Comments on: Abortion art asks big questions http://lamp.dailypennsylvanian.com/thespin/2008/04/23/abortion-art-asks-big-questions/ The opinion blog of The Daily Pennsylvanian Fri, 05 Dec 2008 17:21:37 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: a former fetus http://lamp.dailypennsylvanian.com/thespin/2008/04/23/abortion-art-asks-big-questions/#comment-3924 a former fetus Mon, 28 Apr 2008 03:12:23 +0000 http://lamp.dailypennsylvanian.com/thespin/2008/04/23/abortion-art-asks-big-questions/#comment-3924 With all due respect, the terms "embryo" and "fetus" are just that: mere terms that scientists conceived to describe various stages of human development. Just because we stop calling a human an "embryo" and start calling him or her a "fetus" at a certain point in his or her lifetime, doesn't mean that they have undergone some sort of essential change that alters their right to existence. The fact that a human life is ended in its earliest stages does not make that death any less horrific. Again, not to sound rude, but would you not have found it "thoroughly offensive" if the aborted "embryo" had been you? With all due respect, the terms “embryo” and “fetus” are just that: mere terms that scientists conceived to describe various stages of human development. Just because we stop calling a human an “embryo” and start calling him or her a “fetus” at a certain point in his or her lifetime, doesn’t mean that they have undergone some sort of essential change that alters their right to existence. The fact that a human life is ended in its earliest stages does not make that death any less horrific. Again, not to sound rude, but would you not have found it “thoroughly offensive” if the aborted “embryo” had been you?

]]> By: Genocidal in Geneseo http://lamp.dailypennsylvanian.com/thespin/2008/04/23/abortion-art-asks-big-questions/#comment-3923 Genocidal in Geneseo Sun, 27 Apr 2008 22:10:25 +0000 http://lamp.dailypennsylvanian.com/thespin/2008/04/23/abortion-art-asks-big-questions/#comment-3923 Yawn... Tired Pro-Life arguments aside, I think the important issue Shvarts' work raises is closer to Schrodinger's cat than Schindler's list -- if any of you paid attention to the Op-Ed piece she wrote in the YDL, you'd know that there is no way to know whether the 'abortions' she performed were miscarriages or regular periods (due to the way she temporally structured her ingestion of her herbal 'abortives'). The fact that we don't know whether she miscarried or not is significant, as is the fact that IF she miscarried, the 'being' miscarried was, at most developed, an embryo NOT a fetus. This artwork, whether or not it is genuine (many believe the whole 'miscarriage' aspect of it was a hoax, and that the real project lies in the media aspect), plays on this idea of distinction. I HIGHLY recommend that those interested in this project, especially those Puritans who find it thoroughly offensive, read more about it before forming their own aborted opinions. Though I do not personally agree with Miss Shvarts on all facets of her project (I eagerly followed her argument until about 5/6ths of the way through, when it took leaps even I would not follow), I will gladly defend her thoroughly conceived art against troglodytes who don't know the difference between an embryo and a fetus. Yawn…
Tired Pro-Life arguments aside, I think the important issue Shvarts’ work raises is closer to Schrodinger’s cat than Schindler’s list — if any of you paid attention to the Op-Ed piece she wrote in the YDL, you’d know that there is no way to know whether the ‘abortions’ she performed were miscarriages or regular periods (due to the way she temporally structured her ingestion of her herbal ‘abortives’). The fact that we don’t know whether she miscarried or not is significant, as is the fact that IF she miscarried, the ‘being’ miscarried was, at most developed, an embryo NOT a fetus.

This artwork, whether or not it is genuine (many believe the whole ‘miscarriage’ aspect of it was a hoax, and that the real project lies in the media aspect), plays on this idea of distinction. I HIGHLY recommend that those interested in this project, especially those Puritans who find it thoroughly offensive, read more about it before forming their own aborted opinions. Though I do not personally agree with Miss Shvarts on all facets of her project (I eagerly followed her argument until about 5/6ths of the way through, when it took leaps even I would not follow), I will gladly defend her thoroughly conceived art against troglodytes who don’t know the difference between an embryo and a fetus.

]]> By: a former fetus http://lamp.dailypennsylvanian.com/thespin/2008/04/23/abortion-art-asks-big-questions/#comment-3920 a former fetus Sat, 26 Apr 2008 21:12:15 +0000 http://lamp.dailypennsylvanian.com/thespin/2008/04/23/abortion-art-asks-big-questions/#comment-3920 yeah, that's a better word...it is genocide to murder so many people. yeah, that’s a better word…it is genocide to murder so many people.

]]> By: almost aborted http://lamp.dailypennsylvanian.com/thespin/2008/04/23/abortion-art-asks-big-questions/#comment-3911 almost aborted Sat, 26 Apr 2008 02:52:44 +0000 http://lamp.dailypennsylvanian.com/thespin/2008/04/23/abortion-art-asks-big-questions/#comment-3911 and by "discrimination," I think former fetus means "genocide" and by “discrimination,” I think former fetus means “genocide”

]]> By: a former fetus http://lamp.dailypennsylvanian.com/thespin/2008/04/23/abortion-art-asks-big-questions/#comment-3906 a former fetus Fri, 25 Apr 2008 16:17:22 +0000 http://lamp.dailypennsylvanian.com/thespin/2008/04/23/abortion-art-asks-big-questions/#comment-3906 There is nothing brilliant about Shvartz's display (I cannot bring myself to call it art). Every human who is killed by an abortion (including the 9 babies that Shvartz murdered) will eventually become a "fully grown" man or woman with their own important "well-being." It is completely illogical, unethical and inhumane to regard one person's "well-being" as more important than another person's life. Who are we to determine who should live and who should die? Because unborn babies are defenseless and relatively easy to ignore, we convince ourselves that it's OK to kill them, and call it "choice." However, if it were any other group than unborn babies, we'd call it "discrimination"... There is nothing brilliant about Shvartz’s display (I cannot bring myself to call it art). Every human who is killed by an abortion (including the 9 babies that Shvartz murdered) will eventually become a “fully grown” man or woman with their own important “well-being.” It is completely illogical, unethical and inhumane to regard one person’s “well-being” as more important than another person’s life. Who are we to determine who should live and who should die? Because unborn babies are defenseless and relatively easy to ignore, we convince ourselves that it’s OK to kill them, and call it “choice.” However, if it were any other group than unborn babies, we’d call it “discrimination”…

]]>