Yale Senior has "as many abortions as possible"

by **bob3603** on Fri Apr 18, 2008 1:32 am

by **MeDeFe** on Fri Apr 18, 2008 2:06 am

bob3603 wrote:http://www.yale.edu/opa/

It's a hoax

It's not a hoax, it's still art.

The entire project is an art piece, a creative fiction designed to draw attention to the ambiguity surrounding form and function of a woman’s body.

by **strike wolf** on Fri Apr 18, 2008 6:14 am

Well, okay since she didn't actually do it. I guess it's alright.

by **reminisco** on Fri Apr 18, 2008 7:35 am

strike wolf wrote:Well, okay since she didn't actually do it. I guess it's alright.

i still don't ever want to have sex with her, let alone ever ever marry her.

and i imagine almost every other man out there thinks the same thing: eeeew.

by **savant** on Fri Apr 18, 2008 8:15 am

MeDeFe wrote:That's a tricky one, because the boundaries are not fixed. The development from a single cell to a new-born child is not something that follows clear steps, it's a slope. Napoleon would claim that it's a someone as soon as sperm and ovum come together, the other end of the extreme would be the moment of birth. Prematures of 8 months have died and prematures of 6 months have survived, so that particular capability is not a completely reliable criterion either.
And to go off on a tangent here, can you unambiguously define what a human is without resorting to constructivist terms or circular reasoning? As an example: "A being is a human if other humans recognize it as human", or is there a clear-cut definition? I, for one, doubt it. I don't think you can even unambiguously define a human by the genes; molecular genetics where you theoretically have the potential for the finest distinctions has serious problems when it comes to offering general definitions.

well, are we trying to define what it means to be human or the criteria of a human based on physical traits and characteristics?
can we say that "humans" have conscious thought while every other living organism on this planet reacts on instinct and stimuli?

if there is no clear-cut definition of a human or what it means to be human or when the "humanity" of a being begins, can we then speculate that the only ethics involved in having multiple abortions in this particular situation are the medical ramifications from harming one's self?

is the issue of abortion then a moot point if we cannot collectively decide if "human" life is being given/taken repeatedly in a short time span with complete disregard?

by **savant** on Fri Apr 18, 2008 8:19 am

strike wolf wrote:Well first of all, I'm an anti-abortion guy for reasons that go beyond religion. I do not see the justification of taking a potential life like that, it's the same reason I don't like the idea of hunting just for sport.

i hunt for sport every time i see a silverfish on the wall.

by **Neoteny** on Fri Apr 18, 2008 8:19 am

I give up, for now...

by **savant** on Fri Apr 18, 2008 8:38 am

Neoteny wrote:I give up, for now...

winna!

by **tzor** on Fri Apr 18, 2008 9:22 am

Neoteny wrote:Tzor, I haven't heard of this chimeric action of the ES cells. Do you have a link? I was under the impression that there was no transfer of something as large as cells across the placenta. Not to mention, there's a particularly brief window where such a thing could occur. It would be an interesting read if nothing else.

I have a link, but since "I heard it on NPR" it's an audio link. Science: How Baby Protects Mom from Dec 13, 2007. It's a fascinating listen.

by **MeDeFe** on Fri Apr 18, 2008 9:32 am

savant wrote:
MeDeFe wrote:That's a tricky one, because the boundaries are not fixed. The development from a single cell to a new-born child is not something that follows clear steps, it's a slope. Napoleon would claim that it's a someone as soon as sperm and ovum come together, the other end of the extreme would be the moment of birth. Prematures of 8 months have died and prematures of 6 months have survived, so that particular capability is not a completely reliable criterion either.
And to go off on a tangent here, can you unambiguously define what a human is without resorting to constructivist terms or circular reasoning? As an example: "A being is a human if other humans recognize it as human", or is there a clear-cut definition? I, for one, doubt it. I don't think you can even unambiguously define a human by the genes; molecular genetics where you theoretically have the potential for the finest distinctions has serious problems when it comes to offering general definitions.

well, are we trying to define what it means to be human or the criteria of a human based on physical traits and characteristics?
can we say that "humans" have conscious thought while every other living organism on this planet reacts on instinct and stimuli?

The second, for a discussion such as this to be able to proceed a definition of what traits are necessary to say that a being is a human being is necessary, which consequences this entails for the human in question (or humans in general) is so far irrelevant. As I said, I doubt there are any such traits, physical or mental, or even genetic. Apes are physically quite similar to us but do not seem to possess the same mental faculties, and what if we encounter intelligent aliens some time? What would there status be? Even on a molecular scale you cannot say what combination of DNA makes a being human or not, so far there isn't even a general definition for a gene on molecular scale, only the Mendelian definition that is so general as to be useless in this context.

As for your suggestion, we do not know exactly how and what other beings react to and what sort of mental processes they have. Apes appear to have a sense of "self" comparable to a human toddler, similar signs have been detected in dolphins and elephants as well. I cannot quote any essays about the dolphins and elephants right now, I remember reading it quite some time ago, possibly in a weekly newspaper. While we might be able to observe the chemical processes that go on in the brain, we might never be able to decipher exactly how they are perceived by the brain and body.

savant wrote:if there is no clear-cut definition of a human or what it means to be human or when the "humanity" of a being begins, can we then speculate that the only ethics involved in having multiple abortions in this particular situation are the medical ramifications from harming one's self?

That would definitely be a valid speculation, if no life is ended by the induced miscarriages there is no ethical problem apart from whether a person is entitled to putting their health at risk.

savant wrote:is the issue of abortion then a moot point if we cannot collectively decide if "human" life is being given/taken repeatedly in a short time span with complete disregard?

I wouldn't go so far as to say it is moot, the discussion is of relevance to society and our collective self-image and the alternative to not having the debate at all would be a dogmatic position from either the pro or the contra side that would apply to everyone, and for me that is a very dissatisfying prospect. A clear definition of what is a human and what is not would greatly benefit the debate, and even if no such definition can be established it would benefit both sides to be aware of the problems of defining the term 'human'.

by **GabonX** on Fri Apr 18, 2008 1:16 pm

If what she did is art than I could just as easily call murdering this artist art. Perhaps some great artist would like to for the sake of art.

by **Neoteny** on Fri Apr 18, 2008 3:37 pm

GabonX wrote:If what she did is art than I could just as easily call murdering this artist art. Perhaps some great artist would like to for the sake of art.

I'm not exactly sure why everyone thinks ethical behavior is an inherent part of art... sure it can still be art, but it's not any art that I would encourage, condone, or want to see. Isn't that kinda the idea behind the exhibit with all the dead bodies from China?

by **GabonX** on Sat Apr 19, 2008 1:55 am

Neoteny wrote:
GabonX wrote:If what she did is art than I could just as easily call murdering this artist art. Perhaps some great artist would like to for the sake of art.

I'm not exactly sure why everyone thinks ethical behavior is an inherent part of art... sure it can still be art, but it's not any art that I would encourage, condone, or want to see. Isn't that kinda the idea behind the exhibit with all the dead bodies from China?

I agree with what you said. Also I submit that if a piece of art could be done by anyone due to the lack of technical skill required to produce said piece, that it is of poor quality. Anyone can splatter paint on a page so whatever this splatter symbolizes doesn't make the work good, just pretentious.

A great many people can have abortions so I even if you have no ethical problems with this "art" it is of poor quality due the ability of the masses to create the same thing.

by **got tonkaed** on Sat Apr 19, 2008 2:55 am

I sort of disagree with this last assertion. While you could certainly make ethical arguments about why this girl may or may not need to be reprimanded for her violation of a social norm, she certainly has done more toward art than you suggest. Just because something can be done by any number of people, does not mean that it is done nor that it is done effectively. She claims to have established an intent to use her body as a canvas. Now certainly there are probably a large number of people who make the difficult decision to abort on a daily basis. However, you probably know none of those people, nor do you know anything about why they make the choice that they make. Yet in this case, its very likely that you at least know of this persons action, perhaps to the point that you even told someone about this, probably with perhaps justifiable disgust. In this fashion she has taken an action that could be done by quite a large number of people, and transcended the action to reestablish the meaning of it and place herself in relation to it.

Could be far closer to art than your willing to admit.