Should Abortion be Allowed&;#063;

Opinianative Writing
Should Abortion stay Legal in the UK?

In this essay, I am going to discuss the long-lasting debate of
Abortion and should it stay legal. I will be talking about its moral,
physical and emotional implications and how they will affect the mother
to be. I am going to weigh up the pros and cons and hopefully decide by
the end of the essay, in which side I belong to; Pro-Life or
Pro-Choice. I will look at all the circumstances that abortions are
carried out under, and try to find out why the mother would want to
kill her child. But to start with I am going to find out what abortion
is, and what it involves.
Abortion ends a pregnancy before the foetus is capable of independent
life, by removing and destroying the growing child, either in utero or
whilst the child is being born (Partial Birth Abortion). The term
"medical abortion" is given to a procedure involving two drugs 1)
RU-486 this causes abortion in early pregnancy - up to 7 weeks -, which
is taken by mouth and followed up with 2) a drug called misoprostol.
The second method of having an abortion is through "surgical abortion",
which involves dismembering the human baby whilst still in the womb.
Basically Abortion is an act of pure violence that kills the unborn
child and hurts it's mother, whilst having the removal, and afterwards
in emotional circumstances. This violence has caused about 38 million
unborn children to be brutally killed since abortion was made legal in
the United States of America in 1973. 1.3 million are carried out each
year, which is a shocking 3,300 per day in the USA alone. The victims
of abortions are not only the innocent unborn children who die, but
also their mothers who are subjected to emotional, physical and
psychological complications. Fathers and loved ones may also be at risk
of having post-abortion complications. Abortion-on-demand is also
leading people to believe that they can escape their pain and their
problems through violence, killing and abandonment. Children are
growing up thinking that abortion is just a "normal" thing.
We must ask ourselves before considering whether abortion can be
justified in certain cases, what are the reasons for carrying out this
act of cruelty? Essentially all abortions are done because the woman
simply does not want to be pregnant. Only a small minority are done for
medical reasons. Sometimes older women, who are at more risk of having
children with birth defects, are encouraged to get rid of their
children when these defects are found early on in the pregnancy. During
the year 2000, in England and Wales, there were 175,000 abortions
performed. Of these only 134 were performed on the grounds of risk to
the woman's life.
During ancient times the practise of abortion was widespread and was
considered a method of birth control. Later it was forbidden by most
world religions, but was not considered an offence until the 19th
centaury. During this centaury the English parliament and American
state legislatures banned abortion, not on the grounds that of "killing
a baby is murder", but to protect the woman from surgical procedures
that were unsafe at the time. During the 20th centaury, in most
developed countries there has been an aim at "permitting the
termination of unwanted pregnancies for medical, social, or private
reasons". Abortions were first considered legal at a woman's request in
Russia in 1920; Russia was followed by Japan and several East European
nations just after the Second World War. By 1960 in most developed
countries abortion was considered legal.
We must ask ourselves when considering abortion "Is this really human
life?" I am going to give you some definitions to start with to help
answer this question.
? Define "Alive"
"Alive means that this being is growing, developing, maturing, and
replacing it's own dying cells. It means not being dead" - if you ask
me, is this not exactly what an unborn child is doing every
minute?
? Define " Human"
"Human means one of the biological beings who belongs to the species
Homo sapiens. Such beings are unique from all other beings in that they
have 46 human chromosomes in every cell, unlike that of animals and
plants etc." Does a growing embryo not have all these qualities? As you
can see this is certainly human life.
By the time the growing embryo is 8 weeks it's heart is beating
steadily and can be heard on an ultrasonic stethoscope. By 10 weeks
it's hands and feet are perfectly formed and by 12 weeks the growing
child can swallow, squint and "swim" in its amniotic fluid! This
description sounds pretty alive to me.
Another factor must be debated before making a choice. Does a woman's
right over her body give her a right to have an abortion? "After all
it's my body. Do I not have the right to it? A right to determine what
happens to it?" Yes a woman does have a right over her own body, but I
do not believe that that right involves killing another human being,
just because the mother was inconvenienced by becoming pregnant. Was it
not her fault that she became pregnant in the first place? Doesn't this
mean that she must take responsibility for her action? I was brought up
believing in that. When thinking this way there are three distinct
claims that a mother can argue.
1. A woman has no duty to sustain the child - the child is a
parasite
2. She may expel the child as an intruder
3. She may defend herself if he is a threat to her life or well
being.
The first two claims basically say that the woman has a right to an
abortion because she has a right to her body. When thinking this way we
must conceder the child, does the mother really have the right to the
child's life, yes she does - until the child is 18 years old the
parents have say in the child's life. Does this mean to say at age 2
years that if the mother is inconvenienced by the child that she is
just able to kill him. No, so why should a 2-month year old child still
in the womb be any different? Why should there be different rules for
when the child is in or out of its mother? The third claim say's that
if the child is risking another's life abortion should be allowed. Is
it right to kill one to save another? I believe that that is up to
every individual person, no one can make that choice for anyone. This
is true because each circumstance is different and we cannot really
judge unless we are in that situation.
"The child as an intruder" is one argument that we have not discussed.
Thomson argues that the "child is an intruder into the woman's body as
a burglar is in one's home" - or as the embryo is concerned, an
innocent person who blunders in. The woman has every right to remove
the burgler, why not the child? A simple answer is because; to remove
the child you must kill it, to remove a burglar you do not have to use
that kind of force. Would you think it humane to cut up a burglar with
a sharp knife if it enterd your house? No, of course not. This is
conciderend murder. Another answer is that the child is not an
intruder, because metaphorically speaking the mother "invited" the
child in.
The child is not an intruder. He is precisely where he should be, in
the place appropriate for the first phase of life. The woman has the
right to be on this earth in the place appropriate for her. In exactly
the same way the child in her womb has the right to be there, in the
place appropriate for it, for it's protection, nourishment and
development. So, contrary to Thomson the child does have the right to
be there, it is the most natural thing in the world for it to be
there.
I believe that every child brought in to this world should be a wanted
one, because horrible complications may occur if this is not the case,
such as abuse or abandonment. But to kill a child just because it is
not wanted is not justified. Would it not be better to carry the
pregnancy out to term and have the child adopted? I know that most of
the population of people that have been adopted would not want to be
killed. If I was to ask an adopted child if it would have been better
to have him adopted at birth what you think the answer would be?
The same can be asked for children with birth defects. A young woman
studying speech therapy had to study young teenagers with different
disabilities, such as paralisation, deafness, blindness and autistism.
When asked "Do you think that your parents should have aborted you when
pregnant, and had another child to save them and yourselves all the
hassle of coping with someone and coping with having disabilities?"
each one of those 54 children said no. Every child wanted the right to
live; they all thought that they deserved the same chance as everyone
else to lead a normal life. Each one believed that they did have an
unfair advantage, but to be aborted would be an even more unfair
advantage. Don't you agree? When thinking in terms "Every Child a
Wanted Child" you must add the extra bit on to the slogan - "and if not
wanted - killed". This is the slogan for Planned Parenthood, the first
part of the slogan anyway. But basically this is what it is trying to
get across. To prevent such outcomes as abuse, abandonment,
inconvenience, you must kill the child, murder it within the womb. You
can put this argument to exactly the same use when thinking of other
family members. Do parents kill teenagers when they start to get in the
way? Or would you kill your Uncle Bob after his heart attack or your
mother when she starts to get a burden on every day life? No, well this
is what this slogan suggests. To live in a world where every one is
wanted, loved and appreciated would be idealistic, but unfortunately
it's not going to happen, 'unwanted' will always be with us, and we
must learn to live with it. So killing something to innocent is not
justified yet again in this argument.
The claim that rape is different. Is abortion justified in the name of
helping a woman who has been the victim of rape or incest? To begin
with two principals must guide us. Firstly, full and equal
consideration to both persons involved, both mother and child and
secondly the fact that we may never do wrong to one person in order to
benefit another. Many people who oppose abortion feel that rape is
different, and that the elements that make up this claim are enough to
justify abortion. In first case the woman was not given a choice, had
she freely consented she would have to bear responsibility for her
actions, but since it was forced on her, she should not be forced to
continue the resulting pregnancy. But then we must ask, "If I am denied
a choice of becoming pregnant, does that give me the right to kill an
innocent person? After all I am not allowed to kill the person who
unjustly denied me that choice, a criminal who forced pregnancy upon
me. That would be considered murder, but to kill a person, so small, so
innocent who had done nothing wrong and can not do anything wrong, that
would be all right." Don't you think that it would be more justified,
but obviously not much, to kill the person who had committed the crime,
and not the resultant of that crime, who is an innocent child?
Secondly, a woman should not have to endure a forced pregnancy. We
have the greatest compassion for any woman who finds herself in the
position of having to bear a pregnancy that was forced upon her. We
must support her, encourage her, and not destroy her innocent child,
who did nothing wrong. Later on in life she may regret it and it might
have a deep effect on her in later life, knowing that she killed an
innocent child.
Thirdly, "Yes it was wrong that the woman was raped, it is wrong that
she should have the child, and therefore she may now get rid of it by
having an abortion, she is justified in righting the wrong by removing
the result of it." This is not the case; because I believe the Bible
has always told us "Two wrongs do not make a right" They remain two
wrongs and will always remain two wrongs whatever the case. For
example, if person A wrongs you, you cannot turn around and wrong
person B as a way of undoing the first wrong. If person A slaps you,
it's not going to do any good to slap person B in revenge; it would
only make more complications. The same is correct with having an
abortion; you will only create more problems in later life. The mother
cannot undo a great wrong or it's effects by killing an innocent child.
The baby (B) has not duty to give up its life for another, either to
benefit the other or to undo a wrong, which is not justified
anyway.
Fourth, "the child is a constant reminder of the horror of the rape;
the woman should be allowed to get rid of this reminder." Do you really
mean to say that we can kill the innocent person on the grounds that
she is a reminder of a horrible event? Yes, the child is a reminder and
a result of the horrible criminal offence of rape. This does not mean
that we can destroy her, destroy something innocent by another violent
act: abortion. We do understand that the mother would not want to carry
her rapist's child, but you must remember that half of the child is
hers, and by killing the child she is killing something innocent that
is half of herself. Even if she is not able to come to terms with
raising the baby - which is quite understandable, she must remember
that there will always be outstretched arms for that baby to go to. If
she doesn't want the child, think of all the loving homes that would
love to have that child.
When thinking of abortion as the result of rape, every one thinks of
the child and not to kill it as it is helpless and cannot have it's own
say. But think of that child in the future, he may be the next
Einstein, Martin Luther King, or Gandhi. He could be a top doctor,
scientist or even Prime-minister, think of what you may be destroying.
On a recent radio show after answering questions on rape a young woman
was called to the phone, she said
"You were talking about me. You see, I am the product of rape. An
intruder forced his way into my parents home one night, tied up my
father and, with him watching, raped my mother. I was conceived that
night. Everyone advised an abortion, the local doctors and hospital
were willing. My father, however, said 'Even though not mine, that is a
child and I will not allow it to be killed,' I don't know how many
times that I lay secure in the loving arms of my husband, I have
thanked God for my wonderful Christian father." And so, does any one
win? Yes the baby does.
One thing that I have not mentioned yet, in this essay, are the
abortion methods that are used in this country. Abortion in called a
'choice'. If this is true, then women should know what they are
choosing. RU-486 is a drug that produces abortion. It blocks all the
necessary hormones from the baby's reach. It also stops the baby's food
and oxygen supply, which causes it to die. There are many side effects
to the drug, but the emotional distress will have more of an impact on
the mother, because a week after taking the drug a 1-2 inch human baby
is expelled from the body. Another method is" Dilation and Curettage"
In this method the doctor uses a sharp curved knife to cut the tiny
body into pieces - the job of the nurses present is to reassemble the
tiny pieces to make sure there is nothing left inside the mothers womb.
Another method used is Suction Aspiration. A powerful suction tube is
used and the baby is violently torn to pieces. The most traumatic
procedure used is Dilation and Evacuation. It involves dismembering the
fetes using a sharp metal knife while still in the womb, which
eliminates any possibility of live birth. This method is used between
12 and 24 weeks. By now the baby is over a foot in length, she weighs
over a pound. Her heart is beating steadily, and her fingers and toes
are perfectly formed. She has eyelashes and fine hair growing on the
top of her head and can even react to sounds, especially her mothers
voice. The baby is almost perfectly formed by now, only very small,
this method is considered the most traumatic for doctors and staff
because of having to see a tiny arm or leg coming out of the mother. In
these three methods the child always dies, but there are other methods
used that can occasionally result in live birth.
The method of Saline Solution or Salt Poisoning is used after 13
weeks. A long needle is inserted into the amniotic fluid where the baby
is and a strong salt solution is injected, it surrounds the child. The
salt is swallowed and breathed in and slowly poisons the baby, burring
her skin and eyes. The mother will go into labour the next day and a
small shrivelled up baby is expelled. What the mother is not told about
this method is about an hour after the solution is injected in to her
abdomen, the pre-born baby begins to react and kicks, thrusts, and
writhes-it tries to escape. Seen as the baby cannot fight the poison or
run from it she dies-in most cases before the mother goes into labour.
And there is one last fact that I forgot to mention - the baby can feel
every thing during the abortion, as it is obviously alive and can feel
pain from an early age. Just imagine someone doing these things to
you.
Through writing this essay I have learned a lot about abortions and
have come to the conclusion that abortion is wrong. There is no reason
to justify the killing of an innocent child. To start with I was
Pro-Choice. I think most people are - until they realise what actually
goes on during an abortion, I had no idea of the cruelty that is
happening all around the world. It was the methods of abortions that
really changed my mind, because of the fact that the child can feel
pain, just like you or I can. Can you imagine the pain of being ripped
to shreds with a sharp knife? When I read about these methods I was
really upset, and wanted to inform people of the horror that goes on
during and abortion, so that Is why I am writing this to try and change
someone else's mind as I have changed my own. So if your turn comes
when you have to make that decision think carefully before deciding. If
my turn came whilst I was still in school, for example, I know a baby
would ruin my life, but I don't think that I could bring myself to kill
a baby. I know it's different at the time and I can't say until I'm in
that situation, but at the moment I am Pro-Life, and hope I will have
caused you to be too.

Opinianative Writing
Should Abortion stay Legal in the UK?

In this essay, I am going to discuss the long-lasting debate of
Abortion and should it stay legal. I will be talking about its moral,
physical and emotional implications and how they will affect the mother
to be. I am going to weigh up the pros and cons and hopefully decide by
the end of the essay, in which side I belong to; Pro-Life or
Pro-Choice. I will look at all the circumstances that abortions are
carried out under, and try to find out why the mother would want to
kill her child. But to start with I am going to find out what abortion
is, and what it involves.
Abortion ends a pregnancy before the foetus is capable of independent
life, by removing and destroying the growing child, either in utero or
whilst the child is being born (Partial Birth Abortion). The term
"medical abortion" is given to a procedure involving two drugs 1)
RU-486 this causes abortion in early pregnancy - up to 7 weeks -, which
is taken by mouth and followed up with 2) a drug called misoprostol.
The second method of having an abortion is through "surgical abortion",
which involves dismembering the human baby whilst still in the womb.
Basically Abortion is an act of pure violence that kills the unborn
child and hurts it's mother, whilst having the removal, and afterwards
in emotional circumstances. This violence has caused about 38 million
unborn children to be brutally killed since abortion was made legal in
the United States of America in 1973. 1.3 million are carried out each
year, which is a shocking 3,300 per day in the USA alone. The victims
of abortions are not only the innocent unborn children who die, but
also their mothers who are subjected to emotional, physical and
psychological complications. Fathers and loved ones may also be at risk
of having post-abortion complications. Abortion-on-demand is also
leading people to believe that they can escape their pain and their
problems through violence, killing and abandonment. Children are
growing up thinking that abortion is just a "normal" thing.
We must ask ourselves before considering whether abortion can be
justified in certain cases, what are the reasons for carrying out this
act of cruelty? Essentially all abortions are done because the woman
simply does not want to be pregnant. Only a small minority are done for
medical reasons. Sometimes older women, who are at more risk of having
children with birth defects, are encouraged to get rid of their
children when these defects are found early on in the pregnancy. During
the year 2000, in England and Wales, there were 175,000 abortions
performed. Of these only 134 were performed on the grounds of risk to
the woman's life.
During ancient times the practise of abortion was widespread and was
considered a method of birth control. Later it was forbidden by most
world religions, but was not considered an offence until the 19th
centaury. During this centaury the English parliament and American
state legislatures banned abortion, not on the grounds that of "killing
a baby is murder", but to protect the woman from surgical procedures
that were unsafe at the time. During the 20th centaury, in most
developed countries there has been an aim at "permitting the
termination of unwanted pregnancies for medical, social, or private
reasons". Abortions were first considered legal at a woman's request in
Russia in 1920; Russia was followed by Japan and several East European
nations just after the Second World War. By 1960 in most developed
countries abortion was considered legal.
We must ask ourselves when considering abortion "Is this really human
life?" I am going to give you some definitions to start with to help
answer this question.
? Define "Alive"
"Alive means that this being is growing, developing, maturing, and
replacing it's own dying cells. It means not being dead" - if you ask
me, is this not exactly what an unborn child is doing every
minute?
? Define " Human"
"Human means one of the biological beings who belongs to the species
Homo sapiens. Such beings are unique from all other beings in that they
have 46 human chromosomes in every cell, unlike that of animals and
plants etc." Does a growing embryo not have all these qualities? As you
can see this is certainly human life.
By the time the growing embryo is 8 weeks it's heart is beating
steadily and can be heard on an ultrasonic stethoscope. By 10 weeks
it's hands and feet are perfectly formed and by 12 weeks the growing
child can swallow, squint and "swim" in its amniotic fluid! This
description sounds pretty alive to me.
Another factor must be debated before making a choice. Does a woman's
right over her body give her a right to have an abortion? "After all
it's my body. Do I not have the right to it? A right to determine what
happens to it?" Yes a woman does have a right over her own body, but I
do not believe that that right involves killing another human being,
just because the mother was inconvenienced by becoming pregnant. Was it
not her fault that she became pregnant in the first place? Doesn't this
mean that she must take responsibility for her action? I was brought up
believing in that. When thinking this way there are three distinct
claims that a mother can argue.
1. A woman has no duty to sustain the child - the child is a
parasite
2. She may expel the child as an intruder
3. She may defend herself if he is a threat to her life or well
being.
The first two claims basically say that the woman has a right to an
abortion because she has a right to her body. When thinking this way we
must conceder the child, does the mother really have the right to the
child's life, yes she does - until the child is 18 years old the
parents have say in the child's life. Does this mean to say at age 2
years that if the mother is inconvenienced by the child that she is
just able to kill him. No, so why should a 2-month year old child still
in the womb be any different? Why should there be different rules for
when the child is in or out of its mother? The third claim say's that
if the child is risking another's life abortion should be allowed. Is
it right to kill one to save another? I believe that that is up to
every individual person, no one can make that choice for anyone. This
is true because each circumstance is different and we cannot really
judge unless we are in that situation.
"The child as an intruder" is one argument that we have not discussed.
Thomson argues that the "child is an intruder into the woman's body as
a burglar is in one's home" - or as the embryo is concerned, an
innocent person who blunders in. The woman has every right to remove
the burgler, why not the child? A simple answer is because; to remove
the child you must kill it, to remove a burglar you do not have to use
that kind of force. Would you think it humane to cut up a burglar with
a sharp knife if it enterd your house? No, of course not. This is
conciderend murder. Another answer is that the child is not an
intruder, because metaphorically speaking the mother "invited" the
child in.
The child is not an intruder. He is precisely where he should be, in
the place appropriate for the first phase of life. The woman has the
right to be on this earth in the place appropriate for her. In exactly
the same way the child in her womb has the right to be there, in the
place appropriate for it, for it's protection, nourishment and
development. So, contrary to Thomson the child does have the right to
be there, it is the most natural thing in the world for it to be
there.
I believe that every child brought in to this world should be a wanted
one, because horrible complications may occur if this is not the case,
such as abuse or abandonment. But to kill a child just because it is
not wanted is not justified. Would it not be better to carry the
pregnancy out to term and have the child adopted? I know that most of
the population of people that have been adopted would not want to be
killed. If I was to ask an adopted child if it would have been better
to have him adopted at birth what you think the answer would be?
The same can be asked for children with birth defects. A young woman
studying speech therapy had to study young teenagers with different
disabilities, such as paralisation, deafness, blindness and autistism.
When asked "Do you think that your parents should have aborted you when
pregnant, and had another child to save them and yourselves all the
hassle of coping with someone and coping with having disabilities?"
each one of those 54 children said no. Every child wanted the right to
live; they all thought that they deserved the same chance as everyone
else to lead a normal life. Each one believed that they did have an
unfair advantage, but to be aborted would be an even more unfair
advantage. Don't you agree? When thinking in terms "Every Child a
Wanted Child" you must add the extra bit on to the slogan - "and if not
wanted - killed". This is the slogan for Planned Parenthood, the first
part of the slogan anyway. But basically this is what it is trying to
get across. To prevent such outcomes as abuse, abandonment,
inconvenience, you must kill the child, murder it within the womb. You
can put this argument to exactly the same use when thinking of other
family members. Do parents kill teenagers when they start to get in the
way? Or would you kill your Uncle Bob after his heart attack or your
mother when she starts to get a burden on every day life? No, well this
is what this slogan suggests. To live in a world where every one is
wanted, loved and appreciated would be idealistic, but unfortunately
it's not going to happen, 'unwanted' will always be with us, and we
must learn to live with it. So killing something to innocent is not
justified yet again in this argument.
The claim that rape is different. Is abortion justified in the name of
helping a woman who has been the victim of rape or incest? To begin
with two principals must guide us. Firstly, full and equal
consideration to both persons involved, both mother and child and
secondly the fact that we may never do wrong to one person in order to
benefit another. Many people who oppose abortion feel that rape is
different, and that the elements that make up this claim are enough to
justify abortion. In first case the woman was not given a choice, had
she freely consented she would have to bear responsibility for her
actions, but since it was forced on her, she should not be forced to
continue the resulting pregnancy. But then we must ask, "If I am denied
a choice of becoming pregnant, does that give me the right to kill an
innocent person? After all I am not allowed to kill the person who
unjustly denied me that choice, a criminal who forced pregnancy upon
me. That would be considered murder, but to kill a person, so small, so
innocent who had done nothing wrong and can not do anything wrong, that
would be all right." Don't you think that it would be more justified,
but obviously not much, to kill the person who had committed the crime,
and not the resultant of that crime, who is an innocent child?
Secondly, a woman should not have to endure a forced pregnancy. We
have the greatest compassion for any woman who finds herself in the
position of having to bear a pregnancy that was forced upon her. We
must support her, encourage her, and not destroy her innocent child,
who did nothing wrong. Later on in life she may regret it and it might
have a deep effect on her in later life, knowing that she killed an
innocent child.
Thirdly, "Yes it was wrong that the woman was raped, it is wrong that
she should have the child, and therefore she may now get rid of it by
having an abortion, she is justified in righting the wrong by removing
the result of it." This is not the case; because I believe the Bible
has always told us "Two wrongs do not make a right" They remain two
wrongs and will always remain two wrongs whatever the case. For
example, if person A wrongs you, you cannot turn around and wrong
person B as a way of undoing the first wrong. If person A slaps you,
it's not going to do any good to slap person B in revenge; it would
only make more complications. The same is correct with having an
abortion; you will only create more problems in later life. The mother
cannot undo a great wrong or it's effects by killing an innocent child.
The baby (B) has not duty to give up its life for another, either to
benefit the other or to undo a wrong, which is not justified
anyway.
Fourth, "the child is a constant reminder of the horror of the rape;
the woman should be allowed to get rid of this reminder." Do you really
mean to say that we can kill the innocent person on the grounds that
she is a reminder of a horrible event? Yes, the child is a reminder and
a result of the horrible criminal offence of rape. This does not mean
that we can destroy her, destroy something innocent by another violent
act: abortion. We do understand that the mother would not want to carry
her rapist's child, but you must remember that half of the child is
hers, and by killing the child she is killing something innocent that
is half of herself. Even if she is not able to come to terms with
raising the baby - which is quite understandable, she must remember
that there will always be outstretched arms for that baby to go to. If
she doesn't want the child, think of all the loving homes that would
love to have that child.
When thinking of abortion as the result of rape, every one thinks of
the child and not to kill it as it is helpless and cannot have it's own
say. But think of that child in the future, he may be the next
Einstein, Martin Luther King, or Gandhi. He could be a top doctor,
scientist or even Prime-minister, think of what you may be destroying.
On a recent radio show after answering questions on rape a young woman
was called to the phone, she said
"You were talking about me. You see, I am the product of rape. An
intruder forced his way into my parents home one night, tied up my
father and, with him watching, raped my mother. I was conceived that
night. Everyone advised an abortion, the local doctors and hospital
were willing. My father, however, said 'Even though not mine, that is a
child and I will not allow it to be killed,' I don't know how many
times that I lay secure in the loving arms of my husband, I have
thanked God for my wonderful Christian father." And so, does any one
win? Yes the baby does.
One thing that I have not mentioned yet, in this essay, are the
abortion methods that are used in this country. Abortion in called a
'choice'. If this is true, then women should know what they are
choosing. RU-486 is a drug that produces abortion. It blocks all the
necessary hormones from the baby's reach. It also stops the baby's food
and oxygen supply, which causes it to die. There are many side effects
to the drug, but the emotional distress will have more of an impact on
the mother, because a week after taking the drug a 1-2 inch human baby
is expelled from the body. Another method is" Dilation and Curettage"
In this method the doctor uses a sharp curved knife to cut the tiny
body into pieces - the job of the nurses present is to reassemble the
tiny pieces to make sure there is nothing left inside the mothers womb.
Another method used is Suction Aspiration. A powerful suction tube is
used and the baby is violently torn to pieces. The most traumatic
procedure used is Dilation and Evacuation. It involves dismembering the
fetes using a sharp metal knife while still in the womb, which
eliminates any possibility of live birth. This method is used between
12 and 24 wophisticated, soft voice and sad eyes,
and a bare scalp, shaved clean in the name of art. The two sat in a
booth across from one another like darkness meeting light.

They were talking about their friend, Carlos, the aloof artist from
Cincinnati.

"He's into blacking out maps," Trent was saying when a soft hand found
his shoulder. It was Mick, the Scooby Doo artist, come to pay them a
little visit. He was sweating and out of breath.

"I saw your car outside," Mick said. "I've come to show you this." And
from a large gym bag he pulled out two dozen pickle jars, each
containing various amounts of used coffee grinds.

"I've been saving them from my Mr. Coffee machine at home," he said.
"I'm trying something new just like you told me to."

The artists viewed the pickle jars suspiciously.

"Documentation," said Jack.

"Yes," Trent sighed. "Documentation is key."

"But what happened when you went out for coffee?" asked Jack.

"Word."

"Where are the grinds from those experiences?"

The Scooby Doo artist was speechless.

"Anybody can save their trash," said Trent.

"Yes, yes," said Jack. "But to save other people's trash. To talk the
girl behind the counter at Starbuck's into giving you her used, soggy
coffee grinds, or to run back there and steal them yourself if you have
to! That's art!"

"Word."

The Scooby Doo artist stood silent, feasting on air.

"Don't distress, my brother," said Trent. "Some art doesn't need to go
any further than here." He tapped his bald skull to illuminate his
point.

"Art is in the mind," he said, still tapping. "I can make art just by
thinking about it, just be dreaming it up."

"Ah, but what is art?" said Jack.

"What isn't art?" Mick chimed in.

"Art is art and everything is art," said Trent.

The three artists laughed.

"We must make a collaborative piece," said Trent.

"Yes, yes," the other two shouted.

"We could do your coffee piece," said Trent, "but this time we'll do it
right."

"When shall we make it?" asked Jack.

"We already have," Trent said, tapping his skull once again. "Come on,
my brothers. Let's get out of here before they bring us the
check."

The three artists lumbered out of the Golden Nugget. Trent and Jack
boarded Trent's 1981 Pontiac Starfire, the Green Machine. Mick followed
in his Scooby Doo van. They were on their way to Trent's home, to the
gallery. Gallery Green.

"There are people out there who are making art every moment of every
day," said Trent. "Some of them don't even know they're doing it. We
were making art in there just now, just by having a
conversation."

"It's all art," said Jack.

"People could have been listening in on us, eavesdropping on our
performance piece, and that's art."

"Art is everywhere," said Jack.

"Eavesdropping is art, brother."

"Yes," said Jack.

"Spying is art."

"Yes, yes."

"Stalking is art."

"Everything, man. Everything is art."

The artists weaved a path through the concrete grid work of the city.
The River north district was too pricey and the West side too trendy,
so Trent had found a home in between. The gallery was indistinguishable
as such to any but the most keenly-trained eye. From the outside it
looked like an ordinary apartment, not unlike any of the thousands in
the city, an old brownstone turned gray from the grime and dust kicked
up by the buses, which passed night and day.

For three weeks, they had been working on the gallery - building walls,
painting, cleaning, putting the finishing touches on their pieces,
preparing for what was sure to be the event of the year. But Trent had
stopped short of finishing. Some things can only be done the day of a
performance, he had said. Trent was a performance artist and was known
to put himself through extreme rituals in order to prepare. This year,
he had asked for Jack's help.

"First things first," Trent said as he parked the car. "Are you ready
for the Grand Unveiling?"

"I'm ready," said Jack.

"Right on. I've invited Mick to join us. He says he has a new Scooby
Doo piece. He thinks this one is his best yet."

Jack tried to control a sadistic chuckle, but failed. Trent returned a
hard stare.

Not a word was spoken as the two artists helped Mick unload his art
from the Scooby Doo van. Most of the paintings they had all seen before
- Scooby Doo Where Are You?; Scooby and Shaggy; Scooby with Scrappy
Doo; Velma (with glasses and without). But there was a new piece, this
one covered under a dirty white sheet.

The artists brought the artwork up piece by piece, up the three flights
of stairs past the graffiti and beer cans, all the way to the top.
Trent unlocked his door, revealing one large white room two stories
high, a gleaming white cube, as long and wide as it was tall. Trent
slept in the corner by the window on an old futon mattress he'd found
in the trash, but that had been cleared away. In its place was a long
table loaded with bottles of wine and liquor. This was to be their bar.
Walls had been constructed to line the perimeter of the room. On these
walls hung pieces from all the foremost undiscovered urban artists of
the day.

Facing the entrance was Suburban Death, a six foot water color painting
by the four-man collaborative team known as FOOL. Another FOOL piece
hung on the opposite wall, Sex in the Year 2000, a risqu? photography
collage comparing sex with a computer modem installation instruction
handbook. Victor, a local filmmaker, had spent a week installing a
television set into the ceiling of the gallery. His piece, Man in a
Car, displayed a three-second continuous loop video tape of Victor
sitting in his brother's Park Avenue.

Mick was pleased to add his pieces to this collection. The Scooby Doo
paintings were brought upstairs and laid against the remaining bare
wall. Sweat dribbled down Mick's face as he placed his newest piece on
an easel between two others in the center of the room. All three were
covered.

"It's time, my brothers, for the Grand Unveiling," said Trent.

"Yes, yes," Jack screamed. "Urban art. Urban ART!"

Trent dimmed the lights slightly. "Mick," he said. "Show us your
art."

"Well," Mick said, floundering for a moment. "As you know, all my
paintings are inspired by my Scooby Doo childhood coloring book. In
this piece, I have replicated a page entitled 'Help Scooby and the gang
get home.' I think I will let the art speak for itself."

Mick lifted the sheet and revealed a maze with the cartoon characters
above and the mystery van below. A childlike pencil mark traced a path
through the maze. On top was the title, taken straight from Mick's
coloring book, and below were the words, "we can't help
ourselves."

The artists stood silent, taking it all in. Jack dug his hands deep
within his pickets, grinning. His wild eyes locked on to Mick's
painting. It was an aggressive posture, a challenge, one which Mick
attacked vehemently.

"They can't help themselves," Mick explained, breathing heavily. "They
need you to bring them to the van."

"I see," said Jack, still grinning, now rocking back and forth.

"They can't help themselves," Mick pleaded. "They're incapable of
finding it alone!"

"That's great," said Trent, smoothly. "Great. I'm all about this piece.
It's a statement, brother. Brilliant. Brilliant. Now Jack (he turned),
what do you have to show us?"

Jack's face went flat as he ripped away the sheet and displayed his
art: a pair of old boxer shorts, framed and tacked to a canvas. "I call
this piece 'Pop's Underwear,'" he said proudly. "I stole this from out
of my father's dresser drawer the night he invited me over to meet his
new girlfriend."

The others stared questioningly.

"Go ahead," said Jack. "Lift them up."

Trent bent down and lifted the shorts. He focused on the canvas
underneath. Mick leaned over him and gasped.

"I've been quoting for years," said Jack, taking down everything. I am
a fly on the wall in a house of fire. Every rotten thing he's said,
every slip of the tongue, every misspoken word, it's all there."

"Text art," Mick whispered.

The text was a tangled mess of abuse, frustration and fear. Jumbled
phrases littered the canvas. "Hey pal," in black ink. "You watch those
big shoes of yours," in red ink. "Headlights, what headlights?" written
in lipstick. "Watch out for that car," strung out in yarn. A fine
thread of dental floss printed out the words, "I don't like you very
much."

Trent rubbed his skull thoughtfully. "Pop's underwear," he mused.
"Under the surface. Hidden but real. That's fantastic work, Jack."
Trent giggled. "Fantastic," he said again, taking Jack under his
arm.

"And for my piece," he smiled. "At the moment, it is just a prop."
Trent raised his sheet, unveiling a small unframed picture of Marilyn
Monroe. It was an original Andy Warhol lithograph. The artists gasped.
Jack bit down on his tongue. Mick coughed and rubbed his watery
eyes.

"I bought it last week," said Trent. "Got it at the contemporary arts
festival at Navy Pier. It costs me five hundred dollars."

"What are you going to do with it?" asked Mick.

"That's still a secret," Trent replied.

It was time for an adventure, so the three artists piled into the
Scooby Doo van. Trent needed to get into character for the evening's
performance. He needed to become the artist, Maestro T. Castelli, and
the only way he could become an artist was by making art.

"Where are we going?" asked Jack.

"To the museum," said Trent. "We're going to make art."

"Then let's take the Green Machine. The van only has two seats!" Jack
exclaimed.

"We'll need the space," Trent said. "We're going out to steal some
art."

"I thought we were making art," said Mick.

"What's the difference?" Jack said sarcastically.

Trent turned and threw a sour look in Jack's direction. "There's no
difference," he explained. "Making art, stealing art. Art is art and
everything is art. All art is borrowed culture. Art is not about the
finished product. It's about the process. It's about taking from what
you know and making it your own."

"Yes," said Jack.

"You think Jeff Koons knows anything about making art?" said Trent. "He
hides up there in his New York studio posing for all his lackeys. Jeff
Koons is a glorified curator!"

Trent was getting edgy. He rarely shouted, but the others had seen him
this way before. Before a performance, several hours before a
performance, Trent would start to fray a little at the edges. He called
it getting into the zone. By evening, he would be livid. He would be
another person altogether.

"Jeff Koons doesn't make art," Trent went on. "He just supervises.
Chris Burden is what art's all about. Chris Burden got shot for his
art. Shot! Do you hear what I'm saying? He had a showing at a gallery
and everyone watched his friend shoot him!"

The others were silent.

"And that's the art," said Trent. "A one-time performance. But
everything is art, so the bullet, the gun, the hospital admittance
papers, all of it is art. Everything is art."

"Yes, yes," Jack cried out. "Ephemera!"

"That's what I'm talking about," said Trent. "That's what the bullet
is, ephemera. That bullet goes on display in museums now. Everything
about that performance is valuable. The medical bills, somebody's
paperwork, it's now art. Save everything, my brothers. All
correspondence related to your pieces, it's all art."

Mick came to a stop in front of the museums. "We're here," he
said.

"Okay," Trent said. He was breathing fast now. "Here's the plan. We'll
go in shifts. In and out, in and out. We'll steal the art piece by
piece. Jack, you come with me. Mick, you wait by the north exit in the
getaway vehicle. You and Jack can go the next shift. Got it?"

"Got it," said Mick.

"All right then. It's go time."

Jack followed as Trent pranced confidently up the steps to the front
doors of the New Museum of Contemporary Art.

"We'll take the stairs down," Trent said. "We'll meet Mick at the north
end. It's a smaller exit, no guards." He pulled out two pairs of dark
sunglasses from his coat pocket. "Put these on," he said. "It's all a
part of the performance."

They showed their lifetime membership cards to the security guard who
eyed them casually as they passed.

"I've been scooping this place out," said Trent, his voice edgy.
"Security is tight, usually one guard per room, but they move around.
So there's not always someone in every room at every moment. If we're
patient, we should get our chance."

"Get our chance," said Jack. "Right."

The artists made their way swiftly to the elevator, then up to the
third floor. They stepped off casually and weaved through the pieces
they both knew so well - around the giant coins made from crushed
aluminum cans, under the speakers whispering German epitaphs, past the
neon sign forever blinking the words, "love, hate, peace, war, good,
evil, love?" They passed all this slowly but without really looking
until they made it to the far side of the gallery. And there was their
target, a small piece hiding in a corner, a mastery of understatement,
The Stack. Trent whispered slowly in Jack's ear.

"Felix Gonzales-Torres."

"Felix Gonzales-Torres, the famous San Franciscan artist. Felix
Gonzales-Torres, who had pushed the envelope in minimalist and
interactive contemporary art. Felix Gonzales-Torres, gone before his
time, he had died two years ago of AIDS.

The Stack was exactly that. It was a stack of papers, a cube, three
feet wide and three feet high. Each sheet was identical, white with a
solid black border. The artists approached it casually, reading the
sign posted on the wall.

"Please feel free to take a sheet," it read.

"That's all the permission we need," whispered Trent. He walked off
slowly, tapping his fingers wildly on his pants leg.

A guard stood in the doorway facing him. She was short with a thick,
square face and dark curly hair. Trent waved and smiled.

He mouthed the words, "Good afternoon" and she smiled discreetly,
embarrassed, and looked away.

Jack sneaked a quick glance at the Stack. He wondered how many sheets
he could pick up at once. How many trips would they try to make? Trent
tapped him on the back and motioned with his head toward the doorway.
The guard was leaving.

They took long, swift steps toward the Stack. Each made a quick head
check before bending over. Trent scooped up a large handful, folded it
over once, and handed it to Jack. Jack stuffed the sheets under his
coat and rose. His jacket bulged in the front. Jack wrapped his arms
around his stomach, but he felt the sheets slipping, spilling out from
under his jacket and falling to the floor. He hugged himself
tighter.

"Go," Trent said, and Jack began to walk toward the stairs.

Trent stayed, shuffling together what was left. He picked up as much as
he could with two hands, pulled the stack close to his body, and
shuffled away in Jack's direction, dropping a trail as he went.

The square-faced security guard noticed the wreckage. "Hey!" she
shouted. "Hey! Stop!"

The artists didn't turn back. They hobbled down the stairs and out the
side exit. They hobbled to the street, dropping sheets with every step.
They threw what they still had into the back of the van and jumped
in.

"Go!" they yelled. Mick floored it, sending Jack flying backward. Trent
watched out the window. Two guards burst through the door before it had
a chance to shut. They stood on the sidewalk, heaving, as they watched
the van turn the corner and disappear.

The Stack stood thirteen inches high. It was a ragged mess of bent,
torn paper. Trent said that was what made it art. The piece belonged to
Felix Gonzales-Torres, but they had changed it, and now it belonged to
them. Jack stenciled their names on the wall above their piece.

The Stack

Trent Koslovsky, Jack Taylor, Mick Kelley, Felix Gonzales-Torres

Please feel free to take a sheet.

The first guests arrived at around six o'clock. These were all close
friends, the inner circle. There was Richard, the eccentric minimalist,
and Dara, the Sufi. Sergio, the poet, came with the Philosopher in tow.
And by the time the Rastafarians showed up at eight, the party was well
underway.

Jack found a shoulder to look over, a bottle of champagne in one hand
and a notepad in the other. Mick herded a group of frat boys toward his
Velma, explaining that he would "let the art speak for itself." Trent
bounced around the room like a giddy schoolgirl, hugging everyone who
entered.

"Welcome to my show," he said. "Welcome. Welcome, one and all."

Carlos arrived shortly before nine with an armload of maps. Carlos, the
aloof artist from Cincinnati. He was an immense presence - dark, wavy
hair, a thick brow, and hands that could cast a shadow over the entire
gallery. He grasped Trent's frail figure with his free hand, took him
by the back of the head and kissed him softly on the lips.

"Where should I set these up," he mumbled.

"Anywhere! Anywhere!" said Trent. "Did you bring it? It's almost
time."

"Yeah, I brought it," he said. "You just tell me when you want to
start."

"Let's do it!" said Trent. "Let's do it, let's do it!"

"My friends!" he shouted. "My friends! It's almost nine o'clock! The
performance will begin in just a few minutes!"

Trent checked his video cameras, one in each corner. All were
recording. Documentation is key, he said to himself, as he made his way
down to the center of the floor. Carlos had cleared a circle for
him.

"Thank you," said Trent. "Thank you for coming. Please take a
seat."

Mick cried out from the far corner to the frat boys. "But she can't see
without her glasses! She can't see!"

"Sit down, Mick," said Trent. "Sit down?Not you!" He pointed to a group
standing against the far wall. "Could you please move away from the
wall. Thank you. Thank you very much."

The guests all took a seat on the floor and Trent for the first time
realized just how small the studio really was. His circle had become a
horseshoe. Everyone had moved away from the far wall and Trent's
walking space had been reduced to a five foot diameter. Carlos stood in
the center with Trent. The Warhol remained on its easel, exposed, in
the center of the room.

The crowd settled down. The room grew quiet. Trent began his
performance. Pacing, muttering, stumbling on his ideas, he began with a
poem.

Love Fire Prison Lord Grow Love

Hate Water Freedom Slave Destroy Hate

Peace Earth Open Ruler Conceive Piece

War Air Shut Subject Kill Gun

Carlos brought his hand into his coat pocket and pulled out a .22
caliber handgun. He tilted the barrel down and checked to see that it
was loaded. He nodded and handed the gun over to Trent.

Trent held the gun to his side, facing the Warhol lithograph. No one
made a sound. No one even breathed. Trent took three steps toward the
crowd and turned to face the empty wall.

"I call this piece," he said, "I Shot Andy Warhol."

Trent fired. The picture splintered off into a million pieces. The
crowd covered their eyes. The Philosopher pondered over the meaning of
life. The Sufi sung a muted chant. The frat boys wet themselves. Time
paused and Jack cried out, "Yes! Yes!" Mick fainted and Trent crawled
into the arms of his one true love. The aloof artist carried him across
the threshold, down the steps and out into the cool night air of the
city.

*********************************************
? 1998 by James Temple Berg

Read more at www.lollygagger.org