Hate People

If you have a weak stomach, check back in on Monday when I regale you with the normal random crap I do. Otherwise, get ready for ranty K.T.

***

"The morning after"... Thank blue heaven the article below was a hoax, at least, according to this article. Still, it's ranty enough that I'm gonna keep the below.

***

I just read this article. I may need to reread it.

For the record, I'm pro abortions, and I'm pro life. Hypocritical? Perhaps, but I think it's almost crueler to force a woman to birth a child, then abandon it to the streets or the broken foster care system. A life lived without love, when you need it the most? In "a perfect world" we would be able to forego abortions. People wouldn't make mistakes, people wouldn't commit sexual violence against one another, etc. But we don't, and there's no catch-all solution. I wish people weren't dumbasses, but they are, and something tells me I have to love them, flaws and all. And that means letting them wipe out their mistake the easy way.

That said, you get an abortion because it was a mistake, because it was the product of sexual violence, because it's threatening the mother's health, because you can't raise a child. Something has gone wrong, and you are taking steps to make it right, as best you can. Ms. Shvartz, she mocks us all. She had these abortions for the purpose of art. There was nothing wrong, and she's gone and made it wrong, then rectified that situation, just for "art."

From the article: "But Shvarts said the goal of the project is to encourage debate and discussion about the connection between art and the human body." Fine, where does art come into the argument? People throughout history use complex, vaguely defined, overbroad words to justify their actions. Religion is another popular example, but here we're dealing with "art." This is just shock value.

This is one of those situations where I can't really say exactly what's wrong. From a legal standpoint, the article is correct. She's done nothing wrong, legally. And so many people have used a fine twist on the law in order to reinterpret what it was intended to do, and slip yet something else past. Meanwhile innocent men and women suffer due to the law (and I digress).But just because you do something legal doesn't mean that what you've done is right. I can't break down why it's wrong in any normal terms. All I can tell you is that this is one of those things where my gut tells me that she's wrong, and I have to trust it.

(A few years back, in a fantasy football league, people were trading players on bye weeks for top-tier players, only to trade back when the bye had passed. There was nothing in the rules that said that was wrong, but I knew deep-down that it was wrong, that it was unfair. I was in the minority, and those trades persisted. Now I know what was wrong, even though I couldn't craft a legal argument: simple unsportsmanlike conduct. Screw game theory here, I should've stuck by my principles, rather than let it get to the point where I hate playing in that league.)

What burns me is her primary aim, this "art" of hers. On one level, it's more noble than aborting the unintended product of a one night stand, because it's so much more noble and true. On another level, the couple was just trying to have sex, have a little fun, whereas she is trying to make this right by justifying via art. The couple knows they fucked up, and maybe they're not taking responsibility, but they're doing something to make it better. She just says she wants to open a discourse. It's the real-world equivalent of unsportsmanlike conduct.

If I ever met her, I'd probably start screaming. She'd probably take a long drag on her cigarette and calmly tell me that it wasn't worth having a discourse with me if I wasn't calm and collected, and unless I was going to bring a logical argument why it was wrong, I should go away. I would then proceed to slap the ever-loving shit out of her. She would make some remark about me being a troglodyte, having to resort to physical violence because my mind wasn't formed enough to understand the import of what she'd done.

You know what? I know exactly what she's done, I know full well the import, and that's why I wouldn't stop slapping her.

***

Five minutes later ... Yeah, I'm probably being irrational, and illogical, and from a cold, neutral, inhuman standpoint, you are correct. I would make a lousy debater, lawyer, anything that requires cold, unfeeling logic. I'm a poor excuse for a robot.

Guess what? I'm still human.