Just a note…I did not say that I said she was an antithesis of motherhood, but instead said that many considered her that. I would stand by that statement. There are many of her day and thereafter that held that view but, there are others who would say otherwise.

Like Sarah Palin, Woodhull gave birth to a “special needs” child. She didn’t abort him. His name was Byron Woodhull. He was cared for by various family members until he died in 1932 at that age of 77. In fact, my great-great-grandmother’s brother-in-law took care of Byron when Woodhull was married to Colonel Blood. Byron’s disability led Woodhull to conclude that women needed to learn about sex, physiology and prenatal care in order to bear healthy children. She blamed Byron’s condition, in part, on her sexual ignorance and wished to save other women from the same fate. If she were alive today, she’d object strenuously to your depiction of her as the antithesis of motherhood, because she believed motherhood was the highest calling a woman could have.

I could go on and on about her views on free love, too, but instead I’ll quote from page 5 of James R. Petersen’s “The Century of Sex.”

“To the modern ear the term [free love] evokes images of hippies cavorting in hot tubs, of couples tangling in satin sheets on water beds, of naked bodies slithering through Wesson Oil orgies. Her intent was more noble. Woodhull challenged the authority of the church and state to dictate affairs of the heart.”

Quotes from Victoria Woodhull:
“The rights of children as individuals begin while yet they remain the foetus.” -Woodhull’s and Claflin’s Weekly 2(6):4 December 24, 1870

“Every woman knows that if she were free, she would never bear an unwished-for child, nor think of murdering one before its birth.”
-Wheeling, West Virginia Evening Standard, November 17, 1875

Another editorial from Woodhull’s and Claflin’s Weekly, “When Is It Not Murder to Take Life?”, argued:

“Every one will concede that it is murder to take the life of a human being. But the very pertinent question arises just here, when does human life begin? The beating of the heart, modern science tells us, never begins; that is to say, there is no time in the whole process of the growth of the human body from the moment of conception until death, that pulsations of life are not present in what is to develop into the perfected body. Where, then, shall the line be drawn, on one side of which it shall be murder to cause these pulsations to cease, and upon the other not murder?

“…Many women who would be shocked at the very thought of killing their children after birth, deliberately destroy them previously. If there is any difference in the actual crime we should be glad to have those who practice the latter, point it out. The truth of the matter is that it is just as much a murder to destroy life in its embryotic condition, as it is to destroy it after the fully developed form is attained, for it is the self-same life that is taken.

“…[T]hey who, having conceived [children] then destroy them, are murderers; and no amount of sophistry nor excuses can, by one iota, mitigate the enormity of the crime. They do even more than murder, they virtually commit suicide, for no woman can practice this crime without in part destroying her own life.

“…[W]hile we shall at all times freely discuss the matter, objectively as to its results, we shall not forget to look at the matter subjectively, to find the remedy, which, if we mistake not, is in granting freedom and equality to woman.”

More here by someone who has actually done their homework:
http://www.feministsforlife.org/FeminismCourse/woodhull.htm