Exactly and the outcomes of your choices are your responsibility, not society's.

I get that your taxes shouldn't have to pay for my abortion. But people out there want my taxes to pay for prohibiting my choice to have one.

They're entitled to their opinions; but, they'll fall by the wayside if they act on it and they know it.

I agree with you 100%. The govt should not be involved at all. Same with marriage ... and sexuality.

If the government wasn't involved in sexuality, how would it fuck us? ;)

To have kept it her pants?

Sex education was amazing back in 1875, you guys. Very thorough, explained that all that bullshit men say about how "you can't get pregnant if we do it this way" was not true, and that she should completely stand her ground against someone strong enough to hurt her because a punch in the face would be much better than a dick in her vagina.

Oh, and also, it's a really good idea to bring a baby into the world just to watch it freeze/starve to death because you're both living on the streets. That's a much better choice, I can't understand why she didn't make it.

At that time, it would not just have been a matter of not being able to feed/clothe/raise a child. To have a child out of wedlock was social suicide. 'Disowned by her family' was an extreme fate - because it would not have just meant being kicked out of her parent's home - it would have meant being excluded from the wider community, unable to marry and participate in a family life - in a culture in which women had few rights, were able to command a fraction of the wage a man might earn, and unlikely to be hired anyway within the limited field of available female employment.*




* during the 18th C. and into the 19th C. in Britain, some working cultures, particularly in urban areas, had a different take on marriage, so I'm guessing that isn't a universal assessment, but if she was being disowned, it's unlikely she was from such a sub-culture.

Right on, Dana. A quick death for her and the baby was a blessing. :thumb:
Looking from 2017 we can tsk tsk, but reality 100 years ago was very different.

In the USA, Tennessee was in the forefront of reconstruction after the Civil War. They had social programs including old peoples homes and these things called ORPHANAGES! They weren't really intended; however, for women not yet married, encroaching on the age of Catherine and trying to trap a husband by getting pregnant (which women have done since the inception of the institution and still do today). If the plan backfired because the guy wouldn't marry her, the chances of her finding another man after having a child were slim to none; so, she would seek an abortion. The woman would indeed be ostracized by both society and her family.

If, OTOH, women in 1875 were just so ignorant that they got pregnant because they allowed men, who told them they wouldn't, to screw them, well that's the best reason I've heard yet for not giving them the right to vote until 1920.

And yet somehow no one ever forced the guy to marry her as part of the punishment he was due for not keeping it in his own pants. If he didn't want to run the risk of being entrapped by a wiley woman and her cage-like vagina, he probably shouldn't have fucked her, hmm?

Why buy the cow when you're getting the milk for free, hymn, hymn, sing for him?

I can see why living in 1875 appeals to you.

You need a new prescription.