Mattie Brinckerhoff on voluntary motherhood and “destroy[ing] unborn children”

Many people don’t know that the early feminists (those who fought for a woman’s right to vote in the 1800s) were mostly pro-life.

Mattie H Brinckerhoff was a popular lecturer in the Midwest on women’s suffrage and other women’s rights topics. Here is some of her writing on abortion. Her use of the term “voluntary motherhood” dealt with the choice women should have to refuse to have sex in order to avoid childbearing. It’s hard to believe, but at the time, women had no right to refuse sex with their husbands- they could not prosecute him for rape, and culture dictated that they always be sexually available to him. This lengthy article discusses this and mentions abortion. I wanted to quote it in its entirety to give context to the part about abortion

“In number 25, volume 3D of The Revolution, I notice from the editor of a German paper in this state these words: “American women have long been ardently engaged in the endeavor to free themselves, in a mechanical way, from the discharge of those functions which are essential to the continuance of society, and which cannot be shared with them, or performed for them, by men.” The gallant editor unquestionably refers to the office of maternity. This and similar articles have from time to time so ably answered in your paper, that it seems almost unnecessary to add anything further upon the subject; but the boldness with which many men blame women for the crime of infanticide without assuming themselves, in the case, a shadow of responsibility, I should think would rouse every mother, at least, to utter words in self-defense. That American women are more guilty of this practice than women of any other nation, I do not doubt; but is there not a reason for this?

Knowledge and slavery are incompatible. Teach a slave how a read, and he wants to be his own master – and as the masses of American women not only know how to read and write, but so much of the “tree of knowledge” have many of them eaten, that they have learned it should be for them to decide when and how often they shall take upon themselves the sacred duties of motherhood, but as law and custom gives to the husband the absolute control of the wife’s person, she is forced to not only violate physical law, but outrage the holiest instincts of her being to maintain even a semblance of that freedom which by nature belongs to every human soul.

When a man steals to satisfy hunger, we may safely conclude that there is something wrong in society – so when a woman destroys the life of her unborn child, it is an evidence that either by education or circumstances she has been greatly wronged. But the question now seems to be, how shall we prevent this destruction of life and health?

Mrs. Stanton has many times ably answered it – “by the true education and independence of woman.”

Our German writer seems to think that the whole aim of a woman’s life should be motherhood. Suppose this were true, is the mission of so little importance that no preparation be required to fill it? If, to be a first-class artist, or lawyer, it requires years of thought and culture, what preparation should be made to carve the outlines and justly balance the attributes of an immortal soul. Are little children, the germs of men and women, of so little importance that it matters not whether their mother be physically healthy or unhealthy, cultivated or uncultivated mind; expanded or dwarfed in soul? We are forced to ask, by what law shall we decide when women is sufficiently developed in body and mind to be a good mother? Before what tribunal shall she be judged? Does not reason answer, the council chamber of her own being?

… If we would make woman free, let us teach her the alphabet of human life, make her understand and value true womanhood. Then she will scorn to be man’s petted slave. She will scorn his smiles and courtesies, when they are proffered only as an excuse for justice.

Oh motherhood! Which are opponents say is woman’s holiest mission. We cannot have true mothers without having true womanhood first. Let us see that our daughters are developed into true women, and the office of maternity will take care of itself. Remove woman’s shackles and she will soon create a public opinion that will declare it a disgrace for a man to outrage the woman he has sworn to protect. Then, and not till then, will man’s shackles fall, for noble manhood must be the legitimate fruit of free and exalted womanhood. Brothers, ‘tis for you as well as ourselves we plead. Will you neglect so great a salvation?”

I think the early feminists had a too optimistic sense of human nature: let women be able to support themselves, stop marital rape, compel men to support their out of wedlock children, get rid of the double standard, and women will not need or want abortions.

It didn’t turn out that way. We even have effective contraception, and it still isn’t working out that way.

Early feminists had some very valid complaints and, at least to my eye, had an idealistic view of being able to protect and provide for themselves. Of a world where they “didn’t need men” - not just to have a say in society or own land, but to be freed from what they saw as benevolent masters at best or tyrants at worst.

What they refused to acknowledge is the kind of society that such thinking will inevitably lead to. At the absolute minimum if you make laws so that women don’t need men for anything, the “circle of life” that every civilization has relied on gets the rug pulled out from under it as the birthrate collapses and an increasing number of young men have no legitimate outlet for their God-given sexual outlets which were formerly channeled by society and their elders into courtship and marriage. They were not just expected to buy the cow if they wanted milk, but that most of them should buy a cow instead of spend their lives single. And not surprisingly, divorces being rarely allowed and the responsibility of married life and childrearing had a remarkable effect on maturity. Readers will note the distinct lack of liberalism among married couples with children.

Contrast that with a world where childrearing and marriage are as optional as buying a purse. Even in a very Christian society there are consequences that become more severe over time: sagging populations which usually leads to undesirable immigrants being allowed in as a quick-fix, young people drifting with no commitment to their communities in a legally binding relationship or in home ownership, and the entire idea of chivalry toward women being thrown out to rust. Astute readers may notice that the last one indicates what ‘equality’ actually ends up being for women: a step DOWN, a DECREASE in their perceived value.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.