Killing unborn babies as a form of art.


Beginning next Tuesday, Shvarts will be displaying her senior art project, a documentation of a nine-month process during which she artificially inseminated herself “as often as possible” while periodically taking abortifacient drugs to induce miscarriages. Her exhibition will feature video recordings of these forced miscarriages as well as preserved collections of the blood from the process.

Readers assure me this is a hoax: the young lady’s art consisted of her fib, and the commotion it caused. Sort of like the laughter of the Boy Who Cried Wolf, rejoicing in the distress of others. (In law, this kind of jest is called intentional infliction of emotional distress: as when you phone a woman, pretending to be a policeman or doctor, to tell her that her husband is dead.)  

But a benefit can arise from this oddity.

Any member of that rival religion to Christianity that calls itself Liberalism who might be shocked by the tale would have to pause and ponder. By liberal logic, the miscarriages are not human, merely livestock, and the woman’s body is her own to do with. If this horror were real, they could no more voice objection to it than they could to a woman who pierced her earlobe to wear an ear-ring.

The whole absurdity of the Leftist religion is based on mysteries and creeds, as our religion is. We utter the absurdity that man is the child of God, despite that he obviously it not. Our absurdity leads to the sublime idea that all men are brothers, sons of one Father. They utter the absurdity that an unborn boy is a mass of tissues, no more precious or significant than an earlobe, when obviously he is. Their absurdity leads to the hellish idea that to piece a baby’s skull halfway through delivery with a pair of scissors and suction out his brain is no different than piercing an earlobe to wear a gem.

If a Leftist can be convinced, only for a moment, that his unborn babe in his wife’s womb is his child indeed, not a meaningless knot of parasitic flesh, then the gates of hell are for that moment closed, and he can love his child, as logic tells us nature selected and faith lets us hope nature’s God intended.

It is wrong for mothers to kill their children, and madness to pretend a child is not a child. The true extent of that madness can be seen by how plausible this fable is. Under our current laws, would the death-art in this story be illegal? Under the customs and creeds of the Left, would the death-art in this story be unacceptable?  On what grounds?