Talk:Susan B. Anthony/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Abortion section

Including such a large section on Anthony's views of abortion is biased. We hear nothing about Anthony's views on labor, war, nationalized childcare, etc. - yet a third of her Wikipedia entry is devoted to her views on abortion? Removing the section is not censorship, it is fair reporting. One sentence would do her view justice.

Many important historical figures have views on abortion, but that doesn't mean those views are an essential part of their biographies. Susan B. Anthony's contributions were in suffrage - just because she's a feminist doesn't mean she has a valuable perspective on all feminist issues everywhere.

• I did some rewriting of the abortion paragraph to add some context. This is how it reads as of now:

Also included in The Revolution were a number of quotes displaying Anthony's anti-abortion views. However, Anthony's position on abortion must be considered in context. Prior to the advent of the Sexual Revolution and modern methods of contraception, women were often forced by circumstance into having abortions. Furthermore, abortion was far more dangerous than it is today, because antibiotics hadn't been invented yet. In this light, many early feminists saw abortion as a symptom of women's lack of personal autonomy.

Schmeitgeist 03:36, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that too much space is devoted to abortion. The rewrite is a modern-day apology of her 19th century anti-abortion stance, and is therefore biased. Removed.

jpowersny2 02:39, Aug 22, 2005 (UTC)

I don't totally agree; the rewrite is not an "apology", but an explanation of an aspect that modern readers would find confusing.

In the 19th century, "anti-abortion" and "pro-choice" would have been synonymous (Hillary Clinton has a similar view nowadays), it isn't the same debate. Modern readers expect these views to be mutually exclusive, and would be interested in the way the debate has changed. Either we remove the passage about abortion entirely (as it is wrong to say that she has a particular position on the abortion debate without historical context, because the modern abortion debate did not exist then), or we include a historically appropriate version of the information. I have added a reference to historical context, but tried to keep the reference short. I believe this is a fair compromise between appropriate length and historical accuracy.

David Elliott 8.21pmAEST 17/Sept/2005

I have reverted the infamous 'abortion section', not based on any political beliefs, but something much more relevant to this article. It is clearly misleading, perhaps purposefully, to include in such a tragically diminutive article on such an important person, a hefty paragraph solely dedicated to her view on what amounts to a procedure that is radically different today, and surrounded by radically different politics. One can barely call what went on in Anthony's day 'abortion' as we know it, as it was unsanitary, far more dangerous, and anything but a 'surgical procedure'. Furthermore, anybody in that era who had the experience of watching a man force a woman into this crude and horribly dangerous 'procedure' (as the men were the ones to make the decision at that time) had to come away from the experience feeling the desire to ward any woman away from that sort of nightmare. Hence Anthony's opinion is very misleading when simply read without being put into context. The problem is, putting the whole situation into context involves a thorough discussion of the history of abortion, which is neither appropriate nor relevant to this article. I hope there is not a big debacle over this, IMHO I feel it is simply the proper thing to do at this time. Perhaps once more info, and quotes, and perspective, have been added, we can discuss re-inserting this section.--Jackbirdsong 10:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum for trying to rewrite or 'reinterpret' the facts or history. That is not its purpose! Nor is it appropriate to consciously leave out bits of information (large or small) because it's 'personally' unpopular or not PC.James xeno 04:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

James xeno- I am not quite sure you fully understood my reasons, as laid out above, for removing this section. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with Anthony's stance being "personally unpopular or not", nor does it have to do with being PC. Please read the above rationale again, and try to be open-minded and unbiased about this! That is the role of an encyclopedia. If you wish to go into much more detail on the state and specifics of abortion in the late 19th century, as compared to today, in order to give a less biased view of Anthony's opinion, I would allow for that. Otherwise it would appear you have an ulterior motive here.--Jackbirdsong 04:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing ambiguous, 'bias' or misleading about the section or quote in question. Nor is there anything suggestive within it, as you so claim. "open-minded and unbiased?" I'm not sure where you get this idea from, but I respectfully ask that you follow your own advice.

We are NOT here to reinterpret anything. We're merely here to report. And not add original research! - James xeno 05:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It was my hope to prevent this from becoming a serious issue of contention, but I guess given the scope of the issue under discussion it was inevitable. So, since you seem to be entirely unwilling to compromise under the grounds I have previously laid out, let me try to compromise a different way. This is not about "reinterpreting" history, but about "interpreting" it. I agree that Anthony's stance is worth noting, yet, as I have said before, to simply state that she was opposed to abortion is misleading: She was opposed to abortion in the 19th century, when women were forced by men into a life-threatening procedure. This is not abortion as we know it today. Abortion was a different thing in many ways back then, and her stance was not in the context of contemporary politics, but in regards to women's rights. Let's make that clear at least. Thank you.--Jackbirdsong 07:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm ok with that. It needs a little cleaned up and some context, but it should be fine. Though I do find your theory about and explanation of her stance highly disputable. - James xeno 18:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

James xeno- you continue to edit the section in question despite our agreement to compromise by adding historical context. Please explain what your motivation is for the most recent edits, as this seems like a futile battle we are having over this, but nonetheless in regards to an important person.--Jackbirdsong 22:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Again I must ask you the same thing. We appeared to agree with the revision as of 15, September. [[1]] So I'm not sure why you went and added your extremely POV edits to it again on 19, September. [[2]] - James xeno 17:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Jackbirdsong - Can you please give a reason pertaining to why you have a problem with it now? As I said before. I thought we agreed, or at least didn't have a major problem with the version from the 15th. So I don't quite understand what you're having a problem with now. Nor do I understand why you insist on adding a strong POV into the article. (Maybe or maybe not your own POV, but still a POV.) Again, we are NOT here to reinterpret, rewrite or make anything PC. We're merely here to report. And not add original research/content! - James xeno 00:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no original research or POV in my edits. Thank You.--Jackbirdsong 01:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

There is not sufficient (or otherwise) evidence to make the assumption that those were the sole reasons for, or even a major part of the reason behind the views clearly manifested by her. By trying to say "oh but this is what she really meant. ;)" despite evidence to the contrary, you're just putting words in her mouth! - James xeno 03:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what exactly you are saying above, please be more specific. As for you reversion in re to the "double standard", that is a referenced and valid statement that is not based on assumption, but rather on her own writings on the subject. Let's get over this one sentence in question and we can move on, having compromised and agreed to disagree. --Jackbirdsong 03:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm perturbed that this section no longer appears in the document. Abortion is a major political issue today and almost a must-agree issue for feminists, so it's likely to be of great interest to people that the feminist foremother Susan B. Anthony was strongly opposed to abortion. Not that it makes her less of a feminist, but rather it points out how she was a woman of her time, and times have changed. I definitely think any serious biography of her ought to mention it--maybe not at great length, but it should be there. Frankly when something this important gets left out, I always think the author must have been a coward to refuse to tackle it. If others have argued over this I'm not going to rush in and edit the biography, but in my opinion it's a serious lack. Same with the lesbianism. Tei Tetua 22:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• There were a series of deletes that changed the abortion paragraph, and unfortunately, I didn't cop to it all at once, so I replaced the paragraph in a series of edits. At any rate. Having gone through versions for the last three months, I've attempted to restore it to the state that appeared to be the longest-running and with most consensus. Paragraphs follow:

In the 19th century there were none of the standard contraceptive options available to women today, such as birth control, and abortion was a life-threatening and unsanitary procedure. Anthony occasionally wrote about abortion, which she opposed, and for which she blamed men, laws, and the "double standard", as women had no other options:[1] "When a woman destroys the life of her unborn child, it is a sign that, by education or circumstances, she has been greatly wronged." [2]

Pulitzer prize winner Stacy Schiff has discussed Anthony's opposition to abortion, saying that "...[although] Anthony deplored abortion, in 19th century abortion was life-threatening [and] it is impossible to know what Anthony would make of today's debate." Schiff cautions that "...thrusting historical figures into contemporary debate is treacherous because argument can be made for anything when words are taken out of context..." [3]

The salient points of this version are (1) leading with contextualizing information about safety of procedure; (2) SBA's position contextualized as "occasionally wrote"; (3) relevant quote from SBA in short form; (4) contextualizing quote from Schiff about relevance of SBA's position and interpretation of it today. --lquilter 18:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• • My opinion about this graph is that there is a bit too much contextualizing. I understand the reason it's there. I'd prefer something overall shorter and that leads with SBA's position because this is about SBA. Propose:

Anthony occasionally wrote about abortion, which she opposed, and for which she blamed men, laws, and the "double standard", as women had no other options:[1] "When a woman destroys the life of her unborn child, it is a sign that, by education or circumstances, she has been greatly wronged." [2] Reviewing the current debate over Anthony's stance, Stacy Schiff observed that "...[although] Anthony deplored abortion, in 19th century abortion was life-threatening [and] it is impossible to know what Anthony would make of today's debate."[3]

I think that's sufficient context, and keeps the paragraph comparably short with paragraphs on SBA's positions on other social issues of her day and ours. Thoughts? --lquilter 18:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I have been party to a long-standing debate with the editor responsible for the "series of deletes that changed the abortion paragraph", and although I previously felt we had reached a mature concensus based upon compromise, I see now that there are still issues of contention. That being said, an objective third-party brings new perspective to the situation, and I would happily agree to Lquilter's proposed rervision, at least for the sake of brevity. My main focus is to keep the historical context apparent, as it seems to me to be entirely relevant to SBA's position (how could it not be?) But since the Schiff quote highlights to some extent the life-threatening nature of 19th cent. abortion, this revision would seem a fair compromise to me.--Jackbirdsong 23:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I just had to revert one of James xeno's changes again. He went with the first sentence leading with abortion (which I do think is better, a la my suggested paragraph above), but I reverted the whole thing because we're still discussing. Also there's an ungrammatical construction in James xeno's version. The grammatically problematic section is a point that he is trying to make is in response to the statement that abortion was an unsafe procedure; and he's pointing out that many medical procedures were unsafe. If we get rid of that statement we don't need James xeno's rejoinder. (And I think the safety or lack thereof is all a red herring, anyway.)

Then the major point of contention is the length of the quote. James xeno, I get that you like the quote; could you please explain, though, why you think the lengthier quote is useful to understanding SBA? To me, the short version illustrates, succinctly, her disapproval of abortion & contextualizes it within her philosophy of the sexes. The lengthier quote says the same thing in more poetic language, but to me it seems disproportionate given the amount of attention to other sorts of sex/reproduction issues--undue weight. Abortion wasn't really a focus of her politics, and is of interest to us only because we are in a time when people's positions on abortion are interesting. But to include a very lengthy quote would seem like it would suggest that abortion was a big focus for SBA, and that is not accurate.

I'd like to hear an explanation of why you think the quote is helpful to the article about SBA, and not undue weight. If we can't all reach consensus on a decision about one of the two existing versions of the quote (short or long), then the next step would be to try to work on intermediate versions of the quote. --lquilter 18:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to again voice my opinion in regard to working toward a fair concensus here. The following paragraph, initially laid out by Lquilter and with a few minor adjustments by myself, is, in my opinion, a fair compromise insofar as the amount of weight given the subject (more brevity) and the stance (neutral, with context):

Anthony occasionally wrote about abortion, which she opposed, and for which she blamed men, laws, and the "double standard", as women in the 19th century had no other options:[1] "When a woman destroys the life of her unborn child, it is a sign that, by education or circumstances, she has been greatly wronged." [2] Reviewing the current debate over Anthony's stance, Pulitzer Prize-winner Stacy Schiff has observed that "...[although] Anthony deplored abortion, in 19th century abortion was life-threatening [and] it is impossible to know what Anthony would make of today's debate."[3]

If nobody has any legitimate issues with this proposed revision, I will post it shortly.--Jackbirdsong 04:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I cannot comfortably accept this version, without at least a reference to the contraceptive options (or lack of) available at the time. Furthermore, the removal of the full quote present in the current version, is a nonstarter issue for me. It eloquently and quite thoroughly conveys Anthony's views on the topic. With exception to the contraceptive issue, I would have little problem with something like:

"Anthony occasionally wrote about abortion, which she opposed, and for which she blamed men, laws, and the "double standard", as women in the 19th century had no other options:[1] "No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh, thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime! All the articles on this subject that I have read have been from men. They denounce women as alone guilty, and never include man in any plans for the remedy." [2] Reviewing the current debate over Anthony's stance, Pulitzer Prize-winner Stacy Schiff has observed that "...[although] Anthony deplored abortion, in 19th century abortion was life-threatening [and] it is impossible to know what Anthony would make of today's debate."[3]"

Would this be acceptable? - James xeno 21:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Quick response to one thing here, more substantive response below -- I really think it's not helpful to try to gain extra points for the argument by emphasizing "current" in the "current" version, when it's only "current" because you changed it, after I realized that there had been edit warring going on, went back and reconstructed the consensus version, and started discussion here. I could as easily change it back to the consensus version and then describe that as the "current" version. --lquilter 00:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey James, it's kind of funny, we're back where we started again with our initial compromise from some months ago (inclusion of contraceptive info for context and the original quote you posted). I agree with a lot of what Lquilter has proposed, but if you are absolutely opposed to the use of the shorter quote (despite the fact that I may not quite understand your rationale there) then maybe we should just leave the whole thing alone? I dunno, somebody else chime in on this.--Jackbirdsong 23:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

To me, it seems that the long quote is (a) disproportional to other quotes about issues on which Anthony "occasionally wrote". If James xeno feels it's more eloquent, that's fine, but I don't think eloquence is quite enough of a reason to put it in. And (b) therefore virtually requires more discussion in the paragraph to balance the quote, which just makes the whole paragraph longer & disproportional to other paragraphs dealing with issues that were of relatively minor import to Anthony's achievements. .... As for the bit about contraceptive options, James xeno, can you explain why you think a reference to contraceptive options improves the article? --lquilter 00:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think that some sort of reference to the contraceptive options - or lack thereof - in the 19th century is important to note for the purpose of context. Women at the time had no other options, and were therefore forced by men into a life-threatening procedure (as men were given priority over women for the decision not to have a child back then). This then falls into the category of women's rights - men forcing women into a corner. If there had been more options for women, then abortion would have been at least partially the woman's decision - the decision of the woman who chose not to use birth control - and therefore abortion would have played a vastly different political role. Since Anthony's life was dedicated to women's rights, if abortion had been more of a woman's choice, then Anthony would have been involved in an entirely different political debate - one more similar to today's. As for the quote issue, I do agree that the lengthy quote is entirely unnecessary, since we have a much more concise one that adequately displays SBA's position.--Jackbirdsong 02:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Upon reflection, it would be fairly difficult to keep the section short while also mentioning the contraceptive info, so here is my shot at a compromise:

"Unlike today, in the 19th century abortion was a life-threatening and unsanitary procedure. Anthony occasionally wrote about abortion, which she opposed, and for which she blamed men, laws, and the "double standard", as women had no other options:[1] "When a woman destroys the life of her unborn child, it is a sign that, by education or circumstances, she has been greatly wronged." [2] Pulitzer prize winner Stacy Schiff has discussed Anthony's opposition to abortion, saying that "...[although] Anthony deplored abortion, in 19th century abortion was life-threatening [and] it is impossible to know what Anthony would make of today's debate." Schiff cautions that "...thrusting historical figures into contemporary debate is treacherous because argument can be made for anything when words are taken out of context..." [3]".

If there are no problems, lets see how this works for now.--Jackbirdsong 03:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Schiff's discussion seems dishonest to me. Anthony wrote, "When a woman destroys the life of her unborn child," so we obviously have SOME idea of how she would view the modern debate. While she might possibly view abortion as justifiable homicide, she would certainly not agree with any of the pro-choice rhetoric about the fetus being merely part of the woman's body or a lump of tissue, especially since recent medical science has shown the fetus to be a unique individual, more "human" than Anthony could have known. I would strongly recommend striking Schiff's comments as they are an attempt to put words into Anthony's mouth and disrespect what she stood for. - DanSSwing 23 Feb 07

When you talk about things like "justifiable homicide" and "pro-choice rhetoric", it indicates a distinct pro-life POV on your part, and therefore doesn't help your argument, as this site is meant to be objective and NPOV- dedicated purely to the facts and devoid of opinion one way or the other. Aside from that, the Schiff quote is IMO clearly not "putting words into Anthony's mouth", as the quote is attributed to her directly, not SBA. As well, the Schiff quote is there to provide context, which is important when discussing a political topic that has evolved and changed drastically since SBA's time.--Jackbirdsong 03:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Jackbird, whatever terminology DanSswing himself used, I don't think we can just ignore the terminology that Anthony herself used: "When a woman destroys the life of her unborn child," is not the type of opening quotation that goes along with the modern stance on abortion rights. You can pretend that Anthony's views had everything to do with the woman's choice and nothing to do with her child's life, but it's hard to see such a viewpoint as anything except naive or negligent of Anthony's own political terminology. -BaronGrackle 19:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Grackle, I'm not sure what your point is - Anthony's own words are included in the section, as you cite them above. I never claimed that her views "had everything to do with the woman's choice and nothing to do with her child's life", as you say, and that is not what the section of the article states either. My only point has been that context is vital here, and to take Anthony's words and place them in the contemporary debate without historical context is misleading. We have no idea how Anthony would view the abortion argument today - this can only be based on assumption - and to presume to positively know is possibly naive and/or negligent of human subjectivity.--Jackbirdsong 03:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I edited out the paragraph on Susan B. Anthony that was presented for several reasons. Number 1 whenever anyone has wrote about Susan B. Anthony's opposition it has always been deleted in the past as irrelevant to her work. Number 2 it was wrong, the quote included was not Susan B. Anthony's, that statement was actually Mattie Brinkoff. Number 3 it was extremely biased in a pro-choice way as ALL quotes attributed to Susan B. Anthony do not refer to abortion as a dangerous life threatening procedure but as "Child murder" or infanticide.

The fact remains that the claim the debate was differant at the time is a lie propogated by people who find feminist history inconvenient. All articles run in Susan B. Anthony's paper refer to abortion as "Child murder," and Victoria Woodhull, Susan B. Anthony's contemporary declared in print that abortion violated the rights of the child which began in the feotus. In short this is a deliberate attempt to push pro-choice progpoganda.

If abortion could not be included when all historians agreed she was pro-life, I believe her position should be excluded now that there is a favorable arguement convenient to abortion rights advocates. As has been said many times on this page regardless her views they didn't play a major roll in her work, and therefore should not be included. To do otherwise is in my opinion an extreme case of POV.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.255.40.133 (talk)

This is an encyclopedia, and as such all verifiable information on an individual can be included in an article. While I agree that her view on the subject is not entirely relevant to her work, it would be far mor POV not to include it. As far as your complaints about "pro-choice propaganda", there is in fact no way anyone can argue that the debate was not different in many ways more than a hundred years ago, prior to countless medical advances, not to mention the general evolution of this and all other political debates throughout the past century. The fact of the matter is, again, nobody knows what Anthony would think of the current debate - perhaps her opinion would be unchanged, perhaps in light of contemporary circumstances she would hold a different view - but neither you, nor I, can claim to know, as she is not alive to tell us. To say as much is the responsibility of a historical biographical article in an encyclopedia. To assume otherwise clearly violates POV.--Jackbirdsong 23:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

For starters it was not I, but the pro-choice people one here who first said that SBA shouldn't include an abortion section because it wasn't relevant, that was before Stacy Schiff wrote her article. Now that a arguement positive to pro-choice views is out there, its included, thats POV. If SBA's views were not included when they were perceived to be adamantly pro-life they should not be included now when they are somewhat favorable to pro-choice.

Secondly the abortion debate then was in fact no differant, and yes I can say what her views would have been. The reason I can is because A. the debate then was based on fetal rights as it is today, and B. she wrote about it. You can tell a persons opinion from what she wrote. The fetal rights arguements were very much front in center then, and her own newspaper The Revolution always referred to abortion as "Child Murder," I have never once seen an instance when it was referred to or opposed as anything else. Victoria Woodhull who was friend of SBA stated that the rights of children as individuals begain while they were fetus's, in her newspaper when writing about abortion, and also stated women complained about abortion laws because they insisted they needed the right to abortion to limit their families.

To ignore or pretend that it was otherwise is POV. Btw I also deleted that portion because it included a quote that SBA never said, that quote was written by Mattie Brinkoff.

If a section SBA is to be included it has to A. Affirm she did in fact oppose abortion, and B. Give the pro-life feminist arguement that SBA opposed abortion as chlid murder equal time with those that say that she opposed it only because it was a dangerous medical procedure. - dissident —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.255.40.133 (talk)

Let's go step by step here. 1)Are you saying that SBA's opinion regarding abortion should not be included in the article at present because it wasn't included in the past? That's mind-numbing logic, and you have to realize that the pro-choice conspiracy you are insinuating is completely based upon your perspective and opinion, and doesn't warrant the deletion of countless editor's work and compromise. 2)You can say what SBA's view on abortion would be today? We both know, as is made quite clear in the article, what her opinion was on the subject in her day - she opposed it. But the claim that one can therefore extrapolate what her view would be today is frightening, as it means either a)you regularly talk to SBA from beyond the grave, or b)you own a time machine and have brought the poor woman to 21st century America and explained thoroughly to her the evolution of every medical and surgical advancement, as well as filled her in on the political, feminist, religious, and other American topics of discussion that have evolved throughout the past century. This isn't even an arguable point - you don't know what her view would be today, neither do I, and you can claim to know, but that would only be based on your opinion and would not be objective reality nor wiki-acceptable. And just as a sidenote, dissident, dissent involves taking your own path as a member of a minority group opposing the "status-quo". Anti-abortion activists on wikipedia and elsewhere aren't any harder to find than pro-abortion activists.--Jackbirdsong 21:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, for starters I am not saying it shouldn't be included in the article because it wasn't in the past. The fact is that there use to be an abortion section in the article which discussed her pro-life views, and other editors decided to delete it in the past because then "it was not relevant" and she didn't talk about it a great deal. That was when Feminists for Life, and SBA List were the only groups that talked about her pro-life stance. Once Stacy Schiff wrote her piece now there is a new section. That seems to me to POV.

Number 2. The reason I can say what her opinion of abortion would be today is because the abortion debate is the same as it was in her day, and that can be proven. I happen to own an anthology of essays on the subject which includes the article that Stacy Schiff talks about, and in it she says that abortion is child murder (hence the modern debate) and that women that have abortions are guilty of the crime. Virtually every arguement used by feminists in the 1800's refer's to abortion as child murder, and a violation of the rights of infants to be born. The only exception that I have found would be Emma Goldman, who clarified her position in her autobiography.

Don't tell me I can't know what her position would have been, she was very clear on it.

At any rate my main problem is that the article talks about how she would have only opposed abortion as a dangerous medical procedure, and doesn't give the fact that she also considered it child murder, or Feminists for Life's interpretation any mention or standing. Thats POV because it only presents one POV that is unsubstantiated. Also as I have stated the quote that is included NOT from SBA, it is from another woman so it is misleading to falsely attribute that quote to SBA.

Look I'm not saying you have an agenda, but it seems that whenever there is a pro-life section in SBA's bio its deleted until it can be toned down to say something other then what she said. Stacy Schiff says she opposed it because abortion was dangerous, yet not one instance of this view is ever provided, I have read her essays on this and they always refer to them as child murder. Also somebody vandalized the Feminists for Life wiki the other day deleting almost the entire article, that was deliberate.

At any rate if you want to include an abortion section, all I am asking is that you include proper quotes (the current quote again is wrong) and that what she wrote be allowed to speak for itself. If you need proper quotes or more information just ask and I can get you them.- dissident.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.255.40.133 (talk)

I'm not saying you don't know what her position was in her day - that is layed out for all to see in the section in question. I'm saying that none of us can say - or to be more specific prove - what SBA's position would be today, as this can only be based on assumption - which is not verifiable - and this would be subject to the subjective opinion of the individual doing the assuming. As well, the section does not state that SBA only opposed abortion per the health risks, it simply presents the fact that abortion was a different procedure back then for historical context in the opening, and goes on to say: "Anthony occasionally wrote about abortion, which she opposed, and for which she blamed men, laws, and the "double standard", as women had no other options" and then cites her own words (the quote was retrieved from Susan B. Anthony at womenshistory.com, if you could provide proof that this is not properly attributed to SBA, please provide that). So what are you suggesting, that we say "SBA opposed abortion for religious reasons", or what? The section simply says she opposed the procedure, which is the point of fact.--Jackbirdsong 03:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok well then let me put it this way, yes abortion was medically dangerous (most operations were then) but that has nothing to do with SBA's stance at the time, and also please note nobody is talking about what her stance today would have been, at least I am not at this time, I am talking about what her stance was then and she considered it to be child murder from everything I have read (including her writings) and the article should reflect that, as that was her position at the time. I don't see how saying that it was a dangerous procedure that she opposed is relevant as that is not why she opposed it, and it seems somewhat misleading.

No I am not suggesting she opposed it for religious reasons, (where did I say that?) I am suggesting the article says she opposed it because she considered it to be child murder or infanticide, which everything we know from what she has written indicates. Also she wasn't alone in this there are countless other quotes from both her newspaper The Revolution, and from other women she knew, that considered abortion child murder, infanticide, ect . . . the fact is no where have I read anything that indicates she opposed it because it was dangerous (though I am sure that may have been a secondary concern.)

As for the quote I saw that on the womens history site, and they got it wrong too. That quote was in SBA's paper, but it was written by Mattie Brinkoff. I included a quote from SBA on the Feminists for Life wiki about the SBA house, so you should check that out. This site will provide you with the quotes, if it helps I own an anthology of the essays and can verify that Mattie Brinkoff not SBA wrote that. http://www.feministsforlife.org/history/foremoth.htm

- dissident—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.255.40.133 (talk)

The information you seem to take issue with is simple historical context (and there is no claim made in the section that SBA opposed abortion mainly or only because it was dangerous). The procedure was different in her time, and this should be noted for very rudimentary encyclopedic reasons (hypothetically, if in an article on the civil war one discusses the horrors of amputation and soldier's reaction to the procedure, and one wishes to be historically accurate, one must therefore, for historical context, mention the fact that amputation in the 19th century was very different than it is today. Were many people likely more turned off by the thought of amputation back then because of the barbarity and lack of contemporary medicinal skill? Either way you still lose a leg, but if that also means possibly losing your life in the process (as it would have back then) doesn't that seem to bear some mentioning?) The whole point of the section is that we are not saying exactly why SBA opposed abortion - we are simply saying that she did and letting her own words do the talking. This is the only NPOV way to go about this section. So please provide referenced proof that the quote in question is in fact from Brinkerhoff and not SBA (a verifiable book and/or scholarly publication with a page number) and we can fix that. As far as your other proposed change (stating SBA opposed abortion because it is child murder) would be extremely POV, and furthermore unnecessary, as you claim your conclusion is based entirely on her writings, so it would be redundant to both quote SBA and say what you propose.--Jackbirdsong 22:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

And please start signing your posts properly (four tildes ~ ) as I have requested you do this already once and it is wiki procedure. Thanks.--Jackbirdsong 22:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Your missing the point. Abortion may have been a grissly procedure, but that is not remotely relevant, as the article is about Susan B. Anthony and her views on the subject, not abortion itself. Furthermore how can you not say why she opposed abortion? It is not POV to say that as that is in fact the case. Thats like saying it would be POV to say she supported womens suffrage because she believed men and women are equal. It isn't. SBA believed in woman suffrage because she believed women are equal to men, and opposed abortion because it is child murder.

As for the quote I provided you with a link in my last post which includes the quotes and sources thereof (that is it includes the original sources). The book I am refrencing (which includes both SBA's essay and Brinkerhoff's essay) is "Pro-life Feminism: Yesterday and Today" edited by Rachel MacNair, Mary Krane Derr, and Linda Naranjo Huebl. Matties quote appears on page 56, and SBA's quote which I included on the Feminists for Life wiki "Guilty? Yes. No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh, thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime!" is on page 62. 216.255.40.133 02:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I have fixed the quote, and replaced it with the one you recommended - it is good that you pointed that out for accuracy. Your analogy about POV and women's suffrage is innaccurate - nobody disputes the rationale for why SBA promoted suffrage and equality, yet her views regarding abortion are highly disputed and subject to individual interpretation. You read SBA's words and hear someone opposed to abortion on a purely moral basis, others might see her words in the context of her work as a women's rights acvocate (the lack of birth control options presented women at the time and all of the stigma and unfairness regarding the woman's place in respect to the procedure) as a more central reason as to why she held the view she did. So as for the addition of any further elaboration on why SBA was opposed to abortion, it is 1)not verifiable beyond a direct quote, which we already have, and would therefore be redundant anyways, and 2)subject to individual interpretation (SBA used strong language generally with all matters that concerned her, so her vehement tone is not unique to her position on this particular subject, nor an objective indicator of why she held a certain view).--Jackbirdsong 03:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I just had another thought. Since the other quote has been wrongly attributed to her by a credible source shouldn't someone include this fact to inform future researchers? 216.255.40.133 06:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The appropriate thing to do would be to contact the website [www.womenshistory.com] and notify them directly.--Jackbirdsong 01:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)