Welcome to Gaia! ::

http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1732162,00.html?xid=rss-topstories



Basically a Yale student said her latest art piece would consist of her inducing miscarriages for 9 months, and putting the fetus/blood mixture on display, along with pictures of her inducing her miscarriages. A lot of Anti-Choice crazies have decided to make this an abortion debate issue, simply because it involves fetuses. They want us to believe we should be happy with a decision like this, because we're for a woman's right to choose. They seem to think this is a reason to limit, or outright ban abortion, because "zOMG women will get thousands of abortions!"

I've also seen some startling comments from Pro-Choicers, including the notion that this is 'taking Pro-Choice too far', 'insensitive towards women', and 'hurtful to all those women who have suffered miscarriages'. Doesn't that last one sound like the antis who say abortion should be banned, because some women regret their abortion? Makes you women who's actually Pro-Choice doesn't it?

When I first heard about this, I didn't think it was real. I mean, come on people, seriously? Blood is a biohazard, and can't be displayed in a school behind a simple plastic sheet. My second concern was for the woman. Inducing miscarriages can be extremely dangerous. However, not once did I feel what she was doing should be stopped, or that this could, or should have any baring on the abortion debate. Whether a woman has 1 abortion, or 2000 is besides the point. One woman making a choice shouldn't have anything to do with a woman's right to choose.


Oh, and to the Anti-Choice ******** who tried to make it look like a Pro-Choicer was wrong for saying there is nothing wrong with what this woman *claimed* to have done - ******** YOU. I guess your attempt at being a mindless troll failed, unless your goal was to prove you are a subhuman douche nozzle , in which case you succeeded.

You should be.

If you believe a woman's right to bodily integrity dictates her body is her own and that no one, including fetuses, may use it or continue to use it after an initial use without ongoing consent, then what she did is morally acceptable.

Honestly, I see nothing wrong with what she did. Her body, her choice to use it as she pleases and deny it's use to whomever she wants. I think it is unwise to intentionally put your body at risk and do what she did, but I don't think it should be in any way prohibited (I mean I think it is stupid to get tatoos and to perform extreme body mutilations, but I won't try to stop others from doing it to themselves either).

It does. My right to control who uses my body and when, and to employ the use of lethal force should it be necessary is not contingent upon whether or not some other couple out there can't get knocked up.

Does dried blood pose the same hazard?
Because blood used as a medium, like paint, is involved in a lot of (mainly feminist and menstruation-related) art, and is also displayed in galleries.
It's probably different if you spray it with varnish or fixitive, but Idunno.
I still wouldn't be surprised if the Yale artist DOES display a blood-art piece and it's just not miscarriage-related blood.

More on topic, I think it's interesting the kind of responses this generated from the pro-choice (or "pro-choice," quotes exagerrated) crowd. The responses from the pro-lifers I found typical and mainly boring, but the "THIS IS AN ABUSE OF OUR RIGHT" and "THIS SHOULDNT BE ALLOWED BAWWWW" replies from pro-choicers I found very interesting.

The Hepatitis viruses live for a couple weeks in blood, even dried blood. So, it is a health risk, actually, to a degree. With dried blood, Hepatitis is a LOT scarier than HIV. HIV is worse, but it dies a lot quicker.

While I understand that intuitions differ from person to person... and personal feelings on the topic can vary greatly...


The choice to get an abortion based on bodily integrity (if the fetus is not a person) should be no more morally significant or intuitively abhorrent than the choice to get a tattoo. While someone who has a ton of tattoos may be 'gross' to you, what matters is that you still support their right to get tattoos. Saying a woman who does what this student claimed to have done is in any way abusing her right to abortion or diminishing the choice women make is on par with saying someone with a lot of tattoos is abusing their right to modify their bodies (as though there were some standard of 'acceptable use' implied in 'a right to your body' ), and that the choice to get many tattoos diminishes the choice of one person to get one tattoo. It seems silly to suggest that someone who wants a tattoo should weigh this decision as some hefty morally ambiguous choice rather than what it is - a decision to have a body modification.

In an ideal world abortion does not have this terrible stigma of "it's a necessary evil," because it is not evil. By treating abortion as some hefty moral decision whereby no 'right' choice can be made (not that you're doing this), it slows the progress for women's rights. If abortion is a woman's right because of her bodily autonomy (and the fetus is not a person) then we should be actively trying to change our intuitions to align with this.



*I say if a fetus is not a person, because if you believe it is a person then there may be reason for you to think the choice should not be made lightly.

Yeah, I agree w/ RoseRose. Its not a decision to take lightly, but I also think its a bit different than a tattoo. Tattoos are purely cosmetic. They may be given great significance and help people cope or mark great events in their life, but its still a cosmetic decision. An abortion/having a kid is life changing. It is a decision that will completely change the course of your life one way or the other. And it is an abuse, in my eyes, to contine to do that to your body. Doesn't mean she doesn't have the right to do with her body as she pleases, but I still think its an abuse. Just like its someones choice to drink as much as they want, its destructive to themself, and they may be abusing that right, but its still their right. Aside from the fact that repeatedly doing that to your body would cause GREAT stress and possibly cause further problems. But hey, her body, her right.

Bolded: And I'm saying that the only reason it is currently considered such is because of social values. If abortion is a woman's right, and if you do not believe the fetus is a person (which adds other moral conflicts), the choice to get an abortion should not be any more taxing or significant than any other minor surgery, and it should not be considered 'life changing' when you opt to abort (because you're just going back to the same-old life you had a month or so prior before you knew you were pregnant). I can see the argument that choosing to keep the pregnancy is life-changing, but some cosmetic surgeries have similar life-changing results (not nearly as extreme; but breast augmentation, liposuction, etc can have huge impacts on a person's life).

I do like the analogy to alcohol, it is far more appropriate than tattoos given the damaging nature it has on one's health (although I was under the impression that abortions are not that damaging, and are actually one of the safest surgeries a person can have), but it is not appropriate where harm to others is concerned (tattoos hurt yourself only, abortion hurts you and maybe the male figure who wanted the pregnancy, alcohol hurts you, your friends, your family, your coworkers, your neighbors, and even complete strangers depending on how negligent you are when drunk).

I question, however, that someone is ever actually able to "abuse" their own bodies. We can disagree with their choices as something we wouldn't do to ourselves, but if it is truly their body it is theirs to do with as they please and you don't disagree. Saying someone 'abuses' their body attaches a moral judgment to the actions, and abuse even implies an infraction against someone's rights. If it is entirely their body, and it is their moral right to do with it as they please, how can we judge their choices as good or bad when what they do only affects themselves? If it affects others, that's a whole different story ninja


I don't see much inconsistent in that. It is fine to think that you, personally, would not do something. It is fine to judge that something is unhealthy (for example, "it is a verifiable medical fact that such and such an action has an elevated risk of.... and therefore I do not think it is wise/prudent to do.... without necessity"), or unwise (risky, painful, etc therefore should be avoided)...

...but, like I said to Fallen, it is another to tie a moral judgment of "it's bad," "it's wrong," "it's not good," "it's not right" to an action that is well within the bounds of one's moral/legal rights to do. It's like saying, "I don't think it is a good thing that so-and-so drove to work today." If it is well within your rights to do something, and it is well within your moral rights to do something, and by doing it you harm no one but yourself, there shouldn't be a moral judgment for the act (other judgments are fine). As pro-choicers we should want to work towards removing this "abortion is a moral decision" from the tables, because it only hurts us and women's rights by not making a woman's rights as absolute as they should be (that is, by leaving abortion as "it's a moral decision" rather than "it is absolutely a woman's right" we allow wiggle room for pro-lifers to argue that it shouldn't be absolutely a woman's right).

But, again, the above is only the case where fetuses are not considered people too.
This is very true.

I see what you're saying, but even if it is the decision to go back to the same old same old, its still a decision that changes the course of your life, between having a baby or not. I agree that a fetus is not a person, but I'm not talking about societies view on abortion. But when I made the choice to abort, I chose one path over another. That path may have been the same path I was on before, but its still the choice to follow that path when there is another path right there. It may not seem life changing since its still what you know, but it is fork in the road that is one you cannot change once on it, one way or the other.

And I agree, aborting is not as damaging to other people as alcohol abuse or drug abuse is, but I do believe you can abuse your body. It's yours, again, I believe you have the right as long as you're not hurting anyone else, but I still think its an abuse. That probably goes to my religious beliefs of everyone being sacred though. wink

And yes, abortion is a pretty safe procedure, when done by a doctor/professional, and when done surgically. This girl was saying she was inducing miscarriages herself, which to me just doesn't sound safe or good for your body. Especially if she's using the medical abortion (like the pill option they give you over the vacuum aspiration). The pill one is known to have more side affects if I remember correctly. And even the aspiration can stress your body. I had some nasty after effects due to a crappy yeast infection it caused, and it was brutal, so its safe, but that isn't to say it doesn't freak your body out a little sometimes.