Shock: Prominent Feminist Admits "Abortion is Murder" but "I Am a Firm Supporter"

This is all in preparation for people to support the idea of actual infanticide.

Camille Paglia is, in her own words, “a dissident feminist”. She is something of a loose cannon, and her article is a criticism of what she calls feminist orthodoxy.

This is all well and good - she is certainly entitled to an opinion. But the LifeSite article doesn’t make it clear that she isn’t speaking as a mainstream feminist, but as someone out on the edge. I mention this because we shouldn’t generalize her view to anyone else. She speaks for herself as an individual. I don’t think her view has wide acceptance in the feminist community.

One of the aspects of Relativism is “Compartmentalization”. This is a prime example that. :hypno:

Paglia’s piece, which appears on, 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.”

“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.

Utilitarianism and libertarianism are two different ethical systems. From what I read from Peter Singer, he is no libertarian, given that he opposes Robert Nozick’s philosophy (read this review by Singer 30 years ago).

My own argument supporting abortion is not primarily based on individual rights or liberty; instead, it focuses on the personhood (or lack of) of the fetus. If the fetus is not a person, then it is morally acceptable to abort it.

If we use her arguments for abortion, I wonder if they can be used to support the murder for the elderly and young children (I’ll define this for the sake of this post as 3-10 year olds).

This isn’t all that surprising. Most “philosophical feminists” acknowledge that abortion is murder. Just talk to any biologist. Life begins at conception. Instead, they argue that the woman’s “right” trumps that of the unborn.

The face of evil. Does anyone not believe evil exists?

Here is the original source:

I’ve read some of Paglia’s books and her column on occasion.

I too was very taken aback by her reasoning, here, but I’m not sure that it isn’t actually better than the veiw of ‘mainstream’ aboritionists.

‘They’ claim that nothing is being killed at an abortion, at least nothing human. Anyone involoved in the pro-life movement knows how hard it is to penetrate that shell of denial.

At least Paglia is honest about the killing of the powerless, by the powerful. Her error is that she asserts that control of the body is ‘absolute’, while in reality there is almost such thing in civilized society.

I think one could at least have a reasoned discussion with Paglia on the subject: What other rights does she consider absolute? How does she about restrictions on speech and the press [via libel laws, etc]? If the country at large accepted that abortion is murder, we’d have laws against it by the end of the week.

But with the Stienems and other abortion promoters [including the one running for president], no reasoned discussion is possible: Because they refuse to acknowledge the basic truth of the situation, it’s like trying to convince a blind man that the sky is blue.

My own argument supporting abortion is not primarily based on individual rights or liberty; instead, it focuses on the personhood (or lack of) of the fetus. If the fetus is not a person, then it is morally acceptable to abort it.

Hi Ribo,

What defines personhood? Or maybe, more importantly, who? If you can arrive at a definition, on whose authority does it stand? On whose authority can it be changed? Can I change it myself? Why would I be any less authority than you or anyone else?

You sound pretty sure that you are in the “personhood” group. But I’d sure hate to put that call in someone else’s hands, say, Sven the Ruthless Viking. He may not care for your cerebral or philosophical values.

Gotta go, Tim

i can only wonder what kind of life this woman has had to make her so unfeeling. she seems to have blocked out all emotion and human feeling.
she is scary. i am sorry that someone like her speaks on behalf of women.

Like Singer, I base it on the capacity to hold preferences and to suffer (not merely feel pain, but to have emotions such as dread and depression.)

Paglia is not the first to break ranks with the pro-abort rhetoric of denial. Naomi Wolf did so as well:

Wolf is troubled that the majority of her pro-choice allies will not acknowledge this undeniable dualism. And even if they do so at some personal level, perhaps as a result of having had children, their public abortion rights rhetoric has become so sterilized that the fetus is never spoken of as the human being that it is, whose death “is a real death.” Wolf, though, is willing to recognize the harsh truth at the center of abortion, oft-depicted in the images of killed fetuses wielded by pro-lifers: though such images "work magnificently … as political polemic, the pictures are not polemical in themselves: they are biological facts. We know this."

Again, not all people who find abortion morally acceptable use the same arguments.

For me, I invoke the arguments of Peter Singer, not the arguments of radical feminists.

I think that this is just representative of the problem that occurs when we all get to determine our own ethics. Human nature being what it is, it seems to revolve around what is convenient for us.

How do you know that children in the womb do not have preferences, personalities, and do not have emotional feelings? Many of us mothers would be the first to say that they do and that their basic in-womb personalities were continued outside of the womb (I know that my dd’s personality was consistent in and out of the womb, as well as all my nieces, nephews and cousins - yes, we have talked about this many times, sometimes in disbelief on how consistent the personalities were).

LifeSite told their readers that she was “a dissident feminist”. When the "feminist movement was first started it was not about extreme “anti-feminine” views.

As someone that lived through the 1960’s the goal for the people that I knew was equal rights to educational opportunities, work opportunities, etc. The extreme b*a burnings, child hate, sexual freedom made the news sure. Just like the flag burnings and protests made the news at the time.

The goal for the mainstream then as now was choice in education. The women I knew wanted to be respected for their choices and not forced into them. The BUZZ WORD choice is now looked upon by many as MUST Must use abc, must work outside of the home,must-must-must and not personal and private decisions or family decisions between husband and wife.

None of the women I knew wanted the right to murder those that were inconvenient to them. We did not envision a world that said as a matter of choice to murder infants (pre-born or born), handicapped & elderly or anyone else that is perceived as being inconvenient.

Women don’t need someone to make everything gender neutral. Women are smart enough to understand what that the languages of the world were saying when they speak of “man” or “men” when speaking of humanity. We don’t need the Bible, literature or public to erase the past use of the common language. Infact many of us get hurt and angry at the removal or changing of words because of an agenda.


If murder is jsutified to preserve choice of a woman, then logically, if a president or judge had the intent to inact laws making abortion illegal - wouldn’t the murder of the siad president and judges be jsutified as well?

Actually, anyone who is pro-life would be arguably subject to justified murder - no?

I don’t think this woman realizes what she is saying…

What makes that definition superior to those who have based personhood on race, or religion, or class?

Paglia is inadvertently helping the pro-life cause.

If we can get a few more “feminists” to admit this (I don’t know how you call yourself a feminist when you advocate the killing of 600,000 females per year) we may yet turn the wishy-washy middle to our side.

She’s also had good things to say about Palin recently. Paglia’s an odd bird.

God Bless

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit