Reason Writers Around Town: Katherine Mangu-Ward on Gloria Steinem and Sarah Palin

In the first installment of her weeklong Los Angeles Times debate with blogger Amanda Marcotte, Katherine Mangu-Ward wonders if she is merely a tool of the "right-wing patriarchs" and asks the vital question, "Can possessors of breasts legitimately disagree about the proper method of wolf population control?"

Read the exchange here.

Comments

joshua corning | September 8, 2008, 5:27pm | #

Read the counter point:

The statistic that shows that equal numbers of men and women are pro-choice and "pro-life" simplifies a complex issue. To begin with, a number of people who call themselves "pro-life" are confused about the meaning of the term; they think it's just a cuddly term for people who like babies.

I guess i can't be a feminist cuz unlike them I do not think women are dumb.

Elemenope | September 8, 2008, 5:34pm | #

You mean I'm supposed to hate her because I'm a guy and she's female?

And here I was all hatin' because she just sucks...

Episiarch | September 8, 2008, 5:37pm | #

"Sarah Palin doesn't agree with me, so don't vote for her, but I'm going to pretend it's for naughty bits reasons and not for political reasons."

Matthew | September 8, 2008, 5:38pm | #

And here I was all hatin' because she just sucks.

No thread would be complete without the wit and deep wisdom of Elemenope.

Gilbert Martin | September 8, 2008, 5:53pm | #

"To begin with, a number of people who call themselves "pro-life" are confused about the meaning of the term; they think it's just a cuddly term for people who like babies."

Uh Huh

The same old liberal crap they've been spewing for decades. The leftists are the official keepers of what is a "woman's issue" and the official keepers of what is the "correct view" of them.

Any women who disagree with them are either "brainwashed" or "confused".

R C Dean | September 8, 2008, 5:57pm | #

You know, that picture is so not helping me with the "Gloria Steinem - Alive or Dead?" issue.

joe | September 8, 2008, 5:57pm | #

The sausage fest that is libertarianism is never more painful to behold than when the subject is feminism.

And KMW plays to the crowd with all of her vapid sneering and lack of ideas.

J sub D | September 8, 2008, 5:59pm | #

This weekend I commented on one of the feminist blogs I lurk at, either Amanda's Pandagon, or Feministing about Ms. Steinem's op-ed piece.* I mentioned that Gloria is no longer relevent in politics and that I found Sarah Pailn an honest and genuine person. I can be a fairly polite person so you may not recognize the language.

I'll have to go back sometime and look to see if there are responses to it.

* Baileyesque full disclosure - My nom de guerre over there is Buddy Holly.

joe | September 8, 2008, 5:59pm | #

I defy anybody to find a passage in Ward's effort that conveys more thought than my preceding comment.

Kant feel Pietzsche, my Balzac is Ietzsche | September 8, 2008, 6:01pm | #

Elemenope, remember that a misogynist is just a man who professes to hate women as much as they hate each other. ;)

Kant feel Pietzsche, my Balzac is Ietzsche | September 8, 2008, 6:04pm | #

RC Dean, your confusion is understandable, but the correct question is "dead or undead?"

Potts | September 8, 2008, 6:05pm | #

And KMW plays to the crowd with all of her vapid sneering and lack of ideas.

No wonder she's taken a shine to Palin.

Sarah Silverman | September 8, 2008, 6:06pm | #

They're killing BABIES?

J sub D | September 8, 2008, 6:06pm | #

The sausage fest that is libertarianism is never more painful to behold than when the subject is feminism.

Not that I buy into much of the official feminist dogma which I find simplistic and sexist to a remarkable degree, I gotta agree with joe on this. It does read like a locker room here sometimes.

John-David | September 8, 2008, 6:14pm | #

Note: no real content, just an ad hominem attack coming below. You've been warned.

God, Amanda Marcotte is whatever the female version of a tool is.

J sub D | September 8, 2008, 6:15pm | #

I defy anybody to find a passage in Ward's effort that conveys more thought than my preceding comment.

In reference to the Steinem piece KMW wrote

It's easier to construct a story in which a uniquely feminine view is relevant on these issues. But lo and behold, women are divided here as well. On abortion, for instance, a May Gallup poll found that 50% of American women are pro-choice, while 43% are pro-life -- roughly the same percentages as men.

Not that hard. Your post pointed out the obvious. Not a lot of thought displayed there.

Seward | September 8, 2008, 6:18pm | #

KMW,

I had taken a shine to Palin because her views on taxes, guns, energy and the proper size of government meshed nicely with my own.

What are her views on these issues and exactly what evidence do you have regarding those views?

galthran | September 8, 2008, 6:19pm | #

joe- from the article:

"A veto-proof majority of women, for instance, believe in angels. On that issue at least, one can assume that Palin stands solidly on the side of her sisters."

I thought this was an amusing observation that I hadn't seen in print before. Doesn't seem like playing to "the crowd" (assuming you mean R's here) either.

ps I don't really like KMW or Palin or you, just saying.

dbcooper | September 8, 2008, 6:20pm | #

Ooooh, Joe's all huffy today.

Matthew | September 8, 2008, 6:41pm | #

Seward, I would say the same.
What are her views on these issues and exactly what evidence do you have regarding those views
On Wikipedia there is a brief summary of her political positions--it correlates pretty well with libertarian positions regarding role of gov't and civil liberty issues like gun control:

"Many of Palin's political views are of a strong social conservative nature: she opposes abortion except when the life of the mother would otherwise be imperilled,[108] and is a member of Feminists for Life; she backs capital punishment,[109] and opposes same-sex marriage.[50] She is also a member of the National Rifle Association and is a strong supporter of the right to keep and bear arms.

Palin is known for her support of "individual freedom and independence",[4] and she is known in Alaska for her strong opposition to what she views as excessive government spending and corruption.[110] She has strongly supported development of oil and natural gas drilling in Alaska, including in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.[54]"

All the relevant cites are on the same page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin#Political_positions

Tahoe50 | September 8, 2008, 6:44pm | #

What else could it be? Of course, I hate her because she is a woman. That of course could be the only basis of an evaluation of Palin's candidacy because she is not participating in the process. Palin is marketed like a product. We don't get to hear from the candidate herself unless it is in a tightly controlled environment. When the media (and it seems to be smaller media sources that are doing the leg work with the national media remarkably ineffective) investigates her claims of executive privilege and the rewarding of state jobs to contributors and friends, the Trooper firing affair, the inclusion of First-dude Todd in the process of official state's communications, correspondence and business and his activities in the AIP party as wells as his wife's views on a wide range of issues and yet cannot get a substantive response and are somehow unable to communicate any of it in a meaningful presentation. Well then we have problems that in my estimation will really undermine our democracy.

joshua corning | September 8, 2008, 6:46pm | #

Ooooh, Joe's all huffy today.

Yeah his candidate is in the toilet.....maybe we should be nice to him?

Matthew | September 8, 2008, 6:50pm | #

joshua

He's down today but he's been leading all summer--I will believe he's in serious trouble if he is still down two weeks from now.

joshua corning | September 8, 2008, 6:50pm | #

assuming you mean R's here

Election season: joe is in full tunnel vision mode and should not be expected to differentiate between Ls and Rs.

joshua corning | September 8, 2008, 6:52pm | #

He's down today but he's been leading all summer--I will believe he's in serious trouble if he is still down two weeks from now.

I know its just a bump...still i am sure it ruined joe's day

Matthew | September 8, 2008, 6:57pm | #

Joe is sensitive and I think we should respect that.

Seward | September 8, 2008, 7:04pm | #

Matthew,

...she backs capital punishment,[109] and opposes same-sex marriage.[50]

And of course a lot of libertarians think that backing capital punishment and opposition to gay marraige are an anathema.

She has strongly supported development of oil and natural gas drilling in Alaska, including in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.[54]"

How about we get the government out of the development business altogether?

Potts | September 8, 2008, 7:07pm | #

it correlates pretty well with libertarian positions regarding role of gov't

Matthew, the evidence is actually pretty contradictory. The same wikipedia page (which is still locked, btw) also mentions her refusal to close state owned Matanuska Maid, possible abuse of power in the troopergate business, and of course her changing position on the bridge to nowhere. There seems to be just as much evidence that she's a social con/fiscal lib in the mold of GW as anything else.


joe is in full tunnel vision mode and should not be expected to differentiate between Ls and Rs.

Might be true, but the way so many L's still cling to the laughable idea that the R's are more fiscally responsible, you could forgive someone for confusing the two a little.

Matthew | September 8, 2008, 7:09pm | #

Seward,
How about we get the government out of the development business altogether?

Sounds good to me.

My post was just saying that her positions are loosely close to libertarian positions and that she is more of a libertarian candidate compared to the other mainstream candidates.

Seward | September 8, 2008, 7:11pm | #

Potts,

She is so new to the scene for me that I remain agnostic.

Matthew | September 8, 2008, 7:14pm | #

Potts,

the evidence is actually pretty contradictory.

Yeah, again, I don't believe she is as libertarian as most actual Libertarians would like her to be but she is closer than the other candidates (not saying much, I guess this year).

Fwiw, my ideal candidate would be Barry Goldwater.

Seward | September 8, 2008, 7:14pm | #

Matthew,

Well, they may be loosely close to some libertarian positions. Then again, she also appears to be on the other side of the positions that a lot libertarians take.

...that she is more of a libertarian candidate compared to the other mainstream candidates.

If that is the case that wouldn't be all that significant of an achievement. :)

Paul | September 8, 2008, 7:18pm | #

The sausage fest that is libertarianism is never more painful to behold than when the subject is feminism.

I rather thought that feminists were painful to behold when discussing the subject. Especially when someone with ovaries disagreed.

so many L's still cling to the laughable idea that the R's are more fiscally responsible

Name one.

Mad Max | September 8, 2008, 7:25pm | #

Amanda Marcotte is the legal genius who didn't think that the Duke Lacrosse players should be able to weasel out of a charge of rape by invoking a leagl technicality like innocence. These remarks led to Marcotte losing her job with John Edwards (that shining examplar of respect for women):

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/118501.html

Ms. Marcotte explains why she thinks the right of mothers to kill their unborn children is more important that the right to bear arms:

"After all, I can't really foresee a situation in which I need to shoot a beer can off a fence, but I can easily picture a situation in which I'd need an abortion."

It never occurs to Ms. Marcotte that there may be non-beer-can related uses for firearms - like a homeowner or shopkeeper defending himself (or *her*self) against robbers. Or even a woman defending herself against a rapist. Not that Ms. Marcotte could relate to that. Any woman who carries a gun to equalize her odds vis-a-vis a potential rapist is a criminal in Ms. Marcotte's book.

joshua corning | September 8, 2008, 7:32pm | #

so many L's still cling to the laughable idea that the R's are more fiscally responsible

Name one.

I guess 1984 and 1994 was a long long time ago....still it is closer then the 1920s.

Ok Kennedy did cut taxes i will give you that....but what have they done lately?

galthran | September 8, 2008, 7:32pm | #

I think its the many R's that still cling to the laughable idea that the R's are more fiscally responsible.

Elemenope | September 8, 2008, 7:33pm | #

Like pretty much everything else, if you ever bother to move *past* the Cliff's Notes version of Feminism and actually study a few thinkers, it becomes less ridiculous and there are a few insights to be gleaned.

In comparison, y'all talk as if it's enough to read one painfully tedious monologue from Atlas Shrugged to get everything anyone ever needs to know about Libertarian thought.

Potts | September 8, 2008, 7:35pm | #

but she is closer than the other candidates

I get your point, but I see that as projecting, in much the same way a lot of people did with Obama before his policy positions were clarified. They've all had a libertarian moment or two: Obama with government transparency, getting out of Iraq (although he'd probably go in elsewhere), and his one time strong support of civil liberties. McCain seems to have something of a tax cutting mentality, has taken a stance against torture, and pays lip service to the earmark issue.

Name one.
Alright, alright... I was a little trigger happy with the snark. Probably should have said the way that many libertarians think that the R's are somehow their next best option when it comes to the ideas of small government. As evidence, I present to you the archives of Hit & Run.

anarch | September 8, 2008, 7:47pm | #

"Can possessors of breasts"

Possessors or owners?

For a magazine called (*hic*) reason...

Kant feel Pietzsche, my Balzac is Ietzsche | September 8, 2008, 8:03pm | #

All I know is that this fine-ass Kush is NOT feminizing my manly pecs as it should be.

Apparently I'll need a trip to the plastic surgeon to ever properly "care about people".

A libertarian Toofer! Legalization reference AND sexism in the same post.

scott | September 8, 2008, 8:08pm | #

The sausage fest that is libertarianism is never more painful to behold than when the subject is feminism.>>

The worst thing about Palin is that she isn't a libertarian. We could use a star, and female one even better.

Kant feel Pietzsche, my Balzac is Ietzsche | September 8, 2008, 8:08pm | #

And for God's (flying spaghetti monster's, whatever) sake Elemenope! You know as well as I do that (true-believer)Feminism is just another example of tribal/collectivist group-think! And one of the most pernicious, as it almost perfectly divides everyone on the planet into a pink/blue divide.

As well-thought out as most of your positions are, this surprises me.

Elemenope | September 8, 2008, 8:38pm | #

Hey Balzac --

Uh, no. Actually, there has been quite a lot of interesting social philosophy/political science/economics stuff to come out of Feminism (a big tent, for sure, which includes the *ideology*, that is, boiled down for the stupids in a convenient vagina-sized case...but also includes some fairly subtle and logical thought.)

I agree that Feminism in the modern political parlance doesn't go much further than the blue/pink divide, but that's just a function of how superficial our normal social discourse has become.

Marxism (in its many forms) bears little resemblance to what Marx wrote, for example. There are *so* many others.

BakedPenguin | September 8, 2008, 8:41pm | #

...if you ever bother to move *past* the Cliff's Notes version of Feminism and actually study a few thinkers, it becomes less ridiculous and there are a few insights to be gleaned.

Fair enough. We shouldn't lump in all feminists with Andrea Dworkin, unless we all want to be lumped in with Wayne Root.

BDB | September 8, 2008, 8:55pm | #

Informal poll (for the libertarians only): Pro choice or pro life?

Pro Choice, here.

BDB | September 8, 2008, 9:00pm | #

Palin is a libertarian only if you stretch the word to mean "populist Republican", in which case the term libertarian ceases to be meaningful.

B | September 8, 2008, 9:23pm | #

"I defy anybody to find a passage in Ward's effort that conveys more thought than my preceding comment"


I defy anybody to find a poster on this website more arrogant than you.

B | September 8, 2008, 9:31pm | #

Amanda Marcotte? Couldn't you find someone better to debate? She is about as erudite as Corky from "Life Goes On".

James | September 8, 2008, 9:32pm | #

Sarah Palin's acceptance speech was full of lies, distortions, and snark...does that make her more libertarian??? I think she fits the Republican mold perfectly.

Elemenope | September 8, 2008, 9:32pm | #

Informal poll (for the libertarians only): Pro choice or pro life?

I am pro-fetus recycling.

B | September 8, 2008, 9:36pm | #

"Sarah Palin's acceptance speech was full of lies, distortions, and snark...does that make her more libertarian??? I think she fits the Republican mold perfectly."

And Obama and Biden's speeches contained no lies and distortions at all, right? Give me a fucking break

James | September 8, 2008, 9:39pm | #

I think she came off as a snarky vapid bitch, if she had blonde hair, she would be Ann Coulter.

B | September 8, 2008, 9:39pm | #

"Fair enough. We shouldn't lump in all feminists with Andrea Dworkin..."

And why not? After all, today's feminist "leaders" are implying, and often times stating explicitly, that those who do not adhere to their political ideologies are not feminists, or even real women for that matter. I think it is only fair that these feminists are all lumped together if they are going to insist on such ideological rigidity.

B | September 8, 2008, 9:41pm | #

"The sausage fest that is libertarianism.."


Yeah, I bet you are a real pussy magnet.

Voros McCracken | September 8, 2008, 9:45pm | #

"And of course a lot of libertarians think that backing capital punishment and opposition to gay marraige are an anathema."

But I think in Palin's case (particularly in the Gay marriage part) Palin's personal views on the issue and how she feels government should proceed can be two different things.

Indeed the fact that she's against gay marriage and nevertheless vetoed a bill that would have denied benefits to same sex partners of government employees speaks better to her libertarian credentials than if she was a supporter of gay marriage.

It's actually refreshing to see a political executive actually consider the boundaries of government power rather than simply go with whatever happens to be personally pleasing to them.

She's no libertarian, but I think there's a decent argument that she's closer than the other three people running. For example, I disargee with Joe Biden on almost every single political issue. That's pretty impressive. :)

Craptaulus | September 8, 2008, 10:05pm | #

Pro-life and pro-choice are pretty nebulous and propaganda-ish. I am pro-legalized-abortion.

MJ | September 8, 2008, 10:37pm | #

"Men won't be going to jail for having abortions, but women will."

As men cannot have abortions, it is quite unlikely that they would. On the other hand, under such a regime, men would be going to jail for performing abortions. This is the more likely scenario, it is unlikey that having an abortion would be criminalized but performing them would be.

"McCain can't even muster support for the most popular of feminist ideas -- equal pay for equal work."

As equal pay for equal work would substitute bureaucratic fiat over the laws of supply and demand in the job market, I find it difficult to believe that anyone with a functioning brain would support it. Some jobs have a smaller pool of people who are willing and able to perform them and therefore offer higher pay.

"It's the idea that women are categorically so simple that we're going to be wowed by Palin's peppy, hockey-mom persona and be incapable of looking beyond that to policy issues."

Amanda, Katherine's point is that women are not a monolithic bloc of voters and that Palin's policies stances appeal to a significant number of them. Your condescending attitude that women who are pro-life do not understand what they are supporting is the insulting and demeaning point of view.

hotsauce | September 8, 2008, 10:43pm | #

Informal poll (for the libertarians only): Pro choice or pro life?

Pro choice if pregnant w/out consent, such as rape. You own your body and uninvited persons have no claim to it.

Pro life if pregnant with consent, such as consensual sex and the condom breaks (hey, you assume the risk, like an adjustable rate mortgage).

MJ | September 8, 2008, 10:45pm | #

"...if you ever bother to move *past* the Cliff's Notes version of Feminism and actually study a few thinkers,..."

Perhaps, but from the writing sample in the link, it is apparent that Marcotte is not one of the "thinkers".

dan | September 8, 2008, 11:25pm | #

Pro choice if pregnant w/out consent, such as rape. You own your body and uninvited persons have no claim to it.

Pro life if pregnant with consent, such as consensual sex and the condom breaks (hey, you assume the risk, like an adjustable rate mortgage).

How is this view either 1. consistent or 2. enforceable? If a fetus is a full-fledged human, how does it bear responsibility in the event of rape so as to justify murder as a suitable punishment? And if a fetus isn't a human, why is abortion not one of a woman's available options in addressing her situation after her and her male partner "risk" pregnancy by engaging in intercourse?

And how on earth do you propose to legally separate the two categories? It seems to me that the major consequence of any attempt to do so would be, well, an explosion of accusations of rape. That doesn't seem like it's doing anybody any good.

John C. Randolph | September 8, 2008, 11:37pm | #

How did Amanda Marcotte find the time to do this around her busy schedule of lynching lacrosse players?

Oh, BTW.. Did she have anything to say about her onetime employer, Fluffy the Trial Lawyer, getting caught in a tryst with an underling?

-jcr

Dan | September 8, 2008, 11:56pm | #

Amanda, Katherine's point is that women are not a monolithic bloc of voters and that Palin's policies stances appeal to a significant number of them.

Problem being that this is a wholly irrelevant point, as Steinem is explicitly addressing what "most other women want and need" as contrasted with Palin's implicit tokenistic appeal.

As men cannot have abortions, it is quite unlikely that they would. On the other hand, under such a regime, men would be going to jail for performing abortions. This is the more likely scenario, it is unlikey that having an abortion would be criminalized but performing them would be.

So it's preferable for women to live under a legal regime that treats them as incapable of being responsible for their own decisions?

As equal pay for equal work would substitute bureaucratic fiat over the laws of supply and demand in the job market, I find it difficult to believe that anyone with a functioning brain would support it. Some jobs have a smaller pool of people who are willing and able to perform them and therefore offer higher pay.

Considering the utter non sequitur that your second sentence constitutes in relation to discussing "equal pay for equal work", you may want to reconsider your judgments about exactly whose brain is fully functioning.

John C. Randolph | September 8, 2008, 11:58pm | #

And here I was all hatin' because she just sucks...

That's silly. She'll never be important enough to hate.

-jcr

Elemenope | September 9, 2008, 12:17am | #

After all, today's feminist "leaders" are implying, and often times stating explicitly, that those who do not adhere to their political ideologies are not feminists, or even real women for that matter.

And they would be committing a No True Scotsman, and are wrong to do so. But as someone above perceptively pointed out, letting NOW or Andrea Dworkin define *all Feminism* is about as legitimate as allowing Lew Rockwell or Wayne Allen Root define "all Libertarianism*.

Actual academic Feminist thought is quite diverse, both politically and theoretically. Am I wrong in saying I'm the only guy here who has actually taken and completed a Gender Studies class?

Perhaps, but from the writing sample in the link, it is apparent that Marcotte is not one of the "thinkers".

So true.

Malto Dextrin | September 9, 2008, 2:10am | #

I guess you could say that McCain is imPalin' Obama.

John C. Randolph | September 9, 2008, 2:13am | #

Let me just point out that MEN don't get equal pay for equal work, either. Given any two men with skill sets as close as you can find, one of them will be earning more than the other, and the difference is any number of factors, such as how well they negotiated their starting salary, whether the company they work for is more concerned about the cost of salaries or the cost of attrition, and many, many other factors.

An employer has a fiduciary responsibility to its owners to get the work done for the least cost. If women don't ask for as much pay as the men do, they're not going to get as much. GO COPE.

-jcr

John C. Randolph | September 9, 2008, 2:15am | #

No true Scotsman would shag Andrea Dworkin, no matter how drunk he was.

-jcr

Malto Dextrin | September 9, 2008, 2:39am | #

Pro life if pregnant with consent, such as consensual sex and the condom breaks (hey, you assume the risk, like an adjustable rate mortgage).

The guy took that risk too, then. He automatically pays child support in that case.

Sausage Swingin' Libber | September 9, 2008, 4:32am | #

Sarah Palin is hot.

Slocum | September 9, 2008, 7:07am | #

Informal poll (for the libertarians only): Pro choice or pro life?

Pro-choice but with an earlier dividing line than viability. Dismembering and killing a recognizably human, thumb-sucking fetus is an abomination (incomplete mylenization or not). I also think the idea that abortion is a constitutional right is absurd. European nations seem to be able to pass laws regulating abortion without having to have an unelected body of judges step in an do it for them:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6235557.stm

The 12 week limit imposed by most European countries seems about right to me.

Nick M | September 9, 2008, 9:06am | #

Pro choice if pregnant w/out consent, such as rape. You own your body and uninvited persons have no claim to it.

Pro life if pregnant with consent, such as consensual sex and the condom breaks (hey, you assume the risk, like an adjustable rate mortgage).

Walter Block has pointed out that at the time of the unprotected sex, there is no fetus, nay no zygote present, so there is no one to have an implicit contract with, e.g., "By having this sex, I'm consenting to let you live in my womb for nine months."

LarryA | September 9, 2008, 10:30am | #

After all, I can't really foresee a situation in which I need to shoot a beer can off a fence, but I can easily picture a situation in which I'd need an abortion."

How about the New Life Church shooting, where a woman carrying her licensed concealed handgun stopped a mass murder. (No, Jeanne Assam was not a “security guard.” In Colorado security guards must be trained and commissioned, and can’t carry semiautos. She, along with other ushers, was a church member participating in the church’s security plan.) She was credited with saving over a hundred lives.

J sub D | September 9, 2008, 10:31am | #

Informal poll (for the libertarians only): Pro choice or pro life?

My position is nuanced and pleases nobody but myself. It comes down to nervous system (read brain) developement. A 3 month fetus, like Terry Schiavo is human but not a person. A 8 month fetus, is both and deserves the protction of law. TLTG, but brain developement in the fetus has been studied for a long time and I place personhood at the 5-6 month time frame.

Do not bother arguing with me. I'll not engage in a poo flinging contest.

Frank | September 9, 2008, 10:55am | #

My position is nuanced and pleases nobody but myself. It comes down to nervous system (read brain) development.

I agree, it is sort of like the concept of brain dead in reverse.

elenemope is a retard and so is joe not b/c they are leftists but b/c they are retards | September 9, 2008, 1:26pm | #

Marxism in its purest form was carried out in/on Cambodia. Is that what this clown elenemope or whatever is talking about?

Matthew | September 9, 2008, 2:09pm | #

lmnop,

Am I wrong in saying I'm the only guy here who has actually taken and completed a Gender Studies class?

If I had, I wouldn't be bragging about it.

John C. Randolph | September 9, 2008, 2:17pm | #

J sub D,

I would say that the morality of abortion doesn't hinge on the stage of development of the fetus, because:

If a full-grown human being required a continuous blood transfusion from me to stay alive, I and only I would be entitled to decide whether I would continue to provide it. Even if I had acquiesced to hooking up the tubes in the first place, or gained some pleasure from it at the outset.

So, even though I would consider an abortion regrettable, I wouldn't employ the power of the state to prevent it. I might try to persuade someone to carry a baby to term, but force is right out.

-jcr

T | September 9, 2008, 5:06pm | #

Am I wrong in saying I'm the only guy here who has actually taken and completed a Gender Studies class?

No, I got schedule changed into Women and Politics my junior year. It was supposed to be Constitutional Interpretation. But I try not to bring it up because I'm still bitter. I sat through a semester of reading Marxist feminists compare their uteri to the means of production that should be reclaimed from the bourgeois male oppressor.

I so wish I was kidding about that last sentence, but alas, it's true.

Ray | September 9, 2008, 9:24pm | #

How strange to read in a "libertarian" publication the following as of late:

1) Someone arguing in favor of the 21 drinking age.

2) Readers praising a woman who asked a librarian quote-unquote rhetorical questions about banning books, then fired her after the librarian said she wouldn't consider it (the rehired her only after public pressure).

Some people who write for and comment on this site just need to call themselves conservative, rather than libertarian.

LJinFla | September 11, 2008, 2:30pm | #

Ray, that's the first truly funny comment I have read yet on this comment section.

And yet...true.

wylde bill | September 14, 2008, 4:13pm | #

I think both sides in the abortion issue have part of the truth.

On the one hand, it's inarguable that a zygote is about as human as a kidney or a liver, and should be treated as such.

On the other hand, it's also inarguable that being spit out of the womb doesn't magically cause one to become a human being. It has already developed to that point when it's due date comes- which is the third trimester of the pregnancy.

So I don't think 3rd trimester abortions are ethical unless the mother's life is in danger or some sort of duress has precluded an earlier application of the procedure.

On the other hand, I think abortions before the 3rd trimester, or the "day after" birth control pill are reasonable unless one subscribes to the "every sperm is sacred" school of thought...

Sarah in NYC | September 15, 2008, 4:14pm | #

IF overturning Roe v. Wade will not change the laws in most states, then why overturn it at all? Just because SOME men want the ability to molest their daughters and have children with them? (I'm looking at you Utah!)

NO ONE is being forced into supporting nor having an abortion. So, as it is, no one's rights are being violated. (No VOTERS anyhow)

Point is, Bush did right by banning partial birth murders andd he lowered the time frame. So unless you personally think that a heart and lungs is all that's required for life (no brain = no setience, imo) then you shouldn't be complaining about abortion.

FACT is, over 80% of abortions are MEDICAL, not surgical. Let me explain. Only done within the first 6 weeks (long before a heart, lungs or brain form), the woman takes a pill which detaches the fertilized egg and forces a period. It is midly painful (described as 24 hours of cramps) and thats it. No emotional attachment, no "baby" and no, by MY definition, not a murder.

And for those of you who just say "rape" and forget the other factors of abortion, you are mistaken. Eptopic pregnancies kill women. This means the egg is growing in one of your tubes rather than your uterus. Without surgery or abortion, you will die if the egg grows into a child.

Also, a mother who has OTHER children, should not be forced to put her life at risk for a fifth or seventh child and risk leaving her other children motherless just because she's not "allowed" to go on the pill. Let's not forget that the GOP is also trying to equate birth control with abortion.

Sarah Palin can "believe" whatever the hell she wants. But she is not violating the ALA by banning books in my state. She's not "teaching" creationism on my tax dollar and she's sure as hell not leaving my uterine health up to a vote.

Panamabound | September 20, 2008, 8:16pm | #

this is my first visit to this site....and because of the degree of anger here....most likely my last. You'll don't even know Sarah Palin's views. Most of you just THINK you know Sarah Palin's views. Bunch of lowly whiners at this sit.