Now this qualifies as arts?!

[MetalKnight]

Doesn't Arts major fall under Liberal Arts. Liberal was all caps referring to Liberal Democrats and their support for abortion.

I don’t know if initial post was a sarcastic joke, play on words, or a misconception... Stuff like that doesn’t carry over on the internet too well…

Liberal Arts and liberal/Liberal Democrats have no correlation. If they were I would not be in support the former in any means. - One is an area of study, another is a political ideology. There are plenty of musicians, filmmakers, and artists that fall on the right side of the political spectrum. Leni Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will, Prussian Blue, Christian Rock artists, Hitler (as a failing artist), extremist propaganda etc. are not liberals by any means despite their works being considered products of “liberal arts.”

In any case, Shock value =/= Art by any means. There are so many things that I could list right now that break today’s modern moral code and “spark conversation and debate” that would not be defined as “art” by any means, despite being so repulsive as they are.

This has always seemed like a semantical argument to me. I understand that they're different beings, but specifically why is one considered living while the other non-living?

If you wanted to be really technical, yes sex cells are living cells; however, not conscious. Every time you receive a cut thousands of living cells die, every time you eat millions of organic/ once living cells are taken and destroyed in your body, every day that passes your body kills off old cells by apoptosis; however, that would not be considered murder (even by PETA’s standards) because they (the cells) are neither conscious nor feel pain and never will.

The proponents of pro-life argue that destroying a fetus means killing a living being that will inevitably become fully conscious and productive human being. A sperm and egg cell standing alone does not guarantee the birth of a functional human being- in fact, more likely than not they’ll be produced by the body and die – but a human zygote and fetus almost always assures this.

[Sanosuke23]

Is what she did art? Sure. Art takes many forms, and many of them are incredibly offensive to many, many people.

Does she have the right to do it? Sure. It is, after all, her body. The sperm donors were okay with it, she's okay with it, and they weren't developed to the point where the fetus is sentient. They're a bundle of cells and blood, put on display by their "creators."

That doesn't mean that I didn't have a wave of nausea and an overwhelming sense of wrong hit me like a ton of bricks. To top it off, she refuses to say exactly how many donors or times she did this. That screams "shock art" to me, and not a sincere intent to spark intelligent discourse. If she was really interested in it as such, she would be completely transparent in the specifics of the project.

[Aizmov]

Liberal Arts and liberal/Liberal Democrats have no correlation. If they were I would not be in support the former in any means. - One is an area of study, another is a political ideology.

I'm aware of that It was a angry sarcasm.

[demonplight]

Azi (aizmov) you ding dong, if you personal message me, and don't allow people to send them to you, then what is the point?
as for the people who read this thinking it was about the topic (if there is one) I apologize, I needed to send him a message.

[Aizmov]

Azi (aizmov) you ding dong, if you personal message me, and don't allow people to send them to you, then what is the point?
as for the people who read this thinking it was about the topic (if there is one) I apologize, I needed to send him a message.

I admit, that was a conservative atrocity on my part I just wanted to pm you something, but wasn't in the mood for a long pm discussion

[demonplight]

OK then note this:
first define morals for me so that I can argue this with you.
for my self I use the utilitarianism model to quantify whether something is moral or not.
I define moral as rules held by a society to govern right conduct of its members.
society does not equate to nation, race, or creed. but a independently gathered secondary group.
right is the function of fitting a situation and its utility in that situation.
also know the correspondence theory, you really will need to know this if you want to be able to debate this with me.
also know of the "Forms" by Plato. I think that reading a little about them will help
to have some kind of foundation in philosophy will help you debate philosophy.
also know of these concepts
Aesthetics: Philosophy of art.
Wittgensteinian fashion- common traits give definition and inclusion into a grop.
Kennick's theory- there can be no aesthetics definition.

[Aizmov]

OK then note this:
first define morals for me so that I can argue this with you.
for my self I use the utilitarianism model to quantify whether something is moral or not.
I define moral as rules held by a society to govern right conduct of its members.
society does not equate to nation, race, or creed. but a independently gathered secondary group.
right is the function of fitting a situation and its utility in that situation.
also know the correspondence theory, you really will need to know this if you want to be able to debate this with me.
also know of the "Forms" by Plato. I think that reading a little about them will help
to have some kind of foundation in philosophy will help you debate philosophy.

Why are you stressing on the definition of morals, I don't get what you are trying to achieve here Let's argue this on the moral ground the human life is sacred, and fetuses have equal rights to humans. That is the moral background to this argument

This was the reported case of a girl impregnating herself and then forcefully aborting the fetuses for art.

The utilitarian as I understand it is the choice that produces the greatest benefits over harm.

I myself think I'm influenced by all, the virtue ethics approach, the utilitarian, the fairness and common good approach.

Except for a few mavericks, even pro-choice believe what she did is unjustified, so there goes the virtue ethics.

What benefits are there in mass abortion? art? over all the aborted fetuses, over her own health, no excess of benefit over harm, there goes the utilitarian approach.

Fairness, it sure weren't fair for all the aborted fetuses.

Common good? what common good, there weren't any!

So no matter of what moral approach I look at it, she was wrong!

[demonplight]

I am stressing it, because if you do not know what is moral then you do not know what is not.
also because this does relate to art I did add to the list.
this kind of debate has existed for ages. remember that you are not the first, and you will not be the last.
also because you say it is immoral does not mean that it is immoral.
because you say life is precious does not mean that it is.
as a counter argument, if a woman was raped does she have the right to an abortion?
also understanding the list means that you can argue the impact of that question on your hypothesis.

also this to me is not a sarcastic joke, this is real, and a real question. one that deserves more thought, than emotion.

[Aizmov]

as a counter argument, if a woman was raped does she have the right to an abortion?

YES!

i made it clear before..
I believe in a choice before pregnancy, but since that choice was taken from her then she has the choice to decide abortion or not. But if it were her choice to have sex (and not use protection) and BAM! she is pregnant, well too bad, live with the consequences..

I'm not 100% against abortion, I'm against it for stuff like this! I'm against its trivial use as a form of birth control!
To me, the two main reasons that justify abortion are rape and a serious medical (or mental) condition affecting the mother, where the pregnancy is a risk to her.

Life is precious, I can't believe you'd think otherwise, I'm sure you wont be singing a similar tone, if it were your life at the line.

[demonplight]

but I thought that you said that life is precious. is a life not a life, and how long does it take to conceive after intercourse.

[Aizmov]

but I thought that you said that life is precious. is a life not a life, and how long does it take to conceive after intercourse.

Life is precious, no denying that, but this specific pregnancy wasn't fair to the mother. The fetus itself is no criminal, but think of the mental condition the mother is going through, not healthy for her or the soon to be born baby. I made it clear that there are cases, and they are the exception not the rule.

and how long does it take to conceive after intercourse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timelin...al_development

[demonplight]

In your logic then:
being fair to a woman is equal to killing a child?
this is moral?

[Aizmov]

In your logic then:
being fair to a woman is equal to killing a child?
this is moral?

As appose to killing them for art, I guess I'm on a higher moral ground than you or that so called artist. If you fail to understand, the exception of this condition, it wont be healthy for her or the baby, then I think we shouldn't continue this.
But I want to know, do you believe life is precious, if not, full name and address please
I myself believe it is precious. I believe everyone has the right to live, I know liberals don't share this view

[demonplight]

I don't agree with what she did, but I am of the moral standing not to to judge her. in addition I have the place of mind to debate like a rational person, something that you cannot do. Also a person who believes life is precious will not threaten the life of another person. also 6.25 billion people, precious? how about near a simple statistic, no? simply i just pointed out to you the fact that knowing what moral is will allow you to understand, and debate.

[ThE_LoST_ShaDoW]

Thats terrible. How does she justify herself with the miscarriages? Is murder okay now? By day one when the sperm joins the egg and all of the inherited features of this new person are already set – whether it’s a boy or girl, the color of the eyes, the color of the hair, the dimples of the cheeks and the cleft of the chin. He or she is smaller than a grain of sugar, but the instructions are present for all that this person will ever become.

This is the only time I am commenting on this topic.

[Ollie]

And I keep wondering why Aizmov hasn't been banned yet for obvious baiting.

This has always seemed like a semantical argument to me. I understand that they're different beings, but specifically why is one considered living while the other non-living?

I don't really think it's a living versus non-living argument, so much as murdering a human person versus killing off a developing clump of cells that might become a person. A person requires personality; a fetus has none. You could also apply this to a newborn, I think, but no one wants to do that! (Well, except maybe Eris or whatever her current name is now)

But yeah, no abortion debates please, I only said the above for explanation purposes only.

[Eris]

I've what I feel to be an interesting question for you: at what point does something stop being a mere process and starts becoming a life? And once something becomes a life, at what point should it be considered meaningful?

It is always a life. A single ovum/sperm is a life (since they are living cells). It becomes meaningful when it can affect the world.

[Masali]

FYI, Apparently, this story was a hoax and, though the student claimed she was gonna do this she never really intended to go through with it. I'm too lazy to google any reliable sources, but you can go ahead and do that yourself.

[demonplight]

Well that aside the point still is a valid one.