Abortion = Art? Okay... what?

[flowerhead]

Quote:

Originally Posted by blindpassion Yes she did create life... she artificially inseminated herself and she created a life, of course it hadn't been born yet, but she impregnated herself multiple times just for the purpose of aborting her babies for the purpose of "art". I am pro-abortion and pro-choice, but I am for "responsible abortion"... and in my eyes, abortion is completely warranted in ANY situation where it directly benefits the woman or her unborn child, for whatever reason she chooses... but not for "art".

how can you be pro-abortion & get SO offended?
and she didn't create life, she conceived.

 

[esmeralda89]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beauty Mark I don't agree necessarily that abortion should be a private matter. I think that if you have a good intention for discussing it (like letting women know that it can be a good decision ultimately or being frank about why you would choose to have one or why it's a bad idea even), I don't have a problem with you necessarily making it public in some context

i dont mean a private matter as you should not tell any one its your choice but displaying it the way she did just seems like a very disgusting thing to me thats what i disagree with, i dont see how displaing her so called art project will help any one

 

[*Stargazer*]

Quote:

Originally Posted by esmeralda89 i dont see how displaing her so called art project will help any one

I don't for one second believe her intentions were to ever help anyone with anything. She sounds like a total attention whore and she picked the best way she could think of to get massive amounts of attention.

 

[blindpassion]

Quote:

Originally Posted by flowerhead how can you be pro-abortion & get SO offended? and she didn't create life, she conceived.

How can I be pro-abortion and be so offended? I just explained that. I will quote my previous post.
I am pro-abortion and pro-choice, but I am for "responsible abortion"... and in my eyes, abortion is completely warranted in ANY situation where it directly benefits the woman or her unborn child, for whatever reason she chooses... but not for "art".

What this women is doing is not responsible, or beneficial, or anything of the sort, in my eyes.

 

[IDontKnowMomo]

woah.

 

[Beauty Mark]

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Stargazer* I don't for one second believe her intentions were to ever help anyone with anything. She sounds like a total attention whore and she picked the best way she could think of to get massive amounts of attention.

It's telling to me that she had no good reason, since she hasn't given one in the news. Even some of the more interesting, abstract things I've seen with art seem to have a clearer purpose.

 

[flowerhead]

Quote:

Originally Posted by blindpassion How can I be pro-abortion and be so offended? I just explained that. I will quote my previous post. I am pro-abortion and pro-choice, but I am for "responsible abortion"... and in my eyes, abortion is completely warranted in ANY situation where it directly benefits the woman or her unborn child, for whatever reason she chooses... but not for "art". What this women is doing is not responsible, or beneficial, or anything of the sort, in my eyes.

the way she is presenting it is a form of art, so it's beneficial to whoever sees it, & is interested by it.

 

[*Stargazer*]

She has probably singlehandedly handed more ammunition to the pro-life camp than one could possibly imagine.

 

[flowerhead]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beauty Mark It's telling to me that she had no good reason, since she hasn't given one in the news. Even some of the more interesting, abstract things I've seen with art seem to have a clearer purpose.

interesting to see if she actually has a concept behind it, if she doesn't then i'll agree it's trite but i still wouldn't be morally offended by it.

 

[benzito_714]

This is from the Yale Daily News-
"The goal in creating the art exhibition," Shvarts said, "was to spark conversation and debate on the relationship between art and the human body."
Yale Daily News - For senior, abortion a medium for art, political discourse
She damn sure got us talking.

 

[blindpassion]

It makes me so sad. This may be my last post in this discussion, it totally hurts me. Real, fake, pro-choice, pro-abortion, anti-abortion, morally, religiously, politically, emotionally, physically, it doesnt matter how you look at this

it hurts me.

 

[*Stargazer*]

Quote:

Originally Posted by blindpassion It makes me so sad. This may be my last post in this discussion, it totally hurts me. Real, fake, pro-choice, pro-abortion, anti-abortion, morally, religiously, politically, emotionally, physically, it doesnt matter how you look at this it hurts me.

Yeah, it kinda makes me sick to my stomach.

 

[chocodcocoa]

Wtf!?????????

 

[BonnieBabe<3]

Are you kidding me?!

Abortion shouldnt be a project like this. I'm not for it, I'm not against it. But this is completely different. Wow, some people.... ugh.

 

[chocodcocoa]

I hope the security is buffed up for her exhibition. Extremists would probably want her head.

 

[revinn]

Disgusting. Right on par with that sicko who tied a dog to a public wall and let it starve to death in the name of "art".quote]

Just to let you know, if you do a recent search on this dog "art" scandal, you'll see that it was faked. No dog was harmed or killed, he was fed every night and released back to his home on the streets. The artist did it to show that if we abuse animals in a publicized, shocking way, it gets attention, but animals starve to death in the streets unnoticed every day. So this doesn't pertain to that situation at all, as it was a deliberate hoax created by the artist to make a message, where no living creature was harmed. Google it

 

[revinn]

Poop, that didn't quote..

 

[duckduck]

Quote:

Originally Posted by flowerhead the way she is presenting it is a form of art, so it's beneficial to whoever sees it, & is interested by it.

I am a scientist. Like an artist creating art, when I run scientific experiments I must consider the social responsibility of not only the outcome of the experiment, but of the experiment itself. For example, knowing about blood types (type A, B, O etc.) had has HUGE benefits for medical science. Unfortunately, the way we found out about them was from experiments preformed on prisoners in Nazi death camps who were sliced apart, then sewn together with other prisoners. Doctors noticed that some of these Frankensteinish experiments worked and some didn't, and through continued study, blood types were found. With a little more time, this same information could have been found without butchering and killing innocent human beings, but that was how it went. Would you then be willing to say, "well, they are working on a form of science, and its outcome is beneficial and interesting to whoever it helps, so it's okay"? No, most would recognize that, wow, that is great information to have, but they really wish we could have found it out in a way that didn't involve some of the most horrible abuses of human rights in history.

This is the exact same thing to me - she can make art which is thought provoking, interesting and beneficial to people without repeatedly preforming self insemination and abortions on herself. It is probably harder, takes more thinking, and is more difficult to execute (similar to my example above), but it can be done.

Also, it was mentioned that "she didn't create life, she conceived". I cannot imagine how anyone knows this since medical science itself cannot come to a resolution as to when life is created. Is it when the baby is born? Is it when the fetus becomes viable (which has been getting earlier and earlier thanks to medicine)? Is it when it implants in the uterine lining? Is it when it is conceived? So if you can't know that it isn't a life, then there is the potential that for the sake of an art project, this girl just killed a bunch of people. To me it is like saying, "hey, I think a cool art project would be setting this building I own on fire. In my opinion, there are no people inside, and some other people outside of the building agree with me, while others claim that there are in fact people inside." Why set the building on fire then? Why not find another (less potentially harmful) way to express yourself artistically?

I am in full support of a woman's right to choose. I believe adamantly that abortion should be safe and legal for anyone who chooses to get one. I also believe that anyone who gets an abortion should consider the fact that they do not know whether or not they are taking a life, and it is a choice not to be taken lightly.

 

[*Stargazer*]

Attention. Whore.

Quote:

Yale University officials issued a strongly worded statement Thursday night explaining that a student's shocking claim that she had artificially inseminated herself "as often as possible" and then took drugs to induce miscarriages for her senior art project was "creative fiction." The student, Aliza Shvarts, told three senior Yale University officials, including two deans, that she did not do the things she claimed in her art project, according to the statement. "The entire project is an art piece, a creative fiction designed to draw attention to the ambiguity surrounding form and function of a woman’s body," said Helaine S. Klasky, associate dean and vice president for public affairs in a statement sent to FOXNews.com. "Ms. Shvarts is engaged in performance art. Her art project includes visual representations, a press release and other narrative materials." "She is an artist and has the right to express herself through performance art," Klasky wrote. The Yale Daily News broke the story earlier in the day, and before the university announced that Shvarts hadn't actually performed the acts, news of the project sparked widespread disgust and outrage. "It’s clearly depraved. I think the poor woman has got some major mental problems," National Right to Life Committee President Wanda Franz said. "She’s a serial killer. This is just a horrible thought." The timing of Klasky's statement — more than 10 hours after the school paper published the story, which was picked up by several Web news outlets — indicated that Yale officials had taken Shvarts' claims seriously enough to launch a full-scale investigation. "Her art project includes visual representations," Klasky wrote. "[Schvarts] stated to three senior Yale University officials today, including two deans, that she did not impregnate herself and that she did not induce any miscarriages. The entire project is an art piece, a creative fiction designed to draw attention to the ambiguity surrounding form and function of a woman's body," she wrote. "Had these acts been real they would have violated basic ethical standards and raised serious mental and physical health concerns." The stomach-turning display will be showcased next week — complete with depictions of blood samples and videos purporting to be from the terminated pregnancies. Critics on campus have said the display sounds like a shock-and-awe look at the highly sensitive issue of abortion and called it a sick stunt to get attention. The abortion-rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America also condemned the exhibit. "This 'project' is offensive and insensitive to the women who have suffered the heartbreak of miscarriage," NARAL's communication director Ted Miller said in a statement. But Shvarts has said the goal of the project is to encourage debate and discussion about the connection between art and the human body. "I hope it inspires some sort of discourse," Shvarts, whose age was withheld, told Yale's newspaper. "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 senior's campus phone has been disconnected, and she did not respond to e-mailed requests for an interview. Shvarts told the school paper that her sperm donors, whom she declined to identify, were not paid for their participation but added that she did require them to be screened for STDs. The drugs she claimed to have taken to induce contractions and miscarriages were legal and herbal in nature, according to Shvarts — who didn't specify what they were. The art major also insisted she wasn't concerned about the effects of her research on her own body. Had she impregnated herself, ob-gyn Dr. Manuel Alvarez said the young woman should have been worried because such actions are extremely unsafe. Alvarez, FOXNews.com's health managing editor, described forced miscarriages as "playing Russian roulette" with a pregnant woman's life. Shvarts described her project to the Yale paper as a huge cube hanging from the ceiling and swathed in plastic sheeting smeared with her blood from the reported miscarriages. Videos taken of what the college student claimed were self-induced abortions in her bathtub will be projected both on the cube's sides and on the gallery walls. The exhibit will be on public display from April 22 to May 1 at Yale's Holcombe T. Green Jr. Hall. Shvarts will be honored at a reception April 25. Franz likened the depictions to the human experimentation that took place during the Holocaust. She said the Yale senior's work highlights a stark truth about American society's approach to abortion. Alvarez, who spoke about the project before the university had announced it was a work of fiction, said a real endeavor of this kind in the name of art would be offensive, harmful and insensitive, especially to women who face difficult choices about pregnancy or who aren't able to conceive. "Anybody who trivializes a woman’s choice to terminate a pregnancy is really not contributing anything positive to these matters," he said.

FOXNews.com - Yale Officials Conclude Student's Shocking Claim of 'Abortion Art' Was 'Creative Fiction - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News

 

[reverieinbflat]

FFS, she is not a whore.