View Full Version : Artist or Despicable Scumbag?
Crazed Rabbit
04-17-2008, 17:12
You know, I can understand the perspective of the abortion rights people. They think a woman should have say over her body. For everything except abortion I'd agree, because I think an unborn baby is just as human no matter which side of the birth canal it's on.
Remember in the US, we have abortion on demand up to the day the baby is born.
Anyways, we have here a case of an 'art student' at Yale, which I formally thought had some sort of standards:
http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/24513
For senior, abortion a medium for art, political discourse
Martine Powers
Staff Reporter
Published Thursday, April 17, 2008
Art major Aliza Shvarts '08 wants to make a statement.
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.
The goal in creating the art exhibition, Shvarts said, was to spark conversation and debate on the relationship between art and the human body. But her project has already provoked more than just debate, inciting, for instance, outcry at a forum for fellow senior art majors held last week. And when told about Shvarts' project, students on both ends of the abortion debate have expressed shock . saying the project does everything from violate moral code to trivialize abortion.
But Shvarts insists her concept was not designed for "shock value."
"I hope it inspires some sort of discourse," Shvarts said. "Sure, some people will be upset with the message and will not agree with it, but it's not the intention of the piece to scandalize anyone."
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.
Shvarts declined to specify the number of sperm donors she used, as well as the number of times she inseminated herself.
Art major Juan Castillo '08 said that although he was intrigued by the creativity and beauty of her senior project, not everyone was as thrilled as he was by the concept and the means by which she attained the result.
"I really loved the idea of this project, but a lot other people didn't," Castillo said. "I think that most people were very resistant to thinking about what the project was really about. [The senior-art-project forum] stopped being a conversation on the work itself."
Although Shvarts said she does not remember the class being quite as hostile as Castillo described, she said she believes it is the nature of her piece to "provoke inquiry."
"I believe strongly that art should be a medium for politics and ideologies, not just a commodity," Shvarts said. "I think that I'm creating a project that lives up to the standard of what art is supposed to be."
The display of Schvarts' project will feature a large cube suspended from the ceiling of a room in the gallery of Green Hall. Schvarts will wrap hundreds of feet of plastic sheeting around this cube; lined between layers of the sheeting will be the blood from Schvarts' self-induced miscarriages mixed with Vaseline in order to prevent the blood from drying and to extend the blood throughout the plastic sheeting.
Schvarts will then project recorded videos onto the four sides of the cube. These videos, captured on a VHS camcorder, will show her experiencing miscarriages in her bathrooom tub, she said. Similar videos will be projected onto the walls of the room.
School of Art lecturer Pia Lindman, Schvarts' senior-project advisor, could not be reached for comment Wednesday night.
Few people outside of Yale's undergraduate art department have heard about Shvarts' exhibition. Members of two campus abortion-activist groups . Choose Life at Yale, a pro-life group, and the Reproductive Rights Action League of Yale, a pro-choice group . said they were not previously aware of Schvarts' project.
Alice Buttrick '10, an officer of RALY, said the group was in no way involved with the art exhibition and had no official opinion on the matter.
Sara Rahman '09 said, in her opinion, Shvarts is abusing her constitutional right to do what she chooses with her body.
"[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."
CLAY member Jonathan Serrato '09 said he does not think CLAY has an official response to Schvarts' exhibition. But personally, Serrato said he found the concept of the senior art project "surprising" and unethical.
"I feel that she's manipulating life for the benefit of her art, and I definitely don't support it," Serrato said. "I think it's morally wrong."
Shvarts emphasized that she is not ashamed of her exhibition, and she has become increasingly comfortable discussing her miscarriage experiences with her peers.
"It was a private and personal endeavor, but also a transparent one for the most part," Shvarts said. "This isn't something I've been hiding."
The official reception for the Undergraduate Senior Art Show will be from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. on April 25. The exhibition will be on public display from April 22 to May 1. The art exhibition is set to premiere alongside the projects of other art seniors this Tuesday, April 22 at the gallery of Holcombe T. Green Jr. Hall on Chapel Street.
This sort of disgusting act, trivializing the creation of life and destroying it repeatedly like crushing pop cans, just makes my blood boil.
So vote for your choice in the poll.
CR
Neither, and nice poll options, perhaps you should have done it when not so "inflamed". I find what happened to be rather disgusting, but I don't hold the same views as others regarding "destroying life" as it's called.
Mikeus Caesar
04-17-2008, 17:47
I completely support abortion (in your face, pro-lifers), but i find this to just be despicable and wrong. Why get pregnant just for the sake of miscarriaging in the name of art? If she wanted to do something involving getting pregnant and art, she could have had as many children as possible, which would promplty be put up for adoption, and taken pictures of the happiness it brings into the lives of childless couples.
This is just stupid.
And again, i support abortion, but this isn't abortion, this is just the work of an utter cretin, an art-pillock of the highest calibre who needs to pull their head out their arse and look at what they're doing.
Goofball
04-17-2008, 18:01
I think she has done a great disservice to the pro-choice movement. This can only further polarize the issue. It will not, as she says, promote discourse.
Although I wouldn't label her a despicable scumbag, I would certainly describe her as a very immature little girl who wants some attention for herself, be it good or bad attention.
Her dad probably didn't hug her enough when she was little.
I am pro-choice...
but that is totally ****** up! :no:
Can I get a free pass from the mods for properly making sure you guys understand how I feel about this?
Watchman
04-17-2008, 18:09
My brother goes to an art school. From what he tells of his peers, I've gotten the impression the arts attract their share of people who exemplify the old adage about the line between genius and insanity.
Folks like this woman don't particularly help dispel the image of Van Goghian instability...
Vladimir
04-17-2008, 18:12
Next up: Art of the 13th century Mongol horde.
Banquo's Ghost
04-17-2008, 18:17
Can I get a free pass from the mods for properly making sure you guys understand how I feel about this?
Tempted as I am, no.
I think she has done a great disservice to the pro-choice movement. This can only further polarize the issue. It will not, as she says, promote discourse.
I agree with Goofball.
It's a repulsive and highly counter-productive posturing. Being pro-choice does not mean one denies the dignity of women and the immense impact that choice has on most of them.
There is a grave insult contained in her behaviour towards women and how they exercise their right of choice.
Adrian II
04-17-2008, 18:30
I blame modern capitalism. Now all she has to do is publish a book on the episode, get on Oprah and retire.
pevergreen
04-17-2008, 18:34
I am pro-choice, but this is just stupid...A pox on her house!
Rhyfelwyr
04-17-2008, 18:34
A scumbag of the most disgusting, horrific, abominable type. She should never have been allowed to do it.
Would have went on but I don't have a thesaurus.
A truly sick person.:no: :shame:
Can't she be both an artist and a despicable scumbag? Why are the two incompatible?
I'd class her with that Honduran artist who let a dog starve to death in a gallery. Snuff art is not art, kids.
Does raise a question for the pro-abortion crowd, where do you draw the line the line between necesity and egocentrism. If you are pro-choice here's it's consequence we are talking cells after all. If it is that there is absolutily no need for this, there isn't any need for abortion either most of the time.
pevergreen
04-17-2008, 18:56
I guess that depends on the person, but shouldnt that stay in the abortion thread?
ICantSpellDawg
04-17-2008, 18:58
This girl would be put into prison for this in a more civilized society.
She has committed Homicide out of enjoyment. Not for defense, not to live, not even to save face.
On the other side, there is really nothing wrong with her actions by the confused and corrupt amorality of this society. How is this any different from Feces? Just another disgusting part of her body that she is free to do with what she'd like.
Give me a break.
Does raise a question for the pro-abortion crowd, where do you draw the line the line between necesity and egocentrism. If you are pro-choice here's it's consequence we are talking cells after all. If it is that there is absolutily no need for this, there isn't any need for abortion either most of the time.
It seems alot of pro-abortioners condemn this; but if one is pro abortion in general, it does indeed seem a bit weird to do it just because it now was done in the name of art and not because of an unwanted pregnancy. Based upon my standing regarding abortion, I'll in no way condemn this; though one ponders about the sanity of the artist (as I do with most of them anyway ~;)).
It is certainly not art so I would go with scumbag or attention whore with an intentional pun. I am a very pro-choice guy but this person is an idiot and I do not support what she is doing. :furious3:
I guess that depends on the person, but shouldnt that stay in the abortion thread?
She does it to make a point out of it so it sits here just gloriously imho.
Watchman
04-17-2008, 19:19
Just goes to show - anything taken to an irresponsible extreme becomes creepy and perverted.
It seems alot of pro-abortioners condemn this; but if one is pro abortion in general, it does indeed seem a bit weird to do it just because it now was done in the name of art and not because of an unwanted pregnancy. Based upon my standing regarding abortion, I'll in no way condemn this; though one ponders about the sanity of the artist (as I do with most of them anyway ~;)).
just because I am for pro-choice doesn´t mean I think the act has no moral consequences and should be performed willy-nilly for entertainment(or shock) value
the woman has the right to do what she is doing.....I don´t have to approve.
Big King Sanctaphrax
04-17-2008, 19:28
I hope she didn't store the miscarriage blood in her fridge. Potential for some horrible accidents there.
This girl would be put into prison for this in a more civilized society.
She has committed Homicide out of enjoyment. Not for defense, not to live, not even to save face.
On the other side, there is really nothing wrong with her actions by the confused and corrupt amorality of this society. How is this any different from Feces? Just another disgusting part of her body that she is free to do with what she'd like.
Give me a break.
Truly. I could certainly see the pro-abort crowd seeing this as being in bad taste- not unlike feces art. But how can you make any moral statements on it?
For my part, this is definitely in poor taste. But moreso, I find it offensive, disgusting and morally repugnant. This woman is a horrible person.
Based upon my standing regarding abortion, I'll in no way condemn this; though one ponders about the sanity of the artist (as I do with most of them anyway ~;)).
Hmmm got me there.
I think a lot of people here are showing not only complete lack of understanding but also a lack of support for their own morals.
Question - Has she broken the law.
Answer - No.
Question - Should we censor writers, free speech... and yes, artists, when they DO NOT break any law.
Answer - No.
However, what we have here is a group of people completely going against their OWN moral beliefs - unless of course people here believe in censorship, and then of course we can have a debate on that - in order to throw mud and abuse at someone who is PROVOKING DEBATE. Wow, who would have thought it, an artist provoking debate! Amazing.
What is sickening, far from her actions - which I myself find a tad bad taste, however it makes the point she articulated in the article very well - is the actions of people who would want to censor her and other artists from creating art.
It doesn't hurt you, it doesn't hurt her, it doesn't hurt anybody! - Sure I have more respect and a lil understanding with the pro lifers here, it is different for you. But those here who have stated, 'oh I am pro choice, BUT - get your head out of your bloody arse.
Sasaki Kojiro
04-17-2008, 20:07
JAG, I think the people proposing she be censored were making an artistic statement themselves. Why are you trying to stop them from making that suggestion?
Despite being pro-choice I find this a horrible thing to do. Not because of the abortions themselves but because the motivation mocks and belittles every woman who has ever agonized over making her choice. Not to mention those who have suffered miscarriages or infertility.
Well, I'm planning an art project as well, I'm going to:
- take over an african country
- make killing civilians legal
- have every last civilian in the country killed to PROVOKE DEBATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111111111
Watchman
04-17-2008, 20:24
What I find off-putting is the sheer gratuitiousness of it.
Marshal Murat
04-17-2008, 20:49
I think that while she is an artist, the medium and method of the art's conception were despicable. As a pro-life person, it's terrible that she continually created babies, then aborted them, and then arranged it into 'art'. It was dangerous, and while the artist hides behind 'discussion' and 'debate', it'll only inflame those opinions. I don't understand why she had to do this to herself. She could've gone to the hospital and taken pictures, then arranged them. It's utterly disgusting, appalling, and she's going to get thousands for dollars for it.
ICantSpellDawg
04-17-2008, 20:51
Moron.
I disagree - his response is legitimate
But that's probably because I am also a moron.
Aside -why can't we look at this as a testament to how much control women should have over their bodies? A sign of strength in using her feminine "rights" as often as she wants, thereby showing the world how important the right is?
Huh?
It's wrong because abortion is wrong and it just takes extreme cases for some of us to realize it.
Craterus
04-17-2008, 20:51
Well, I think it's inspired. Bravo. :applause:
Watchman
04-17-2008, 20:57
Aside -why can't we look at this as a testament to how much control women should have over their bodies?Because it has jack all to do with the issue ?
A sign of strength in using her feminine "rights" as often as she wants, thereby showing the world how important the right is?The word would be "abusing".
Sheesh, troglodytes (http://redwing.hutman.net/~Mreed/warriorshtm/troglodyte.htm). One possibly unstable individual goes overboard, and promptly they're calling for stripping women of their hard-earned right for their own bodies, sexuality and procreation.
atheotes
04-17-2008, 21:25
I am pro-choice. I read it and immediately voted "despicable human". But i am having second thoughts abt it... i dont appreciate it as art :no: but it doesnt mean she is despicable... just a moron in my opinion.
p.s. Can't change my vote, can I?
ICantSpellDawg
04-17-2008, 21:26
Because it has jack all to do with the issue ?
The word would be "abusing".
Sheesh, troglodytes (http://redwing.hutman.net/~Mreed/warriorshtm/troglodyte.htm). One possibly unstable individual goes overboard, and promptly they're calling for stripping women of their hard-earned right for their own bodies, sexuality and procreation.
That is absurd. What is the difference between feces and fetus? Would you call the artist who paints walls with feces "abusing" his rights? What do you mean "abusing"? This isn't costing anyone anything in the legal sense. There is nothing wrong with it - it isn't even unhealthy nor can it be considered wasteful in the way that gluttony could be.
So what is wrong with it?
It is homicide. Multiple homicide.
One mother killing her children for sport because she can get away with it. She can get away with it because people won't open their eyes and see it for what it is - instead trying to find a middle ground that is baseless in logic.
Your gut reaction here was the right one. It is despicable because it it an abhorrent killing.
Well, I'm planning an art project as well, I'm going to:
- take over an african country
- make killing civilians legal
- have every last civilian in the country killed to PROVOKE DEBATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111111111
Oh zing :2thumbsup:
Goofball
04-17-2008, 21:36
I disagree - his response is legitimate
But that's probably because I am also a moron.
Aside -why can't we look at this as a testament to how much control women should have over their bodies? A sign of strength in using her feminine "rights" as often as she wants, thereby showing the world how important the right is?
Huh?
Another aside: I find it interesting that pro-lifers are making the argument that just because something is your "right" doesn't necessarily mean you should do it. Why do I find this interesting, you ask? I'll tell you: because pro-lifers also tend to be pro-gunners. And what response does one typically get when one asks a pro-gunner why he should have a house full of guns? Usually something along the lines of "Because the 2nd Amendment gives me the right to own a houseful of guns if I so choose, and that's what I choose to do, so back off or I'll shoot.":beam:
Okay, back to the topic.
I'm going to try and simplify my views on this, and forgive me, because my analogy is not quite spot on, but it's the best I can come up with.
I am pro-choice, to a certain extent, in that I believe women should have the right to early term abortions if they want them. I find abortion to be a very drastic and unappealing option, even early term, but I think that in many cases it may be the best thing.
In that context, you could probably say that the majority of the world is pro-choice (to one extent or another), as there are relatively few people who are against all abortions, at any time, for any reason.
And you know what? I'm not even sure in my own mind that those people are wrong and I'm right. But sometimes you just have to weigh things up and decide where you stand, and that's what I've done, right or wrong.
Okay, to the point: Abortion to me is like any other medical procedure; it should only be done when necessary. If I have terminal cancer, it is my right to be admitted to the hospital and have morphine to ease my pain. But I can't just go to the hospital and tell them I want morphine so I can take it and then film myself nodding for an art project. Similarly, if I were to go to my family doctor and request a referral to a surgeon so that I could have both of my legs amputated just for shits and giggles, my doctor would be obligated to do everything she could to talk me out of it. If I persisted, I would imagine (hope) she would try to have me committed because I was a danger to myself.
If a woman experiences an unwanted pregnancy, then decides that the best (necessary?) thing for her is to abort the pregnancy, then fine. It's not my preferred choice for her, but I'll not interfere.
But a woman who purposely becomes pregnant for the sole purpose of aborting that pregnancy has pushed it too far. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right in all circumstances.
Rhyfelwyr
04-17-2008, 21:44
I think a lot of people here are showing not only complete lack of understanding but also a lack of support for their own morals.
Question - Has she broken the law.
Answer - No.
Question - Should we censor writers, free speech... and yes, artists, when they DO NOT break any law.
Answer - No.
However, what we have here is a group of people completely going against their OWN moral beliefs - unless of course people here believe in censorship, and then of course we can have a debate on that - in order to throw mud and abuse at someone who is PROVOKING DEBATE. Wow, who would have thought it, an artist provoking debate! Amazing.
What is sickening, far from her actions - which I myself find a tad bad taste, however it makes the point she articulated in the article very well - is the actions of people who would want to censor her and other artists from creating art.
It doesn't hurt you, it doesn't hurt her, it doesn't hurt anybody! - Sure I have more respect and a lil understanding with the pro lifers here, it is different for you. But those here who have stated, 'oh I am pro choice, BUT - get your head out of your bloody arse.
She has committed murder. And if what she is doing is technically within the law, then the law needs to be changed.
I think her right to freedom of expression is pretty insignificant when compared to the right to life. It is not legal to hack adults to death and take pictures to say it is art, should be the same in this case.
That is absurd. What is the difference between feces and fetus? Would you call the artist who paints walls with feces "abusing" his rights? What do you mean "abusing"? This isn't costing anyone anything in the legal sense. There is nothing wrong with it - it isn't even unhealthy nor can it be considered wasteful in the way that gluttony could be.
So what is wrong with it?
It is homicide. Multiple homicide.
One mother killing her children for sport because she can get away with it. She can get away with it because people won't open their eyes and see it for what it is - instead trying to find a middle ground that is baseless in logic.
Your gut reaction here was the right one. It is despicable because it it an abhorrent killing.
:bow:
I can't help but find this liberal crap about rights ridiculous. Don't stop the multiple murders! We might harm her right to expression.:dizzy:
ICantSpellDawg
04-17-2008, 21:49
Another aside: I find it interesting that pro-lifers are making the argument that just because something is your "right" doesn't necessarily mean you should do it. Why do I find this interesting, you ask? I'll tell you: because pro-lifers also tend to be pro-gunners. And what response does one typically get when one asks a pro-gunner why he should have a house full of guns? Usually something along the lines of "Because the 2nd Amendment gives me the right to own a houseful of guns if I so choose, and that's what I choose to do, so back off or I'll shoot.":beam:
Okay, back to the topic.
I'm going to try and simplify my views on this, and forgive me, because my analogy is not quite spot on, but it's the best I can come up with.
I am pro-choice, to a certain extent, in that I believe women should have the right to early term abortions if they want them. I find abortion to be a very drastic and unappealing option, even early term, but I think that in many cases it may be the best thing.
In that context, you could probably say that the majority of the world is pro-choice (to one extent or another), as there are relatively few people who are against all abortions, at any time, for any reason.
And you know what? I'm not even sure in my own mind that those people are wrong and I'm right. But sometimes you just have to weigh things up and decide where you stand, and that's what I've done, right or wrong.
Okay, to the point: Abortion to me is like any other medical procedure; it should only be done when necessary. If I have terminal cancer, it is my right to be admitted to the hospital and have morphine to ease my pain. But I can't just go to the hospital and tell them I want morphine so I can take it and then film myself nodding for an art project. Similarly, if I were to go to my family doctor and request a referral to a surgeon so that I could have both of my legs amputated just for shits and giggles, my doctor would be obligated to do everything she could to talk me out of it. If I persisted, I would imagine (hope) she would try to have me committed because I was a danger to myself.
If a woman experiences an unwanted pregnancy, then decides that the best (necessary?) thing for her is to abort the pregnancy, then fine. It's not my preferred choice for her, but I'll not interfere.
But a woman who purposely becomes pregnant for the sole purpose of aborting that pregnancy has pushed it too far. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right in all circumstances.
I see a distinction between aborting one infant and aborting 9 infants in the same way that I see a distinction between murdering 1 adult and murdering 9 adults. I don't see a distinction between aborting 1 infant and killing 1 adult.
Goofball
04-17-2008, 21:54
I can't help but find this liberal crap about rights ridiculous. Don't stop the multiple murders! We might harm her right to expression.:dizzy:
At the risk of repeating myself, I'll repeat myself:
Another aside: I find it interesting that pro-lifers are making the argument that just because something is your "right" doesn't necessarily mean you should do it. Why do I find this interesting, you ask? I'll tell you: because pro-lifers also tend to be pro-gunners. And what response does one typically get when one asks a pro-gunner why he should have a house full of guns? Usually something along the lines of "Because the 2nd Amendment gives me the right to own a houseful of guns if I so choose, and that's what I choose to do, so back off or I'll shoot.":beam:
Sorry, but it was too tempting.
So you won't be needing all that "liberal crap about rights" when the government comes to take your guns away then, will you?
:laugh4:
atheotes
04-17-2008, 21:57
I see a distinction between aborting one infant and aborting 9 infants in the same way that I see a distinction between murdering 1 adult and murdering 9 adults. I don't see a distinction between aborting 1 infant and killing 1 adult.
Thats the crux of the problem.. isn't it? you see abortion as murder... you see a fetus as a human... while i dont. It is open to interpretation....grey area...:juggle2:
ICantSpellDawg
04-17-2008, 21:57
At the risk of repeating myself, I'll repeat myself:
Sorry, but it was too tempting.
So you won't be needing all that "liberal crap about rights" when the government comes to take your guns away then, will you?
:laugh4:
Man, you are Mr. Freaking Gun aren't you.
Is there something morally wrong with owning quite a bit of guns?
Technically, you are comparing owning a bunch of guns with killing a bunch of unborn babies. Even if you don't believe that the unborn qualify as babies, does that sound right to you?
I of course see your point, but there are some things that are morally right and morally wrong. I don't see guns as either - but abortion is definitely morally wrong.
Thats the crux of the problem.. isn't it? you see abortion as murder... you see a fetus as a human... while i dont. It is open to interpretation....grey area...:juggle2:
I don't see it as murder. I await the day that legal codex will allow me to, but until then murder is a legal term.
It IS human - most sensible people wouldn't argue with that. A Human is after all the term we use to describe all Homo sapiens. I mean, what else could it be.What you are referring to is whether or not a human has reached "personhood" - which is a bizarre argument that people like to get into when they can't agree on whether a human is alive or not.
It is open to interpretation if you are having trouble interpreting things - such as whether something with a fin is a shark or a dolphin. You know that it isn't a "Grey area" - it is either one or the other. If you pay close enough attention to detail, you can figure it out before someone gets killed.
Unless of course it is a shark with a dolphin riding on it's back...
Craterus
04-17-2008, 22:00
I see a distinction between aborting one infant and aborting 9 infants in the same way that I see a distinction between murdering 1 adult and murdering 9 adults. I don't see a distinction between aborting 1 infant and killing 1 adult.
Well, for one thing, an adult is a sentient being, aware of its own existence and presumably with its own thoughts, ideas etc.
An infant (actually, it's not an infant, she's not giving birth to them and then killing them)
A foetus is not sentient. There are arguments to suggest that it is beyond a certain point in the second trimester but, as I understand it, the artist is aborting the foetuses within the first few weeks. At this stage, it is not a person. A homo sapien, yes, but nothing more than a member of the species.
I'm not saying sentience should be the deciding factor, but I think it's worth pointing out.
Watchman
04-17-2008, 22:03
That is absurd. What is the difference between feces and fetus?Well, the production process for starters. Feces, or crap for short, is the waste produce of the everyday biological processes and necessities of sustaining life. There pretty much isn't a living thing which didn't have more or less comparable waste output.
Fetuses, on the other hand, are offspring at their early stages of developement. Rather more, shall we say, "effort intensive" to produce and not exactly something individual people put out on a daily basis.
Sheesh, talk about having to explain the obvious... :no:
Would you call the artist who paints walls with feces "abusing" his rights?As long as it's his walls, of course not. He can eat his crap or bathe in it for all I care.
Again, glaringly obvious. And with little bearing to the issue.
What do you mean "abusing"?Mostly in the sense that abortion is a means of terminating a pregnancy the mother for one reason or another does not wish to carry to term. You know, something done out of necessity. Usually with a fair bit of emotional angsting about it too, or otherwise a rather heavy or even traumatic experience.
*She* is doing it basically gratuitious to make some sort of rather arcane (and not necessarily what would count by most definitions as entirely lucid) point and, which I cynically suspect to be the primary motivation, basically raise hell, cause controversy and attract attention.
Like Slyspy said, it smacks of belittling the whole issue of abortion and how heavy and important issue it is for many women the world over. Vulgarising the matter for what looks suspiciously like cheap publicity points.
Guess you could say it reflects a kind of alienation from the body too - treating it as a vehicle for "controversial art". The scholars specialising in cultural analysis can and no doubt will discuss the phenomenom and its context and implications at lenght one day.
This isn't costing anyone anything in the legal sense.Correct. But then you may notice I never claimed it did either; what I said is she's abusing her legal right to do it for, well, whatever reasons she now has. I don't pretend to know them, I just find it rather egocentric and irresponsible.
There is nothing wrong with it - it isn't even unhealthy nor can it be considered wasteful in the way that gluttony could be.Pretty sure it's not 100% safe or healthy for you though... and it's certainly kind of putting relevant medical resources to an use they're not exactly meant to.
So what is wrong with it?
It is homicide. Multiple homicide.
One mother killing her children for sport because she can get away with it. She can get away with it because people won't open their eyes and see it for what it is - instead trying to find a middle ground that is baseless in logic.
Your gut reaction here was the right one. It is despicable because it it an abhorrent killing.Only if you count an unborn fetus as a full human being, though. I for example don't, except for rather late stages of the pregnancy (ie. when it's clearly developed into a larval-stage human being). I'm somewhat short on sympathy and goodwill for something still largely indistinguishable from a developing fish or cow though. They're stretched thin enough with all the born and grown humans already.
Or as one wag put it, "I'm for abortion until the point the kid can convincingly argue in its own defense."
A question of definitions, in other words. Or to be crass about it, of taste.
Goofball
04-17-2008, 22:04
I see a distinction between aborting one infant and aborting 9 infants in the same way that I see a distinction between murdering 1 adult and murdering 9 adults. I don't see a distinction between aborting 1 infant and killing 1 adult.
And I don't say that I know that you're wrong and that I'm right. Your belief (I am assuming, and forgive me if I am incorrect) is based on faith. Mine is based partly on my own very poor understanding of science and partly on my gut feeling of where life begins from having been through two pregnancies with my ex-wife, and watching the ultrasounds.
Neither of our methods, I think we can agree, would hold up in a court of law.
Goofball
04-17-2008, 22:11
Man, you are Mr. Freaking Gun aren't you.
Is there something morally wrong with owning quite a bit of guns?
Technically, you are comparing owning a bunch of guns with killing a bunch of unborn babies. Even if you don't believe that the unborn qualify as babies, does that sound right to you?
I of course see your point, but there are some things that are morally right and morally wrong. I don't see guns as either - but abortion is definitely morally wrong.
:beam:
Actually, I'm not that anti-gun, and have actually softened quite a bit in my time in the Backroom. My point was simply what I said: Just because you have the right to do something, doesn't necessarily mean you should do something.
At any rate, I could argue that owning a handgun, a device that is designed for one thing and one thing only: to kill humans, is morally wrong.
And abortion is only morally wrong according to your faith-based belief that life begins in the womb. Not everyone shares your faith.
ICantSpellDawg
04-17-2008, 22:20
:beam:
Actually, I'm not that anti-gun, and have actually softened quite a bit in my time in the Backroom. My point was simply what I said: Just because you have the right to do something, doesn't necessarily mean you should do something.
At any rate, I could argue that owning a handgun, a device that is designed for one thing and one thing only: to kill humans, is morally wrong.
And abortion is only morally wrong according to your faith-based belief that life begins in the womb. Not everyone shares your faith.
Life DOES begin in the womb.
Where else could it begin? The moment you exit the womb? What has changed? Location.
Again, you are arguing person hood - life clearly begins in the womb. From what I understand unborn babies kick because they want to. If they aren't alive then... OH MY GOD ZOMBIES!
My belief that life begins in the womb is rational and logic based. I don't need a religious book to explain a scientific reality. It helps to distinguish with "person hood", sure - but the reality about life is glaringly obvious.
PS - I know you love guns - we have talked about that before.:yes:
Rhyfelwyr
04-17-2008, 22:24
If the pro-choice lot admit they are unclear on that magical moment when the foetus suddenly transforms from a bunch of cells into a human being (which many of the pro-choice team see as a bunch of cells anyway), then surely they should not be allowing such actions as abortion to be risked?
Gah what is wrong with the world!?:wall:
Gah I'm 18 but I sound like my Gran.:wall:
EDIT: Agree with TuffStuff, it is not even a matter of religion that we see life as beginning in the womb, it is obvious.
Watchman
04-17-2008, 22:31
*shrug* I put the right of a woman to decide what the **** goes on with her body above the rights of a still nonsentient human larva to exist, where the two come in conflict. Nevermind now a clump of cells patently unrecognizable as the makings of a human without a DNA analysis.
Is it alive ? Oh yes, biologically. Is it a person ? Not IMO.
Goofball
04-17-2008, 22:56
Life DOES begin in the womb.
Where else could it begin? The moment you exit the womb? What has changed? Location.
Again, you are arguing person hood - life clearly begins in the womb. From what I understand unborn babies kick because they want to. If they aren't alive then... OH MY GOD ZOMBIES!
My belief that life begins in the womb is rational and logic based. I don't need a religious book to explain a scientific reality. It helps to distinguish with "person hood", sure - but the reality about life is glaringly obvious.
PS - I know you love guns - we have talked about that before.:yes:
You're quite right. In this discussion I have been using "life" incorrectly. Although I don't really like the term "personhood" either.
There are a couple of things that I have come to think of as putting foetuses unquestioningly into the abortion "no fly zone" when they have been achieved:
1) Sentience
2) Ability to survive outside of the womb
Unfortunately, I'm not sure when the first one is achieved but I do have the vague feeling that it happens sometime at the end of the first trimester.
Moron.
:laugh4: :2thumbsup:
Watchman
04-17-2008, 23:20
2) Ability to survive outside of the womb...although this runs into some problems of definition, given that human babies are pretty patently incapable of surviving on their own for the first several years of their existence...
CountArach
04-17-2008, 23:21
While sparking debate is good, purposefully inseminating herself with the sole purpose of aborting the child probably isn't the best idea.
EDIT: Also I think the word "despicable" is too strong and "artist" is too loaded. I would sit somewhere between.
Watchman
04-17-2008, 23:27
TBH, I can't quite shake a sneaking suspicion it's some kind of really convoluted masochistic fetish... :inquisitive:
Adrian II
04-17-2008, 23:51
What a lot to do about nothing. If only some pro-lifers wouldn't get worked up all the time for the sake of getting worked up.
Yes, the woman harmed herself just as Van Gogh harmed himself when he cut of his ear. Only Van Gogh did so in a fit of genuine fear and despair, he didn't present his ear as art, he didn't pretend to provoke discussion and teh Interwebs didn't exist to serve the pro-lifers their daily fare of gore, whether accurate or made up,.
The Lemur is right to ask what difference it would make for the woman's work if she were found (or judged) to be insane. The answer I think is: none. But either way this is no art. That is the real scandal, if any, in this affair. It's just crap. For a previous project Svartz vomited into a sock and pretended it was an 'indictment against consumerism'.
By the way, I suspect that she may have made up the story of her self-induced abortions and the blood out of sensationalism. The whole thing just sounds too far-fetched and medically improbable to me. I would have checked her story all the way, and damn my editor if he became impatient. But hey, who cares in an age when every moron can launch a non-story in ten seconds.
ICantSpellDawg
04-18-2008, 01:04
What a lot to do about nothing. If only some pro-lifers wouldn't get worked up all the time for the sake of getting worked up.
Yes, the woman harmed herself just as Van Gogh harmed himself when he cut of his ear. Only Van Gogh did so in a fit of genuine fear and despair, he didn't present his ear as art, he didn't pretend to provoke discussion and teh Interwebs didn't exist to serve the pro-lifers their daily fare of gore, whether accurate or made up,.
The Lemur is right to ask what difference it would make for the woman's work if she were found (or judged) to be insane. The answer I think is: none. But either way this is no art. That is the real scandal, if any, in this affair. It's just crap. For a previous project Svartz vomited into a sock and pretended it was an 'indictment against consumerism'.
By the way, I suspect that she may have made up the story of her self-induced abortions and the blood out of sensationalism. The whole thing just sounds too far-fetched and medically improbable to me. I would have checked her story all the way, and damn my editor if he became impatient. But hey, who cares in an age when every moron can launch a non-story in ten seconds.
Adrian was the guy on the titanic that was up to his neck in water and claimed that they couldn't possibly go any deeper. The captain was clearly over-reacting. Sensationalist right wing garbage captain.
Adrian II
04-18-2008, 01:09
Adrian was the guy on the titanic that was up to his neck in water and claimed that they couldn't possibly go any deeper. The captain was clearly over-reacting. Sensationalist right wing garbage captain.Sure. It's the end of the world. Repent, repent.
Well, I'm turning in. Goodnight, Tuff. :sleeping:
Scumbag. It's that easy to me.
Civil debate on this is fine, but if you simply call me a moron like I've already seen in this thread, you kiss the my left :yes: ... you get the idea.
Marshal Murat
04-18-2008, 01:39
Despicable (http://www.nysun.com/news/national/yale-students-art-project-creative-fiction)
It's actually a hoax...
Crazed Rabbit
04-18-2008, 02:07
I'm not that surprised it's a 'hoax' of sorts.
But it's still disturbing and sickening that this would be presented as 'performance art'.
Another aside: I find it interesting that pro-lifers are making the argument that just because something is your "right" doesn't necessarily mean you should do it. Why do I find this interesting, you ask? I'll tell you: because pro-lifers also tend to be pro-gunners. And what response does one typically get when one asks a pro-gunner why he should have a house full of guns?
I'd think Pro-lifers don't consider abortion a 'right'.
And as to the gun question, I say - why not?
The idea of provoking debate is laughable, and best put by Husar.
At any rate, I could argue that owning a handgun, a device that is designed for one thing and one thing only: to kill humans, is morally wrong.
Those evil, evil policemen.
And abortion is only morally wrong according to your faith-based belief that life begins in the womb. Not everyone shares your faith.
As opposed to the 'reasonable' atheist belief that a soul pops into a baby at the moment it comes out of its mother? Now, it seems to me science says the new life begins when the egg is fertilized.
Question - do people in a coma and/or a vegetable state have sentience?
CR
ajaxfetish
04-18-2008, 02:10
It IS human - most sensible people wouldn't argue with that. A Human is after all the term we use to describe all Homo sapiens. I mean, what else could it be.What you are referring to is whether or not a human has reached "personhood" - which is a bizarre argument that people like to get into when they can't agree on whether a human is alive or not.
I don't believe it's a bizarre argument: in fact I believe it's the very crux of the matter. Sure it's a human from day 1, based on its DNA, and sure it's alive, but when does it become a 'person'? Similarly, what about someone who is permanently comatose? Or brain-damaged beyond all mental functionality? I have a hard time considering such individuals 'persons' anymore.
There's a dualist hiding somewhere inside me that says the body and the soul are distinct, and that the body is fairly meaningless without the soul. For some people the body can survive long after the soul has departed, especially with the help of respirators and the like. And I have a hard time believing the soul is present in a fetus from the moment of conception onwards. At the same time, I have a hard time believing it's implanted at the moment of birth, either, and it's very mucha grey area in between. I don't know when someone becomes a person. And I haven't been able to accept either of the polar stances on the abortion issue. I just don't know.
Ajax
ICantSpellDawg
04-18-2008, 04:44
I don't believe it's a bizarre argument: in fact I believe it's the very crux of the matter. Sure it's a human from day 1, based on its DNA, and sure it's alive, but when does it become a 'person'? Similarly, what about someone who is permanently comatose? Or brain-damaged beyond all mental functionality? I have a hard time considering such individuals 'persons' anymore.
There's a dualist hiding somewhere inside me that says the body and the soul are distinct, and that the body is fairly meaningless without the soul. For some people the body can survive long after the soul has departed, especially with the help of respirators and the like. And I have a hard time believing the soul is present in a fetus from the moment of conception onwards. At the same time, I have a hard time believing it's implanted at the moment of birth, either, and it's very mucha grey area in between. I don't know when someone becomes a person. And I haven't been able to accept either of the polar stances on the abortion issue. I just don't know.
Ajax
That was a beautifully confused argument. It perfectly illustrates the amalgam of the secular, the metaphysical and denial all wrapped into one little package. You are talking about souls being implanted.
Sometimes sitting on the fence is bad - think really hard and you will find that it is pretty clear cut one way or the other.
LittleGrizzly
04-18-2008, 04:48
Every day people violate thier right to own a gun by shooting someone, yet that death is seen as acceptable as it is a right to own guns. This is a more valid comparision between this and guns IMO.
Despicable is a bit harsh i think, she seems a bit crazy unstable maybe... artist she is ;)
Divinus Arma
04-18-2008, 05:06
This is so horrible. I'm almost in tears. She created human life only to destroy it. Over and over again.
For what?
If I murdered people and hung their lifeless limbs up by hooks and chains in a room and called it "art" would that make me an artist?
This is so incredible evil and she will never be punished on this earth. Unbelievable tragedy and shame.
This is so horrible. I'm almost in tears. She created human life only to destroy it. Over and over again.
Um, you did catch the news that this is a hoax, right?
Pannonian
04-18-2008, 05:17
Every day people violate thier right to own a gun by shooting someone, yet that death is seen as acceptable as it is a right to own guns. This is a more valid comparision between this and guns IMO.
Despicable is a bit harsh i think, she seems a bit crazy unstable maybe... artist she is ;)
Yes! Abortion and gun rights neatly combined in a single Backroom post. What you forgot to mention is whether God would frown on this kind of activity if He existed.
Divinus Arma
04-18-2008, 05:21
Um, you did catch the news that this is a hoax, right?
I just read it now. Hopefully it is indeed a hoax. either way, she is a ******* *****.
******* *****.
Edit: ~:mecry:
Damn crybaby I am what with two kids now!
Every day people violate thier right to own a gun by shooting someone, yet that death is seen as acceptable as it is a right to own guns. This is a more valid comparision between this and guns IMO.
Um, the death is only acceptable if the move is in self defense or to save another person's life. I would hardly doubt me knocking over a 7/11 with a 9mm would be seen as acceptable. :inquisitive:
LittleGrizzly
04-18-2008, 05:41
Um, the death is only acceptable if the move is in self defense or to save another person's life. I would hardly doubt me knocking over a 7/11 with a 9mm would be seen as acceptable.
Not the point i was trying to make...
Pro-gun position is just because some idiot takes a gun they can legally get and kills people with it why should that stop others purchasing a gun, the deaths from guns are seen as an acceptable side effect.
One idiot goes out (were just talking hypothetically now) and abuses the current abortion laws and people want the law changed, so one idiot abusing the rules should mean abortion laws should change
Yes! Abortion and gun rights neatly combined in a single Backroom post. What you forgot to mention is whether God would frown on this kind of activity if He existed.
Well if i figured guns and abortion were the easy ones to deal with before i move onto slightly more taxing topics such as the exsistance of god and his likes and dislikes.
Pro-gun position is just because some idiot takes a gun they can legally get and kills people with it why should that stop others purchasing a gun, the deaths from guns are seen as an acceptable side effect.
You seem to be under the assumption that making guns illegal will stop the majority of gun related deaths.
However, I don't wish for you or I to hijack this thread any further. I'll happily debate you if you wish to start another thread on the matter.
Papewaio
04-18-2008, 08:11
Art is meant to create insight, the 'wow' factor and to stimulate debate.
1 out of 3 isn't bad.
Adrian II
04-18-2008, 09:15
Aside -why can't we look at this as a testament to how much control women should have over their bodies?Surprise, surprise. It's a hoax.
Now can we look at this affair as a testament to how gullible and naive the anti-choice ('pro-life') movement really is? Or how much control men actually have over their own morbid fantasies?
Nah, too difficult.
Quick, someone mentioned the word 'gun'. Stampede! :dozey:
As opposed to the 'reasonable' atheist belief that a soul pops into a baby at the moment it comes out of its mother?
What soul? Humans are just biochemical robots and that's why my upcoming art project is so interesting, killing civilians is just like switching your computer off, you do it every day anyway, just the biological kind can't be switched on again usually due to the procedure required to switch them off, that's a design fault. :dizzy2:
CountArach
04-18-2008, 10:24
What soul? Humans are just biochemical robots and that's why my upcoming art project is so interesting, killing civilians is just like switching your computer off, you do it every day anyway, just the biological kind can't be switched on again usually due to the procedure required to switch them off, that's a design fault. :dizzy2:
I really hope it gets fixed in the next security patch.
As opposed to the 'reasonable' atheist belief that a soul pops into a baby at the moment it comes out of its mother? Now, it seems to me science says the new life begins when the egg is fertilized.
uhm....atheists don´t think there is such a thing as a 'soul' for starts.
life begins when the egg is fertilized...true....but the fact is that a pregnant woman is in a unique situation, this like only exists because her body is sustaining it, and she has the right to say she doesn´t want her body to sustain such a life, that´s the bottom line in this kind of situations.
now...even sustaining that a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy I don´t think such a decision should be taken light-heartedly or for amusement, so I´m happy this turned out to be a hoax.
Question - do people in a coma and/or a vegetable state have sentience?
CR
if you mean a brain-dead state no they don´t....a person in a coma might have some level of conscience or not....people who have awaken from comas have spoken of this.
Rhyfelwyr
04-18-2008, 12:49
I'm just really relieved to hear it was all a hoax.:sweatdrop:
Seamus Fermanagh
04-18-2008, 13:14
When all is said and done, we will probably learn that the hoax itself was the "art" involved and that manipulating public discussion/bringing about angry responses was the "message."
All-in-all, I wish she and her teacher had volunteered a little time at the local food kitchen or put $20 each into the donations jar for some child trying to cover their travel expenses when they head to the Mayo clinic for an operation or somesuch.
When did making a grand statement become the organizing principle for artwork as opposed to a theme it evokes? Silly, old-fashioned me, I thought it was supposed to be art for arts sake and that the audience would come to the realization of the work's importance at their own pace/in their own way.
Oh well, I'm still enough of a neanderthal to like Monet, Rubens, and Da Vinci, so clearly my opinion doesn't count for ****.
just because I am for pro-choice doesn´t mean I think the act has no moral consequences and should be performed willy-nilly for entertainment(or shock) value
the woman has the right to do what she is doing.....I don´t have to approve.
I do not really understand your view point; if abortion is morally wrong, then why approve it? If it is not, then what does the reason behind it matter? If it such a dubious thing; one should think that if one gambled, one should have to pay the price.
I do not really understand your view point; if abortion is morally wrong, then why approve it? If it is not, then what does the reason behind it matter? If it such a dubious thing; one should think that if one gambled, one should have to pay the price.
because I don´t ask that my moral views be made into the law.
it´s her body, she has the right to do with it what she wants....I defend that even if I find her choices of what to do with her body distasteful.
Banquo's Ghost
04-19-2008, 09:20
I do not really understand your view point; if abortion is morally wrong, then why approve it? If it is not, then what does the reason behind it matter? If it such a dubious thing; one should think that if one gambled, one should have to pay the price.
I'm sure you realise that almost all ethical and moral decisions are nuanced, with many shades of grey.
For example, pro-lifers are often in the political spectrum that also advocates the death penalty for criminal adults - whilst arguing for the sanctity of foetal life. This is a reasonable position for a person to take if the entitlement of the right to life is based on their individual choices. It is a perfectly moral position for someone to take.
The question; when does murder acquire a moral imperative? has been argued over for a long time. Few real world responses to the question are utterly black and white.
Crazed Rabbit
04-19-2008, 09:59
uhm....atheists don´t think there is such a thing as a 'soul' for starts.
life begins when the egg is fertilized...true....but the fact is that a pregnant woman is in a unique situation, this like only exists because her body is sustaining it, and she has the right to say she doesn´t want her body to sustain such a life, that´s the bottom line in this kind of situations.
Women sustain babies long after birth. Should they then have the decision of whether to kill or not a child until such time as it can survive without parental help? I'm going to assume you and your fellow atheists are against the wanton killing of humans. Why, then, is that? What does a baby that's just been born have over a baby that is seconds from being born? Not to get too far off topic, but what makes people different from animals? Sentience? Higher intelligence? Do any of those just pop into a child the instant it is born?
if you mean a brain-dead state no they don´t....a person in a coma might have some level of conscience or not....people who have awaken from comas have spoken of this.
And would not babies in the womb have some similar brain functions?
because I don´t ask that my moral views be made into the law.
Bah. You are for making murder illegal, I presume, do to your morals saying murder is wrong. All laws are moral views of something.
CR
I'm sure you realise that almost all ethical and moral decisions are nuanced, with many shades of grey.
For example, pro-lifers are often in the political spectrum that also advocates the death penalty for criminal adults - whilst arguing for the sanctity of foetal life. This is a reasonable position for a person to take if the entitlement of the right to life is based on their individual choices. It is a perfectly moral position for someone to take.
The question; when does murder acquire a moral imperative? has been argued over for a long time. Few real world responses to the question are utterly black and white.
I made one reply too much; I originally thought that he (as in all pro-abortioners) didn't conceive abortion as morally wrong. However, as mentioned by CR above, if not his moral views got anything to say for the law, then one wonder whos that got.
Women sustain babies long after birth. Should they then have the decision of whether to kill or not a child until such time as it can survive without parental help? I'm going to assume you and your fellow atheists are against the wanton killing of humans. Why, then, is that? What does a baby that's just been born have over a baby that is seconds from being born? Not to get too far off topic, but what makes people different from animals? Sentience? Higher intelligence? Do any of those just pop into a child the instant it is born?
a baby after birth does not have it's sustenance biologically linked to the woman that was it´s mother....it can for example be adopted and raised perfectly well by one other than it´s biological mother
a woman that is with child should have the right to decide that she does not want her body to sustain this new life, having said that and to comment on your 'a few seconds from being born' line, I do not believe and have never stated that third semester abortions should be authorized,
a balancing point has to be reached between the two parties, in my opinion once the fetus reaches a point where it can survive independently from it´s mother it has rights of it´s own, and this is far before the 9 months line as the number of babies that are born prematurely and survive prove.
like I said a balance has to be reached on this issue, to say that a mother has the right to abort and have her child killed mere days before she is supposed to give birth is ridiculous, but saying that once a mother becomes pregnant she becomes basically a human incubator with no say in the matter if she wants to see this process to it´s end is equally asinine.
HoreTore
04-19-2008, 15:09
Those evil, evil policemen.
Fortunately, cops here don't have guns :yes:
As for the OP, I'm against it, but not because of any "she killed a baby"-nonsense. She performed a medical procedure for kicks, and I'm strongly against that.
ICantSpellDawg
04-19-2008, 15:21
Fortunately, cops here don't have guns :yes:
As for the OP, I'm against it, but not because of any "she killed a baby"-nonsense. She performed a medical procedure for kicks, and I'm strongly against that.
Why?
Like, you mean plastic surgery?
ICantSpellDawg
04-19-2008, 15:32
I do not really understand your view point; if abortion is morally wrong, then why approve it? If it is not, then what does the reason behind it matter? If it such a dubious thing; one should think that if one gambled, one should have to pay the price.
That points out the real problem. It is either black or white with this issue, but people are drawn to middle ground -even if it doesn't make much sense.
Political reality suggests that if you find a "middle ground" less people will complain, but it says nothing about the moral reality.
The British used to have a dichotomy - no slaves in the British isles, but you could have slaves abroad. This dichotomy harmed the abolition movement because it removed so much of its teeth. Eventually, people came to their senses and became intolerant of the practice abroad and began to find a better moral legitimacy.
A similar thing has happened in Europe (or most of it) - a land notorious for gray area solutions. While their solutions are "better" than ours have been, they are morally inconsistent. You either own the person who resides inside you or you don't. You can either kill a human being or you can't. They've found a middle ground that has, up until now, shut the most people up and kept the debate tranquil... except for all the babies being killed.
So I do understand where you are coming from. I just 100% disagree. I also understand the greay area people. My disagreement lies within the 1%-99% area.
Read that article that I had posted earlier, I think that it sums up the argument nicely.
HoreTore
04-19-2008, 15:47
Like, you mean plastic surgery?
Plastic surgery fits the unnecessary medical procedure bill, yes.
There are some cases where that's necessary of course, like reconstruction, and some need it for psychological reasons.
The medical sector is stretched enough already, people who really need surgery have long waiting periods, having people use up resources without a real reason is idiotic. Somehow, I rate people who are dying before chicks who needs bigger boobs for their careers or artists trying to make a point.
ICantSpellDawg
04-19-2008, 16:12
Plastic surgery fits the unnecessary medical procedure bill, yes.
There are some cases where that's necessary of course, like reconstruction, and some need it for psychological reasons.
The medical sector is stretched enough already, people who really need surgery have long waiting periods, having people use up resources without a real reason is idiotic. Somehow, I rate people who are dying before chicks who needs bigger boobs for their careers or artists trying to make a point.
Well first off, I am sure that you know that this was a hoax.
Secondly, had it not been a hoax the woman would be no worse than, say, someone who had a nosejob and a facelift?
HoreTore
04-19-2008, 16:34
Secondly, had it not been a hoax the woman would be no worse than, say, someone who had a nosejob and a facelift?
Yeah, or someone who removes their appendix just for kicks.
An unnecessary waste of resources.
ICantSpellDawg
04-19-2008, 17:40
Yeah, or someone who removes their appendix just for kicks.
An unnecessary waste of resources.
Okay, but there is no law against it, and it hurts no one else, so who are you to judge?
You had to rationalize your response because it couldn't possibly be that the act was barbaric and amoral.
HoreTore
04-19-2008, 19:54
Okay, but there is no law against it, and it hurts no one else, so who are you to judge?
Hurts noone? Tell that to those waiting for a life-saving operation they may or may not get before they die. Wasting medical resources do hurt other people. While she probably wouldn't have had a huge impact, it's just one more. Society benefit more by having doctors save lives and cure diseases than having women with big boobies.
If it didn't hurt other people, you would be right, it would be wrong of me to judge. But it does hurt other people. As for it being legal, I don't see how that has anything to do with it. There are plenty of legal things I don't like for a second, for example the reckless turbocapitalism which caused the current economic crash. There is no law against, but still I'm more than happy to fling insults at the idiots responsible.
You had to rationalize your response because it couldn't possibly be that the act was barbaric and amoral.
As I don't consider an abortion as anything more than say having an appendix removed, that would be a no. However, I don't support people having their appendix removed "just because they can".
ICantSpellDawg
04-19-2008, 20:03
Hurts noone? Tell that to those waiting for a life-saving operation they may or may not get before they die. Wasting medical resources do hurt other people. While she probably wouldn't have had a huge impact, it's just one more. Society benefit more by having doctors save lives and cure diseases than having women with big boobies.
If it didn't hurt other people, you would be right, it would be wrong of me to judge. But it does hurt other people. As for it being legal, I don't see how that has anything to do with it. There are plenty of legal things I don't like for a second, for example the reckless turbocapitalism which caused the current economic crash. There is no law against, but still I'm more than happy to fling insults at the idiots responsible.
As I don't consider an abortion as anything more than say having an appendix removed, that would be a no. However, I don't support people having their appendix removed "just because they can".
You are totally insane. :clown:
You don't believe that abortion is wrong, but you are morally opposed to people getting boob jobs. I'm no fan of boob jobs, but moral opposition?
Horetore for president.:rtwyes:
HoreTore
04-19-2008, 20:28
You are totally insane. :clown:
You don't believe that abortion is wrong, but you are morally opposed to people getting boob jobs. I'm no fan of boob jobs, but moral opposition?
Horetore for president.:rtwyes:
Well basically I'm against wasting resources. Boob jobs demand resources in an area lacking said resources, and they have no benefit to society, so that makes me opposed.
But I'm a feminist, so opposition against cosmetic surgery should be obvious ~;)
PS: While president might be fun and all, I'm shooting for something along the lines of "tyrannical despot"...
Kralizec
04-19-2008, 20:33
In the Netherlands you can get a boob job and then legally force your employer to keep paying wages while you're in post-op recovery...no kidding.
ICantSpellDawg
04-19-2008, 20:39
Well basically I'm against wasting resources. Boob jobs demand resources in an area lacking said resources, and they have no benefit to society, so that makes me opposed.
But I'm a feminist, so opposition against cosmetic surgery should be obvious ~;)
PS: While president might be fun and all, I'm shooting for something along the lines of "tyrannical despot"...
Opposition to women doing whatever the hell they'd like to do with their bodies makes you a feminist?
Hitler was a vegetarian - I'm used to hearing about some people's opinions on whats acceptable and unacceptable...
HoreTore
04-19-2008, 20:48
Opposition to women doing whatever the hell they'd like to do with their bodies makes you a feminist?
Nah. But most feminists are in opposition to the current model ideal-thingy...
And do note that I'm not opposed to women "doing whatever the hell they like with their bodies". They may do whatever they please, I really don't care. But I start caring when it comes at the cost of critical and life-saving treatment for other people.
For example, I'm not opposed to people burning gas to drive their cars. If someone would start a big fire in their backyard and burn a thousand barrels of oil a day just for kicks, I would be opposed.
ICantSpellDawg
04-19-2008, 20:56
And do note that I'm not opposed to women "doing whatever the hell they like with their bodies". They may do whatever they please, I really don't care. But I start caring when it comes at the cost of critical and life-saving treatment for other people.
For example, I'm not opposed to people burning gas to drive their cars. If someone would start a big fire in their backyard and burn a thousand barrels of oil a day just for kicks, I would be opposed.
I still don't know what you are talking about. I vaguely see, but I don't see how it applies to what this girl supposedly did.
Burning 1000 barrels of oil a day creates pollution and a hazard. What does getting a boob job or taking abortofacients do to anyone else (except the homicide that you don't believe occurs). You are arguing apples with oranges.
A doctor could be doing other things? The plastic surgeon isn't an ER doctor, he is a plastic surgeon. Nobody is being "deprived of boobs" by another person getting a boob job. Boobs are not kidneys or eyes.
Adrian, Jag or someone else who is wrong but argues coherently; please explain this to Horetore. He will never listen to me.
HoreTore
04-19-2008, 21:10
A doctor could be doing other things? The plastic surgeon isn't an ER doctor, he is a plastic surgeon. Nobody is being "deprived of boobs" by another person getting a boob job. Boobs are not kidneys or eyes.
Uhm, no. The demand of plastic surgery today has created an industry that makes people who would otherwise choose to be an ER doctor choose to be a plastic surgeon and perform boob jobs instead. So yes, they are depriving people of treatment. Doctors are rather hard to come by these days, it's ridiculous that a lot of those we have/will get spend their lives not contributing to society in any meaningful way.
Look at it this way: If nobody wanted boob-jobs, few people would become plastic surgeons. The people who in the current situation would choose to be a plastic surgeon, would choose some other medical profession.
Now for the original situation, the girl with the unnecessary abortion. It wasn't a big waste, but it was still a waste. But since it wasn't that much, I don't *really* care about it...
(and yes, as you stated, I don't believe there is any homicide thingy going on)
ICantSpellDawg
04-19-2008, 21:16
Uhm, no. The demand of plastic surgery today has created an industry that makes people who would otherwise choose to be an ER doctor choose to be a plastic surgeon and perform boob jobs instead. So yes, they are depriving people of treatment. Doctors are rather hard to come by these days, it's ridiculous that a lot of those we have/will get spend their lives not contributing to society in any meaningful way.
Look at it this way: If nobody wanted boob-jobs, few people would become plastic surgeons. The people who in the current situation would choose to be a plastic surgeon, would choose some other medical profession.
On the opposite side of the coin - if it weren't for all the boob-jobs and face-lifts - there wouldn't be as many doctors to help burn victims or people with serious deformities feel more comfortable in their own skin. Maybe they'd be helping rich people with their feelings, prescribing nonsense placebo's instead.
Think of boob-jobs as natures way of making sure that there are enough doctors to help those people who need good re-constructive surgery... if it helps you.
Get off of your complete utilitarian kick - does anyone here think that Horetore's "utopia" sounds fun to live in?
People can kill their children, as long as it is only one at a time and they are in a dark area owned by the mother.
People CANNOT feel more comfortable with their breast size by using evil things such as breast implants. They also CANT look pretty or thin, because that would be conforming to an evil social reality.
You want to conquer the world and replace it with something much scarier and more arbitrary.
HoreTore
04-19-2008, 21:23
On the opposite side of the coin - if it weren't for all the boob-jobs and face-lifts - there wouldn't be as many doctors to help burn victims or people with serious deformities feel more comfortable in their own skin. Maybe they'd be helping rich people with their feelings, prescribing nonsense placebo's instead.
Think of boob-jobs as natures way of making sure that there are enough doctors to help those people who need re constructive surgery if it helps you.
Well yeah, some of them are of course required. But I don't believe that performing a boob job makes a doctor more skilled in reconstructing a crushed face. Besides, there are plenty of clinics and doctors who ONLY offer cosmetic surgery and doesn't do any reconstructive work at all.
Get off of your complete utilitarian kick - does anyone here think that Horetore's "utopia" sounds fun to live in?
Hey, I'm not talking about banning or outlawing anything. People may of course do as they please, but I don't see why I have to be happy about it. Just like the original chick, she is free to do whatever she wants as abortions are legal, but I don't see why everyone should be forced to be happy about it. In fact, I don't see why everyone should have to be happy about abortions in general either.
Watchman
04-19-2008, 21:43
Fortunately, cops here don't have guns :yes: Ours do. Standard issue rather than private possessions though AFAIK, and they're trained for some really tight fire discipline. It's a rare year during which in the entire country the service pistol gets even taken out more than gross ten times, nevermind actually discharged - *that* averages to enough times a year to be counted with one hand.
This having been the norm since the Seventies or so. Before that there was very little supervision in the matter and training was so-so, and while no official statistics were kept on how often officers used their weapons and to what effect, every analyst readily agrees that the number of suspects getting shot at unnecessarily was no doubt high.
Which kind of reminds me of what I've read of official analyses of US cops and their notorious tendency towards trigger-happiness and extremely poor fire discipline...(problem in threat-response training apparently.)
Rhyfelwyr
04-19-2008, 22:52
HoreTore you are taking liberalism to some sort of bizarre, disturbing extreme.
Is this how people are really starting to think?
HoreTore you are taking liberalism to some sort of bizarre, disturbing extreme.
Is this how people are really starting to think?
Er, his views aren't really requiring any sort of law changes. Extremely liberal I'd never call them..
Watchman
04-19-2008, 23:05
Isn't he just explaining what he finds dislikeable and why, really ? And he's not even voicing any particularly radical opinions either. Personally I find the "pro-life" abortion-banners considerably more extreme for example...
Rhyfelwyr
04-19-2008, 23:09
"I'm not talking about banning or outlawing anything. People may of course do as they please, but I don't see why I have to be happy about it."
We'll he's basically saying people can do what they like, he just might not be happy about some things. No matter how pointless or evil their acts are, he wouldn't want to infringe on their rights. That would just be so terrible.:drama1:
To say this mass-murdering madwoman (if it wasn't a hoax) is no worse than someone getting plastic surgery is side-stepping a major issue. The woman is doing a lot more than draining valuable resources.
Watchman
04-19-2008, 23:12
To say this mass-murdering madwoman (if it wasn't a hoax) is no worse than someone getting plastic surgery is side-stepping a major issue. The woman is doing a lot more than draining valuable resources.You're saying that as if it was some kind of objective truth.
Like Hell it is.
It all hinges on how you define abortion and, by extension, the earliest stages of human life as well as the relationship between a mother and the budding human in her womb. Very subjective in other words.
Rhyfelwyr
04-19-2008, 23:18
Well surely if its a grey are then they cannot risk what they admit could potentially be a human life, just as valid as any other.:dizzy2:
EDIT: And doesn't the average, non-religiously motived person see this woman's acts as a lot more than a simple drain on resources?
Watchman
04-19-2008, 23:27
Not really. Since the pro-choice view usually draws the line at the late stages of pregnancy where the infant is already viable outside the womb if necessary; in any case at that point terminating the pregnancy AFAIK gets pretty dangerous and unhealthy for the mother as well so...
And personally for example I don't ascribe to belief in some vague "soul" to begin with. I do believe in consciousness for obvious reasons, and TBH, it takes a while before babies actually develop much of one. Humans are born in a very "unfinished" and undeveloped form after all; compared to the adult size, something like the smallest among mammalians after the marsupials...
As already mentioned and readily noticeable, there's no shortage of atheist and pro-lifer frowning on her purported activities. Chiefly on the grounds of distasteful gratuitiousness, attention-whoring, making light of a serious issue, and/or pointless waste of limited medical resources. So your second point was ?
Rhyfelwyr
04-19-2008, 23:47
Not really. Since the pro-choice view usually draws the line at the late stages of pregnancy where the infant is already viable outside the womb if necessary; in any case at that point terminating the pregnancy AFAIK gets pretty dangerous and unhealthy for the mother as well so...
And personally for example I don't ascribe to belief in some vague "soul" to begin with. I do believe in consciousness for obvious reasons, and TBH, it takes a while before babies actually develop much of one. Humans are born in a very "unfinished" and undeveloped form after all; compared to the adult size, something like the smallest among mammalians after the marsupials...
Still leaves a big grey area, and drawing a line basically means you are saying there is a magic moment when the foetus reaches humanity. Otherwise there must be a grey area, and you can never know how big that area is depending on individual cases, unless foetuses become human say 15 weeks, 3 days, 4 minutes, and 5 seconds into every pregnancy.
As already mentioned and readily noticeable, there's no shortage of atheist and pro-lifer frowning on her purported activities. Chiefly on the grounds of distasteful gratuitiousness, attention-whoring, making light of a serious issue, and/or pointless waste of limited medical resources. So your second point was ?
That the only issue there HoreTore will achnowledge is the drainage of resources, the comment was specifically at him.
Watchman
04-19-2008, 23:57
Still leaves a big grey area, and drawing a line basically means you are saying there is a magic moment when the foetus reaches humanity. Otherwise there must be a grey area, and you can never know how big that area is depending on individual cases, unless foetuses become human say 15 weeks, 3 days, 4 minutes, and 5 seconds into every pregnancy.Why, what breaking news; laws have grey areas open to and in fact requiring case-by-case estimation and interpretation - how could I ever have missed such an important detail ?!
I figure, if the relevant medical professionals estimate the infant survivable that's a good enough point of time to go by. Although given that fetuses normally develop at a fairly uniform rate N (= whatever it now normally requires) months would make just as good a rule of thumb - if the infant isn't yet viable by that point, well, I imagine the issue of abortion just became the least relevant worry. Although one would assume people deciding to terminate the pregnancy normally dealt with the matter rather earlier than that point anyway, since the earlier it is done the least risk and complication is involved.
Adrian II
04-20-2008, 01:43
You guys still at it? Abortion and guns, eh? :dizzy2:
Funny how both the pro- and anti-freedom side in this tedious debate refer to 'viability', a concept that can be stretched to the moon if you want to. Even a dead skin cell can be viable, given the right treatment, because it contains all the DNA necessary for the deployment of a human being.
This is not a medical or a moral issue. It's a rights issue. It always has been and still is the natural right of man to control his body and direct his own life. A natural, thus inalienable right. This means a woman may not be forced to put her body at the disposal of another human being and put it into the world if she does not want to, even if the law, the Pope, all other moral 'authorities' and an overwhelming majority of citizens would say so.
One may lament the ways in which some women use this right, just as one may lament the abuse of women by religous establishments and the horrendous consequences of the denial of their natural right in the past. But it doesn't alter one iota to that natural right.
By the way, there is a case to be made that biologically life does not begin at conception (like the Vatican says), but at gastrulation. That's when the organs are basically formed.
And the Pope's view has no basis in the Bible, only in some later writings by theologians. The rule that 'life begins at conception' is a theological ready-made from the sixties (Humanae Vitae). For most of Catholic history the beginning of life was put at animation - infusion of the soul - which was thought to be at forty days after conception for a male, and eighty days for a female fetus. In 1588, Pope Sixtus V made all abortions punishable by excommunication. His successor, Pope Gregory IX, restored the former rule. In 1869, Pope Pius IX reinstored excommunication.
Oh, teh old. :dozey:
Crazed Rabbit
04-20-2008, 02:10
The girl insists this wasn't a hoax:
http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/24528
But Shvarts reiterated Thursday that she repeatedly use a needleless syringe to insert semen into herself. At the end of her menstrual cycle, she took abortifacient herbs to induce bleeding, she said. She said she does not know whether or not she was ever pregnant.
“No one can say with 100-percent certainty that anything in the piece did or did not happen,” Shvarts said, “because the nature of the piece is that it did not consist of certainties.”
This means a woman may not be forced to put her body at the disposal of another human being and put it into the world if she does not want to, even if the law, the Pope, all other moral 'authorities' and an overwhelming majority of citizens would say so.
So women aren't required to care for their children? :dizzy2:
Oh, and I get the feeling you seem to be a fan of welfare. Your statement, if applied generally to society, would mean absolutely no taxation for redistribution of wages, even to the poor and starving, since that is forcing people to put themselves at the disposal of others.
I also fail to see how a baby depending on only its mother for life is different from depending on someone to raise it (ie after birth). I don't know of a law that relieves a person of responsibility to care for a child if there's the possibility that someone else could care for it.
CR
The rule that 'life begins at conception' is a theological ready-made from the sixties (Humanae Vitae). For most of Catholic history the beginning of life was put at animation - infusion of the soul - which was thought to be at forty days after conception for a male, and eighty days for a female fetus. In 1588, Pope Sixtus V made all abortions punishable by excommunication. His successor, Pope Gregory IX, restored the former rule. In 1869, Pope Pius IX reinstored excommunication.
I don't care how you slice it, that's some damn fine history there. Thanks, A2. Now if you could help a brother out, which pope attempted to outlaw coffee?
Even a dead skin cell can be viable, given the right treatment, because it contains all the DNA necessary for the deployment of a human being.What nonsense. Skin cells don't develop into humans.
And the Pope's view has no basis in the Bible, only in some later writings by theologians.So what?
Ironside
04-20-2008, 08:40
What nonsense. Skin cells don't develop into humans.
During the right conditions it should be able to as far as we know (admittably severe manipulation would be required), just like the fertilised egg needs to have the right conditions to develop into a human.
Crazed Rabbit
04-20-2008, 09:17
Ridiculous. Fertilized eggs don't require extraction of DNA and implantation or anything like that to develop into a human, just leave them be and it happens.
CR
"I'm not talking about banning or outlawing anything. People may of course do as they please, but I don't see why I have to be happy about it."
We'll he's basically saying people can do what they like, he just might not be happy about some things. No matter how pointless or evil their acts are, he wouldn't want to infringe on their rights. That would just be so terrible.:drama1:
Er, he was talking about not banning anything in this context.
EDIT: And doesn't the average, non-religiously motived person see this woman's acts as a lot more than a simple drain on resources?
I don't really see how HT can say this is a drain on resources as she just ate some herbs. Apparantly I'm not "average", but I do not view this as something more special than a normal abortion (in the moral sense, that is).
Ridiculous. Fertilized eggs don't require extraction of DNA and implantation or anything like that to develop into a human, just leave them be and it happens.
CR
They need a vomb to develop in. You cannot just leave them and let it happen, as you put it. Of course, it's normal to continue to eat as normal etc., but that is not the point, they're 100% dependant on assistance. Remove or not offer it, they'll never turn into a human.
Adrian II
04-20-2008, 12:50
Trolls to the left of me, strawmen to the right
Here I am, stuck in the middle with Lemur :laugh4:
Now if you could help a brother out, which pope attempted to outlaw coffee?Cool it, bro. Fo' all we know, dere wuz Ippolito Aldobrandini, streetname Clement VIII, and dat bro he done da opposite thing.
:book:
When de coffee hit Europe in de late 1500s, da Vatican priests argued it wuz some satanic concocshun uh de Islamic infidel. Acco'din'ly, dey dought it betta be banned.
Da's when your man stepped in. Afta' givin' it some taste, ol Clement gave his blessin' t'de beans, sayin: "Chill out, bro's. Dis Satan's drink be so delicious, it would be a shame t'let da damn infidels gots da excloosive dis'brution rights for't, dig? We shall honkyfool Satan by baptizin' it. S'cool, man s'cool."
Dat was some lucky break, right? Tween you 'n me, bro Lemur, we shud be surprised no Pope eva' tried t'ban compudas. :dizzy2:
Watchman
04-20-2008, 13:14
So women aren't required to care for their children? :dizzy2: I don't recall the postnatal care of infants having been discussed anywhere, least of all by Adrian.
Rabbit And The Strawmen play "Hyperbole", tonight at the Backroom Club ? :thrasher:
Rhyfelwyr
04-20-2008, 13:20
I fear this will go on for ever in circles. Ultimately pretty much every argument so far stems from our beliefs in whether or not the foetus is 'human'.
Very nice info there Adrian, though the abortion isn't just an issue for Catholics.
Adrian II
04-20-2008, 13:35
I don't recall the postnatal care of infants having been discussed anywhere, least of all by Adrian.
Rabbit And The Strawmen play "Hyperbole", tonight at the Backroom Club ? :thrasher:I can see it.
The Abortion Troll has entered da building!
https://img356.imageshack.us/img356/4035/elvissj7.gif (https://imageshack.us)
Well, its one for the gallery,
Two for the show,
Three to get worked up,
Now go, cat, go.
But dont you step on my hyperbole, fools!
You can do anything but lay off of my blind faith rules.
Yeahhhh.
Rhyfelwyr
04-20-2008, 13:59
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Another self-made smilie there?
Adrian II
04-20-2008, 14:02
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Another self-made smilie there?No, this is a pure steal. I don't really make my own by the way, I am not good enough. I take existing smilies and change them.
Hey, I'm a hack, vicarious living is my job. https://img253.imageshack.us/img253/4162/hack1qk0.gif (https://imageshack.us)
Wow, that takes avant-garde to a whole new level. I wonder what marks she gets...
HoreTore
04-20-2008, 14:29
"I'm not talking about banning or outlawing anything. People may of course do as they please, but I don't see why I have to be happy about it."
We'll he's basically saying people can do what they like, he just might not be happy about some things. No matter how pointless or evil their acts are, he wouldn't want to infringe on their rights. That would just be so terrible.:drama1:
To say this mass-murdering madwoman (if it wasn't a hoax) is no worse than someone getting plastic surgery is side-stepping a major issue. The woman is doing a lot more than draining valuable resources.
I don't see a fetus as a human being, and as such I don't see abortion as anything bad at all.
No human, no murder. :yes:
ICantSpellDawg
04-20-2008, 15:29
I don't see a fetus as a human being, and as such I don't see abortion as anything bad at all.
No human, no murder. :yes:
Great, so it's cut and dry then. I hope that one day I can ignore the obvious in order to eliminate a serious issue of conscience and morality.
Crazed Rabbit
04-20-2008, 20:07
I don't recall the postnatal care of infants having been discussed anywhere, least of all by Adrian.
Rabbit And The Strawmen play "Hyperbole", tonight at the Backroom Club ? :thrasher:
Oh, I'm sorry, but Adrian said:
This means a woman may not be forced to put her body at the disposal of another human being and put it into the world if she does not want to, even if the law, the Pope, all other moral 'authorities' and an overwhelming majority of citizens would say so.
Twas his statement that did not limit itself to pregnancy. I think it's very appropriate to ask him to square what seem to be extreme Ayn Rand style objectivism views in regards to pregnancy with what I suppose to be views favorable of welfare and at least some form of income redistribution.
But if I'm wrong and Adrian is the reincarnation of Ayn Rand, then just say so.
However, if that's not the case, it is right to call Adrian on why he becomes an objectivist in regards to abortion when he isn't on other issues.
They need a vomb to develop in. You cannot just leave them and let it happen, as you put it. Of course, it's normal to continue to eat as normal etc., but that is not the point, they're 100% dependant on assistance. Remove or not offer it, they'll never turn into a human.
And guess what - they start out in a womb! There's no way you 'can't offer it'.
I don't see a fetus as a human being, and as such I don't see abortion as anything bad at all.
No human, no murder.
So your 'reason' tells you a child becomes 100% human right after birth, while being absolutely 0% human in the womb?
CR
Adrian II
04-20-2008, 20:40
I think it's very appropriate to ask him to square what seem to be extreme Ayn Rand style objectivism views in regards to pregnancy with what I suppose to be views favorable of welfare and at least some form of income redistribution.Rand wrote: 'The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation.'
Now if you figure out why Jeffersen substituted 'the pursuit of happiness' for Locke's 'property', you know why I couldn't be Ayn Rand. :yes:
Ironside
04-20-2008, 21:22
So your 'reason' tells you a child becomes 100% human right after birth, while being absolutely 0% human in the womb?
CR
Well, it's rather that it starts out on a few % above 0 before conception and normally continues to rise until it reaches close enough to 100% to be considered de facto Human. Things becomes so complicated when you thinks about them too much...
Most of the world agrees that you got whacky rules there in the US you know.
Adrian II
04-20-2008, 21:28
Most of the world agrees that you got whacky rules there in the US you know.Abortion rules throughout the world are mostly compromises. The U.S. rules, too, are a compromise as the 'Abortion Papers (http://swiss.csail.mit.edu/~rauch/nvp/roe/woodward.html)' show.
Rhyfelwyr
04-20-2008, 22:33
Compromising on the issue in pointless. The only debate is betwen the pro-choice people on how far the grey area extends.
Why is it so easy to dismiss the idea that a foetus is truly human as some say, but perfectly reasonable to talk about the foetus as being 20% human or whatever? It is clear to me what argument there is impossible to implement in practice and is completely rubbish anyway.
Seeing the comments I made about the mountaineers in the other thread, I can see how easy it is to get bogged down in all this grey area debate and 'logic', and 'common sense' etc. Meanwhile principles, my gut feelings on the issue, get thrown out the window. A foetus should be more than some violation of a woman's rights, or something that should have its humanity calculated in terms of percentages.
I'm holding true to my principles - there is no grey area, its murder.
Watchman
04-20-2008, 22:39
And I'll reiterate I find the approach of abortion being legal until the kid can speak up for itself sounding sensible enough. :devil:
Rhyfelwyr
04-20-2008, 22:41
And I'll reiterate I find the approach of abortion being legal until the kid can speak up for itself sounding sensible enough. :devil:
Thats nothing, I'd make it sign a contract saying it didn't want to die.
Adrian II
04-20-2008, 22:51
Meanwhile principles, my gut feelings on the issue, get thrown out the window. A foetus should be more than some violation of a woman's rights, or something that should have its humanity calculated in terms of percentages.At least we agree on that. Compromise creates its own dynamic, hence the 'grey area' has become so large that black and white are lost from sight. My (legal) angle is different from yours and my conclusion is diametrically opposed, but I do not ignore the humanity of a foetus or the tragedy involved in any abortion.
Watchman
04-20-2008, 22:53
Oh, I'm sorry, but Adrian said:
---
Twas his statement that did not limit itself to pregnancy.As I do not doubt ole Adrian's ability to speak for himself should he deem it necessary, I'll just point out I find it very difficult to interpret what he wrote like you do.
Indeed I daresay such reading smacks of certain tendentious misinterpretation; dare I say... bias ? Prejudice ?
As the Devil reads the Bible... :juggle2:
Adrian II
04-20-2008, 23:52
Indeed I daresay such reading smacks of certain tendentious misinterpretation; dare I say... bias ? Prejudice ?Or maybe just confusion.
I believe most modern American textbooks identify John Locke as the main source of natural rights theory. At the time of the founding fathers Charles de Montesquieu was more influential, mainly on account of his trias politica, a flash of insight of the sort that changes history. Both Locke and Montesquieu were, in turn, influenced by the Dutch founder of natural rights theory, Hugo Grotius.
Grotius stated that humans by their nature are not only reasonable but also social, and that the rules that are "natural" to them can only be such as to enable them to pursue their interests in harmony.
Locke narrowed down Grotius’s principle when he stated that natural rights are essentially property rights. His famous trio ‘life, liberty and estate’ translates as ‘self-property, free exercise of self-property, and inalienable material property’. Take this view to extremes and you end up with Ayn Rand: life = the exercise of (self)property.
Montesquieu adopted the larger Grotius concept of natural law. He stated that the true exercise of self-ownership requires a rational order, defined as an order that provides ‘the tranquility of spirit which comes from the opinion each one has of his security’. What he meant was the assurance that man shall not be accosted by the authorities or by the other citizens in his person or in the objects of his rights. In other words: good government. And good government does not come free. In practice this means, for instance, that the fruit of a person's labor, if procured under favourable circumstances due to good government, shall not fall in its entirety to the person. Or that a person shall perform military service if called upon in the interest of good government (national safety).
Jefferson’s formula is not Lockean, it is Montesquiean in that ‘happiness’ covers the full spectrum of rights concomitant to life and liberty, not just property, but also equality before the law, fair trial, free speech, the right to marry, right to privacy &cetera, which shall be guaranteed by government. In other words: good government supersedes property.
Good government belongs to the sphere of social contract theory. The result of all this is what we usually heap together nowadays under the heading of ‘income tax’.
I’m for it. :laugh:
And guess what - they start out in a womb! There's no way you 'can't offer it'.
I take it you have never heard about in vitro fertilization then? ~:rolleyes:
And, uh, stopping the support that the placenta provides is one way of aborting.
HoreTore
04-21-2008, 16:52
So your 'reason' tells you a child becomes 100% human right after birth, while being absolutely 0% human in the womb?
Nah, they may become a lawyer, consultant or car dealer.
Samurai Waki
04-21-2008, 17:17
For some reason it seems that the countries who support pro-choice mostly tend to be economically sound, democratic, a decent level of human rights, and a prosperous middle class. All the right conditions to foster a relatively healthy child...
That being said. The countries that are pro-life mostly tend to be third world, undemocratic, no human rights, and no middle class. Diseases run rampant, and the life these children are born into are going to be hopeless and miserable. For whatever reason the equation just doesn't add up at all.
So I'm going to take the stance that while I am pro-choice, I would hope that in the case that another child were to come my way, that my partner would at least tell me why she didn't want it, and I would try to convince her to keep it. If my attempts were in vain, I guess I would be disappointed but its not my body and I don't have to carry the damn thing for nine months.
Watchman
04-21-2008, 17:29
That generally has a lot to with the populace of the latter countries generally being poorly educated and easily swayed by populist arguments, and the little detail womens' real rights in them tend to sort of suck. Plus, it's an old truism that poor folks tend to have a lot of kids - a sort of "hedging the bets" measure to ensure at least some make it to adulthood, and that there's at least some to care for their parents when they get old.
ICantSpellDawg
04-21-2008, 17:43
For some reason it seems that the countries who support pro-choice mostly tend to be economically sound, democratic, a decent level of human rights, and a prosperous middle class. All the right conditions to foster a relatively healthy child...
That being said. The countries that are pro-life mostly tend to be third world, undemocratic, no human rights, and no middle class. Diseases run rampant, and the life these children are born into are going to be hopeless and miserable. For whatever reason the equation just doesn't add up at all.
That is a joke. Maybe the countries with the higher abortion rates also have higher suicide and depression rates? Since democratic and European nations tend to have that, maybe suicide and depression is a good idea too, you elitist.
abortion (http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/mapworldabrate.html)
suicide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate)
Point out my exceptions and i'll point out yours.
That generally has a lot to with the populace of the latter countries generally being poorly educated and easily swayed by populist arguments, and the little detail womens' real rights in them tend to sort of suck. Plus, it's an old truism that poor folks tend to have a lot of kids - a sort of "hedging the bets" measure to ensure at least some make it to adulthood, and that there's at least some to care for their parents when they get old.
You are an excellent pseudo-scientist.
Watchman
04-21-2008, 17:54
You are an excellent pseudo-scientist.:inquisitive: Oh ? Then pray tell how do you propose to explain the fact the rise in living standards, access to healthcare, levels of education, womens' social status and financial independence etc. that accompanied the Industrial Revolution (especially in its later turn-of-the-century phases) was universally accompanied by a marked increase in family planning and falling birthrates ? That gave a lot of social planners a lot of headache in the interwar period for example, as they were worried about having enough soldiers for future wars...
Maybe you've got some radical new theory that casts down the common findings of socioeconomic studies concerning the issue ?
Kralizec
04-21-2008, 18:01
Abortion was illegal in the BRD until the 90'ties. The general mentality in the old DDR was pro-abortion though, wich tipped the ballance after the unification. As far as I know the law hasn't changed much but in reality people are now making widespread use of a "psychological issues" backdoor.
Watchman
04-21-2008, 18:07
Since when did its illegality keep people from doing it though ? By what I've read of it, the Fascist and Nazi regimes (not exactly noted for being womens' rights progressives in any case) sought to come down on it something hard; to rather little real effect, even by the admission of their own authorities tasked with enforcing the ban...
Kralizec
04-21-2008, 18:10
[......]
I was arguing against the suggestion that there's a correlation between pro-choice policies and stable, affluent democracies. Wich isn't the case with Germany, and probably some other ones I don't know about :shrug:
Kaidonni
04-21-2008, 20:27
This isn't art. Simple as. It's just as despicable as people who put their excrement up for display and claim that's art. Controversy for the sake of it, being different because it is seen to be 'cool.' Big news - being different is not always cool, sometimes it makes one a total *** who is dumb...it makes one...er...yes, it makes one a *******.
Heck, abortion is necessary in certain cases, regardless of what anyone believes or thinks. Sometimes it is the more humane option, and sometimes it means saving the life of the woman carrying the baby. But, this is not one of those cases whatsoever. To deliberately abort life and claim it is art when you take images of that destruction? Couldn't Nazis go around claiming that the Holocaust was art, then? I'm not calling this woman a Nazi. In fact, if this was art, couldn't those who beat the living crap out of their wives claim that was art? Couldn't terrorists claim what they do as art? The list goes on if you want.
Not everything can be art, I'm afraid. It just insults the true artists out there who labour (no pun intended) day in and day out to get recognised, the true artists who work extremely hard and forgo a lot of the life everyone else has. Artists who sacrifice so much to get where they are. And someone else just comes on and claims abortion is art. Such willful abuse of the pro-creation process is not art. I'd be very afraid if she were ever to have children, given how lightly she takes the destruction of life. Keep pets away from her, too, or we might see starving dogs as art...
Might have sounded very harsh, but I'm an aspiring animator, and it really irks me to see everything claimed as 'art.'
One could say 'art can come from anywhere, but not everything can be art.' Otherwise you just give a carte blanche for people to come up with things like this, and claim they are amazing. No, they're not. The people on CG Society are far more amazing than this. 2 year olds claiming a squiggle is a dinosaur are truer artists than this, even.
Yeah...er, as you were. Dismissed! :laugh4:
Same vein of art: Woman sells t-shirts (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/04/nyregion/04bigcity.html) that read "I was raped." Now that's art, right? Right?
Adrian II
04-22-2008, 14:19
Same vein of art: Woman sells t-shirts (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/04/nyregion/04bigcity.html) that read "I was raped." Now that's art, right? Right?Where does it say 'art'? Nobody in that article is claiming the T-shirts are art.
:shrug:
BananaBob
04-25-2008, 04:58
Can't she be both an artist and a despicable scumbag? Why are the two incompatible?
I'd class her with that Honduran artist who let a dog starve to death in a gallery. Snuff art is not art, kids.
The dog never starved, it was just an old dog from the street that he let into the gallery. It was well fed and released. The artist did it to show how pathetic people are, saying something along the lines of 'Theirs are thousands of dogs starving on the streets, yet the entire world is up in arms for one in an art gallery'. I almost think that this artist girl is trying to prove some sort of point this way also. Or at least I hope.
Seamus Fermanagh
04-25-2008, 13:02
[QUOTE=Watchman]: ...Then pray tell how do you propose to explain the fact the rise in living standards, access to healthcare, levels of education, womens' social status and financial independence etc. that accompanied the Industrial Revolution (especially in its later turn-of-the-century phases) was universally accompanied by a marked increase in family planning and falling birthrates ? That gave a lot of social planners a lot of headache in the interwar period for example, as they were worried about having enough soldiers for future wars...QUOTE]
Actually, there are some arguing that Islam is conquering Europe through immigration and relative birth-rates, so there are still social planners (or at least would-be social planners) fixated on this issue.
Quirinus
04-25-2008, 14:23
But then again, those very same people also believe in a huge liberal conspiracy to erode family values, human rights and anything decent. I wouldn't put much stock in those arguments.
Seamus Fermanagh
04-25-2008, 14:29
I believe most modern American textbooks identify John Locke as the main source of natural rights theory. At the time of the founding fathers Charles de Montesquieu was more influential, mainly on account of his trias politica, a flash of insight of the sort that changes history. Both Locke and Montesquieu were, in turn, influenced by the Dutch founder of natural rights theory, Hugo Grotius.
Grotius stated that humans by their nature are not only reasonable but also social, and that the rules that are "natural" to them can only be such as to enable them to pursue their interests in harmony.
Locke narrowed down Grotius’s principle when he stated that natural rights are essentially property rights. His famous trio ‘life, liberty and estate’ translates as ‘self-property, free exercise of self-property, and inalienable material property’. Take this view to extremes and you end up with Ayn Rand: life = the exercise of (self)property.
Montesquieu adopted the larger Grotius concept of natural law. He stated that the true exercise of self-ownership requires a rational order, defined as an order that provides ‘the tranquility of spirit which comes from the opinion each one has of his security’. What he meant was the assurance that man shall not be accosted by the authorities or by the other citizens in his person or in the objects of his rights. In other words: good government. And good government does not come free. In practice this means, for instance, that the fruit of a person's labor, if procured under favourable circumstances due to good government, shall not fall in its entirety to the person. Or that a person shall perform military service if called upon in the interest of good government (national safety).
Jefferson’s formula is not Lockean, it is Montesquiean in that ‘happiness’ covers the full spectrum of rights concomitant to life and liberty, not just property, but also equality before the law, fair trial, free speech, the right to marry, right to privacy &cetera, which shall be guaranteed by government. In other words: good government supersedes property.
While you are obviously correct that Jefferson's tri-partite statement is not strictly Lockean in character, I'm not sure I agree with your implication that we should view US government with a Montesquiean lens. All of the Founders were influenced by Locke and Montesquieu and Grotius, but also by Hobbes, Aquinas, DesCartes and others. By the standards of their time, most of the Second Congress and ALL of the Declaration Draft Committee were shockingly well read.
The format Jefferson chose was almost certainly an effort to parallel the "Life, Liberty, and Property" formula already advanced by the First Congress. It very likely was influenced by the drafts of the Virginia Declaration of Rights written by George Mason (I'm a GMU alumnus:cheesy: ).
From the Virginia Declaration of Rights, adopted 15 May 1776
That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, ... namely the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
Jefferson was at Monticello when Mason's declaration was being drafted and was in frequent correspondence with the other Burgesses at the time.
Jefferson was directly involved with the drafting of the Virginia Constitution (though not on the committee to do so) writing from Philadelphia where he'd arrived on 14 May 1776.
All of the discussions surrounding Virginia's constitution would have fed into his writing of the Declaration as well.
Ultimately, I think it can be argued that Jefferson was using a shortened version of Mason's formula, tailored to fit the "accepted" tripartite format already used by the first Congress.
However, while Jefferson may well have envisioned a more Montesquiean turn and had already adopted the concept of a bicameral legislative republic, The earlier Articles of Association, Mason's Declaration, and the Second Congress' rejection of Jefferson's suggestion of a bicameral approach speak to the more traditionally Lockean sentiment that obtained, I would suggest, among a majority of the Founders.
Adrian II
04-25-2008, 17:34
By the standards of their time, most of the Second Congress and ALL of the Declaration Draft Committee were shockingly well read.Largely agreed, bar the notion that Montesquieu would have been less influential than, say, Hobbes or Locke when it comes to constitutional thinking proper. M. framed the very concept of a separation of powers which we observe today, and he was no doubt the main influence on Madison who was in turn the most influential of the founding cabal.
And also, ironically, on Madison's anti-federalist opponents. When the anti-federalist "Cato" wrote the following in Cato 3, it was purest Montesquieu:
Whoever seriously considers the immense extent of territory comprehended within the limits of the United States, together with the variety of its climates, productions, and commerce, the difference of extent, and number of inhabitants in all; the dissimilitude of interest, morals, and policies, in almost every one, will receive it as an intuitive truth, that a consolidated republican form of government therein, can never form a perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to you and your posterity, for to these objects it must be directed: this unkindred legislature therefore, composed of interests opposite and dissimilar in their nature, will in its exercise, emphatically be, like a house divided against itself.
This closely echoed Montesquieu's view that any every government reflects a main object:
Each state has an object that is peculiar to it. Expansion was the object of Rome; war that of Lacedoemonia; religion that of the Jewish laws; commerce that of Marseilles; public tranquility that of the laws of China; navigation that of the laws of the Rhodians; natural liberty the object of the policy of the savages; the delights of the prince that of despotic states; his
glory and that of the state, the object of monarchies; the independence of each individual is the object of the laws of Poland.
In Cato's view, the establishment of a strong central state would necessarily suppress and/or split the highly varied American society, and hence be an inappropriate reflection of its ambitions.
Cato's formula of 'union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty' also reflects another Montesquian theme which I already mentioned. Montesquieu disagreed with Hobbes' view that humans in their natural state primarily desire to subjugate others and are dominated by 'motives for attacking others and for defending themselves.'
According to M. humans in their natural state first and foremost perceive their own weakness: 'In this state each feels himself inferior; he scarcely feels himself an equal. He will not at all seek to attack, and peace will be the first natural law. The idea of empire and domination is so complex and depends on so many other ideas, that it would not be the one he would first have. However, as soon as men are in society, they lose their feeling of weakness; the equality that was among them ceases and the state of war begins.'
In other words, war begins after the foundation of society; it is not its main cause, rather its main consequence. Government comes to embody the 'feeling of strength' of a nation and therefore to recruit the strongest among them. And that is why - another Montesquian improvement over Hobbes - government must be considered both necessary and dangerous to a nation's well-being. M. recognized the double edge of power and majesty much clearer than Hobbes or Locke, who basically bowed before them. If you want to look for the theoretical background to the profound distrust of government in American society and history, Montesquieu is it. Jefferson and the others understood and honoured this fundamental Montesquian notion that governments should be instituted to secure rights, not to empower citizens or government itself to infringe on them.
Rights, not property. The right to property, sure, but as one among other rights, not as an absolute, let alone a substitute for all rights.
Montesquieu has never been considered a natural rights theorist. In his magnum opus De l'Esprit he devotes no more than, oh, twelve pages to his exposition of the subject, simply because the notion was so pervasive in XVII century society. But when he uses words like 'natural', 'law' and 'rights' he does so with great precision and consistency, which leaves no doubt that they were the basis of his constitutional thinking.
Seamus Fermanagh
04-25-2008, 18:37
Largely agreed, bar the notion that Montesquieu would have been less influential than, say, Hobbes or Locke when it comes to constitutional thinking proper. M. framed the very concept of a separation of powers which we observe today, and he was no doubt the main influence on Madison who was in turn the most influential of the founding cabal.
If you refer to the thinking that framed the Constitution, I would agree. I don't think all of the Founders had really confronted all of those issues at the time of the Declaration. At first, reacting to what they percieved to be a "breach of contract" between England and the colonies, I think you see a more distinctly Lockean tone -- PROPERTY was a vital interest to those movers and shakers in the colonies who were to become our founders.
After limiping along under the Articles of Confederation, it became apparent fairly quickly that a unicameral confederacy was far too likely to end up as an exercise in Balkanization. That prompted the conference to re-draft the articles which morphed into the Constitutional Convention.
Interestingly, Madison -- primer writer of the Constitution -- became Friends with Jefferson shortly after Jefferson had failed in his effort to effect a bi-cameral quasi-republic rather than the Confederacy we ended up with.
And also, ironically, on Madison's anti-federalist opponents. When the anti-federalist "Cato" wrote the following in Cato 3, it was purest Montesquieu:
Whoever seriously considers the immense extent of territory comprehended within the limits of the United States, together with the variety of its climates, productions, and commerce, the difference of extent, and number of inhabitants in all; the dissimilitude of interest, morals, and policies, in almost every one, will receive it as an intuitive truth, that a consolidated republican form of government therein, can never form a perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to you and your posterity, for to these objects it must be directed: this unkindred legislature therefore, composed of interests opposite and dissimilar in their nature, will in its exercise, emphatically be, like a house divided against itself.
This closely echoed Montesquieu's view that any every government reflects a main object:
Each state has an object that is peculiar to it. Expansion was the object of Rome; war that of Lacedoemonia; religion that of the Jewish laws; commerce that of Marseilles; public tranquility that of the laws of China; navigation that of the laws of the Rhodians; natural liberty the object of the policy of the savages; the delights of the prince that of despotic states; his
glory and that of the state, the object of monarchies; the independence of each individual is the object of the laws of Poland.
In Cato's view, the establishment of a strong central state would necessarily suppress and destroy the varied nature of American society, and hence be an inappropriate reflection of its ambitions.
"Cato" is turning out to be correct in spirit if not in his critique of the Constitution as written. We have gone past our disparate goals as states and are morphing into a single political entity ruled by a single -- albeit large and highly bureacratized -- government. I would argue, however, that this is not a result of the Constitution, but of the extra-constitutional acretia that has increasingly expanded the scope, influence, and power of the federal government at the expense of the states since 1863.
Cato's formula of 'union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty' also reflects another Montesquian theme which I already mentioned. Montesquieu disagreed with Hobbes' view that humans in their natural state primarily desire to subjugate others and are dominated by 'motives for attacking others and for defending themselves.'
According to M. humans in their natural state first and foremost perceive their own weakness: 'In this state each feels himself inferior; he scarcely feels himself an equal. He will not at all seek to attack, and peace will be the first natural law. The idea of empire and domination is so complex and depends on so many other ideas, that it would not be the one he would first have. However, as soon as men are in society, they lose their feeling of weakness; the equality that was among them ceases and the state of war begins.'
Yet, as you know from your own experience, neither is exactly correct. Some do seek to dominate others whenever not restrained by the implicit or explicit use of force. Some, even the very powerful, behave humbly. Others, perceiving themselves the weaker party, ATTACK in the hope that by getting in a quick strike, they can win before the other's greater power is brought to bear (You will recall the doctrine of "Offensive a outrance" that dominated French military thinking at the close of the 19th century -- and also was a significant minority opinion among the Belgian military in the early 20th -- go figure). I believe that Hobbes and Montesquieu are both over-generalizing here.
In other words, war begins after the foundation of society; it is not its main cause, rather its main consequence. Government comes to embody the 'feeling of strength' of a nation and therefore to recruit the strongest among them. And that is why - another Montesquian improvement over Hobbes - government must be considered both necessary and dangerous to a nation's well-being. M. recognized the double edge of power and majesty much clearer than Hobbes or Locke, who basically bowed before them. If you want to look for the theoretical background to the profound distrust of government in American society and history, Montesquieu is it. Jefferson and the others understood and honoured this fundamental Montesquian notion that governments should be instituted to secure rights, not to empower citizens or government itself to infringe on them.
IMO, this portion of your argument is spot on. The notion of securing rights was central for most of the Founders and -- absent the Bill of Rights that was quickly brought forward -- the Constitution would have been broken.
Montesquieu has never been considered a natural rights theorist. In his magnum opus De l'Esprit he devotes no more than, oh, twelve pages to his exposition of the subject, simply because the notion was so pervasive in XVII century society. But when he uses words like 'natural', 'law' and 'rights' he does so with great precision and consistency, which leaves no doubt that they were the basis of his constitutional thinking.
You certainly make a case for me to go back and read him a bit more. I may be a Lockean at heart, but you've made some good inroads as to "rights" and governance. I am less sanguine about government possessing a "right" to part of my wealth however. I prefer -- given my druthers -- something that is closer to a fee for services relationship.
I fear that we are BADLY hijacking Rabbit's thread -- but I love your discussion in this.
Adrian II
04-25-2008, 20:30
I fear that we are BADLY hijacking Rabbit's thread -- but I love your discussion in this.I trust that Crazed Rabbit will be the first to applaud lengthy discussion of a theme (natural rights, Ayn Rand) which he brought up. And our pleasure is entirely mutual, I love it when we discuss international affairs and you see my Niebuhr and raise me a St. Augustine. :bow:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.