The Art of Smashmortion

There's a sense in which the best pro-life response to the Yale student whose "senior art project" involved repeatedly impregnating herself using artificial insemination and then taking abortifacent drugs to induce miscarriage would be to ignore her completely, rather than rewarding her with the spluttering outrage she's obviously seeking. That said, as much as I'd like to see the appalling Ms. Shvarts denied the satisfaction of the publicity she craves, there's a larger sense in which stories like these - with the uncomfortable questions they raise for at least some segments of the pro-choice side - are too helpful to the pro-life cause to be ignored. So keep flogging it, Drudge!

Also, am I the only one who detects a whiff of fraud about this project? I mean, does this sound like any Yale seniors you know?

She said she was not concerned about any medical effects the forced miscarriages may have had on her body. The abortifacient drugs she took were legal and herbal, she said, and she did not feel the need to consult a doctor about her repeated miscarriages.

I know, I know, she's passionate and fearless about her "art," willing to go to any lengths to shock the bourgeoisie. But still ...

Update: Yuval Levin shares my skepticism.

Comments

Good luck landing a decent guy, you dumb [self-censored].

That's basically like purposefully making yourself into a skank without even getting to sleep around.

Weak.

Posted by Jeff | April 17, 2008 1:07 PM

I couldn't agree more. This idea--whether or not it's true--is far more damaging to the choice movement than to anyone else. The idea that someone would recklessly and intentionally try to abort as frequently as possible is exactly what gives the "life" movement motivation and credibility.

I feel rather confident is saying that the vast consensus on both sides of the issue is that there should be as few abortions as possible. While most choice advocates think this should be achieved through educations, and most "life" proponents think this should be through a ban, I'm struggling to think of any way in which this project is admirable.

Posted by david | April 17, 2008 1:15 PM

Oh, please Ross. It's a non-issue. On at least two levels.

First of all, for most people early term abortions aren't terribly morally fraught at all. It's the late term abortions where the pro-life movement has made some headway in terms of public opinion (unfairly so IMO, but that's a subject for a different comment. Basically, late term abortions are rare, and when they occur it is never a case of an "unwanted" pregnacy").

Secondly ... let's draw an analogy. Let's say there was a movement to make premarital sex illegal. Would, say, a person whose senior art project consisted of seducing innocent women under false pretenses increase the support for such a law? Hardly. But abortion is different you say? Its murderrrrrrr you say? The people who believe it is murder are already in favor of changing the law. People who may be somewhat uncomfortable with abortion, but who don't think it's murder? You think those people are going to be swayed by a loony Yale art student (especially one who, as you say yourself, probably isn't really doing what she claims to be doing)? Not hardly.

Posted by LarryM | April 17, 2008 1:41 PM

The idea that someone would recklessly and intentionally try to abort as frequently as possible is exactly what gives the "life" movement motivation

True.

and credibility.

I disagree.

The whole reason this shows up is because it's such a consciously offensive, obnoxious project. Its impact in terms of policy is zero. If you want to get upset about it, it's not very hard to do.

Frankly, given that she is, as far as I know, the only person ever to do this, she is less relevant to the debate than pro-life people who murder doctors.

The "it's herbal, it can't be bad!" is a nice touch. Hey, Ms. Shvarts, try hemlock. It's 100% natural!

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | April 17, 2008 1:45 PM

As to David's point: Both sides of the abortion debate certainly agree that there should be as few abortions as possible if we assume that every abortion represents an unwanted pregnancy. Unwanted pregnancies, by definition, are bad. We see abortion as something to avoid because the decision to abort may be emotionally difficult for the woman involved, because preventive measures of birth control are safer and cheaper, and because a lot of bad complications follow from the fact that abortion is morally controversial in our society. But if you stipulate that the woman involved intends to get pregnant specifically to have an abortion, can execute the abortion costlessly and with no risk to herself, and is not concerned with the broader implications of abortion (e.g., stigma for herself, bothering other people who see abortion as immoral) -- and in fact welcomes those implications in order to make a political/artistic point -- I'm not sure all pro-choice advocates would have a principled reason to object. Those who are convinced that embryos have absolutely no right not to be destroyed and that society generally has no right to prevent individuals' destruction of their own embryos (and I think I probably count myself among them) would not have a moral objection to this "art" project, but only one that disagrees with the tactics or political ethics of the project.

Posted by Dave | April 17, 2008 1:46 PM

I agree with Ross that this is a phony story. My BS detector is in high gear. HERBAL abortion drugs? How safe and effective are they? As far as I know, RU-486 was a big breakthrough (whatever one thinks of the morality) because it was the first time that a substance was clinically proven to induce abortions consistently without debilitating side effects to the woman. (And, of course, even with RU-486, there are side effects; they are the kinds of things that a woman could very well say were "worth it" if she needs an abortion, but they aren't trivial either.)

Posted by Dilan Esper | April 17, 2008 2:25 PM

Fair minded people

Your Choice

"Safe Legal and Rare"

Or

"Culture of Death"

Posted by Fitz | April 17, 2008 2:27 PM

Uh, Dilan, people have been using 'herbal' drugs to induce abortion for the last several millennia. Silphium, oil of tansy, yam juice, and many others. Of course they often weren't safe- do you think Ms. Shvarts is smart enough to realize that? But I assure you that there are many, many 'herbal' abortion drugs out there.

Posted by Hector | April 17, 2008 2:38 PM

As for Ms. Shvarts, the best description of her
'art' that I can think of at the moment is the following quotation from _The Everlasting Man._

"But with the appeal to lower spirits comes the horrible notion that the gesture must not only be very small but very low; that it must be a monkey trick of an utterly ugly and unworthy sort. Sooner or later a man deliberately sets himself to do the most disgusting thing he can think of. It is felt that the extreme of evil will extort a sort of attention or answer from the evil powers under the surface of the world. This is the meaning of most of the cannibalism in the world.

"For most cannibalism is not a primitive or even a bestial habit. It is artificial and even artistic; a sort of art for art's sake. Men do not do it because they do not think it horrible; but, on the contrary, because they do think it horrible. They wish, in the most literal sense, to sup on horrors. That is why it is often found that rude races like the Australian natives are not cannibals, while much more refined and intelligent races, like the New Zealand Maories, occasionally are. They are refined and intelligent enough to indulge sometimes in a self-conscious diabolism. But if we could understand their minds, or even really understand their language, we should probably find that they were not acting as ignorant, that is as innocent cannibals. They are not doing it because they do not think it wrong, but precisely because they do think it wrong. They are acting like a Parisian decadent at a Black Mass."

Self-conscious diabolism, indeed.

Posted by Hector | April 17, 2008 2:41 PM

Ha! Awesome. I do wish that she'd proudly embraced the shock value angle, though. Shocking people is a fun and worthwhile endeavor!

Posted by Senescent | April 17, 2008 3:08 PM

Hector:

I didn't say there weren't herbal abortion drugs. I said that RU-486 was the first drug that was proven safe and effective enough to be used for this purpose. And you wouldn't even want to induce repeated abortions with RU-486 (assuming no moral qualms), due to the side effects.

So with herbal preparations, anything remotely powerful enough to consistently work (and it has to consistently work-- god knows this woman doesn't want to have a baby!) is going to have much greater side effects than RU-486 and is going to pose a big-time safety risk.

I am sorry, I don't buy it.

Posted by Dilan Esper | April 17, 2008 5:06 PM

For the record, the commenters at feministe think it's probably a hoax too:

http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/04/17/abortion-as-art/#comments

Posted by Dilan Esper | April 17, 2008 5:17 PM

Uh Dilan, is there any reason why this woman can't be dumb as well as immoral? For one thing, if she was smarter she would have chosen a better art project. Of course she is putting herself at risk, of poisoning herself, but I don't think she knows that.

And as for those feminist bloggers, _of course_ their natural reaction is to doubt it, until they receive conclusive proof- is that a surprise? People are normally less quick to believe things that question their ideological presumptions. Not to mention that I'm not particularly impressed with those 'feministe' characters anyway either with respect to intelligence or intellectual honesty.

Posted by Hector | April 17, 2008 6:28 PM

As an art project (and I'm with the "probably a hoax, maybe she did it once, and used RU-486, but I don't buy THIS story" crowd), it's an idiotic evil abomination.

But I'll give it 9 out of 10 stars as a black magic ritual.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | April 17, 2008 7:00 PM

Marquis,

Indeed. This story is remarkably similar to the kinds of things that witches were said to do in olden times, and probably from much the same inspiration. Stories like this furnish remarkable proof that the devil is as much with us today as he ever was in the past, and as much a source of malign inspiration as God inspires the good. No one could be this purely malignant, for its own sake, on their own initiative.

Posted by Hector | April 17, 2008 7:11 PM

Well, my money is that she's (A) lying and (B) doing it to invoke outrage, shock, and news stories. Diabolical, but probably not in the more "interesting" way.

Still, it really does sound like one of those things, yes -- I think there's a fascinating territory of nightmare to be explored in the eventual intersection of that kind of occult objective and the novel abuses science will make possible. Though I guess hers is rather old fashioned really, if she's actually little Miss Organic Abortifacents Only (which is so parodical it really should be in a new Waugh novel instead of at Yale).

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | April 17, 2008 7:21 PM

Mr. Douthat,
You were right, it was faked:
http://www.yale.edu/opa/

Does this make her more or less of an awful person. I say more; she wants plaudits for shocking our bourgeois sensibilities, but too much of a hypocrite to actually go through with it.

Posted by Matthias | April 17, 2008 7:29 PM

Hector, you might want to recalibrate your BS detector.

Of course, we agnostics are less credulous (smile).

Posted by Dilan Esper | April 17, 2008 7:35 PM

"I mean, does this sound like any Yale seniors you know?"

Who knows if this is real or hoax, but if you have trouble imagining an ambitious undergrad art major engaging in such behavior, you've obviously never hung around with art majors.

Folks like Chris Burden - who had himself intentionally shot as an art project - do have a certain sway on art theory. If you don't know Burden and Joe Coleman, and you're oblivious to the freak show influences in art over the past couple of decades, this will seem a lot less likely to you than it actually is.

Posted by Petey | April 17, 2008 8:18 PM

Matthias,

Better a hypocrite than a fiend.

Dilan,

There are people who would do this sort of thing. Materialists often start by underestimating the human capacity to be good for its own sake, and they end by underestimating the human capacity to be evil for its own sake. General Milton Blahyi used to eat baby hearts before leading his troops into battle, less than fifteen years ago. This happened in the late twentieth century. We Americans are more sophisticated than the Liberians but I don't think we have any less of a propensity to evil.

Posted by Hector | April 17, 2008 9:46 PM

Hector:

Get out of the theoretical world for a moment and admit you got snookered.

Posted by Dilan Esper | April 17, 2008 9:59 PM

I think it's a hoax and it's a brilliant one, considering the total lack of interest every single movement conservative now has in discussing the continual Bushpig-approved slaughter of actual human beings in Iraq.

A few centimeters of goo vs. how many thousands of sentient humans who never did anything to us - and guess which gets Ross worried enough to type out a comment? It's the GOO!

But then of course it is. He voted for the slaughter in Iraq and cheered for "victory" as it ensued. Better to worry about goo than to face the fact that you've been a cheerleader for war criminals, I guess.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 17, 2008 11:17 PM

"There are people who would do this sort of thing." Hector

I doubt there's very many. For one repeatedly impregnating yourself, I think, would cost a good deal of money. Even if you did it "the old-fashioned way" it'd cost the woman time and open her up to increased risk of STDs. For another I don't think women can know they're pregnant all that fast, at least not without further expense. So I'm not sure how many times she could even do the trick in a 9 month span. Lastly I don't see how she can do all this without doctors discovering it and suggesting counseling.

So you'd need a woman who has loads of time on her hand, has a good deal of money of her own, and is extremely foolish yet can somehow placate doctors. I don't think that combination is very common.

Posted by Thomas R | April 18, 2008 12:50 AM

Shvarts denies Yale's denial (more or less):

"...Shvarts reiterated Thursday that she repeatedly use a needleless syringe to insert semen into herself. At the end of her menstrual cycle, she took abortifacient herbs to induce bleeding, she said. She said she does not know whether or not she was ever pregnant.

"'No one can say with 100-percent certainty that anything in the piece did or did not happen,' Shvarts said, 'because the nature of the piece is that it did not consist of certainties.'

"This afternoon, Shvarts showed the News footage from tapes she plans to play at the exhibit. The tapes depict Shvarts — sometimes naked, sometimes clothed — alone in a shower stall bleeding into a cup...

"...Shvarts said the goal of her exhibition was to spark conversation and debate about the relationship between art and the human body."

Etc.

Posted by Steve Burton | April 18, 2008 9:46 AM

Are we all reactionaries now? Even if this story had been true (and it's amazing how often stories like this turn out to be either false or much more nuanced than originally reported) all it would mean is that out of thousands of art students all over America, most of whom are trying to do something new and many of whom are trying to be "provocative," someone came up with a crazy, disgusting idea that is highly offensive to most "normal" people. Yet we're taking this single incident, in an incredibly diverse and free country where people can say or do just about anything that comes into their head, to make larger points about abortion politics.

It is ridiculous to claim that Ms. Shvarts' views, as they can be deduced from her "art" and what she chooses to say about it, represent the views of the millions of Americans who think that abortion should be safe, legal and rare. Unless, of course, your primary mission is to stir up outrage, in which case it makes perfect sense to trumpet this to the heavens to make sure that everyone knows the evil that lurks in the hearts of all pro-choice people.

Posted by Geoff G | April 18, 2008 12:18 PM

Quite simply

It is not the "evil that lurks in the hearts of all pro-choice people" but rather living under a pro-choice regime that the Shvarts “art” exemplifies. It is precisely the ”Culture of Death” that such regimes inevitably produce.

Posted by Fitz | April 18, 2008 2:19 PM

Fitz, you putz, the choice is CAKE or death.

Posted by Flavor Flavius Julianus | April 18, 2008 3:11 PM

"It is ridiculous to claim that Ms. Shvarts' views, as they can be deduced from her "art" and what she chooses to say about it, represent the views of the millions of Americans who think that abortion should be safe, legal and rare. Unless, of course, your primary mission is to stir up outrage, in which case it makes perfect sense to trumpet this to the heavens to make sure that everyone knows the evil that lurks in the hearts of all pro-choice people. "

Right, that's why nobody claimed it.

But the pro-choice legal regime protects the right to carry out a project like Shvart's just as surely as it protects the right of an incest rape victim with an ectopic pregnancy.

In a society thant condemned abortion, this type of project would be unthinkable. In the world we live in, it is not only thinkable, but perfectly legal.

Posted by JohnMcG | April 21, 2008 3:16 PM