In search of taboos to breach for breach’s sake, the liberal artistic community is finally dredging the bottom of the barrel: abortion.

Interesting that it took them longer to mock abortion than crucifixes.

You likely missed the comedy video sketch Damon Wayans of WayoutTV.com posted last week called “AbortionMan.” So I’ll describe it for you, or you can view it at YouTube..

In “AbortionMan” a young woman calls her boyfriend to tell him she’s pregnant. He feigns happiness while muttering under his breath, “You gotta get rid of that sh–.” Relieved and happy he’s happy, she hangs up the phone to make the pending birth announcement to friends and family.

So far, so real. Cads throughout history have exploited women for sex with no sense of love or responsibility. Mothers in crisis pregnancies throughout history have found themselves pathetically vulnerable to the whims of the father.

But the sleazy guy hangs up the phone and calls for AbortionMan to rescue him from the plight of progeny.

Wearing a white suit and black cape, with a line through a circled black baby on his chest, AbortionMan immediately flies off to destroy the bothersome baby, shouting, “I have you now, fiend!” when spotting the young mother.


AbortionMan makes quick work of things, kicking and punching the mother in the abdomen and stomping on it when she collapses to the ground. The stomp aborts the crying, bloody preborn baby, who flies through the air and lands in the bushes where he or she presumably dies.

We next see AbortionMan reporting back to the sleaze, who thanks AbortionMan for “sav[ing] my life!”

Damon made this sketch for the negative attention buzz, to make people like me mad. Celebrities desperate to hold the waning spotlight are so sad, aren’t they?

One person getting way more negative attention than she expected was Yale art student Aliza Shvarts.

Last week, the Yale Daily News announced Shvarts’ exhibit in a senior art show opening yesterday would feature a number of her own very young aborted children, mixed with blood and smeared on plastic sheeting wrapped around a cube and suspended from the ceiling.

On the surrounding walls videos would play Shvarts completing her self-abortions in a bathtub.

Shvarts said she obtained the human elements of her project by artificially inseminating herself multiple times over the course of nine months and then ingesting abortion drugs.

Thankfully, the world was appalled. Yale administrators interviewed Shvarts and said she told them her serial abortions were all a hoax. Shvarts then publicly refuted the Yale administration, who then said Svarts saying it wasn’t a hoax when it really was a hoax was part of the project. At press time the two were in a stalemate. Yale said it would not allow Shvarts to show her art unless she admitted she lied.

The Reproductive Rights Action League of Yale at first said it had “no official opinion on the matter,” according to Yale Daily News. After the project received such resound universal condemnation, however, it found one. Along with Yale Law Students for Reproductive Justice, it has released this nonsensical statement, admirably avoiding the A-word:

Although we stand by the right to reproductive freedom, we cannot approve of her approach and presentation. The facts concerning the controversy remain unclear, but the consequences are very real and must be addressed. Like most who have heard of these events, we are shocked by the content of the art piece in question and the manner in which very serious aspects of reproductive rights have been treated. …

But what was wrong with Shvarts’ “approach and presentation”? Do tell, what are the “consequences” to whatever it is you disapprove? What about the content was so “shock[ing]”? Oh, and what are the “very serious aspects of reproductive rights”?

Abortion proponents responding similarly to AbortionMan. Wrote Rachel at Feministing, “I’m almost speechless. (Almost.) When will people realize that violence against women isn’t f—ing funny?”

Right, it was just AbortionMan’s treatment of women that caused people to recoil.

These episodes put abortion advocates in a terrible position, just as the partial-birth abortion debacle did. Pro-lifers consider any abortion deadly to children and dangerous to mothers. These examples are no different, only more provocative. Pro-aborts maintain abortion does not kill children and is completely safe. These incidents make it nearly impossible to maintain the party line.

But for them to condemn any aspect of abortion is to open a door they absolutely hate to open. There is something wrong with it?


Related special offers:

“ENDING ABORTION: How the pro-life side will win the war”

“Lime 5: Exploited by Choice”

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.