The Interesting Case of Aliza Shvarts

[jackofallgeeks]

"Officials said Shvarts' description of her creative process as well as her
subsequent denial that the description was fictitious were all just part of
her performance."

For those just joining us, a senior at Yale's art program is in the middle
of, I think, a
rather interesting news flurry regarding the controvercial nature of her
most recent project. Pardon me if this is too graphic -- it's definitely a
bit too squicky for me -- but Shvarts claims that she artificially
inseminated herself and then self-induced 'miscarriages' using certain
herbal concoctions. She says she did it so that her 'miscarriage'
corresponded with her period, so she never knew if she was actually
pregnant, but that blood from her period would constuitute part of the
exhibit.

There was, apparently, a big outrage over this, which then turned into Yale
saying the story is a fiction and part of the 'performance' of Shvarts' art,
and Shvarts herself standing by her story and claiming that Yale is just
trying to save face after giving her permission to do the project.

I'm inclined myself to believe it's all a great farce, that the whole thing
is a performance including the school's denouncment of Shvarts and 'removal'
of her exhibit from the art show. I think they're all in on the game and
that her art is in seeing how we the people react to this manufactured
scandal. It's got all the right pieces, from a controvercial (even
grotesque) art piece, and a school's persecution of an artist, and claims
that the institution is putting on a pretty face because they're getting
negative attention. And I think that the fact that this is Yale and not,
say, Maryland University or Boston College, adds credence to this hypothesis
because not only COULD Yale get away with a stunt like this, they'd probably
give it a go, too.

That being said (and maybe this speaks to why I think it's a hoax), I don't
get why this is an issue. I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm personally
appauled that anyone could possibly think this exhibit -- the insemination
and the blood and the 'miscarriages' -- would be a good idea. If it
actually happened the way Shvarts says it did I think she's a rather
wretched human being on a number of levels -- but all for reasons that set
me apart from what it is our society seems to think is OK. We have
abortions every day, and while it is a controvertial topic, as it stands now
our society approves of if not condones abortion. Sex itself
is in a strange, half-taboo position in society; we won't talk about
consensual intercourse in polite company (or public TV), but all sorts of
violence is thrown about casually and society condones pretty much anything
that goes on behind closed doors between two consenting adults (unless you
live in Virginia or Utah). And those two points seem to be key in this case
of a girl inseminating herself and subsequently inducing miscarriages -- it
happens every day in America and no one thinks anything of it, she's
just abstracted it and turned it into an art piece -- not art like Classical
Art, I propose, but art in the more modern sense of saying something.

I know why I'm repulsed, because what she's claimed to do is squarely
against a good deal of what I think is right and proper. What I don't get
is why the society that condones this same behavior in private is in an
uproar over it in art.

Comments

[dikaiosunh.livejournal.com]

You're still making lots of generalized, unsourced claims, which makes this difficult to reply to.

1. 33 states have specific informed-consent laws for abortions (every state has general informed-consent rules that require doctors to give relevant information to people undergoing any surgical procedure - the only difference is that in 17 states the information given for abortion is, as with any other procedure, up to the discretion of the physician). Many of these do include mention of the breast cancer and pre-term birth concerns, even though those are rejected by the medical consensus. Guttmacher Institute has an overview article here and a state-by-state breakdown here (pdf), including a breakdown on your issues of concern (see p. 3).

As for the "precautionary principle" - I think the best way to go is with the medical/scientific consensus. If you want to tell women considering an abortion that there was one, debunked, study, that claimed to find an abortion-breast cancer link, that's fine with me (see NCI for a quick discussion of the state of the evidence). If you load someone up with every possible drawback to a procedure, you're going to defeat the purpose of informed consent by overloading them with information they can't sift through. Some people have believed that removal of the heart will prevent you from passing through the Gates of Ma'at in the afterlife, but we don't warn organ donors about that.

2. I have not seen every movie of the past three decades, no. I grabbed a couple of prominent recent examples. I *did* watch movies during the 70s-90s, but none that paint abortion in a good or trivial light are coming immediately to mind. Without some examples, I don't know how to continue that part of the conversation. I also read relatively few webcomics, and the only one I read in which abortion has come up is Something Positive - but if you're reading S*P for role models, you've got bigger issues. In any event, I'm not sure webcomics mentions constitute any sort of pop culture onslaught.

3. "pro-choice individuals don't seem to desire to make any distinction between "fertility control," for lack of a better term, and outright abortiofacients"

I have no idea who you're referring to. I just explained the difference between RU-486 (an abortifacient) and the "morning after" pill (emergency contraception) to jackofallgeeks. If more clarity is needed, I will re-emphasize that EC operates either by interrupting ovulation or by preventing implantation (though there's generally no way to tell which way it operates in any particular case). Medically, pregnancy is typically defined as beginning at implantation, hence EC is not classified as an abortifacient. If you believe pregnancy begins at fertilization, then your view of it may vary. I'd just note that a fertilized ovum failing to implant for natural reasons is a fairly common occurrence, spontaneously. Most pro-choice folks I know could, and will, and have, done the same. I'm sorry if you've met someone who didn't know the difference - every group has some uninformed members.

4. "Medical" abortion (as opposed to surgical abortion) is a term sometimes used to refer to abortion via the administration of RU-486 (mifepristone). Unless there are complications, no, this procedure is not invasive. As I pointed out to JoAG, it's still not the sort of thing I'd do for kicks on a Sunday afternoon.

[naughtjennifer.livejournal.com]

I apologize for the lack of sources, but it's been difficult finding relevant information in the short periods I've had available to respond.

1. Okay, your informed consent information seems good on paper, but the presentation raises a few questions:

-A significant amount of this information is placed under the header of "written." This is, obviously, a bit unclear. When people speak of requiring informed consent, my impression, at least, has been that such includes signing a waiver asserting that you have been "provided with the information and are aware that the risks include: ... ." Having "written" information "offered" sounds to me like there is a pamphlet tray with "What You Should Know About Abortion." Cynical, yes, but your list doesn't positively assert anything more than that. And, similarly, "giving" this written information could be little more than handing the pamphlets along with the paperwork they need to fill out.
-Out of the 33 states, only 8 of them specifically say that abortion cannot be coerced, and only two of those instances are told in person. Based on what has been said by Third Way, as well as a plethora of concerns(search for coerced abortion), this seems to be a major issue. Despite this, it appears that there are pro-choice individuals who oppose legislation to prevent coercion.(apologies for the markedly pro-life site)
-In addition, there is concern over the quality and competency of counselors and counseling.(section on "Known Deficiencies of Abortion Counseling")

2. I've admitted the weakness of this argument on both fronts you mentioned, and I'm not currently equipped to follow up on it, but please keep in mind that it may be more prominent than you realize.

3. Again, this would have to be personal experience. I have met many people, and read many articles, which seem to imply a lack of distinction, or care to distinguish. In regards to EC, I'm forced to wonder: medically, life begins at conception; if pregnancy doesn't start at implantation, what is the termination of life in the time between these two points?

4. My concern here was if "medical" abortion fills the same stringent requirements as surgical abortion. The "non-invasive" claim implies that there is less concern about informed consent. Speculation, mind you, but a concern nonetheless.