Yale Daily News

And how does on grade such a "work?"

I would argue that Ms. Shvarts' efforts clearly sit near the extremes of a continuum, which would argue for a A or an F (to do otherwise places it in relation to other students work, which it really isn't). Which will it be, I wonder?

I wish Yale had some backbone--EITHER WAY. Really, I wish I knew which way my university swayed. E.g., "Not at the art show? F!" or "Very daring; A!" I would rather have Yale take some stand--either way--than continue its mealy-mouthed, Brodheadesque, non-positional non-stance.

But, of course, that is just dreaming...

She created no "work", just confusion through dissembling. She simply has an insatiable need for attention. Which this column provides.

I assume Dowe's piece, like Shvart's project, is a hoax. Is anyone really buying his pseudointellectual analysis and defense of Shvarts' work?

Mr. Dowe,

Your plays on language are clever, but they avoid the core issue, which is that Ms. Shvarts proposed - if even only conceptually - the idea of creating a life for the express purpose of destroying that life. Deliberately. Just to be 'smart'. This appals most human beings, regardless of their political views.

More gibberish from this high-minded University. Do they really teach this nonsense there? The Emperor truly has no clothes and a fair amount of students there are merely parroting the semantical equivalent of absolutely nothing.

What a waste of funding, but from So. Cal, not surprising.

Just because a student can spell multi-sylable words does not mean he/she has a clue about the concepts they represent, much less think rationally or write persuasively. Indeed, it appears there is no reasoning ability whatsoever. The inability to put together two sentences that make sense is truly astounding. They apparently are being graded on the number of letters used per word, and nothing else. Do Mr. Dowe and Miss Svarts represent the best and brightest of America? If so, God help us.

Abortion proponents find Shvarts' "work" harmful, exposing as it does the unspoken limits and hypocrisy the pro-abortion stance.

Real world effects? How about this new South Dakota state referendum:

"All induced abortions, whether surgically or chemically induced, terminate an entire, unique, living human being, a human being separated from his or her mother, as a matter of scientific and biological fact," says the text to be voted upon on November 4.

Send partial thanks to Aliza Shvarts!

I'm pro choice but this is obviously sickening. I was physically revolted by the pictures and the actions of this person. However, maybe some of the men involved were Skull and Bones? This would constitute an act of the blackest magick if she actually knew what she was doing....

Dowe is entirely too dependent on "(re)production." I wish we were talking about creativity (art) and 'pro-creation' (a better word than 'reproduction' when it comes to human beings). Shvarts knew she would provoke shock because she wasn't just producing art (or endangering her body); she was toying with life. Everyone's dancing around a profound and, yes, spiritual issue here. I just can't decide whether she's brilliant or crazy.

The application of 'sophistry' to an issue can produce a 'justification' for any position - the fictional 'Hanibal Lecter' illustrates that well and before yuio say 'well that was only FICTION' I could use another example even more extreme that isn't fiction but I choose not to use it here because there are still too many real victims around of that appalling set of crimes against humanity. So I guess the issue is where do we draw the line at for the provoking of the aesthetic sensibility and should we even draw a line? I say YES we should for if we count ourselves as having humanity and to be 'civilised' beings then morality isn't a 'taboo' to be broken but rather to be nourished for it's pragmatism in helping us collectively achieve social harmony, respect for other and civility.

"unless the (re)productive value of an act is immediately evident, it should not be undertaken — that the political and physical risks of any interrogation of the body (or any other political subject) and its (political and/or physical) uses and limits can only be vindicated by a clear an socially accepted politically or physically (re)productive outcome. "

GUANTANAMO?

I suggest you (re)(re)(re)(re)(re)(re)(re)read her statements as there are some major points you've missed. To start with, each of her "fabricators", or donors, had to submit documents verifying that they were STD free.