The rhetoric that the left uses in its defense of abortion and in protest of the laws such as that in Utah is frustrating because it is essentially exactly the same as that used by the other side. The law in Utah is obviously a moral outrage. What I’m frustrated with in the case of such arguments as those made on Jezebel isn’t their point of view (I very much agree with them), but rather the fact that they make their moral outrage the basis of their argument, and ignore the legality question entirely. In so doing, such arguments mirror almost exactly their counterpoints on the right: replace “woman” with “baby” in many of the statements that commenters left below the Jezebel post (i.e., these laws endanger women’s lives, etc.) and you have the words of a Christian conservative at an anti-abortion rally.

Examples of the moral stance, from the post itself…

But perhaps the worst thing about the law is that it subjects to imprisonment women who were probably in dire straits to begin with (as was the 17-year-old who inadvertently inspired the bill by paying someone to beat her into miscarriage).

…and from commenters:

… I actually was pro-life, when I was about 10, and my mom sat me down and flat out said “if this option is not available for women, there are going to be women desperate enough to use the coat-hanger method, go to seedy back-alley doctors, kill themselves, etc.” …

Women are blamed for their rapes, just blame them for their miscarriages too.

… This is not criminal, it’s tragic. In order to prevent women from doing desperate things to induce miscarriages on their own, you need to fix the problems that lead up to it. What does punishing a woman for this accomplish? Except to make her feel even more desperate?

I find this legislature to be about as progressive and protective of women as maybe, the the Salem Witch Trials. So, great job by 17th century standards Utah.

For comparison, here’s a statement from the obviously opposite-minded group Christian Action:

Abraham Lincoln in the 19th century said: “No one has the right to do what is wrong.”

This country has just ended discrimination based on race. Are we now going to start discrimination on the basis of age? Saying:”I’m older than you, I’m bigger than you, I have a voice – therefore I can kill you.”

Pro-choice or pro-life (those names alone give away to what extent this debate is based on spin), the rhetoric is similarly (morally) spun. We would do well to remember that the question as it is debated in courts isn’t–or rather, shouldn’t be–a moral one: law is not about morals. Law, ideally, is only about the law–and ultimately the constitution. Arguing these issues in terms of morality won’t win anyone over. Obviously someone holding a giant poster of an aborted fetus isn’t going to to change their minds over anyone else’s pro-choice appeal, however emotionally compelling and morally sound. As we’ve seen since Roe v. Wade, the moral arguments are endless.

If we on the left want to actually win this battle, the question of the morality of laws such as that in Utah should be made irrelevant. The question of the law’s legality is what matters. As the lengthy decision for Roe v. Wade states–which is, actually, a fascinating document to read–a fetus has never, in the entire legal history of the West, been considered a living person in a court of law. And since that case, every woman seeking an abortion is protected under what the decision deemed her right to privacy. Therefore, a women cannot be persecuted for having an abortion, or, as the case may be, a miscarriage.

Why does no one talk about this? This law in Utah and the laws in other states (including, apparently and surprisingly, New York) that make miscarriage a case for murder and otherwise limit womens’ right to an abortion are unconstitutional in that they not only put the preservation of an unborn fetus before the well-being of the woman carrying it, but in so doing they violate a woman’s constitutional right to privacy in her decisions about her own body. It’s not a pretty argument, I know, but it’s the most compelling legal one. And for once it would be nice to hear people talk about the law as it’s written and as it’s been argued before, instead of watching both sides craft eerily similar political rhetoric meant to tug at my heart strings, whether it be in favor of the well-being of a woman or of an unborn baby.

I’m sick of hearing about coat hangers and fetal fingernails. Let’s please argue this like adults and in the legal sense–where it may actually make a difference.

I have a confession to make: I get so much music from my boyfriend. All of the music on this blog (which means the two bands mentioned thus far) is here as a direct result of his influence. So, credit where credit is due etc.

in ANY case: I like this band a whole lot. As my bee eff tells it: “like the talking heads BUT DIFFERENT”

truer words=never spoken.

Via designboom, pictures of various famous artists’ reinterpretations of chess boards. I only have the attention span for checkers (and even then, just barely), but I would probably play with these pieces.

‘modern chess set’, rachel whiteread 2005

‘modern chess set’, detail

‘untitled’, barbara kruger 2006

‘untitled’, detail

‘chess set’, jack and dinos chapman 2003

‘chess set’, detail

‘amorphous organic’, alastair mackie 2008

‘amorphous organic’, detail

And for context: ‘the art of chess’ is an exhibition of seven chess sets created by a group of contemporary artists including jake and dinos chapman, tracey emin, tom friedman, damien hirst, barbara kruger, alastair mackie and rachel whiteread. each artist infused their own interpretation of the board game in real dimensions. the exhibition is set to open on the 49th edition of the milan furniture fair on april 14th at project b gallery, in milan. this event which is part of the fuori salone will be on display until april 29th. – designboom.

Here is a visual depiction of my feelings re:adulthood.


oh but also, look at these candy shoes!

…and here go some CREDITS: “Lolice” shoes designed by Sarajevo design student Belma Arnautović. First photograph is by London fashion designer Lu Flux. (Don’t you wish you were in London, or Sarajevo? I do. New York is too much New York for me at the moment.) All images via dezeen.

(i bet you’re real happy i just said “coolerz”)

(the terrible stomachache that results from dangerously high levels of dried mango consumption=danger #13,098,092 of working from home)

Don’t even judge! (I saw that.) I love astrology. I was raised by somewhat unusual-leaning parents (an understatement) and during a really rather terrible time in my life, my mom gave me this book called (okay, this you’re allowed to judge) “Making the Gods Work For You.” Which is now, I see, out of print.

Whatevs. It changed my life. Sort of. Point is, now I read Sextrology with a very straight face. As well as obsessively check in here for life help. And also Wikipedia, for celebrities’ birth dates. (Joanna Newsom? such a Capricorn.) All to my friends’ chagrin.

…and a P.S. for those similarly inclined: aquarius sun, libra moon, aries rising (conjunct jupiter in pisces—which, you know, really changes things).

Tra la la, Alphonse Mucha.

Tar sands, or bitumen oil deposits, lie under Alberta’s (that’s a province, not a person. Don’t worry, my middle name is Saskatchewan–no lie–and I still don’t exactly know where or what Prince Edward Island is) Boreal Forest:

Until around 2003 the oil in the Athabasca* Oil Sands was too expensive to extract and refine (because really it’s just gross tar mixed with sand and who wants to put that anywhere near their gas tank?) but then, oh but then! Two things happened: 1) people realized that we are going to run out of oil rull soon and that’s a scary scary thing and b) technology caught up to the tar sands. The result is captured here more beautifully than I could ever hope to express it by the same people who bring you the Dog Whisperer (this is not a slight against them; I je’dore the dog whisperer).

The fierce environmental conflict is unfortunately too complicated to describe in a blog post, so if that slideshow wasn’t enough I urge you to go google “tar sands” and check out the news results. It’s really kind of nuts. [edit: I recently wrote a piece on the sands for PLANET.]

*aðapaskāw is a word in Cree that means, somewhat tragically, “where there are plants one after another.”