Big Blue Wave's Comments
Well it was so damned illogical that any right thinking person (obviously the "right" is not a political alignment) would have realized it was a hoax.
But no, the "those lefty bastards are out having abortions every three weeks" contingent predictably went for it, hook, line, and sinker.
Just like the sweet & sour fetus bit.
*mental note* next satire piece involves ridiculous, over the top statements about having 3 abortions in one month.
Yeah, because it's completely unthinkable for a pro-abortion feminists to have done this, when others have use menstrual blood in their own art, or covered the Blessed Virgin in cow manure.
Completely inconceivable.
But note that the woman in question did put out a press release and made it all seem very real.
Gigi, it does sound very credible. That's why a lot of people bought it.
As I posted on Birth Pangs (when I first heard about it - late because I am busy prepping for a tradeshow this weekend):
*blink*
*stare*
OK, seriously, this has to be a hoax.
Why would you do this to yourself? How many times can you possibly impregnate yourself in the span of 9 months? Even at a once a month rate of ovulation, not every month is going to result in pregnancy.
If she waits until she actually knows that she is pregnant, she’s into the next cycle, plus then time for the abortifacient to kick in, and the abortion to exit (dude, that is not instantaneous, trust me on that one).
OK, so now we’re down to 4 tops, assuming she manages to abort at 2 weeks pregnant.
I’m betting it’s a hoax - a hoax meant to garner as much attention as possible, which she’s getting - and yet, I am underwhelmed by it. I’d put money on it being a series of bloody sheets from her period, which is a hell of a lot less scandalous, so lie about it, why don’t you?
It just didn't add up. There is no guarantee that you'll get pregnant to do this.
None.
Zip.
The fact that it read "as many times as possible" instead of a tangible number is pretty much what clinched it as fake for me.
[Yeah, because it's completely unthinkable for a pro-abortion feminists to have done this, when others have use menstrual blood in their own art, or covered the Blessed Virgin in cow manure.]
I think that the major difference between an actual pro-life activist and Shvarts is that she didn't actually do the act.
She just wrote what she wrote to stir everyone up because there's nothing else to read about in the news anymore. In this case she proved her point.
Hitler was an artist before he led the Holocaust.
Yale:Home of Skull & Bones(star members Prescott Bush & demon spawn George Bush SR & Jr. , John Kerry)
-Requires OB/GYN students to perform abortions as a part of training.
-Shamefully permotes abortions hoax or otherwise.
-Teaches nazi eugenics in curriculam.
Shame on Yale!
Shame on Aliza Shvarts.
Killing for art is a crime against humanity.
The only thing shocking about this is that anyone would believe it in the first place. I didn't even have to check Snopes to know it was a hoax -- anyone who's had a miscarriage knows how hard it is on the body. Nobody would willingly induce serial miscarriages.
Stupid is as stupid does, anti-choicers! Don't be so anxious to demonize your opponents.
anyone who's had a miscarriage knows how hard it is on the body. Nobody would willingly induce serial miscarriages.
Says who, JJ? I had a miscarriage. It wasn't that hard on my body. Sure, I didn't produce an embryo, but it's not a stretch to think that someone who wants to shock the art world would do something like this. Artists have been known to do really gross and scatalogical works before.
I think it's only a matter of time before someone does pull a stunt like that.
Besides, a lot of non-pro-life sources believed it too.
Stupid is as stupid does, anti-choicers! Don't be so anxious to demonize your opponents.
JJ: I wish the proponents of legalized abortion would take that advice.
SUZANNE, I meant the pain, not the actual physical damage (although after a few miscarriages there would start to be a toll that way, too).
I agree it's not a stretch to imagine that someone might do this once (ugh), splatter it onto a canvas and call it "art". But over & over? I had to call BS on that.
JJ: I wish the proponents of legalized abortion would take that advice.
Touche. But -- "proponents of legalized abortion"? Abortion is legal, so that's not a particularly astute talking point. And we aren't "proponents of abortion" as much as proponents of individual liberty and self-ownership.
Surely you guys understand that the larger issue driving the (so-called) *free speech* debate is the right to individual liberty? Funny how that works.
SUZANNE, I meant the pain, not the actual physical damage (although after a few miscarriages there would start to be a toll that way, too).
I don't know. I had a miscarriage, and it wasn't that bad physically. Sure I was sad, but I could imagine someone not being sad.
But -- "proponents of legalized abortion"? Abortion is legal, so that's not a particularly astute talking point.
You're giving advice to your opponent?
I think it's about the most neutral and accurate description I can give.
Surely you guys understand that the larger issue driving the (so-called) *free speech* debate is the right to individual liberty? Funny how that works.
We want individual liberty for unborn children: the freedom from being killed. Remember that.
We want individual liberty for unborn children: the freedom from being killed. Remember that.
Well then you might want to rethink that anti-birth control stance because your options with women like me are pretty damned limited.
It's just not going to happen.
Oh crap, I meant to tack on that I won't have a chance to reply to the other posts until Monday earliest.
But you're still wrong 
No pressure. Answer whenever you can.
Well then you might want to rethink that anti-birth control stance because your options with women like me are pretty damned limited.
I actually think that contraception is part of the problem. The fact that it is not completely reliable will mean that over the course of billions upon billions of sexual acts, unplanned pregnancies will happen, and people will resort to abortion as a solution. They're sold on this idea that you can have all the sex you want without risk or repercussion when contraception is used. And when that unplanned pregnancy occurs, they're inclined to believe what will serve their purposes, not necessarily what is moral.
That's why pro-life groups aren't keen on contraception.
Even before contraceptives were used widely, say the 1950s, unplanned pregnancies occurred. Check out The Girls Who Went Away, which gives the sad history of teenage pregnancy in the age before widespread contraceptives.
http://www.powells.com/biblio/1594200947
As for contraceptives leading to pregnancy, only if they're used improperly. The problem is the lack of education. More information--better results.
http://womenshealth.about.com/
cs...ntraceptfai.htm
Yes, unplanned pregnancies occurred, but because contraception was not as widespread, and there was no birth control pill, there were fewer. People were less willing to take a chance.
Contraceptives don't lead to pregnancy. You did not understand the premise of what I'm saying. The more you push contraception, the more people are willing to have sex, and when you multiply the number of sexual acts, you will have failures, leading to exactly the thing you're trying to prevent in the first place.
"The more you push contraception, the more people are willing to have sex"
You really have to come to the reality that people are ALWAYS going to want to have sex!!
Your idea that you can convince most people to abstain is ridiculous and dangerous. It won't happen and you'll end up with WAY more abortions - not what you indend no? Contraception is not only here to stay - but it's VITAL!!
The question is: do we want more abortions, or less abortions?
If we want less abortions, the solution is to have less sex, and to have sex in a set of circumscribed circumstances: namely within the bonds of marriage.
If we promote contraception, we get more abortions. That's the problem.
You can't expect perfection. But you can expect better. We were doing better before the age of contraception.
"You can't expect perfection. But you can expect better. We were doing better before the age of contraception"
Well that depends on how you define "better". I don't think it was better... there were likely fewer abortions (which is good) but this resulted in MANY unwanted pregnancies (bad) and women without any choice having to be mothers (bad).
If all you care about are abortions (which I suspect you do) then I can see it being "better" back then... a couple of coathanger back alley surgeries here and there, but much less than today. But I'm not nearly that narrow minded and looking at the big picture is not a pretty sight.
Commenting by HaloScan
