Conquer Club

Neoteny wrote:

savant wrote:

Neoteny wrote: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...

okay.. how about..

1-2 months to advertise the project
we can shorten the impregnating period to 1 month if we artificially inseminate each woman at the beginning/height of their ovulation cycle.
those who are impregnated during this period, great.
those who aren't, thanks for trying, here's the official board game as a consolation prize.
then 10 months from the last impregnation to document the birth process.

What's going on in here??

savant wrote:okay.. how about..

1-2 months to advertise the project
we can shorten the impregnating period to 1 month if we artificially inseminate each woman at the beginning/height of their ovulation cycle.
those who are impregnated during this period, great.
those who aren't, thanks for trying, here's the official board game as a consolation prize.
then 10 months from the last impregnation to document the birth process.

I'm just being facetious here. No need to go too in depth.

btownmeggy wrote:What's going on in here??

Intelligent conversation?

Neoteny wrote: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.

so it's ethical to have as many abortions as you can, so long as no harm is done onto others and no laws are broken, for the purpose of art?
if yes, would it still be ethical if it wasn't for artistic purposes?

savant wrote:

Neoteny wrote: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.

so it's ethical to have as many abortions as you can, so long as no harm is done onto others and no laws are broken, for the purpose of art?
if yes, would it still be ethical if it wasn't for artistic purposes?

I think it's not unethical, though admittedly is probably not very healthy.

Neoteny wrote:

savant wrote:okay.. how about..

1-2 months to advertise the project
we can shorten the impregnating period to 1 month if we artificially inseminate each woman at the beginning/height of their ovulation cycle.
those who are impregnated during this period, great.
those who aren't, thanks for trying, here's the official board game as a consolation prize.
then 10 months from the last impregnation to document the birth process.

I'm just being facetious here. No need to go too in depth.

hehe.. i'm just extending the humor to procrastinate from work, which is probably more unethical than some collections of blood.

Neoteny wrote:

savant wrote:

Neoteny wrote: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.

so it's ethical to have as many abortions as you can, so long as no harm is done onto others and no laws are broken, for the purpose of art?
if yes, would it still be ethical if it wasn't for artistic purposes?

I think it's not unethical, though admittedly is probably not very healthy.

so you would agree, then, it's probable that she caused harm onto herself from this project?.. not just from the number of miscarriages, but also from the methods of inducing miscarriage and lack of proper medical supervision.

then you might also have to factor in those who question that after conception, is knowingly inducing a miscarriage considered causing fatal harm onto someone else?

if the answer to both above is yes, then is knowingly causing harm onto yourself and others considered ethical?

savant wrote:so you would agree, then, it's probable that she caused harm onto herself from this project?.. not just from the number of miscarriages, but also from the methods of inducing miscarriage and lack of proper medical supervision.

then you might also have to factor in those who question that after conception, is knowingly inducing a miscarriage considered causing fatal harm onto someone else?

if the answer to both above is yes, then is knowingly causing harm onto yourself and others considered ethical?

I have a desperate aversion to anything considered "herbal," as it usually contains unexpected consequences. I don't think we can debate the ethics of hurting oneself, anyhow.

The answer to your second question is no. It is causing fatal harm to something but I gather we won't ever come to a unified conclusion on that topic.

Neoteny wrote:

savant wrote:I have a desperate aversion to anything considered "herbal," as it usually contains unexpected consequences. I don't think we can debate the ethics of hurting oneself, anyhow.

The answer to your second question is no. It is causing fatal harm to something but I gather we won't ever come to a unified conclusion on that topic.

i hope most people, minus Shvarts, share that same aversion.

at what point would you consider the transformation of a something to a someone?
i'm assuming all of Shvarts' miscarriages occurred almost immediately after testing positive for pregnancy, since there was no mention of an actual fetus in the collection.

savant wrote:

Neoteny wrote:

savant wrote:I have a desperate aversion to anything considered "herbal," as it usually contains unexpected consequences. I don't think we can debate the ethics of hurting oneself, anyhow.

The answer to your second question is no. It is causing fatal harm to something but I gather we won't ever come to a unified conclusion on that topic.

i hope most people, minus Shvarts, share that same aversion.

at what point would you consider the transformation of a something to a someone?
i'm assuming all of Shvarts' miscarriages occurred almost immediately after testing positive for pregnancy, since there was no mention of an actual fetus in the collection.

Subjectively, I consider the process of becoming a person too broad to be delineated. If you want my perspective, I'm of the opinion that even after birth, we are lacking a definite "humanity" for a good while. It's a slow, cumulative process. However, birth provides a nice delineation for such requirements as the legal position on murder.

savant wrote:

Neoteny wrote:

savant wrote:I have a desperate aversion to anything considered "herbal," as it usually contains unexpected consequences. I don't think we can debate the ethics of hurting oneself, anyhow.

The answer to your second question is no. It is causing fatal harm to something but I gather we won't ever come to a unified conclusion on that topic.

i hope most people, minus Shvarts, share that same aversion.

at what point would you consider the transformation of a something to a someone?
i'm assuming all of Shvarts' miscarriages occurred almost immediately after testing positive for pregnancy, since there was no mention of an actual fetus in the collection.

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.


edit: damn, fastposted, at least my post is longer.

My post was shorter.

It's this kind of shit that lends credence to the (usually) incorrect idea insisted upon by pro-lifers that abortion is essentially birth control. I can't comment on whether or not it's art, as I think art is inherently stupid, but it is socially irresponsible.

Frigidus wrote:It's this kind of shit that lends credence to the (usually) incorrect idea insisted upon by pro-lifers that abortion is essentially birth control. I can't comment on whether or not it's art, as I think art is inherently stupid, but it is socially irresponsible.

Works like the "Mona Lisa" and "Washington Crossing the Delaware" I'd consider as art, this though, is just disgusting, and from more then just one perspective as well.

And yet art carries on...

btownmeggy wrote: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

Now that's just wrong. There's a big difference between finding out you've gotten pregnant when you're not ready to have a baby and having an abortion and purposely making yourself pregnant (more than once no less!) and aborting it. She's gone way past the point of artwork. What she's doing is just plain sick.

btownmeggy wrote:

savant wrote: 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 don't think everyone will take it that way. You cannot say without doubt that no one will see it as an excuse to have unprotected sex.

strike wolf wrote:

btownmeggy wrote:

savant wrote: 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 don't think everyone will take it that way. You cannot say without doubt that no one will see it as an excuse to have unprotected sex.

No, you can't. You also can't definitively say that nobody will watch "Bambi" and use it to justify ethnic cleansing. That doesn't (or wouldn't, if somebody made that connection) diminish its value as art. I (broadly) would say that art and politics, while occasionally related, should not be discussed on equal terms.

if by now people dont realize there are other potential bad things that could happen other than pregnancy if you have unprotective sex without getting tested pretty regularly, we have bigger sex education issues than this persons artistic endeavor.

strike wolf wrote:

btownmeggy wrote: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

Now that's just wrong. There's a big difference between finding out you've gotten pregnant when you're not ready to have a baby and having an abortion and purposely making yourself pregnant (more than once no less!) and aborting it. She's gone way past the point of artwork. What she's doing is just plain sick.

How exactly is it sick?

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.

Secondly, to purposely fertilize yourself just to abort, is not an idea I find attractive. I won't go into much detail on this one.

Third, is the fact that no matter how safe those abortion pills she's taking may be, there has to be some kind of potential health threat for taking them, especially repeatedly. The same thing with getting pregnant that many times. To change the hormonal balance inside your body that often cannot be good.

I appreciate the freedom of expression and the self-defining of art, however, this is... well, hurtful to me. Yes, I am not anti-abortion (although I dont condone them), but I don't think that self aborting repeatedly is art. The fact that she (IMO) has such disregard for potential life, that she can (over and over again) inseminate herself and abort makes me hurt inside, for more personal reasons that I would rather not get in to.

So, I respectfully say, WTFH was she thinking.

walelia2 wrote:So, I respectfully say, WTFH was she thinking.

probably only of herself and her own glory.

oh, and getting attention.

reminisco wrote:

walelia2 wrote:So, I respectfully say, WTFH was she thinking.

probably only of herself and her own glory.

oh, and getting attention.

Yes you're probably right, she only wants glory and attention.