S
Sailor_Kenshin
Guest
This is what happens in a culture of ‘me, me, me.’
- Status
R
ribozyme
Guest
And this too…
nytimes.com/2008/04/14/nyregion/14partying.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
I do not see why would you object with such a culture. I suppose a society based on avarice will be conducive to such attitudes.
But I am NOT in any way sympathetic to the anti-abortion cause. I ask myself “what is the point?” I do not see anything fundamental about human nature that would justify such a cause. Perhaps I became stolid to the issue of abortion when I became acutely aware of human suffering. The human condition is a sad condition.
E
Ender
Guest
There is an excellent article in today’s First Things blog that captures the real problem:
- “{Shvarts} is, if you will, a reductio ad absurdum, carrying contemporary artistic and moral ideologies past the point of politeness but not past the point of internal consistency. The Yale community is, understandably, unable to make sense of its own anger.”*
That is, having rejected objective moral standards, the individuals at Yale, even while they disapprove of Shvarts’ actions, cannot defend their opinions even to themselves.
Ender
C
Cari
Guest
Which was my point about the Dean of the Art School reiterating his (her? I can’t remember) “pro-choice” stance in light of this controversy.
If we live in a country where abortion is on demand at any time, for any reason, then if you are pro-choice, you can’t decry the actions of this woman. And since we DO live in a country where abortion is on demand, at any time, for any reason, than I find it hard to understand why the pro-choicers are all in a tizzy.
If we live in a country where abortion is on demand at any time, for any reason, then if you are pro-choice, you can’t decry the actions of this woman. And since we DO live in a country where abortion is on demand, at any time, for any reason, than I find it hard to understand why the pro-choicers are all in a tizzy.
R
ribozyme
Guest
I most certainly do not. I only regret that she was inconsiderate to the views of others.
I suppose if it is morally acceptable to use pictures of dead fetuses as an anti-abortion argument (which some say that pro-choicers find offensives) this should also be considered acceptable.
A
ArdenB
Guest
Unless this woman took RU486, there is no reason to believe any abortion occurred. This woman most likely video taped herself menstruating and got a bunch of attention for it. Seriously, if there were no abortions I don’t see the big deal. It just make make society ask this question: If it’s wrong to have abortions for an art project, why isn’t it wrong for convenience?
D
Dale_M
Guest
I think that is a valid point. The arguments I’ve seen against her by those who are pro-choice have to do with self-harm (if what she claims is true), making light of miscarriage (if what she claims is not true), and of aiding pro-life forces by stirring up controversy (regardless.)
But yes, there has been a strong emotional reaction by those who are pro-choice and most seem to have trouble explaining their visceral reaction.
Of course, even if it is just menstrual blood, it is nauseating to think it has been smeared on cube and hoisted into the air as “art”.
C
Cari
Guest
That’s the point. You have the Dean condemning her actions on the one hand (if they’re true), then in the next breath proclaiming his “pro-choice” philosophy. There is a disconnect among pro-choicers that is an abyss, and they WON’T make the connection between their objections to the “art” project and the horror of abortion.
S
Sailor_Kenshin
Guest
Maybe they don’t make the connection because we are allowing them to win the war of words.
It is not ‘pro-choice.’ It is PRO-ABORTION. We must never allow people to disconnect the horrifying act with buzz-words.
It is not ‘pro-choice.’ It is PRO-ABORTION. We must never allow people to disconnect the horrifying act with buzz-words.
A
ALLGIRLS
Guest
I think the reasons the “pro-choicers” are upset about this is because this woman has exposed their agenda taken to the logical extreme. Their argument is always that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare”, and that no one can interfere in the “agonizing” decision to abort, that’s it’s never done lightly or frivolously and placing any restrictions on is insulting to every woman who makes the decision after conferring w/ her doctor and “her” god (as if there’s more than one and they all have different views on abortion
). It’s also supposed to be a “last resort” for an “unplanned” pregnancy or because the life or health of the mother is at risk, or the baby is severly disabled and either won’t live or will “suffer too much” to justify being born 
rolleyes. By purposely getting pregnant, several times, and inducing abortions (if that had happened), she’s ruining their argument and exposing abortion for the sick, unnecessary killing that it is. NARAL doesn’t want a spokesperson like that.On the other hand, the pro-abortioners can’t admit that there should be ANY restrictions at all on abortion, even some that would criminalize something as objectively sick and wrong as this woman’s “art” project, because that would be admitting that abortion isn’t always the right “choice”, and the government can step in sometimes and decide that it’s not the right “choice”. They can’t allow that.
My :twocents: anyway.
In Christ,
Ellen
J
JudieK
Guest
This argument doesn’t make sense. It would be like saying that showing pictures of the piles of emaciated bodies in a concentration camp is equal to actually starving and gassing a person, and them making them into a sculpture for your living room. One is exposing the horror of what is happening (of course offensive to those DOING the horrible deed! It exposes them!), and one is actually COMMITTING the deed itself. They are NOT at all the same! Pro-lifers do not abort the babies for the sake of photographing them and calling them “art,” they are showing the world the horror that is taking place so that it will stop. This person claims to have actually caused the pregnancies just for the sake of aborting them for art. UGHHH!
A
ArdenB
Guest
This person is most likely lying.
S
Sailor_Kenshin
Guest
Bide a bit. Given the current moral clime, it will become reality all too soon.
C
Cari
Guest
I completely agree. And this is the slim glimmer of hope that keeps me from spiraling into despair, wondering why God doesn’t just delete the lot of us.
If this woman’s stunt, real or not, can get one person to analyze their support of abortions, if this can get one person’s heart to soften to the beauty and value of all life, then that would be some good from an otherwise mindlessly horrific event.
J
JEANNIEMAC
Guest
The government has just released instructions to their diplomats to avoid using words such as “Islamofacist” etc. because they are offensive to moderate Muslims. Also, note that homosexuals avoid using the word, preferring to say “gay” and even “queer”.
Words have power.
S
Sailor_Kenshin
Guest
And words have meaning.
In no sane language does abortion mean choice. And homosexuals are still homosexuals, no matter what terms they co-opt to call themselves.
- Status