Yale Daily News

Just because YOU don't have a clear conception of what art is, doesn't mean that others don't, or shouldn't. To me, Shvarts' work isn't art, it's a sick and perverse stunt. It neither beautifully nor truthfully renders an aspect of humanity, and it doesn't appear to demonstrate significant technical mastery of a discipline. Just because something provokes a strong reaction doesn't mean it's art. By that standard, flatulence is art. So her "art" is not objectionable, because her project is not art.

As for your statement about Fox News being trash, I find it interesting that to you, Fox News is trash, but what's apparently sacred to you is someone's right to seek attention by representing herself as a serial self-impregnator and abortionist -- even if falsely so. Now if Yale University feels that these sorts of publicity stunts are not congruent with the values or the mission of the university, as a private institution, Yale has a right to condemn these types of stunts, and to strongly discourage them -- and should. It's easy to say, "Anything goes in society." That doesn't require too much thought and courage. What is respectable is when a thoughtful institution sets limits, understanding that students, like the rest of us in society, have a certain, but not absolute, right to free speech -- one that must be carefully protected, but also cautiously defined and delimited, as not to cheapen its value.

Finally, this publicity stunt has nothing to do with abortion rights. Both pro-life and pro-choice organizations have condemned it with equal vigor. So don't muddy the issue. This is about a young woman in search of her 15 minutes of fame as an artist, using despicable means -- and whether this sort of behavior is to be sanctioned by Yale and other universities. All of Aliza Shvarts' fancy conceptualizing of her true intent doesn't change the core truth that her actions were reprehensible, and are a serious discredit to the reputation of Yale University, in the eyes of a good number of reasonable, rational people -- people who don't deserve to be tarred as mere polemicists, simply because they view things differently than you. Some of us have been around a bit longer than you, and though we are not infallible, perhaps a lot of us who are older have the benefit of a certain hard-earned perspective that you lack. Step outside of the bubble called Yale and try to understand things from our point of view, if you truly value academic diversity.

This much, perhaps we can agree on: The extent to which Yale University embraces Aliza Shvarts will indicate the true character of the university, and its values -- whether Yale is a respectable university that respects human dignity and decency, or whether it's a place where reprobates can express themselves in any number of appalling ways, under the guise of academic freedom, intellectualism and freedom of speech. A university doesn't merely have a responsibility to its students. It has a responsibility to society, as well -- certainly a responsibility to cause no harm to society, under the guise of education.

First, no one is silencing this project. As the News reports, this is the most inquired-about event at Yale since 2006.

Second, just because an embryo or a fetus doesn't possess the full rights of a grown human being, it doesn't therefore follow that it's a completely worthless piece of tissue, akin to a hangnail. The whole reason there's an ethical debate over abortion is because both pro-choice and pro-life people recognize the need to justify their positions.

Thoughtful pro-choice people recognize that there is something unique about the process of pregnancy and the products of conception, but that that uniqueness doesn't then take complete control of a woman's life.

Shvarts' project (if it is actually real) trivializes the entire question by not even attempting to provide a justification. If our only guiding moral principle is autonomy (which, by the way, is also a moral assumption), there's nothing wrong with Shvarts' project. The general outrage being expressed indicates to me that many people believe there's more at play than just autonomy here. That's not at all irrational.

I am glad there are still rational elements at this university.

Don't silence it?

Why doesn't Yale just display the tattooed skin of concentration camp victims as art? Apparently Ilse Koch thought it was "Art".

For what it is worth, John Wayne Gacy, Charles Manson and Adolf Hitler all fancied themselves as Artists.

This is disgusting filth.

Kick her out of school.

RED ALERT! RED ALERT! RED ALERT!

B I O H A Z A R D

Puhleeze, not again with the "Free Speech" at Yale!
There are speech codes and hate speech regulations.
There are topics you will be prosecuted for advocating. There are government institutions, specifically the Army, which are forbidden from advocating on campus.
What is "Free Speech"? Certainly not hate speech. What is "Hate Speech"? Well, that depends on whose ox is getting gored.

What interests me is her commentary on the "work."

Gosh, all my doubts about even the possibility of "understanding" "the real" (as opposed to the...) dispelled by today's revelation that I not only have an understanding, but that it's a "normative understanding”...Yay!

Luckily she says: "It creates an ambiguity that isolates the locus of ontology to an act of readership." Note that we are talking "locus of ontology, " not of merely of ontology itself, a brilliant and moving distinction so characteristic of Shvarts.

"This ambivalence makes obvious how the act of identification or naming . the act of ascribing a word to something physical . is at its heart an ideological act, an act that literally has the power to construct bodies."

So I guess "Deconstruction for Dummies" got tedious after the first few pages. Or perhaps I should say "One can nearly localize that liminal moment of abruption in which the Deconstructive Aliza was sundered from both the palimpsest of the text and her reading as text and from that Ms. Shvarts still yearning for a dialectic coming together (or a snack and a nap.)"

Seriuosly, re: "This ambivalence makes obvious how the act of identification or naming . the act of ascribing a word to something physical . is at its heart an ideological act, an act that literally has the power to construct bodies."
I think the notion of naming as an act of control or at its core the very coming into being of the named is a central one, but it is not of necessity any more of an "ideological act" than any other encounter with the world as act. And to identify that naming as being "to something physical" as having the " the power to construct bodies" is not only clumsy, but acknowledges a continuing subscription to a metaphysics of presence precisely contrary to the point of the power of the act.

So much to reply to...

@ Chris M/#1: I'm not arguing that anything anyone does ever constitutes art. Instead, I'm asking how people purport to claim definitively what does and does not constitute art--that is, what standard determines the parameters of art? If the answer isn't obvious, then this isn't obviously not art, no matter how many angry people you get to say so (there will, of course, be a large who say otherwise). And yes, the right to autonomy is sacred to me. What exactly do you find wrong with that? You have yet to say what exactly is morally reprehensible about these stunts. Just because people disagree about abortion and back up their positions with arguments doesn't mean their views are in any way similar. Many people, myself included, don't believe in the rights of zygotes and blastocysts, and the law does not require us to. I'm sympathetic to those who would argue otherwise, but I want reasoned arguments as to why I should think differently (which, usually are the sort that fail to posit distinctions between maple trees and acorns). Of course, if these arguments fail to convince me (as they have so far) I will continue to act as though zygotes have no rights, and so for me, and any who agrees with me, the issue is not moral at all. You want the University to set limits. Again, give me a reasoned standard. Why should the University disallow such a project as Shvarts? Because your sensibilities are hurt? Because many people's sensitivities are hurt? Again, that's a terrible means to argue for restricting action, and yes, before anyone tries to use it against me, I would argue for the right of the KKK to march through the streets of New Haven if they so chose to do so peacefully and legally (and I'm black). In the KKK example, I would find such a thing morally repugnant, but freedom of expression trumps that, and the University is the last place where one should find restrictions on expression.

I'm not calling people polemicists for disagreeing with me; I'm calling them such for not using detailed, reasoned arguments that start from premises that anyone would reasonably accept. Some of the objectors are doing this, and I applaud them for it. Most (that I've seen) are not. The extent to which the University allows Shvarts' project shows the extent to which Yale is an institution demanding that offensive expression be debated and confronted, not suppressed. I'm proud of such an institution. I find no solace or appeal in your so-called limits, and I wonder why you seem to think "respect[ing] human dignity and decency" leads to obvious, coherent sets of behavior that anyone would agree on.

Back up your claim that unjust harm is being done.

@ Gabriel M/#2: People are calling for this project to be silenced or suppressed or suggesting that it ought to have been. It is against that sentiment that I write. The "worth" of a zygote is subjective and because someone else values it is no reason why a woman (in this case Ms. Shvarts) ought to respect that value judgment if she does not share it. People disagree on abortion, yes, and pregnancy is something special and unique, as is sex, but it does not follow from that assessment that abortions cannot be regarded as art by one who desires to do so. Autonomy is key to me, yes, and then there are aesthetics. The problem with many people is they seem either unwilling or deficiently capable to distinguish between their aesthetics and their morality. The former are private and deeply personal and need not be defended (unless they infringe upon the rights of others--the zygote is not a person, and so this argument is not relevant to it); the latter pertains to the interaction between the individual and society and regards claims that must be defended definitively rationally or else they are rightfully subject to summary rejection. That which can be posited with insufficient evidence can be just as easily dismissed. In lieu of sound, comprehensive reasoning for the moral wrongness of Shvarts' actions, the objections are indeed irrational and thus have no binding power. Keep in mind, I have admitted that her project (assuming, for the sake of argument, that it is real) is an affront to my aesthetics, but I have no rational grounds to hold my preferences as a binding claim against her actions.

"For what it is worth, John Wayne Gacy, Charles Manson and Adolf Hitler all fancied themselves as Artists."

Thus, they were.

@ Anthony L

"The "worth" of a zygote is subjective and because someone else values it is no reason why a woman (in this case Ms. Shvarts) ought to respect that value judgment if she does not share it."

Let's think about that another way. The "worth" of a human is subjective and because someone else values it is no reason why I ought to respect that value judgment if I do not share it.

Face it - in the limit, it all comes down to subjective values. You can try and offer a rationale for why we ought to respect human life, but in the end, you will simply end up appealing to assumptions (granted, that many people share, but still assumptions). You might appeal to the preservation of a the human species - but that's still assuming our preservation to be a good thing. Our treasured value of autonomy - an assumption. There is no "rational" reason to be offered for these things.

Of course, once we make a few assumptions, such as that we want to live together in a decent society, we can go fairly far in our moralizing. I think in a case like this, we have people disagreeing on the content, extent, and applicability of our fundamental assumptions. And I'll say it once again, there's nothing irrational about that.

I'm perfectly OK with silencing this little monstrosity.

@ Gabriel M

Epic fail!

As a moral nihilist (or maybe "sentimentalist" would be more precise, but both are equally easy to misunderstand outside of a philosophical context) I completely affirm that the worth of a human is entirely subjective. No about of simply thinking about human life will bring anyone to the conclusion that human life is valuable--until emotional attachment is added to the deliberations.

However, with his magnificent brain and attendant theory of mind, the average human understands what would happen if he were to simply destroy another human being on a whim. Other human beings, fearful of a similar fate, would turn on him and mete out punishment. Thus our social convention of not killing one another whenever we please.

But you really can't extend that to this case. What Aliza chooses to do to herself, however repugnant, cannot rationally be prohibited by anyone. Assuming that we are not under the delusion that life begins at conception, all that Aliza is doing is harming herself in a spectacularly disgusting fashion.

She's not doing anything that could possibly hurt anyone else, so there's no justified reason to censor her. Well, except one--indirectly, she may be causing great harm to the pro-choice movement by giving pro-lifers much-valued ammunition. I find it mind-boggling that she did not anticipate how her project would be interpreted by others and what implications it might have in a broader political context.

Still, stupidly making things worse for everyone else isn't a reason to be silenced--or is it?

I am not in favor of censor but in this case I think it would be beneficial for everyone, including Ms. Shvarts, that this project not be exhibited. Very few people are in favor of it and there might be boycotts or violence at the exhibition. For the safety and reputation of the university the project should be evaluated behind closed doors. There are many senior projects and essays that are done by Yale students that actually would be enlightening and it is a shame that this one, which shows little common sense, talent or sophisticated scholarship is being highlighted. There are many other things to write and make art about. Aliza, if this is a hoax, has probably never even experienced an abortion. She chose to make art about something that she knew nothing about but that is extremely volatile in our society. That is her choice. She should perhaps think about getting out more and interacting with people, so that she would have more interesting subjects to express, rather than menstrual cycles and fake abortions. All women have a period and none want to have an abortion.

All you "what is art?" relativists, please memorize this definition:

"Art brings people enjoyment, and inspires them to live better, fuller, richer lives."

Under that definition, art can take many forms, but it must be UPLIFTING, NOT DEGRADING. For the last 50 years or more Art and Music have been competing to see which can be more shocking and degrading than the other. If it's "shocking and degrading", it's not art, and it's not music. If it's "shocking", it has to be uplifting in order to qualify as Art or Music.

Of course, that takes talent and hard work, which went out of fashion around 1950 in both Art and Music.

Shvarts and all you other "art as degradation" no-talents: If you must shock, please put in enough time and effort to find a way to create something that is shockingly beautiful and uplifting (see the Sistine Chapel for a good example). If you can't do that, it's not art, and you by definition don't have the talent needed to call yourselves artists. Go get day jobs bagging groceries, and degrade yourselves after hours, at home, in private.

Let's cut through all the mush about "Free Speech".

In this country, Shvarts is free to say or do anything that doesn't damage those around her.

Yale also has the freedom to decide that her thoughts and actions are so repugnant that it does not want her to do them under Yale's name.

If Yale throws her out, she can still say and do whatever she wants; she just has to do it on the New Haven Green or at home (if her parents would put up with it). Those of you who say that Yale has to put up with this kind of apalling behavior need to ask yourselves if Yale also has to put up with people taking dumps in the entryways, or plastering the campus with swastikas, or killing little puppies in the middle of Cross Campus and displaying their blood in the YUAG.

Freedom to express = freedom to suffer the consequences of making yourself obnoxious to the society in which you live.

@ DN

I think you misunderstand my position. I'm not calling for her to be silenced. In fact, if she is really going to be exhibiting something, I will probably go see it.

I actually agree with you - "not killing one another whenever we please" is a social convention. It may be "rational" in the sense that it helps us achieve our goals (not being killed by an angry mob), but there is no rational appeal that can be made (e.g., to deontology) to explain _why_ one goal (living) is better than another (dying). It's simply a matter of preference.

One preference shared by a number of people is that human life has (or at least, we want it to have) some intrinsic value. That doesn't mean an embryo has all the rights of a grown human, but it does attempt to recognize that there is something unique about the embryo, and that interactions involving the embryo ought to involve more consideration than picking peanut butter brands.

You may disagree with that shared value, but you should realize that it is a widely held one - and not just among pro-life people. So, to people who value the products of conception even a little, Shvarts' project trivializes the unique beginnings of human life without offering much justification for doing so. No longer is the argument about being trapped by one's biology, or anything similar; rather, it's just because "I felt like it." Or in Shvarts' pseudo-intellectual , euphuistic language, "to destabilize the locus of [the] authorial act," etc., etc. And yes, I understand Shvarts' point about not knowing what exactly it is that she will be displaying, etc.

Point being, once again, the whole disagreement stems from different understanding of principle moral axioms. And since we are agreed that these essentially come down to a matter of preference, there's nothing irrational in disagreeing about their content, or in expressing disgust and outrage at Shvarts' project.

To Anthony, in response:

I made my definition of art clear in my previous comments, and I'll add that I believe my definition should be standard -- or obviously, I wouldn't have stated my view. You say that you recognize limits to art, but you deftly avoid defining it. So I can't give due regard to your ideas of art if I can't convince you to give me a positive definition of it. A heart surgeon doesn't just need to know what a mitral valve "isn't," he needs to know what a mitral valve "is."

Also ... why must I explain to you why repeatedly inseminating yourself and inducing miscarriages is "morally reprehensible?" Would you recommend that your friends try it?

As for limits at Yale, I'm pretty sure you guys have an bioethics panel that defines what is appropriate in terms of manipulating human life or tissue. In the absence of said clarity, it's not dense thinking to ask people to not engineer or manipulate human life or tissue for purposes other than carefully vetted and supervised medical research -- and that under no circumstances is inducing abortion for "art" appropriate.

As for your other points:

Maybe the problem with our country is that we DO allow the KKK to march. We promote freedom of expression to the detriment of racial harmony in this country, and too many of us are quite comfortable with this. Yes, I do question the wisdom of that. And spare me the counter-argument that hateful incidents actually promote more harmony by encouraging discussion. That's like saying that the best time to remind people about fire safety is after their house has burned down. If you've ever been called a "nigger," rarely do you think, "This is a great time for dialogue."

As for "sensibilities" ... if your daughter were a prostitute, in a place where prositution is legal, and she was clear about her desire to have sex for money, would you encourage her to pursue her "freedom of autonomy"?

@ #4: To clarify, Godwin's Law (paraphrased): as the length of discussion increases, the probability of references to Hitler and Nazism approaches 1 (and the facetious corollary: the person invoking this law automatically loses the argument). Nazi allusions are grossly overemployed and serve as little more than red herrings (usually grounded in the fallacy of appeal to emotion or ridicule, more commonly known as reductio ad hitlerum). Invoking Godwin's Law is not called for, nor does it make your point in any meaningful way (you can't actually maintain with any semblance of intellectual honestly that having a few abortions compares to the systematic mass murder of 6 millions Jews and other actual human beings). Stop using it. Also, one can be an artist and still make bad or immoral art (thus being a bad or immoral artist).

@ DN/#15: Well said.

@ #17: Using your definition (and I thank you for providing a working one) her project is still art. A lot of people enjoyed her project for various reasons (I myself appreciate the idea of the project, although I find the project itself disgusting, for want of a better term, and I'm not sure I can say I "enjoyed" it). These people found it "uplifting...inspir[ing] them to live better, fuller, richer lives", and some of these people commented on some of these articles to that effect. I have heard a number of nuanced, intelligent, thoughtful conversations about her art among people who oppose and support it. The fact that many people such as you might not agree with these people doesn't invalidate their opinions (any more than the inverse would be true), and you and others can sit around and call them "deranged" and "cruel" and "sick" and "out-of-touch liberals", etc. all you want, but you're not saying anything. They can just respond that you are "primitive" and "part of an oppressive patriarchal framework" and "sexist" and "out-of-touch conservative", etc. I'm not saying that either side's ad hominem attacks are true; rather, ad hominems have no place in rational discourse, as I said, and more to the point, they do not change the fact that your definition still allows this to be art.

@ #18: Yale, as a University, has a greater obligation (which Yale itself acknowledges) to encourage free, open discourse than to protect the (rightfully non-existent) right not to be offended. Again, the (im)morality of her act is ambiguous at best, and some people (myself included) don't see her actions as having any moral significance at all. Should the University return to enforcing limited views of morality on its supposedly freethinking students? I think not. The University thinks not. This doesn't mean it should condone, say, murder (to avoid the obvious but annoying and primitive red herring), as that is actually contrary to public health and security and the very idea of the University. I could go on in that vein as to why certain such moral judgments are necessary but I won't insult your intelligence.

Being obnoxious warrants societal consequences yes, but not legal or institutional sanctions. Let's not make the common mistake of conflating society with institutions/the State.

@ Michael Gabriel/#19: I never claimed there was no possible rational basis to be pro-life. What I said was that many of those calling for Shvarts' project to be censored or otherwise institutionally punished/rejected are largely doing so based on perilously irrational thought processes, as is obvious in looking at most of the comments on any article on this subject. While I agree that thoughtful pro-choicers ought to acknowledge that there are good (though not good enough) reasons to be pro-life, it doesn't entail any overlap in opinion. Put another way, I both concede that there is much merit to the pro-life movement and nonetheless maintain--rationally--that the zygote is not human and has no rights. Considering that Shvarts is likely of the latter sort, it would follow that she would have no moral qualms about making abortion into art.

Also, consider that art, to actual artists and art fans, is not trivial at all. For those who really appreciate it, art is the most sacred expression of humanity that exists, and so if a monumental point or message is to be conveyed, it is best conveyed through art. I'm not saying she should have used abortion as art; however, it may fundamentally misrepresent the meaning of art (for its aficionados) to say that it can "trivialize" something, and perhaps there is a better way to put the objection. Her justification, while a bit pompous and verbose, still says a lot about why she thought the project worth doing, and I honestly don't think she could ever say enough to appease those who think her actions are murder. That said, that people might be mightily offended by her work is no standard for a University to use in gaging its merit, and is hardly a reason for her not to do it (assuming that she thinks her point is worth making).

@ Chris M/#20: I like #17's definition of art, and I feel it's workable enough to incorporate what most of us usually mean. However, as I stated in my previous comment, that definition or even yours, does not declassify Shvarts' project as art. Also, it's not tenable to maintain that immoral (and thus should be prohibited) acts are simply those I "would recommend my friends try." I would recommend that my friends go to Harvard--a facetious comment, I know, but I think it gets the point across. Also, I could call it moral to fight and die for our country in Iraq, but I wouldn't recommend that to most people. Again, I don't see either sex (or insemination) or abortion as moral questions, so I don't see Shvarts' project as having anything to do with morality. I've explained briefly in my article the relevant reasoning behind this, and so I won't repeat it here. Again, I think too many people are conflating aesthetics with morality, and that's not a healthy way to go about policy on the state or University (or general institutional) level.

And let's say we have that bioethics panel. Are you assuming it should condemn this project (in which case you're not really relying on its authority, as you seem to think you have sufficiently established why the project ought to be silenced, and I disagree)? Put another way, suppose said panel heard her case and found that her actions were not unethical. Would you agree, then, that it comes down to a matter of aesthetics, or would you maintain your own standard, even if the reasoning is insufficient to be universally convincing?

I don't see how the fire analogy is relevant. I have been called a "nigger" before, and I still maintain that free speech trumps all because liberty is essential to life. The thought processes behind banning offensive things has been at the heart of every totalitarian regime in modern history (as Hannah Arendt so well discusses), and the standards of offensiveness and rightness of expression are never obvious or universal. That said, sometimes security must trump liberty (as in the case of the fire in a theater example), but this is not a case of security. Encouraging discussion is key simply because the best way to get people to stop calling others "niggers" or otherwise being crude and primitively vulgar is to convince them (for want of a better way of putting it) that there is an inherent evil in the action. Simply outlawing things does not make them go away, and usually exacerbates the problem, as has been the case with Prohibition, the War on Drugs, and Holocaust-denial laws in Europe.

I couldn't imagine encouraging my daughter to be a prostitute (although I think prostitution should be legal), but I would never be in favor of allowing the government to bar her from such action. If I were unable to convince her that prostitution wasn't something she wanted to get involved with, then there are deeper problems at work that a mere ban on prostitution (or other restrictions of her liberties) is not going to fix.

IMPORTANT Correction (to Post 22):
by "I would recommend that my friends go to Harvard"

I meant "I would NOT recommend that my friends go to Harvard"

You are very good at "intellectualizing" everything.

Beyond the contents of this project, how about the fact that she told the Dean of Yale College it was all a fake according to OPA and is now saying its real? Isn't telling direct lies to the Yale administration grounds for discipline? And what about the health implications of the blood used in this project? Isn't it pretty unsanitary to be displaying smeared blood in a public art exhibit?

To Anthony L.
The reason a lot of people are upset at this project is precisely because there IS NO FREE SPEECH AT YALE.
There are speech codes and offensive speech is sanctioned, albeit selectively. That is why some people are irate about this. To paraphrase Orwell "Some speeches are more free than others".
You, as a person, may tolerate a KKK demonstration, or being yelled the "N" word in anger, but should anybody lodge a complaint, the KKK and whomever insulted you would be in a heap of trouble, and rightfully so.
To give you another specific example that is not racially or sexually charged, a Yalie who belongs to ROTC (and must travel to UConn to train) cannot set up a booth and recruit at Yale. So as you can see, some speech is free, some speech is free as long as nobody complains, and some speech is forbidden.
I COMPLETELY agree with you that there should be free speech. But make it completely free. No speech codes, no hate speech guidelines, nothing but free inquiry.
Finally, given the back and forth between the University and Ms Schvartz, either she is lying or the University is lying. Lying is not OK, especially in an educational institution. If she lied to the University about her senior project, it should be treated no different than cheating or plagiarism. If the University lied, then by their own admission, they have a host of legal and ethical transgressions to confront.
If nothing happens, as is my guess, I will paraphrase the old Russian saw about pay and work (We pretend to work as long as you pretend to pay us): We pretend there is Free Speech as long as you pretend to Tell the Truth.

Wow, an Alum at #17's pulling a definition of "art" out of Alum's ass is as remarkable a feat as Shvarts bleeding her definition into a cup. It pains me that there are people with Yale degrees apparently stupid enough to try and pin down a definition for something that artists have been struggling with for centuries. To think it was all as easy as "Art brings people enjoyment, and inspires them to live better, fuller, richer lives." That's what I'm sure Picasso aspired to, with for example Guernica, to give "people" say perhaps Franco's soldiers "enjoyment." Perhaps we should award all qualifying "art" a gold star or perhaps a scrawled smiley face and a nice pat on the head for the "artist." Do you understand your claim to be that a works status as art is changeable as what "people" enjoy changes. And how many, pray tell, individual's enjoyment is necessary to constitute people enjoying a work. Surely not all living and dead individuals. Surely not just one living individual. Does hat gives you enjoyment ever change Alum? Do you propose that a survey must be done for each work or is raw speculation about what people enjoy fine? And then does sex qualify as art -- lots of people enjoy sex, they find it inspires them to etc., etc. Tell the truth Alum - you never took an art history class, you never really thought about the notion of art before you set down your drivel except when you coveted your neighbors "Dogs Playing Poker" poster, which, truth be told brought a lot of people enjoyment, and may well have inspired them to live better, fuller, richer lives...

#21: I am a strong believer in Godwin's law and agree with most of what you say about it. Analogies to Hitler and the Nazis in an argument are almost always out of place and unhelpful, and particularly ridiculous so when leftists compare Bush to the Nazis.

But the comparison between pro-abortion activists and the Nazis is apt. Both group dehumanize a certain portion of the population, arguing that they are not human and therefore that there is nothing immoral in killing them. Now, you will say "But pro-choicers are right that fetuses are not humans!" Well, Hitler thought he was right too. The point is that, from the perspective of someone who believes that fetuses are human, the analogy between abortionists and the Nazis is very strong. And this is also leaving aside the fact that abortionists have been extremely successful in using the media to push their agenda, in a way that Goebbels would be proud of. This is the only political issue I can think of where a comparison with Nazis is justified.

My, my, my. I fear I must agree with #24. You're a Holy Terror with the Unjust Speech.

Personally if MY daughter were engaging in acts of prostitution, call me a cowboy (thank you), but I'd discuss the concept of her "positive freedom" with her pimp with my Remington 870 Pump Action Express.

And that's the difference between how you and I think. Life for you has to be an ongoing dialogue, where everything has to be overthought and confirmed for it to be valid ... thus, simple concepts such as "do not allow your daughter to become a prostitute under any circumstances," and "inducing pregnancy and abortion is abhorent" become Big Questions in your mind that require Deep Thought and Careful Reasoning. It's a shame, because no matter how many of them big ol' books you read up there, "Oh Socrates, oh Socrates," nothing will impact your future success in business more than common sense, and your ability to be practical. But you're a heady freshman, and right now you're suffering from a touch of Yalie altitude sickness right now. Take it from someone whose "type" will be underpaying and overworking you someday -- provided that you can effectively maneuver your Unjust Speech to explain why I should.

I agree with the author on this one. Art is impossible to define. I may be appalled by this project, but it's not up to me to decide what is art and what is not. There is simply no objective definition. I do think she should have taken into consideration the implications her project has, both socially and politically. To think that ultra-conservatives in this country could possibly take this project as a reason to outlaw a woman's right to choose sickens me. But as to the considerations of 'art' or not, and her use of her own body... she was within her rights to carry on with the project.

Anthony, I'm glad there are still reasonable people at Yale who think before they bash.

Can someone explain this statement:

"the self-righteous pretensions to moral indignation worthy of such media trash as Fox News."

Every network other than Fox basicaly ignores the very existence of social conservatives and their arguments and viewpoints. Fox News does occasionally present viewpoints that are not socially liberal. How is that pretension to moral indignation? Are the hundreds of people disgusted by abortion who comment on the various YDN articles on this topic also "pretending" to be disgusted?

FOX News provides coverage that is slightly and openly tilted right. This contrasts starkly with the hidden biases and agendas of CNN, CBS, and ABC.

I watch FOX News. At Yale. And I'm liberal. It drives my suitemates mad.

Cheers.