Abortion = Art?

[hepkatmama]

New York City Chinatown Garbage Tour

Did you know you could make art out of dead animals? Artist Nate Hill is going to show you how to collect dead animals from the garbage in Chinatown to make your own personal taxidermy. This is the first NYC Chinatown Garbage Taxidermy Tour. You will learn how to dig in the garbage for dead animals. You can make art out of these animals. I've found everything from sharks to frogs to plain old unidentifiable crap. Sometimes I find nothing interesting, but that is what makes it fun. You never know.

Southeast Corner of Canal Street and Lafayette Street, Manhattan 9p rain or shine; $free, stoproadkill.org/

(thought i'd share)

The winner of the UNT Voertman's show year before last had a piece that consisted of a dead squirrel in a bucket. Then the next year, he won again with a piece entitled "Squirrel Glove", which was a glove made from squirrel skins.

[tautfest]

Originally Posted by djetaine

You have to agree though, that at one point the ethics and morals we hold so dear were not as they are today. I would also wager that in the future they will not be what they are today.

i hope this is because we are evolving and becoming more aware, more intelligent, and (hopefully as a whole) more compassionate. yes, moral views change and will continue to change. but, this is my whole argument - moral absolutes have and always will exist. its doesnt matter if you or anybody else thinks so or not. there is something greater than your own mind and belief system, and that is the universe in which we live. shades of gray do indeed exist, but you bet your ass that there are a lot of black and whites, too.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by TragicallyUnhip

Thought we already covered this. Ancient Greece. Yes, it was considered consensual at the time, but it would very well be considered child rape in today's society. The difference isn't the act, it's how society perceives that act.

And it was immoral. That it was commonly accepted doesn't mean it was moral.

[djetaine]

Originally Posted by TragicallyUnhip

Thought we already covered this. Ancient Greece. Yes, it was considered consensual at the time, but it would very well be considered child rape in today's society. The difference isn't the act, it's how society perceives that act.

jesus christ of latter day saints

Originally Posted by xian

And it was immoral. That it was commonly accepted doesn't mean it was moral.

So then who decides what is moral and immoral if not society itself? You?

[PETA]

Originally Posted by TragicallyUnhip

So then who decides what is moral and immoral if not society itself? You?

I do believe in moral absolutes. I do believe in a degree of universal morality and I believe it was of divine origin. I do not believe we have a black and white understanding of what is right and what is wrong under all circumstances. I agreed to the notion of gray. We develope definitions like murder to help us decide if the facts fit the definition which determine of the act was wrong. But nowhere, afaik, is murder considered anything other than wrong.

Was the Trojan practice of leaving less than perfect babies to die on hillsides moral becuase it was common?

[djetaine]

Originally Posted by xian

I do believe in moral absolutes. I do believe in a degree of universal morality and I believe it was of divine origin.

Was the Trojan practice of leaving less than perfect babies to die on hillsides moral becuase it was common?

In their view of morality it more than likely was.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by djetaine

In their view of morality it more than likely was.

I didn't ask what a Trojan thought. I asked what you thought. That's what I meant by being shy (chickenshit) of calling the wrong thing wrong. Its ok to say infanticide is wrong. No one is going to jump on your shit for being judgmental. And no, that was no attack on your character.

Back to moral absolutes. If it is wrong for you to leave your baby on a hill to die because it has an extra toe... it is wrong for Priam to do so.

[Sindell357]

you ravers need to quit talkin philosophy and get to eatin more pills

Originally Posted by xian

I didn't ask what a Trojan thought. I asked what you thought. That's what I meant by being shy (chickenshit) of calling the wrong thing wrong. Its ok to say infanticide is wrong. No one is going to jump on your shit for being judgmental. And no, that was no attack on your character.

I'm not afraid to say that there are things I consider to be absolute wrongs 100% of the time for everyone. My absolute wrongs may be entirely different than someone who lived 1000 years ago or may live 1000 years from now. In biblical times, I would've been stoned to death for having children outside of wedlock. In parts of the world even today, I'd be stoned to death for having children outside of wedlock. I would consider it murder, but they would consider it their religious duty. There are very few absolutes in the universe, and none of them have anything to do with human behavior.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by TragicallyUnhip

I'm not afraid to say that there are things I consider to be absolute wrongs 100% of the time for everyone. My absolute wrongs may be entirely different than someone who lived 1000 years ago or may live 1000 years from now. There are very few absolutes in the universe, and none of them have anything to do with human behavior.

ok - you're a moral relativist... sometimes


I'm not remotely suggesting that some pure consensus exists... I'm saying we have the tools to decide. I'm saying that if an act is wrong for Peter it is wrong for Paul. Deciding what's right and wrong is the challenge... some situations are simple and others not. On that last part... we can agree.... yes?

[BrandonWhat]

Originally Posted by xian

Well, they math has been done and the argument would fail. But lets say the numbers are equal... it would have taken Christianity 2000 years to do what those cats I named did in 75.

World populations at the times of each course of genocide would have to be taken into account as well, not to mention actual methods of killing.

[tautfest]

Originally Posted by djetaine

jesus christ of latter day saints

jesus christ of later day saints? what??

[PETA]

Originally Posted by BrandonWhat

World populations at the times of each course of genocide would have to be taken into account as well, not to mention actual methods of killing.

indeed... Stalin, Mao etc... very efficient at a wide variety of methods.

I'm not sure if the math included this (been a while since I read the article... no Audri I don't have a site ) but I think to take your point into account and really get apples to apples we'd maybe need a rate of population killed as opposed to just raw numbers.