Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
History of Feminism
Showing Original Post only (View all)I've been trying to wrap my head around opposition to abortion and women's reproductive rights... [View all]
In terms of the historical and sociological context for what drives the anti-choice crowd.
So far, I've been thinking about the relationship between property rights and their historical origins (particularly in the English common law, the Roman law, etc. - along with the Greek slave societies, where women also had the status of being male property - and opposition to abortion.
In doing some basic research on this relationship, I found this:
A woman's gender and marital status were the primary determinants of her legal standing in Indiana and much of America from 1800 to 1850. By custom and law she did not enjoy all of the rights of citizenship. In the legal realm women were decidedly dependent, subservient, and unequal. National and state constitutions included little mention of women. Even though Hoosier women were enumerated in the census which paved the way for statehood and had to share the burden of taxation, they were not allowed to vote or hold office. Rights for which a revolution was fomented were denied women as they were to slaves, "lunatics," and "idiots."
Further exacerbating the situation, rights normally enjoyed by women were often withdrawn when she married. Indeed, a woman gave up so many civil and property rights upon crossing the threshold that she was said to be entering a state of "civil death." This unhappy circumstance arose partially because American (and Indiana) law was based upon English common law. Predicated on "precedent and fixed principles," common law had dictated a subordinate position for women. Married women generally were not allowed to make contracts, devise wills, take part in other legal transactions, or control any wages they might earn. One of the few legal advantages of marriage for a woman was that her husband was obligated to support her and be responsible for her debts. It is highly doubtful that these latter provisions outweighed the lack of other rights, particularly in the area women faced the most severe restriction, property rights.
Further exacerbating the situation, rights normally enjoyed by women were often withdrawn when she married. Indeed, a woman gave up so many civil and property rights upon crossing the threshold that she was said to be entering a state of "civil death." This unhappy circumstance arose partially because American (and Indiana) law was based upon English common law. Predicated on "precedent and fixed principles," common law had dictated a subordinate position for women. Married women generally were not allowed to make contracts, devise wills, take part in other legal transactions, or control any wages they might earn. One of the few legal advantages of marriage for a woman was that her husband was obligated to support her and be responsible for her debts. It is highly doubtful that these latter provisions outweighed the lack of other rights, particularly in the area women faced the most severe restriction, property rights.
https://www.connerprairie.org/Education-Research/Indiana-History-1800-1860/Women-and-the-Law-in-Early-19th-Century
Doing some more research on the doctrine of coverture, I also found this:
A feme sole had the right to own property and make contracts in her own name, while a feme covert was not recognized as having legal rights and obligations distinct from those of her husband in most respects. Instead, through marriage a woman's existence was incorporated into that of her husband, so that she had very few recognized individual rights of her own. As it has been pithily expressed, husband and wife were one person as far as the law was concerned, and that person was the husband. A married woman could not own property, sign legal documents or enter into a contract, obtain an education against her husband's wishes, or keep a salary for herself. If a wife was permitted to work, under the laws of coverture, she was required to relinquish her wages to her husband
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverture#Principle_of_coverture
Coverture is a long-standing legal practice that is part of our colonial heritage. Though Spanish and French versions of coverture existed in the new world, United States coverture is based in English law. Coverture held that no female person had a legal identity. At birth, a female baby was covered by her fathers identity, and then, when she married, by her husbands. The husband and wife became oneand that one was the husband. As a symbol of this subsuming of identity, women took the last names of their husbands. They were feme coverts, covered women. Because they did not legally exist, married women could not make contracts or be sued, so they could not own or work in businesses. Married women owned nothing, not even the clothes on their backs. They had no rights to their children, so that if a wife divorced or left a husband, she would not see her children again.
Married women had no rights to their bodies. That meant that not only would a husband have a claim to any wages generated by his wifes labor or to the fruits of her body (her children), but he also had an absolute right to sexual access. Within marriage, a wifes consent was implied, so under the law, all sex-related activity, including rape, was legitimate. His total mastery of this fellow human being stopped short, but just short, of death. Of course, a man wasnt allowed to beat his wife to death, but he could beat her.
Married women had no rights to their bodies. That meant that not only would a husband have a claim to any wages generated by his wifes labor or to the fruits of her body (her children), but he also had an absolute right to sexual access. Within marriage, a wifes consent was implied, so under the law, all sex-related activity, including rape, was legitimate. His total mastery of this fellow human being stopped short, but just short, of death. Of course, a man wasnt allowed to beat his wife to death, but he could beat her.
https://www.nwhm.org/blog/coverture-the-word-you-probably-don%E2%80%99t-know-but-should/
How much of the opposition to abortion in the United States comes from the cultural, economic, social, political, and legal legacy of coverture (and likewise, similar legal systems around the world)? I strongly suspect that it has something to do with it.
Women as the property of their husbands - that's the kind of historical reality and legacy we are dealing with here.
13 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I've been trying to wrap my head around opposition to abortion and women's reproductive rights... [View all]
YoungDemCA
May 2015
OP
We were only seconds away from hearing about how hard he works hunting mammoth.
Starry Messenger
Jun 2015
#11