Abortion as art

Originally posted by ivanhoe
You're kidding, right ? Sure you are !

Why should the definition change just because people are squeamish towards the outcome?

Originally posted by Retrovirus
Originally posted by whodey- at a thread called "a modest proposal"
[b]So at what point is the unborn a non-intelligent cell mass and when is the transition to an intelligent cell mass? Is it at the magical hour of birth when the doctor says "Abbra-cadabrra"?

[i]Originally posted by me as a response- at a thread called "a modest proposal he relevent thread:
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=87300&page=2[/b]

So it is your view that without intellegence that is measured by a developed nervous system the entitiy known as a fetus should not be seen as human although it is living and although it is in the process, of becoming intelligent if left to current transition and development?

However, does'nt the nervous system continue to develope in the womb and after the child is born? I think similar arguements could be made to devalue infants based upon their primitive stage of neourological development or even intellectually challenged adults.

I suppose the morality here is that so long as the nervous system has not developed one cannot feel pain or anxiety or an awareness with regards to being terminated, therefore, it is OK to do.

Originally posted by whodey
I think you will find that the thought of purposefully terminating pregnancies, in terms of a large percentage of the population, is a rather recent phenomenon in world history. I think that such an idea would be completly foreign in Biblical times, therefore, it is hard to get a grasp on how they would approach the subject. In fact, I doubt they even comte ...[text shortened]... we admit to it or not we often equate value, such as an unborn child, in terms of dollar signs.

You are ignorant on this subject; abortion has been routinely practiced since ancient times.

Originally posted by whodey
?????????

The point is that even an accidental injury to the pregnant woman gets lex talionis treatment; if she dies, the person causing it gets death. Causing a miscarriage is a relatively minor offense in contrast which is punished only by a fine (because the husband's "property" rights have been infringed). A fetus is not treated as a human being in Mosaic Law.

Originally posted by whodey
So when does this happen in your opinion? Is it 5 months in the womb? Is it 8 months in the womb? Does it magically occur when the child is born? Is it when they get beyond their infancy stage etc? At what point is it immoral to takea the life of this blob of organic cells we call a fetus/infant?

I don't believe in individual souls; I'm a Non-Dualist.

Since I see abortion as a personal autonomy issue, your questions are irrelevant to my views.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You are ignorant on this subject; abortion has been routinely practiced since ancient times.

If you read what I wrote once again, you will see that I said "a large percentage of the population". In other words, it may have been practiced but it was the exception rather than the rule in comparison today.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I don't believe in individual souls; I'm a Non-Dualist.

Since I see abortion as a personal autonomy issue, your questions are irrelevant to my views.

Come on now, you know what I mean. What makes us human or more specifically, what makes killing a human wrong and when does this begin? Is it only when they exit the womb?

Originally posted by whodey
So it is your view that without intellegence that is measured by a developed nervous system the entitiy known as a fetus should not be seen as human although it is living and although it is in the process, of becoming intelligent if left to current transition and development?

However, does'nt the nervous system continue to develope in the womb and after th ...[text shortened]... el pain or anxiety or an awareness with regards to being terminated, therefore, it is OK to do.

Originally posted by whodey
I think similar arguements could be made to devalue infants based upon their primitive stage of neourological development or even intellectually challenged adults.

I think not, as I did not suggested measuring one's neurological capabilities to decide "how close one is to be considered a person" but rather seeing if one has a nervous system at all. That's very different - if an embryo does not posses a working CNS at all and never had one - how is it different than my spleen?

Originally posted by whodey
If you read what I wrote once again, you will see that I said "a large percentage of the population". In other words, it may have been practiced but it was the exception rather than the rule in comparison today.

Would you care to back that claim up with, say, evidence?
Or is it just a wild assumption?

Originally posted by mrstabby
Would you care to back that claim up with, say, evidence?
Or is it just a wild assumption?

It's called knowing your history and the culture within it.

Originally posted by whodey
It's called knowing your history and the culture within it.

Does that involve historical evidence, or is it a case of "you knowing". How reliable is evidence pointing either way to how widespread it was?

Originally posted by mrstabby
How reliable is evidence pointing either way to how widespread it was?

Careful now, mrstabby - or whodey will take your question and put it into the context of Holocaust denial. And a lot of Forum readers will think excellent point, whodey.

Originally posted by whodey
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2944,351730,00html

Art major Aliza Shvarts will be dsplaying her senior project, a documentation of a nine-month process during which she will be artificially inseminating herself "as often as possible" while periodically taking abortifacient drugs to induce miscarriages. Her exhibit will feature video from the process.

T ...[text shortened]... shock -- sayging the project does everything from violate moral code to trivializing abortion.

I just browsed some associated online articles.

Apparently, Shvarts stated that the project was not undertaken at all for its shock value--a claim that beggars belief.

Yale University publicly questions whether the inseminations and terminations ever actually took place--a politically prudent position.

Shvarts, becoming belatedly shy of controversy, has now submitted an alternative project.

Yale art students can be a weird bunch. When I was there, I met a student whose art project also consisted of a video. This time (I was told) it depicted a creature of the canine persuasion labially lubricating the student's posterior portions. Again, the artistic value was dubious. But at least it had niche commercial potential.

Originally posted by whodey
If you read what I wrote once again, you will see that I said "a large percentage of the population". In other words, it may have been practiced but it was the exception rather than the rule in comparison today.

It still is the "exception" rather than the "rule". I see no reason to take your word for how widespread abortion was in ancient times; you've shown an utter contempt for facts that don't support your "arguments".

Originally posted by whodey
Come on now, you know what I mean. What makes us human or more specifically, what makes killing a human wrong and when does this begin? Is it only when they exit the womb?

My views on this matter have been stated on these forums many times; as a non-viable fetus cannot exist outside the confines of a woman's body it is her decision as to whether she wants to retain it or not - anything less would virtually destroy the pregnant woman's right to personal autonomy. Once it can so exist, then it has a right to personal autonomy as well.