Yale Senior has "as many abortions as possible"

[btownmeggy]

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

But Shvarts WASN'T having sex. She was squirting (injecting, if Neoteny pleases) otherwise-collected semen into her vag.

[Neoteny]

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

But Shvarts WASN'T having sex. She was squirting (injecting, if Neoteny pleases) otherwise-collected semen into her vag.

I'll allow it.

[tzor]

But Shvarts WASN'T having sex. She was squirting (injecting, if Neoteny pleases) otherwise-collected semen into her vag.

When I first read the story I was under the assumption that the majority of the artificial fertilization was being done in vitrio but considering that there was no doctors involved and that she was concerned with the quality of the sperm stream STD wise it might be reasonable to assume that she was doing it as you suggest. That would put a severe time constraint on the number of miscarrages she could have in that period because she can't outstrip her natural period.

Still having some stranger's DNA in you is noting to be taken lightly. Once the embryo implants embryonic stem cells migrate from the embryo into her. Short of a method to prevent implantation, foreign DNA will enter her system. Of course they are those infamous SUPER STEM CELLS so it's generally a bonus for her, but still ...

[Neoteny]

But Shvarts WASN'T having sex. She was squirting (injecting, if Neoteny pleases) otherwise-collected semen into her vag.

When I first read the story I was under the assumption that the majority of the artificial fertilization was being done in vitrio but considering that there was no doctors involved and that she was concerned with the quality of the sperm stream STD wise it might be reasonable to assume that she was doing it as you suggest. That would put a severe time constraint on the number of miscarrages she could have in that period because she can't outstrip her natural period.

Still having some stranger's DNA in you is noting to be taken lightly. Once the embryo implants embryonic stem cells migrate from the embryo into her. Short of a method to prevent implantation, foreign DNA will enter her system. Of course they are those infamous SUPER STEM CELLS so it's generally a bonus for her, but still ...

::cocks head::

You have a very odd sense of humor, tzor...

[savant]

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

But Shvarts WASN'T having sex. She was squirting (injecting, if Neoteny pleases) otherwise-collected semen into her vag.

the act of sex or the "squirting" of semen isn't the focus of the debate, though. it's the potential result of either, repeated several times over, that causes concern.

the message that might be conveyed is "if i don't want a baby, i don't have to have one. in fact, if i don't want 50 babies, i don't have to have any of them."
it becomes complex because the debate spills over into teenage pregnancy and the likes, further instilling the belief that you're invincible when you're young and nothing bad can happen to you. be as wreckless as you want. there are no long-lasting consequences for your actions.

who cares if people have 100 different sexual partners (at once or not) within a given time frame? but when you start mingling with life like a light switch, i suppose that may raise some concern.

[Neoteny]

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

But Shvarts WASN'T having sex. She was squirting (injecting, if Neoteny pleases) otherwise-collected semen into her vag.

the act of sex or the "squirting" of semen isn't the focus of the debate, though. it's the potential result of either, repeated several times over, that causes concern.

the message that might be conveyed is "if i don't want a baby, i don't have to have one. in fact, if i don't want 50 babies, i don't have to have any of them."
it becomes complex because the debate spills over into teenage pregnancy and the likes, further instilling the belief that you're invincible when you're young and nothing bad can happen to you. be as wreckless as you want. there are no long-lasting consequences for your actions.

who cares if people have 100 different sexual partners (at once or not) within a given time frame? but when you start mingling with life like a light switch, i suppose that may raise some concern.

According to her, that was not her point at all. Her goal was something along the lines of "using the human body as a canvas."

[btownmeggy]

the message that might be conveyed is "if i don't want a baby, i don't have to have one. in fact, if i don't want 50 babies, i don't have to have any of them."
it becomes complex because the debate spills over into teenage pregnancy and the likes, further instilling the belief that you're invincible when you're young and nothing bad can happen to you. be as wreckless as you want. there are no long-lasting consequences for your actions.

who cares if people have 100 different sexual partners (at once or not) within a given time frame? but when you start mingling with life like a light switch, i suppose that may raise some concern.

So are you more concerned with "teenage recklessness" or "mingling with life?" Which of the two do you think this art project most fervently promotes?

[tzor]

::cocks head::

You have a very odd sense of humor, tzor...

I suppose I do. On the other hand the notion of stem cells crossing the placeba, entering the mother and migrating to areas of the body that might have problems or even have potential cancers is not supposed to be funny but science. I definitely recall hearing about this within the past year. There are a lot of odd medical implications that result from this micro chimera effect in women that researchers are currently studying.

There was, a very long time ago, a story about female athletes getting pregnant and forcing a miscarrage because of the preceived changes in hormonal balance that would allegedly agument their athletic abilities. But the general yuck factor kept that from becomming as abused as other techniques.

[khazalid]

very much intended as on-topic; does anyone know of any artists that are visible behind their hysterically misguided sense of self-worth?

[savant]

According to her, that was not her point at all. Her goal was something along the lines of "using the human body as a canvas."

her personal goal and the perception of others (not just of her goal, but of her actions pit against standards of society) are different things.

WWII started because of one's personal goal of "cleansing". the rest of the world considered it homicide and genocide.

[Neoteny]

According to her, that was not her point at all. Her goal was something along the lines of "using the human body as a canvas."

her personal goal and the perception of others (not just of her goal, but of her actions pit against standards of society) are different things.

WWII started because of one's personal goal of "cleansing". the rest of the world considered it homicide and genocide.

Nazis... well, that was quick. It's easy to make the jump from breaking the more of abortion to breaching the taboo of murder, genocide no less; really, I can see that. But I call into question the logic of it.

Anyhow, here's a link to the FOXNews perspective, which is notably different...

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.

This sounds like a job for my Dev. Bio. professor!

[savant]

the message that might be conveyed is "if i don't want a baby, i don't have to have one. in fact, if i don't want 50 babies, i don't have to have any of them."
it becomes complex because the debate spills over into teenage pregnancy and the likes, further instilling the belief that you're invincible when you're young and nothing bad can happen to you. be as wreckless as you want. there are no long-lasting consequences for your actions.

who cares if people have 100 different sexual partners (at once or not) within a given time frame? but when you start mingling with life like a light switch, i suppose that may raise some concern.

So are you more concerned with "teenage recklessness" or "mingling with life?" Which of the two do you think this art project most fervently promotes?

mingling with life. teenage recklessness is just a common example that can be used in this situation.
even though the goal of the artist was to portray some form of art via the human body, not everyone is going to have a mind opened wide enough to see things that way.

personally, i would have just gotten a tattoo on my inner thighs of blood spilling from the vaginal area with a little umbilical cord or something for dramatic effect. then, on the day of the presentation, i'd take my pants and undies off, lay down with my legs spread open.

[Neoteny]

the message that might be conveyed is "if i don't want a baby, i don't have to have one. in fact, if i don't want 50 babies, i don't have to have any of them."
it becomes complex because the debate spills over into teenage pregnancy and the likes, further instilling the belief that you're invincible when you're young and nothing bad can happen to you. be as wreckless as you want. there are no long-lasting consequences for your actions.

who cares if people have 100 different sexual partners (at once or not) within a given time frame? but when you start mingling with life like a light switch, i suppose that may raise some concern.

So are you more concerned with "teenage recklessness" or "mingling with life?" Which of the two do you think this art project most fervently promotes?

mingling with life. teenage recklessness is just a common example that can be used in this situation.
even though the goal of the artist was to portray some form of art via the human body, not everyone is going to have a mind opened wide enough to see things that way.

personally, i would have just gotten a tattoo on my inner thighs of blood spilling from the vaginal area with a little umbilical cord or something for dramatic effect. then, on the day of the presentation, i'd take my pants and undies off, lay down with my legs spread open.

Make sure you shave. Art critics are notoriously neotenic.

[savant]

According to her, that was not her point at all. Her goal was something along the lines of "using the human body as a canvas."

her personal goal and the perception of others (not just of her goal, but of her actions pit against standards of society) are different things.

WWII started because of one's personal goal of "cleansing". the rest of the world considered it homicide and genocide.

Nazis... well, that was quick. It's easy to make the jump from breaking the more of abortion to breaching the taboo of murder, genocide no less; really, I can see that. But I call into question the logic of it.

Anyhow, here's a link to the FOXNews perspective, which is notably different...

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.

This sounds like a job for my Dev. Bio. professor!

ok, so no nazis.

how about this:

as a final art project for my class, i plan on impregnating as many women as i can within a 10 month period. after those 10 months, i'll wait another 10 months for every single baby to born. i'll document each pregnant woman's birth cycle and actual birth, along with displaying every single baby/infant in a public presentation to show the beauty of life and how genetics can influence physical character traits within each baby. each woman in the project agrees to participate in the project without any payment and agrees to take care of the baby afterwards either with or without my support after the conclusion of the project.

would that be considered art?

[savant]

Make sure you shave. Art critics are notoriously neotenic.

there will be some stubble, for realistic purposes.

[Neoteny]

ok, so no nazis.

how about this:

as a final art project for my class, i plan on impregnating as many women as i can within a 10 month period. after those 10 months, i'll wait another 10 months for every single baby to born. i'll document each pregnant woman's birth cycle and actual birth, along with displaying every single baby/infant in a public presentation to show the beauty of life and how genetics can influence physical character traits within each baby. each woman in the project agrees to participate in the project without any payment and agrees to take care of the baby afterwards either with or without my support after the conclusion of the project.

would that be considered art?

I would say your attempt at showing a lack of ethics has more to do with the women than it does with you. If those women are capable and willing to raise a child on their own, then more power to them. If, in the process, you want to document it and display it to the world, that is between you and them.

I'd hazard that putting the children themselves on display is a bit much, but I think we both see why that's over the top. And irrelevant, really, because it is not your prerogative, especially given the situation, to decide that.

there will be some stubble, for realistic purposes.

Fair enough.

[btownmeggy]

how about this:

as a final art project for my class, i plan on impregnating as many women as i can within a 10 month period. after those 10 months, i'll wait another 10 months for every single baby to born. i'll document each pregnant woman's birth cycle and actual birth, along with displaying every single baby/infant in a public presentation to show the beauty of life and how genetics can influence physical character traits within each baby. each woman in the project agrees to participate in the project without any payment and agrees to take care of the baby afterwards either with or without my support after the conclusion of the project.

would that be considered art?

That's lovely. That sounds really beautiful.

Is this inspired by the upcoming film Baby Mama?

[Neoteny]

Also, I think your first 10 month time period at the beginning of your endeavor was unnecessary.

[savant]

I'd hazard that putting the children themselves on display is a bit much, but I think we both see why that's over the top. And irrelevant, really, because it is not your prerogative, especially given the situation, to decide that.

granted it may not be my prerogative, but if the women knowingly agree to this upfront before conception, then i should be able to display them for the purpose of art, no? if they change their mind after birth, i wouldn't contractually bind them into bringing the baby to the presentation if they didn't want to.

[Neoteny]

I'd hazard that putting the children themselves on display is a bit much, but I think we both see why that's over the top. And irrelevant, really, because it is not your prerogative, especially given the situation, to decide that.

granted it may not be my prerogative, but if the women knowingly agree to this upfront before conception, then i should be able to display them for the purpose of art, no? if they change their mind after birth, i wouldn't contractually bind them into bringing the baby to the presentation if they didn't want to.

Is it just one presentation? Then I don't really see the harm in such a thing if the safety of the child is guaranteed. Isn't that kinda how it works anyway? The child gets showed off to anyone who cares, and a lot of people who couldn't give two shits...

[savant]

Also, I think your first 10 month time period at the beginning of your endeavor was unnecessary.

so if i limit it to just 10 months, then i can only show finalized results of those impregnated within the 1st month?

[Neoteny]

Also, I think your first 10 month time period at the beginning of your endeavor was unnecessary.

so if i limit it to just 10 months, then i can only show finalized results of those impregnated within the 1st month?

Nonono. 10 months to impregnate a bunch of ladies is a bit much. I could probably impregnate a busload of women in a week. Well, hypothetically, anyhow...

[btownmeggy]

Also, I think your first 10 month time period at the beginning of your endeavor was unnecessary.

so if i limit it to just 10 months, then i can only show finalized results of those impregnated within the 1st month?

Nonono. 10 months to impregnate a bunch of ladies is a bit much. I could probably impregnate a busload of women in a week. Well, hypothetically, anyhow...

btownmeggy wrote:Oh, you've only begun your explorations of cum-injection, my young friend.

[savant]

I'd hazard that putting the children themselves on display is a bit much, but I think we both see why that's over the top. And irrelevant, really, because it is not your prerogative, especially given the situation, to decide that.

granted it may not be my prerogative, but if the women knowingly agree to this upfront before conception, then i should be able to display them for the purpose of art, no? if they change their mind after birth, i wouldn't contractually bind them into bringing the baby to the presentation if they didn't want to.

Is it just one presentation? Then I don't really see the harm in such a thing if the safety of the child is guaranteed. Isn't that kinda how it works anyway? The child gets showed off to anyone who cares, and a lot of people who couldn't give two shits...

well of course the children's safety is top priority.

what if it were like Shvarts' exhibition for a period of about a week, two hours each day, in the late morning to early afternoon? safe transportation to and from the exhibit provided for each mother/child pair with on-site medical personnel in the event of an emergency.

[Neoteny]

Eh, that's hard to say. I don't really see any issues with the mass viewing of a child for a few days, but I suppose that's debatable. I think we've strayed a bit far from your point, however.