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):
yale spokesperson.jpg
But according to YDN, Svarts is standing by her story (click to enlarge)…

shvarts explains.jpg
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?
students protest.jpgFor 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,]

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...