Sunday, October 02, 2011

A 19th century abortion death

Mary Jacquay Doyle, wife of P.M. Doyle, died in Buffalo, NY, on October 2, 1867, from "convulsions produced by an abortion within the last two weeks." She had only been married the previous February. Her husband was held in her death by order of the coroner.


slightly angered Christian said...

Why not list women who die in childbirth?

Ah, that's right, since the death rate is 9 times that of abortion multiplied by the fact that there are more births than abortions, means you would have about 30 times as much work to do.

Christina Dunigan said...

1. Why are you making that comment on this post? This woman died from one of those horrible and totally unacceptable illegal abortions. Your stock comment is supposed to be about "back alley butchers" and how much better off women are now. If you're going to cut and paste your talking points, choose them better.

2 We don't know the mortality rate from abortion because the people supposed to be counting are only going throgh cursory motions.

3. Would you respond to a report on a fatal airplane crash with demans tht all highway deaths that all highway deaths that day also be enumerated? In other words, the presumed higher risk of childbirth compared to abortion simply isn't relevant.

4. How can you both defend abortion and call yoursef "Christan"?

slightly angered Christian said...

It is a fact that the death rate from childbirth far exceeds that of abortion.
Abortion is legal.
It didn't used to be and even more women died because it wasn't.

I don't call myself "Christan", I call myself a "Christian".

I would rather act as Jesus himself would have acted than how people who claim power and authority in His name would have me act.

Christina Dunigan said...

1. I already covered the unsubstantiated claim that the death rate from childbirth exceeds that of abortion. In order to compare the two, we wuld need an accurate death count from abortion, and if you had followed the link I provided you would have seen some pretty convincing evidence that we do not have that.

2. As I said befoe, even if the unsupported claim were true, it would remain irrelevant.

3. What does the legality of abortion have to do with the morality of it? Missouri used to have an extermination order on the books making it legal to kill Mormons. Did that mean that from 1838 - 1978 it was morally okay to kill a Mormon in Missouri? Is legal always right, just, or decent?

4. You've show a disinclination to follow links, but for the benefit of others I will point out that all maternal deaths, including abortion deaths, were falling long before legalization. Legalization didn't even makea blip on the chart. So the claim that abortion deaths are lower because of legalization holds no more water than a collander.

5. I see that your keen observation noticed a typographical error. Would that you would put your keen observational skills to use simply examining what you're told by political advocacy organizations.

6. How would Jesus have acted? "Even as you do to the least of these, my brothers and sisters, you do unto me." So you want to go on record as endorsing the practice of dismembering the smallest and most vulnerable of oru brothers and sisters, and do it in Jesus' name? Seems like pretty shaky ground to me. Embrace the killing of helpless children on your own; don't drag Jesus into it. That's blasphemy.

slightly angered Christian said...

1. Your 'evidence' is concocted nonsense.

2. It's not irrelevant. More women are alive today because of the availability of abortion yet you keep going on about the 'horror' of 'needless' abortion deaths.

3. There have been, and are, all sorts of laws which have been considered both 'good' and 'bad'. Abortion choice is a good one because it is moral.

4. I didn't claim that. I simply said that the rate of womens' deaths from abortion is lower than that of childbirth. So if you want to go off on a crusade, pick the right one.

5. ahem, really? And you're doing what?

6. Not in the name of Jesus. But he never mentioned abortion. It is only within your own self-desired interpretation that 'the least of these, my brothers and sisters' means fetuses. It actually means the 'poorest' or seemingly 'less well known'.

It is you who blaspheme, deriding people in your claimed knowing of Christ.

Kathy said...

Jesus never mentioned child sexual abuse either. Is it okay to do that? Why or why not?

slightly angered Christian said...

I suggest you undertake some Bible class revision Kathy.

Kathy said...

What do you mean? - I have no clue.

You said that Jesus "never mentioned abortion", meaning that since He did not specifically say, "Thou shalt not commit abortion" that it's okay to do so. I'm wondering where you draw the line on other things that Jesus did not specifically mention.

The question remains: Jesus never mentioned child sexual abuse, so is it okay to sexually abuse a child? If your answer is no, then on what do you base that opinion, since it is obviously not based on the words of Jesus as recorded in the gospels.

slightly angered Christian said...

"What do you mean? - I have no clue" - well that's obvious ;-)

I said more than that. I said that Jesus never spoke of anything that alluded to abortion. It was not something He mentioned either directly or indirectly. To infer that any of His words alluded to it is wishful thinking.

Jesus said a number of things which clearly enunciated that born children should not suffer harm.

Kathy said...

What do you mean by "Bible class revision"?

What things did He say that "clearly enunciated that born children should not suffer harm"?

Kathy said...

And can you tell me why you follow Jesus? why you call yourself a Christian? What do you believe about Jesus?

Christina Dunigan said...

SAC, I notice that you didn't even follow any of the links.

Why do you have this emotional investment in believing that Jesus is cool with destroing His Father's handiwork in the womb? Eve a supeficial Bible study shows that God stood for the INNOCENT, the WEAK, the UNWANTED. But you are saying Jesus is cool with killing the innocent, weak, and unwanted.

slightly angered Christian said...

I've been through the links you provided. I found them to be biased, evasive and far from scholarly.

Jesus was concerned with people. Actual people. Whatever happened prior to birth was just not relevant.

Kathy said...

Why are you concerned with what Jesus was concerned about? Why are you a Christian? What do you believe about Jesus Christ? Do you believe he was just a good man, or do you believe he is the God of the Bible?