Move over, Andres Serrano and Karen Finley: Here comes blood-smearing Yale art student Aliza Shvarts; Update: Video link added; Update: Sick joke
Scroll down for updates…update: one sick joke…blechhh!
It sounds like the sickest kind of Onion parody and perhaps part of it will turn out to be fabrication, but there’s no question that Yale art student Aliza Shvarts is a budding left-wing agent provocateur in the grand tradition of piss-peddling, NEA-funded radical Andres Serrano and chocolate-smearing, NEA-sponsored moonbat performer Karen Finley.
The Yale Daily News has the scoop–and assuming it’s not a belated April Fools’ joke, prepare for some significant donor backlash:
Art major Aliza Shvarts ‘08 wants to make a statement.
Beginning next Tuesday, Shvarts will be displaying her senior art project, a documentation of a nine-month process during which she artificially inseminated herself “as often as possible” while periodically taking abortifacient drugs to induce miscarriages. Her exhibition will feature video recordings of these forced miscarriages as well as preserved collections of the blood from the process.
The goal in creating the art exhibition, Shvarts said, was to spark conversation and debate on the relationship between art and the human body. But her project has already provoked more than just debate, inciting, for instance, outcry at a forum for fellow senior art majors held last week. And when told about Shvarts’ project, students on both ends of the abortion debate have expressed shock . saying the project does everything from violate moral code to trivialize abortion.
But Shvarts insists her concept was not designed for “shock value.”
“I hope it inspires some sort of discourse,” Shvarts said. “Sure, some people will be upset with the message and will not agree with it, but it’s not the intention of the piece to scandalize anyone.”
Oh, heavens, no. I’m sure it’s merely intended to demonstrate her profound respect for human life!
The “fabricators,” or donors, of the sperm were not paid for their services, but Shvarts required them to periodically take tests for sexually transmitted diseases. She said she was not concerned about any medical effects the forced miscarriages may have had on her body. The abortifacient drugs she took were legal and herbal, she said, and she did not feel the need to consult a doctor about her repeated miscarriages.
Shvarts declined to specify the number of sperm donors she used, as well as the number of times she inseminated herself…
…”I believe strongly that art should be a medium for politics and ideologies, not just a commodity,” Shvarts said. “I think that I’m creating a project that lives up to the standard of what art is supposed to be.”
I’m sure Jose Serrano and Karen Finley agree.
Shvarts emphasized that she is not ashamed of her exhibition, and she has become increasingly comfortable discussing her miscarriage experiences with her peers.
“It was a private and personal endeavor, but also a transparent one for the most part,” Shvarts said. “This isn’t something I’ve been hiding.”
It’s so “private and personal,” she’ll reportedly be displaying blood from the miscarriages in a huge box covered with the fluids mixed with Vaseline, topped off with videos of her expelling the blood:
The display of Schvarts’ project will feature a large cube suspended from the ceiling of a room in the gallery of Green Hall. Schvarts will wrap hundreds of feet of plastic sheeting around this cube; lined between layers of the sheeting will be the blood from Schvarts’ self-induced miscarriages mixed with Vaseline in order to prevent the blood from drying and to extend the blood throughout the plastic sheeting.
Schvarts will then project recorded videos onto the four sides of the cube. These videos, captured on a VHS camcorder, will show her experiencing miscarriages in her bathrooom tub, she said. Similar videos will be projected onto the walls of the room.
Here’s the Yale School of Art website where photos of the undergrad senior art exhibits are featured.
Next up for Shvarts: A NYTimes op-ed stint, a gig as Planned Parenthood’s next “I Had an Abortion” t-shirt model, and a new role in the next Vagina Monologues alongside Jane C. Fonda.
***
Jim Hoft: This beats the US flag-stomping art project hands down.
Allahpundit thinks “it can’t be real. It’s too broadly parodic of too many things: the trivialization of abortion, modern art’s fascination with effluvium, amoral academic culture justified as a form of faux-profound “consciousness-raising,” etc etc etc. All that’s missing is some sort of representation of Christ as a gay Nazi.” Hey, I didn’t think Sex Week at Yale could be real, either. But it is.
Photo source: Soapbox
***
Gerard Vanderleun’s got video of Abortion Art Girl going on an anti-”patriarchal heternormative rant.”
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Knee Deep in the Hooah!
- Hyscience
- Pereiraville » Blog Archive » my useless uterous
- CDR Salamander
- The Dark Citadel » Blog Archive » Yale ‘Art’
- Michelle Malkin » Yale Says Its Artistic Prodigy Was Just Engaging In “Performance Art”
- Buchenwald and Yale « Wolf Pangloss
- Right Voices » Blog Archive » I’m Thinking Of Painting The Dining Room In Menstrual Blood Red
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Sister Toldjah
» The anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall – and how the far left still hasn’t given upNewsBusters.org
» Politico: Conservatives Ousted Scozzafava Because She's A WomanWeekly Standard
» Ben Nelson Demands Stupak Language in Senate BillWeekly Standard
» Lieberman to Obama in May: Homegrown Islamist Terrorist Determined to Strike in U.S.Hot Air
» Pfizer abandons Kelo site
Perhaps “going to bat” was the wrong choice of words. I should have said “thanks for agreeing with me.”
I understand, but I must confess that I’ve been a rather hot-headed reactionary in some other threads and comboxes toward those with opposing ideologies. It’s kind of that old adage that a drunk man falls of one side of the horse only to get back up and promptly fall off the other side.
I used to be liberal, and when I became conservative I tended to be rather…vociferous and made my husband look like a raging liberal. So I’ve tried realy hard to temper my emotional reaction and maintain a civil tongue. It is more effective.
Many commenters – especially one in particular – are extremely vicious and rude.
Rusty hasn’t been that way. Disagree though we may, I cannot deny I’ve always been treated with respect.
So I just wanted to say the “cRusty” thing bothered me. Thanks for understanding.
Don’t be coy…who do you mean?
am still waiting to see the “koran in the toilet” exhibit…………
eq,
Duly noted. It is a pet name some of us have given him. I rarely use “cRusty” until he says something like “unwanted child” – which he said was wrong and I went back to “Rusty”. I can be civil towards Rusty until he does something like “fetus is not human”. Then, the “c” comes out in me!
This is that “aesthetics of disgust” espoused by the radical feminist effetes. It always follows some visceral, corporeal motif like the meat aisle at Hannaford’s. Designed to shock you; it does little more than remind you that your cesspool has to be pumped out back at the house. There’s a whole wing of this basuda at the Brooklyn Museum where you can see ground meat, viles of sputum, bile leakage, and used condoms- all in the name of feminist art!
Someone who – to my knowledge – hasn’t posted here, but goes by the handle “jesusisjustalrightwithme”. Atheist, liberal, and really doesn’t like me.
What was that other nickname you guys had for Rusty besides cRusty? I never got what it meant. It was initials or something.
Soap agreed with that statement.
Let’s be clear: IUDs and Plan B do not prevent conception. They prevent implementation. They prevent the zygote from attaching itself to the uterine wall. The cell division is already taking place. The potential for life is very much there.
Since EQ has previously argued that life beings at conception, then it would follow that IUDs and Plan B are as abortive as abortions.
Which was my point, Soap. I was using that example to show that what bothers people can be arbitrary. You don’t hear “life beings at implementation” very often. Yet you also don’t see people chomping at the bit to outlaw IUDs.
I was using the “life begins at conception” bit for the sake of argument, not because I believe that to be true.
But it’s such a good Doobie Brothers song! Any Freaks and Geeks fans out there? When the Christian girl, Millie, and the stoner guy, Nick, sing it together by a piano at a kegger? Classic.
Anyone?
Self-edit: I meant “implantation,” not “implementation.”
*%^(!_(#
#202 Rusty wrote:
Absolutely. Man, I loved that show.
There was a time Yale was referred to as a institution of high moral fiber. It seems its fall into the pits of denigration has finally reached a new low. To think I considered attending this school. I am glad that a wise counselor talked me out of it.
Admittedly, this makes me sad. I went to Yale in the late 90s and I don’t remember anything close to this kind of nuttiness going on when I was a student.
Completely agree with Englishqueen’s first post–this is a logical conclusion of denying the value of life, or its existence, as is required to support a pro-choice view.
That said, I find it really hard to believe that she was actually pregnant. Maybe just because I can’t believe anyone would actually do such a heinous, repugnant thing as get pregnant SOLELY for the purpose of aborting your children. I think it takes an extra layer of denial and selfishness to do that than to convince yourself that the “parasite” growing inside you is a worthless lump of cells and you can just get rid of it becuase you feel like it.
Whoa–didn’t mean to get off topic–I just have strong opinions about this. My main point is: what “discussion” does she intend to spark? I seriously don’t get it. Maybe my brain is too addled with religion or something but this “project” really doesn’t seem to have any point beyond, whee! look at my blood and dead babies! Aren’t I avant garde? Not much of a message if you ask me.
I know BS when I see it, and I’m gonna call it what it is:
Pure, unadulterated BS.
At what precise point does what is not human become human? That is a difficult question. And while a certain amount of arbitrariness is probably necessary, we ought to avoid being arbitrary where there is no need to be.
An unfertilized egg, so long as it remains unfertilized, never develops into a human being. The same goes for sperm. Thus I think clearly something cannot be considered human prior to fertilization.
Is a fertilized egg, but one that is not (yet) successfully implanted within the womb, a human? Maybe, maybe not. A fertilized egg that is not “hooked up” to a womb does not develop into what we all could indisputably agree was human. A fertilized egg in a petri dish, so long as it remains such, never turns into a mature human.
I think the least arbitrary point of recognizing something as being human is a fertilized human egg successfully implanted in the womb.
Why? Because every single time, barring premature death, a fertilized, implanted human egg will develop into what is indisputably a human being.
If you say one doesn’t become human until _______ (something after this point), it is unnecessarily arbitrary.
If one cannot or has not breathed on its own, that cannot be the difference. Many humans need respirators in order to survive.
If you say, “they don’t look human,” well, sometimes humans can be disfigured. That doesn’t make them any less human.
And so on.
Milton Friedman said that your local State University is the best bargain in education, though there’s something to be said for broadening the kid’s horizons. But seems like this one has pretty much wasted the tuition money. What do you do with an Art degree from Yale anyway, tap into the trust fund?
Pardon me if someone already posted this:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2008/04/17/yale-students-abortion-art-claim-scam
I can actually totally see this being a hoax, and the “art” being the hoax itself (!) (how nauseatingly self-congratulatory would that make the artist?). To be followed by the release of some rambling statement like (I’m making this up as I go…) “It’s a post-postmodern, meta examination of societal attitudes toward femininity and culture and our willingness to believe in the propensity toward sexual violence in the young,” or some b.s. or other…
I guess only time will tell.
I think that this young woman needs our prayers more than anything else.
This isn’t art. Repeat…this is NOT art. This is totally disgusting behavior by someone who obviously needs help dealing with mental and emotional issues. To allow and promote this shows how low this society will go…rationalizing it as some sort of art. This person needs to be locked up. Sorry….sometimes people can really make me angry. Lord…to think such person deserves any sort of recognition by university or MSM.
I wonder if this weird chick was tapped for Skull & Bones“
Rusty:
Correct me if I’m wrong, then, but are you looking for me to say that I believe IUDs, Plan B and the like should be illegal then?
That seems to be the direction your argument is leading.
If you really want to split hairs, yes, those things *do* prevent implantation, but statistics indicate that the miscarriage rate for those who don’t even know they’re pregnant – some because the egg was fertilized but did not develop, others because uterine issues (scarring and the like) prevented implantation – is as high as 31%. And it’s not always a 100% certainty that conception occured while using those contraceptives.
Abortion, on the other hand, occurs after the egg has implanted in the uterine wall and is developing. It is already genetically unique and undeniably human.
Most women don’t know they are pregnant until after the 8th week of pregnancy. At that point, the baby has gone beyond dividing cells.
It is now no longer an issue of preventing implantation. It is a willful act of ending a life.
I find it the notion that just because a fetus does not look human, is incapable of life at early stages, and the like means it can be destroyed.
An unborn child – even at 8 weeks gestation – will not develop into anything but a human being. They deserve the most fundamental right of all: the right to life.
Why is it that people cannot see carrying a pregnancy to term is not only the just thing to do, it is the compassionate thing? No one is saying a woman who gets pregnant need marry the father, keep the child, or give up her aspirations.
Believe it or not, we in society actually let pregnant women out in public these days. Going about your business while pregnant is a possibility, even if it means not being able to drink or smoke or party wildly for nine months.
Contrary to the argument these “unwanted” kids clog the system, there are many families who cannot get pregnant who would happily adopt. Imagine the world of good we could achieve if we stopped pouring tax dollars into Planned Parenthood’s abortion coffers and set up funding to help people adopt – because financial constraints are the biggest road block to adoption. I know I would adopt one (or more) of these “unwanted” children, but I don’t have the $10k in legal fees in my bank account.
So even if these women who didn’t plan a pregnancy, they could have the baby, sign a paper to give it up for adoption, walk away and never think about it again. No one would ever argue they *have* to keep the child.
nyk – I actually wondered that myself. It would be great if she has not actually taken life for the sake of “art.” At the same time, it would be even more obnoxious if this is some sort hoax for the sake of “performance art.” It would certainly still equal a great trivialization of human life.
Good article, thanks for the link.
I don’t have time to read the 211 comments already posted, but I’ll just say this: There will be a special place in Hell for her, for her blantant disrespect for human life, and for her own body.
And, it’s not a “forced miscarriage”, it’s an ABORTION. I would consider a “forced miscarriage” when someone who doesn’t want a child to be born, but the mother-to-be does, to physically harm the mother-to-be with the sole intent to be to kill the baby. When the “mother-to-be” (and I use that term VERY loosely here), “forces” her body to reject the baby, that is abortion, pure and simple, and it is an abomination.
I got no replies from my emails to Alum and the Admin. Hey no one told me there was an abortion debate going on? So heres my two sense. Fertilisation is said to be the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism of the same species. So when those two meet it is a human, because we are made up of cells, and therefore the first cells are US. It says nothing about breathing AIR, watching HBO, or Enjoying a nice Sauna.
Oh, and I don’t think it was coincidence that this was “a nine-month process”, either…
Very true. I’ve attended and taught in a range of schools from community colleges all the way up to UC Berkeley. At the undergraduate level, you pretty much can get the same education, maybe even better at the lesser schools since at the big schools TAs handle the bulk of one-on-one meetings.
Really, it’s what you put into it that determines your success. A hard working student at a state school can get into a top tier grad school. A lazy Ivy Leaguer won’t.
And about expanding your horizons… Join the military if that’s your goal. You’ll travel to exotic places and work with people of all strata from our society. College won’t expand your horizons; they are very insular communities.
Obama should team up with Aliza Shvarts and do a pro-choice campaign blitz. I feel it wouldn’t be anything unusual.
nyk:
From the article you linked to:
I can name her (Aliza’s) tune in 1 post.
Even if this is a hoax, it is so vile that this woman is still worthy of my scorn (and probably Obama’s praise).
how much you want to bet that the little art student’s parental units are oh-so proud of her (if they pay attention to what she’s doing…)?
It’s like the latest hype of “One Less” to have girls injected w/something that will prevent them from contracting HPV which can turn into cervical cancer… If their parents are so keen on them being One Less then why don’t they tell their daughters not to have sex???????
gippergirl:
Bet she was a latchkey kid.
Gazillion comments. Didn’t read them all, so if someone said this already … I apologize.
1. She has no proof she was ever pregnant.
so
2. Potentially she never miscarried.
Despite what I was told in high school, getting pregnant is actually a serious affair, and while it does happen on accident, I’d imagine for a girl to do so with a turkey baster and a cup of fluids it’d be statistically impossible.
It’s deplorable. My sister in law found out she was pregnant late last summer. She miscarried in the 3rd month. She and her husband were devestated, and still talk of the child.
My mother had one miscarriage before I was born and 2 between me and my sister. These are not pleasant experiences, and they have lasting effects.
I would blog on this myself, but to put something like this on my site would cause harm to my sister-in-law. I would imagine, the countless other women like her are hurting today as well.
I don’t see the problem. It’s her uterus.
I am profoundly saddened. By the attention, by the spectacle and by the tragedy that is occurring.
The only thing that I can say is to all women who may have experienced the pain of a miscarriage, you have my heartfelt sympathy and prayers. The abject indifference to the trivialization of such a monumental, personal, event pains me to the very core of my existence.
from,
shinola
I knew there would be at least one, surprised it didn’t come sooner honestly. I’m sure you wouldn’t see the problem if your mother had done the same 9 months before you were born. Oh wait, then you would never have been born. Silly me.
#220 undrseige24 wrote:
#221 Trollman wrote:
Obama isn’t the only pro-choice candidate up for the presidency, and he hasn’t been any more effusive about his “love” for abortion than Hillary, frankly, so I don’t quite understand the focus on him here. These are incredibly hyperbolic statements: I can’t imagine anyone truly believes Obama (or Hillary, for that matter) would condone or support this kind of thing. Implying that you don’t believe a doctor should be killed for performing abortions is not tantamount to suggesting that abortion is a wonderful thing and that we should all have one (and as often as we can, to boot!).
Further, news of this little stunt is all over the Internet at this point (tool around for a bit — it’s on gossip, news and political sites) and has attracted the same amount of revulsion on left-leaning sites as it has here.
And as someone who went to a liberal college attended by plenty of visual art majors all trying to one-up each other on “message” and “confrontation,” I can tell you that this girl doesn’t view herself as being aligned with Obama or Hillary — or any of the people you imagine to the be the (far) left. This artist views all power structures as inherently corrupt (it’s implied in her art and confirmed in the video of her speaking) — and she absolutely doesn’t view the Democratic party as one that speaks in her voice. Radicalism is, honestly, relative.
This post isn’t about right and wrong — most of you probably know my politics by now, and that we won’t convince each other of much. I just wanted to point out that this is extreme by any measure.
Are you serious? I have to ask because it’s the most juvenile argument, though ubiquitous, and one that I divested myself of before I was 19. Her uterus is hers, but what’s inside it is, many believe, a separate living and human being. Just because it’s “her body” doesn’t mean 1) she can do whatever she wants with her body [e.g. we pass laws against illegal drug use, suicide, etc.] and 2) she can do whatever she wants with the child/soon-to-be-child that has a separate existence inside her body.
If she had, well, then I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t have seen the problem here then either (or the light of day, for that matter). Thankfully, my mother never cared much for the arts.
Yet I fail to see how that’s relevant.
Why shouldn’t I be serious? She can do whatever she wants with her body. She’s just proven that – provided she did in fact repeatedly have deliberate miscarriages – simply by doing it. Moral outrage won’t stop her. And while there are laws against drugs and self-harm – for whatever reason, they hardly seem to work anyway; there are for instance no laws against inflicting a case of alcohol poisoning severe enough to kill on yourself, no laws against deliberately damaging – and still giving birth to – an unborn child, no laws against giving birth to a child who, for medical reasons, will obviously have a short and tormentous life, and so on. There’s not even a law that states the mother has to have an abortion performed if it’s certain or very likely that giving birth will kill her. Most laws that dictate what you can and can’t do to yourself (and/or whatever might be growing inside you) are not only often contradictory in nature, but also borderline ridiculous at times – does it really make sense that attempting to end your own life equals a crime? I don’t think it does.
On April 17th, 2008 at 6:25 pm, Lichthammer said:
I don’t see the problem. It’s her uterus.
Yikes. I’m pro-choice, as are a lot of my friends, and we all had the same reaction to this — one of horror. What this student did, or joked about doing, if newsbusters is correct, is not art, or self-expression, or a profound statement about a “taboo” subject. Abortion is discussed all the time, particularly in this, an election year, and practiced relatively freely depending on where you live in this country. I can’t imagine what new ideas her “art” is bringing to the debate. For those who can’t have children, the idea that she would deliberately get pregnant and then deliberately terminate the pregnancy for the sake of a senior thesis is insulting and cruel. For those who made the choice to terminate a pregnancy, reasons aside, abortion is a difficult choice that most people, I believe, do not make lightly, and sure as hell don’t advertise or joke about just to get national press coverage or a good grade on a project.
Lichthammer, the laws you point to as ridiculous are not analogous to the case of abortion. You only addressed my first point, which is that bodily autonomy is not an absolute right. My second point, which you conveniently ignored, is that the woman’s rights are not the real issue (much as feminists and other pro-choicers would like us to believe). The real issue, the one that must be decided before we can even start to talk about the woman’s rights, is whether what she wants to abort is a human being. If it is, that human being’s right to live trumps its mother’s right to control her body (or her right to “privacy”). I’m not sure if there’s actual legal precedent for that one, but it seems to me to be the most moral position. Err on the side of life, I suppose.
As for the fact that this woman “can” do whatever she wants with her body, well, in most cases it is true that people have the ability to what they want with their bodies. That says nothing about whether they should. And I believe the argument that, well, people are going to have abortions anyway, so we should make them (or keep them) legal, is cowardly and immoral. Furthermore when people exercise their natural abilities to do whatever they “can” or want with their bodies, there are often consequences. for example, if I have sex at a certain time of the month, I’m likely to get pregnant. If I consume illegal substances and get caught, I could go to jail or be put on probation or whatever. My point is that the fact that she “can” do it doesn’t matter. That’s what laws are for. And if we as a society are of the opinion that the lives of unborn human beings deserve the same protections as those of born human beings, then it is our responsibility to protect them.
One more person out for their 15 minutes of fame. Obviously she hasn’t checked into the medical problems she would likely suffer from down the road if this were indeed real.
They’re my lungs, but the libs are insisting that I not smoke.
The problem is that given the amount of traffic it sees, the city of New Haven may grant a public easement. Then she’d be
screwedwithout recourse.Her parents must really be proud. Just think…They paid about $160,000 for this. Wonder if they borrowed any money to pay for this “education”.
With this marvelous education, at a high-priced university, she is now prepared to ….
Hmmmm.
As it was obvious to most of us…HOAX
And by God, Aliza’s body is ambiguous.
[from TOS's link]
Um…way to completely trivialize women’s heartbreaking experiences of miscarriage. Also, where did this idea come from that anything can be “art” as long as it sparks discussion or draws attention to issues or some other nonsense? IMO good art must be beautiful. Bad art must at least make an attempt.
And finally. Not to harp on it, but I love how once again the only relevant issue seems to be a woman’s body, not the body and life of what is arguably another human being.
So what you’re saying is that before we can move on to the question of a person’s sovereignty over his or her own body, we must first establish whether the vaguely pig-shaped fetus presently lodged inside a woman’s womb constitutes as a fully-fledged human being, whose right to life overrides everything, or if it’s until birth simply a lump of flesh that may be discarded at our discretion?
Seeing how scientists are all biased in either direction and can’t make their minds up as to when an unborn child develops pain receptors and a sense of being (self-awareness, if you will), I’m partial to the lump of flesh approach.
Also, I never claimed actions don’t have consequences. Obviously they have. Most of the time, however, these consequences don’t include making you a criminal, they have other, tangible consequences. Such as getting you pregnant. Some of the actions that do make you a criminal, though, really shouldn’t.
They’re your lungs. Feel free.
I guess some people will sleep better now, and some people will be even more outraged because she really did take the piss out of these things in a grand fashion.
One more thing–what the h*** does that even mean? Complete and utter gibberish. To echo a lot of utter sentiments, I can’t believe she goes to Yale!
Well, guess who had to pay for all of this? Yes, the taxpayers! So, I guess all of us just “took in the Shvarts.”
I think it means that she doesn’t know her arse from a hole in the ground.
Or she couldn’t scrape up $4.11 for this.
As I said in #28 above:
“Even if this is a hoax, just having this in her mind is still depravity.”
This is one sick, twisted kid.
It doesn’t override everything. A woman who will actually die if she gives birth should be able to have an abortion. But yes, it does override her right to privacy. And here’s why whether it’s a human being must be established first: because what is at stake is whether a human being is killed or not. If we’re not sure that it’s not murder, shouldn’t that at least give us pause before we proclaim that “pig-shaped fetus” (btw–pig shaped? what are you talking about?) can be arbitrarily destroyed at the whim of its mother? Yes, you’re absolutely right, scientists have a hard time determining when a “fetus” becomes a “baby”. And perhaps that’s why a lot of people who believe elective abortion is wrong, still oppose making it illegal (at least early in pregnancy.) And I totally understand that. What I don’t understand is this cavalier attitude that what is growing inside your body means nothing if you don’t want it there. I have never been pregnant, but I still knew a long time ago that if I ever had an abortion I would know that I was killing my baby. Even if you don’t unequivocally think that all abortion except to save a woman’s life should be illegal, how can you so casually dismiss the creation of a new life as a “lump of flesh”? It’s not a tumor. It’s not an appendix. It’s a living organism, person or not, which will, within nine months, become an individual human being. That is nothing like a “lump of flesh”. It’s not just a part of someone else’s body. It’s its own body. Why is this so hard for pro-choicers to admit?
Even though you and I don’t see eye to eye to often granite, I can’t disagree with you here. And kudos for smelling out the rat first.
nyk said:
1. There was this little matter about Obama’s position on babies who survived abortion…
2. He just contrasted Coburn with Ayers.
Sadly, my comment was only partly in jest.
nyk said:
Like Jeremiah Wright, clinging to religion out of bitterness, etc. At least, one would think these things are “extreme” by any measure, but apparently not. You see, Obama’s church isn’t “actually particularly controversial.” Uh huh.
http://www.yale.edu/opa/
Yale says it’s a “hoax,” and that her project is “a creative fiction designed to draw attention to the ambiguity surrounding form and function of a woman’s body.”
I wonder if the reporter from the Yale Daily News knew that everything was just part of the “fictional narrative” of this project?
I’m perfectly aware that it’s a body in its own respect. It’s not that I refuse to acknowledge an unborn child as human, it’s more a fundamentally different take on who’s in charge. You provided the answer to the riddle yourself:
This. The thing is growing inside of your body because you want it to keep growing inside of your body. It lives purely off of your hospitality. If someone doesn’t want it there, I believe it’s their right to have it removed, human being or not.
As for the pig thing, I was wrong. At 4 weeks it actually looks more like a very small Xenomorph.
Do you also believe that parents have the right to abandon their infants?
Do you also believe that a conjoined twin whose twin will die if they are separated has the right to unilaterally remove the other twin?
Why is a woman’s right to not be pregnant more respectable than a baby/fetus’s right to stay alive?
I believe so, and so does society. Leaving them out in the forest for the wolves is a little out of style – having them sent off to be adopted and thus raised and cared for by someone else is not.
If he or she can muster the balls to bring out the hacksaw and git choppy, then by all means.
Because the child is living inside of her and feeding off her nourishment.
And seeing as it’s now 02:30 here, I’d be more than happy to continue this discourse after I’ve had some hours of sleep.
That THING is a psycho-Wack job of the highest order.
may the souls she destroyed rest in peace and I hope she gets what she deserves.
The F’ing SWINE!
I’m glad you’re consistent. Still wrong, I think, though.
Leaving them in the forest for the wolves is not only passe, but is also illegal and would be considered criminally negligent homicide, if not murder, should the child die.
I don’t know if anything like this has been attempted or done, so I don’t really know if it would be considered murder. I suspect so, though, unless separation were required to save the twin’s life, in which case they could argue self-defense.
So what? The fact that the child feeds off her nourishment does not necessitate that its right to live is subordinate to the woman’s right to not be pregnant. A nursing baby survives off its mother’s nourishment. If she doesn’t want to feed it, and doesn’t, she is guilty of a crime. If the child dies as a result, she is guilty of murder. Do you think that a mother should have the legal right to allow her child to die? Given your responses to the above, perhaps you do. Not much I can say to that. Perhaps you feel that these laws, like those pesky drug laws and anti-suicide laws, criminalize things that should not be illegal. I can’t think of any country where that would be the case, buy maybe you could buy an island somewhere and create a semi-anarchist paradise or something.
Can’t handle the angle of the jape man? Some Ivy League skank who claims to induce abortions on herself for some macabre impressionism and a presidential candidate who feels comfortable with aborting a fetus even if it’s still squirming on the gurney seems like two heads of the same hydra. I don’t feel the connection is a tenuous thread.
Oh god Lichthammer.
“git choppy”?
I know it is wrong but I cannot stop laughing.
Is there no longer a line between art and psychosis?
The difference here being that once the child is actually born, pretty much anyone can keep it alive. It doesn’t have to be the actual biological mother. When the child is still unborn, the prospective mother can’t hand the reins to someone else, which I feel necessitates her right to do whatever she wants up until the point where the child is born, after which certain laws and regulations apply if you want to get rid of the child.
Anyway, I think we disagree on a pretty fundamental level on this. I doubt I’ll manage to convince you to share my point of view (which I hope I’ve made clear enough over the course of these posts), or vice versa. So, uhm. Let’s call it a day?
8D
Well it is now April 18th and it is being reported on Drudge that this is a hoax. The Yale Daily News is now saying that this is “a medium for art, political discourse.” All in all a sick and twisted attempt at either. She needs counseling.
This is indeed a black evil. She should repent at once!