Jump to content
 







Main menu
   


Navigation  



Main page
Contents
Current events
Random article
About Wikipedia
Contact us
Donate
 




Contribute  



Help
Learn to edit
Community portal
Recent changes
Upload file
 








Search  

































Create account

Log in
 









Create account
 Log in
 




Pages for logged out editors learn more  



Contributions
Talk
 



















Contents

   



(Top)
 


1 Stanton and Howe  
5 comments  













Talk:Susan B. Anthony abortion dispute




Page contents not supported in other languages.  









Article
Talk
 

















Read
Edit
Add topic
View history
 








Tools
   


Actions  



Read
Edit
Add topic
View history
 




General  



What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Get shortened URL
Download QR code
 




Print/export  



Download as PDF
Printable version
 
















Appearance
   

 






From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 


Stanton and Howe

[edit]

I'm completely baffled by this paragraph:

Dannenfelser said that while the anti-abortion cause was not "the issue that earned Susan B. Anthony her stripes in American history books, historians would be wrong to conclude that Anthony was agnostic on the issue of abortion". She quoted Anthony's business partner, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, as saying, "When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit." Attempts to authenticate this quote, however, have been unsuccessful. After Thomas notified the FFL in 2011 that she could not locate the source for this alleged quote, the FFL acknowledged the problem by saying that, "Earlier generations of pro-life feminists informed us that these words were written by Elizabeth Cady Stanton, in a letter tucked into Julia Ward Howe's diary on October 16, 1873," but that they could not locate the letter. The FFL said that Howe's diary entry for that date indicated that she had argued about infanticide with Stanton, who, according to Howe, "excused infanticide on the grounds that women did not want to bring moral monsters into the world, and said that these acts were regulated by natural law. I differed from her strongly". Thomas added that the disagreement occurred during public discussion at a women's conference in New York City.

Dannenfelser's Stanton quote reasonably could be interpreted that (if the quote is accurate) the latter was anti-abortion. Yet FFL quotes Howe's diary entry, which says that Stanton "excused infanticide." If Stanton excused infanticide, how could she have been against abortion? These depictions of Stanton in the same paragraph are contradictory and the contradiction is not explained at all. Rontrigger (talk) 06:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The statement claimed to have been made by Stanton in a private letter whose existence has never been proven does indeed contradict what, according to Howe, Stanton said in a public meeting. If a claim has been demonstrated to be true or false, it is proper to document that in Wikipedia. But a claim involving the content of a letter whose very existence cannot be demonstrated cannot, by its nature, be given any sort of definitive treatment. A "dispute" article like this one, in my opinion, does better by documenting the various claims and statements without necessarily trying to resolve any resulting contradictions. Bilpen (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your points, particularly about resolving the contradictions. But what I tried to say was that the contradictions were not even acknowledged. FFL based their position on Stanton's anti-abortion views on this dubious letter, and then noted something (Howe's diary) that flatly contradicted the letter (assuming that the letter existed). What I found mystifying was that nothing in the text of the article pointed out that these assertions contradicted each other, and thus that FFL's argument regarding Stanton made no sense. Rontrigger (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it makes no sense, FFL making contradictory assertions about Stanton. Perhaps we should downplay the interchange between FFL and Thomas because of the contradiction. On the other hand, Stanton was mercurial; she wanted to shake the world up, and in retrospect the things she wrote and said at various times include some contradiction. Binksternet (talk) 18:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good points from both of you. Thanks for your time. Rontrigger (talk) 07:24, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Susan_B._Anthony_abortion_dispute&oldid=1195172033"

Categories: 
C-Class Feminism articles
High-importance Feminism articles
WikiProject Feminism articles
C-Class Women's History articles
Mid-importance Women's History articles
All WikiProject Women-related pages
WikiProject Women's History articles
C-Class Conservatism articles
Low-importance Conservatism articles
WikiProject Conservatism articles
C-Class medicine articles
Low-importance medicine articles
C-Class reproductive medicine articles
Low-importance reproductive medicine articles
Reproductive medicine task force articles
All WikiProject Medicine pages
C-Class Philosophy articles
Low-importance Philosophy articles
C-Class ethics articles
Low-importance ethics articles
Ethics task force articles
C-Class social and political philosophy articles
Low-importance social and political philosophy articles
Social and political philosophy task force articles
C-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
Low-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
C-Class Human rights articles
Low-importance Human rights articles
WikiProject Human rights articles
C-Class Death articles
Low-importance Death articles
C-Class women's health articles
Low-importance women's health articles
WikiProject Women's Health articles
C-Class biography articles
C-Class biography (politics and government) articles
Low-importance biography (politics and government) articles
Politics and government work group articles
WikiProject Biography articles
C-Class Skepticism articles
Low-importance Skepticism articles
WikiProject Skepticism articles
C-Class Christianity articles
Low-importance Christianity articles
C-Class quaker articles
Low-importance quaker articles
WikiProject Quakers articles
WikiProject Christianity articles
C-Class New York (state) articles
Unknown-importance New York (state) articles
C-Class Hudson Valley articles
Low-importance Hudson Valley articles
WikiProject Hudson Valley articles
C-Class politics articles
High-importance politics articles
C-Class American politics articles
High-importance American politics articles
American politics task force articles
WikiProject Politics articles
C-Class Abortion articles
High-importance Abortion articles
WikiProject Abortion articles
Hidden categories: 
Noindexed pages
Wikipedia pages about contentious topics
 



This page was last edited on 12 January 2024, at 17:03 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 4.0; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.



Privacy policy

About Wikipedia

Disclaimers

Contact Wikipedia

Code of Conduct

Developers

Statistics

Cookie statement

Mobile view



Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki