TheAgitator.com
Vile Wench
Thursday, April 17th, 2008Here’s my idea: All of the women in American who badly want a child but can’t conceive get five minutes alone in a locked room with this wretched excuse for a human being.
92 Responses to “Vile Wench”
Leave a Reply
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivs 2.5 License.
Here’s my idea: Let’s get really excited over something, and get really pissed off and offended about it. Then we can let that hate and vitriol give ourselves that feeling of excitement that reminds us that we’re alive.
Seems good, right?
Isn’t that what blogging is all about?
For me, the despicable nature of this doesn’t stem from the fact that she induced abortions (although the concept upsets me, I’m not yet at the point where I feel abortions should be banned), nor does it stem from the fact that she turned the matter of those abortions into “art”.
The fact that she deliberately created these lives with the sole purpose of destroying them for display… for that, there are no fitting words.
The woman is sick.
/pregnant mamma of one who miscarried in between
I’m pro-choice but I’m with Radleys description of this bitch, she’s a disgusting human being.
I don’t think people get offended enough about things that actually matter, like the injustice of our justice system. Instead they worry about an errant breast on tv. Intentionally impregnating yourself in order to get an abortion should be an easy philosophical call.
Well as someone who is pro-choice, I’d still say you should make it at least 20 minutes. 5 minutes isn’t nearly long enough.
I think what this woman doesn’t seem to realize is that a lot of pro-choice supporters don’t think abortions are a good idea for for something to do when your bored.
I personally don’t know at what point life begins, At this point that is something still between you and your gods. Further in my opinion it technically doesn’t matter. Even if fetus’s are people, they are taking up space inside you still have the right to evict them. There are plenty of good reasons for doing so.
However doing it to obtain blood for your art project? I honestly would be about as equally offended as if you were buying puppies and beheading them in the name of Art.
“Yale should be ashamed that it is allowing an ‘art’ project that will offend millions of Americans,” she said.
This is kind of a side issue, but I find that statement to be completely out of place. Perhaps not millions, but shouldn’t art offend people? I feel the same way about music. If there aren’t any people out there that dislike a band, then they generally aren’t worth listening to.
Who gives a damn if this offends people? There are larger issues at stake here.
I agree, Montie. That comment shows she completely misses the point.
And, of course, the flip side is that it’s pretty much a wet dream for pro-lifers who want to scream about the horrors of abortion. Like the rest here, I’m pro-choice, but I’ve no defense for this (except to say that you can’t feasibly prevent it without infringing on the rights of people who don’t, you know, suck).
Is this woman really so ugly that she has to get artificially inseminated rather than just find someone to have sex with her?
On a side note, abortions aren’t a sport. I’ll all for a woman’s right to choose, but this takes it to the extreme.
I don’t condemn the university for allowing the display. I just can’t help but wonder at the mentality of someone who could come up with that sort of disgusting “art.”
Matt–
One shouldn’t have to “prevent” these things. It is incumbent upon those in a free society to have the sense and responsibility not to do things like this.
Misses the point? Was there even a point to be missed?
The mere fact that something is offensive doesn’t mean it has intellectual or artist merit–it just means it’s offensive. You can argue separately that its merits justify the offense it gives, but it’s silly to assert that the one necessarily implies the other. I mean, it’s not like the abortion debate has been exactly lacking in gruesome imagery and emotional lodestars. I don’t really agree that the school should do anything about it, but still.
I don’t know the technical aspects of it, but I would assume artificial insemination is not typically a DIY project. I have to call BS on that aspect of the story. I would strongly suspect that she was going out and hooking up with these ‘donors’ purely for the sake of getting knocked up for her project. The artificial insemination statement was just a cover story that she used to look like less of a scumbag, though I think it is a very small point within this tale.
There’s definitely something wrong about conceiving life (human or otherwise) with the express purpose of destroying it.
Yale shouldn’t be ashamed at exhibiting art that offends people. It should be ashamed of exhibiting art that was made in this manner.
Well on Art being offensive. I think your running into a problem with converse statements. (ex. The statement “All Horses are mammals” does imply “All Mammals are horses”)
Unless delibrately intending to offend, when a ‘good’ artwork is deemed offensive its usually a problem with the viewer. Disliking a band is a lot different than finding it offensive. I really don’t care for modern country music but its certainly not offensive.
I can’t think of any music I find offensive. Does that mean that there is no good music? For that matter until now I have never found any art to be offensive, plenty of stupid/disgusting/bad art but I am not easily offended.
One shouldn’t have to “prevent” these things. It is incumbent upon those in a free society to have the sense and responsibility not to do things like this.
Right, but the standard for state intervention these days is pretty much that people have demonstrably failed to use good judgment.
Or, I guess I should say, that it kinda sorta looks like they’ve failed to use good judgment, as defined by whatever group has an advantage in influence in government.
But the popular perception is that if people aren’t using their freedoms in the right way, or if a sizable enough minority are abusing them, then the government should take steps to restrict that freedom. So, you know, if this is what happens when we allow abortion on demand, well, obviously we need to restrict it. That’s where I was going w/ the “prevent it” bit.
Wesley,
I certainly would hold Yale responsible for this one especially if her advisor knew about the project. One of the ways to get a spoiled child from acting out is to not give them attention for thier misbehaviour. Universities have already shown that they are interested in acting in loco parentis in many other things. If they aren’t doing so here it seems pretty hypocritical. Not to mention its just in bad taste. You can be a scumbag in your private life but you can’t come to my house and act this way without getting kicked out to the curb.
[...] on a more personal level, I’ve got to say that I agree with Radley Balko: All of the women in American who badly want a child but can’t conceive get five minutes alone in [...]
I like to think in terms of pro-life and anti-life when determining the morality of a subject. My wife and I are questioned and criticized for our reproductive choices even though they are by definition, pro-life. This woman’s actions are decidedly anti-life. While I don’t think she should be thrown in prison, again anti-life. She should, however, feel pain, embarrassment, and and ostracism that she has coming for her anti-life decisions.
“All of the women in American who badly want a child but can’t conceive get five minutes alone in a locked room with this wretched excuse for a human being.”
Does this apply to any woman who exercises her right to an abortion or just those that Radley Balko personally disapproves of? Where does Radley draw the line for advocating violence against women–which his post expressly advocates–who have the temerity to exercise self-ownership over their own bodies?
You don’t get to claim the moral high ground, Mr. Balko, when you advocate violence against people who offend you.
I am not advocating this (fyi, FBI’s Carnivore program), but it is theoretically possible that someone could kill her in the name of Art, in order to, you know, refreshen the communication of modern zeitgeist through the lens of deconstruction and neo-Platonist wonderment in the vacuum of postmodern structure vis-a-vis organic stabbing. Or something.
let’s see here we have “wench” and “bitch” and discussions on how she must be ugly and calls for actual violence and a suggestion of murder. anyone want to try “cunt” or “whore?” why don’t we burn her at the stake?
sheesh people.
Skip Olivia–
I suspect Radley was being a bit tongue-in-cheek w.r.t. the violence. Good point, though.
I’ll advocate it, Dr.
Here’s the article from the Yale paper:
http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/24513
Skip — That was an example of hyperbole for effect.
I thought this would be sorta’ self-evident, but no, I’m not actually advocating she be locked in a room so tens of thousands of infertile women can queue up for the opportunity to smack her around.
“Does this apply to any woman who exercises her right to an abortion or just those that Radley Balko personally disapproves of? Where does Radley draw the line for advocating violence against women–which his post expressly advocates–who have the temerity to exercise self-ownership over their own bodies?”
I’d say someone impregnating herself for the sole purpose of having an abortion is a pretty safe place to draw the line.
Legality aside, the proper human response to abortion is grief, or guilt, or at least regret for being so stupid as to not invest in a contraceptive that would have cost much, much, much less than an abortion. The reason this offends is because of its sociopathic implications.
Hey, I wouldn’t touch her. I’d just give her a good tongue-lashing, try to get her to drop the art school bs to see if there’s a thinking brain behind all that ugliness (and I don’t mean the visual kind). I didn’t assume violence… but maybe that’s just me.
And John, artificial insemination of a perfectly fertile woman requires little more than a turkey baster, reasonably good timing and a freshly deposited/thawed sperm sample.
It’s how cows are inseminated all the time and (yes, this is a woman saying this), women need not be much different in this regard.
Did she induce abortions, or did she prevent fertilized egg implantation into the uterine wall? Many people use that distinction as the dividing line as to what is a viable fetus.
Also, her repeated dosing with RU486 may haunt that woman when she does want a child. It would be ironic if she cannot have a child when she wants one in several years.
chsw
BTW, following-up my previous post -
I agree with Bronwyn and Balko. This woman is a sicko.
chsw
Now I am usually pretty opposed to our Obsenity Laws as they stand but this seems like an instance where I wouldn’t have any problems letting her/Yale be prosecuted. I’d much rather see Brent Ward and the DoJ go after her than thier current anti-porn quest.
This and a possible commital hearing seems like a pretty reasonable response.
So, Radley, if you’re not advocating violence why this vile dehumanising post? I wish you’d take a step back and look at this post and the comments its gathering. There’s a lot of hate, misogyny, ignorance, and dictating appropriate thinking. I know I’m just a woolly liberal (I’ll shave tomorrow, really) but I thought this was a libertarian blog?
Does this art display violate any state or federal laws regarding the improper use of human body parts and tissue? Weren’t there complaints about the “Body” exhibit that showed plastecized humans, because they were improperly using human organs without consent? Also, wouldn’t this art display violate health safety laws regarding decomposing human tissue and/or human waste?
It seems that in addition to being a murdering sociopath, this woman is breaking quite a few laws. Yale too, maybe.
#34 — She’s done plenty to “dehumanize” herself. She didn’t need my help.
Yes, this is a libertarian blog. But I’m not sure how that’s relevant. Does being a libertarian mean I can’t denounce something vile and repulsive as vile repulsive?
Radley,
With re to comment #27: everyone with two brain cells knew that.
I am speechless.
My wife is one of the unfortunate ladies who would like to be in that room. But I won’t even show her this.
This is even worse than that disgusting bitch that had 2 of her 3 triplets aborted “so she wouldn’t have stretch marks or have to start shopping at Costco”.
We are pro-choice. the government shouldn’t be involved. But nobody is obligated to give her a forum for displaying her ‘art’. And if anybody else just did this in their basement and didn’t call it ‘art’ they would probably be ‘held for observation’ because they are clearly deranged.
#34 - Where’s the misogyny? She’s not considered vile because she’s a woman, and women, in general, are not now hated because of what this one has done. This has everything to do with her actions, not her gender. The fact that what she’s done is the exclusive domain of women doesn’t make anger with her, and her actions, misogynistic.
I bet she was invented by anti-abortion people.
But seriously, I am for artistic and academic freedom. She shouldn’t be stopped from doing this in a prior restraint sort of way. But Yale probably should give her a bad grade and expel her. Nasty.
I would still be interested to see the final product and even meet her to see if she really is otherwise a horrible person.
and i know i am being picky here with the question about misogyny, but the comment seems to be somewhat similar to radley’s original post - expressing an emotional reaction in an over-the-top way (”misogyny … dictating appropriate thinking”). Except the comment is serious.
anger and hyperbole do not take away from the libertarian-ness of Radley or his blog. he isn’t calling for a federal law or a ban. he and the readers are simply reacting to something that many people - even those who are pro-choice - mostly likely find horrific. even we libertarians have hearts and emotions.
Why is everyone here assuming
1. The story, as reported, is true?
and
2. That if (1) is true, that the woman is telling the truth about the abortions she induced?
A bit of web searching has left me in serious doubt of (1), and even given (1), I’d put my money on (2) then.
She sure riled y’all up though!
- Gavin
Zeb, I have 3 words for you: banality of evil.
This is not art.
Huh? I guess I see what you mean. I just don’t believe in evil.
[...] insemination for the express purpose of aborting the baby as a form of performance art (via The Agitator). There are lots of ways to create art that makes a point, offends or shocks the viewer, this girl [...]
“Does being a libertarian mean I can’t denounce something vile and repulsive as vile repulsive?”
This country would be a better place over night if more liberty-minded people could answer that question with an unqualified NO.
This has to be one the worst posts I’ve seen from you RB, and that makes it a rare beast, but still…
“Here’s my idea: All of the women in American who badly want a child but can’t conceive get five minutes alone in a locked room with this wretched excuse for a human being.”
Yes, and maybe we should lock up all the people that have lots of money poor people who want some? How is this logical? How is this in line without anything you normally defend? Lots of people flout or take for granted what other people don’t have and want. But that’s capitalism.
The real tacit assumption here behind the outrage is that embryos are morally important life and that by destroying them you are doing something bad to something that has value. But a) that’s insane, devaluing human life into mere genetics and b) abortion and the death of embryos is a natural part of life. What she did is something that happens countless times naturally, and there’s is nothing bad about it. She doesn’t seem to have made any real message out of it, but she well could have, and if its for shock value, maybe its the sort of shock that people’s nutty ideas about abortion and embryonic development needs.
And why link without caveat to a nutty pro-life site calls RU-486 “dangerous” as if any serious drug didn’t have risks and side-effects? It’s a hell of a lot less dangerous than plastic surgery… but maybe we should lock a stripper with a boob job in a room full of flat-chested women who can’t afford one, or something.
#34 - Radley, you say she doesn’t need your help in dehumanising herself. And yet you call her a “wretched excuse for a human being”. You (rhetorically) ask if being a libertarian means you cannot denounce something vile and repulsive as vile and repulsive. And yet you do not denounce anything as vile and repulsive. Instead you spin a fantasy where women having difficulty conceiving are allowed alone, presumably for violent ends, with the woman in question. This is just sad.
#42 - Radley is saying that this woman deserves to have violence happen to her. That is not a libertarian tenet as far as I know. In #27 Radley describes this as “hyperbole for effect”. It is doubtless true that he is “not actually advocating she be locked in a room so tens of thousands of infertile women can queue up for the opportunity to smack her around.” But that was the image he chose to convey. If a prosecutor were to go after the woman what would Radley’s response be? My uneducated guess is that he would oppose such a prosecution but not really care too much, certainly not as much as he cares about the cases he tracks on the blog. And no, I’m not saying he should care. I’m saying he should condemn this woman’s actions, if that is how he feels, and not wish her to be violently attacked.
#40 - As for the misogyny, see #23 in to reaction #4 and #9 which has cost him -3 on the thumbs up/down. And dictating appropriate thinking? See #11, #20. Ignorance is on display on #13 as ably explained by #30. I’ve personally babysat the toddler of a lesbian couple that was conceived from a fresh sperm donation from a gay friend of theirs and then on through the turkey baster.
#43 raises an excellent point. It’s a hell of lot easier to *say* you’re doing this than to actually do it.
Anyway, for those of you who believe her actions are wrong and/or feel disgusted by it, I suggest looking at those beliefs and/or feelings and leaving a comment explaining WHY you believe and/or feel that way. That would be interesting. Calling her a bitch and whatnot is boring and en mass appears to me as an exercise in groupthink.
The idea it might be a fraud is probably accurate. My wife is currently undergoing the process. Next week they do the “harvest” as I call it with the actual insemination happening 3-5 days after. The total cost for the procedure is between 10 to 20k. Most surprisingly to me, the laws governing the process (at least in Indiana) are pretty extraordinary.
Either way my original comment still stands, she’s a disgusting human being.
I’m with Mike in #5 about the puppies, but as a father of three I get cautious around any argument that leads to “every sperm is sacred” — especially if any infertile fathers want to get me alone in a room for all the sperm that I’ve intentionally deposited on sheets and inside condoms.
But like Matt said in #8, short of eating babies, this is pretty much the “See, we told you so” for the pro-lifers. I believe Radley was tongue in cheek; I’m not so sure about lifenews.com. (And while I was checking to see if my suspicions about them were true, I went to their home page, which has a second article that claims it is a hoax on the part of the art student. I’m going to go do something useful instead of wasting any more thought on this.)
If this is true…
Creating a human being (or ‘potential human being’) for the express purpose of destroying it and displaying the remains as ‘offensive art’ is a repulsive vile (and yes, evil) thing that shows a heart which has no feelings and no respect at all for human life.
The natural reaction is one of disgust.
A 2 month old fetus has less intrinsic moral significance than a snail, and far less moral significance than a chicken or a cow, which are routinely treated in the most inhumane manner before death. The definition of “human being” is not coextensive with “any collection of cells with 46 chromosomes.”
I think this is awesome. Its good to get in the faces of moralists and offend the shit out of them.
Besides the last thing the world needs is more people. Instead of shitting out more babies I wish more people in the world would do something like this instead. Or just kill themselves.
“Every time a woman self-aborts on a canvas an angel loses it’s wings”
My quick search doesn’t turn up any commentary from a doctor on the student’s claims, but this article considers a number of the questions I’ve seen raised here and about.
There are plenty of reasons to be skeptical. For just one, what sort of herbal cocktail could safely induce an abortion — never mind serial abortions — and not generate nonstop shrieking controversy? Seems like something everyone would have heard about. Think about all the screaming about RU486, which requires a prescription, unlike whatever she claims to have taken.
That said, the woman is depraved just to claim the deeds, whether she commited them or not. I don’t think it’s misogynic to say so or to express the horror and condemnation that the perversion she wishes to parade naturally brings forth from most sane people.
How tragic that we live in a culture where it is the uncertain mechanics of the claimed act rather than its mindboggling depravity that causes us to doubt the veracity of the claimant.
I am amused when I read comments about news and links to news about unusual events such as this. Inevitably, the postings stray from exchanges of info and opinions about the event, and drift into Libertarian dogma. It always reminds me of a conversation from a movie, excerpted here:
King Arthur: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. THAT is why I am your king.
Dennis: [interrupting] Listen, strange women lyin’ in ponds distributin’ swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
The “artist” in question in this thread does, indeed, deserve–at the very least–shame and ostracization (personally, I’d prefer the wood shampoo option). If a Libertarian society would actually tolerate such behavior, then may it never come to pass.
“I thought this would be sorta’ self-evident, but no, I’m not actually advocating she be locked in a room so tens of thousands of infertile women can queue up for the opportunity to smack her around.”
Oh, good. Then I’m not _actually_ advocating that you and all the filthy scum that have spewed trash into your comment section be thrown naked into a street in Iraq for a quick (and no doubt permanent) lesson in perspective.
Who’s more misogynic? Radley for suggesting that infertile women get 5 minutes alone with the claimed abortion artist? Or all the people who leaped to the conclusion that infertile womem wanting children would use their 5 minutes to physically attack her?
ah. so daring to criticize a womyn, ANY womyn, (criticism in ways not approved by the party) is now “misogynic”.
thanks for spelling that out, linda.
scratch a moonbat, wound a fascist.
According to the Huffington Post, this story is fake.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/17/yale-student-artificially_n_97194.html
I’m sorry, I don’t see the problem with this. In order to be horrified, one would have to concede that a fetus is a person. I don’t see any reason to believe that. Either abortion is morally wrong or it isn’t. And this obviously wasn’t a 20 week fetus or anything near it. There’s not enough time.
And I agree with others who said… bad choice on the source article. Terrible.
by extension, one should be even more angry at someone who gets rid of tapeworms.
of course, this story is a fake. it’s nice to piss off wierdos once and a while.
“Here’s my idea: All of the women in American who badly want a child but can’t conceive get five minutes alone in a locked room with this wretched excuse for a human being.”
My first thought on reading this wasn’t violence to the ‘artist’… I thought he meant if women want to have a child, let them see what sort of monster they might create and they will not want a child anymore. That seemed a bit weird so I reread it until I figured out the alternative (and intended) meaning.
nom, sorry I rushed to press and left the comment ambiguous. Try it with this as the first sentence: Who might be considered misogynic?
What I meant to point out was that, technically, Radley didn’t propose any sort of violence against the student. He merely suggested that women who wish they could conceive get 5 minutes of her time. Others jumped to the conclusion that such women would use their 5 minutes to violently attack her. That presumption of violent intent on the part of the childless women seems like a misogynist assumption to me; Radley’s proposal does not strike me as misogynist, as I indicated in comment #54.
I guess she’s the smart one.
#49 Yes Radley does imply violence towards a woman even if only hyperbole. However it is violence towards a specific woman, not towards women in general. I don’t believe this is mysogeny. If I were to say Ann Coulter was a nutball is that mysogenistic? Yes if I am saying it because she is a woman with strong opinions and she likes to voice them. But it is not if I am saying because I think she is full of crap. I think this case is like the latter example.
#48 Insane or not I suspect that the majority of Americans do place value on fetuses. That I support abortion rights (which I do) doesn’t mean I feel it is something that should be trivialized. I support abortion rights because I recognize that there are valid reasons for terminating a pregnancy. As a libertarian I feel it is certainly not my or the government’s job to weigh the costs/benefits of terminating the pregnancy. In this case it seems pretty clear to the vast majority that the cost benefit analysis does not add up.
Why would anyone who believes a fetus is a life be pro choice?
Sorry, replace “life” with “person”.
http://www.nysun.com/news/national/yale-students-art-project-creative-fiction
Hoax
http://www.yale.edu/opa/
#65 Suppose a woman has a high risk pregnancy where the chance that she will die in childbirth/pregnancy is 100% but there is a 100% chance of survival for the baby. Couldn’t you then believe that the fetus is a life but still be pro choice? Either way somebody dies and I know I certainly would not want to make that call. The burden of that choice belongs solely with the expectant mother.
Now that is one extreme so say it is only a 25% risk of death is the mothers life now worth less than that of the fetus? I still don’t feel comfortable making that call even if a fetus is a person.
Now there is always risk of death with pregnancy so I don’t see how the government can ever take a deciding role. Somebody who believes a fetus is a life could certainly think the mother is a coward for terminating pregnancy even though there is only a 0.01% chance of death but still to not let the mother make that choice is gambling with somebody elses life.
“Why would anyone who believes a fetus is a life be pro choice?”
Why would anyone who believes an embryo is a person freeze a batch of those persons, and have them destroyed when no longer needed?
Yet people all over the country do just that, and I’m sure plenty of them are otherwise pro-life.
mike: don’t be absurd, Radley did nothing of the sort.
It seems there was an approximately equal level of outrage about (potential) baby farming for a school project as silly, racially- stereotypical figurines at an airport.
And the lamest attempt to double-talk Radley out of a scolding belongs to Linda Morgan (#66) for trying to argue with a straight face that saying you want someone to spend “five minutes alone” with a person isn’t a common and well-known euphemism for “getting them alone so you can beat the crap out of them.” Uh-huh.
I know this was a hoax, and I’ll admit to not having read every comment so far, but I”m still trying to figure out what, exactly, is offensive about what this girl “did”. In other words, even if this had been real, what makes it “vile and reprehensible” (or even remotely disturbing)?
Well, if the artist comes from the school of thought that the purpose of art is provoke reaction, thought, and discussion, I guess she was successful.
If you consider yourself pro-choice and yet found this disturbing, you should ask yourself why. I think that to be pro-choice, you have to be willing to say that a fetus isn’t a person. And if you think a fetus is a person, I don’t see how you can be anything but pro-life.
I say this as someone who is pro-choice because I don’t consider a fetus a person. But I have a hell of a lot more respect for the opinion of someone who is pro-life and knows why than for someone who is pro-choice because that’s what’s convenient.
I think that pulling out the “risk to a mother’s life” thing is a red herring. If one thinks that a fetus is a person, then it follows that they should consider ending that life akin to murder. I don’t see why the government *shouldn’t* ban it if that were true. If it is wrong to end a person’s life, then it shouldn’t be allowed. Being pro choice with that view would be like saying the government shouldn’t interfere when someone commits murder.
“Why would anyone who believes an embryo is a person freeze a batch of those persons, and have them destroyed when no longer needed?
Yet people all over the country do just that, and I’m sure plenty of them are otherwise pro-life.”
I don’t know… akrasia? That they do it doesn’t mean it’s consistent.
RB
Meh, I guess so. It’s just that this is the kind of story that gets invented to freak people out. I think that your tone is pretty even keel most of the time. I guess I just didn’t expect something like this to interrupt the usual stream of posts.
Whatev’. No big deal. I probably shouldn’t take things so seriously, eh?
“Why would anyone who believes a fetus is a [person] be pro choice?”
Because no person has the right to use my body against my will for any purpose.
One thing I can say, this is NOT art!
It’s also not porn!
The gene challenged woman that did it will have to actually put a proper label on it.
Art, NO,, Science, NO, Porn, NO. One really fucked up mind with a dildo and horse hypodermic fetish? Possible.
Grant seeker? way too possible, actual acceptor of such a grant, scary!
Keep rewarding Yale with donations ya’ll!
*********
Did not really read all the above responses, but scanning some it seemed that domestic violence got dragged into the subject. Not needed, 60% is still initiated by women themselves. I’ll just end that one there. As it really does not fit what this sick biotch has done against all women, all men, and in fact all mankind!
There’s definitely something wrong about conceiving life (human or otherwise) with the express purpose of destroying it.
What are you having for dinner?
Bravo, tigre. An important libertarian argument about abortion that is usually completely overlooked - brilliantly summarized.
parse, the eating of animal flesh serves a basic and essential purpose - sustaining life. That is quite different than slapping something up on a pedestal and calling it “art”.
(standard vegan arguments about how TVP is a tasty and ethical substitute notwithstanding)
#87:
That’s a rather curious argument - that the _ends_ for which you do something automatically justifies the _means_. Presumably, you wouldn’t approve of raising fetuses or babies to eat, even though eating baby flesh would then serve a “basic and essential purpose” - that of sustaining life.
Which, of course, suggests, that you’re just hiding the real basis of your position.
That’s a rather curious argument - that the _ends_ for which you do something automatically justifies the _means_.
No, that’s not the crux of the argument, although I see where you got that.
My point was really much more simple than that. I was just saying it wasn’t a proper analogy. Next time, I’ll be more explicit.
Bronwyn, it wasn’t an analogy. Christopher Monnier said there was something wrong with “conceiving life (human or otherwise) with the express purpose of destroying it.” When animals are bred for food, they are conceived for the express purpose of destroying them, The point is not in the animal’s life, but in it’s death and consumption. I think Monnier drew a general conclusion from his feeling about a particular incident, a conclusion that does not stand when examined closely.
My goodness, the Vegan twits compare purposeful ‘abortion’ with humans eating meat. The Vegans never mention other animals eating meat, like Polar Bears…. chuckle..
When ‘Progressives’ make an argument, it’s time to keep a good grip on your pocketbook and your gun.
#91
I’m not a vegan, but if you think “well, animals do it to each other, therefore it must be okay for humans to do” is a legitimate (or persuasive) argument, you are sadly mistaken.
Animals are not moral actors, and it doesn’t make sense to speak of their actions in terms of right and wrong. Lots of animals kill humans every year, too - but that doesn’t make it right for humans, as moral actors, to kill other humans. For many species, the idea of consensual sex is a foreign concept - but that doesn’t legitimize humans committing rape. Lots of animals act as parasites on other animals, but that doesn’t legitimize humans doing the same thing.