Comments on: How many abortions could an artist abort…

By: binsk

binsk — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 06:25:36 +0000

yet, after we all agree with her right to do what she wants with her body, can’t we make a value judgement to say, “this is pretty dumb”?

By: Voyou Desoeuvre » Blog Archive » Pro-choice means never having to say you’re sorry

Mon, 21 Apr 2008 22:55:31 +0000

[...] I’m in favor of abortion or, in the rather impoverished language of contemporary debate, I’m pro-choice. That would include the choice of art students to artificially inseminate themselves and then induce miscarriages as part of their work. But a lot of the response on the internet to Aliza Shvartzs’s artwork has been of the “I’m as pro-choice as anyone, as long as women don’t make choices I disagree with” variety. I think it’s a real weakness of the pro-choice position that abortion is so often spoken of in hushed terms, treated as unpleasant, tragic, something awful that must, perhaps, be allowed in some circumstances when entered into with the proper degree of gravity. But this isn’t really a pro-choice position at all; treating abortion as somehow an especially grave matter buys completely into the pro-life position that there’s something wrong about abortion (indeed, the idea that you can have an abortion, but only if you treat it with the requisite degree of moral seriousness, is not conceptually different from the idea that you can have an abortion, but only if you are the victim of rape: it depends on a misogynist distinction between “responsible” and “irresponsible” women). For more on this see an old LBO post by shag, and this excellent post on the current controversy. [...]

By: Alex

Alex — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 10:35:24 +0000

It should not be dangerous beyond basic biological consequences for her to have as many abortions as she wants, for any reason. – that really brought home to me what a different culture I’m living in, because it did not occur to me until I read those words that there could be any *other* type of danger being referred to above.

I know a couple of performance artists who routinely put their bodies through a lot of punishment, with risks and potentially permanent side effects, and – well – if they want to do that, feel compelled to do that, make an informed choice to do that – they should do that. (and given the society I live in, it may be worth adding ‘and, yes, my taxes should pay for their health care if one of those risks goes sour’. )

By: ande

ande — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 03:51:08 +0000

If one of the results of her art is more restriction, then we aren’t trying hard enough. We’re to blame, as a society and as a movement. Not her. I am sick of women being afraid to get in trouble. I am sick of the ‘you’ll make them angry at us!’ banner being waved in the faces of the defiant. I am tired of feeling like a child in a dysfunctional family when I am a full grown human being.

I absolutely feel that women should not use abortion as their primary form of birth control, because, yes, they should have access to better fertility control. Women shouldn’t have to be unduly inconvenienced or stressed by the preservation of their reproductive freedom.

I don’t think she crossed any line that didn’t need to be crossed. I think any censure of her art should be in a lack of attention, if one feels it necessary. The reaction to it has been horrible and cleansing at once, like an abscess being lanced.

I don’t think there is a line here, ethically. Because once you say “it’s wrong to do something legal to your body for frivolous purposes”, you are in dangerous territory. Define frivolous or unnecessary. I refuse to put an ethical line there — regardless of my personal feelings on the matter — because I want abortion to be safe, legal, and free of shame for every woman in the world. If we back down on abortion, we back down on birth control. We back down on everything. If someone wants a clump of cells suctioned out of their body, that’s their choice. I think it is too dangerous to put ethical boundaries around the process.

By: Starshadow

Starshadow — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 03:14:33 +0000

I had to think about this one for a while.

Do I think it’s art? No. But then, we all have our own definitions of “art.” I didn’t think the fellow who urinated on canvas was creating art, either.

Do I think it’s a statement? Yes, most definitely.

We all say there should be no line – and yet there is always a line, inside each one of us. For every ethical dilemma, for every hot issue, inside each one of us is a line: “That far, but no further.”

Did she cross my line? Yeah, I think she did. I will always support a woman’s right to do with her body as she chooses, but I can also acknowledge that there’s something awry with the system if a woman is using abortions as her primary means of birth control. A huge part of the problem, of course, is easy, affordable birth control.

I would like to see a world where R&D developed effective birth control that was also safe, and a world where said birth control was made readily available to all women. Many of the options currently available aren’t nearly as effective as we’d like, and/or they have potentially nasty side effects (mucking about with one’s hormones is not a good thing). If it were the men who were the ones getting pregnant, you can bet that there’d be a lot of $$ spent on developing birth control methods, and you can bet it would be easily available (and affordable).

She may not have crossed the line for everyone, but she did for some. Was it a line that needed to be crossed? Maybe yes, maybe no. If one of the results of her performance art/statement is more restrictions on access to abortion, how will we feel then about what she’s done?