Someone at Yale is lying
This story is so important, I’m staying on it during the weekend.
I’ve been reporting (here and here) on Yale senior Aliza Shvarts, who plans to display an art exhibit beginning April 22 of early abortions she self-committed.
For unspecified numerous times over 9 months, Shvarts artificially inseminated herself and later ingested abortifacients, filming herself aborting in the bathtub.
Shvarts plans to display the blood and body products on a cube suspended from the ceiling, wrapped in plastic sheeting, with video of her abortions simultaneously playing on surrounding walls.
The Yale administration posted a denial Thursday, specifically stating:
[Shvarts] stated to three senior Yale University officials today, including two deans, that she did not impregnate herself and that she did not induce any miscarriages.
The next day Shvarts refuted Yale’s statement, according to Yale Daily News.
Now Shvarts has released her own statement calling the Yale administration liars, for all intents and purposes:
For the past year, I performed repeated self-induced miscarriages. I created a group of fabricators from volunteers who submitted to periodic STD screenings and agreed to their complete and permanent anonymity. From the 9th to the 15th day of my menstrual cycle, the fabricators would provide me with sperm samples, which I used to privately self-inseminate. 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.
These 2 statements directly contradict each other….
Shvarts clarified in her otherwise difficult statement to follow that she was unsure whether or not she was pregnant when extracting her blood and body fluids:
For me, the most poignant aspect of this representation . the part most meaningful in terms of its political agenda (and, incidentally, the aspect that has not been discussed thus far) . is the impossibility of accurately identifying the resulting blood. 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.
Shvarts maintained this demonstrates that assigning words to physical objects is “at its heart an ideological act,” meaning reality is unequivacobly personal; there are no societal or even physical absolutes.
Shvarts stated the first goal of her “performance piece” is to disband the “mythology” of “normative understandings of biological function.” Therefore, “it is a myth that women are .meant. to be feminine and men masculine,” just as “it is a myth that ovaries and a uterus are .meant. to birth a child.”
I recognize Shvarts is a smart girl. She was valedictorian of her high school class and got into Yale. But here we have a sad case of someone whose knowledge portal has been filled highbrow liberal intellectual nonsense.
I cannot think of another purpose for the uterus than to shelter, feed, and hydrate developing human offspring. Along with the ovaries, it enables the release of many female hormones at intricately detailed times to make a woman female. So the uterus and ovaries help define feminity, which Shvarts denies exists.
I know I’m getting sidetracked and may even legitimize Shvarts’ perverse actions by debating her. But here is an example I see so often of liberals: taking simple logic and truth and complicating and confusing them along with everyone within listening distance if they’re not grounded in absolutes, truth, a solid foundation in Scripture and Judeo-Christian values.
But back on point, someone at Yale is lying, either the administration or Shvarts
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
This story is so important, I’m staying on it during the weekend.
Why is this story “so important”? Some artist somewhere did something to provoke shock and discussion. She succeeded. And….?
Come on Jill. Falling for this one is only marginally more ridiculous than the time you bought into the idea that Chinese people ate babys.
“But here is an example I see so often of liberals: taking simple logic and truth and complicating and confusing them along with everyone within listening distance if they’re not grounded in absolutes, truth, a solid foundation in Scripture and Judeo-Christian values.”
I can’t agree more with you. The type of people who are “educated beyond the level of their intelligence”. They’ve lost all common sense and revel in their brilliance.
I don’t see it as that important. Even if true, she destroyed less “life” just one couple trying to get pregnant by IVF.
I think Yale is trying to cover their butts so they don’t lose alumni support.
I don’t doubt that she did exactly what she says she did, as that is basically the method the ancient Greeks and Romans used to self-abort. It is ambiguous as she never used pregnancy tests to confirm pregnancy. She very well could have been pregnant each and every time. Or she might not have been.
Regardless, it’s still disgusting and wrong. I’m glad Yale is hanging her out to dry.
In Drawing Restrain 9 the two guests cut their legs off (not in real life!). I think it was very beautifully done. Such a interesting and beautiful movie.
@Hal: True, but this was an intentional creation of a new human being with the sheer purpose of destroying it. Even IVF isn’t an intentional creation of a new human being with the purpose of destroying it. Yes, it happens with IVF, but they aren’t created with the express purpose of killing them.
Rae, interesting point, but again, it’s all in our consideration of things – the reality for each zygote and embryo is the same.
But here is an example I see so often of liberals: taking simple logic and truth and complicating and confusing them along with everyone within listening distance if they’re not grounded in absolutes, truth, a solid foundation in Scripture and Judeo-Christian values.
Jill, there’s no logic that says every pregnancy must be continued, necessarily.
Your opinions and values are not “absolutes,” either. The bottom line here is it comes down to what you want versus what the pregnant woman wants, and if there’s a disagreement then I’d go with the person who is actually the one pregnant.
As far as Shvarts, I think Hieronymous is correct – she wanted to shake some people up; not all the huge a thing.
“Rae, interesting point, but again, it’s all in our consideration of things – the reality for each zygote and embryo is the same.”
@Doug: Could you clarify what you mean by “the reality for each zygote and embryo is the same”? Are you referring to the high frequency in which zygotes and embryos are miscarried anyway?
“Your opinions and values are not “absolutes,” either. The bottom line here is it comes down to what you want versus what the pregnant woman wants, and if there’s a disagreement then I’d go with the person who is actually the one pregnant.”
Doug, you undercut what your first sentence says in your second sentence. Your second sentence is a value judgment and by your own logic in your first sentence, is not absolute. So why should we agree with your second sentence?
But here is an example I see so often of liberals: taking simple logic and truth and complicating and confusing them along with everyone within listening distance if they’re not grounded in absolutes, truth, a solid foundation in Scripture and Judeo-Christian values.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Let’s see…
The guy in the big hat and the Prada shoes is apologizing for the child-raping and the coverup, those kids in Texas will not be going back to the compound and need paternity testing, and a local minister just stole almost $200,000 from a fund for the returning Iraq War veterans.
How is that “grounded in absolutes, truth, a solid foundation in Scripture and Judeo-Christian values” thing workin’ out for ‘ya?
I agree with Jill about the importance of this story. Why? ~because Ms. Shvarts’ “art” constitutes a complete rejection of natural law, and all theologies based upon it. Yesterday, Ms. Shavarts published in the Yale Daily News this explanation of what her “art” means (very graphic words follow): “”Just as it is a myth that women are .meant. to be feminine and men masculine, that penises and vaginas are .meant. for penetrative heterosexual sex (or that mouths, anuses, breasts, feet or leather, silicone, vinyl, rubber, or metal implements are not .meant. for sex at all), it is a myth that ovaries and a uterus are .meant. to birth a child.
When considering my own bodily form, I recognize its potential as extending beyond its ability to participate in a normative function. While my organs are capable of engaging with the narrative of reproduction . the time-based linkage of discrete events from conception to birth . the realm of capability extends beyond the bounds of that specific narrative chain. These organs can do other things, can have other purposes, and it is the prerogative of every individual to acknowledge and explore this wide realm of capability.”
While we call this “sick” or “disturbed” (and Ms. Shvarts may be both), it’s a startling example of how many liberal intellectuals actually think in degree(reflected, e.g., in most women’s studies programs and in the “gender neutral” movement) and the mentality receives huge support by the growing, lucrative commercial industries derived from female body product. It’s ugly to look at this thinking, just as the “abortion” art inpsired here is putrid. But wholesale rejection of natural law, and the elevation of Man as his own “god”, also created Nazi Germany and the current North Korean regime.
It’s important to oppose this – please send a letter to Yale’s President Levin. His address and my letter are here http://www.dealwhudson.typepad.com.
BTW, Ms. Shvarts’ intended to create uncertainty and ambiguity about reality and the body – and Yale defended her art, and any of its “untruths” and “creative fiction”, including the media releases as a “performance” component of the “whole piece”. So now we have uncertainty and ambiguity about the truth of what is or is not in the material of the piece: who can say for sure now, or ever, where the “creative fiction” ends and truth begins? Yale defended Ms. Shvarts’ lying to the general public as “art” – will Yale do the same if lying to the institution, too, was part of Ms. Shvarts the “performance” part of her art?
Is it art, or is it Memorex?
“Your opinions and values are not “absolutes,” either. The bottom line here is it comes down to what you want versus what the pregnant woman wants, and if there’s a disagreement then I’d go with the person who is actually the one pregnant.”
Bobby: Doug, you undercut what your first sentence says in your second sentence.
No I don’t. We are individuals here, having our say. I don’t pretend that my opinion is “absolute,” but others do.
……
Your second sentence is a value judgment and by your own logic in your first sentence, is not absolute. So why should we agree with your second sentence?
I didn’t say you should, necessarily. Neither you or I should be able to tell the pregnant woman what to do, IMO.
@Doug: It’s totally art. :)
OK, fair enough, Doug. But I mean, it’s just as valid then for me to believe that I can make the decision for a woman as it is to believe that she should make it for herself since they are value judgments, which are not absolute. Is that basically how you would understand it? Granted, you give a reason why someone might want to hold your opinion more than Jill’s and mine (I’m not saying your argument is not backed up) but you can’t really fault anyone for believing that they can tell women what do do, ehh?
“Neither you or I should be able to tell the pregnant woman what to do, IMO.”
So you do say it’s just an opinion, right? There is no right or wrong answer to the question “who should tell a women what she can do with her body?”.
testing
Hal,
I don’t see it as that important. Even if true, she destroyed less “life” just one couple trying to get pregnant by IVF.
Intent is everything…haven’t you been paying attention?
People trying to concieve with IVF are not trying to create children just to kill them…Do you honestly not see something wrong with this girl and her mental state? Does this really not horrify you, if it’s true?
Your opinions and values are not “absolutes,” either. The bottom line here is it comes down to what you want versus what the pregnant woman wants, and if there’s a disagreement then I’d go with the person who is actually the one pregnant.
And if a person WANTS to impregnate themselves over and over and abort over and over, you see no problem with this because it’s what she WANTS??????
Wow.
Your opinions and values are not “absolutes,” either. The bottom line here is it comes down to what you want versus what the pregnant woman wants, and if there’s a disagreement then I’d go with the person who is actually the one pregnant.
We’re not talking about women “finding” themselves in the family way. We are talking about a woman that purposefully tried to impregnate herself and hopefully abort/KILL the baby for the sake of ART!!!!
I expect this reaction from SoMG…but you?
And you wonder why some people call your side pro-abortion!
Choice is that important to you? Important enough that you would condone this insanity? That’s right up there with Obama and the born alive act.
All hail abortion and the woman’s right to choose.
This is just sooo sick…
Shame on you Doug. Shame.
I do NOT believe this chick’s story.
Amateur artificial insemination virtually never works, and the recovery and turn-around time after a miscarriage doesn’t work with her story (it’s usually 2-3 months on something as fertile as an artificially hormone-spiked dairy cow…)
Furthermore, if you go to the herbal sites that have instructions about using cohosh and/or pennyroyal just to regulate your cycle, they warn you that they can both cause nasty cramping and bleeding.
…And seriously, what guy on Earth is going to have himself STD screened and contribute to this chick’s project KNOWING that the fruit loop could turn around and hit then with a paternity suit?
…And seriously, what guy on Earth is going to have himself STD screened and contribute to this chick’s project KNOWING that the fruit loop could turn around and hit then with a paternity suit?
I gotta say that I agree with Laura on this one.
Elizabeth,
I tend to agree with you. I ‘d like to see a doctor’s report on her, sales receipts for the abortion pills, etc.. before I’ll believe her.
She’s just looking for attention.
I know right Janet!
I just can’t see her getting guys to donate their sperm to her based on her “art” project. It’s like Laura said, she could be just as likely to turn around and hit them up for child support.
I’ll repeat this since I think most of you missed it.
The point is not whether she was pregnant or if she inseminated herself or if she had abortions.
When you’re watching a play and the lights go out and you hear a gunshot and then the lights come back on and you see someone on the stage bleeding, you don’t question if he was shot and the morality of murder because that’s not the point. If you focus only on the murder then you miss the rest of the play and of course you walk away confused and upset because you really weren’t watching the whole thing.
“People trying to concieve with IVF are not trying to create children just to kill them…Do you honestly not see something wrong with this girl and her mental state? Does this really not horrify you, if it’s true?”
First, I agree with those who doubt the truth of it all. Second, no it doesn’t horrify me if true. It’s strange behavior, true. It’s not good art in my opinion. It’s not healthy I’d wager. But, no, it doesn’t horrify me.
I don’t think you really think “intent is everything.” If you guys are right about abortion, life, conception, god, etc., then the “babies” discarded after IVF (who the parents KNEW going in would be created and distroyed, simply so they could have a baby) have as much right to life as any other baby. You wouldn’t let parents destroy six kids down the street just to have a baby, why would you let them destroy six innocent IVF babies?
BROOKE SHIELDS MURDERS BABIES!:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1178497/posts
Hal,
I’m not talking about actual babies dying. Of course I think IVF is wrong too. But surely you can see that this girl is very messed up if she was INTENTIONALLY trying to become pregnant and hoping she could cause abortions…even if she wasn’t hoping for abortions but just didn’t care.
They are BOTH wrong, IVF and this womans “art”, but the difference is one is cold blooded and one is driven by an obsessive desire for a child.
Both wrong. Once is wrong, but understandable, one is wrong and reprehensible…
I hope Shvarts gets the help she needs.
I’m not talking about actual babies dying. Of course I think IVF is wrong too. But surely you can see that this girl is very messed up if she was INTENTIONALLY trying to become pregnant and hoping she could cause abortions…even if she wasn’t hoping for abortions but just didn’t care.
They are BOTH wrong, IVF and this womans “art”, but the difference is one is cold blooded and one is driven by an obsessive desire for a child.
Both wrong. Once is wrong, but understandable, one is wrong and reprehensible…
Posted by: mk at April 19, 2008 1:31 PM
Hehe, you should go to an art school sometime. You’d be surprised what we’ll do to our bodies for the sake of creating.
laura said
I keep saying that OSHA and the state of Connecticut needs to investigate this incident, because there is, according to their own state laws and regulations, Regulated Medical Waste in a public space which doesn’t meet bioethical standards of treatment and disposal.
If all her talk is part of a performance, then why not join “her performance” and undertake a forensic investigation to provide some factual basis?
She obviously cannot be trusted, so if there is real blood there, it should be investigated
1. To see if it is in fact blood and/or pathological tissue
2. Determine who’s blood it is
3. Determine if STD’s are present.
A sample of her DNA and blood will have to be drawn – I suggest Ms/It Shvarts doesn’t have any choice in the matter.
The the state can certify her and undertake an additional “performance” of observing her for ten days to see how she reacts. If she wants an audience, I say let her give a command performance!
Let her try to rationalize her way out of a psych-ward.
“They are BOTH wrong, IVF and this womans “art”, but the difference is one is cold blooded and one is driven by an obsessive desire for a child.”
*cough*
I don’t think my mom was really obsessively desiring a biological child. However, I think part of it was that she didn’t fully understand what was going on and had she had a better idea, she probably wouldn’t have done it. In 1987 this was still fairly new technology and I imagine people weren’t well-educated on the matter. I think at the time it was marketed as just another opportunity to get pregnant with a biological child.
I could be wrong though, as I was you know…not exactly in existence at this point in time.
I keep saying that OSHA and the state of Connecticut needs to investigate this incident, because there is, according to their own state laws and regulations, Regulated Medical Waste in a public space which doesn’t meet bioethical standards of treatment and disposal.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It isn’t “regulated medical waste” any more than a tampon in the trash or a used bandaid is regulated medical waste.
Laura – You’re right – if all she had was menstrual fluid she disposed of at home, but she’s specifically claiming that she performed a “medical” procedure, then she decided to bring that material into a public space. That’s considered by the State of Connecticut to be Biomedical Waste.
While the art department is a far cry from the medical setting, it doesn’t change the fact that her self-induced abortions are medical in nature.
At the very least, someone needs to see if that’s real blood, and find out who it belongs to. At this point the “arteest” is not trustworthy.
Marjorie Campbell, 11:43, great post!
I keep saying that OSHA and the state of Connecticut needs to investigate this incident, because there is, according to their own state laws and regulations, Regulated Medical Waste in a public space which doesn’t meet bioethical standards of treatment and disposal.
Are you effin’ kidding me? No matter how outraged you are by this girl’s art project, you’ve got to be able to see that the state has no interest in regulating MENSTRUATION as medical waste. I think you need to step back and take a deep breath Chris.
When you’re watching a play and the lights go out and you hear a gunshot and then the lights come back on and you see someone on the stage bleeding, you don’t question if he was shot and the morality of murder because that’s not the point. If you focus only on the murder then you miss the rest of the play and of course you walk away confused and upset because you really weren’t watching the whole thing.
Danielle,
I think you are missing the point. This wasn’t a fake miscarriage with fake blood. According to this “artist” it was all real. Whether she is telling the truth or not is a different story entirely. In theatre, no one’s REAL life actually gets taken, because if the actors really died, I think many people would have something to say about it.
I do understand your point, I just don’t think applies to this situation because according to this girl, it wasn’t faked or staged.
Laura – You’re right – if all she had was menstrual fluid she disposed of at home, but she’s specifically claiming that she performed a “medical” procedure, then she decided to bring that material into a public space. That’s considered by the State of Connecticut to be Biomedical Waste.
While the art department is a far cry from the medical setting, it doesn’t change the fact that her self-induced abortions are medical in nature.
Chris, seriously, take a breath.
The fact is that every fertile, sexually active woman who is not taking precautions against pregnancy has probably passed a zygote or embryo at some point in time.
You’re basically asking that we start to register all women as medical waste producers. That’s ridiculous.
Laura – You’re right – if all she had was menstrual fluid she disposed of at home, but she’s specifically claiming that she performed a “medical” procedure, then she decided to bring that material into a public space. That’s considered by the State of Connecticut to be Biomedical Waste.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nope.
When you put a bandaid on your kid’s boo-boo it’s a medical procedure, but you don’t have to have a HAZMAT team remove the used bandaid from your home.
Janet, I’m continuing the ex-atheist.com discussion here.
You quoted from the site:
“We say that all people should be treated equally, yet it is evident that not all of us are equal. Some of us are born with physical attributes that allow us to succeed on the basketball court; others of us trip over our own feet… In Christianity, however, our equality is based on the existence of our souls, which are all equal in the sight of God. We see how Christianity defines a property that is necessary for equality to be asserted.”
Other religions besides Christianity assert that we are all equal. In any case, our need to believe in equality (if there is such a need) does not demonstrate the existance of God.
You quoted:
“Atheism doesn’t allow for people to be genuinely special. ”
Yes it does.
Danielle,
I think you are missing the point. This wasn’t a fake miscarriage with fake blood. According to this “artist” it was all real. Whether she is telling the truth or not is a different story entirely. In theatre, no one’s REAL life actually gets taken, because if the actors really died, I think many people would have something to say about it.
I do understand your point, I just don’t think applies to this situation because according to this girl, it wasn’t faked or staged.
Posted by: Elizabeth at April 19, 2008 2:22 PM
You don’t know that though. As an artist who has engaged in some performance art, everything we do/say is completely and utterly real at that moment of performance. In fact, to disregard the reality/non-reality of performance is to disregard a part of its message — that it is a commentary on our society. You’re focusing on whether or not it’s real.
Well, take that play I described and put it out on the street. People are going to freak out because they think they saw a murder. Maybe it was a murder. But if someone said, “No worries, it’s just art,” people would be okay with it because they make the basic assumption that the person is not really dead.
In this case, the ambiguity of Aliza’s work it part of the message. Normally, upon hearing “it’s just art” we would say, “Oh, okay… weird, but whatever” and let it go. This time, the artist is saying “we don’t know if an abortion happened,” the audience is left to grasp at the meaning and intent of the piece.
Unfortunately, you’ve all missed the point, since you’re focusing on the so-called climax of the piece instead of the piece in its entirety, which is a statement about when and how we place value on life, our humanity, and our natural versus ascribed purpose of our body.
When you step back and look at the whole picture, it’s actually quite fascinating.
If I sprayed blood all over the local museum in a “performance art” you don’t think I’d be arrested? And if I alleged that there was human tissue within that blood, you’d have no problem with it – right? No? Oh – this only work because the “arteest” is a woman – which she’s not even sure what that means at times because she’s too busy trying to deconstruct herself.
She’s descending into a mad delusion and the state is standing by. Pretty pathetic. The failure not to investigate this is pathetic.
Yet, you think she’s fruity and you’re not.
Sad. Just pathetically sad.
But typical – abortion at any price – even madness.
The whole interewebs think this is a hoax.
Chris, the thing is, she’s not spraying blood everywhere. She’s not even alleging that she was expelling a zygote or embryo (which is what I assume you meant by “human tissue” in your 2:34 PM post). She’s alleging that it’s a possibility that one or the other was present, and leaving it up to her audience to apply their own idea of what the truth is about her materials.
Do I think she’s a fruitcake? Not really. It’s not something I would consider doing, to be sure. Based on her description of both her project and her methods, I have significant doubts about whether she ever actually conceived.
I think she’s more than a little eccentric, but not crazy. Gross, yes. Crazy, no.
This time, the artist is saying “we don’t know if an abortion happened,” the audience is left to grasp at the meaning and intent of the piece.
Well, those who don’t agree with abortion don’t feel the need to grasp the intent of the piece. I don’t agree with abortion, so I’m okay with missing the “bigger picture” that was the intent for the piece. Who cares what she was really saying anyway? I think it was a disgusting thing to do, whether she was actually pregnant or not. Having been a theatre major, I can understand art going through certain extreme measures to make us really examine and take a look at the bigger picture.
What’s the bigger picture she’s trying to say anyway? Usually there is more than one way to go about it, and she took the most disgusting way IMO.
Chris, I think she has permission to put this display up. Oh I replied to your post on the other topic about post-abortive Dads please read and respond I want to know your opinion kthx!
“Having been a theatre major”
From theater to nursing, quiet a leap. Oh but I went from movement science to English so I can see it : )
What’s the bigger picture she’s trying to say anyway? Usually there is more than one way to go about it, and she took the most disgusting way IMO.
Posted by: Elizabeth at April 19, 2008 2:45 PM
I keep trying to explain it to you but you won’t listen!! :(
Lol, I know Jess! I can definitely say I’ve tried it all haha!
Danielle,
I could listen if it weren’t so repulsive. There are better ways to get people to listen…maybe that’s the lesson this “artist” could take away from all this.
But I’m not the one who’s repulsive so I don’t know why you don’t want to listen to me.
Incidentally, Jill, by posting stories about the Yale girl’s work of “art” you are giving her what she wants: attention.
The proper thing to do with garbage like this is ignore it.
I know I don’t speak very clearly so I’m trying my best to do so. I’m sorry I just get frustrated easily because I have trouble communicating with others sometimes and I don’t know how to get my point across.
Danielle,
It’s not that I don’t want to listen to you. Really it’s not. But whether we like to acknowledge it or not, what this girl did IS repulsive, and that is why I probably won’t be able to see the bigger picture behind it if there is one. Because to me, nothing she has to say can justify the forced creation for the SOLE purpose of killing that creation. It’s like me buying a dog so I can abuse it and then say “LOOK LOOK how bad abusing animals IS.”
well, Elizabeth you have to first get over the idea of it being an actual abortion.
First… fiiiirrst think it was a huge hoax and she never impregnated herself or took drugs to cause an abortion.
Then you can say, “Okay, still gross, but it wasn’t really an abortion.”
Then we can discuss why she did it and what she meant. Okay? :)
Okay, but the jury is still out on that idea.
Will they be able to tell if it was actually an abortion?
I’m sure they can test her blood to determine if she was pregnant or not and then go from there.
Hmmm…I just answered my own question lol.
Elizabeth please! for the sake of discussion you have to get past whether or not it was an abortion!! Assume she made the whole thing up, because she probably did. She’s probably just another weirdo that paints with her menstrual blood and that’s why she preserves it and she needed a final project so she came up with this on the fly.
OKAY. then we can discuss the ideas of her piece which are actually quite complex and interesting.
Danielle,
Well, take that play I described and put it out on the street. People are going to freak out because they think they saw a murder. Maybe it was a murder. But if someone said, “No worries, it’s just art,” people would be okay with it because they make the basic assumption that the person is not really dead.
For heavens sake…if a person was really murdered it would make a difference to them, doncha think?
The bottom line is (and I did look a the big picture) that lives might have been messed with.
And the taking of those lives is a fact that doesn’t change depending on your “perception”…
Either babies died or they didn’t. But this girl was willing to take that chance to make a point and THAT is what we find disgusting.
Same as if in the play, sometimes you use blanks and sometimes you use real bullets. Let the audience decide. Was he a really good actor? Is he really dead. We won’t tell you because it’s all about the ambiguuuuuuuiity…..bulldooty!
It’s all about being willing to kill a human being to make a point. SICK!
If there was a non-zero chance that the person in your hypothetical play really *had* been shot and killed, would you be saying, “for the sake of discussion you have to get past whether or not there was a real shooting!!”?
The whole premise is very interesting. That so many PL have jumped to the assumption that because sperm was available at the appropriate time for pregnancy to occur, there actually was a pregnancy. Because the usual menses was ensured, abortion had to have occurred.
It’s interesting that many find nothing sick about digging through uterine discharge searching for embryos after a miscarriage. Or digging through dumpsters looking for such for that matter, but find a woman’s actions sick when she is in control of ‘natural’ bodily functions and events. Heaven forbid if she should display her nasty, sinful menses.
After all, women wouldn’t have periods if God wasn’t punishing them for tempting all those saintly men into sinful sex.
SoMG:2:25
Other religions besides Christianity assert that we are all equal. In any case, our need to believe in equality (if there is such a need) does not demonstrate the existance of God.
I agree. I agree. A belief in God demonstrates that people are equal.
If we are not equal in the sight of God, then equality is subjective, not objective.
You quoted:
“Atheism doesn’t allow for people to be genuinely special. ”
Yes it does.
All people? The author, A.S.A. Jones, is saying that people’s”specialness” would be subjective then, not objective. Some people might be special, but some may not be, as in the case of people who believe the worth of a pregnancy is in the eye of the beholder. Right?
Why do you consider it garbage, SoMG?
Elizabeth please! for the sake of discussion you have to get past whether or not it was an abortion!! Assume she made the whole thing up, because she probably did. She’s probably just another weirdo that paints with her menstrual blood and that’s why she preserves it and she needed a final project so she came up with this on the fly.
OKAY. then we can discuss the ideas of her piece which are actually quite complex and interesting.
Posted by: Danielle at April 19, 2008 3:27 PM
Do you mean other people paint with blood? Is that hygienic?
Is lying, for the sake of art, ethical? Couldn’t she have said “this represents blah.. blah.. blah..” instead of saying “this is a miscarriage”, like she did at first report?
Isn’t that just as bad as writing your autobiography filled with lies, like the guy on Oprah a few years ago?
But here is an example I see so often of liberals: taking simple logic and truth and complicating and confusing them along with everyone within listening distance if they’re not grounded in absolutes, truth, a solid foundation in Scripture and Judeo-Christian values.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
YEAH!
All those liberals should enroll in a nice Christian school!:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=4673586&page=1
Is lying, for the sake of art, ethical? Couldn’t she have said “this represents blah.. blah.. blah..” instead of saying “this is a miscarriage”, like she did at first report?
Isn’t that just as bad as writing your autobiography filled with lies, like the guy on Oprah a few years ago?
Posted by: Janet at April 19, 2008 7:31 PM
……………………….
Art doesn’t lie. This is the point. This piece, that you haven’t even seen, obviously speaks to you on some level or you wouldn’t have an opinion about it. How it was created seems to be your only concern. That raises interesting questions. Do you consider how everything you buy came to be? Who made it or grew it?
@Janet,
Christianity and Judaism say that man is created by God. There is no qualifying word like ‘equal’. As a very small exercise: How can a thing be equal and unique at the same time? ANSWER: NOT possible. Every aspect of God’s creation is unique…. the qualifier of ‘equal’ is man’s/our doing.
The most unusual aspect of this is time … especially the present which seems to be a notion of man’s right-brain hemisphere.
The concept of applying ‘equal’ to humans came from the 16th century mathematician/philosopher, Rene Descartes. Often though to free a person, this concept actually enslaves a person to be the very least he/she can become.
The word is a word that denotes comparison – a very strict comparison. As one small exercise find anything at all that we have/are equally. Someone said we have equal rights …. do we? ask the elderly, the disabled … etc.
We humans tend toward uniqueness. This is designated by our name. So God created Adam and Eve, not the human species.
All comparison is of ‘the past’ …. words; all the past-possibilities are projected to become ‘our future’. All language-(logic) are created in our left-brain hemisphere.
The notions of ‘I am’ are also left-hemisphere brain activity …. including body autonomy; equality …. http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/229
John, maybe I’m misunderstanding something, but wouldn’t you say that objectively speaking all human beings are equal in dignity? While society may not reflect this (i.e. elderly, disabled, unborn), our Lord has given us dignity and moral value simply because we are made in his image and likeness.
If there was a non-zero chance that the person in your hypothetical play really *had* been shot and killed, would you be saying, “for the sake of discussion you have to get past whether or not there was a real shooting!!”?
Posted by: Jen R at April 19, 2008 4:50 PM
I don’t understand what you mean by “non-zero”.. couldn’t you have just left out the double negative?
And yes, truly. Someone was shot and that aids the movement of the play. But you don’t discredit the first 3 acts and the ending because someone got shot.
Okay, the murder is relevant in REAL LIFE but not in a PLAY, do you see what I mean? When you’re discussing the art you have to forget about reality. All that’s relevant is the artist’s reality.
Gosh, now I know what Emma meant when she said I’d have a hard time explaining this.
Yeah, the non-zero was just for emphasis. Picked up the habit by hanging around tech geeks, I think.
I do understand your distinction between the murder being relevant in real life but not in the play. Honestly, I do. I don’t think I agree with it, since I don’t separate “art” from “real life”; if art isn’t part of and relevant to real life, then what is it?
But can you understand why people just might not *care* about discussing the art all that much if they believe a real-life atrocity may have been committed in order to produce it? That they might have a different idea than you do about what’s really important to discuss here? That maybe, just maybe, not everything can be justified for art’s sake (any more than everything, including Nazi experiments, can be justified for science’s sake)?
I’m sorry, I guess I thought you guys were interested in talking about the ideas behind her art. I’ll stop, since you’re not.
Nice little shot of condescension on your way out the door. Well played!
::golf clap::
I wasn’t being condescending. Can you say you are interested in talking about the ideas behind her art? If not, then don’t say you are! It’s frustrating to me.
You’re right. In this particular case, I am not particularly interested in talking about her art — or more to the point, I think that the enormity of what she did to produce it overshadows the not-particularly-earthshattering ideas she seems to be trying to express.
I have been frustrated on these threads by your repeated assertion that people who want to talk about whether or not actual human embryos were killed don’t *understand* art. I took out that frustration in my most recent comment.
John:
What SoMG and I were commenting on was a website that I had recommended to TR (and SoMG) yesterday on another thread:http://www.ex-atheist.com/
Do you think there is any merit in the author’s arguments?
On equality – I understand your point.
What about “equal indignity” (as Bobby asked above @ 8:46).
John:
Ooops! Should say “What about equal in dignity” (not indignity)
Danielle, I’ll talk about the ideas behind Ms. Shvarts’ art – without regard to whether the insemminations were real or whether she self-induced abortions. I posted above at 11:43 am on 4/19 … you can see I don’t put much stock in what the artist says, period (oops, no pun intended.)
I completely agree with you: “the piece in its entirety, . . . is a statement about when and how we place value on life, our humanity, and our natural versus ascribed purpose of our body.” Ms. Shvarts has said as much in her opinion piece at Yale Daily News. The challenge of her “piece” is not complex – but it can be difficult to wade through her indifference to conception to get to the discussion. Her indifference did make the “piece” possible, doable – unless she “suffered” as she created, as some artists do. But, either way, I agree there is a broader point to discuss –
Not so coincidentally, the Pope said something very relevant on this topic in New York. Do you want to discuss this here or by private email? Your choice. My email is noted.
Ooops. My email is marjorie@marjoriecampbell.com
Thank you, Marjorie, that’s I’d prefer here, actually. I’m a little hesitant to give out my email address on boards like this, especially after some of the comments I got about this art.
What did the Pope say about it?
And I agree, I think Eliza muddied up her bigger point by trying to say there was an abortion, then going back and forth saying there wasn’t and she didn’t know and so forth. I’m pretty sure she probably didn’t do anything, but then again, part of her whole topic is about how we place value on menstrual blood vs. what we perceive to be a miscarriage.
In fact, I started wondering if I’d ever gotten pregnant and just never knew it! Have you ever thought about that?
I just went back up and read your own post, so I’ll reply to what you said:
While we call this “sick” or “disturbed” (and Ms. Shvarts may be both), it’s a startling example of how many liberal intellectuals actually think in degree(reflected, e.g., in most women’s studies programs and in the “gender neutral” movement) and the mentality receives huge support by the growing, lucrative commercial industries derived from female body product. It’s ugly to look at this thinking, just as the “abortion” art inpsired here is putrid. But wholesale rejection of natural law, and the elevation of Man as his own “god”, also created Nazi Germany and the current North Korean regime.
I think part of what she’s doing IS contrary to the “female body product.” When we watch commercials, they’re highly sexualized, making the sexuality of the woman the product, instead of a woman as a human being. The producers of these advertisements have assigned a value on women – that they’re used for sex. They’re objects. They’re less than equal to men.
Similarly, when we think of our bodies, we think of our uteruses (uteri?) and ovum like baby-producing objects. While this is certainly natural (and it is natural to have sex with women), that may not be their only use. The message becomes: Even though you HAVE functioning baby-capabilities, you don’t have to use them. As Eliza demonstrated, they can be used for art. (Let’s assume it was just menstrual blood and not an abortion)
And I don’t think it is violating natural law… since menstruation is natural. We could even go so far to say that sex is natural, miscarriage is natural, and because she says she took natural herbs to abort, it could be considered natural. What she is violating is the law that says that as a woman she must produce children and that she must have sex to become pregnant (she inseminated herself). She’s more arguing against “man’s” notion of a woman’s purpose than “God’s” purpose, I think. Because I think that if God has a purpose for someone, it’s not always creating babies!! Think of Esther!
Danielle,
You misunderstand the concept of Natural Law. This does not mean that it comes from nature. It is the law that says certain things were created to behave/work a certain way. A womans uterus was created to give life. You might be able to find different uses for it, but it has an intended use, and that is natural law.
Vocal chords were intended to produce speech. This is natural law. Bananas are intended to be eaten. It’s what they were created for. (I have heard that wrapping one around a wart will help dissolve it, and this is a perfectly legitimate use for a banana peel, but it is not it’s primary intended purpose)
The sun comes up in the east and sets in the west. Natural Law.
“Natural Law
I. ITS ESSENCE
In English this term is frequently employed as equivalent to the laws of nature, meaning the order which governs the activities of the material universe. Among the Roman jurists natural law designated those instincts and emotions common to man and the lower animals, such as the instinct of self-preservation and love of offspring. In its strictly ethical application
John, maybe I’m misunderstanding something, but wouldn’t you say that objectively speaking all human beings are equal in dignity? While society may not reflect this (i.e. elderly, disabled, unborn), our Lord has given us dignity and moral value simply because we are made in his image and likeness.
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 19, 2008 8:46 PM
————
perhaps, this is THE biggest hurdle for people (North Americans) to overcome. The word ‘equal comes from the preamble to the American Constitution and NOT from the Bible. The one time the word equal is used ia in Philipians … ‘Jesus did not see equality with God as something to be clung to. ‘ I do not have a clue about what this means … but imitating Jesus, should we not also avoid clinging to equality with one another?
Bobby, you have started a family. As your family grows will each child be welcomed by you as a parent, or just those deemed as ‘equal’? In much the same way our value (likeness of God) is a mute question. Are we NOT equal to Jesus … THE very image/Word of God?
Why do we settle for ‘just human’ being ‘equal’ …. but being as Christ Jesus as being ‘holy’? Aren’t the two the same?
I cannot think of another purpose for the uterus than to shelter, feed, and hydrate developing human offspring.
Orgasms. Uterine contractions are part of what makes orgasms feel good.
Orgasms. Uterine contractions are part of what makes orgasms feel good.
Yeah, and they help conception along as well.
@Danielle,
maybe you still do not understand what ‘the fuss’ is. Instead of menstrual blood substitute a (or several) $500-bills. To anyone squeezing the finances to barely survive, such a display would be maddingly extravagant. Would such a reaction dominate the artist’s intent? Shouldn’t it?
Is this a case of stupid artiste more than ignorant public?
“Rae, interesting point, but again, it’s all in our consideration of things – the reality for each zygote and embryo is the same.”
@Doug: Could you clarify what you mean by “the reality for each zygote and embryo is the same”? Are you referring to the high frequency in which zygotes and embryos are miscarried anyway?
Rae, that there is no caring on the part of the unborn, there – that this is a deal among the desires of born, thinking, feeling people, which the unborn (to a point in gestation, obviously) are not. When you say the “intent,” it matters only to us who are arguing about it.
OK, fair enough, Doug. But I mean, it’s just as valid then for me to believe that I can make the decision for a woman as it is to believe that she should make it for herself since they are value judgments, which are not absolute. Is that basically how you would understand it? Granted, you give a reason why someone might want to hold your opinion more than Jill’s and mine (I’m not saying your argument is not backed up) but you can’t really fault anyone for believing that they can tell women what do do, ehh?
Bobby, indeed – one’s own moral thoughts will be as valid for a given person as another’s will be for them. (That’s not saying how it will relate to society as a whole or the opinion of a given group, etc.)
I really do not “fault” you for feeling as you do. My point is that if we are to restrict the freedom of thinking, feeling people, then IMO it ought to be on the basis of what we all, or almost all, think.
For most things, we do that, and it’s not debated, seriously. As a society we are at the most basic level a bunch of people with things in common. The abortion issue is much different, since there really is a significant amount of disagreement.
I like the discussions and debates we have about this stuff, though probably the most satisfying deal for us all would be if there were no unwanted pregnancies in the first place.
Doug
“Your opinions and values are not “absolutes,” either. The bottom line here is it comes down to what you want versus what the pregnant woman wants, and if there’s a disagreement then I’d go with the person who is actually the one pregnant.”
We’re not talking about women “finding” themselves in the family way. We are talking about a woman that purposefully tried to impregnate herself and hopefully abort/KILL the baby for the sake of ART!!!!
MK, I was talking about what Jill was saying, a much more general deal that what you’re talking about.
……
I expect this reaction from SoMG…but you?
Well then, why don’t you really pay attention to what is said?
……
And you wonder why some people call your side pro-abortion!
Oh please. It’s ludicrous for you to act like “baby” necessarily applies when we are talking about cases like Schvarts’. If you want to argue “baby” or not for a 24 week fetus, that is one thing (and it’s still a subjective and waste of time, IMO.), but it gets farther and farther out in left field the earlier in gestation we are talking about.
……
Choice is that important to you? Important enough that you would condone this insanity? That’s right up there with Obama and the born alive act.
I don’t really condone it, but this is far from the main abortion debate, i.e. if we are talking about first trimester stuff, let alone first month stuff. then making it illegal is so far from likelihood that it’s relatively disregardable compared to the stages of gestation where there is a real argument. You’re in the small percentage of people who’d make it pretty much illegal all through gestation. I don’t often mention it, but if there is “insanity”here, it’s acting like you’re in the majority, or even in a substantial block of Americans, rather than a “Fringe” element.
……
All hail abortion and the woman’s right to choose. This is just sooo sick… Shame on you Doug. Shame.
Oh baloney. Shame on you for pretending the argument is other than what it is, and for generalizing from the particular.
Finger-pointing brawl breaks out at Yale
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 a…
@Doug,
most interesting …. then the disagreement is: the VALUE of choice vs the VALUE of human life. Since the VALUE of Choice is fixed (and sacred via body-autonomy) it trumps the VALUE of human life because human life varies in value – from ferlized-egg to zygote (close to nil), to first-trimester fetus (almost nil), to 3rd-trimester fetus … viable (some VALUE), and finally a born-baby (with full VALUE/rights-being-conferred-only-then.
However, the US affirms rights at fertilization and not at birth. An oversight ….???? ‘Human rights’ are not misnamed. For Doug they should be ‘birth-rights’, but these are named: ‘HUMAN rights’, are they not?
SoMG challenge is a much different one than yours… no matter the value of the HUMAN fetus, it’s rights never do trump a woman’s body autonomy. However, there is no right-to-body-autonomy (the closest may be ‘property rights’). It is starting to look like the entrenchment of left-brain hemisphere reasoning over right-brain hemisphere experience.
Hey John.
I’d say no – there isn’t any “fixed” value for the choice, either. Obviously, many people value it less than many others. (It’s not “sacred,” either.)
Are you asking if the US grants rights at fertilization? It doesn’t. On “birth-rights,” I wouldn’t say so, because being born isn’t enough, by itself, i.e. as with other species. As it happens we don’t attribute rights or full rights before birth, and I don’t think any country on earth does.
SoMG challenge is a much different one than yours… no matter the value of the HUMAN fetus, it’s rights never do trump a woman’s body autonomy. However, there is no right-to-body-autonomy (the closest may be ‘property rights’).
I don’t know if that is really what SoMG says. How could one say “no matter the value….”? Seems to me that if a thing would be valued enough, it’d trump anything else.
On the right-brain experience, who are we to say (rather in left-brain mode, eh?) that continuing a pregnancy is necessarily better than ending one? Perhaps a given woman wouldn’t be able to state the case as well as you or I, etc., but if she “knows” a la the right brain what she should do, or is correctly doing, then what?
Janet, you wrote: “What SoMG and I were commenting on was a website that I had recommended to TR (and SoMG) yesterday on another thread:http://www.ex-atheist.com/
Do you think there is any merit in the author’s arguments?”
Janet, the author of that site doesn’t make any “arguments”. He admits that his Christianity is based in intuition (or what he calls “primary perception”), not logic.
That’s my problem with his site.
John McD, you wrote :”SoMG challenge is a much different one than yours… no matter the value of the HUMAN fetus, it’s rights never do trump a woman’s body autonomy.”
Correct so far. But then you wrote: ” However, there is no right-to-body-autonomy”.
If this were true, then we would take life-saving transfusable blood and transplantable organs by force, in order to save lives. There’s only one reason we don’t: because we recognize the potential donor’s right-to-body autonomy.
Getting back on topic: This Yale story does not deserve the attention Jill is giving it.
@Doug,
thanks for answering …. the ‘problem’ of interpreting a response is fashioned somewhat by a knowledge of how that hemisphere behaves. In a sense then your dilemma are both from the same hemisphere – the left.
(according to Jill at http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/229) the main aspect of the right-hemisphere is the domination of energy and the notion of ‘oneness’. She uses the word ‘family’ to denote relations to one human to another. This is in stark contrast to the ‘I am’ of the left-hemisphere. This kinda reminds me of body autonomy.
In such a scenario, the pregnant woman and her offspring are one … ‘beautiful and perfect’. Her offspring is in no way in any opposition to her desires. This strongly leads me to suspect that an abortion decision is a totally left-brain activity.
And complying with such is an affirmation of left-brain domination.
You guys know NOTHING about the left and right sides of the brain. You have subscribed to popularized bastardizations of the concept.
Only trained neurologists know enough to have a meaningful discussion of left- and right- brain functions.
@SoMG/anon,
I should have stated this more clearly. There indeed is no written/legal expression using the specific words ‘body autonomy’, but it does have a strong medical connection.
Your stance on ‘logic’ (as irrefutable) and not ‘experience’ is very telling with an understanding of brain-hemisphere domination.
I repeat, John McD, unless you are a trained neurophysiologist, you know nothing about brain hemisphere domination and are using bastardized popularized derivations.
@SoMG,
I e-mailed Dr. Jill Taylor about those very concerns re. my interpretation of her presentation on TED. I have invited her to comment here … that’s all I can do.
as she is a neuroanatamist who works at Harvard, I suspect her credentials meet your specs.
hope, she does reply – would be elucidating for us all!
This story is so important, I’m staying on it during the weekend.
***************
No, its not ‘important’ and obsessing about it gives the *artist* a whole lot more attention than this little side show deserves.
Come on Jill. Falling for this one is only marginally more ridiculous than the time you bought into the idea that Chinese people ate babys.
Posted by: dan l at April 19, 2008 10:47 AM
*****************
She BELIEVED THAT?!?
John Mc D.: I e-mailed Dr. Jill Taylor about those very concerns re. my interpretation of her presentation on TED. I have invited her to comment here … that’s all I can do.
as she is a neuroanatamist who works at Harvard, I suspect her credentials meet your specs.
hope, she does reply – would be elucidating for us all!
Me too!
Janet, you wrote: “What SoMG and I were commenting on was a website that I had recommended to TR (and SoMG) yesterday on another thread:http://www.ex-atheist.com/
Do you think there is any merit in the author’s arguments?”
Janet, the author of that site doesn’t make any “arguments”. He admits that his Christianity is based in intuition (or what he calls “primary perception”), not logic.
That’s my problem with his site.
I assume this is a woman speaking on the “ex-atheist.com” site. It’s funny in itself that you think it’s a man. Do we know? Must be intuition?
“Intuition”– Can intuition be considered part of an informal argument, in the general sense of the word? I don’t claim to be a philosopher or scientist, but find her web site interesting. She is discussing the transition she made from purely scientific thought back to a more philosophical way of thinking. It represents the difference between our thinking styles, in my opinion. I tend to be lean towards the philosophical whereas you, the scientific.
Janet, you wrote: “Can intuition be considered part of an informal argument, in the general sense of the word? ”
I suppose so, but an argument based on someone’s intuition has no authority for anyone who does not share that intuition.
In other words, it can only convince people who already agree with it.
First, Danielle, I disagree with you about Ms. Shvarts’ statement. She is opposing the notion that there is a primary purpose and “right” use of our bodies. I don’t know her personally – but if she objects to, e.g., voluntary sale of human eggs but not to, e.g., smearing of possible miscarried preganancy product on an art piece, then I would have some serious doubts about her intellectual honesty. Either you think there is a “truth” and a “right and wrong” from God which informs and guides a “right” use of the body”, or you acknowledge that use of body product is relative … up to the individual. See what I mean?
Now to the Pope. He speaks for himself. April 19 comments from Pope to youth.
“The second area of darkness
First, Danielle, I disagree with you about Ms. Shvarts’ statement. She is opposing the notion that there is a primary purpose and “right” use of our bodies. I don’t know her personally – but if she objects to, e.g., voluntary sale of human eggs but not to, e.g., smearing of possible miscarried preganancy product on an art piece, then I would have some serious doubts about her intellectual honesty. Either you think there is a “truth” and a “right and wrong” from God which informs and guides a “right” use of the body”, or you acknowledge that use of body product is relative … up to the individual. See what I mean?
Now to the Pope. He speaks for himself. April 19 comments from Pope to youth.
“The second area of darkness
John M: thanks for answering …. the ‘problem’ of interpreting a response is fashioned somewhat by a knowledge of how that hemisphere behaves. In a sense then your dilemma are both from the same hemisphere – the left.
John, I’d say it’s that way for all of us – message board stuff is pretty heavily “left-brain” from the get-go, eh?
……
(according to Jill at http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/229) the main aspect of the right-hemisphere is the domination of energy and the notion of ‘oneness’. She uses the word ‘family’ to denote relations to one human to another. This is in stark contrast to the ‘I am’ of the left-hemisphere. This kinda reminds me of body autonomy.
Well, I hope she does comment – that’d be very cool.
……
In such a scenario, the pregnant woman and her offspring are one … ‘beautiful and perfect’. Her offspring is in no way in any opposition to her desires. This strongly leads me to suspect that an abortion decision is a totally left-brain activity.
Well, that is one scenario. A given woman might feel much differently, and again – who are you or I to tell her differently? Just as who are you or I to impugn that Jill’s experience?
Doug
John said:In such a scenario, the pregnant woman and her offspring are one … ‘beautiful and perfect’. Her offspring is in no way in any opposition to her desires. This strongly leads me to suspect that an abortion decision is a totally left-brain activity.
Doug said:Well, that is one scenario. A given woman might feel much differently, and again – who are you or I to tell her differently? Just as who are you or I to impugn that Jill’s experience?
A function of our brain is to discern “the truth”. Of course, we have a choice to do that or ignore it. I assume your parents taught you right from wrong because they loved you and wanted you to have a good life. They discerned the truth the best they could and taught it to you…Don’t we have some responsibility to pass that on to others? Can we do it in a way that is charitable and perfectly acceptable, as friendly advice?
John McD,
If I’ve understood you correctly, then the “cure” to abortion would be taking lots of zinc and switching right-brain mode!
:)
Janet, you write good posts.
Communication is such a left-brain thing, especially when it’s a case of people reading characters on a computer screen, so the “discerning” part is oh so arguable. Seems to me we’re “left-braining” about the right brain.
I don’t know how Jill Taylor feels about abortion – it’d be interesting to hear her. I think we certainly want to pass on what we know to others, and thus one could say they have a “responsibility” to do it, on the basis of them promising themself they’ll do it, to some degree. And certainly there are group opinions as well, as with society saying, “Yes, parents have certain responsibilities with respect to their kids.”
As far as the “truth,” it’s sometimes a subjective thing. Not always, I realize, and I also know that you and I and others won’t agree on what all is subjective versus objective.
As a kid I wondered how “sweet” things, for example, tasted to other people. We grow up associating the sensation with the word, but are we really experiencing it the same way? Again, the left-brain versus the right. I’d think two people would have to be “wired” together somehow, so that they could directly experience what the other was feeling.
We’re not talking about women “finding” themselves in the family way. We are talking about a woman that purposefully tried to impregnate herself and hopefully abort/KILL the baby for the sake of ART!!!!
************
Since no such thing happened everyone is really looking absurd for no reason at all. And by the way, there wouldnt have been any ‘babies killed’ even if she HAD done it.
Doug: 11:42:
Thanks for your kind words. You make an interesting point about “taste”. I have to go now, errand time, but I’ll try to get back later.
@carder,
I do wish biology were so simple and straight foreward … unfortunately, it is not! Zinc is used for numerous jobs within our body. To assure an adequate supply of zinc, nature has developed what we call a zinc-pool. It is an unfortunate word because we imagine something like a water reservoir.
Almost all zinc id used on the inside of cells (as part of the manufacturing process). So on its journey inside … it is gleaned from food by a chemical called PgE2. This ligand takes the atom of zinc to the liver, where it is combined with the amino acid taurine to form part of the membrane wall. If you were to view it, it would look like a patch of lawn (if the cell were the size of a city-block). This ‘lawn’ would be the zinc pool.
This is not so simple because utilizing zinc is absolutely dependent on taurine also being present. If you think of a brick wall/facade on a house then the brick’s total reliance on mortar comes close to this combination.
The reason that I emphasize this is because taurine is strictly found in meat … almost non-existent in vegetables. Taurine is a quasi-essential amino acid. Because it (and zinc) are necessary for brain development/operation, most children (until @14yrs) produce sufficient taurine within to meet shortfalls.
The timing indicates the onslaught of puberty. So, it is not coincidental that there are many, many fluctuations at puberty. PMS is just one, zits another; and because the cerebellum is so zinc dependent … a third is likely the cause of many mood-swings and depression; a fourth, is likely physical uncoordination in males …
There is also the copper-zinc ratio at play here. If there is a shortage of zinc, this is reflected in an excess/toxicity of copper. One of the major signs of copper toxicity is an adamant adherence that their own diet as the best … please note the vegetarian/vegan diets, and Jess in this regard. Also note that most such dieters begin in their teens.
Now getting a person to switch from killing-kids to a sufficiency of zinc-taurine, is in-my-experience a no-brainer: killing-kids wins out every time, whether or not one is PC or PL.
The thing about the brain-hemisphere-thinking is to assist anyone locked into a much-too rigid conceptualization of assessing human life. SoMG and many pro-aborts tend to argue from a very small corner – a place of little joy and no freedom; Doug (God bless him) at least intellectually wrestles with new ideas. We on the PL-side don’t do too much better, except that we do teend to support one another
John, why thank you, old buddy. The “hemispheres” stuff is indeed interesting.
And I love reading your explanations of nutrition and the chemical interplay – you rock!
Nutritional yeast…I sprinkle some every day on at least one of my meals or my kids’ meals.
Is there a better source? What’s recommended for the puberty onslaught?
@carder,
haven’t looked very thoroughly for adeQuate sources and tend to rely on supplementation. Good natural sources for taurine is any meat or dairy …. eggs and cheese come to mind … turkey breast is the best … but any person only needs a very small amount of ingested taurine for sufficiency. (Most taurine we use is re-cycled from the kidneys.) Since taurine is quickly wasted … eating small amounts of pumpkin seeds (for zinc) at the same meal/snack should help. Most sea weeds have exemplary mineral profiles … chlorella at http://www.shokos.com is also a good bet! Adults should have a minimum 15mg/day of zinc and max @50mg/day + 5mg/copper + @100mg taurine (a very small amount – about the size to fill the wide head of a toothpick). A pubescent teen would likely benefit from the maximum.
A combo of flax seeds and chia seeds may prove helpful and some EPA/DHA omega-3 oils (supplements, sardines, salmon, etc…) Lots of exercise and being outdoors – even sleeping outdoors (without artificial illumination) should help. Ditch the tv … permanently, if possible … but at least for summer.
Someone with PMS disorder should try some potassium 400-6oomg/day as well. (The taurine-zinc bound to membranes is the only way cells absorb potassium – called a potassium-pump.)
Very, interesting, John. You are wealth of good information!
Seems like the best diet is a varied diet? Do you agree?
Why are some people such picky eaters, and why do some have NO appetite? (Answer that and you’ll make a lot of mothers happy) (I fall into that latter category – I’ll get a headache and then I realize I need to eat something.)
I love the idea of “sleeping porches”. We had one when I was a kid, wish I had one now! If it was over 45 degrees F, we were out in a sleeping bag on a cot. Heaven!
I’d love to ditch the TV, but my hubby wants it for sports. I guess I can’t blame him.
God bless you!
@Janet,
a varied diet does not seem as important as a ‘system’ diet …. there are a few … one based on blood-type (D’Adamo); a newer one based on genetics (D’Adamo); one that varies seasonally (me); a Weston Price Diet; a Raw foods diet … Most people (especially orthodox North American medical professionals must yet learn that diet has a profound effect on our life. They too often throw-up-their-hands because ‘diet’ is not THE total answer.
Some time ago Watson characterized what was needed for the trillions of reactions occurring in the living human body each second. He noted that all reactions to happen MUST BE CATALYZED by three things ::: enzymes; co-factors and energy. The vast majority of modern diet strategies is ‘thing-based’ because we do focus almost exclusively on the first of these two and falsely assume that energy must mean heat.
Heat s but a small part of the electro-magnetic spectrum. And we have an array of energies …. electricity; magnetism; all the senses are energy receptors; chemical energies… etc. Each of these profoundly influences our physical-lives, but for the most-part get scant attention – watching sports on tv is but one example.
Instead of the presumed: ‘we (moderns) know/control about 90% of reality’, the figure is maybe @3% …. maybe less! And we have the gall to kill our kids …. incredible ignorance!!!
Thanks for the reply John! Blood type diets are interesting, I vaguely recall reading one that was pretty accurate with my tastes.