Anthony Comstock and Comstock's law!
Mr. Comstock chased Margaret Sanger to the Gates of Hell for mailing and promoting birth control by way of US mail. It was considered "obscene" at the time.
If only we had 1000+ Anthony Comstocks today
He is called the father of lies for a reason.
Know you are a history buff and I read your posts just don’t comment on them. Don’t know how much of this history you know of but thought I’d ping you anyway. I know the history of this way back to the 1700’s in America, yes women were trying abortions back then too.
However, as one might expect, there are a number of false claims in the article.
I would be surprised if there were any true statements in the article.
Of course. Laura Nicole, the Women’s Libber, will lie through her teeth to get what she wants like they all do.
It was not considered murder but that doesnt mean it was socially acceptable. Even though it was not considered murder they passed laws banning abortion in most of not all states.
Abortion is murder
I tell my kids the simple truth about the Democratic and Republican Party
The Democratic Party hates babies and wants to kill them and murder them and then chop them up and sell their body parts
The republican party wants babies to be born taken care of and loved
Thats all you need to know about the two parties
The New York Times is doing likewise with Transgenerism, gender nuetral and any of the other sexual perverted lifestyles today...... proclaiming these too are “ widely accepted” when in fact all these are promoted, financed, and ‘pushed on society’ by news network conglomerates and special interest groups of the left to weaken this nation.
Next they will probably say that “most Republicans are guilty until they prove themselves innocent”...Oops too late.
Well its her truth anyway.
Its called lying.
You have to wonder about anyone who believes killing children in the womb is okay.
The New York Times 1619 project is being criticized for lying repeatedly about history, too.
Professors tell New York Times to correct the many errors in its 1619 Project
The 1619 Project Gets Schooled
The New York Times tries to rewrite U.S. history, but its falsehoods are exposed by surprising sources
Abortion was ALWAYS looked upon as a dirty and dark secret, driven to back alleys and never discussed. It was a bloody and criminal enterprise, undertaken only under the greatest of duress, and with a high probability that the mother would not survive the procedure either. Whether through bleed-out, or a raging infection, or by later suicide, the consequences were terrible and unforgiving, and even those who survived, many had permanently ended their child bearing years. Considering the alternatives of the time, few mothers would think of undergoing an abortion, even with the burden of another mouth to feed and the pain and grief of raising still one more child.
It was a different world, in so many ways. And not at all as pictured in this screed.
I wonder how he feels about slavery? It was also acceptable in the time frame he talks about.
“New York Times writer gets history wrong”
And in other news, water is wet.
I can remember when the hostess of “Romper Room” a TV series for young children went to Europe for an abortion because her baby was exposed to thalidomide. The parents of young children were so shocked they rose up and demanded that she be removed from the television show. This was in the early 1960s, as I recall as I was a child but old enough to understand what this lady had done.
I swear by Apollo the physician, and Asclepius, and Hygieia and Panacea and all the gods and goddesses as my witnesses, that, according to my ability and judgement, I will keep this Oath and this contract:
To hold him who taught me this art equally dear to me as my parents, to be a partner in life with him, and to fulfill his needs when required; to look upon his offspring as equals to my own siblings, and to teach them this art, if they shall wish to learn it, without fee or contract; and that by the set rules, lectures, and every other mode of instruction, I will impart a knowledge of the art to my own sons, and those of my teachers, and to students bound by this contract and having sworn this Oath to the law of medicine, but to no others.
I will use those dietary regimens which will benefit my patients according to my greatest ability and judgement, and I will do no harm or injustice to them.
I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.
In purity and according to divine law will I carry out my life and my art.
I will not use the knife, even upon those suffering from stones, but I will leave this to those who are trained in this craft.
Into whatever homes I go, I will enter them for the benefit of the sick, avoiding any voluntary act of impropriety or corruption, including the seduction of women or men, whether they are free men or slaves.
Whatever I see or hear in the lives of my patients, whether in connection with my professional practice or not, which ought not to be spoken of outside, I will keep secret, as considering all such things to be private.
So long as I maintain this Oath faithfully and without corruption, may it be granted to me to partake of life fully and the practice of my art, gaining the respect of all men for all time. However, should I transgress this Oath and violate it, may the opposite be my fate.
NOTE: THE PROHIBITION AGAINST ABORTION FOR ETHICAL REASONS (IT WAS CLEARLY LINKED TO THE TAKING OF A HUMAN LIFE, NOTE THE CONTEXT) GOES BACK TO THE 5TH CENTURY B.C.
Using ether for surgery was common too.
But we have progressed.
We now have many alternatives to preventing unwanted pregnancies.
Muslims think that publicly cutting infidel’s heads of is “socially acceptable”.
Does THAT make it okay?
MURDER (abortion) is okay if it is “socially acceptable”?
Scientific “fact”, Life begins at conception.
The taking of an innocent life is “MURDER”.
A fertilized egg or baby in the womb is NOT part of a women’s body to dispose of as she sees fit.
The baby, (that the woman does not OWN), has its specific individual DNA, AT CONCEPTION.
ENOUGH of this “it’s MY body” BULLSHIRT!