Abortion = Art? Okay... what?

Beauty Mark

Well-known member
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.


I think she lost her point honestly. In being so shocking and to many, distasteful, I don't believe whatever kind of conversation about the human body and art is going to happen.

Do I believe that art and our physicality can be one and the same? Yes, I dance, so I believe in it. I fail personally to see how this works to show art and the human body. Besides all the moral reasons, I honestly think she failed as an artist and chose instead to be sensational and attention-seeking.
 

Shimmer

Well-known member
She didn't say she was a whore in the traditional sense. She said she was an attention whore.

I won't say it's something I would do, and I won't say it's something I would endorse, or want anyone in my life to do, and I would hope that my children have a greater respect for life than all of that, but ultimately, it is her body, and if a woman has the right to choose, then she's utilizing that right to the fullest measure possible.
 

BeautyPsycho

Well-known member
Uhm... I don't understand something...
Did she inseminate herself and then took morning after pill?
Quote:
A Yale student who claims she artificially inseminated herself "as often as possible" and then took drugs to induce miscarriages for her senior art project says she will showcase the stomach-turning display next week — complete with her own blood samples and videos from the terminated possible pregnancies.

Does "possible pregnancies" means she didn't know if she was or would get pregnant by that insemination?
Its not like she WAS pregnant and then did an abortion, right?
Sorry, I just want to understand what really happened there...
 

flowerhead

Well-known member
Quote:
Originally Posted by duckduck
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.


although i don't think her project involves much talent or a solid concept - as an artist, i'll have to say fuck social implications. can you imagine what art would be like if it was censored?
i still stand by the opinion that she isn't taking away anyone's life, but obviously that's debatable.
what bothers me the most about this argument is the pro-abortion individual's hypocritical outrage.
 

duckduck

Well-known member
Quote:
Originally Posted by flowerhead
although i don't think her project involved much talent or a solid concept - as an artist, i'll have to say fuck social implications. can you imagine what art would be like if it was censored?

Ah, perhaps I was not entirely clear. I absolutely disagree with it, and see it as unethical and idiotic, but I do think it is within her rights to do this, and I have no interest in outlawing it or preventing her from doing it or showing it. I do not think it needs to be censored due to its social implications, but I would not go to or support her exhibit, nor would I encourage anyone else to.
 

blindpassion

Well-known member
Quote:
Originally Posted by flowerhead
although i don't think her project involves much talent or a solid concept - as an artist, i'll have to say fuck social implications. can you imagine what art would be like if it was censored?
i still stand by the opinion that she isn't taking away anyone's life, but obviously that's debatable.
what bothers me the most about this argument is the pro-abortion individual's hypocritical outrage.


Are you saying that because someone is pro-abortion means they have to agree with this outrageous display? Do you expect them to be martyrs for this display just because they agree with abortion? That's incredibly closed minded if you ask me. I'll quote my previous post, again. Just because someone believes in pro-abortion doesn't mean necessarily mean they would compromise their own self-respect and morals by agreeing with this.

"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."

Abortion is a serious issue. It is not art. It is a serious medical procedure to terminate a pregnancy, it is a personal and emotional decision and situation, and it is tasteless for someone to display it this way. What is this women trying to showcase? What is anyone gaining from her display? education? I see no education. Awareness? Awareness of one persons dis-respect for their own body maybe. It seems these days more and more sad things are taking cover under the title of "art", what it's really doing is discrediting real artists and beautiful art, this of which being neither.

Obviously you're entitled to your opinion but I don't think its fair to call people who are against this hypocrites, just because they are pro-abortion.
 

MAC_Whore

Well-known member
Well, art is relative. From my perspective, this is mental illness not art. I believe that a woman has the right to choose what to do with her body. I am pro choice. But good God, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Have some personal responsibility and common fucking sense. For craps sake, I have the right to purchase and own a handgun, but that doesn't mean I can cowboy up and go shoot everthing that moves.

This woman is an idiot. She is not provocative. She is simple. She is going for the easy shock value.

"Mommy and daddy didn't love me enough! Pay attention to me!! Look at me!!!"

Mommy and daddy are kicking themselves now though. They spent all that tuition money on her and she is apparently stupid as shit.
 

blindpassion

Well-known member
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAC_Whore
Well, art is relative. From my perspective, this is mental illness not art. I believe that a woman has the right to choose what to do with her body. I am pro choice. But good God, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Have some personal responsibility and common fucking sense. For craps sake, I have the right to purchase and own a handgun, but that doesn't mean I can cowboy up and go shoot everthing that moves.

This woman is an idiot. She is not provocative. She is simple. She is going for the easy shock value.

"Mommy and daddy didn't love me enough! Pay attention to me!! Look at me!!!"

Mommy and daddy are kicking themselves now though. They spent all that tuition money on her and she is apparently stupid as shit.



Easy shock value is EXACTLY what it is.
 

babiid0llox

Well-known member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Girl about town
So she got preggers on purpose knowing she would abort the baby for "ART"
Making a mockery of every girl who has had to go through something as awful....... sick bitch!!! what a cold human being!!!!


Wow I didn't even think of that, my opinion of her is now even lower. How dare she make light of such a situation that a young girl would've been in if she was raped, or a wife that knew her baby had a severe disability or disorder and she would not be able to provide them with the proper care they need.

Also remembering that she is taking away the chance of life of a potential human being. Some people should not be able to procreate. Hopefully what she has done to her body and those foetuses will result in her not being able to fall pregnant again (not misscarriages that's worse) in the future, just like what happens to some poor women that had to go through the abortion process for more selfless reasons.
 

Beauty Mark

Well-known member
Quote:
Originally Posted by flowerhead
although i don't think her project involves much talent or a solid concept - as an artist, i'll have to say fuck social implications. can you imagine what art would be like if it was censored?
i still stand by the opinion that she isn't taking away anyone's life, but obviously that's debatable.
what bothers me the most about this argument is the pro-abortion individual's hypocritical outrage.


Being pro-choice (I don't consider myself pro-abortion, because if the world were perfect, no one would need an abortion) or pro-life isn't an all or nothing for many people. Many pro-lifers I know will conditionally accept abortion when the baby or the mother is in trouble. Many pro-choice folks will argue that they're for allowing abortions when they're done responsibly
 

lipstickandhate

Well-known member
The worst thing anyone could do to Ms. Shvarts is ignore her.

That aside, how would you like to be her parents? I bet they are dying- we send our little rich h/s valevictorian to Yale and she does this.

I would be digging a hole in the back yard to crawl into right now.

I also like how her advisor took down her hysterical youtube performance art video. I was instantly transported back to 1993, coloring on my converse and listening to Bikini Kill while organizing my baby-clip collection.
 

CantAffordMAC

Well-known member
WOW

what the FUCK? What the fuck is wrong with her? Why would she do this? What the hell?????? This is so fucking sad, and sick. What kind of a person would do this. I just dont understand.....
 

lipstickandhate

Well-known member
Also, friends, I hate to break it to you. Art is subject to certain limits here in the sunny old USA. Hence we do not see "suicide art" or homicide art, etc. I don't think "art" should be used as a shield to victimize other human beings or animals. Obviously, a fetus isn't currently a "human being" but there are abortion statutes in most jurisdictions that criminalize non-medical facility performed abortions.

I didn't really care about this b/c that's what she wants everyone to do, get upset, dance around and rave. She's mentally 15.
 

lipstickandhate

Well-known member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shimmer
She didn't say she was a whore in the traditional sense. She said she was an attention whore.

I won't say it's something I would do, and I won't say it's something I would endorse, or want anyone in my life to do, and I would hope that my children have a greater respect for life than all of that, but ultimately, it is her body, and if a woman has the right to choose, then she's utilizing that right to the fullest measure possible.


She doesn't have the right to perform at-home abortions on herself or anyone else.

See below for New York Penal laws regarding this stuff:



Section 125.40 Abortion in the second degree
A person is guilty of abortion in the second degree when he commits an abortional act upon a female, unless such abortional act is justifiable pursuant to subdivision three of section 125.05.

Abortion in the second degree is a class E felony.


Section 125.45 Abortion in the first degree

A person is guilty of abortion in the first degree when he commits upon a female pregnant for more than twenty-four weeks an abortional act which causes the miscarriage of such female, unless such abortional act is justifiable pursuant to subdivision three of section 125.05.

Abortion in the first degree is a class D felony.


Section 125.50 Self-abortion in the second degree

A female is guilty of self-abortion in the second degree when, being pregnant, she commits or submits to an abortional act upon herself, unless such abortional act is justifiable pursuant to subdivision three of section 125.05.

Self-abortion in the second degree is a class B misdemeanor.


Section 125.55 Self-abortion in the first degree

A female is guilty of self-abortion in the first degree when, being pregnant for more than twenty-four weeks, she commits or submits to an abortional act upon herself which causes her miscarriage, unless such abortional act is justifiable pursuant to subdivision three of section 125.05.

Self-abortion in the first degree is a class A misdemeanor.


Section 125.60 Issuing abortional articles

A person is guilty of issuing abortional articles when he manufactures, sells or delivers any instrument, article, medicine, drug or substance with intent that the same be used in unlawfully procuring the miscarriage of a female.

Issuing abortional articles is a class B misdemeanor.




Section 125.05 Homicide, abortion and related offenses; definitions of terms

The following definitions are applicable to this article:

1. "Person," when referring to the victim of a homicide, means a human being who has been born and is alive.

2. "Abortional act" means an act committed upon or with respect to a female, whether by another person or by the female herself, whether she is pregnant or not, whether directly upon her body or by the administering, taking or prescription of drugs or in any other manner, with intent to cause a miscarriage of such female.

3. "Justifiable abortional act." An abortional act is justifiable when committed upon a female with her consent by a duly licensed physician acting (a) under a reasonable belief that such is necessary to preserve her life, or, (b) within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of her pregnancy. A pregnant female's commission of an abortional act upon herself is justifiable when she acts upon the advice of a duly licensed physician (1) that such act is necessary to preserve her life, or, (2) within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of her pregnancy. The submission by a female to an abortional act is justifiable when she believes that it is being committed by a duly licensed physician, acting under a reasonable belief that such act is necessary to preserve her life, or, within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of her pregnancy.


Obviously it would depend on when she was hypothetically aborting these hypothetical fetuses. But as you can see, it would certainly warrant looking into.
 

mreichert

Well-known member
DISGUSTING. SICK. REPULSIVE. I'll stop there before I blow up.
angry.gif
 

duckduck

Well-known member
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeautyPsycho
^I still think she took "day after pill" which is not under those laws I assume...

According to the article, "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." So to me it does not sound like it was Plan B/"day after pill".
 

babiid0llox

Well-known member
Yeah in no way does it sound like the day after pill. The day after pill is before foetus as even been formed. You can only take it within 72 hours of having sex. As in it would probably just be at the stage of conception. There wouldn't be a lot of blood, if any at all.
 
Top