Man Bites Blog

The reality of a Yale art student repeatedly impregnating herself, then using abortificient drugs to induce miscarriage is obviously repulsive and must be opposed.

But, like “Roe for men,” as a thought experiment, as Ross Douthat notes, it raises some troubling questions for the pro-choice movment:

• Is there anything wrong with what she is doing?
• Shoud it be illegal?
• If so, why is it worse than abortion and the use of abortificient drugs in general?
• Would you be willing to provide the artist the drugs to carry out her exhibit?  Should all pharmacists be legally required to do so, regardless of their views on this exhibit? 
• If the problem is creating embryos for the sole purpose of destroying them, how is this different from “theraputic” cloning?

Then there is the point that it puts the ugliness of abortion in full display.  This could play out like Super Size Me for abortion.

Again, the actual execution of such an exhibit would be an abomination because of the wanton destruction of life.  But in theory, there are worse things.

 UPDATE:  Then, of course, there is the idiocy of publishing a post with a typo in the title (since corrected).

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.