Reply to comment

I read this article about the abortion as art before and was quite shocked. I immediately thought "this is wrong," but caught myself analyzing it further before ultimately deciding upon my moral grounds.

I believe that abortion is a woman's personal choice. I believe that artistic freedom is important. So then why does this feel so wrong? I believe that the answer is the intent behind the piece and the message that it sends. Abortions, to me, represent a reversal of something with the insinuation of regret. To look at the abortion in this piece as merely a reversal of a purposeful action is a bit revolting. The woman is purposefully impregnating herself and then aborting the embryo several times.

On the one hand, it is a beautiful piece of art that incites emotion, opinion, and controversy. It is somewhat parallel with the ‘naked play’ concept introduced by Bill T. Jones. Most interesting is the intent of the piece; what is the author trying to do with this art?

It reminds me specifically of the recent event in controversial art: the dying dog exhibition. In this piece of art, a street dog was tied by a rope in a corner and left to die. Viewers of the piece came in and viewed the dog as it lie there, starving to death. It eventually died of starvation and dehydration.

What are the artist’s rights and how do they stand up to the rights of other living beings? We kill animals all the time; for food, for defense, for science. But when do we draw the line?

In both the case of the ‘dying dog’ and the ‘abortion’ art, the artist’s intent is crucial. But how can we infer the artist’s intent when our minds are so clouded by the emotions brought about by the piece itself?