Abortions for Art at Yale

Let us hope that, as supposed here: http://www.lifenews.com/state3134.html
that this is, indeed, a hoax.

Either way, I wonder whether her parents are...proud.

Also, with regard to abortion rights (you know: "Abortion on Demand and Without Apology!"); is THIS what is meant?

https://www.priestsforlife.org/store/pc-164-14-suction-and-curettage-abortion-diagram.aspx


For Yale senior, abortion a medium for art, political discourse


My reaction to the article and to the comments:

I am at a loss for the proper adjective.
Saddened? Deeply.
Horrified? Yes, and at some fundamental level.

Let me state: I do not care for some of the issues noted by others: I do not care about what this technically adult person does to her own body; I do not care about her risk of STDs; I do not care about fallout on the pro-abortion movement.

I do not care about the reaction of G-d or Any Powers That Be (although, if there is some Judeo-Christian god, he is going to be very, very upset).

And I am not sure I can explain my gut reaction--and gut reactions are often the outcome of both Nature and nurture.

And my gut says--this is wrong.

Fundamentally wrong.

Indeed, a crime against humanity. And I mean that.

This is offensive to all that is human--even at the secular level.

Saddam Hussein's sons were similarly self-indulgent, although their crimes also included fully matured humans and not just embryonic potentialities. Theirs were crimes against humanity--and so are Shvarts'.

And more sadly--she will likely perceive the coming outrage as "good debate" (as if genocide against the Kurds--or the Jews--was simply fodder for the chattering classes).

For all those that cry out "slippery slope argument!" whenever Conservatives wish to preserve what decency is left humanity, well, now you have proof that such slopes exist.




I will cut/paste the full article below, because my gut tells me it is not going to be on there for long.
--

For senior, abortion a medium for art, political discourse

Martine Powers

Staff Reporter

Published Thursday, April 17, 2008

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.”

The official reception for the Undergraduate Senior Art Show will be from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. on April 25. The exhibition will be on public display from April 22 to May 1. The art exhibition is set to premiere alongside the projects of other art seniors this Tuesday, April 22 at the gallery of Holcombe T. Green Jr. Hall on Chapel Street.

Art of Manliness

I knew there were others with thoughts similare to mine:

http://artofmanliness.com/

I was thinking this weekend how much my thoughts have changed since college, not necessarily as they pertain to me, but more outwardly, i.e, toward society.

Church? Yah, I still have problems with organized religion. But do I feel the need to ridicule Christians and repeal the tax-exempt status of all religious buildings? Nah... In fact, religion has played a great and beneficial role in society, at both the macro and micro levels. I wish that MORE people acted in alignment with their religious upbringings (unless, of course, those teachings lead you to strap on an explosive vest, that would be bad...).

Speaking of that: I see that the gummint is picking on yet another orthodox LDS sect... funny how in some states it is ignored that such activity takes place on a daily basis, but in other instance we will expend much dinero to "right the unrightable wrong." I mean, why not ask the mother what SHE thinks? (She is 16 now, so of legal age in TX; and NO, I am not condoning such sectual behavior, I am merely pointing out that far worse things--things far worthier of our attention--go on every day... Maybe it is because we, as a society, have so little power against the BIG things that we focus on the little things...).

Some writer pointed out recently an interesting hypocrisy with regard to a woman's right to an abortion, i.e., that that right ends when such abortion is for sex selection. Apparently, a woman can abort for whatever reason she wants EXCEPT if she wants a child of some other gender than that which WPTB saw fit to send... Someone else pointed out that focusing on such a minor issue seems out of place when we are simultaneously willing to "shove kids in blenders in the name of science" (I use quotes because they were that writer's thoughts and not necessarily mine).

Hey, have a great day!

"Conservatives"

Wanna know why there are so many more Liberal blogs than Conservative? Simple: we's got the yobs.

In any case: today I am meeting with a young man, SF soldier, just returning from Iraq--and exiting the military--looking for some advice.

What do I tell him? That flying a desk is SO much more satisfying than tramping through some god-forsaken (and I mean that) wilderness? Praise be this guy has a fiancee, so I can at least use THAT hook (the military is NOT the life for a married man, at least one that aims to stay so).

How do I tell him that, in the civilian world, NO ONE will understand what he is talking about, what or how he is thinking and, worse, eventually, neither will he. That is, I can still TALK about duty/honor/glory, I remember those concepts INTELLECTUALLY, but they no longer have meaning outside my family, and even there they are but echoes of what it means to and honest-to-goodness soldier...

Well, we'll see; I look forward to the converstation, to his insights.

I wonder what HE will tell ME.

My Bum's Back

My bum is is back. He got thrown out of his housing. No excuses, no self-pity. He considers his time there a vacation.

What to think?

Clinton the Racist Fear Mongerer

I have often maintained that Liberals are intrinsically more racist than Conservatives (Conservatives hew to the ideal of individual merit, regardles of extenuating factors; Liberals think those less privileged than them are bozos in need of their--and only their--rather self-important and certainly condescending most-extra-special-extra-help).

Thus, it was interesting to read this NY Times article asking whether Hillary's infamous "Red Phone" ad was racist (I know that *I* certainly found it so). No, not in the blogosphere way (where a racially offensive subliminal slur is imputed), but along the lines of Willie Horton or the darkening of OJ's skin or those ubiquitous ads for home alarm systems...

Indeed, the first time I saw the Red Phone ad I was expecting a criminal to be breaking into the room (versus the Mom figure), and I was half expecting, from the tone of the ad, for that criminal to be black.

So, as much as I feel dirty agreeing with the NYTimes, in this case, I do.

---
Update:

Ah, reading the responses makes me realize why I agree with the article: because the NYTimes doesn't! Many respondents are outraged, declaring that the author Orlando Patterson(a Harvard Sociologist--not my fave clique by ANY means) is "hypersensitive," "projecting," and "seeing racism even where there is none." However, THIS comment pretty much captures my reaction:

March 11th, 2008 7:46 am
I am so glad that someone else has said this publicly.

Ten seconds into the ad, my brain started screaming "burglar!" I immediately read it as aimed at the portion of the white electorate that would visualize that burglar as a tall, skinny, young black man, and I trembled again for my country.

Then I watched it two more times on my computer and ordered an Obama yard sign to mark my house as one where we fear evil, not our neighbors.

— Sporcupine, Kentucky

So little is said that the observer is free to project ANY and ALL fears onto the scene; middle-class, white-mom Ohioans likely reacted just as the above poster (and, indeed, were likely the target audience).

While the good prof indeed goes a bit far linking the ad to D.W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation, I think what DOES come across (and this is clear in marketing/advertising) is that certain images, over time, have become "stock," and are used to immediately create certain reactions (a la Pavlov's dog), whether or not the overt message has anything to do with the reaction. Indeed, aren't complaints regarding "negative Hollywood images of African Americans in media, movies, and print" Liberals' stock in trade? And then they DENY the effects of that barage when it suits their Clintonian purposes?

So, sure: critics can claim such knee-slappers as "most viewers haven't eveen SEEN Birth of a Nation" or point out that Obama isn't named or that they can identify no racial over- or undertones in the ad; however, CLEARLY some (honest) ppl KNOW WHAT TO EXPECT from the voiceover, tone, and imagery (whether or not the expectation is realized is irrelevant; indeed, by NOT delivering upon set-up expectations, the ad-maker can offer "plausible deniabilty" to the Clinton Klan).

In other words, even if the ad itself is not racist (and, indeed, it is not), it cleverly plays into and manipulates its target audiences range of fears, among which are included racial fears; all this is based on years of conditioning, stretching back (in Professor Patterson's view) to the earliest racially inflammatory films, e.g., Birth of a Nation.

I think he's right.

---
Addendum

What does this have to do with being a man? Dunno, really: mostly about giving a fair shake to any and all individuals, regardless of classification along gender, sex, or racial lines, or any other line beyond an individual's control (leaves me free to mock religion, given that religion is, eventually and ultimately, an individual choice; how 'bout them new Seven Sins? "Excess Wealth" anyone?).

Coupla-few Points

A powerful article on the Campus Rape Myth, worth reading in its entirety: I welcome analytical support and/or refutation.

Have I mentioned my admiration for Thomas Sowell? He really is articulate and reasoned; his current article concerns the New York Times, pretty much the antithesis of "articulate and reasoned" (well, okay, the NYT is occasionally articulate but increasingly rarely well-reasoned).

From the "Duh!" Files: Materialism Damaging to Children and Teens Out of Touch with cultural history.

Color

Going in to work today, everyone around me was dressed in black (I was in brown and blue). The ubiquity of black was pretty amazing--the only variation I saw on my entire walk was one woman in a grey houndstooth overcoat. Weird.

My beggar acquaintance was, indeed, not at his post. I was reminded of an old newspaper vendor I used to pass (and when I say "old," I mean a hard-life, 80+ kind of old...). Of course, when he stopped showing up, it could mean but one thing... Like the old man Bill Murray kept trying to save in Groundhog Day.

And thinking of THAT reminded me of a neighbor I used to visit--an elderly (85+) gentleman, hungry for visitors. I would show up with a daughter or two, we would drink Gallo jug wine (I believe him to have been an alcoholic), talk about World War II (he still had the rifle--and the scar--he had taken from a Japanese soldier...the hard way). He was against war, but otherwise a jolly fellow.

Very sad one day when I was passing his house (which, according to him, he had bought for a song in the Depression when he was a successful salesman) and the decrepit siding had been removed and, clearly, the house was being renovated. Some day, I too will pass that way. I got the shivers. That said, I expect company then: my acquaintance had but two children--overeducated and affluent, neither had chosen to have children so, no grandchildren for my neighbor. That was an influence in my decision to expand my family (of course, the real decision lay with the wife, but you know what I mean).

Spent an interesting weekend with some houseguests--real "go getters," very driven, hard-working (constantly plugged in, taking calls, blackberrying...very annoying); I am concerned for their child (but choose not to expand on that for fear that anonymous bosh may not always be so). I continue to believe my wife and I are doing the right thing--even after my friend and his wife grilled us with regard to our philosophies (I merely point to the results which are, so far, so good). I remain...unconflicted. You should be too.

Movin' On

Today was the last day on the street for one of my favorite beggars. I have passed him for years--maybe as many as ten--on my way to work. I have seen him in rain, snow, sleet; his cheeriness ever undimmed by the weather. He would nod to me, wish me a good morning; if I had run (i.e., if I was running past him) he would ask how it went; on days when I wasn't running he would ask after my health.

I have always found it interesting to observe others' reactions to his goodwill. Most folks simply ignored him, perhaps out of fear or embarrassment, who knows? Some nodded, some returned his greetings, some gave him money. I never gave him a dime, but today, on his last day, I shook his hand.

As I approached his morning spot (he has an evening spot elsewhere in the city), I overheard someone ahead of me wishing him well on his "last day." I kept moving, then stopped, turned around and went back.

"Did I hear something about 'last day?'"

"Yessir; today's ma last day. I'm movin' into a house [in a nearby sub-section of the city]. And I start a computer class next week, too; heh!"

"How long have you been out here? I mean, how long have I seen you."

[Pause; eyes rolling skyward] "I dunno. Years? Long time. I dunno."

"Well. Congratulations then." [Handshake.] "Really. I think you'll do well, I really do."

"Thank you, sir. It's been a long time, long time. I'll still come out now and again. I hafta pay for my supplies and things for my computer class."

"All right then, so, not good-bye, but farewell and we'll see you again."

"Yessir, no doubt sir."

As I returned to my pedestrian commute, I thought, again, "What is a man?" [the actual quote is “Without guilt / What is a man? An animal, isn't he? / A wolf forgiven at his meat, / A beetle innocent in his copulation.”]

My beggar acquaintance is a man, his perseverance and/or his stoicism make him so. His (apparent) alcoholism or, for all I know, his drug use does not necessarily take that away from him. I do not consider him a victim; I do not think he considers himself as such--or, if so, he does not overtly blame society for his condition.

What is a man? Is a man one who soldiers on, despite conditions or circumstances?

Why do I do what I do? Because I need to do so, for my family. Without family, I would be doing...something else (I guarantee you).

Aside: I am reading Unhooked, with Unprotected on order; why? Because as a father I have a duty to my daughters, to protect, provide, listen, and guide. That is my duty, and I assume it willingly, without question or (real) complaint. I am grateful that I have a duty--it reduces confusion and mental meandering.

I am glad for my beggar associate: I wish him well, bear him no ill will for his choices, and would like to see him succeed. Perhaps next time I will engage him in further discussion; it has been about 10 years, after all, that I have known (of) him.

Y'all have a great day today: figure out your duty, and do it.

Latest Thoughts

Deleted last night's post--don't post when you're tipsy.

So...spent today at an indoor cooperative playspace. Got to thinking about race relations.  My youngest clothes-lined a dark-skinned Indian girl (not that that matters) and I made her apologize.  Got to noticing the racial make-up of the group (I live in an highly-educated, reasonably affluent area): lots of Asians (Chinese, Japanese, and Korean; not too many Vietnamese or other South Asians, so far as I can tell), LOTS of Indian/Pakistani families...  

So, I was wondering why I (white middle-class educated male) feel ZERO tension/animosity toward/from Asian/India/Pakistani families...  I wonder if it is all "expectations management."  That is: my child clotheslined an Indian girl--I made her apologize and give up the Tiny Tikes car she was after... No harm done.

But... but... but when I see an AA mom, I am pre-disposed to worry about any "racial overtones," that is, I am CONDITIONED to be overly concerned with how SHE might perceive things--much to the detriment of the other party (in my opinion).

Does this make sense yet?

My point is that those who simply assimilate into society (and by this I do NOT  mean assimilate into white culture--rather, AMERICAN culture, which, in my opinion, is not color specific) enjoy success--are accepted immediately, no question, no problem.

Those with chips on their shoulders... not so much.

So, I looked around the room: LOTS of Asian/Indian familes... ONE African-American mom.  Hmm...

I'm tellin' ya: I'm rootin' for Obama.

From the "You Can't Make This Stuff Up" Files...

http://nationaljournal.com/taylor.htm