Sandra Zubieta Zubieta 1

Professor Kroger

English 13011

27 September 2022

Who has the power?

The question on whether we own our bodies has been a topic still brought up to this day.

Guido Calabresi, a former dean and Sterling Professor of Law at Yale University, delivered a

lecture at Case Western Reserve University on this very topic. Law students attending this

institution were able to be presented by a very credible scholar. The institution invites a

distinguished scholar that delivers a formal public address to the students known as the

Schroeder Lecture. Calabresi was chosen to deliver a lecture at the institution to his audience of

students. The students all attend Law School and are most likely familiar with the cases and the

language he uses to convey his message. The lecture delivered by Dean Calabresi was later

converted into an article in 1991 titled Do We Own Our Bodies? This article is about the

different examples on where the agency of who owns our body comes in to play. It is discussed

with examples and with a myriad of his opinions.

Calabresi sets the stage by beginning his lecture the same way he will end it, posing the

question of “Do We Own Our Bodies?”. (5 & 18) He delivers an example to the Case Western

Law students on a case in Pennsylvania that introduces a bigger question which is, how far

should the state be able to intervene when it comes to donations that can save a life. He begins

with a case in which bone marrow and saving a life were in question. Calabresi follows with

examples of abortion, military, and experiments. He also addresses the concerns of what it would
 Zubieta 2

be like if certain things were to be passed. If they would be constitutional or not. If they would

favor the elites and privileged. If they go against minorities and people who have faced years of

discrimination in this country. While he conveys these examples, Calabresi acknowledges the 3

big questions he posed at the beginning of the article. “Was the court right in making that

decision over the bone marrow? What is a constitutional issue? Would it be constitutional to be

ordered to give parts who need them?” Finally, if made constitutional “when should the

legislature require such donations?” (6) He structures his argument and point with his examples

and input on the question being asked. Each paragraph sets the stage on new examples, posing

the questions once again, and follows with the input of Calabresi.

The article that was publishes in 1991 was originally a lecture. The importance and

relevance of it being a lecture is the structure in which the article is written. Calabresi states

many cases and uses distinct word choice to communicate with the Law Students. The students

attend law school at case western, so they are expected to communicate with big words and

complex sentences. Calabresi is a scholar as well, being a dean and professor at yale university.

He has a specific audience, and it is conveyed when reading the article. He also poses the

questions he listed when discussing the first example with even different examples where he

discusses who actually owns the individuals body when the different scenarios come in to play.

Calbresi mentions doing “more thinking about something which seems, at first glance,

outlandish-like the question: ‘Do we own our bodies?’” (18) wanting the audience to thoroughly

ponder about an overlooked question.

The choice of how the article was structured was very distinct. As it was mentioned

before, this was a lecture turned into an article. With that in mind, there’s no denying the fact
 Zubieta 3

that the structure is different. As mentioned before, he commences each article with distinct

examples with his three questions in the back of his mind while providing his own input. Taking

into consideration the structure of the article, it does not provide proper “flow” between each

topic. This does not allow the audience to follow and comprehend the connections made in

article. The scholar bounces from topic to topic on the myriad of ways another individual has a

say on someone else’s body. While doing so he mentions about whether its “constitutional”. The

main idea that he is trying to point out is the importance of thinking about these situations and

reflecting upon ourselves. He summarizes it all at the end and is what he wants the audience to

take away. The dilemma with the article is the different examples that jump from idea to idea.

The structure has no distinction between the ideas or connection. The differences might take

away the actual reason why the article was shared. Each example has many depths to it and

joining it with the others takes away from that. Calabresi’s point is to emphasize the importance

of considering who has the agency over what in and of our bodies. Listing the army, and

women’s reproductive rights side by side take away from one another. Both topics are very

important and very distinct all together. Calabresi only scratches the surface when it comes to the

topics he mentions. It is understandable that he wants the audience to think about how this

question plays out with different discussions, but it does give the spotlight to each of them like

they deserve.

Each example considers political and social issues but don’t take in mind that morality is

also something to consider when discussing the myriad of examples listed by Calabresi. Who

decides what is universally moral? Who decides what is the right thing to do? These examples

are every distinct and unique in their own ways. They can be discussed much further than the
 Zubieta 4

article does because of that, but Calabresi does make a very important point when concluding his

lecture. One very important thing to note is that we must not take away the vital importance nor

overlook such a question as “do we own out bodies?”

Work Cited

Calabresi, Guido. “Do We Own Our Bodies?” Health Matrix, vol 1:5, 1991.

https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.13051/1295/Do_We_Own_Our_Bo

dies.pdf?sequence=2