abortion classic or dud?

phew...i'm glad i wasn't 'around' back then if this was the case, week in week out.

The repeat:

"Abortion is great (as in INCREDIBLY fucking CLASSIC). Questions about when life begins are stupid. There is NO compelling reason to force a women to carry a child to term. Any argument which distracts from that ARGUMENT is a bullshit one."

So if anyone on THIS board or ANY other board wants to focus on that FUNDAMENTAL question without resorting to the same tired smoke and mirrors of "when does life begin" then does so. But I guarantee that THIS is an ARGUMENT that you cannot win.

1. Supreme Court says it's okay to do.
2. Some people say "b-b-but that's murder!"
3. (Murder is still officially bad.)

I.e., the objection that's being raised is that the act is a "murder," and as such shouldn't be allowed no matter what negative effects that may have on anyone else. And since the number of people raising that objection is a significant one -- and since that's their sole central objection -- you can't really have much of a discussion with them without responding to that objection.

(It's absolutely fine to say "well the Supreme Court disagreed so shut up cause I don't want to hear about it," but then you really shouldn't enter the discussion in the first place.)

That said, I think it would be interesting to have a thread that's not "abortion: right or wrong" but actually "abortion: personal experience thereof" (which is how this one sort of started out).

Sadly, I feel that this argument, if it's ever won, will have to be won by cold, hard, undeniable logic (though I doubt, unfortunately, this will ever happen, especially since you can't logically argue against the existence of an abortion-hating god), because too many of the people fighting against it will NEVER be able to understand or to empathize with the emotions involved...

Tatyana: I was sort of vaguely in agreement with what you were saying earlier, but now I'm starting to think you can sort of fuck off -- you really have no idea how any of us feel about those posts, and it's rude and presumptuous to pretend that simply because we didn't openly express our feelings about them we must necessarily have none.

So you're right: they're using their moral decision on the matter in an effort to change the legal status of it. You can just say "no fair" to that, sure, but don't bother saying it to them.

Though I DO think it's a shame that the emotional element can't be a larger portion of the debate (its bearing on the ethical question, Nabisco), but I'm fairly positive that the powers-that-be (primarily men) sitting in some conference room or court room or white house discussing the possiblity of "reinterpreting" Roe v. Wade or some other such nonsense are not going to accept an empathetic, emotion-based stance.

For the record, my response to those posts ran about how Nory outlined it: I don't pretend to have had anything to say in response to them beyond the most generalized sympathy and good wishes (and approval). If you look at the beginning of the thread, you might agree that it would have run more in the direction you were asking for, if not for the arrival of posters who vigorously objected to the ethical premise of the thing as a whole (no matter what the circumstances, understandable, empathisable, or not).

If someone else would like an emotional discussion of this topic - then start one.

But yes, given that I do think honesty and courage here are a good thing I probably should take more time to acknowledge when someone posts about personal experience: I don't do it for the same reason I don't reply to every 'Happy Birthday' thread - after a while it would feel more dutiful and less meaningful, and so I try and keep it for the rare occasions when I feel I have something more than rote empathy to offer. Maybe this is a bad policy. FWIW, thankyou Saskia, Mystery, Martin and everyone else for feeling able to write about your experiences, and thankyou Tatyana for pulling us up on it.

http://yaledailynews.com/story.html

Martine Powers
Staff Reporter
Published Thursday, April 17, 2008
Your Name
Your Email
Friend's Name
Friend's Email
Message
Submit
Close

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."

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.

Art major Juan Castillo '08 said that although he was intrigued by the creativity and beauty of her senior project, not everyone was as thrilled as he was by the concept and the means by which she attained the result.

"I really loved the idea of this project, but a lot other people didn't," Castillo said. "I think that most people were very resistant to thinking about what the project was really about. [The senior-art-project forum] stopped being a conversation on the work itself."

Although Shvarts said she does not remember the class being quite as hostile as Castillo described, she said she believes it is the nature of her piece to "provoke inquiry."

"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."

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.

School of Art lecturer Pia Lindman, Schvarts' senior-project advisor, could not be reached for comment Wednesday night.

Few people outside of Yale's undergraduate art department have heard about Shvarts' exhibition. Members of two campus abortion-activist groups — Choose Life at Yale, a pro-life group, and the Reproductive Rights Action League of Yale, a pro-choice group — said they were not previously aware of Schvarts' project.

Alice Buttrick '10, an officer of RALY, said the group was in no way involved with the art exhibition and had no official opinion on the matter.

Sara Rahman '09 said, in her opinion, Shvarts is abusing her constitutional right to do what she chooses with her body.

"[Shvarts' exhibit] turns what is a serious decision for women into an absurdism," Rahman said. "It discounts the gravity of the situation that is abortion."

CLAY member Jonathan Serrato '09 said he does not think CLAY has an official response to Schvarts' exhibition. But personally, Serrato said he found the concept of the senior art project "surprising" and unethical.

"I feel that she's manipulating life for the benefit of her art, and I definitely don't support it," Serrato said. "I think it's morally wrong."

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."

He, he

rereading this thread has proven to me, pretty much definitively, that anyone who says ilx hasn't gone downhill is full of shit. it's hardly a perfect thread, but it's worthwhile and thoughtful in a way that 99% of ilx isn't, anymore.

She did admit it was all a hoax, though. (xpost)

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/yale-abortion-hoax-performance-art/2008/04/18/1208025477707.html

Stam "comin' correct" M

*STAN

rereading this thread has proven to me, pretty much definitively, that anyone who says ilx hasn't gone downhill is full of shit. it's hardly a perfect thread, but it's worthwhile and thoughtful in a way that 99% of ilx isn't, anymore.

-- Charlie Rose Nylund, Saturday, 19 April 2008 06:43 (7 hours ago) Bookmark Link

Good point here from somebody I've never heard of.

She did admit it was all a hoax, though. (xpost)

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/yale-abortion-hoax-performance-art/2008/04/18/1208025477707.html

-- StanM, Saturday, 19 April 2008 07:53

man ur supposed to let it become a shitstorm thread first before dropping that