Yale Daily News

I am especially surprised by the number of people who claim that pornography and prostitution are acceptable when freely chosen, yet express general outrage at Shvarts' project. How do they not stand or fall together? If anything, Shvarts' project appeals to a higher principle - that of 'art' - than do pornography or prostitution, which people presumably engage in for money.

You go, Peter Johnston!

You are confusing the concepts of legally permissible (i.e. the government cannot bar you from a particular act) with morally or aesthetically proper. One can (and this pro-choicer does) believe that Shvarts should have the freedom to do what she has done but still find it disgusting, insensitive and inappropriate as an academic or artistic project.

I don't believe abortions should be done for recreation or art. But I believe women should have the freedom from governmental control to have them. If it means Shvarts or others will have them for bad reasons, that's a risk I'm willing to tolerate in order to protect the right of women who need them for good reasons.

When people are free they will do unwise, messy, disgusting things. It is still preferable to have freedom than to have a society where the government prevents any disgusting, unwise or messy things from happening or punishes the perpetrators when doing those things.

Johnston, get a grip.

You say that some feminists think pornography is bad because it is exploitative, and then *you* (not any feminists, at least that you mention) define it as non-exploitative--and thus laudable-- when performed by the economically privileged.

Then you leap to the conclusion that abortion is laudable when performed by the economically privileged.

Then you decide that all feminists--even the "disgruntled" ones--must applaud abortion for art.

Take an Intro to Logic class or something, because yours needs a lot of work. And maybe actually read the thoughts of a feminist or two on these topics.

Johnston, these two examples don't work. You are conflating two things that aren't the same. It would be like me saying:

1. I don't like working out in the morning, but I do at night;

2. I don't like coffee in the morning, so therefore I MUST like coffee at night... Just because prostitution and abortion elicit the same response when in one circumstance, doesn't not mean they necessitate the same response in another.

It's gotten to the point where I can describe these columns as "Peter Johnston columns", and people know exactly what it will be like. That is to say, poorly argued and vaguely pretentious.

You are right that it is hypocritical o be disgusted by the thought of deliberately inseminating oneself to have abortion, and at the same time be pro-choice. Her work has inspired me to become more consistent, and now I fully support the whole concept. Aliza is a genius. PS I'm completely serious. This has had a profound effect on many other women I know and we have all come around to saying you go girl.

Is this column part of the performance art exhibition? Once the initial worldwide outrage has died down, is it part of the second phase of the plan to have the appalling "artistic" announcement followed up with insipid and half-baked commentary in defense, so that it can jump start a new wave of responses?

Pardon me if I have breached decorum by calling BS on some type of elaborate hoax, but it is really the only way I could make sense of this article.

I think this column makes sense. Of course, Peter Johnston has managed to make what is basically a 100-word syllogism into an entire long-winded snooze-fest.

Premise: Feminism centers on securing autonomy for women. Feminist choices must be made as free choices (ie: as choices made under an autonomous will [in the Kantian sense])

Premise: The artist is truly autonomous in her decision to abort because she is not hampered by circumstance. Other women, who chose to abort for reasons of convenience, ability to provide, and health do not possess a truly autonomous will.

Proposition: Therefore, feminists must defend this art in order to remain true to their principles. Otherwise, they're merely "feminists" of convenience rather than of principle.

But if the artist aborts because she must abort to obtain academic credit for a project that she has autonomously chosen for herself (contrary to the better judgement and/or taste of a public that would scarcely oppress her into peforming or provide her a reward for same)then she has freely chosen to be a dumbass and we may say 'You go, girl' as in you go [somewhere else] you silly-attention-whore-of-a-Deconstructionist-spouting-pseudo-artiste.

P.S. No non-heteronormatives were harmed in the making of this post.

P.P.S. The columnist really likes to hear himself talk. Too bad.

Y10, your deconstruction of the argument sounds good, but has the same fault as Johnston's. Let me try and follow your logic here, using a similar example:

Premise: Liberty centers on securing autonomy for the individual. Individual choices must be made as free choices.

Premise: The murderer is truly automonous in his decision to rape because he is not hampered by circumstance. Other people, who commit murder for reasons of self-defense, lacking mental stability (not sober or crazy), or nationalist goals (military service) do not possess an autonomous will.

Proposition: Therefore, people who support the principle of liberty must defend the murderer in order to remain true to their principles.

Ludicrous, no? That is because my arugment (and your's too) exists outside of a moral or social code. Feminists, i don't believe, are arguing for an unfettered autonomous will. Surely there is an understanding that not all acts showing autonomous will can be lauded, and they do recognize there are social mores. That is jonhston's problem -- because he sees prostitution and abortion as both equally abhorrent, he thinks they actually follow the same logical narratives. And just because they wish to knock down some of these mores, does not mean they wish to knock down all... That's called anarchism/nihilism, not feminism