Yale: double standard bearer

Yale Daily News reported yesterday:

[A] Yale official said that a scientific test found no traces of human blood in the Davenport College senior's art studio, although there was no way to determine whether the project in its entirety had been examined.

Yale was looking for evidence that student Aliza Shvarts had or had not inseminated then aborted herself numerous times over 9 months for an art project.

yale bloodspot.jpgWhat will Yale do if it eventually finds red stuff in Shvarts' proximity? Test it, apparently. Will it require a sample of Shvarts' blood for a DNA match? Will it check for another human's DNA, her dead offspring?

This should alarm abortion proponents, whose primary defense of said act is "the right to privacy!" these days. But so far they haven't risen against Yale for this invasion, as they have risen against OH parents for wanting the same information from an abortion mill re: their minor daughter's illegal abortion, as they have risen against KS prosecutor Phill Kline for wanting the same information from abortion mills to confirm or deny illegal abortions. So far they've remained silent here. Why?...

It also should alarm them on their "a human is not a person" argument. Yale's goal is to find whether Shvarts is lying. If it finds Shvarts' blood with the DNA of 2 humans, or even simply tiny body parts of another human in it, what does that mean? Will Shvarts be allowed to show her "art" only if it is found only to contain menstrual blood? Why?

As Steve at the Stand to Reason blog wrote:

If abortion doesn't kill a human being, what could possibly be wrong with Shvart's project?... [W]ith all of the other things that pass as art these days, it seems odd to exclude abortion from the mix. If someone were displaying... tissue... removed during their liposuction surgery, people would recoil, but I doubt the university would censor it.

And if Yale is censoring this project because abortion kills a human being... then is Yale willing to follow that logic and discourage all Yale students from getting abortions? Why is Yale so concerned about such a small-scale abortion operation as Shvarts's when the Yale Medical Center Family Planning Department teaches doctors to perform abortions and appears to offer abortions as a service?

So, the question remains: Why is Yale censoring the Shvarts art?

And why are abortion proponents silent?

A pro-abort guest columnist wrote in YDN yesterday:

Art, or not art, hoax, or no hoax, Shvarts' project is a huge tragedy for the pro-choice movement.... Although I'm sure that she did not mean for her "art" to fuel the anti-abortion movement, she gave its supporters just the example they needed. Her project, surely, will become the poster child for irresponsible and disrespectful abuse of the right to abortion and a counter-example to the notion that a woman knows what is best for her own body.

shvarts studio 2.jpg

I am fervently pro-choice, morally-relative, non-religious, politically liberal - and I will defend free speech with my life - but Shvarts' project makes me want to cringe.... Anti-choicers paint mental propaganda portraits of irresponsible young women who are overly sexually active (without protection), impulsive and willing to have multiple abortions without "learning their lesson" or considering alternative routes. This image is largely untrue, but perception is everything in mainstream politics....

It is "art," she claims. Fine. Sure. I might even agree. But Shvarts cannot be so naive as to ignore the fact that millions of people do not agree and see this only as an abuse of choice. Just because she does not (as I do not) endow abortion with moral ideology, she must recognize that more than half of voters in America do. They will judge her piece. They will moralize it. And they will use it as impetus to ban abortion.

"More than half"? Interesting acknowledgement.

This writer is correct. Yale's response to Aliza Shvarts' art project has been to attach morality, irresponsibility, and physical harm to abortion. The only reason why? Fear of alumni financial abandonment.

Hypocrites and double-standard bearers, the lot of them.

[HT for STR quote: JivinJ; illustration courtesy of ABC News; photo of Shvarts coutesy of YDN]


Comments:

They finally decided to do what I was suggesting on the first day - check it out and see if it's real. Objectively.

Somehow there's a lesson in there somewhere.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at April 25, 2008 5:49 AM


I am fervently pro-choice, morally-relative, non-religious, politically liberal

When the world becomes morally relative, it is only a matter of time before strength wins out. This is how dictatorships are born.

If A. says this is moral, and B. says this is moral, then it is only a matter of time before one will emerge as the victor.

When it comes to eating Red Meat, this might not be such a big thing, but what happens when it comes to how many kids you can have, or how sick you can be before you are killed for convenience sake.

Then, whoever has the biggest gun will take charge. And God help us. It is only when we have an outside, external, objective sense of right and wrong that we can live together peacefully.

Otherwise, it becomes "might is right"...

I think this is the inherent flaw in moral relativism...

When abortion becomes illegal, all hell will break loose and I honestly believe that we will see moral relativism in it's true colors...and it won't be pretty.

Posted by: mk at April 25, 2008 5:55 AM


those elusive pro-choice opinions:

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/04/21/a-for-abortion-art
http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2008/04/22/yale-art-hoax/

Posted by: reality at April 25, 2008 6:24 AM


Maybe if "Abortion Man" is pro-life this is some how pro-life too and you're just making a fool out of yourself by complaining about it?

Posted by: Jess at April 25, 2008 8:51 AM


Maybe if "Abortion Man" is pro-life this is some how pro-life too and you're just making a fool out of yourself by complaining about it?

Actually Jess - Jill is making that statement. This has done more to promote the pro-life position and open discussion regarding the direction abortion goes than almost anything we could (or would) do to indicate what happens when life is not cherished.

Jill would be a fool to miss the opportunity to point this out.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at April 25, 2008 9:00 AM


That Yale student is absolutely right;
bravo to him! But the real hypocrites are the anti-choice people,who scream for unwanted
children to be born,regardless of the
consequences,with absolutely no concern about
whether those unwanted children will ever have
a decent life.

Posted by: robert berger at April 25, 2008 9:23 AM


"Anti-choicers paint mental propaganda portraits of irresponsible young women who are overly sexually active (without protection), impulsive and willing to have multiple abortions without "learning their lesson" or considering alternative routes. This image is largely untrue, but perception is everything in mainstream politics...."


Excuse me?? This image is largely untrue?? I think young women have done a marvelous job of proving this to be correct. This is reality.
And the statistics prove it. The women I know that have had abortions were sexually promiscuous, not using protection, and had at least one abortion.

Obviously, this is not true in all cases, but I think when you look at the statistics of who has abortions it is clear that it is not the married hard working mother who has vigilantly used two forms of birth control and gets pregnant all while being monogomous.

This is the unrealistic picture they want us anti-choicers to buy into.

Sorry. Not gonna happen. Not that gullable.

Posted by: Sandy at April 25, 2008 9:34 AM


"But the real hypocrites are the anti-choice people,who scream for unwanted
children to be born,regardless of the
consequences,with absolutely no concern about
whether those unwanted children will ever have
a decent life."

1. The decency of a person's life determines if they should live or die.
2. Some people won't have a decent life.
3. Therefore, we get to kill them.

A syllogism that would make Aristotle proud.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 25, 2008 9:43 AM


Bobby,
Great post. Many people are born into this world under dire circumstances and turn out to be major contributors to society.

Many people born into "ideal" situations struggle with life.

Posted by: Sandy at April 25, 2008 9:55 AM


Jill, excellent story.

These are awesome comments this morning. Each one deserves its own thread!

Posted by: Anonymous at April 25, 2008 11:02 AM


Robert:

It is immensely arrogant to think that anyone can know any person's destiny or life outcome based on "not being wanted".

Who made you God? I think God knows what He's doing and it's ludicrous to interfere in that process.

Have you every heard the truism, "It's not how you start, it's how you finish"?

And I am not an anti-choicer. Please don't trivialize my belief system to the lowest common denominator. I am for preserving the lives of inncoent children in the womb "whatever" the cost.

Posted by: HisMan at April 25, 2008 11:11 AM


Robert -

I think making predictions about the decency of someones life, or lack thereof, is dangerous waters for supporters of choice to tread on.

Its insinuating that there is a measurable level of decency at which one's life becomes not worth living... rather than supporting the idea that its up to the mother to decide, no matter what her circumstances, what is the best option for her.

Posted by: Amanda at April 25, 2008 11:27 AM


1. The decency of a person's life determines if they should live or die. 2. Some people won't have a decent life. 3. Therefore, we get to kill them.

or more succinctly:

"lebensunwerten Lebens"


Posted by: Chris Arsenault at April 25, 2008 11:29 AM


"ANTI-Choice people"...makes me really wonder what that phrase means...

Would that mean people who do not believe in providing a choice during a pregnancy?

Then, that would include the moms and pro-abort people who do NOT give a choice to the unborn whether he/she wants to live or not.

Posted by: RSD at April 25, 2008 11:31 AM


Subscribing to the idea that "life not worth living" has it's price.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at April 25, 2008 11:31 AM


This nitwit's 15 minutes of fame is over, and you would do well to ignore her, rather than give her the attention she craves.

Her pathetic attempt at a publicity stunt is unworthy of attention, and your attempt to use it to make political hay is equally pathetic.

Posted by: anonymous at April 25, 2008 11:34 AM


Isn't it interesting how Aliza's choice to display her art project was removed from her?

It's not as though her choice is confined to herself - Yale gets to choose too.

You can't conveniently neglect the decisions of others, but though that objectively happens, and is precisely how SCOTUS implemented their Roe ruling, abortion choicers don't want to acknowledge that as reality.

State subjectivity is so cruel.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at April 25, 2008 11:40 AM


Youre giving this a whole lot more attention than it deserves

Posted by: TexasRed at April 25, 2008 11:59 AM


But the real hypocrites are the anti-choice people,who scream for unwanted children to be born...
----------

All children are wanted. I'll say it again, all children are wanted. Not all by their biological parents, but there are people who really want every child, regardless of color, situation of conception, or level of ability. All children are wanted.

Posted by: Elizabeth G at April 25, 2008 12:06 PM


I agree Elizabeth G!!

Posted by: Carla at April 25, 2008 12:10 PM


Youre giving this a whole lot more attention than it deserves

Really??!! Don't you think Aliza's work has a certain postmodern/deconstructionist flair?

She's doing an excellent job of deconstructing the pretentiousness of abortion-choice.

In my book that's an admirable art project. Don't like that - well you're welcome to your own opinion.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at April 25, 2008 12:16 PM


"All children are wanted. I'll say it again, all children are wanted. Not all by their biological parents, but there are people who really want every child, regardless of color, situation of conception, or level of ability. All children are wanted."

Then how come there are so many orphans dying all over the world? People might say they want these children, but they obviously don't want them that much.

And pro-choice is definitely not saying pregnancies created in bad circumstances should be terminated. If that was the case then why do women who have the means to raise a child, women who have good jobs, enough money, choose to abort? Anyone who wants to be pregnant and have a child should be able to, anyone who doesn't shouldn't have to.

Posted by: Jess at April 25, 2008 12:23 PM


Jill-

What's your take on Yoko Ono suing the Expelled movie?

Posted by: Erin at April 25, 2008 12:28 PM



And pro-choice is definitely not saying pregnancies created in bad circumstances should be terminated.
Posted by: Jess at April 25, 2008 12:23 PM

Uhhhhh....yes you are. PCers use this excuse ALL THE TIME!!!!!!!

Posted by: Sandy at April 25, 2008 1:34 PM


Jess,

Your comments often relate to not wanting to be pregnant as opposed not wanting a baby, as if the pregnancy is an end in itself. I remember you telling us stories about a very difficult pregnancy your aunt had, and I'm so sorry she went through what she did! But not every pregnancy is destined for those terrible complications. It might be good for you to find someone like an OB/GYN who can ease your concerns which you might be having regarding your own pregnancies some day. God bless you.

Your other point: Many orphans are just that because of disease and famine, in other words because of desperate circumstances, completely out of their parents' control. This does not change the fact that these children are wanted children.

Posted by: Janet at April 25, 2008 1:36 PM


Anti-choicers paint mental propaganda portraits of irresponsible young women who are overly sexually active (without protection), impulsive and willing to have multiple abortions without "learning their lesson" or considering alternative routes. This image is largely untrue, but perception is everything in mainstream politics....

I'm repeating, in total agreement, what Sandy stated at 9:34am:
"Excuse me?? This image is largely untrue?? I think young women have done a marvelous job of proving this to be correct. This is reality.
And the statistics prove it."

Of course they are just living as they've been taught in the schools from grade 5 on and by example from their promiscuous, aborting parents too.

Jess: orphans aren't dying because they are unwanted. They are dying because many are living in impoverished countries suffering under the burden of corruption and the enormous, immoral use of the world's resources by a small percentage of the world's population. This situation also exists both within rich countries like the US and Canada and throughout the world.

Posted by: Patricia at April 25, 2008 1:37 PM


This is one of the best, and funniest editorials I think I've ever read. And the best part is, it's completely bipartisan, so ALL of us can get a kick out of it, even though its a little scary when you think about how dead-on it is....
________________________________________-
From this mornings METRO, by Elliot Kalan, who is actually a friend of a friend and I met him at a party, and he is just as funny in person:


Election 2008: The game is on!The presidential race is heating up! Hillary Clinton has won the Pennsylvania primary, proving she can still win against usual-winner Barack Obama. She apparently secured this victory by being better at drinking beer than Obama is at bowling, which makes perfect sense to me. I wouldn’t have known that, however, if the media wasn’t doing such a good job of keeping track of the race.

They’ve had the good sense not to dilute their coverage of this furious contest with boring irrelevancies like the candidates’ policy proposals or future plans. I just want to know who’s got more points, or money, or votes. Basically, give me the box score and if anybody said anything really crazy or embarrassing. I only want to focus on what’s actually important here: the game.


I already know everything I need to about the candidates. John McCain is old, Barack Obama is black, and Hillary Clinton is a shrew. That’s all the detail I need. Just enough to keep apart what are basically human playing pieces. For all I care, John McCain could be a car and Hillary Clinton could be a thimble. Maybe Obama is Colonel Mustard, and Pennsylvania just sunk his battleship. See how much more interesting the election is this way?


Politics is the best sport in the world. And as with any sport, the essential thing is who won, not what they did after the game. I didn’t worry about the Giants’ post-Super Bowl plans, so why should I worry about what the president does after the election? He or she can go out for pizza, take a vacation, claim unconstitutional executive powers. Whatever. It’s none of my business. After all, a piece of information that can’t be conveyed to me through colorful maps and random percentage numbers is a piece of information I feel comfortable ignoring.


You may ask, “If all you care about is who’s winning, who will you vote for?” Easy — whoever’s winning. I don’t want my vote getting wasted on some loser. That would reflect badly on me. So I’m grateful that the media is spotlighting the candidates’ most crucial feature: how good they are at games. Without that kind of help, we may never have elected our current president, a man who understands that the abstract idea of “winning” is crucial for running an effective government. Then just imagine what bad shape this country would be in!

Elliott Kalan

Posted by: Amanda at April 25, 2008 1:38 PM


Let's look at this again.

"Yale official said that a scientific test found no traces of human blood in the Davenport College senior's art studio, although there was no way to determine whether the project in its entirety had been examined."

No human blood. Not even menstrual blood. Good job giving the girl all the attention she wanted, Jill.

Posted by: Edyt at April 25, 2008 2:16 PM


This should alarm abortion proponents, whose primary defense of said act is "the right to privacy!" these days. But so far they haven't risen against Yale for this invasion, as they have risen against OH parents for wanting the same information from an abortion mill re: their minor daughter's illegal abortion, as they have risen against KS prosecutor Phill Kline for wanting the same information from abortion mills to confirm or deny illegal abortions. So far they've remained silent here. Why?

Because it's fake. And we called it a week ago, said the girl was nuts, and decided not to give the attention whore any more of our time, rather than get hysterical about it and feel like legal abortion was threatened. Because it never was.

Posted by: Edyt at April 25, 2008 2:18 PM


Why is Yale censoring the Shvarts art?

This one's too easy.

Of course, Yale was fine and dandy with it until the story leaked and the press found out and a bunch of people got all concerned about whether or not it had actually been done. Yale has the right to decide what goes up in their own galleries, and Yale decided they didn't want negative press or backlash for allowing it to go up.

Come on, Jill... think about it.

Posted by: Edyt at April 25, 2008 2:21 PM


And... can't any of you at least be glad that this nut didn't produce any real children? Seriously now. Do you want this woman going through pregnancy and creating "pregnancy art" by bruising her abdomen? Having a child and using her child's urine or feces as "child art"?

Posted by: Edyt at April 25, 2008 2:24 PM


Berger Guy,


Just yesterday I was having a conversation with my dad and the subject of his childhood came up. In a word, he described it as hopeless: no positive male role model, lack of nurturing, witness to physical, emotional, and sexual abuse, crushing poverty, alcoholism...


This from a man who managed to serve as a captain in the Air Force, be married 38 years, successfully retiring, has a close-knit nuclear family and a great sense of humor and wisdom. And built his own house, no background in engineering and design whatsoever. Pretty awesome house, I might add.


I'm guessing it's easier (for you, anyways) to terminate than having "absolutely no concern about whether those unwanted children will ever have a decent life."

Posted by: carder at April 25, 2008 2:40 PM


Edyt,

can't any of you at least be glad that this nut didn't produce any real children?

I am.

Posted by: mk at April 25, 2008 2:41 PM


Let's look at this again.

"Yale official said that a scientific test found no traces of human blood in the Davenport College senior's art studio, although there was no way to determine whether the project in its entirety had been examined."

No human blood. Not even menstrual blood. Good job giving the girl all the attention she wanted, Jill.


Posted by: Edyt at April 25, 2008 2:16 PM

Let's look at this yet again.

I agree this woman is nuts, and this so called "art" project is improbable. However,
just because they found no traces of blood in her studio does not conclude that she didn't
create this "art".

PS Edyt, Jess and anyone else this statement applies to:

It really angers me that Jill goes to the lengths she does to research, edit, comment on, and post topics of discussion that YOU participate in quite often; and you have the utter gall to question her judgement in posting them. Give me a break.

If you don't like what's posted. Don't comment.
Quite simple. It's Jill's "choice" to post what she wants on her blog.

Posted by: Sandy at April 25, 2008 2:53 PM


Carder, some kids turn out okay, others don't. Hinging an entire debate on abortion over whether the child will turn out right is ridiculous.

Posted by: Edyt at April 25, 2008 2:54 PM


EDYT: Stop making generalizations about this story being over. You quoted yourself at 2:16 that it isn't known if the entire project has been examined, but failed to put that part of the sentence in bold letters.

What ever happened to our right to free speech?

Posted by: Janet at April 25, 2008 2:55 PM


Edyt,
Tell that to PCers. Your side is constantly using this argument!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Sandy at April 25, 2008 2:56 PM


Jill -

I've noticed you've been silent in terms of responding to the MANY comments about not buying in to this girls obvious attention-getting stunt.

Your posts about this girl always include the word "alarm" several times, yet you try to make it seem like its the pro choicers who should be alarmed, when clearly they're not - and you are.

Do you not see that by being alarmed by this, or thinking people should be alarmed by this, you are DIRECTLY REWARDING HER for her actions.

People do stupid things for attention all the time. Why? Because they keep getting it from fools who love to get all worked up over sensationalistic garbage.

It was SO far fatched from the get-go that she actually inseminated and aborted so many times in such a short period of time, by her own hand... if everyone had been as cynical about the liklihood of that actually being true as they should have been, this wouldn't have turned in to a big stupid circus, that will without a doubt result in some art gallery paying this girl to display her crap and reward her for being an attention whore.

Posted by: Amanda at April 25, 2008 2:56 PM


Erin, 12:28p, asked me: "What's your take on Yoko Ono suing the Expelled movie?"

All I can go on is the Expelled response:

In an e-mailed statement, Premise spokeswoman Megan Erhardt acknowledged that Ono didn't license the song for use in the film. She said the "fair use" legal doctrine entitles the public to "freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism." The filmmakers have labeled the film a documentary.

"Unbiased viewers of the film will see that the 'Imagine' clip was used as part of a social commentary in the exercise of free speech and freedom of inquiry," Erhardt said.

The courts will have to determine who's right.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at April 25, 2008 2:57 PM


Edyt: 2:54: Carder, some kids turn out okay, others don't. Hinging an entire debate on abortion over whether the child will turn out right is ridiculous.

Carder's point exactly.


Posted by: Janet at April 25, 2008 2:58 PM


Whoa, Janet, I'm agreeing with her then. Chill out. There are better reasons for agreeing with the pro-choice side than "omg whut about teh kidz?"

Posted by: Edyt at April 25, 2008 3:04 PM


Your posts about this girl always include the word "alarm" several times, yet you try to make it seem like its the pro choicers who should be alarmed, when clearly they're not - and you are.

Do you not see that by being alarmed by this, or thinking people should be alarmed by this, you are DIRECTLY REWARDING HER for her actions.
Posted by: Amanda at April 25, 2008 2:56 PM

Amanda,
I haven't gotten the impression that Jill thinks the pro-choice side should be alarmed at all. Real or phony, I think it is curious why they aren't coming to her rescue. Where are the pro-choice marches to support this artist? Where are the pro-choice signs to support this artist? Where are the petitions to support her art?
Where is the ACLU?

I am more "alarmed" that NARAL came out against this piece of "art".

NARAL's stated that her art would offend women who had miscarriages. I am more outraged that NARAL has distanced the word abortion from her art by using the word miscarriage in it's place.

I am offended by NARAL. There is a huge difference between a natural occurence of miscarriage and an induced abortion.

I would appreciate you comment on that.

Posted by: Sandy at April 25, 2008 3:11 PM


Edyt: ?

Posted by: Janet at April 25, 2008 3:13 PM


Sandy -

I think NARAL's response was stupid.

I think the whole thing is stupid.

I dont think Pro Choicers are supporting her because I dont think the vast majority of people thought this actually had to do with abortion, but rather a really stupid (yes, I'm being redundant) STUNT pulled off by an attention whore.

Just the same as most of you Pro Lifer's ignored that idiot who changed his name to "Pro Life". Why? Because it was a stupid publicity stunt, and you all knew it - whether or not you agreed with him that abortion should be banned. No one, not a single person, on this thread, jumped to his defense when people posted about what a crazy loon he was.


As far as Jill thinking pro choicers should be alarmed, she said as much:
"This should alarm abortion proponents, whose primary defense of said act is "the right to privacy!"

It has nothing to do with the right to privacy. It has to do with it being overwhelmingly obvious the only goal this girl had was to create controversy. She didn't want any privacy, she wanted to make a big stink. And guess what - she won.

Posted by: Amanda at April 25, 2008 3:25 PM


I am offended by NARAL. There is a huge difference between a natural occurence of miscarriage and an induced abortion.

Posted by: Sandy at April 25, 2008 3:11 PM
.......................................

The difference between a spontaneous abortion and an induced abortion would be that one is desired and the other is not. Heaven forbid that women should get what they want. Better they have no choice and be left to the whims of 'nature'.

Posted by: Sally at April 25, 2008 3:33 PM


Heaven forbid that women should get what they want. Better they have no choice and be left to the whims of 'nature'.

Posted by: Sally at April 25, 2008 3:33 PM

Sally,
What's your point?

Posted by: Sandy at April 25, 2008 3:48 PM


Sally,
What's your point?

Posted by: Sandy at April 25, 2008 3:48 PM
..........................................................

The HUGE difference between the intentional end of a pregnancy and the unintentional. Did you really need an explanation?

Posted by: Sally at April 25, 2008 5:21 PM


The HUGE difference between the intentional end of a pregnancy and the unintentional. Did you really need an explanation?

Ummm, Sally, I believe that's called preaching to the choir?

Everyone understands that unintentional ends to a pregnancy are bad. What everyone doesn't seem to understand is that intentional ends to a pregnancy are worse...they are evil.

Posted by: mk at April 25, 2008 6:15 PM


The HUGE difference between the intentional end of a pregnancy and the unintentional. Did you really need an explanation?

Ummm, Sally, I believe that's called preaching to the choir?

Everyone understands that unintentional ends to a pregnancy are bad. What everyone doesn't seem to understand is that intentional ends to a pregnancy are worse...they are evil.

Posted by: mk at April 25, 2008 6:15 PM
...................................................................

That is your opinion. You demand that people make lemonade from lemons when it suits your personal assignment of positive value to a thing or situation. You seem to have an excessive need to label everything good or bad. Completely missing out on the complexities of life and all those grey areas.
Do you have the fear of being a really really mean and cruel person without having placed those good/bad signs all over the place to keep you from harming others? Do you believe that religion is the only thing that keeps you from complete sociopathy?

Posted by: Sally at April 26, 2008 1:13 AM


Sally,

I understand why you see me that way...but some things just ARE black and white, and it has nothing to do with religion.

Do you see rape as having lots of gray areas? Do you think that under certain circumstances it could be considered a good thing, or an "okay" thing? I doubt it.

If you don't, then would it be a fair question to ask you if nonreligion is the only thing that keeps you from being a complete sociopath? After all, you see rape as a black and white issue...

Posted by: mk at April 26, 2008 5:34 AM



A pro-abort guest columnist wrote in YDN yesterday: It is "art," she claims. Fine. Sure. I might even agree. But Shvarts cannot be so naive as to ignore the fact that millions of people do not agree and see this only as an abuse of choice. Just because she does not (as I do not) endow abortion with moral ideology, she must recognize that more than half of voters in America do. They will judge her piece. They will moralize it. And they will use it as impetus to ban abortion.

Jill said:"More than half"? Interesting acknowledgement.

Ditto, Jill. More than half of voters? Hmmmmm.

Posted by: Janet at April 26, 2008 8:37 AM


To Elizabeth G and Carla - please check out www.adoptuskids.org as one of many sites that will confirm not all children in this country are so easily found a home. The flocking to other (much more expensive) countries to adopt is to fulfill the desire to adopt exactly what the parents want - babies and babies of a certain ethnicity. Adoption in this country is cheap (my two were virtually free) and easy - unless you want a baby and a baby of a certain type, in particular. So, where are the 1.4 million families going to come from to adopt children born once abortion is illegal when we don't have homes for thousands of children already?

Posted by: Sydney at April 26, 2008 8:51 AM


Sydney,
I agreed with Elizabeth that ALL children are wanted. Wanted by the God who made them and families who would love to give them a home. I've never assumed that adoption is easy.

Posted by: Carla at April 26, 2008 9:02 AM


Hi again Sydney,
I would love to adopt. Why were your children cheap or virtually free? I think it is the money that discourages a lot of people from adopting.

Posted by: Carla at April 26, 2008 9:21 AM


It's not a question of whether life is
"worth living".It's a question of whether
those poor women will be able to provide for
them,and the whole family.Forcing women to bear
children in difficult circumstances causes
severe difficulties for the whole family
and society in general.It just increases
poverty and misery.That's why anti-choicers
are such hypocrites by supporting republican
administrations which deprive the poor of
the help they need to break out of poverty.
Look at prosperous countries in Europe
such as Germany,the Netherlands,Switzerland,
Austria,and the Scandinavian countries.
Here you find the worl's LOWEST abortion
rates.Why? The government really takes care
of people.They don't have to worry about
losing their homes if they lose their job,or
whether they will be able to support their
families.Not everything is perfect in these
countries;sure,they have their problems.
But in many ways,people are much better off
and secure there.

Posted by: robert berger at April 26, 2008 12:42 PM


Robert,
With all due respect.... come on.
Hypocrites? Please. Republicans stand on the platform that people shouldn't and don't have to rely on the government to take care of their every need. Why do these poor helpless women continue to get pregnant?

You can thank the liberal ideal of starting the "great society" which basically made people slaves to the welfare system. More children equaled more money. This debacle started a generational cycle of people feeding off of the government for all of their needs. There was no incentive for people to get off of their dead butts and go find work. There was no incentive for women to quit cranking out children.

BTW, these poor pregnant women you speak of are largely irresponsible college aged women who engage in promiscuous sex.

Not getting pregnant is quite simple. It's called responsibility.


Posted by: Sandy at April 26, 2008 1:16 PM


Robert said:

It's a question of whether
those poor women will be able to provide for
them,and the whole family.

Sandy's right.

Where's the penis? Or do the guys get A$$ on a free pass?

Posted by: Anonymous at April 26, 2008 3:19 PM


Just to clarify - my adoptions were cheap and easy - my children have proven to be very expensive :) I adopted after someone referred me to the website I referenced - my children had been awaiting adoption >2 years each - bouncing from foster home to foster home. Many states will waive most if not all the cost of adopting these children, who are at high risk of never being placed because of their age and, I assume, ethnicity. If someone is having a hard time adopting in this country I can only guess it is because they are being picky about their criteria.

So, my doubts remain as to who will step up to care for the 1 million + additional infants & children (knowing not every mother whose child ultimately ends up in the foster care/adoption system chooses adoption at the time of birth) who would be born in this country every year if abortion became illegal.

Posted by: Sydney at April 26, 2008 5:16 PM


Sydney,

Who took care of them before 1973?

Posted by: mk at April 26, 2008 6:40 PM


Sydney,
I went on the website. interesting. Lots of sibling groups.

How accurate were the descriptions of your adoptees (kids)based on your own personal experience?

Posted by: carder at April 26, 2008 8:16 PM


To carder - they went above and beyond to be sure we were aware of any and all 'issues.' Understandable, I guess, since if the adoptive family was unable to care for the child it would be a disaster, but I kept thinking any biological child could have many of the same problems - having children is a crap shoot no matter how you go about it. My first child (not the two I mentioned above) was adopted from a family member after the death of her mother and came from a very abusive environment - the second two were cake compared to the issues we dealt with with her.

The biological mother of my youngest is expecting again and, while she plans to parent, her baby will need to go to a foster family initially until she meets criteria for DSS to allow her to raise the child. DSS has contacted me as a potential foster mother since I have the baby's sibling but I am struggling with the idea of bringing a child into our home who may well leave as my children all already have suffered so many losses and have attachment issues.

To mk - great question - that was before my time so I have no idea what the answer to that is. All I know is that we (as a country) don't provide for the children we have - we don't adequately fund schools, school lunches, health care, children are the most impoverished demographic in our country etc etc- and I have a hard time envisioning what would happen if we increased the number born by 1 million a year (more or less - knowing that with every pregnancy some women will choose sterilization or otherwise avoid future pregnancies that they might not if they had had an abortion).

Posted by: Sydney at April 27, 2008 6:29 PM


Sydney,
God bless you for choosing to adopt! We need to hear more about the experiences of people like you to help others keep the option of adoption in the front of their minds!

Posted by: Janet at April 28, 2008 12:40 PM