Jan 15th, 2017: Gravestone
 

Shelby County, Tennessee...

http://cellar.org/2017/seduced.jpg

Can't wait for America to be great again, so those back-alley butchers can kill off those sluts, you betcha. :eyebrow:

Link

I'm not buying it. Other sources say she died February 1, 1876 and was buried February 4, 1876 and some volunteer paid for that marker to be placed at her grave in September 1997.

If the person who wrote the inscription couldn't get the woman's age and year of death right, which are in the historical records, what are the chances of the remainder of it being accurate. :eyebrow:

(It's like someone is using a dead slut for attention whoring.)

Regardless of the detail accuracy, this reminds us that criminalizing abortions does not remove their availability, only all the medical safeguards and the participation of qualified medical personnel. Criminalize them again and the death rates will go up again. The math on this one is that brutally simple.

I object to this - as recounted here (the only evidence we have), the girl was seduced. That does not make her a slut. It makes the seducer a bastard.
Thank you.

Thank you.

I had carried over the term xoB used; but, if it makes people feel better:

I think you'll find xoB was using a figure of speech called "irony".

But I do like your epitaph on the bastard.

I knew you would.

Besides, what's wrong with sluts? If you don't like them, don't fuck them.

I have enjoyed the occasional slut.

As well as the occasionally slutty.

You are correct about the niggling details, Mr Miyagi. Her name even might have been Simpson.

Fortunately, most people got the point that this has not been a rare story throughout history, and when we finally seemed to be a better society it looks like we may backslide terribly. :(

You are entirely correct, we sluts don't disparage our own. ;)

Yeah, I figured it belonged in the Politics thread where it's not rare that unvetted sources are spun for impact.

Despite the niggling details, it was not unvetted. I posted the link to the original photo, but had also looked at...

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg...r&GRid=9540313

https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/commen...ate_mccormick/

https://playingintheworldgame.wordpr...ack-and-white/

I felt it was close enough for a non-political thread. My post, my call.

You are welcome to post your IOtD in your manner.

I'm not buying it.

Did your vetting process also show that Norma McCorvey, known in court documents as Jane ROE (against Henry WADE, the district attorney of Dallas County from 1951 to 1987 who enforced a Texas law that prohibited abortion except to save a woman's life) was the Texas resident who sought to obtain an abortion when she became the lead plaintiff in the case. She gave up the baby for adoption. Norma McCorvey had since come forward and changed sides on the abortion debate. In 1997, the same year the IOTD gravestone with that epitaph was placed on Kate Simpsom McCormick's grave, McCorvey started Roe No More, a pro-life outreach organization (that was dissolved in 2008). Mere coincidence I suppose. :eyebrow:

Whoever placed that gravestone probably vetted the deceased's story well enough for their purposes too. :rolleyes:

No it didn't because Jane Roe has nothing to do with the picture.
Like I said, my post, my call.

Roe vs Wade had everything to do with the conversation you initiated. You've made better calls; but, I'm not complaining because it gave me a chance to use my new slogan "I'm not buying it." :p:

I don't direct the conversation that stems from an IOtD, as a matter of fact it usually goes far afield.
You;re welcome to start a thread on abortion, I'm sure you'll get a spirited response to such a hot button issue.


Oh, and how does your having a slogan change you posting your :2cents: on any subject? You've never been shy about posting your opinions, does this mean you'll just post your slogan and let it go at that?

There I fixed that for you.

Snort

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT. BS

What was another choice for a pregnant girl, disowned by family, in 1875 TN?

life

Why is it that people who have never been threatened with life on the streets, broke, alone and scared for their life, cant seem to put themselves in the shoes of someone who has?

Dunno - Good question. You should ask one directly.

So you've been on the street with no money, no job, no home, no family, and no hope?

I have just me and Keryx no fun at all.

It doesn't matter. She was 21, not 12. She was her own responsible party. She gambled that she wouldn't get pregnant out of wedlock knowing the consequences if she did. She lost. She had the option of doing whatever it takes to have the baby; or, die trying. Instead, she gambled on having an abortion knowing the risk if she did, She lost. There's an old saying Don't gamble with what you can't afford to lose.


The measure of a person's character comes when they make choices and when they face adversity. It's easy to be a good person when someone else is providing for you and everything is hunky-dory. The woman lacked willpower and lacked the courage to fight the good fight to recover from mistakes. Unless she was developmentally impaired and/or raped, the onus was equally on her for getting pregnant (it takes two to tango); also, equally on her and the procedure provider for the outcome of having an abortion. Just because life isn't fair doesn't mean that she didn't get what she bargained for each time she chose to gamble.

Bottom line: my body, my choice. Keep your moral indignation about my behavior away from my ability to self-determine my own life.

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.

An aspirin would have prevented the problem.

Aspirin wasn't invented until 1899.

A well timed headache (as in Not now, I have a headache.) would have prevented the problem.

"A wiley woman with a cage-like vagina"

Would make an awesome user title, just saying.