As one of those readers, here's why I found it interesting: it forces us to confront the difference between what I think are the two major arguments in favor of pro-choice.

If you use the common
feminist "it's my body and you wouldn't force me to keep someone on life
support, would you?", then the response to this story is, "well no, but now you're killing people on life support for fun."

If you use the [what I think is the] stronger Singerian argument (in nine words: we eat pigs that are way smarter than fetuses), it's like popping field-mice on the head. A bit cruel, perhaps, but for the sake of art!

How infuriating. It's sad that such a simple misconception can be seen as a point for the republican party. But if they do use it as an argument, it just goes to show the ridiculousness of the argument in the first place. If the Republicans ACTUALLY believed that women took abortion so lightly (which is an appalling and belittling accusation on women to begin with) they wouldn't have to use such weak broken theories to prove their arguments in the first place. I don't think anyone actually believes that a woman takes a decision like that lightly. How could they? The process of an abortion is, more often than not, humiliating/frightening/horrifying/upsetting for a woman...If we are really worried that women will think of abortion as an alternative for birth control, then how about investing in some solid sex education plans and making women more informed?

How infuriating. It's sad that such a simple misconception can be seen as a point for the republican party. But if they do use it as an argument, it just goes to show the ridiculousness of the argument in the first place. If the Republicans ACTUALLY believed that women took abortion so lightly (which is an appalling and belittling accusation on women to begin with) they wouldn't have to use such weak broken theories to prove their arguments. I don't think anyone actually believes that a woman takes a decision like that lightly. How could they? The process of an abortion is, more often than not, humiliating/frightening/horrifying/upsetting for a woman...If we are really worried that women will think of abortion as an alternative for birth control, then how about investing in some solid sex education plans and making women more informed?

This reminds me of some outrage I've been getting in my inbox lately about an artist who supposedly starved a dog to death as an art exhibit. It was a hoax, the dog was fed and watered. The whole point of the show was to make a point about how people get outraged when they see a dog starve to death in that situation, but don't seem to care when they see a dog starving on the street. I thought it was a really cool idea, actually.

Not sure about this one though, because of the reasons already cited by Ann.

sorry i'm confused-on other sites this is reported as being real and goes into detail about what exactly she is putting on display. i sincerely hope this is a hoax-otherwise we really have hit an all time low.

I'm a photography student and have seen lots of student artists and photographers try to pull things like this and it never sits well with me. I think it's rather irresponsible to do something that you know will be controversial and misconstrued and then explain it away with these ambiguous "artist statements" that honestly mean nothing. It just feels sort of Christopher Hitchens-y to me. I feel like shock value is the laziest way to get attention.

canto-
I agree 100%. There was a controversy some years back involving an artist who was killing animals and chopping them up/posing them for use in her photography. She had the expected reasons for doing what she did (exploring issues of animal rights/cognitive dissonance amongst meat eaters, etc.). What she did may have been legal (although the fact she was killing for art- not using the bodies of already dead animals, bothered me a lot). It was also, I thought, really, really boring. Her pictures were nothing without the shock value and controversy of killing animals for art. I mean, talk about an easy, lame way to get attention.

My question about the Yale art student- what was she using for material, if it wasn't her own products of conception? The article didn't get into that.

Well, I just found a link that says the artist stands by her story, that it's not a fiction, that she did take "abortion-inducing herbs" and filmed herself bleeding into a cup.

The post is updated.

My head is spinning. What do you all make of this??

I think this is an ineffective work as well. Like others have already said, it relies on shock value entirely. I actually have no issue with using shock value in art, I actually tend to like it, but it seems like her piece specifically is directionless and relies ENTIRELY on shock value. She takes up probably the most controversial topic in the U.S., but does not really make any kind of clear or cohesive statement about it. Her work is contrary to both pro and anti choice positions, merely sparking an already enflamed debate without adding any new perspective to it. She says she wants to incite discourse, but as I said, abortion is probably the most controversial debate in the U.S. and I really do not think there is a problem of lack of discourse. Perhaps lack of guided discourse in certain areas, but her work does not guide us anywhere.

Maybe she should have gone for shock value in another area and guided her viewers more poignantly. Maybe she could have joined the abortion debate and provided a new perspective.

MLEmac,

That reminds me of a hoax that some guy pulled where he posed has a president of a fake Korean dog canning company requesting shelters to give him the dogs they kill (so he could sell them for people to eat). Many people were OUTRAGED!!! by this. Cuz, you know, we kill thousands of dogs a year, but at least we don't EAT them.

This just makes no sense. It seems like it might be a hoax, trying to make some dumb point for the anti-choicers.

If she's pro-choice, though, surely she wouldn't do something so stupid. Does she not care that plenty of people would love to take away her rights?

This is just dumb. If she wants to make a point just say it. We don't need "shock value," we've got plenty of bloody fetus pictures floating around.

Maybe she just wanted to end up on snopes.

You know, I never understood the phrase, "the expression that proves the rule." Would that be appropriate here? Cuz this is just so ridiculous, anti-choicers couldn't possibly believe that this is what women are using their rights for.

I actually think this piece is fairly brilliant.

She does achieve her aim of highlighting "ambiguity" in womens bodies. After all, everyone is still asking and wondering if she really went through the whole grisly process. However, we'll never know.

For me, it parallels the legislation that requires a woman to report miscarriages - how would that be enforced? Would physical evidence have to be provided? How do you "prove" what happened in the privacy of your bathroom? These things seem impossible.

I particularly think it's great because it has a very liberal, enlightened circle like Feministing in a tizzy. We all deserve to be challenged.

(I say all this assuming that she faked the whole thing. I would definitely be concerned if she really went through with all this. Another question raised - Does the method of production of art change the value of the work? She's raising fascinating aesthetic questions that aren't easily answered. I like it.)

I just don't think we have to understand art completely for it to be valid. It's more fun that way.

I bleed every month too, you know. I have enough class to not film it, but just because this woman did doesn't mean she filmed a miscarriage.
I find it hard to believe that some dumb student got pregnant once (let alone more than once) using artificial insemination--it is very hard to get pregnant that way in a non-clinical setting.
I also find it hard to believe that some dumb student can find abortifacient herbs that actually work and aren't also very damaging to her.
And finally with the absence of any pregnancy tests we are all welcome to err on the side of her being a liar and never being pregnant.
I think we can all agree that normal women (even weird artists) take conception, pregnancy, miscarriages and abortions very seriously. The student in question is weird and perhaps the best thing to come of this whole rigmarole is now men know to never have sex with her or allow her access to his semen her lest a resulting fetus ends up in a jar as her latest project. Or lest the resulting baby end up having this nutjob as a mother.

k-raus,

I see your point but I don't agree. True we do not have to understand art completely for it to be valid, but one of my issues with this artist is that her statements seem so empty that it appears that even she did not have any clear intention in mind.

And I am not saying her art is invalid, I think anything anyone calls art is valid, but I do think her art is ineffective. Since abortion is such an explosive issue, it seems she could have had more sensitivity to women who have had abortions or miscarriages. To have them mechanically like she did for her work here does minimize the huge gravity of this for women who experience it. For this reason, she is obviously not aligning herself with the pro-choice movement. But to either induce, or pretend to induce abortions does not align her with the anti-choice movement either. Her work is appears entirely outside of the debate, but relying on the firey quality of the debate to fuel her work's meaning.

"For me, it parallels the legislation that requires a woman to report miscarriages - how would that be enforced? Would physical evidence have to be provided? How do you "prove" what happened in the privacy of your bathroom? These things seem impossible."
Maybe if she intended this, she would have included more specific evidence that these are her intentions. I really think you may be reading a deeper well intentioned meaning onto a work that appears to be empty and rely on stunts rather than content. I don't find it challenging, which I love to be challenges, so much as I find it empty and amateur.

At first, I thought... "ick, I can almost see this as an anti-choice argument."

Almost like she would be saying: "It's my body, therefore if I want to get pregnant just to have abortions, so be it!"

It feels like the slippery slope has been taken too far here... I support the right to choose, but this really does border on lunacy. It's like someone who supports freedom also supporting the right to go out and kill people, because legal limits on killing limit freedom...

Or not. That may be a bad analogy. Well, that's a mindfuck. Probably what she was going for anyway.

...

Actually, nevermind. I've thought this through a little more, and I don't regard fetuses as really being close to actual babies until the third trimester. If she actually conceived at any point, she'd only be ejecting a few thousand cells here.

"You know, I never understood the phrase, "the expression that proves the rule." Would that be appropriate here?"

I thought the phrase was "the exception that proves the rule"?

I'm firmly pro-choice but I think this "artist" is a fucking nutjob, a pretentious "artist". One of those types that thinks she's so smart, the misunderstood "artist". Does she seriously think that the average person is going to ponder what her message is with this art project?

Also, I read about that art exhibit with the starving dogs. I believe, according to Snopes, that's it's never been proven to actually have happened.

Before I was a bit meh about it, but with this development, I think it's brilliant. Chemical pregnancy is a common phenomenon, where you basically get a miscarriage so early that it doesn't even register. In fact, 50-60% of first pregnancies are thought to end that way, and it's almost completely hidden and unknown. It's a completely "natural" process that leaves millions (billions?) of zygotes/embryos miscarried, but now it's a woman making the choice to make sure it happens (if she did). She just controlled her body. Some things might have happened because of it, some things that happen in nature all the time. Now let's see how upsetting that is to people.

K-raus, whatever Ms. Shvarts achieves in her work is purely accidental. I mean, come on. She said she wanted to "incite discourse." Please. What this girl did was find the biggest bull on the farm and set it loose in the china shop.

i had sent this email over to feministing, cause i was not sure what to make of it. its good to read everyones comments and ideas on this..

yes i believe in freedom of choice and i might be bit rusty in appreciating art like this. but still it does not feel right and it is even more disturbing the way the artist explained it. i am not concerned about the fetus, i am completely pro choice about abortion. but i was more concerned about the artist and her representation of women's body.

was she aware of all the harm that it might cause her body?

i think her explanation of her piece did not convince me that she was doing it to show women's plight in anyways. she was just going for the shock value. how is using art just for shock value and not considering the social impact be justified?

i am still trying to figure this piece out...

AndersH:

Nobody is disputing the fact that she's in charge of her body, but to do it over and over and over as an "art" project is the problem that most people will disagree with.

The debate IS the work.

Whatever she puts in a gallery on display is basically irrelevant. This discussion thread is part of the project, and that's why I say that you can't set off an "amateur art alert" on this one.

Yes, the girl seems like a nutcase who couldn't possibly have anything else in mind besides, "piss people off! start a raging pointless debate!" but I'd like to give her the benefit of the doubt - I think it's more likely that giving vague statements and contradicting the school is all part of the performance. I think this piece would be weakened if it had an obvious message. Its inscrutability is something intrinsic to it, weather accidental or not.

As far as it being insensitive to give yourself multiple miscarriages, maybe it is, but I don't think that's what actually happened. Therefore, the question becomes about what is tasteful art, and what subjects remain unsanctioned by pro-lifers and pro-choicers alike.

Anyway...I think it's a pretty darn cool senior project. Anything that elicits such a strong and mixed response must have some complexity, even if there's no tact.

I like it. I think she's done something kind of brilliant. I've already had to argue this a couple times today, and most of my points have been brought up, so I'm not going to bother again.

I do, however, have issues with the fact that anyone brings up "classiness" when it comes to women making art invoking their vaginas. It's the same argument the batshit right-wingers use about the Vagina Monologues.

K-raus,
I know I speak for myself when I say taste and tact are of little concern for me when it comes to art. Throwing that out the window is often a good means to make something challenging. I don't, however think that any of the University responses were expected on her part or intended to be part of the performance. I stand by my opinion that her statements are vague because the meaning is empty. I think she literally grabbed for the most inflamatory subject matter, set out to make something truly grotesque, but failed to think out her position or sets of ideas she wants her viewers to think about. I am not saying she needs to spell it out for her viewers, but a hint perhaps or some signal for something outside of aimlessness. Something that includes her in the debate, rather than separating herself from it entirely in a really counter-productive insensitive way. I like what another commenter said, a bull in a china shop. Aimless destruction.
Although one hell of a response for a senior art show..

""You know, I never understood the phrase, "the expression that proves the rule." Would that be appropriate here?"

I thought the phrase was "the exception that proves the rule"?"

Oops, that's what I meant. I screwed it up while editing.

I think this piece isn't completely without merit. It's interesting how disconnected the artist seems to be with American culture, to the point where she didn't believe it would be controversial. I know as a teenager I personally thought most people were super-liberal, because that's what made sense to me. Maybe that's what happened with the artist?

I think the artist brings up interesting questions about the way in which women today get pregnant. Artificial insemination is a funny thing isn't it? A human answer to a biological "problem." I think it's also interesting how the artist highlights alternative methods of abortion. Mainly I think this piece has become about freedom and censorship. How much freedom does someone have over their body? How much freedom does an artist have? I like how this makes something that is often hidden, so visible. Miscarriage shouldn't be a shameful secret thing, like it so often is.

Yes, just because a product is herbal or natural, or has some tradition behind it, does not mean there are no lasting or harmful effects. They should not be taken lightly.

"K-raus, whatever Ms. Shvarts achieves in her work is purely accidental. I mean, come on. She said she wanted to "incite discourse." Please. What this girl did was find the biggest bull on the farm and set it loose in the china shop. "

You know, I know a few Yale students who are very brilliant, and also very liberal and intellectual (with a tendency to think about things in a dispassionate manner)

I think you underestimate her if you say she could not possibly have done the project for the reason she /said/ she did the project. I imagine her advisor had a reason for approving the project, after all...

So here is my question: if she's really doing this, where is she getting the sperm that she has in the syringe? Would it be different if she was having sex to get herself pregnant?

Hmm. This is really interesting. (I do wish this kind of art would cause people, especially anti-choicers, to think more critically about what constitutes "life," and how a fetus is in fact NOT easily separable from the woman's body, as anti-choice rhetoric would have one believe.)

First, just because a woman squirts semen into herself with a plastic syringe does not mean she'll get pregnant. I'd say there's a good chance she was never pregnant at all. Also, if she took the "abortifacient herbs" at the *end* of her menstrual cycle ... how could she have been pregnant? I would expect that if she was pregnant for longer than a month, she should have missed her menstrual cycle(s). If she was ever pregnant at all, she obviously took the herbs and made the film in the very early stages - the first month, if not first couple weeks.

Secondly, pregnancy is not the simple, unproblematic biological process that anti-choice rhetoric makes it out to be, and I think such an art exhibit shows this. Fetuses are miscarried - many of them. Fetuses are deformed. There is never a guarantee that ANY pregnancy will result in a baby for any number of reasons. Often, the reasons are beyond the woman's control.

Anyway, at least it sounds like the artist knows what she's talking about: "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."

Damn straight. The nature of women's specific personal reproductive situations is that they do not consist of certainties. This is why it's important for women to have choice, to decide for themselves what's best for them and their fetus or future child.

"The exception that proves the rule" has legal origins that are somewhat obscure these days but which fits the real meaning of the phrase, since it doesn't make sense on it's own. Exceptions disprove rules, not the other way around! But like I said, it's legal in origin and comes from the latin phrase "exception probat regulam," which is the proverbized version of a longer rule that means, "the fact that certain exceptions are made (in a legal document) confirms that the rule is valid in all other cases."

For instance, suppose that some law said, "The penalty for treason shall be death, except where the guilty party is found to have been under coercion by credible threat to the physical well-being of his or her immediate family." The existence of the explicit exception, according to the proverb in question, must be taken to mean that no other exceptions were intended. Hence, "the exception proves the rule (in all cases not excepted)." In our example, if you were being threatened with bodily harm to yourself only when you committed treason, well, too bad!

Back on topic, I think that if this was supposed to raise any questions, the obvious question is to us pro-choicers who have ever used the "fetuses are not people; they're just some part of the woman's body" argument, and that question is, "Are you willing to go all the way with what your rhetoric implies?"

When I've made that argument, I have been sincere in believing it to be true, but that is only some small part of why pro-choicers are pro-choice. A lot of it has to do with the suffering that results from unwanted pregnancies, independent of the fetus's status as a person. I know this to be true because some of you squirm at the thought of deliberately becoming pregnant and aborting for no "good" reason or, indeed, for no reason whatsoever.

And if you do squirm at the thought, that tells me that the nonpersonhood of fetuses (or in this case clumps of cells, but let's take this to the logical extreme and suppose this was done with second trimester abortions, since doing that is also legal) is not at the center of your decision to be pro-choice. I imagine that position would be held by the suffering avoided by allowing unwanted pregnancies to be legally aborted for most of you, but I won't presume to know for sure.

If you've ever said, "Fetuses are just a part of the woman's body," or words to that effect, how could you possibly object to this on moral grounds? I mean, it's weird, yeah, but hey, you know, whatever. People do a lot of things with/to their bodies and make art that I don't get. It does provide ammo for the opposition, but even so, I don't presume to tell people that they should make decisions based on what would advance my political goals, so again, whatever.

I for one am entirely ok with taking my rhetoric to it's logical extreme. I've said fetuses are not worth moral consideration, and I mean it. I know most women don't take this sort of thing lightly, but if a few actually do, as this one apparently does, then they can have as much fun with that as they want as far as I care.

"So here is my question: if she's really doing this, where is she getting the sperm that she has in the syringe? "

From the way the artist described it, I got the impression it was maybe from a friend who had agreed to be part of her project in this manner.

"If you've ever said, "Fetuses are just a part of the woman's body," or words to that effect, how could you possibly object to this on moral grounds? "

I agree. After getting past the shock of not expecting someone to do something like this, I don't really have a problem with it, /especially/ as early as she's miscarrying/aborting or whatever...

@ Marissa: I would say that "it's just too controversial" is a rather poor reason not to make a piece of art. And I highly doubt this artist embarked on the endeavor without thinking it over, and also rather doubt that she just wildly grasped for something to make her famous. It seems the process was probably physically painful for her (e.g., bleeding after taking herbs).

Judith Butler wrote a really great essay a few years ago called "The Value of Being Disturbed" that seems germane to this issue, focusing on the controversy that surrounded black British artist Chris Ofili's painting _The Virgin Mary_, a painting which incited Giuliani to attempt to pull funding from the New York museum that agreed to display it.

I think with this exhibit, too, there is some value to being disturbed.

"From the way the artist described it, I got the impression it was maybe from a friend who had agreed to be part of her project in this manner."

I hope these men (plural, from the article) were prepared for any legal ramifications of artificial insemination by other than medically approved personnel, because precedent would have them legally and financially responsible for any child born, despite any prior agreements to the contrary. They could have ended up fodder for the Glenn Sacks blog, particularly considering multiple males have been held financially responsible for a single birth.

I think this girl is out to shock people. I also think this is one of the most tasteless, pointless things I've ever read about. OTOH, I'm not surprised that this is coming out of Yale....

J. W. T. Meakin, on Usenet at http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.childfree/msg/e31ab80ec70d64b5, said

"> Tell Yale Health Plan that you think got the flu? Your urine will be
> tested for pregnancy no matter what (I heard that the test screws up
> sometimes and so some Yale male got a positive result once...).

"From my dim and distant memories of Yalies, I would not put it
past a male Yalie to dope himself or his urine to achieve that
result."

Now I wonder how the Harvard Crimson will cover the "creative fiction."

I don't believe she actually got herself pregnant and then gave herself miscarriages or abortions. As someone else said, it's not easy to get pregnant using artificial insemination outside of a clinical setting, and I'd like to know what "herbs" she took. If there were herbs that effectively caused miscarriages without severely impacting the woman's health, wouldn't we all know about them? We certainly wouldn't have to worry so much about the availability of abortion in this country. Yes, there are herbs and compounds that can cause abortions, but they make the woman very ill, too ill for a woman to keep up her grades at Yale. I went to Yale, I know how difficult the coursework is. I'd believe it more if she said she took Plan B--but that's not shocking enough, is it?

Which is the point. She's doing this to be shocking and to make a name for herself. Seems very sophomoric to me. And irresponsible, as we all know this case is going to be cited as having actually happened in anti-choice literature for years, as an example of the moral wasteland caused by abortion. It makes pro-choice women look bad, whether true or not. So many women--and men--have worked tirelessly to protect a woman's right to choose, and now they're going to have to waste their time refuting the "art project" of some stupid, unthinking college student? Grow up, little girl. Shocking people isn't art.

When I first heard about this work I was imediatly interested and intrigued. One of the things I like about it is that it is very difficult to be indifferent towards it and at the same time it is allso difficult to really love it or wholeheartedly support every aspect of it.

It is the kind of piece that invites you to reflect once again upon what life really is, when life starts and at what point does life have the right to continue unintereupted.

The first step, the insemination, shows us how trivial and meaningless conception can be. This isn't an act of love, this isn't lust, this isn't even the urge to reproduce. To me this is almost an metaphor for the way some women submit to request for unprotected sex even if they know they risk pregnancy and even when they really don't want to have sex in the first place.

Taking a morning after pill later they don't really know whether or not they would've become pregnant.

The second step of the project, the abortion inducing herbs. I can understand how this can be offencive to people and I can understand how some might be concered for her health. But would we ask the same questions if her pregnancies had been accidents? I don't think so.

And where in the laws does it say that a pregnancy has to have been unintended for People get babies for all kinds of reasons and the only common factor in those reasons is that they are if voluntary fudamentally egoistical. No body gets a baby because it deserved to be born...

Generally I believe people commonly have abortions for much more selfless reasons than for why they have babies...

Man I won't rant about this for ever.

But this work of art really got me thinking about a lot of things, and I think that is one of the most valuable things a work of art can do.

M-

It's interesting to me that so many people are saying that her work was ineffective, accidental, dumb or unintentional. I think those claims are based on the fact that this piece makes people really uncomfortable, so they're trying to write it off. In my mind, this piece is incredibly effective. The artist said that part of her point was to incite discourse, and that's exactly what she did -- and at a level that she probably never dreamed of. This piece is effective because it is so challenging. It challenges what it means to be pro-choice, what we think is ethical and not when it comes to abortion, our images of abortion...the list goes on and on. Yes, it is totally freaked out and, yes, it makes me uncomfortable, but that is part of the reason that I like it. Artists have always pushed us to think about things in new and different ways, and that's exactly what she's doing here. I don't believe that the only role of art is to appease, and in that light, I think this piece is very successful.

This page had aome inforation about various herbs that cause miscarriage:
http://www.naturalmiscarriage.org/

http://www.naturalmiscarriage.org/world/last-resort.htm

I was an art AND sociology student in undergrad, so I possibly have at least a bit for sympathy for what's going on here. Although the first thing I'd like to say is that I'm really disappointed that people are expressing their inability to comprehend what the heck she was thinking by calling her "nutcase" and "weird"...I think that is insulting and totally counterproductive, especially considering from the few statements of hers we have it seems that she's trying to grapple with serious issues about the body.

And it's being reported in a student paper, because, um...she's a student! She's an undergrad student, probably 21 or 22 years old, with a provocative art project. Thinking back to my senior thesis exhibit, I'm pretty certain that she didn't design this with media attention in mind. Or at least, I'd give her the benefit of the doubt.

And for those who are saying the debate IS the work, yes, yes, and yes!

The other thing I wanted to point out (yes, I suppose I'm trying to defend her) is that all we know of her "statements" is what the paper printed. She likely has an artist statement as well that accompanies the work, and has likely been working on it throughout her project's development. Further, every student works with a supervisor closely to develop their work. So an underdeveloped art concept completion sensationalized likely would not fly. And especially since I went to University of Buffalo and this is Yale, I would presume this to be the case too.

I'd really love to see her artist statement or even talk to her...there is likely mush more thought than is being told here. And I think people maybe a little too quick to jump all over her for the possible political fallout. And while I understand the very real threats we face, can you honestly say we (as feminists, as a culture) couldn't also use some deeper discussions about the body?

And as far as being "irresponsible"...I don't know. Who are we to say that? If we stand by a woman's right to her body, do we cease that right when we are artists? Or when the woman's body and bodily functions is the art? Is that maybe what the piece is about? Personally, while I can see this being "fodder", I think it is more challenging to the prochoice side if anything.

When I first heard of this, I thought that the artist had decided to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, and then decided to discuss the experience and show photos and/or film of the removed tissue to visually demonstrate that no, it's not a cute, screaming wittle baby that's being brutally murderd, it's actually just tissue that doesn't resemble anything remotely like a human being.

But after finding out that she supposedly inseminated herself just to supposedly induce abortion - yeah, I think pro lifers will use this story, regardless of whether or not it's true, as a case or outlawing abortion, call her a murderer, etc.

Nevermind that she can't/won't prove any of it, that even she doesn't know if she was ever actually pregnant, and that when she was shown bleeding into a cup, she could have simply been menstruating. I think her "work" is pointless and it will just hurt the pro choice movement and women.

This page had aome inforation about various herbs that cause miscarriage:
http://www.naturalmiscarriage.org/

After all, it wouldn't be on the Internet if it weren't true.

"I would say that "it's just too controversial" is a rather poor reason not to make a piece of art."
Alegra, I never said that. Art can never be too controversial as far as I am concern. In this instance however, I think she relies only on the controversy of the subject matter itself to give her work meaning, without creating her own meaning.

Lindabeth,
I agree with you, we really may not be getting the full story about the artist's statement or the work itself. We are relying on what the school newspaper printed. We haven't seen the work, which most definitely includes many more details which were omitted from the description. And the newspaper may have simplified the artist's statement. There may be more that we do not know about and there may yet be depth and intension.

Here is the YDN editorial she wrote today, explaining the project in her own words:

http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/24559

(h/t Pipkin on the Feministe thread)

And here is why I think she probably never got pregnant, from that same thread:

I think it is well nigh impossible that she actually conceived. Here’s why. She claims to have inseminated herself on days 9-15 of her cycle. There is a period of 10–12 days between ovulation and menstruation. (Each woman has a specific no. of days, personally, I am 11.) So, if you have a routine 28-day cycle and a 10 day luteal phase, day 18 is when you ovulate. (But you will only know if you have ovulated on day 18 once your period happens, or if you are tracking ovulation at the time and see, e.g., a temperature spike.) If you have a routine 28-day cycle and a 12 day luteal phase, you ovulate on day 16.

So, basically, regardless of the length of her luteal phase, she excluded the three days on which she is most likely to get pregnant, even assuming that she has a 28-day cycle. Which I doubt. Most women I know are 30-31 days, adding another three days that she should have been inseminating herself if she wanted to get pregnant.

Now, it is true that sperm can survive inside a woman’s body for up to 7 days. (That is the record.) However, for that to happen, the cervical fluid has to be fairly receptive. Let me just say that this is unusual. Particularly, as someone pointed out, if she is repeatedly stressing her body with herbs, whether they induce an abortion or not.

So I’m thinking she never got pregnant, even if she is telling the entire truth. My source re: luteal phases is “Taking Charge of Your Fertility.�

My objections to this are less political and more personal, and I'll freely admit that I am perhaps to close to the subject to see any artistic value. I feel about it very much the way I felt about Britney Spears' 30-second marriage: in a culture where people are denied the right to marry their partners, treat marriage like a fun thing to do for a day is insulting.

I spent three years trying to get pregnant, much of that time spent getting uncomfortable tests, giving myself injections, and dealing with pain. Meanwhile, there are women in Nicaragua dying for lack of access to abortion, and women in the US being denied EC, not having a local provider, etc. It is very hard for me to be sanguine about someone treating something that caused me and others so much pain as an interesting experiment.

Like I said, possibly I'm too close to this.

From BluePencils: Which is the point. She's doing this to be shocking and to make a name for herself. Seems very sophomoric to me. And irresponsible, as we all know this case is going to be cited as having actually happened in anti-choice literature for years, as an example of the moral wasteland caused by abortion. It makes pro-choice women look bad, whether true or not. So many women--and men--have worked tirelessly to protect a woman's right to choose, and now they're going to have to waste their time refuting the "art project" of some stupid, unthinking college student? Grow up, little girl. Shocking people isn't art.
---------------------------Absolutely 100% agree.

I'm firmly pro-choice but I'd say most people aren't going to take it lightly that this "artist" purposely knocked herself up over and over again in order to self-induce an abortion in the name of "art". Whether she actually ever got herself pregnant, we'll never know but the intention was there (if indeed she was using sperm). I guess I'm indifferent to what kind of "message" she was trying to get across but I'd say it was bullshit.

lindabeth, ruby, i agree 110%.

art has been used to push boundaries since forever and it should continue to do so. for all the commenters calling her a "nutcase" and saying her project was "aimless", i direct you to marcel duchamp's fountain. it seems to me like she had a pretty brilliant idea (and of course the statements she's making now are part of the project). i'm not an art professor, but i think if i were advising her senior project, that i'd give her an A.

"I hope these men (plural, from the article) were prepared for any legal ramifications of artificial insemination by other than medically approved personnel, because precedent would have them legally and financially responsible for any child born, despite any prior agreements to the contrary. "

A male, you are assuming that this woman would not terminate her pregnancy as she was planning on. I'd say that if this really happened, her friends trusted her. As they should -b/c what is a friend if you can't trust them?

"Which is the point. She's doing this to be shocking and to make a name for herself. Seems very sophomoric to me."

You know, the more I listen to you guys, the more I'm buying that maybe this really happened.

Did you know that there was an artist a few years ago whose thing was to pee in a jar? Are you guys at all acquainted this performance art at all? The general nature of this project is not different from a lot of other art that's being made these days.

The main difference is the fact that she "inseminated" herself, and that we apparently are still having some debate about whether a very recently formed embryo has more moral standing than just a regular bunch of cells.

I mean, what if she had just cut herself and bled out regular blood, then you wouldn't have a problem, would you?

Why -I mean, honestly, why?? should we give a potentially recently fertilized egg a higher moral standing? Isn't that idea falling right in with the pro-life movement?

We live in a culture that's okay with killing animals for food and clothing, and just b/c they're over-running our streets, when technically those things aren't necessary either. These "cells" she's killing, aren't even sentient beings in the same sense.

Why the moral outrage?

I am glad she wrote the artist's statement. It does go much farther than simply "inciting discourse." That's actually a relief because that seemed like such a flighty response for such a controversial subject matter.
http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/24559
I actually can appreciate what she tried to do. Whether or not her work successfully does this, I am not sure because of all the reasons people have listed above and because we have not seen the work itself.

"Would it be different if she was having sex to get herself pregnant?"

Not in my mind. So long as her male partner was aware of what she was planning to do...

I would also like to say, that I question the feminist beliefs of anyone whose first response is to accuse her of being "stupid" or "just vying for media attention"

Maybe the entire thing is performance art, including this latest disputing that she told the university it was just performance art.

Head spinning.

But don't honestly care enough about this to debate, and actually laughed that some anti-choice nutjob called her a serial killer. Oy vey.

(It does remind me of two girls/one cup though when I hear the description...I can't help it...)

"Maybe the entire thing is performance art, including this latest disputing that she told the university it was just performance art."

Performance art just implies movement and interaction. So if she'd really inseminated herself and then taken the herbs, /that/ would be performance art. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_art

Before this convo gets too confusing, I'd just like to point out that what you seem to mean is rather "maybe she never really inseminated herself"...

I was actually thinking that maybe what happened, was that she first told the Yale authorities that it was just "performance art" and they misunderstood what she meant by that... which is why they came out saying that the insemination never really happened...

Either way, my position is still as stated above.

Ugh. My comment from last night didn't go through :P

I think it's an interesting point to make, but you don't have to inseminate yourself and then take bleeding inducing substances to make the point. She could have opened it up to speculation by saying that maybe she did and maybe she didn't and just let the viewer decide. Pro-lifers believe that if it could be a person, then it is a person, so if her artwork could be miscarried zygotes, then they are. They would be outraged, even if in reality, they're just staring at a bunch of periods. Pro-choicers don't care under what circumstances a woman gets pregnant or her decision regarding reproduction, as long as it's her decision. We would give her the benefit of the doubt, and it wouldn't make any difference to us if she actually did try to impregnate herself and induce bleeding.

I agree with what many people have already said on this thread in support of the work.

I would also add that my first reaction was disgust and annoyance and "omg, I can't believe someone would do this." But I continued to think about it (how could you not!), especially my own reaction to it, and came to the same conclusion as Ninapendamaishi: that this work was actually highlighting my own anti-choice tendencies. It forced me to face the idea that I sometimes think I know what a woman should do with her body better than she does. I had to ask myself uncomfortable (but ultimately enlightening) questions like, is abortion only reasonable to me if the pregnancy wasn't intended in the first place? Personally, I think there is a lot of value in pointing out hypocrisy like this, since it forces us to face it and hopefully even change it.

You don't have to agree with her methods but I do think you have to ask yourself why you are so ready to dismiss this. I mean, would this have been as enlightening if it had been, say, painted on a canvas instead of actually enacted with the artist's own body? Would it have been more "acceptable"?

Hmm - if this is a duplicate let me know - I wrote about this here earlier in the day as it was unfolding and received many comments from across the spectrum, but mostly from men.

I haven't seen the piece itself, and have no interest in doing so. Yeah, there's something a little disturbing about it, and shock art isn't really my thing.

But what I do find interesting [and frankly, extremely entertaining] is the predictable right-wing manufactured outrage over it, and that the likes of Michelle Malkin are more than happy to lavish attention upon an art student who nobody would have otherwise known about. In art, there is no such thing as bad publicity, and Malkin just gave her two posts worth of it yesterday on one of the most widely read political blogs on the internet. That makes me giggle.

I initially had a strong negative reaction to the idea of Ms. Shvarts* performance art, as an art college graduate I am veeeeeery familiar with art students that do all kinds of off-putting stuff to be controversial and I have little patience for them.

After seeing the conversation I mentally recant that because it has brought up some really fantastic questions, and is making people rethink their positions, which is exactly what we want political statements, art or otherwise, to do.

Who knows if Schvarts actually inseminated herself and herbally induced abortions. If she went through the steps, not even she may know if pregnancy and abortion occurred.

What we're left with is a bunch of people, including pro-choice feminists, arguing where each of us, as individuals, draw the arbitrary line between a woman's right to bodily integrity and what we find distasteful and too far, bringing our pro-choice arguments much closer to anti-abortion arguments.

In which case, I say bravo! Will the rabid anti-abortion movement jump on this? Certainly! However their literature would have you believe that's just an average Saturday night for most anyone that reads this site. A lot of people probably won't get it and won't have the patience or interest to examine the discussion. But for getting people firm in their opinion to examine their own inconsistencies, it's absolutely brilliant!

Having read her statement published this morning, I now understand what she's saying with this performance. The comment string following yesterday's YDN report went over 200 in less than 12 hours and now appears closed to view. Last night, though, I read through them and posted a couple. The really remarkable ones to me were the anti-choicers wishing the artist would die. How's that for pro-life?

The ambiguity of abortion vs. miscarriage vs. menstruation in the early stages is an interesting point. But I still find the concept of (possible) abortion for art or recreation repulsive.

What we're left with is a bunch of people, including pro-choice feminists, arguing where each of us, as individuals, draw the arbitrary line between a woman's right to bodily integrity and what we find distasteful and too far, bringing our pro-choice arguments much closer to anti-abortion arguments.

My initial reaction was the same that I believe Ann's was, that this is going to play right into the anti-choice talking points of "women get abortions for fun." While that's frequently my automatic thought, I immediately correct myself with this: "If women who get abortions weren't already demonized by society anyway, then this art project wouldn't be used as evidence to prove that point. This is simply another straw for the anti-choice machine to grasp at." I'm trying hard to make such statements my initial reactions.

In which case, I say bravo! Will the rabid anti-abortion movement jump on this? Certainly! However their literature would have you believe that's just an average Saturday night for most anyone that reads this site. A lot of people probably won't get it and won't have the patience or interest to examine the discussion. But for getting people firm in their opinion to examine their own inconsistencies, it's absolutely brilliant!

Anti-choicers who are outraged about this art project are wasting their time (as usual). They don't even know if this woman's eggs were ever fertilized, let alone if she was ever pregnant and might have induced abortion. So they're basically outraged over something they don't even know to be true (as usual).

It forced me to face the idea that I sometimes think I know what a woman should do with her body better than she does. I had to ask myself uncomfortable (but ultimately enlightening) questions like, is abortion only reasonable to me if the pregnancy wasn't intended in the first place? Personally, I think there is a lot of value in pointing out hypocrisy like this, since it forces us to face it and hopefully even change it.

I'm not sure how I feel yet, because I'm still thinking about it, but I don't agree with the argument you're presenting here. I don't see any hypocrisy in saying that you think someone has a right to do something even if you think that it's wrong to do that thing or that you think that thing is gross.

In fact, to be honest, we do these things all the time. For example, I'm a big fan of freedom of speech. I think that racist, sexist, and homophobic assholes have just as much right to write books as I do. That doesn't mean that I like what they're doing. In fact, I think that preaching hatred is an immoral action, and, yeah, I wish that they wouldn't. Doesn't mean that I don't support their right to do so. I think that people have a right to take employment that I'd find objectionable, gross, or otherwise intolerable. I think that people have a right to eat raw chicken, even if I think it's a really fucking stupid thing to do. Every day I see people doing, wearing, or saying things that I think to myself "Wow, that's really dumb/stupid/gross, and I don't think they should be doing/wearing/saying that."

Likewise, I don't think that there's anything inherently anti-choice about thinking that there's something disturbing or off about someone who would intentionally get pregnant specifically in order to have an abortion. I find it disturbing when artists cut themselves on stage, too. I think it's their right to do so, but damn if it doesn't freak me out a bit.

Look, I totally support her right to do this, and, like I said, I haven't decided how I feel about the work itself, but I object to this notion that anything less than 100% total support and encouragement is somehow anti-choice or that we can't have personal reservations or feelings about the things other people are doing without somehow betraying feminism.

I remember having a conversation with a friend of mine where I had to explain to her why declaring herself, "Pro choice, but I don't believe women should use abortion as a form of birth control," was ultimately not a pro-choice kind of statement.

Upon reading this, I was once again reminded of my discussion with her.

As a pro-choice woman who believes ultimately in a woman's right to do with what she will to her body, my only concern was that it probably was very hard on her to take those abortaficients.

RoymacIII -

I think key difference from your example is that spreading hates is not actually a matter of being able to speak but instead how that speech is damaging to other people in loads of ways. Meaning that you're pro-free speech but against hate speech and it's ramifications. Supporting someone's right to speak doesn't confirm approval of their message.

The core abortion argument being discussed is that how or why to terminate a pregnancy should be entirely to up to the pregnant woman because it's too unique and personal for someone else to dictate that for her. To say "except for THAT woman with THAT potential pregnancy" directs contradicts and dismisses the previous argument to say you DO know better and will happily dictate what she should do IN THIS SITUATION. That exception would be inconsistent and hypocritical.

Okay, I'm asking this seriously: does being pro-choice mean we're not even supposed to have feelings or reactions to a woman's actions? I mean, I support a woman's legal right to, say, abort because she's having a girl, but does thinking that's at least a little problematic mean I'm not pro-choice?

Roymaciii, Roni explained it better than I could. It isn't that I don't find what she did (or supposedly did) repulsive - I do. Personally, it definitely horrifies me that someone might be that nonchalant about abortion. But my initial reaction was that plus the thought that she shouldn't be allowed to do it because I didn't agree with it. Which, upon further thought, is way too close to the pro-forced-birth position for me (that other people know better what a woman should or should not do and have superior mental/emotional/ethical reasoning than she does, thus necessitating overriding the woman's own thoughts and decisions).

Even voicing the idea that she shouldn't have done this seems, in some way, belittling to her decisions about her own body and her own unique situation. That doesn't mean that I would ever do the same thing or want someone I know to do it, but that my disgust is, and should be, private if I want to continue to claim to be anti-forced-birth.

(I think that answers your question in some way, too, Lucy.)

Does that help to clarify?

I question the feminist beliefs of anyone whose first response is to accuse her of being "stupid" or "just vying for media attention"

Go ahead. Question my feminist beliefs. What would you like to ask? I think you're going to be disappointed, however. This isn't about my feminist beliefs.

Her project brings nothing new to the abortion debate. It makes pro-choicers look bad to those in the middle and to anti-choicers, making us look like we have no morals or ethics, which for most of us is very far from the truth. And it offends and upsets the many women who desperately want to conceive but can't. Go ahead, rub some more salt into their wounds. There's feminist sisterhood for ya. This is why I think her project is stupid. I defend her right to do it, but I hope her professor gives her a lousy grade. Besides, as I said above, I don't believe she actually repeatedly got herself pregnant and then aborted the pregnancies anyway.

And it offends and upsets the many women who desperately want to conceive but can't.

Not trying to snark, but how does my or anyone else's abortion offend and upset a woman who cannot conceive a child?

Not trying to snark, but how does my or anyone else's abortion offend and upset a woman who cannot conceive a child?

I've always hated that argument because it basically plays into the stereotype that women have to think of everyone on earth, except herself, when she's contemplating abortion. It's no woman's responsibility to fill foster homes so that the poor couples who can't have children can adopt. Do they only want a baby that came from a woman who was forced to give birth? If that's ever the case, they could always adopt a child from a country where abortion is illegal.

My main reason for concern is that the artist is in her early twenties... as am I. Among all of the women that I know, including mentors and feminist grandmothers and girl-power professors, I cannot think of any person who says that she is of the exact same in conviction an