aborting for art

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/24513

Woman like that need to be sent to jail for murder. ><

Murder? I wouldn't put it that strongly. The personal and individual belief's regarding a fetus's status as a "person" are religious and therefore should not be governmentally mandated.

However, I do agree that her subject matter could be seen as trivializing what is for many women a serious and painful choice.

But then, if art isn't the place to examine such an issue, what is? While her art might not please, the fact that it has sparked such controversy means that she achieved her goal.

I'm all for pro-choice, but that is outrageous. She is abusing a woman's right to an abortion (which is conducted for good and legitimate reasons), abusing her own body, and exemplifying the pro-lifers' reasons why such a thing should not be permitted.
As I said, I'm pro-choice for sure, but I side with the idea that this is a trivialization and an abuse of a traumatic experience for a woman. Just because a subject is controversial doesn't mean you can take it to extremes to provoke a discussion. Assisted suicide of the handicapped and ill is controversial, but you can't just do that and call it art. Eugenics is controversial, but you can't just do that and call it art.

Oooh, sounds german.

I have always believed in pro-choice, but this is monstrous, and its going to set back the pro-choice movement 50 years

Well for art, that would be hard to correlate what is considered taboo.

Sounds really stupid. This can't be good for her.

Subversive art, challenging your aesthetic and moral preconceptions and inspiring you to intelligent "discourse"

Where would we be without demonstrations like these? In a philosophical stone age no doubt!

if the artist wanted to exhibit embryos
couldn't she just use an already aborted fetuses(assuming that would be easier to do whever she might live)
that way, it won't mess up her body from getting pregnant over and over.

lol

I'm with Twoshots on this one, I respect her project. For one, there's no way to know if she actually did what the project is claiming, the blood could have come from her menstrual cycle or anything really.

The main point though is that this project, while it appears to be about a woman's choices regarding terminating pregnancy, it's actually about our culture's mentality regarding the phenomenon. The discourse she hopes to provoke is not about "is abortion a right", it's "why does our society think the way it does about abortion?". Ideally, we're supposed to re-examine the motives and mentalities behind our opinions and stances.

For instance, the person who started this thread claims to believe that the artist should be murdered for what she did. That says a lot more about the person who posted than it does about the piece. It's exactly that that is supposed to be brought to light.

Lastly, even if she did intentionally miscarry some pregnancies, it's hardly abortion. Although I haven't seen it, the concept of the exhibit is pretty tame. She could have used months-old fetuses for her display, that would really shock people. As is, it's really just blood and tissue, no different from a period. Any fetal cells would still have been microscopic still at those stages.

I had never said she needed to be murdered Neolmas, I think you need to reread my post.

I said she needs to be put in jail for murder. To deliberately create a life for the purpose of destroying it is disgusting and should be illegal.