17 April 2008

Truly disturbing...

What else can you do but pray for people like this? I normally post the full text of articles in here, but I can't bring myself to force unwitting people to read this without realizing what they're getting into. Now, that's not to say that you shouldn't read the article, but you've been warned.

I'm nauseated beyond belief. The fact that someone could find life to be so utterly trivial is truly a tragedy.

Update: Apparently, the story was a hoax. That makes me feel better, but only slightly.


Anonymous said...

I'm with you. I'm pro-choice because I don't believe in bringing children into families and houses where they cannot and will not be cared for. But even pro-choicers like me recognize that abortion is less than ideal. That little bitch should be sterilized, end of story. I'll do it.

The other day, a friend of mine posted pictures of a shot she had at a bar called an "Abortion Shot". Some kind of thick liquer had been drizzled into a shot glass filled with a thinner drink, the end result being that the thick liquer formed a mass that looked like a fetus. I almost a) hurled and b) changed my affiliation to pro-life.

Similarly: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=26898570848


Anonymous said...

I would like to replace "less than ideal" with "a very ugly thing all the way around." "Less than ideal" was grossly understating what I was trying to convey.


tjtenor4 said...

Karen, I find myself somewhat surprised to disagree with you here. Perhaps it's the fact that I now miss Yale and I look upon it with rose-colored glasses - because certainly, had this story happened while I was still there, I would have joined the chorus condemning Aliza... but I am not the person I was then.

I would like to refrain completely from addressing the content of the art here. My main point would be as follows: wouldn't the supression of this art, no matter the outrage it may have caused, be a suppression of this artist's freedom of speech? Throughout history, haven't artists pushed the boundaries of what is acceptable... of what is called "art?" Haven't the avant-garde in the community been consistently and repeatedly persecuted for pushing the envelope in their profession? Show me an artist who's revered now for his vision and effect on the profession, and I'll show you one who was, for one reason or another, criticized for the content or medium of his art (Van Gogh is a wonderful example).

When is the world going to recognize that peoples' reactions to art are reflections of themselves - not a reflection of the artist?

Charles said...

Hoax or not, there are certain limits that were not meant to be breached, ever. "Freedom of speech" as a blanket term meaning "anything goes; nothing is wrong" is an incorrect application of First Amendment rights and principles - the Founding Fathers would agree. Indeed, to declare everything sacred and nothing evil would be the greatest evil of all, and your "anything goes" interpretation of "freedom of expression" is tantamount to claiming that even this exhibit should be protected, when there is still significant debate as to whether or not the subject matter (an unborn embryo/fetus, or several of them, anyway) enjoys protections granted to human beings.

Even considering allowing this to pass would be akin to Nazis displaying real-time exhibits of some of the many atrocities they committed during their reign of terror as "art," among them experimentation with immobilized yet sentient beings.

Charles said...

There is no prayer for an "artist" who would proceed with such an exhibit; only death, in order to prevent other very possibly viable embryos/fetuses from being exploited as "art." Lack of a deterrent effect be damned, if there was ever a reason to maintain the death penalty, this would be it.