Posted on 09/12/2008 3:18:55 PM PDT by flyfree
WASHINGTON, September 11, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In an article focusing on newly appointed vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin, prominent feminist Camille Paglia admits that, much like Gov. Palin, she also believes abortion involves the murder of an innocent life - but unlike Palin, Paglia says she is a "firm supporter" of abortion.
Paglia's piece, which appears on Salon.com, is the latest indication that "utilitarian" philosophies that no longer recognize the "right to life" as being the most foundational human right are gaining ground in some liberal circles. Under these philosophies even murder can be advocated as long as it protects what is deemed to be an even more important "right" - in Paglia's case the sacrosanct "right to abortion."
Paglia, the University Professor of Humanities and Media Studies at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia, is well-known for her non-conformist approach as a lesbian social critic and as a popular journalist and author. Her latest article, "Fresh blood for the vampire", largely addresses the Republican's surge in the polls after choosing Palin as VP-nominee, but also touches on abortion.
"Let's take the issue of abortion rights, of which I am a firm supporter. As an atheist and libertarian, I believe that government must stay completely out of the sphere of personal choice. Every individual has an absolute right to control his or her body," said Paglia, voicing the commonest argument put forward by feminist supporters of abortion.
Unlike her fellow pro-abortion colleagues, however, Paglia continued on to - as she termed it - "face the ethical consequences" of embracing abortion. "I have always frankly admitted that abortion is murder, the extermination of the powerless by the powerful," she said.
(Excerpt) Read more at lifesitenews.com ...
Because once you are a Liberal you can’t alter views from theirs. You are shunned. Crazy free thinking republicans.
“Camille Paglia is right about the left and abortion. Abortion involves killing a baby; the “pro-choice” people know it, and they just don’t give a shit. At least Paglia is up-front about it. And eloquent in her explanation. She does acknowledge that the left is going to have to come clean with the ethical underpinnings of its stance on baby-killing. As she puts it, a woman’s control over her reproductive functions trumps the rights of the human being she is killing. There it is. As plain as the ears on Obama. Whether a woman aborts because of convenience, because she finds out the baby is severely deformed or because, as Paglia puts it, she wants to blow a big, fat raspberry at Mother Nature (evidently finding her fascist), she is ending a human life. The left is going to have to blurt it out sooner or later: We admit abortion kills a human being, and we just don’t care because our wants are more important.
Of course, the tiny little problem they will encounter when they do this is that most Americans aren’t going to understand and/or sanction that level of selfishness—especially when the “fetus” is at a point in development where it would be viable if born. Such egoism just doesn’t pass the nausea test for most of us.”
That’s from my blog: www.whenwearequeen.squarespace.com
Sarah Palin, the new true modern feminist, get on board ladies or box yourself into a defeatist mentality.
Peace out..
“Because once you are a Liberal you can’t alter views from theirs.”
Apostasy?
This is the first time I've heard of the Groningen Protocol.
Camille Paglia has been saying this for years. Nothing new. The quotes are from an article praising Palin as a new type of feminist, and Paglia is arguing that a feminist need not be pro-abortion. Go figure.
What more can be said?
Barack Obama didn’t need a protocol, to defend infanticide, he just did it to empower himself with democrap voters.
And yet it's the Christians that people have been conditioned to fear. Amazing.
Paglia has been consistent in her views for quite some time. Not exactly shocking if you know her work.
i had a co-worker today tell me that just because she’s pro-choice does not mean she’s for abortion. I said, of course it does. That’s precisley what “choice” means.
The first is that the fetus is not really a human being. That argument is increasingly discredited as medical science allows healthy births earlier and earlier and as people pin ultrasounds on their bulletin boards. They always call it a picture of their baby, not their fetus.
That leaves the second argument, the utilitarian argument. Killing the weak who are not contributing to society to promote the happiness of the strong is justified. Singer has been quite open about this for years.
I've seen well-educated, genuinely nice liberals listen to this argument without batting an eye. While I recoil in horror.
I hate to be so obvious, but doesn't this mean we shouldn't offer any funding for abortion?!!
It's a pleasure/pain sort of thing with them, and for some there's no doubt a dietary supplement involved.
They have, themselves, become "trans-human".
Eventually we'll have to chase them through the woods at night like they were rabid wolves.
bump for further reading.
Following that line of reasoning: I need a new car, so I just kill my neighbor and take his...hmmm. Seems simple enough.
So there we have it. Do we follow the "survial of the fittest" or "The strong shall protect the weak" world view?
"Our nation-wide policy of abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy was neither voted for by our people, nor enacted by our legislators--not a single state had such unrestricted abortion before the Supreme Court decreed it to be national policy in 1973. [It was] an act of raw judicial power"...
"Make no mistake, abortion-on-demand is not a right granted by the Constitution. Nowhere do the plain words of the Constitution even hint at a "right" so sweeping as to permit abortion up to the time the child is ready to be born."
"We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life--the unborn--without diminishing the value of all human life."
~~~~ President Ronald Reagan : "Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation", 1983
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.