in our gardens” and used by some desperate slave women. Ergot, the popular name for the fungus Claviceps purpurea, a hard protrusion from stalks of rye and other infected grain, was sometimes administered in small doses during labor to strengthen contractions or to aid in expulsion of the placenta, but it had an abortion-related reputation as well and in Germany was sometimes called Kindesmord, or “infant’s death.” Other substances also had their supporters. Rue (Ruta graveolens) was called by some “more effectual than tansy to procure abortion.”

Steve, Did you see this: The History of Abortion Rights in the U.S.? https://www.healthline.com/health-news/the...

Steve, in that report, did you see this: Before 1840, abortion was widespread and largely-stigma-free for American women. This case you are trying to misdirect this blog with was NOT an Abortion, that was MURDER.

Steve, how about this: The first anti-abortion advocates in the United States were male physicians who sought to make abortion illegal to push out competition from midwives and female healers. In short, The Doctors made Abortion Illegal because they wanted to corner the market to make more money, WOW!!!

I know you want to talk to this subject, I am sure. The idea that fetuses have rights and those rights trump those of living women and girls is a relatively new concept, historians say and they did not come into the picture until the mid-'70s, after all that time.

Steve, you act like you were not born in this country.

Before 1840, abortion was treated the same as infanticide. Abortion is murder. Now we'll take Congress back and make sure such acts of murder are thwarted.

No Steve, the practice in some societies of killing unwanted children soon after birth: "female infanticide was practiced to reduce the population in times of famine." The Key words in this sentence is: "in times of famine," Ask yourself when was the last time this country witness a famine?

Now in that case the baby was born and then killed, THAT'S Murder. Abortion is done inside the body during the first or the second trimester, that is what an abortion is, Steve.

You are ignoring history Ron. In America, infanticide was done because abortion was not easy, like it is today. I gave you the proof that whether the baby was killed inside or outside the mother, both were treated and punished as murder. Modern women and you are sinfully seeking the freedom to kill their babies out of SELFISHNESS. It's disgusting, especially when abortion is promoted by FAKE CHRISTIANS.

WOW!!! I asked you a question and this is the best you got, Steve?

Which question do you refer to Ron?

No Steve, the practice in some societies of killing unwanted children soon after birth: "female infanticide was practiced to reduce the population in times of famine." The Key words in this sentence is: "in times of famine," Ask yourself when was the last time this country witness a famine?

I don't think I was the one who posted "female infanticide was practiced to reduce the population in times of famine."

I did not ask you about "female infanticide" STOP being foolish Steve, Now take note, you will not see "female infanticide" in my question to you.

QUESTION: "Ask yourself when was the last time this country witness a famine?"

Why do you ask Ron?

I guess that question is over your head anyway, never mind Steve.

You can look up the answer as well as I can Ron. I guess we'll never know what your point was.

Historians have differed on how often abortifacients were used in colonial days and how “effectual” they were; the anecdotal evidence, which is all we have in this and many other abortion-related issues, is mixed. Oil of savin, for example, often was ingested in Europe, with some users reporting that it had not killed their unborn children, and others not reporting at all because it had killed them. Since abortifacients worked by causing a horrible shock to the entire body of the maternal user, dosage was key, and effects could range all the way from a slightly upset stomach to death of child or death of mother and child. The few researchers who have looked into savin use have differed about its impact, perhaps because its impact could vary so immensely. When Elizabeth Wells of Massachusetts in 1668 took savin boiled in beer, her pregnancy continued. Ten years later, however, another Massachusetts resident, Hannah Blood of Groton, was said to have used savin and lost “her great belly” that made her “as big as a woman ready to ly in.”

Results upon ingestion were difficult to predict precisely for at least four reasons. First, the orally transmitted recipes varied considerably, “some midwives urging the mother to drink two or three glasses of the concoction in an afternoon, others counseling that it be consumed over a period of days.” Second, the amount of volatile oil in the plants varied widely, depending on soil conditions, the month of harvesting, the amount of rain, the particular plant parts used, and the technique of extracting the oil. Third, the presence of active ingredients depended on how long a plant was stored and how long it was cooked; boiling the leaves for hours probably cooked away much of the oil. Fourth, abortifacients that were harvested by someone other than the user might be adulterated, as illegal drugs now often are.

Overall, to label abortifacient use as either ineffective or suicidal is oversimplifying; since dosage was crucial, those who were desperate might try to get the amount and potency that would kill unborn children but not themselves. The emphasis was on desperation and on powerless women being forced or tricked into ingesting these substances by the men who had seduced or raped them. Since ingesting savin or other abortifacients was like playing Russian roulette with three bullets in the chambers, it is unlikely that colonial women would use the substances voluntarily unless they felt they had no other choice. How often they would feel such hopelessness brings us to consideration of the social climate concerning premarital s*xual relations and consequent out-of-wedlock conceptions.

It is a good thing that Abortions have advanced if-self from those beginning days. Those days are over and have been over for over 50 years and women need not worry about that process ever again.

Abortion was illegal in those days and from then, up until the misguided Roe v. Wade.

Which thankfully, has finally been overturned.

The first anti-abortion advocates in the United States were male physicians who sought to make abortion illegal to push out competition from midwives and female healers.

The Anti-Abortion Movement Has Roots in the Organizing of Physicians
In the mid-1800s, a coalition of male doctors began organizing as a way to separate themselves from the female healers and midwives who also performed abortions.

Before this time, the medical profession was largely unregulated, and a variety of healers competed with physicians for business, especially when it came to women’s reproductive care.

The American Medical Association (AMA) formed in 1847 and argued that doctors had superior knowledge on embryos and the female body and therefore should be the authority on abortion.

Historians note, however, that this heightened knowledge didn’t actually exist and was used as a means to discredit the midwives and healers in order to take control of the market. Another way they did this was by pushing states to pass anti-abortion laws.

“So you have these male gynecologists saying, ‘to have a baby, you have to come see me. You can’t have it at home with your midwife,” says Hamlin. “And part of this is making abortion criminal as a way to push out midwives.”

Their strategies worked, and by the early 1900s every state had made abortion illegal, with exceptions for cases in which the pregnant woman’s life was in danger.

Those of us who imbibed myths of the good old days might be shocked to learn how frequent those activities and outcomes were, particularly during the late eighteenth century. Before 1680, the best estimates are that only 3 percent of colonial brides had children within six months of marriage, and 8 percent within nine months. But by the 1760-1800 period the percentages had risen to 17 and 33 respectively. Although there were variations from colony to colony, the trend in each was similar. Some of those premarital pregnancies were intentional, a way of forcing the issue if parents objected to a marriage, but most evidently were unwanted. There was a major societal difference between then and now, however: most of these children were legitimized at birth, largely due to moral pressure (internal and external) on fathers to do the right thing.

The pressure was largely religious, familial, and churchly, but additional convincers were forthcoming if more were needed. Beginning in 1668 Massachusetts law stipulated that unwed mothers during delivery were to be asked to name the father. The belief was that a statement in labor was akin to a dying declaration and that a woman facing a great test would not lie. Men accused could not be convicted of adultery, since confession or two witnesses were needed for that, but would be called the “reputed father” and required to pay support. Other colonies developed similar procedures that lasted into the days of early statehood. In Princess Anne County, Virginia, Thomas Galt, Charles Smyth, Samuel Smith, and Thomas Walke posted bond after accusations by Sarah King, Mary Davies, Lovey Chappel, and Mary Nimno respectively during the period from 1783 to 1790.

These moral and legal pressures meant that few pregnant women were abandoned. Paternity suits often led to belated marriage. Maine midwife Martha Ballard delivered twenty out-of-wedlock babies and recorded in her diary the names of thirteen of the fathers, after having “taken testimony” as the law instructed. The court action that frequently followed was often successful. Nineteen paternity suits in Lincoln County, Maine, between 1761 and 1799 resulted in only three acquittals. Most actions were settled out of court, often—when the imputed fathers were members of local families—by marriage. For example, Mary Crawford of Bath, Maine, certified “that Samuel Todd of said Bath hath agreed to make me satisfaction for getting me with child by promising to marry me, therefore, I wish that the prosecution I commenced against him for so doing may be squashed.” Similarly, Martha Ballard’s son Jonathon, when identified as the father by the unmarried Sally Pierce, married her in 1792, four months after the child was born and a month before his scheduled trial.

Steve, Connect this article to the subject. What do these two paragraphs have to do with the subject of Abortion?

Steve, Connect this article to the subject. What do these two paragraphs have to do with the subject of Abortion?

Ron, you said "Before 1840, abortion was widespread and largely-stigma-free for American women."

That's a false statement and I'm showing you the proof, from the historical record "before 1840."

Wait a minute Steve, are you talking about this?:

"Those of us who imbibed myths of the good old days might be shocked to learn how frequent those activities and outcomes were, particularly during the late eighteenth century. Before 1680, the best estimates are that only 3 percent of colonial brides had children within six months of marriage, and 8 percent within nine months. But by the 1760-1800 period the percentages had risen to 17 and 33 respectively. Although there were variations from colony to colony, the trend in each was similar.

If so...

Show me how what those last three paragraphs have to do with Abortion Law, point that out for me.

They point out that abortion was NOT widespread Ron.