Friday, November 7, 2008
Midterm Exam
Choose a subject that we have discussed during the term so far and create a project inspired by that topic. It is open to any media. Please write a short explanation of the project and what inspired you. Include a title and description of your project and submit here for presentations at the beginning of class Friday November 14.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
This is an interpretation of the cage using social stereotypes of a particular group.
the ego is reflected in the expression I HAVE it means possesion, control, security, passion, loneliness, envy, power pity and avarice. we keep thinking that being happy is just feed our ego and give it what it wants we focus too much on material things and not in giving and reciving what we really need like love, compassion confidence and if we keep on feeding our ego we will never know what true happinnes is.
We will just have things that make us happy for a period of time but we get tired of the same thing and we want more and more never content with ourselves and with what we have
the movie revolver comes to mind where people fight with their own ego. to evolve and see that the real problem is them
Midterm Essay~
America’s Moral Anxiety
I find it astonishing at how crazy the abortion issue is to American political life. A candidate’s position on abortion will often come to define his or her candidacy. I do not believe this happens anywhere else in the world.
It was up until the late nineteenth century in the United States that abortion was actually unregulated and not an object of serious social concern. It was not forbidden by law or recognized as legal. At the present moment, abortion rights supporters in the United States are deeply concerned about the future of legal abortion.
We draw a distinction between moral and social issues and political issues in American politics. It can be is helpful, but I do not think it makes any sense sometimes. We can talk about whether abortion is morally wrong and I believe that most would agree it probably is. However I think that the government should not be legislating morality on the issue of abortion. Political power is to protect property including life from being taken by others. The question should be whether or not life inside the womb is worthy of protection, is a person? If it is, then protecting it is the job of government, and whether to protect it is not a moral issue. If it is not, then protecting it is an invasion of the woman’s privacy and a legislation of morality.
Reference:
http://nsrc.sfsu.edu/MagArticle .cfm?Article=447
~Krystal
Ian Tracy Midterm:
Rachel if you want to read this out loud, I don't mind.
Tough calls.
As a member of the human race we all have to make them, sometimes every day. They rack our brains and try our patience. After much stress and turmoil we end in a resolution. Hopefully we make a good call and reap the benefits of superb judgment. Unfortunately that is not always the case. Every now and again our judgment skips a beat hits off target. But we learn from these mistakes and persevere. Thankfully we have benefited from many ancient wisdoms and attitudes. Greece gave us philosophy, Rome out government and our founding fathers perfected it. With these and other historical developments we can count ourselves blessed as a people since their combined efforts forged the Constitution of the United States of America. The Constitution used properly can dispatch justice with the greatest of ease. But that’s its one flaw, man. We have to use it. The best we can hope for is to have appointed the appropriate people to determine the right course of action using it as their divining rod. But Divine intervention through man is often enough the one true enemy of justice.
Along with the many ancient worlds wisdom, comes all of its people. Each and every one of them bring different cultural elements to the table. Not all of us have the same beliefs, nor share the same religion. But we all carry the same faith. Faith in a system of government. Mr. Justice Holmes of the Supreme Court said it best in the ruling of Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45, 76 (1905): "[The Constitution] is made for people of fundamentally differing views, and the accident of our finding certain opinions natural and familiar or novel and even shocking ought not to conclude our judgment upon the question whether statutes embodying them conflict with the Constitution of the United States." (Roe v. Wade January 22, 1973 – found on www.tourolaw.edu/Patch/Roe/, 2008). “People of fundamentally differing views.” That means that no one view should cloud the Constitution. Religious influence has such a broad effect throughout our government. But in the case of Roe v. Wade, it didn’t hold its punch.
We can thank the idea of separation of church and state for this bit of wisdom. Our forefathers saw firsthand the idea of religious persecution. England’s and much of Europe’s government took it upon themselves to enforce, mandate and promote specific religious beliefs. If your disagreed with them then you were arrested and put on trial, it was the law. They wanted to be free to express their own religions and for others to do the same, even if it disagreed with their own. The First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...” (www.about.com, 2008).” This means that the government shall be separate from any and all religions doctrines. That way neither can be harmed by the influence of the other. I often hear that the schools are bad because God isn’t welcome there anymore. If we bring God back to the schools will the myriad of cultures filling them. Do we bring back one God or all of them? Will their presence make things better? Who knows? What I do know is history has proven that religion with too much power and presence has caused more harm than good. How many wars have been started, atrocities committed in the name of God, Mohammed, Sheba, or any other deity? Countless, that’s how many. If it isn’t money it’s God. So keeping these two entities separate can only be a good thing.
Some would say that since “In God We Trust” is our national motto that this is a Christian nation. It would be wise to recall that our original “E Pluribus Unim” meaning “from many, one” which was created by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson in 1776. A motto with a heavy secular tone if I do say so myself. This was frowned upon by many, and these many formed the National Reform Movement, similar to today’s Christian Coalition. They spread word that the Civil War was punishment from up on high for being dirty sinners. They even attempted to amend the Constitution so it and the government would be bound by Christianity. Failing there they eventually got several people into the government including one James Pollock in the position of the U.S. Mint director in 1861. It was his efforts that allowed his position to decide what was to be printed on money without the approval of Congress which then turned the motto on our currency to “In God We Trust”. Which Theodore Roosevelt said in a letter to William Brody that this “…not only does not good but does positive harm, and is in effect irreverence, which comes dangerously close to sacrilege…” (www.about.com, 2008) He felt it cheapened the motto by being associated with money.
This country is not based on religion but the separation of it in order to be honest and fair to all. With Christianity still entwined within our government we are lucky that anyone’s opinion but theirs gets heard. It definitely hasn’t over the last 8 years. Not to say those in power reflect all of the Christian or religious people out there. Unfortunately it only represents those who have been blessed with the faith of God and blinded by the power of government. I have no personal grudge with religion, I just don’t prescribe to it. Instead I find God on my own terms, and he finds me. But on social terms I find the Constitution. Which in the case of Roe v. Wade determined that in the early stages of pregnancy the cluster of cells growing in the mother’s womb is still part of the mother and not its own entity. Without its own brain waves and other bodily functions it is still an it, and not a him or her. After that time abortion is not allowed unless it is implicitly necessary to save the life of the mother. There is no fault to find here without bringing in religion. Since it’s presence in reference to the Constitution, the document the Supreme Court is governed by, that element should not be considered. This gives those out there who want it plenty of time to make a choice. If after that time you were unable to decide. That decision is no longer yours. Personally if I can have my own say on the subject I would always choose life. I want my child. As much as I believe that is the only true choice and the alternative is wrong, I don’t let that cloud my judgment. I have a sense of morality that will not let me make such a decision without other serious implications. But to do so with nothing but my own best interests in mind is way more of a selfish attribute than I can stomach. I am apathetic towards any woman who has made the choice to endure such pain, and I always hope that once is enough to cause them to never do it again. Unfortunately I know too many who have used it as a form of birth control to many times. Oh well, if my beliefs are right then they will have to answer for their actions. If theirs are right then no harm no foul. But judgment is for the Deities, not I. I am not so bold to think I am that wise.
RESOURCES:
http://www.tourolaw.edu/Patch/Roe/
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/cs/blcsm_gov_motto.htm
my piece focuses on the discussion about politics and civil rights. it shows obama and mlk using positive and negative space.
I am stunned to learn that abortion is such a controversial topic in the community, the church and within politics. My opinion on abortion is one-hundred and ten percent pro-choice. I feel that in certain circumstances a woman should be able to choose abortion if she does not want or can not provide for her unborn child. Based on my beliefs I created a poster image that supports pro-choice.
ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS:
Annually thousands of woman in the United States get abortions. Of these women they all have their own personal reasoning and I do not feel that it is up to the church or the government to be the determining factor on whether or not they have their child.
A precious, innocent new born child is truly a gift from god and deserves to be treated like so and should only be provided for. In the occurrence that a mother may feel like she can’t do so she should feel free to make her decision. In addition so many young girls get pregnant and loose all of their ambitions. Many don’t continue their education and end up on welfare as a single parent unable to provide for their self or their child. I feel that if a teenager gets pregnant and knows in her heart that she is unable to fulfill her goals she should be able to get her second chance without a child if she desires to do so.
I also feel that abortion is not a form of birth control and should be regulated a little better than it is now. I think it’s sick to know that some women have gone through more than eight abortions. I don’t feel that having that many abortions is moral or should be legal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDDzuZusuC4
First of all, let me start off by saying that I understand that pro-choice doesn’t necessarily mean pro-abortion.
First I want to talk about one of the biggest things people use to stand up for abortion. “Abortion is excusable in the case of rape.” But there is never a good reason to have an abortion. Rape and abortion are similar in the sense that they are both violent acts against an innocent person. Aborting a child that is the product of rape does not “un-rape” the woman. It will only increase her misery and regret. If an innocent person is shot, they still have to deal with the trauma and wounds. Another way to look at it is this: Say a woman is raped and is pregnant with her rapists baby. The woman is still alive after the rape. She decides to have an abortion. Then the rapist is caught. She looks at him and realizes “he didn’t kill me, I am still alive. But I killed my innocent baby.” She took a life, but he didn’t. Wouldn’t this only make a rape victim’s misery worse?
Another thing that pro-choice people rely on when debating about abortion is that women will do it anyways (so it should be legal so it’s easier for them) and that it will be less safe for them and that women will die. So if people will rob a bank anyways, we should make it legal? If people will murder other people anyways, we should make it legal. If kids will get kidnapped anyways, why not make it legal? Sure, lets make it legal so it will be safer for the bank robbers, murderers, and kidnappers to do what they do. Another point is that if abortions are made illegal, that doesn’t mean that all the technology used to perform abortions isn’t going to go ‘poof” and disappear and women go back to using wire hangers. 90% of all illegal abortions (before Roe Vs. Wade) were performed by physicians. In 1957 there were only 260 deaths in the whole country attributed to abortions of any kind. In New York City in 1921 there were 144 abortion deaths, In 1951 there were only 15. This is around the time that new advances in medicine were made, such as new antibiotics and chemotherapy. Fifteen women versus the millions of babies that are dying every year.
Other stands taken by pro-choice people such as the child will be unwanted, it will be too expensive to raise and it will grow up in poverty, the child has a disability so it will have a miserable life, the mother is addicted to drugs so the baby will be addicted also, we need to help control the population, the child will be abused, all these claims hold no truth. Should we kill all the “unwanted” children that have been born and are waiting to be adopted? What about homeless “unwanted” people? Should we kill them too? The same goes for impoverished children, children with disabilities, and children born into drug addictions. Should we kill all the ones that are already living in these circumstances? And if they are worried about overpopulation, statistics show that since 1980, the three years with the highest increase in population growth were 1990 (1.06%), 1991 (1.07%), and 1992 (1.13%). These are the same three years for which the U.S. abortion rate was the highest in the nation's history. So there is something else attributing to population growth. As for child abuse, this is the direct fault of abortion. It doesn't take much imagination to see how abortion on demand is changing the way society looks at children. If children are expendable before birth, it is only logical that they begin to be seen as expendable after birth.
The biggest, most obtuse argument is that life does not begin at conception. Its as simple as this: If its not a human being growing inside of you from the moment of conception, then YOU’RE NOT PREGNANT!
I leave you with a few things to think about:
“I’ve noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born.”
- Ronald Reagan
“A nation that kills it’s own children is a nation without hope.”
- Pope John Paul II
"What you do to the least of your brethren, you do unto Me."
- Jesus
For anybody that is wanting to learn more about abortion or resources for pregnant women considering abortion:
www.abort73.com
www.clinicworker.com
www.optionline.org
1-800-395-HELP
www.mercyministries.org
www.adoption.com
www.abortionalternatives.com
www.One of the sayings that i like most is "I know that i know not" which basically humbles your thought into the understanding that if you think that you know everything, you will never learn anything. Socrates would say "I know nothing" though not so much referring to intelligence but the understanding that the information that would lead you or me to eudamonia may be a complete different path for someone else to be lead to eudamonia or "complete happiness" or "success" [http://plato-dialogues.org/plato.htm]. In the search of virtue and "the good" the only way virtue can be learned is not through teaching, but through constant questioning. Virtue and morality must be found on ones own, and cannot be shown to any one. "Socrates holds that knowing what is right automatically results in the desire to do it, even though this feature of our moral experience could be doubted. " [http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/2f.htm#wrong] Though, i would like to dispute that. He states that doing evil is not out of will for bad, but because of ignorance of what true good is. I believe there are many people who know the difference between right and wrong and yet being compelled by an inner force still do what is evil.
Stephen McIntyre
Domestic partnership was a topic discussed in class, when disussed it struck a nerve. The thought of being able to love someone unconditionally and not be able to see them on their death bed or benifit from medical insurance due to the fact of not being married is wrong. It doesnt matter the sexuality or age of the people involved. It shouldnt matter if the vows have been said and the church has be involved to be in a relationship worthy of recognition by the government. Some people choose not to get married and that is their right and if they are in a committed relationship they should be able to have the benefits a married couple would have, especially in the gay community with so many restrictions against them actually getting married it seems that they are just trying to deny people the right to be happy with one another. I dont believe it is right for the government to restrict how people live their lives and who they choose to share their medical coverage with and such. The reasoning of keeping out loved ones in the hospital if they are not spouses or immediate family again I believe goes against the morals of people of every walk of life. This issue was one that stuck out with me especially during the election process of the country and our state.
For the Midterm, I've decided to rewrite my story that I told in class. And here it is:
Abortion isn't black and white like many people think. 10% of the women who get abortions get them due to their health or the health of the child (the other 90% is women who don't want the baby for financial/personal reasons, rape included).
Until a few months ago, I saw abortion as black and white, although I have always been pro-choice (give women a choice). I never really knew the meaning of being pro-choice until now. Being pro-choice in no way means "pro-abortion." 1) Pro-choicers are more for providing knowledge of birth control, and 2) Just because you are pro-choice doesn't mean you agree with abortion (you can always choose NOT to get one if you do get pregnant).
Back in mid-August, I discovered I was pregnant. Although my boyfriend (of three years) and I were using birth control, it just happened unexpectedly. He was for abortion from the start. I had told him a long time a go that if this situation occurred, because of our financial status and being in college, abortion would probably be our best choice since I would never be able to part with a child through adoption (being diabetic and going through a pregnancy for naught would be too stressful on my body and psyche).
Well, I changed my mind. I realized that I couldn't and would never get an abortion. Abortion is a cop-out and is NOT a form of birth control in my opinion. What happened happened for some reason and I was happy to be able to say "No, that isn't the path I choose." I fought to keep my unborn baby with all my strength and passion.
Then came my first ultrasound. Really cool, right? I get to see my baby for the first time, everything is going to be wonderful. I'm having a baby (and my family stood behind me and we were all excited)! I was very excited, but that excitement became a nightmare I will never forget. Something was wrong. The ultrasound tech wouldn't tell me what. She sat in silence, "searching" for something. She refused to answer my pleas, my screams of, "WHAT IS WRONG???" She made me get dressed and sit in an exam room alone while she went to talk to the doctor. Then the doctor came to talk to me. The words that will forever stick in my mind and still plague me today: "Your baby is incompatible with life." What? How? He never told me what was wrong except, "Your baby's brain isn't developing correctly. If you go through with this pregnancy, your baby will die during birth, and if not then, within a few hours, if not minutes afterward. And that is if the baby doesn't die in utero." He then asked if the pregnancy was planned and I said no. Then he asked if we had talked about abortion as a possibility. I said yes, we did, but I decided I didn't want to go that route. Then he asked if I was pro-life and I said no. That's when he CHUCKLED to himself about not having to persuade me that terminating was the best option. I was given two choices. Make the appointment for a D&C, or see a specialist.
Well, of course I chose to see the specialist. He would fix this. Nothing would be wrong. It was all a big mistake, right? This baby was VERY MUCH WANTED by everyone in my family and me! Two days later, I went to the specialist with my mother (who had flown down the day I called her after the last appointment just to be with me since I was in such a panic). Anencephaly. Go ahead and Google it. I did for many days. The doctor told me he was 99% positive. There is no hope for the baby. With my type 1 diabetes, they told me it would be way to risky, dangerous even, to continue the pregnancy for me and the baby, who would die in the end either way.
I was given the choice:
1) Make that heartbreaking choice. Have the D&C and save your baby from any suffering he might endure if he does happen to survive. Protect him while also protecting yourself and your well being. The baby WILL die... don't put yourself at risk too. OR
2) Keep the baby and carry to term. Put your life and health in jeopardy just to see your baby for a few moments, which may all be moments of suffering and struggle for him.
I would give my life for a moment to hold him. I love my little angel. But I refused to let my angel baby suffer. I did not want to bring them into a world of pain. I wanted him to know only my love and nothing more, nothing less. In the end, I didn't do it because of me or my health. I did it because I couldn't bear to have my baby suffer.
Some people call it abortion, termination even. I did NOT abort, NOR terminate my baby! I made a heartbreaking choice. One that I believe was right in the short time I was given. I still feel guilty at times, but knowing he wouldn't suffer helps to ease the pain just a little. During that time, I thought of no one else other than my baby. I still think about him all the time. But to think that I would not even have had the choice to protect my baby from pain and suffering would have been even more devastating. And what about the mother's health? What if her life is in jeopardy? What if these 10% were told that you have to carry your baby, just to watch it die? Personally, I would have been even more devastated if I had to carry the baby. People touching your belly, asking his name, what you have planned, when you are due... And all I would be able to think about is he is just going to die. That alone would probably drive some people crazy.
In the end, I made my heartbreaking choice on September 29th, 2008. I lost my baby and a part of me that day. I named my angel Gabriel Eric, and he is my guardian angel.
Currently, I am continuously working through the grief from this fresh wound. It has been a month and a half. I still freak out. I am seeing a psychiatrist because of it. I'm an emotional wreck. But don't EVER think that EVERYONE who has an abortion WANTS to get rid of their baby. Out of the 10% who did it out of medical reasons due to the baby having a fatal birth defect/illness or the mother's health, MOST of the pregnancies were planned. ALL WERE WANTED!
And now, I am a part of that 10%. Heartbroken mothers who had to make a heartbreaking choice. We are all the mothers of angels now. Forever loved and much wanted.
So next time you think about abortion, or anything for that matter, try to see all the gray areas. Because no issue is just black and white.
The issue discussed in class that I wish to write about is domestic partnership. I think that the world today is very concerned with language and 'politcally correct' ways of using them. So much so in fact that it creates problems in the very laws we try to pass. Some opinions on the way things are defined are so strong that they divide even the people on the same sides of issues. I believe this is especially true with the most recent admendment that attempted to pass this Nov. 4. Basically we either acknowledge a gay couple as 'married' or not at all was the general gist. The sad thing in my opinion is that the amendment did not pass. People would rather that same sex couples not be considered 'married' simply because of terminology in my opinion. Of course there are those who truly do believe that same sex relationships are not right at all and would vote against it but, there are some who don't care or don't mind, or truly belive that we are all free do have any kind of relationship we choose. As long as that relationship cannot be referred to as 'married.' In an evolved society that we claim to be, we should be able to move past trivial things like the definition of a word, in this case marriage. The simple fact in my opinion is that your religious beliefs should be kept to yourself and not forced upon anyone else. The word marriage is neutral, the only thing making it controversial is the religious beliefs of those who stand behind it.
-James Straub
Post a Comment