Yale abortion art project a hoax?
An international scandal erupted yesterday as news about Yale University student Aliza Shvarts’ abortion “art project” quickly tore around the world.
A Yale Daily News story had announced an upcoming senior art show would include Shvarts’ exhibition of her early aborted children suspended from the ceiling wrapped in Saran wrap around a cube while videos showed her self-aborting in a bathtub.
Shvarts claimed she had artificially inseminated herself unspecified numerous times throughout the past 9 months and videotaped herself aborting after taking abortion drugs and herbs.
Late yesterday Yale published a statement saying it was all a hoax (click to enlarge):
But according to YDN, Svarts is standing by her story (click to enlarge)…
I’m not surprised by pro-life horror. But pro-aborts have no right to be horrified. What exactly would they find horrifying about abortion? Abortion is a great American right. It is a moral right. It represents freedom.
How can Yale officials possibly say inducing multiple self-abortions “violate[s] basic ethical standards”? What is unethical?
For them to add such acts would “raise[] serious mental and physical health concerns,” is to say any mother who aborts frequently or numerously is crazy and that abortion may be physically harmful. I’d like them to spell out how exactly can abortion be physically harmful.
This puts abortion groups in a real tough spot. While the world recoils at Shvarts’ actions, either real or pretend, how can pro-aborts? The Yale Women’s Center didn’t. It released a statement yesterday, according to YDN:
The Yale Women’s Center stands strongly behind the fact that a woman’s body is her own. Whether it is a question of reproductive rights or of artistic expression, Aliza Shvarts’ body is an instrument over which she should be free to exercise full discretion.
That’s exactly what the other side has to say. NARAL, trying to appear normal and mainstream, issued a nonsensical statement, also according to YDN:
“This ‘project’ is offensive and insensitive to the women who have suffered the heartbreak of miscarriage,” said Ted Miller….
Apples and oranges, Ted. Is NARAL saying no woman should publicly embrace her abortion for fear of hurting women who have miscarried? This would be a major position shift.
Shvarts stated yesterday she wanted her project to spark “conversation and debate.” The discourse it has indeed sparked has been helpful only to the pro-life side, however, I’m sure not what Shvarts intended. It is forcing pro-aborts to consider the humanity of the preborn and to remind them abortion is unpleasant for a reason. Nathan Sheets agrees.
I still protest that YDN, Yale University, and news outlets are calling these “miscarriages.” They are ABORTIONS. What’s the problem with calling these what they are?
[HT: Students for Life of America, LifeNews.com]
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.
If it is a hoax, I called it first yesterday. You’re right Jill, why would pro-choicers get upset over this? I mean, why is this worse then say, if a woman refused to use protection and then aborted? It is still an abortion, no matter what the reason. But then again many pro-choicers want abortion to be safe legal and rare. Abortion as a last resort.
I think an abortion is an abortion is an abortion and if a woman has a right to it she has a right to it for whatever reason she wants. It is still an abortion if she has it because her family would kick her out or she just doesn’t want to gain weight. If we condemn her for what she did, wouldn’t we be condemning other women for having multiple abortions? However, I’m sure many on both sides will.
Jess,
Abortion is the cure for exactly what today’s sidebar quote states: an inconvient consequence to a convenient lifestyle. At 4000+ abortions a day, the proaborts have a LONG way to go before their mantra of “safe and rare” has any meaning at all.
It’s not menstrual blood – it’s an abortion – the deliberate killing of a very young developing baby.
Of course they have to call them miscarriages because what else can the proaborts do? Shvartz is, after all, simply exercising her right to bodily autonomy by having multiple abortions.
I don’t know which I find more offensive. That she really did this or that it’s a hoax. Either way, this “artist” has a twisted mind.
The more we keep discussing it, the more her project worked. Good work Aliza.
“The discourse it has indeed sparked has been helpful only to the pro-life side, however, I’m sure not what Shvarts intended. It is forcing pro-aborts to consider the humanity of the preborn and to remind them abortion is unpleasant for a reason.”
Why does everything have to be on either side? Can’t we all just discuss something without widening the chasm between pro-lifers and pro-choicers?
“I still protest that YDN, Yale University, and news outlets are calling these “miscarriages.” They are ABORTIONS. What’s the problem with calling these what they are?”
unless they actually are miscarriages… I haven’t seen the pictures, but if they actually show real babies, and they’re not hers, than who knows where they came from and how they tragically died?
I understand your point Jill, but I don’t think we need to always make assumptions
While I am disgusted by the whole thing, I do find an interesting way to get us talking about the issue more…
While I am disgusted by the whole thing, I do find it an interesting way to get us talking about the issue more…
SFL said, “unless they actually are miscarriages… I haven’t seen the pictures, but if they actually show real babies, and they’re not hers, than who knows where they came from and how they tragically died?”
We can only go by what Shvarts said. What she described were ABORTIONS. This is the correct word journalists should use. A miscarriage is not induced. Abortions are induced. That they are changing terminology means something.
“unless they actually are miscarriages… I haven’t seen the pictures, but if they actually show real babies, and they’re not hers, than who knows where they came from and how they tragically died?”
———
So it’s okay to give this person who has said that she took drugs to force an abortion on herself multiple times the benefit of the doubt yet it’s not okay to give those same children in the womb the benefit of the doubt and allow them life b/c they may or may not have a soul or personhood or whatever it is the Proaborts side claims is necessary for life. I just don’t get the double standards…what she did was force abortions on herself. Let’s start calling a spade a spade again and stop allowing others to parse our words for us and make things appear not as bad as they really are. As someone who has had multiple miscarriages, I find what this person has done reprehensible. I equally find reprehensible the media sources equating what she did to herself with what naturally happened to me. SHE DID NOT HAVE A MISCARRIAGE; SHE SELF ABORTED. Just because it wasn’t in a Dr’s office doesn’t change the facts….
So it’s interesting that no one has yet examined the project to see if it’s in compliance with Connecticut laws on Regulated Waste Management of blood and other pathogens.
Certainly the University of Connecticut Health Center knows all about it.
I wonder – considering that Yale teaches abortion (I believe Dr. Warren Hern, who wrote the book on abortion is an alumni) shouldn’t they also know how to manage the medical aspects of this?
Is she violating state law?
This is kind of interesting – if it is indeed real blood she’s using then it looks like Yale is potentially violating OSHA regulations.
Performance Art only goes so far – you can’t do a performance piece by calling “Fire” of “Bomb” in a crowded auditorium. You can’t pretend to be a terrorist within the vicinity of an airport.
Free speech has its limits. She needs to be investigated, and so does Yale.
Sorry forgot the link – to the relevant page about regulated medical waste: http://www.envcap.org/statetools/rmw/CT-rmw.html#osha
Sorry forgot the link to the relevant page about regulated medical waste: regarding CT and OSHA regulations.
My first impression on this story, was how could she get pregnant multiple times in the nine months she spent on the project? The odds are low. And why would she intentionally subject her body to all those unnecessary medications? Just for art’s sake?
There is still more to this story than meets the eye. We don’t know this girl, so at this point it is all speculation, of course. There is a slim chance this girl was really just trying to spark debate……it is favorable to the pro-life side. Perhaps this blood was from a benign source. The rest of the story? She says it is true. Time will tell.
oh no this isn’t a hoax at all just found out last night visit my blog for more details oh and by the way pro-aborts are not upset at all go to the website feministing and you’ll see that they really do see it as some sort of right.
http://adlynmorrison.blogspot.com/
Chris, Excellent observation about potential OSHA violations!
” She reiterated that she engaged in the nine-month process she publicized on Wednesday in a press release that was first reported in the News: repeatedly using a needleless syringe to insert semen into herself, then taking abortifacient herbs at the end of her menstrual cycle to induce bleeding. Thursday evening, in a tour of her art studio, she shared with the News video footage she claimed depicted her attempts at self-induced miscarriages.
“We can only go by what Shvarts said. What she described were ABORTIONS. This is the correct word journalists should use. A miscarriage is not induced. Abortions are induced. That they are changing terminology means something.”
Good point. I guess what I am trying to say is that if it truly was a project, than we do not really know what the cause of death was. But you are right, the media is playing the word game, and they should have at least put “alleged abortions” since she did claim they were her abortions, even if that wasn’t true.
“So it’s okay to give this person who has said that she took drugs to force an abortion on herself multiple times the benefit of the doubt yet it’s not okay to give those same children in the womb the benefit of the doubt and allow them life b/c they may or may not have a soul or personhood or whatever it is the Proaborts side claims is necessary for life. I just don’t get the double standards…what she did was force abortions on herself. Let’s start calling a spade a spade again and stop allowing others to parse our words for us and make things appear not as bad as they really are. As someone who has had multiple miscarriages, I find what this person has done reprehensible. I equally find reprehensible the media sources equating what she did to herself with what naturally happened to me. SHE DID NOT HAVE A MISCARRIAGE; SHE SELF ABORTED. Just because it wasn’t in a Dr’s office doesn’t change the facts…”
No that’s not what she did sam. It was a project. She didn’t inseminate herself, nor did she photograph multiple abortions. She only said she did to instigate both sides into discussions just like this one.
You’re misinterpreting my words and my stance. Read my response to Jill just before this. If it truly was a project (one in which she did not have abortions at all) then how much different is this from when pro-lifers expose images of aborted babies to show the truth?
My mom just told me about this.
Either way, she’s still a sicko.
This is an encouraging happening…these lines being drawn between pro-choicers. Division of their points of view weakens them more and more, and exposes the fact that being pro-choice is not black and white. “Safe, legal, and rare” is that common abortion mantra. This project tested the limits of “rare” (even though it was fictional) and we got to see real reactions from many pro-choicers who found this project abhorrent. The optimist in me sees this as hopeful.
What about pro-lifers who disagree on birth control and abstinence education programs, how society should view single mothers, abortion in cases of rape, etc…
Yes, MK 6:59 the “artist” has a “twisted mind”- just like those, like you, who love to display mutilated fetuses blown up 50 times actual size to scare children. How could you take offense at someone who obviously shares your “fetus fetish” and wants to share it with others?
I would argue the vile, sick display at Yale is more responsible than yours, as one is not forced to view it, unlike an encounter with MK and her mutilated fetus poster brigade.
MY question is, WHERE ARE THIS GIRLS PARENTS?? What do they think of all this?
Anonymous: MK doesn’t use have a “mutilated fetus poster brigade”. She doesn’t like the photos and doesn’t use them.
“MY question is, WHERE ARE THIS GIRLS PARENTS?? What do they think of all this?”
First of all, she’s a college student, so they’re out of the picture. But second of all, if you’re asking this regarding her upbringing, they could just be eccentric artists themselves…
If you are interested in registering a complaint regarding this issue with Yale, please visit my post today at http://www.dealwhudson.typepad.com. You will find my letter to President Levin and his email address.
Just when you think you’ve seen all- this is by far the sickest most twisted excuse for “art” I’ve heard of yet. Somebody desperately needs a mental evaluation.
She actually has a lot of interesting things to say about her project.
Judging from her comments, I’d say she’s probably pro-choice, and trying to stir up pro-lifers.
It is the intention of this piece to destabilize the locus of that authorial act, and in doing so, reclaim it from the heteronormative structures that seek to naturalize it.
As an intervention into our normative understanding of
This is an encouraging happening…these lines being drawn between pro-choicers. Division of their points of view weakens them more and more, and exposes the fact that being pro-choice is not black and white. “Safe, legal, and rare” is that common abortion mantra. This project tested the limits of “rare” (even though it was fictional) and we got to see real reactions from many pro-choicers who found this project abhorrent. The optimist in me sees this as hopeful.
Posted by: Tanya at April 18, 2008 10:12 AM
Actually I think this upset a lot more prolifers. Prochoicers think it’s gross, but they recognize it as what it is: an art project.
The girl wanted to stir up controversy, and she did. Prochoicers don’t think she actually had abortions, and they recognize that it is within her ability to inseminate and abort if she wants, but they still think it’s gross. It has nothing to do with life and everything to do with the purpose of the female body.
Just when you think you’ve seen all- this is by far the sickest most twisted excuse for “art” I’ve heard of yet. Somebody desperately needs a mental evaluation.
Posted by: a.t.m at April 18, 2008 11:44 AM
I think it’s brilliant. Gross, but brilliant. She accomplished her goal. I’m sure she’s ecstatic.
I don’t know for sure but I think her piece was about the idea that you can’t tell the difference between a miscarriage (within the first few weeks of pregnancy) and menstruation, and our morals about this are dependent on whether we think there is a child or not. I also think she could be commenting about what she has the right to do to her body (self-harm, abortion) and what borders on ethical. Is it unethical to attempt to get pregnant and take an abortificent? If she was never really pregnant is that still wrong?
Who knows, I’m just speculating I guess. I still think it’s interesting.
Danielle,
Is that you? From last year? How are you? What brings you back? (Admit it, you love us!) I’m so glad to hear from you.
Pansy and Danielle in one week! wheeeewwweeee!
the idea that you can’t tell the difference between a miscarriage (within the first few weeks of pregnancy) and menstruation, and our morals about this are dependent on whether we think there is a child or not.
I called that one…
The problem is that you can tell the difference. There is an objective, observable difference between ordinary menstrual blood and the products of a miscarriage; the latter includes a human embryo.
That this difference isn’t visible to the naked eye doesn’t prove that it doesn’t exist or have meaning. I would think that an art student who is serious about calling into question our perceptions of the world wouldn’t want to limit herself to only what we perceive with our unaided senses. I think if she does, she’s got blinders on that she’s not even aware of.
And why would she intentionally subject her body to all those unnecessary medications?
hahahaha! This is 21st century America. Most people think you’re nutso if you DON’T subject yourself to medications of every sort for every ailment, real or imaginary.
And, why is it “sick” to have an abortion for art’s sake, but if one has an abortion, say, to keep a scholarship to art school that’s a valid choice?
Why is it sick to put it on display wrapped in plastic, but not to chuck human parts into the dumpster where any dog or dumpster diver could come across it?
And why would she intentionally subject her body to all those unnecessary medications?
hahahaha! This is 21st century America. Most people think you’re nutso if you DON’T subject yourself to medications of every sort for every ailment, real or imaginary.
Posted by: Milehimama at April 18, 2008 4:14 PM
Who cares what everyone else thinks?
I still protest that YDN, Yale University, and news outlets are calling these “miscarriages.” They are ABORTIONS. What’s the problem with calling these what they are?
Well, after reading her statement (thanks for the link Danielle), I think that you’ve unintentionally hit on her point. The problem with “calling these what they are” is that you don’t know what they are. She never took any pregnancy tests, and she menstruated on time every month during the period that she was putting this together.
In her words:
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.
I agree with Danielle. Gross, but brilliant.
Danielle,
Is that you? From last year? How are you? What brings you back? (Admit it, you love us!) I’m so glad to hear from you.
Pansy and Danielle in one week! wheeeewwweeee!
Posted by: mk at April 18, 2008 3:44 PM
I don’t know who you are. My friend and I were talking about this art project and she told me to come here. Said I would find it funny.
I’ve read some more ideas interpreting her work and I changed my mind.
I think she is trying to change what we think the reproductive organs are supposed to do. Like naturally we’re endowed with these things that naturally function a different way, but they don’t necessarily HAVE to be used that way. It’s like she’s reclaiming her own idea of what her body can and cannot or should and should not do. In this case, she’s saying her body can be used for art. While some people say you should only have sex to make babies, others say you can do it recreationally. I think she extended that to include her ovaries and uterus and stuff, just to prove that we don’t have to use our bodies the way nature intended.
Something about the way she said “heteronormative” verified this for me, she’s challenging the stereotypical way men and women are perceived based on “natural” behaviors.
This young woman is mental.
The problem is that you can tell the difference. There is an objective, observable difference between ordinary menstrual blood and the products of a miscarriage; the latter includes a human embryo.
That this difference isn’t visible to the naked eye doesn’t prove that it doesn’t exist or have meaning. I would think that an art student who is serious about calling into question our perceptions of the world wouldn’t want to limit herself to only what we perceive with our unaided senses. I think if she does, she’s got blinders on that she’s not even aware of.
Posted by: Jen R at April 18, 2008 3:56 PM
But it doesn’t matter in this sense. She created the illusion that she was having an abortion. That’s part of her game. You’re not supposed to know if this was really an abortion. It’s like if you’re watching a play and someone gets shot and then the lights go out and come back on and the guy is bleeding.
You don’t question whether or not he was really shot because that’s not the point. The point is the storyline and the meaning of the entire play, not just a certain act, or a movement within the play.
But she’s claiming that “the act of ascribing a word to something physical is at its heart an ideological act, an act that literally has the power to construct bodies. In a sense, the act of conception occurs when the viewer assigns the term ‘miscarriage’ or ‘period’ to that blood.”
I’ve heard pro-choicers claim that the unborn human being is a baby if the mother wants him/her, and a mere growth that can be discarded if she doesn’t.
It’s not that I don’t understand the philosophical and artistic point. It’s that I think it’s tragically misapplied when you start denying the actual physical reality of actual human beings, toward the end of justifying killing them.
But she’s claiming that “the act of ascribing a word to something physical is at its heart an ideological act, an act that literally has the power to construct bodies. In a sense, the act of conception occurs when the viewer assigns the term ‘miscarriage’ or ‘period’ to that blood.”
I’ve heard pro-choicers claim that the unborn human being is a baby if the mother wants him/her, and a mere growth that can be discarded if she doesn’t.
It’s not that I don’t understand the philosophical and artistic point. It’s that I think it’s tragically misapplied when you start denying the actual physical reality of actual human beings, toward the end of justifying killing them.
Posted by: Jen R at April 18, 2008 7:57 PM
Would you be upset if it turns out it was only her menstruating for 9 months and pretending to have abortions?
If you answer no, then you missed the point. Her whole artistic endeavor claims that WE decide when something is life and when it is not. If you need further proof of this ask why women were considered property and not people. It is ideological from the beginning.
Say our whole planet’s knowledge is wiped out and we don’t know anything about life. We don’t have any books or anything since we can’t read anymore. So what do we do? We assign other creatures to be our equals and some to be subservient, and some don’t count as life at all. In that scenario, it’s entirely possible that a baby could be considered “not life” even though today we do see them as life. We could say frogs are “not life” or whatever.
Every time we have determined something has value it is because we have assigned it value. Along with that is purpose, and Aliza decided that the value and purpose assigned to her reproductive organs is not what she personally assigned it to be. That’s the point. It’s not really about abortion at all, and when you try to make it about that, you distort what her intentions were in creating this piece.
Her whole artistic endeavor claims that WE decide when something is life and when it is not. If you need further proof of this ask why women were considered property and not people. It is ideological from the beginning.
What beings have which rights is a philosophical question, yes. But it is not *solely* a philosophical question. It needs to be informed by facts. If we can’t share the same basis of facts, we can never even have a meaningful philosophical discussion.
It seems to me that this inability for opposing political sides to even agree on whether grass is green or orange* has been getting worse my entire adult life. It’s frustrating and scary, because how can you come to any compromise or agreement with people who fundamentally live in a different world?
*This is the point in the conversation where somebody goes and finds some obscure species of orange grass.
The entire concept of this “art project” is just out and out stupid and I can’t believe anyone is even interested in it.
Another whacko artist.
Wait, don’t tell me….it’s going to be a movie next…starring Jane Fonda.
What beings have which rights is a philosophical question, yes. But it is not *solely* a philosophical question. It needs to be informed by facts. If we can’t share the same basis of facts, we can never even have a meaningful philosophical discussion.
It seems to me that this inability for opposing political sides to even agree on whether grass is green or orange* has been getting worse my entire adult life. It’s frustrating and scary, because how can you come to any compromise or agreement with people who fundamentally live in a different world?
*This is the point in the conversation where somebody goes and finds some obscure species of orange grass.
Posted by: Jen R at April 18, 2008 10:19 PM
But what if there are no facts? Why can’t we still have a meaningful discussion?
It’s frustrating and scary to you because you cannot see their point of view. In order to understand, you have to be willing to understand, you have to try to see the other side. The problem is most people don’t even try and give up and that’s what stops meaningful philosophical discussions, not a lack of facts.
And when I say “you” I mean that generally to those of you struggling with this art project and various ideologies on opposite sides of the fence. Certainly I need to spend time looking at the other side thoughtfully as well.
“But what if there are no facts?”
If there are no facts, then the statement “There are no facts” is a fact.
why might pro-choice people be upset? umm… b/c she trivializes what all acknowledge is a profound and difficult decision? just b/c people don’t see abortion as murder doesn’t mean they think its a moral nothing, or appropriate material for an “art project”… which also explains the “mental health” concerns. never mind the health concerns associated with inseminating yourself with a syringe.
please try to engage in intelligent discussion as opposed to simplifying opposing views out of moral existence…
I think I saw Mike with a whole shopping cart full of supermarket tabloid magazines….
Danielle said
Bobby said
Danielle – if there are no facts, then even following up your query with another question about meaning becomes meaningless.
Perhaps you meant to say, “how can we get anywhere in terms of meaning if the facts themselves are in dispute?”
Philosophical arguments are impossible without some framework of absolute truth that under-girds them. One cannot reject a premiss without being able to logically refute it using absolute truth. That’s valid reasoning.
There are, however, irrational refutations. For instance, one can try to assert there is no such thing as absolute truth, so therefore a premiss is untrue. The irrationalist will believe his idea of truth is a “paradox”, yet in so doing the term “truth” has been disconnected from it’s common usage, but the irrationalist doesn’t recognize the disconnection, or as often is the case simply doesn’t care.
Intellectual integrity is critical to the debate.
When it comes to abortion, there are facts, science has provided them. What science cannot do, is govern our moral integrity when dealing with those facts. For that we need transcendent absolute truth that is outside ourselves. Without it we’d be insane.
Masterfully said, Chris.
Well there are no facts for ID but you still debate that! I think you all really don’t understand art, and as an artist, that’s disappointing. The last thing I want is a bunch of people standing around saying they don’t like the way I created a piece when that’s not the point of my art.
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…
Well there are no facts for ID but you still debate that!
That’s a good example of the kind of thing I’m talking about. Actually, a better example would be the Iraq war. Zogby did a poll a couple of U.S. troops serving in Iraq a couple of years ago; 85% said that one of the reasons the U.S. was in Iraq was to retaliate for Saddam Hussein’s role in the September 11 attacks.
Can we agree that that’s factually wrong, and that establishing that it’s factually wrong is important to the philosophical debate over whether the war was justified?
I think you all really don’t understand art, and as an artist, that’s disappointing.
Or possibly, we just don’t agree with the assertions you’re making about this piece.
Look, I do get your point about the fact that notions of “personhood” and the “proper” function of the human body are socially constructed. What I’m saying is that there’s a difference between “these are not purely natural categories; we need to be aware of how much they are actually shaped by our culture” and “reality is whatever we say it is”. I’m not postmodern enough to go that last mile. :)
The last thing I want is a bunch of people standing around saying they don’t like the way I created a piece when that’s not the point of my art.
You say that as though art can be divorced from the way it’s created.
Did you read about the artist who tied up a dog in a gallery and let it die? Do you think calling it “art” made it out of bounds to criticize the inhumane treatment of the dog?
Zogby did a poll a couple of U.S. troops serving in Iraq a couple of years ago;
Oops. Should be “Zogby did a poll of U.S. troops serving in Iraq a couple of years ago”
Danielle – my degree is in art – I played the game. I got the A+ for “creating” a dynamic sculpture which consisted of me getting the class to walk among some trees then stand there for 3 minutes while I explained I created a “performance” piece they participated in. Everyone else only planned a piece, while I actually made one. The only one understood was the “teacher” who was sensitive and “grasped the deep spiritual meaning”, but it really was nothing at all. My main point was that “post-modern” art has become so subjective it’s meaningless. Not to mention that everyone hated me after that – okay, maybe hated is too strong – they vehemently disliked me.
If “art” does not communicate an intent, a mood, a feeling, which can be easily grasped commonly by others, by anyone without a long elitist discussion, then it’s not art. It’s a self delusional, recursive parody.
Recursion is defined as recursion. See recursion.
Danielle – is that a fact, that there are no facts for ID? ;-)
Wait – now we’re getting recursive.
Okay, for the grand prize – what’s the paradox of knowledge?
(Hey Bobby – you might enjoy this one…)
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…
“Abortion is a great American right.”
No.
“It is a moral right.”
Yes.
“It represents freedom.”
Uh, pretty interesting poor representation but okay.