?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Vasaris, the Fuzzy Dragon
vasaris
.:: ..::. .::..:...... .::

March 2014
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31

Vasaris, the Fuzzy Dragon [userpic]
I has a new favorite word...

Twitfuckery. Isn't it a neat word?

Twitfuckery was used to describe this incredible piece of omg what the FUCK?

Yale "art" student claims that for the last nine months she's been using the turkey-baster method of inseminating herself and then randomly taking abortificant herbs to induce miscarriage. Of course, since it's her senior art project, she's been filming the results and keeping the blood for posterity.

Yale, a while later, notes that in reality the claim is, instead, a bit of performance art and thus not in violation of any rules, moral codes, or what-have-you in place at the university. And, of course, she has the right to say whatever-the-fuck she wants in performance art.

...okay, then. Freedom of speech is protected and if she wants to lie convincingly for an audience... she should have considered acting. But, whatever.

Personally, I'm outraged and kind of appalled. A while ago I had a long-winded discussion on cf_debate about multiple abortion -- not about whether it was right or wrong, per se, but the moral implications of it. I noted that I find multiple (where multiple is a large number within a given year, not, say 3 abortions over the course of a lifetime) unintended pregnancies to be, for all intents and purposes, a kind of moral failing -- primarily because I think having the right to control my fertility comes with an obligation to actually, oh, do so. This belief has nothing at all to do with whether I think abortion should be available, has no implication of "for fuck's sake, sterilize the bint already" or anything of the sort. I'm as human as the next person and I'm just as likely to disapprove of a behavior as anyone else. I reserve the right to privately think there's something wrong with habitually not taking sufficient care with preventing conception so that abortions are necessary, if for no other reason than that the only place where one can reasonably meet the pro-Life front is on the let's just not be pregnant in the first place, shall we? front.

*ahem*

If it were true, I suppose she has the right to do it -- I believe in the right to control one's fertility, which, as appalling as I find it, would include getting pregnant for the express purpose of abortion, but...

What the fuck? Seriously, what the fucking hell are you thinking you fucking stupid bint. While I place no particular value on a just-conceived clump of cells, the concept of a) abusing one's body in such a way (even if it was hypothetical, in this case), b) trivializing abortion, miscarriage, and the reproductive process in general, c) reducing one of the greatest stressors in American society to a film of you bleeding from the crotch just like you presumably do every month and all for something as goddamn venial as attention? -- it's disgusting. I can't help it, there is no "beauty" to be found in such an act (and, frankly, the guy who thought it was a nifty-keen art project is a fucking tool.) Congrats, you've achieved shock value, but for what?

Honestly, what is the goal? I can understand having a vision you want to share with the world. I can understand a desire for beauty, or grace, or love, or passion, or pain, hate, despair, and horror. I can understand wanting to explore the human condition, throwing it out for the world to see and discuss. I can even understand wanting to stir discussion via visual mediums.

But this isn't something that was designed to generate discussion, or if it was, the artist needs some work on her basic understanding of other humans. No one really wants to see a miscarriage in action, induced or not. Few people want to discuss multiple abortion on any kind of ethical level that doesn't involve finger-pointing and calling the woman a cuntslutwhore. Everyone has a lot of fun pointing fingers -- and you can bet that the anti-Choice front will take this... person's (as I have no desire to include her in my gender or sex) actions and milk it for all that it's worth. "See the pro-Choicer's? See how they'd make babies just to kill them! They are horrible, horrible people who rape puppies and vivisect kittens for fun! Go forth and browbeat/scream at/slay them! Go!"

In the meantime, the Choice movement is stuck between "Her body, her choice" and "OMG, Ewwwww, WTF? Why are you trying to make the anti-Choice's point for them?"

The ability to (fairly) reliably control conception is one of the most amazing powers granted to us by modern medicine. The right of women to control their bodies, to control their fertility without being told by their husbands, brothers, fathers, priests... it's one of the most important advances in our society, IMNHO. But like any power -- be it intellectual, physical, monetary, social, governmental -- it comes with a responsibility to use wisely. There's no wisdom in this, just attention-whoring. There's almost no value to it at all, just a scream of "Look at me! I managed to offend a lot of people!" Is that what anyone wants on their epitaph? That they offended people and widened the gap between the Lifers and the Choicers, making it that much harder to build a bridge?

*shakes head*

Current Mood: frustratedfrustrated
Comments

Eeeew and WTF and well...what you said!!! I read/scanned the articles, and think that I love your new word but hate what that freak did/didn't do...

BTW, what is full definition of bint? Haven't heard that one til recently...

HUGS for my Fuzzy Friend.
SW