I was unable to be in class this week, but I would like to share my thoughts on the article that we read on the 2 to 1 abortions. I have always been, and still remain, a staunch advocate for a woman’s right to choose. It is her body, not that man’s, and she should have every single right to decide exactly what and when things happen to her body. No questions asked. I have spoken to congress on behalf of this right, and am more than happy to share my knowledge with others when the topic of abortion comes up in conversation. And yet, I found that I really struggled with this article. To be honest, I don’t know what made me more uncomfortable –the article or my discomfort with the article. I truly believe that as women, we have every right to choose, so why should this differ when a woman is choosing to have one baby or two or none? The answer, is I’m not sure. I should put in a warning here, this post will not have a definitive answer from me, but merely the beginnings of what I am sure will be a lifelong conversation with myself. Why does it bother me? I guess I feel as though either you should have a baby, or not have a baby. But to have half of the pregnancy, that is more difficult for me. I can understand the rational behind it, if you have enough money to have a child, that doesn’t mean that you necessarily have the means to have twins. If you have 2 children already, and you don’t think you have the time to devote yourself to 4 kids, you do to 3, I can understand it.

I would hope that the Friday forum would result in a better understanding of how to appreciate class differences on campus and how to be respectful of them. Despite anyone’s background we can still learn from one another and build really strong relationships and I think by understanding where someone comes from helps strengthen that relationship. I would also hope that the participants In addition, just acknowledging the fact that we are all facing life and life can really suck sometimes.

For some reason, the following link about gender scandals in the Olympics popped up in my facebook feed yesterday.  The link is over 2 years old, and I suspect that the poster put it up because they like getting reactions.  While I didn't react on FB, I did click through both this story and the ones which were connected to it.  

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/t, he-10-most-shocking-olympic-gender-scandals

In the above article, I thought it was interesting that the commentary offered by the author upholds the idea that sex organs and gender are the same thing.  However, I found the following article that was in one of the click through links more interesting in terms of offensiveness.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/explorer25/10-things-you-didnt-know-about-hermaphrodites-172z

Aside from the fact that the article confuses intersex with being a hermaphrodite, I can't believe that the first example given is a fictional space villian, and that the rest of the article places a lot of focus on inanimate objects.  This raises some questions for me about the common public perseption of intersex, as well as what is considered "normal".  I'm wondering what my classmates think about pop articles like this one, in terms of people's awareness.  I know the article is only meant to entertain, but is it damaging?

We all receive emails about those with wealth donating money and starting charities. Call me a cynic but how many of these actions are motivated by guilt? The wealthy have more money than those below the poverty line obviously and our human empathy makes us want to help. However, to what extent? We all take pride in our possesions and as Adam Sandler's character in Just Go With It said, " Rich people don't stay rich by giving it all away." Again I ask how much of the charity in the world is motivated by guilt?

Syracuse's Slide and Syracuse, Selectivity, and ‘Old Measures' are just two in a series of fascinating, relevant articles recently published in The Chronicle of Higher Education, which describe how Syracuse University has sought to provide more opportunities for the town of Syracuse and for disadvantaged students--and as a result is falling in the U.S. News & World Report rankings of national universities: "Behold the power of the P word. The more applicants a college rejects, the more prestigious a college must be...how long can the citizens of academe go on thinking this way?"

And while I'm here, a coupla' more relevant pieces:
Are elite colleges worth it?  (by Pamela Haag in The Chronicle Review, 10/30/11: "The pleasures of rarity chafe against the democratic soul....") and Are Elite Colleges Worth It? Cornell economics professor weighs the value of higher education (by Joseph Murtaugh, Ithaca Times, February 23, 2011).

Another example of drawing the line between "natural" and "artificial" that lgleysteen describes below?

Women's University to Reconsider Hard Line on Transgender Students. The Chronicle of Higher Education. October 28, 2011.

In class we discussed sex-selection and on some of the posters the idea of natural versus artificial was written down.  Many people consider IVF and sex-selection and unnatural process that tampers with the biological equilibrium.  IVF pregnancies are considered “artificial”.  I am curious when the line between natural and artificial was initially drawn.  Since everything that humans make, comes from nature in the first place, when does an object or an action pass over from natural to unnatural or artificial? How were these distinctions created and why do they have such an enormous impact on the ethical decisions our society makes? 

I believe that part of the reason this happens is because with new technologies and modern science, humans feel a dominance over nature.  Nature is something that people are a part of, but something that people feel they like they own.  The more detached from technology, the more natural and the more complex and creative the object, the more artificial it becomes.