Conquer Club

Oh boy, y'all will like this one:

"Beginning next Tuesday, Shvarts will be displaying her senior art project, a documentation of a nine-month process during which she artificially inseminated herself "as often as possible" while periodically taking abortifacient drugs to induce miscarriages. Her exhibition will feature video recordings of these forced miscarriages as well as preserved collections of the blood from the process."

See the full story here:

http://yaledailynews.com/story.html

I wonder how she came up with the idea. That seems like something you either have been building too for a very long time, or something that comes quite at the spur of the moment, and you build up the idea from there.

Either way, she probably stands to benefit from taking such a large social risk.

I am gonna start murdering kittens for 9 months, and I'll document it all and make my own website: www.kittenslaughter.com

You think 20/20 will wanna interview me?

Interesting. I wonder if people will ever run out of ideas for unique social demonstrations.

kleep wrote:I am gonna start murdering kittens for 9 months, and I'll document it all and make my own website: http://www.kittenslaughter.com

You think 20/20 will wanna interview me?

PETA probably will.

Is killing a kitten really considered murder?

Neoteny wrote:Is killing a kitten really considered murder?

If it is, doesn't it follow that, indirectly, masturbation is murder? So, since I want to morally excuse masturbation, I think killing kittens is ok.

spurgistan wrote:

Neoteny wrote:Is killing a kitten really considered murder?

If it is, doesn't it follow that, indirectly, masturbation is murder? So, since I want to morally excuse masturbation, I think killing kittens is ok.

So, nearly everything that has to do with reproduction is not only creating life, but also destroying it. Depressing.

Neoteny wrote:

spurgistan wrote:

Neoteny wrote:Is killing a kitten really considered murder?

If it is, doesn't it follow that, indirectly, masturbation is murder? So, since I want to morally excuse masturbation, I think killing kittens is ok.

So, nearly everything that has to do with reproduction is not only creating life, but also destroying it. Depressing.

I don't know what that means, I was just trying to make an oblique reference to God killing a kitten when we make knuckle children.

So much for intellectualism. Good try, though.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

There are less messy ways to kill a kitten, nappy.

Yaledailynews wrote:"[Shvarts' exhibit] turns what is a serious decision for women into an absurdism," Rahman said. "It discounts the gravity of the situation that is abortion."

It is art! Absurdism is an accepted and legitimate form of art, but this project can actually be seen as an extension of 19th century Naturalism. While it's not a description of "life as it is" on account of not being literature, it fulfills the main postulate of Georg Brandes because it draws attention to problems in society. It can serve to open up a new perspective on a sensitive topic and force people to rethink their previously dogmatically held positions. She has my full support, a pity there's a medium-sized ocean between me and the exhibition.

She said she was not concerned about any medical effects the forced miscarriages may have had on her body. The abortifacient drugs she took were legal and herbal, she said, and she did not feel the need to consult a doctor about her repeated miscarriages.

with a name like Shvarts, I wouldn't be concerned with the repercussions either.

I was most surprised at the concept of "herbal" abortifacient drugs. I'm not exactly sure why that really matters...

Neoteny wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:

There are less messy ways to kill a kitten, nappy.

What masturbation?

No seriously though. That Jezebel should be vivisected.

Yale, why did it have to be Yale. (That's a rhetorical question ... Don't asnwer it!)

Think of all the great presidents who came from Yale; Taft and both Bushes.
Think of all the great presidents who came from the Law School there; Ford and Clinton.

The "fabricators," or donors, of the sperm were not paid for their services, but Shvarts required them to periodically take tests for sexually transmitted diseases. She said she was not concerned about any medical effects the forced miscarriages may have had on her body. The abortifacient drugs she took were legal and herbal, she said, and she did not feel the need to consult a doctor about her repeated miscarriages.

You know, perhaps she should consult a doctor given her excessive condition.

Who knows, perhaps Hillary will discover this and make this her cure for global warming!

Napoleon Ier wrote:No seriously though. That Jezebel should be vivisected.

But why? Do you deny it is art or do you not agree with her inducing miscarriages? And if so, why not? Come on, give us some reasons, it's not obvious why you object to this project.

THAT, my friends, is true art!

MeDeFe wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:No seriously though. That Jezebel should be vivisected.

But why? Do you deny it is art or do you not agree with her inducing miscarriages? And if so, why not? Come on, give us some reasons, it's not obvious why you object to this project.

just about anything today can be categorized as "art".

personally, i don't have a problem with the project except for the fact that it's been publicized. just like all forms of media, it can influence masses one way or another. in this case, perhaps it may give the message and validity to some teenage girl(s) (or girl(s) of any age) out there that it's okay to have unprotected sex as often as possible and then simply induce a miscarriage if pregnancy occurs. on top of it, when others look down upon her for doing so, she can pass off her methods as "art".

MeDeFe wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:No seriously though. That Jezebel should be vivisected.

But why? Do you deny it is art or do you not agree with her inducing miscarriages? And if so, why not? Come on, give us some reasons, it's not obvious why you object to this project.

Do you deny Josef Mengele's work was Science?

Napoleon Ier wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:No seriously though. That Jezebel should be vivisected.

But why? Do you deny it is art or do you not agree with her inducing miscarriages? And if so, why not? Come on, give us some reasons, it's not obvious why you object to this project.

Do you deny Josef Mengele's work was Science?

Well, he was empirical about it, so no, it was not all not science, although most of it was, with hindsight, of no merit whatsoever. However, I see a certain difference between using substances of ones own body and the sperm of consenting donors who knew what it would be used for in order to create a work of art on the one hand, and experimenting on human beings in ways that denies them any rights and are unnecessarily agonizing on the other.
There, I answered your question, now answered mine, do you dispute that it is a work of art, or do you see an other problem with her project.

MeDeFe wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:Do you deny Josef Mengele's work was Science?

Well, he was empirical about it, so no, it was not all not science, although most of it was, with hindsight, of no merit whatsoever. However, I see a certain difference between using substances of ones own body and the sperm of consenting donors who knew what it would be used for in order to create a work of art on the one hand, and experimenting on human beings in ways that denies them any rights and are unnecessarily agonizing on the other.
There, I answered your question, now answered mine, do you dispute that it is a work of art, or do you see an other problem with her project.

Well, based on your general knowledge of Roman Catholics and their beliefs, what kind of problem do you think I find with it, Sherlock?

see, her idea isn't nearly as good as mine.

in my idea, you stretch out a canvas behind your head, let the business end of a gun negotiate through your mouth, and sell the resultant bone/brain/blood spatter as post-modern art. it's guaranteed to fetch a top price, cause the artist is dead!

call it "Last Thoughts" or "Confessions of a .45"

Napoleon Ier wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:Do you deny Josef Mengele's work was Science?

Well, he was empirical about it, so no, it was not all not science, although most of it was, with hindsight, of no merit whatsoever. However, I see a certain difference between using substances of ones own body and the sperm of consenting donors who knew what it would be used for in order to create a work of art on the one hand, and experimenting on human beings in ways that denies them any rights and are unnecessarily agonizing on the other.
There, I answered your question, now answered mine, do you dispute that it is a work of art, or do you see an other problem with her project.

Well, based on your general knowledge of Roman Catholics and their beliefs, what kind of problem do you think I find with it, Sherlock?

You dogmatically adhere to a position that others have dictated for you but cannot offer any compelling arguments that might convince a non-believer? I don't know, I'm just guessing here.

MeDeFe wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:Well, he was empirical about it, so no, it was not all not science, although most of it was, with hindsight, of no merit whatsoever. However, I see a certain difference between using substances of ones own body and the sperm of consenting donors who knew what it would be used for in order to create a work of art on the one hand, and experimenting on human beings in ways that denies them any rights and are unnecessarily agonizing on the other.
There, I answered your question, now answered mine, do you dispute that it is a work of art, or do you see an other problem with her project.

Well, based on your general knowledge of Roman Catholics and their beliefs, what kind of problem do you think I find with it, Sherlock?

You dogmatically adhere to a position that others have dictated for you but cannot offer any compelling arguments that might convince a non-believer? I don't know, I'm just guessing here.

No, I believe that humans rather than sentience have an intrinsic worth that needs to be recogniseed.