Her argument for abortion seems to be that since a woman has an inviolate right to her own body, then that right gives her the right to do unethical things as they relate to her body.

.
I reject the argument that a woman is doing to her own body, when she has an abortion. Aproximately half the race is male. Do women have penises? No. So, is it a woman’s body when the fetus is male? Other similar arguments can be made.

There is nothing libertarian by ignoring the rights of the baby. Either that or libertarianism means only what is currently convenient.

DavidM on September 10, 2008 at 1:22 PM

No, libertarianism means freedom. It’s about having control over your own life and having the ability to choose or not choose to procreate, for example.

There is nothing libertarian by ignoring the rights of the baby. Either that or libertarianism means only what is currently convenient.

DavidM on September 10, 2008 at 1:22 PM

Do you own yourself? If yes, then how and when you procreate is your business and no one else’s business.

And, no, I don’t support public funding of abortion.

Yup, either the right to live is inalienable as stated in your Declaration of Independence, or it’s not.
Gaunilon on September 10, 2008 at 1:10 PM

This is the typical response that is given by those who deliberately contort the meaning of the Declaration of Independence. It’s impressive and shows a lot of self-discipline to twist the Declaration of Independence’s meaning with such ease. Really.

In the Declaration of Independence it states: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

You do know that these words above are referring to the treatment of people by a tyrant. Life, in the infamous passage above, refers to rejecting the idea that the King could order the taking of your head with a flick of the wrist. Liberty refers to not being imprisoned without due process of law, a fair hearing in a court and so forth. And the pursuit of Happiness refers to engaging in commerce or profession with minimal, if any, interference from government.

Folks, the Declaration of Independence is NOT a legal document. It embodies the spirit of why the Founders chose to separate from Great Britain. The U.S. Constitution is our country’s founding legal document. You all know this, right?

Ms. Paglia’s argument here is libertarian. You either own yourself (including your body, obviously) or you don’t. She believes that you do own yourself and you have the ability to control your reproduction, which is seen as a personal and private matter.

eanax on September 10, 2008 at 12:42 PM

While you do own your body, you also can’t use your property to harm someone else.

A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often….

I’d say she as much as admitted it. Her argument for abortion seems to be that since a woman has an inviolate right to her own body, then that right gives her the right to do unethical things as they relate to her body.

I have to say it’s at least an honest argument. And it’s the truth of what they all really believe. This was a great read.

Typhoon on September 10, 2008 at 9:11 AM

Ms. Paglia’s argument here is libertarian. You either own yourself (including your body, obviously) or you don’t. She believes that you do own yourself and you have the ability to control your reproduction, which is seen as a personal and private matter.

Nature doesn’t “murder” anything. Nature is not an entity. nature neither thinks nor wills. It cannot act intentionally. Descartes says “I think therefore I am”. Nature, therefore “is not”.

Nature cannot have fault and cannot be guilty. humans, on the other hand, make decisions. We think. We do things by our own volition.

Thus, while the death of an unborn child by an act of nature is sad, it carries no fault. This is qualitatively different than a person making a conscious decision to kill someone, either pre-natally or post-natally.

It is for that reason that Pagia’s explanation, though an honest admission, is horrendous.

Romeo13 on September 10, 2008 at 10:27 AM

Why on Earth would that be unpopular?

The slaughter of the innocent – murder.
Slaughterers of the innocent, therefore – murderers.

Not the best way to win an argument (”Shut up, murderer!”), as I’ve learned, but A is A, as Aristotle would say.

Love Paglia, even though we (quite rightly) disagree.

Starlink on September 10, 2008 at 11:00 AM

Yeah, I thought of the intro to Godless, especially after the “sacrament of abortion” comment I read.

Keemo on September 10, 2008 at 10:17 AM

I agree, our politicians have been a failure. Tester is a poser. Mr. San Fransico Treat.

I wasn’t too concerned about the loss of Sen. Burns though. When his re-election flyer arrived in my mail box, it dismayed me with its 100% focus on terrorism. Yes, that concerns me as well, but he was supposed to represent Montana in the National circle, not reiterate Bush’s foreign policy.

I knew he would lose at that moment, and he deserved to lose. I wanted to hear how he would represent us, not how he would act as President.

We need a representative of Montana, not a poser like Tester who is more interested in party politics in Nancy Pelosi’s house.

I doubt any of their members remember which party supported the “right” to own slaves (transmuted today into a right to terminate the lives of unwanted children), and how that party supported that purported “right” to slavery?

But I can’t call the people I know who have had abortions murderers, and I won’t allow anyone to call them murderers.

mymanpotsandpans

So, are you going to call them community organizers? You can’t take away someone’s guilt by redefining what they have done. And many women and members of their families have guilt related to abortion. And this is one of the great weaknesses of the Democrats in this area: they are unwilling to accept and address raw human facts that they find inconvenient. It basically misunderstands the nature of human psychology to ignore the consequences of the act of abortion. The proponents of abortion are engaging in childlike magical thinking when they try to ignore the effect on the woman having the abortion. And to try to turn it into an argument about whether someone is going to be called a murder is emotional blackmale that refuses to look at the subtlies of the situation created by an abortion.

I know that Catholics will once again claim that I’m just bigoted against Catholics.
ThackerAgency on September 10, 2008 at 9:42 AM

Not only are you a bigot, you are obsessed with injecting anti-Catholic rantings into every discussion. Hateful. Get a life.

juliesa on September 10, 2008 at 10:12 AM

You might expect this from Ensler, but Smiley is a pretty good novelist, and her political columns reveal her to be a rigid, narrow-minded hater.

Indeed. Moo is wonderfully insightful critique of academia from someone who’s been there. I was quite shocked and surprised when I read some of her non-fiction work.