On 2012-06-14 16:06, Woland wrote:
I think it is a presupposition of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, that a free man belongs to himself, and a free woman belongs to herself.

On 2012-06-14 20:17, Woland wrote:
Hi Bob,

You're exaggerating a bit, about both then and now.

Coverture (sometimes spelled couverture) was a legal doctrine whereby, upon marriage, a woman's legal rights were subsumed by those of her husband. Coverture was enshrined in the common law of England and the United States throughout most of the 19th century. The idea was described in William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England in the late 18th century.

Under traditional English common law an adult unmarried woman was considered to have the legal status of feme sole, while a married woman had the status of feme covert. These are English spellings of medieval Anglo-Norman phrases (the modern standard French spellings would be femme seule "single woman" and femme couverte, literally "covered woman").

A feme sole had the right to own property and make contracts in her own name. 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

During a House Judiciary Committee Rep. King said that Connecticut had a right to ban contraception in Griswold v. Connecticut, the 1965 Supreme Court decision that overturned a law in Connecticut that prohibited the use of birth control, even for married couples. According to King, states have the power under the 10th Amendment to ban contraception despite the fact that the Supreme Court held the constitutional right to privacy says otherwise.

On 2012-06-14 09:59, Woland wrote:
Yes, Tony, it does make sense. So if "we" are "someone else's property," what does that imply? What was Charles Fort getting at? Do we really have that sort of relationship with everyone else, in which everyone recognizes that "someone else" has property rights over "us"?

On 2012-06-15 00:38, rockwall wrote:
As there are, even today, some who would deny children, those unborn, nearly born, and even newly born, sovereignty over their own bodies.

On 2012-06-15 02:39, Pop Haydn wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-06-15 00:38, rockwall wrote:
As there are, even today, some who would deny children, those unborn, nearly born, and even newly born, sovereignty over their own bodies.

Actually, according to the laws and constitution of the United States, the unborn and the nearly born have no sovereignty over their own bodies, nor do the newly born or children.

According to the law, the unborn are not recognized as having the same rights as the born.

Abortion is not murder. It is not only legal, it is a right guaranteed by the constituion.

There are those who would like to make it murder.

There are some who would like to change hundreds of years of law and grant sovereignty over their own bodies to the unborn. This makes no sense to me.

On 2012-06-15 04:35, LobowolfXXX wrote:
I think it does.

Of course, I also think that so, too, does the banning of PCP.