Yale University officials are now saying student Aliza Shvarts’ continued public insistence that she artificially inseminated and then aborted herself numerous times over 9 months for an art project after privately denying this to school officials is all part of the art project (click to enlarge):
yale denial.jpg

Last week the Yale Daily News announced one exhibit in an upcoming senior art show would feature Shvarts’ numerous very young aborted children, mixed with blood and smeared on Saran Wrap that had been wrapped around a cube and suspended from the ceiling.
Videos would simultaneously play on the surrounding walls of Shvarts completing her self-abortions in a bathtub.
News of Shvarts’ exhibit met with such universal condemnation, Yale officials were compelled to release a statement that it was all a hoax, prompting Shvarts to respond, no, it was not.
Now at least one student is calling for the head of Yale Dean Peter Solovey on a platter:

And the whacked out faculty art advisor Pia Lindman is one of 2 who may already have been fired for authorizing Shvarts, according to YDN.
yale pia.jpg Lindman is best known for her 2000 “performance art” project, Public Sauna, where she set up a public working sauna in NYC, inviting audience participation, “defying the taboo of nudity in American culture and foregrounding the centrality of the human,” according to ProjectMuse
Meanwhile, the Reproductive Rights Action League of Yale, which originally had “no official opinion on the matter,” according to YDN, has now found one, discovering even abortion proponents must very infrequently condone boundaries when public opinion demands. Along with Yale Law Students for Reproductive Justice it has released this nonsensical statement, admirably avoiding the A-word throughout:
yale raly 2.jpg
But what exactly was wrong with Shvarts’ “approach and presentation”? What exactly are the “consequences”? How could any abortion proponent, let alone an organization, be “shocked by the content”? What’s wrong with the content? And just what are the “very serious aspects of reproductive rights”?
But these groups open a dangerous door by condemning any aspect of abortion, one they absolutely hate to open. How and why can an abortion proponent oppose any aspect or any boundary of abortion whatsoever?
This entire episode puts abortion advocacy in a terrible position, just as the partial birth abortion debacle did. Pro-lifers consider any abortion deadly to children and dangerous to mothers. This one is no different, only more provocative. Pro-aborts maintain abortion does not kill children and is completely safe. This incident makes it nearly impossible for them to maintain the party line.
[Photo of Lindman’s sauna is courtesy of re-title.com, semi-censored by Stanek]

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...