hands off my art
by Cherry Vichette
Published: April 22, 2008
In a recent article published on Friday in the Yale Daily News, senior art major Eliza Schvarts writes that she repeatedly impregnated herself and then performed home-based abortions as part of an art project. She states:
Using a needleless syringe, I would inject the sperm near my cervix within 30 minutes of its collection, so as to insure the possibility of fertilization. On the 28th day of my cycle, I would ingest an abortifacient, after which I would experience cramps and heavy bleeding…
Because the miscarriages coincide with the expected date of menstruation (the 28th day of my cycle), it remains ambiguous whether the there was ever a fertilized ovum or not. The reality of the pregnancy, both for myself and for the audience, is a matter of reading.
She intends to use blood from the alleged abortions (Yale claims that the abortions are a hoax) in an art piece to be unveiled this week.
And so the pro-choice movement descends to a new low - abortion is not only a necessary right, it’s also paint.
Which brings me to the root of the argument for abortions: up to the 28th week of pregnancy, the fetus is subject to the whims of the impregnated woman. Why? Because women have rights and fetuses don’t. Fetuses don’t have rights because they’re not humans. They’re not humans because they’re not “viable,” or able to live outside of their mothers womb (see Roe v Wade). In other words, a fetus can be killed before its 28 weeks old because it would never survive if it were outside the womb.
That makes sense. Really, when you think about it - the baby is entirely dependent upon the mother for food, oxygen and protection from danger. That means its not alive. I’m sure if we look up the definition of alive it reads, “The state of not being dependent on another being for food, oxygen and protection from danger.”
But wait a second… I have an 8-month old niece and she’s entirely dependent upon her mother for food, the atmosphere for oxygen (Just like fetuses when you think about it) and is under the constant care of her mother (presumably to protect her from danger). Hey, now that I mention it, that’s not a whole lot different than the conditions that a fetus lives under! As a matter of fact, I have a 3-year-old little brother who can talk but might as well be a fetus as far as my mom is concerned.
I need to revisit that definition. And if I do, I find a working definition accepted by most scientist:
Living organisms are made up of one or more cells, can grow and develop, reproduce, respond to stimuli and have a metabolism.
Let’s see how a fetus stacks up next to that definition.
One or more cells? Check.
Can grow and develop? Check.
Can reproduce? Check. (Not, of course, while in the womb. But really, how many newborns have reproduced in hospital nurseries? Preschoolers? 5th Graders?) Check.
Respond to stimuli? Check.
Can metabolize? Check.
If it looks like a living organism and walks like a living organism - it’s a living organism. When you end a living organism’s life we call that act - killing. But in the case of humans we have made another, more special word - murder.
So hide behind legal arguments hidden deep within a secret compartment in the 14th amendment if you like, but don’t claim that logic, morality or liberty guide your rational - they don’t. At this point, not even science offers you a leg to stand on.
And sister, stop fooling yourself - it ain’t art, it’s murder.
—
(email this article or post to social network)
—
(11)
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:25 am
sweet article. i’m going to keep having abortions though. thanks anyway!
April 24th, 2008 at 1:17 am
Weak response “hooray.” You gotta have something more than that. Break it down on behalf of the Choicers. Somebody.
April 24th, 2008 at 3:26 am
I think the response by “hooray” is perfect. It just goes to show you that no matter what argument either side makes the other is not going to listen. Everyone is anxious to pick a fight, but no one is willing to really consider that they themselves might be wrong. Self-proclaimed “pro-lifers” should realize that all the protests and bitterness is only making “pro-choicers” more stubborn on the issue, as you can see in the comment by “hooray”. If you are “pro-life” and truly want to save lives why not fight a war you can win? Check out this article:
http://www.therebuttal.com/2008/02/27/pro-life-in-the-fast-lane/
April 24th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
I disagree rporter. The writer laid out a logical case against. I don’t think it’s too much to ask for a logical case for.
Fast lane is an interesting point. But if the fetus is a human life than before we move on to more effecient uses of our funds we ought to settle the whole issue of whether or not abortion is murder. Which brings me back to a request for the logical case for.
April 24th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
You are missing the point of my first comment. I did not comment on the writer’s argument or say which side is right. The point is that no matter how strong or logical your argument is neither side is going to budge. The abortion debate has spawned two stubborn sides that are unwilling to compromise and see past themselves.
The point of the “fast lane” article was to point this out suggest that authentic “pro-lifers” make better use of their time and save the lives that they can rather than deeming some lives more worth fighting for than others.
I am not saying to disregard the abortion issue, but there are plenty of lives waiting to be saved that don’t require that you change someone’s mind first. The fact that anti-abortionists are not equally as passionate about these lives discredits their self-proclaimed “pro-life” stance.
May 5th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
rporter,
I appreciate what you are saying (that arguing breeds antagonism breeds polarization), but it doesn’t follow that this necessitates a shutting-down of the argument. For instance, arguing with a Communist that confiscating private property is a violation of a person’s rights may convince that person that I am merely a stooge of the bourgeoisie, and harden his or her resolve to institute the “dictatorship of the proletariat”. However, their reaction does not change the value of my argument, nor does it follow that I must now shut up, lest worse things happen than a deprivation of private property. Indeed, there is a strong argument to be made that, because of this reaction, I must REDOUBLE my efforts, and speak out even more.
Over forty million fellow American have been legally murdered since Roe v. Wade was handed down. It is our duty as human beings to speak up for those whose voices have been silenced forever.
May 5th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Michael Gannon,
Apparently you did not read the part of my comment where I specifically said, “I am not saying to disregard the abortion issue.”
And thank you for further proving my point.
May 5th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
The problem as I’ve said some where on here before is that this whole debate is predicated on an opinion. It is subject to the opinion of when “life” begins. This is like arguing whether a glass is half full or half empty. It’s a matter of perspective and you’ll never convince anyone the opposing view point is correct.
The only way to win the argument would be to seed to the other side that their definition of when life begins is correct, and still prove your side is correct. This is what Judith Jarvis Thompson did in her “violinist” arguments(you might want to google this). She seeds the point of view that life begins at conception, and still proves that it should be legal to abort the fetus in certain situations.
May 5th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
I am familiar with Thompson’s arguments, and while some are better than others your main point about perspectives is correct and echoes my earlier comment. Neither side is going to budge no matter what. That is why in my previous article “pro-life in the fast lane” I made the case that self-proclaimed “pro-lifers” would be more effective if they spent their time trying to save lives that didn’t require changing someone’s mind. Apparently the lives of impoverished youth around the globe are not as important to them as unborn Americans.
I find it amusing that previous comments made in an attempt to defend one side merely highlighted the stubbornness surrounding this debate. Clearly an objective, open-minded conversation about this topic is not going to be happening anytime soon.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:57 am
I still have yet to read an argument, using logic or the law, to defend abortion. Can we at least get someone to explain how a woman’s right to have an abortion is defended by science and/or the law? Is it too much to ask?
May 7th, 2008 at 11:25 am
start by reading judith jarvis thompson’s article. That is number one.
if you want to hear a legal argument it’s very simple. The fetus is not technically a human being. Therefore it does not have human rights. Therefore the woman has the right to disgard it in the same whay it would disgard a mole on her hand, or a cancerous tumor. What we are trying to get through your head is that pro-choice people don’t believe that life begins at the same time you do. That’s it. That’s the argument.
Debating this argument the way you want too is a waste of time and gets us no where because there is no correct or incorrect solution, it’s a matter of perspective.