Freedom, Feminism, and the State by McElroy Wendy

Author:McElroy, Wendy
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Independent Institute
Published: 1991-03-15T00:00:00+00:00

Suggested Readings

Fisher, J. Greevz. Illegitimate Children: An Inquiry into Their Personal Rights and a Plea for Abolition of Illegitimacy. London: Reeves, 1893.

Humboldt, Wilhelm von. The Limits of State Action. Edited and translated by J. W. Burrow. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969.

Spencer, Herbert. Social Statics. London: John Chapman, 1851, pp. 172–192.

IV. WOMEN AND BIRTH CONTROL

12. Body Housekeeping

Angela Heywood

As one of the 19th century’s most outspoken advocates of birth control and sexual freedom, Angela Heywood combined a fine theoretical mind with a bluntness that some found offensive. Most of her writing was published by The Word (1872–1893) which she sporadically edited. The following article, published in the last issue of The Word, is an early defense of a woman’s unconditional right to have an abortion based on her self-ownership. This article appeared at a time when a woman’s right to abortion was a casualty of the rise of medical licensing in America. Angela Heywood’s voice was virtually alone in advocating this basic right.

What have I thought, said or done that anyone need be troubled about me? I come, in word expression, to establish man as man, not to demolish him. I am not proclaiming him a monster; I freight him not as disease,—leave that to the “Suffering Sisters.” Not I, but Congressmen force the sex issue. Is it “proper”, “polite”, for men, real he men, to go to Washington to say, by penal law, fines and imprisonment, whether woman may continue her natural right to wash, rinse or wipe out her own vaginal body opening,—as well as legislate when she may blow her nose, dray her eyes, or nurse her babe. Cold water prevents conception; will men therefore indite pumps and reservoirs? Whatever she may have been pleased to receive from man’s own is his gift and her property. Women do not like rape, and have a right to resist its results. To cut a child up in woman, procure abortion, is a most fearful, tragic deed; but even that does not call for man’s arbitrary jurisdiction over woman’s womb. I read that—

The increase in cases of sensual criminality, affecting present morality and future generations, suggests the consideration of a remedy that may be regarded as a kindness and mercy to the offender, who seems beyond the control of his carnal passions and, being administered with the wisdom of the highest medical skill and care, would doubtless be a protection to society and productive of beneficial results.—Philadelphia Grand Jury in The Journal of Prison Discipline and Philanthropy, Jan. 1891, p.35

This indicates that man is not so alarmed about preventing conception, for doth not CASTRATION accomplish it with a vengeance? In this proposal do not Peace Quakers rebuke the heistic statute? Are Grand Jurors indeed meditating how to end the “pure” breed of Comstocks and Parkhursts? Mrs. Dr. Caroline B. Winslow, the late Chief Justice Waite’s family doctor in Washington, said as Editor of Alpha, to a beautiful, young wife inquiring what she should do to prevent her having many children, her husband being of a warm, voluptuous nature, unable to retain his life element at her touch: Mrs.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.