A great number of people, both those who support and those who oppose abortion, have been offended by the notion of Shvarts' project. By ignoring, censoring or banning images such as Schvarts', we elevate abortion to pure theory while divorcing it from its practice.
The photos, videos and blood of Schvarts' claimed project are needed to construct opinions about abortion, fertility, art and free speech at their most extreme limits. Rejecting reality for the sake of comfort leads us to ignorance (three cheers for the Ivy League, Yale.) So, pro-lifers, pro-choicers and anyone not yet aligned: If you can't handle the image, confront the issue behind it.
The Impatient Patient (a pro-choicer who believes abortion "kills a baby") rants on (language warning) a Vicki Saporta editorial against the Canadian unborn victims of violence legislation.
If Saporta argued that a fetus shouldn't have the right to life because it's part of the mother's body until the umbilical cord is cut, or if she argued that she just didn't believe a fetus should have the right to life until it emerged from its mother's body, then I might be able to respect her argument (even if I disagreed with it). But what angers me so much, is that Saporta is saying that she's not willing to even consider the rights of the fetus because all she can care about is the right of a woman to have an abortion.HT: ProWomanProLife
Nat Hentoff on Barack Obama, Infanticide candidate for president