Woman Kills Babies for Art

This is a sick, immoral, disgusting woman.

Beginning next Tuesday, Shvarts will be displaying her senior art project, a documentation of a nine-month process during which she artificially inseminated herself “as often as possible” while periodically taking abortifacient drugs to induce miscarriages. Her exhibition will feature video recordings of these forced miscarriages as well as preserved collections of the blood from the process.

The goal in creating the art exhibition, Shvarts said, was to spark conversation and debate on the relationship between art and the human body. But her project has already provoked more than just debate, inciting, for instance, outcry at a forum for fellow senior art majors held last week. And when told about Shvarts’ project, students on both ends of the abortion debate have expressed shock . saying the project does everything from violate moral code to trivialize abortion.

But Shvarts insists her concept was not designed for “shock value.”

“I hope it inspires some sort of discourse,” Shvarts said. “Sure, some people will be upset with the message and will not agree with it, but it’s not the intention of the piece to scandalize anyone.”

The “fabricators,” or donors, of the sperm were not paid for their services, but Shvarts required them to periodically take tests for sexually transmitted diseases. 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.

UPDATE: According to university officials, this was a stunt.  Yet they don’t offer any evidence.  Either way, it’s a sad testament to the state of our culture.  Hat tip to the Recess Supervisor in the comments of this post. 

1. Can’t wait to see who, if anyone, jumps in here and tries to defend this.  It sure as hell won’t be me.

   It’s a pretty remarkable project though.  Not everyone could manage to simultaneously trivialize the sanctity of life while also taking a huge dump on a legal right that so many people have fought to secure and preserve.  There’s something here that damn near every person on earth could find morally reprehensible.

   Posted by Recess Supervisor on April 17, 2008 at 2034 hrs




2. I want to be surprised that someone would do this. I want to be shocked. What does it say about our culture’s decline that I’m niether shocked or surprised? Man, I need a shower.

   Posted by Billiam on April 17, 2008 at 2046 hrs




3. What does it say about our culture’s decline that I’m niether shocked or surprised?

   I believe people have been saying that for approximately 1 million years.

   The best course of action, since we cannot execute her, is to ignore her. Attention only feeds people like that.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 17, 2008 at 2049 hrs




4. Oh good.  I guess it was all a hoax.  So she’s only screwed in the head.

   Posted by Recess Supervisor on April 17, 2008 at 2051 hrs




5. Let’s see, it’s an Ivy League school, founded by the clergy and they obviously support this piece of crap woman and her disgusting piece of trash that is supposdly art.  So, blame the piece of trash woman, but equally blame the equally piece of crap “school” for allowing this to be displayed.  Also blame the “instreuctor” for approving this piece of crap.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 17, 2008 at 2054 hrs




6. oh well.  Glad it was a hoax, but this woman is still a piece of crap.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 17, 2008 at 2056 hrs




7. I don’t believe for a second that this was a hoax.

   It seems to me, its more of a CYA (Covering Yale’s A**) In other words they got more press coverage than they wanted and since they couldn’t cry FREE SPEECH, they cried HA!! JUST KIDDING instead.

   Of course I also don’t believe that someone could stoop to that level of stupidity either.

   YEP! This “woman” is gonna make a FINE wife and mother someday!

   What does it say for this woman when she had to “artificially inciminate.” isn’t that just code for Dammit I can’t get laid?

   When it comes to sex in college the motto is:Anything, Anytime, Anywhere, with Anybody

   Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on April 17, 2008 at 2237 hrs




8. She’s still claiming that she DID inseminate herself, she did take herbal medicines to induce abortions, and she did film herself naked bleeding into a cup. Whether or not there was a microscopic fetus in there, is up in the air.

   Of course, Yale has no reason for this disgusting controversy to go away quickly.

   I just hope she’s now infertile.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 18, 2008 at 0849 hrs




9. Hoax or not (and I, sadly, believe it isn’t a hoax), the fact she did it doesn’t surprise me.

   The fact those who support abortion rights are disgusted does surprise me.  It doesn’t jive that they tell us it’s a “woman’s body, woman’s choice” and that an unborn child is “just a clump of cells” or “not really human” then turn around and condemn Shvarts for her “choice” - after all, she didn’t really kill a human being, according to them.

   What Shvarts did is done 4,000 times a day throughout the nation.  Of those, a small fraction are done to truly protect the mother’s health.  Or life.  Most are done for “social reasons” - ranging from “not having enough money” to being “unprepared” for parenthood.

   I guess I’d be interested in seeing why it’s okay for some to do this, but why Shvarts’ “art project” is reprehensible.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 18, 2008 at 1419 hrs




10. Actually Owen, she’s denying it’s a hoax.

    Posted by Nick on April 18, 2008 at 1423 hrs




11. She is definitely ethically challenged, but she is no dummy.  She is getting exactly what she wanted out of this.  Every artist wants an audience, she gained one by practicing her own perverse interpretation of art.

    I hope this is a hoax.  If she can prove that it is she probably just jumpstarted a career.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 18, 2008 at 1557 hrs




12. Yup, that’s the state of art in the 21st century.  You don’t need talent, skill, or vision.  You just need a hook—the more inscrutable the better—and publicity.  Voila, art!

    The only part that surprises me is her writing about the project was somewhat coherent.  Artist statements aren’t supposed to be accessible.

    Posted by HeatherRadish on April 18, 2008 at 1857 hrs




13. She is definitely ethically challenged

    Posted by jared on April 20, 2008 at 2056 hrs