choice.
on a similar note, are you for or against gay marriage?
[similar in that they are both political, and in a recent new york times magazine article many people linked these issues as the defining issues of their respective generations.]
while i don't quite agree that this is the most urgent issue of this time, i also support gay marriage.
choice. I really like the way Dems are starting to advertise- talking about how to reduce the number of women seeking abortions - something we can all agree is a good thing!
Not sure on gay marriage, for one reason. I'm either for gay marriage, or against states being involved in marriage altogether. I oscillate between the two views, depending on current mood (and relationship outlook).
choice.
i bought the summer issue of Ms. magazine last night based on a cover line that said "is birth control in jeopary?" which is even more frightening.
Cuts in international funding of womens health ($30M+), due to groups 'discussing choice', led to the closure of 12 womens health clinics in East Africa. all of which were the primary care facility in areas of high HIV/AIDS rates.
i guess the policy of stopping the right to choose works when your clients are dying or dead.
my mom used to tell me that I had no say in the issue because I am a male. I would tell her that it takes two to tango and having a child at the wrong time affects at least three lives. I believe in choice but do not want to be in the position where it has to be used.....
But I don't know that being an architect has anything to do with it. The architects I know tend to be left-leaning, but I'm sure we all know architects who are both for and against: choice, gay marriage, the war, school vouchers, teaching evolution etc. etc.
i am a survivor of abortion consideration. my ass was saved by my grandma talking them out of it. not everyone makes it.
but, how would i know all this and have an opinion if the plan was carried out? i am glad they decided against it and i wouldn't want my mom and dad to live with the memory of it if they would.
but in general,
with abortion restricted it becomes something like 'if you break it, its yours'.does anyone consider how many juvenile detention centers that would bring about? or how much that would add to the problematic population increase?
in a sense this debate about pro life or pro choice, is about one way of life against the other. a conservative religious society versus a society of modern world.
population control is really done with education. UN has spends a lot of money for it. abstainance is not realistic in todays world. unless they create a 'fuck police department' bigger than the army. pragnancy is easily preventible.love and sex is one of the great gifts of humanity.
abortion is emotionally difficult specially for women. so it is best pragnancy controlled at the point of entrance by the participants, thus prevention.
the catholic church's stance on birth control is having a hugely adverse affect all over the world. with the promotion and distribution of the extremely economic condom, there would be a big difference in abortion rates, the aids epidemic, poverty....
I'm adopted ,was adopted at birth, I think it changes ones perspective on things. I am not 100% against abortion per say and I do feel for those who have to make that very hard decision. late term abortions I have big problems with like when they have to disect the baby and take it out in bits post the stage where the mom feels the baby kickin' ect. especially as modern science progresses in the realm of what can be done for pre-mature babies it seems moraly wrong to me that a person can abort at 40 weeks say when pre-mature babies have now survived from 42 weeks. I can only see this debate getting more intense as science does.
population control? the planet isn't overpopulated theres just an unfair distrubution of wealth. The US could actually feed the whole of the world if farmed more intensivly ect. (just point in relation to land size of good agricultural land needed)
The planet being overpopulated or not depends on how you think people should live. If you dont mind everoyne living in poverty. than we probably stillhave some room. But if you think everyone should eat and live similar to middle american/european.. we dont have nearly enouhg planet to support everony here now.
At 20 weeks a baby is viable (outside of the womb).
At 6 weeks we can measure brain waves.
At 6 weeks a baby begins to move arms and legs.
At 3 weeks the heart begins to beat.
From a judicial precedent, we have decided that a woman only is entitled (w/n a specified time) to the initial choice whether you live or die. That's a pretty hefty burden if you ask me, and one that I am glad I'll never have to make. As Shalak addresses above, having a child of my own really put it in perspective, and I am so grateful for the opportunity given to me. I am also very stoked to be alive and glad my mom choose to keep me. I think abortion is done way to often as a matter of convenience… WAY TOO OFTEN.
choice, but only for circumstances around rape and incest and medical reasons. what i dislike is 14-15 year old girls who (oops) got pregnant and decided they would ruin thier lives if they keep it. and i know a few people that have been in that scenario. but then again, i have no idea what that is like. must be a difficult choice that haunts you forever.
by the way, i volunteer at a home where people come to stay when they adpot babies. there are many babies being adopted, on a weekly basis.
yeah i agree with strawbeary. the issue i believe is not based on an absolute basis. situations that deal with abortions based on raped girls and the risk of the mother having to die are totally justifiable but i believe that the majority of abortions do not come from these factors.
and keep in mind, a lot of women who go through the abortion process suffer a lot emotionally. . .it's very damaging.
im 100% all for abortion
as long as it is served with a side of
blanched white asparagus with a nappe of bernaise
and some crunchy duck fat fried purple potatoes
with a few grinds of fresh black pepper
and a glass of nice merlot...
...RESPONSIBILITY AND CONDOMS. Shooting the face never killed anyone.
I respect others change of hearts seeing their newborns, but that's shortsighted - it's YOUR newborn and you wanted it. How about the drug dealer's gf getting pregnant? Or the 13 year old? I just hate how so many (primarily those with strong religious beliefs) feel that they can see everything and understand everyone, that's just wrong.
I don't like it, but I also realize that many are not as fortunate, health wise, financial, etc., as us on here and could not raise a kid well. Personally, I respect those that chose not to bring a kid into this world because of some mistake or accident. To me, that's more selfish than just 'taking responsibility' for your actions.
Too many kids in this world and too many bad parents. Parents 'forced' to have a child will make bad choices and resent their lives, negatively influencing the child forever.
Abortions may leave scars, but it's only on one person and they, at least those that I know, moved on and chose to have children at the RIGHT time. Being forced to have a child leaves scars on everyone, particularly the child.
I experienced that overwhelming joy upon giving birth to my son. It is unbelievable, a miracle, for real. But not every woman (or girl) in every situation would find that experience to be a joy.
The childhood abuse statisitics in this state are overwhelming - something like a child a week DIES because of domestic abuse. I don't feel like I have the emotional energy to get into this conversation this morning, but in my soul I feel like a 3 year old who died at the hands of his mother/mother's boyfriend....well, maybe it would have been better for that poor child not to have lived 3 miserable pain and fear filled years on this earth in the first place.
My hands are shaking. I can't deal with this topic.
I have always leaned towards pro-life, mostly for the reasons shalak and others have stated. What troubles me is that like prohibition, making something illegal doesn't stop it, so I'm not necessarily for that change. I am optimistic since if nothing else, both sides can agree that we need to reduce abortions.
But the question is HOW do we reduce abortions? The people of Texas (or at least the people who are *running* Texas) seem to think it's by abstinance-only education, but somehow I doubt that's working.
My personal beliefs say that there is no place for sex-ed in schools, because that sort of thing should be taught at home. But I recognize that that's overly idealistic given many parents' tendencies to shy away from uncomfortable subjects, and would prefer that teens were being told something other than just, "no".
they shouldn't steph. i too, like hillary, would love to see a reduction in the number of abortions. i would say that any pro-choice person believes this. i know that this can not be done by just telling ppl not to do it. it's been proven over the years that this does not work. while i believe the final say is with the woman who is bearing a child of whether to abort or not, i also hope that men are part of the decision making process in a very healthy honest way.
I don't entirely support them, but the guys who wrote Freakonomics made this hypothesis:
"Perhaps the most dramatic effect of legalized abortion, and one that would take years to reveal itself, was its impact on crime.
"In the early 1990s, just as the first cohort of children born after Roe v. Wade was hitting its late teen years-the years during which young men enter their criminal prime-the rate of crime began to fall. What this cohort was missing, of course, were the children who stood the greatest chance of becoming criminals. And the crime rate continued to fall as an entire generation came of age minus the children whose mothers had not wanted to bring a child into the world. Legalized abortion led to less unwantedness; unwantedness leads to high crime; legalized abortion, therefore, led to less crime."
Well, if you boil it all down to money, it seems that it would be cheaper to have government funded abortions because it will cost American more with their tax dollars to support the children born who will be supported by welfare.
I think the issue of choice is pretty interesting: people say they should have the right to choose to or not to have a child AFTER conception. To me, it seems like you have already made the choice when you have intercourse. I am not trying to say people ought to not have sex to fix the problem, but every time you do, you run the risk of having a child-sex isn't just about the sex, but that is how humans reproduce as well..in case anyone forgot that little piece of information.
Gay marriage: It is my opinion that the American system is too hypocritical when it comes to this issue. States have banned it for centuries because they were started with religious implications. So as time has gone by, states have behaved secularly-it's not like everyone really agrees with this religious base that the law was founded on, but oh...when it becomes a hot topic then all the conservatives say that gay people shouldn't get married,like they have been following the religious code all along..I think that is pretty pathetic. My question is why people think it should be banned? Do these people really have such strong convictions about the sanctity of marriage, or is it just agenda trying to be pushed. If they sincerely do follow that religious code day in and day out, then at least they are being true and not being hypocritical.
I realize theism isn't the most popular thing within this forum; however, I am a theist, and worship Jehovah God. I believe he created man and woman to be one in marriage, and not man and man or woman and woman.
i see no benefit in legalizing gay marriage..
since there is no proof that sex orientation is determined by genetics, that means that its influenced by environment.
and since its influenced by environment, then legalization of marriage would increase the number of homosexuals dramatically.
i don't think there has been an honest discourse about the effects of homosexuality. i mean our society got this far because of protests and PR tricks..
i don't see it as a civil rights issue because of genetics vs. environment issue.
I see all kinds of proof that pasha is "gay". I wonder if pasha's gay obsession is genetic or environmental. I see no benefit in pasha's gay obsession, however.
wow i don't know how we went from abortion to linking a site that incinuates the homosexuals to cause the holocaust but this thread could turn ugly any second now.
Also mjh00c what about the other gods and deities?
I think that when government and religion are interwoven into a legal issue, it only causes trouble.
back on topic - I count abstinence as also a 'choice' but when you enforce it upon other nations (and cultures) and deny healthcare support then it is used as a bartering tool. The lives of others, especially from other countries, should not be used for political gain.
"i don't think there has been an honest discourse about the effects of homosexuality."
pasha, you are correct. you have been making claims of homosexuality's relations to promescuity and violence in the "gay architects" thread and have yet to back it up with any proof of this. maybe you'll choose to do so so here.
i agree the government shouldn't say how a woman should control her body. however, i think the question is when do you consider the beginning of life?
i think most people will agree its not the second a baby pops out of the wound or the umbilical cord is cut. some countries use to allow postnatal abortions (especially india to control dowry rights). i don't see a big difference, and its hard to argue in that case a woman is controlling her own body.
pasha, if you really want to discuss the issues you brought up here, go back to the appropriate board, "gay architects". We're all waiting with baited breath for your replies there.
actually if you wanted to look at sex and violence just turn your attention to dictatorial control.
idi amin advocated that all his troops should have sex once a day in order to keep them calm and stop any possible coup attempt (this is a proven method done by a number of dictators). and for an added bonus just look at what has happened in Darfur where the rape of internaly displaced women has been used to subjugate the fur tribe... or in South Africa where once in their lifetime 3 out of 5 women are raped... i could go on... but you get the picture
if i remember correctly the right that roe v. wade is largely based upon is the right to privacy.
and as far as homosexuality, sodomy, etc. that the ultra right is screaming about - the ones screaming the loudest have the most to hide.
Jun 21, 05 4:29 pm ·
·
And don't forget the rape of the Sabine women which began the great civilization of ancient Rome.
Abortion Policy?
Do most architects favor the banning of abortion? or are architects typically for freedom of choice?
choice
i favor choice ... i (hope) think most progressive architects agree. (also, i am a woman)
choice.
on a similar note, are you for or against gay marriage?
[similar in that they are both political, and in a recent new york times magazine article many people linked these issues as the defining issues of their respective generations.]
while i don't quite agree that this is the most urgent issue of this time, i also support gay marriage.
choice. I really like the way Dems are starting to advertise- talking about how to reduce the number of women seeking abortions - something we can all agree is a good thing!
Not sure on gay marriage, for one reason. I'm either for gay marriage, or against states being involved in marriage altogether. I oscillate between the two views, depending on current mood (and relationship outlook).
choice.
i bought the summer issue of Ms. magazine last night based on a cover line that said "is birth control in jeopary?" which is even more frightening.
choice
Choice.
Cuts in international funding of womens health ($30M+), due to groups 'discussing choice', led to the closure of 12 womens health clinics in East Africa. all of which were the primary care facility in areas of high HIV/AIDS rates.
i guess the policy of stopping the right to choose works when your clients are dying or dead.
choice.
cameron, that made me cry a little bit.
my mom used to tell me that I had no say in the issue because I am a male. I would tell her that it takes two to tango and having a child at the wrong time affects at least three lives. I believe in choice but do not want to be in the position where it has to be used.....
choice.
Choice, because compulsion is less desirable.
Choice.
But I don't know that being an architect has anything to do with it. The architects I know tend to be left-leaning, but I'm sure we all know architects who are both for and against: choice, gay marriage, the war, school vouchers, teaching evolution etc. etc.
stephanie, try being in a village when a mother begs you to take her child because she know's it will live if you take it.
- anger always trumps sadness.
choice, because I don't want to make decisions for other people...
choice
pro-life....better take cover
but don't make assumptions about wether i'm red or blue.... i hate bush, don't believe in religion, support gay marriage, pro birth control....
choice.
choose effective birth control or choose to abstain. better choices than abortion MOST of the time?
or let the baby choose? HE may choose abortion most of the time if he could see what his life will be like with Jo' Family.
i love what hilary clinton said once. . .
it doesn't matter whether you're pro life or pro choice. we need to decrease abortion.
i am a survivor of abortion consideration. my ass was saved by my grandma talking them out of it. not everyone makes it.
but, how would i know all this and have an opinion if the plan was carried out? i am glad they decided against it and i wouldn't want my mom and dad to live with the memory of it if they would.
but in general,
with abortion restricted it becomes something like 'if you break it, its yours'.does anyone consider how many juvenile detention centers that would bring about? or how much that would add to the problematic population increase?
in a sense this debate about pro life or pro choice, is about one way of life against the other. a conservative religious society versus a society of modern world.
population control is really done with education. UN has spends a lot of money for it. abstainance is not realistic in todays world. unless they create a 'fuck police department' bigger than the army. pragnancy is easily preventible.love and sex is one of the great gifts of humanity.
abortion is emotionally difficult specially for women. so it is best pragnancy controlled at the point of entrance by the participants, thus prevention.
yes. . .like abortion or not, prevention is what we all need to focus on.
but just because there is a population increase. . or a w/e there is out there. .
is it morally right to say that we can destroy life for the sake of population control?
the catholic church's stance on birth control is having a hugely adverse affect all over the world. with the promotion and distribution of the extremely economic condom, there would be a big difference in abortion rates, the aids epidemic, poverty....
....but they choose to judge instead.
I'm adopted ,was adopted at birth, I think it changes ones perspective on things. I am not 100% against abortion per say and I do feel for those who have to make that very hard decision. late term abortions I have big problems with like when they have to disect the baby and take it out in bits post the stage where the mom feels the baby kickin' ect. especially as modern science progresses in the realm of what can be done for pre-mature babies it seems moraly wrong to me that a person can abort at 40 weeks say when pre-mature babies have now survived from 42 weeks. I can only see this debate getting more intense as science does.
population control? the planet isn't overpopulated theres just an unfair distrubution of wealth. The US could actually feed the whole of the world if farmed more intensivly ect. (just point in relation to land size of good agricultural land needed)
http://www.live8live.com/
"because I don't want to make decisions for other people......-I'm an architect?!!!!!!
Fergie.
The planet being overpopulated or not depends on how you think people should live. If you dont mind everoyne living in poverty. than we probably stillhave some room. But if you think everyone should eat and live similar to middle american/european.. we dont have nearly enouhg planet to support everony here now.
At 20 weeks a baby is viable (outside of the womb).
At 6 weeks we can measure brain waves.
At 6 weeks a baby begins to move arms and legs.
At 3 weeks the heart begins to beat.
From a judicial precedent, we have decided that a woman only is entitled (w/n a specified time) to the initial choice whether you live or die. That's a pretty hefty burden if you ask me, and one that I am glad I'll never have to make. As Shalak addresses above, having a child of my own really put it in perspective, and I am so grateful for the opportunity given to me. I am also very stoked to be alive and glad my mom choose to keep me. I think abortion is done way to often as a matter of convenience… WAY TOO OFTEN.
life
i think abortion makes people hard.
and i believe it contributes to promiscuity in teens.
they don't know what it is, but they know its there.
fergie:
there is enough for every man's need, but not enough for one man's greed.
choice, but only for circumstances around rape and incest and medical reasons. what i dislike is 14-15 year old girls who (oops) got pregnant and decided they would ruin thier lives if they keep it. and i know a few people that have been in that scenario. but then again, i have no idea what that is like. must be a difficult choice that haunts you forever.
by the way, i volunteer at a home where people come to stay when they adpot babies. there are many babies being adopted, on a weekly basis.
this is a very sad thread.
yeah i agree with strawbeary. the issue i believe is not based on an absolute basis. situations that deal with abortions based on raped girls and the risk of the mother having to die are totally justifiable but i believe that the majority of abortions do not come from these factors.
and keep in mind, a lot of women who go through the abortion process suffer a lot emotionally. . .it's very damaging.
im 100% all for abortion
as long as it is served with a side of
blanched white asparagus with a nappe of bernaise
and some crunchy duck fat fried purple potatoes
with a few grinds of fresh black pepper
and a glass of nice merlot...
...RESPONSIBILITY AND CONDOMS. Shooting the face never killed anyone.
choice
I respect others change of hearts seeing their newborns, but that's shortsighted - it's YOUR newborn and you wanted it. How about the drug dealer's gf getting pregnant? Or the 13 year old? I just hate how so many (primarily those with strong religious beliefs) feel that they can see everything and understand everyone, that's just wrong.
I don't like it, but I also realize that many are not as fortunate, health wise, financial, etc., as us on here and could not raise a kid well. Personally, I respect those that chose not to bring a kid into this world because of some mistake or accident. To me, that's more selfish than just 'taking responsibility' for your actions.
Too many kids in this world and too many bad parents. Parents 'forced' to have a child will make bad choices and resent their lives, negatively influencing the child forever.
Abortions may leave scars, but it's only on one person and they, at least those that I know, moved on and chose to have children at the RIGHT time. Being forced to have a child leaves scars on everyone, particularly the child.
choice.
Much like the death penalty doesn't reduce crime rates, banning abortion doesn't reduce teen promiscuity.
Well stated, trace.
I experienced that overwhelming joy upon giving birth to my son. It is unbelievable, a miracle, for real. But not every woman (or girl) in every situation would find that experience to be a joy.
The childhood abuse statisitics in this state are overwhelming - something like a child a week DIES because of domestic abuse. I don't feel like I have the emotional energy to get into this conversation this morning, but in my soul I feel like a 3 year old who died at the hands of his mother/mother's boyfriend....well, maybe it would have been better for that poor child not to have lived 3 miserable pain and fear filled years on this earth in the first place.
My hands are shaking. I can't deal with this topic.
I have always leaned towards pro-life, mostly for the reasons shalak and others have stated. What troubles me is that like prohibition, making something illegal doesn't stop it, so I'm not necessarily for that change. I am optimistic since if nothing else, both sides can agree that we need to reduce abortions.
But the question is HOW do we reduce abortions? The people of Texas (or at least the people who are *running* Texas) seem to think it's by abstinance-only education, but somehow I doubt that's working.
My personal beliefs say that there is no place for sex-ed in schools, because that sort of thing should be taught at home. But I recognize that that's overly idealistic given many parents' tendencies to shy away from uncomfortable subjects, and would prefer that teens were being told something other than just, "no".
i think the question is
why should the government be able to control what i want to do with my body?
they shouldn't steph. i too, like hillary, would love to see a reduction in the number of abortions. i would say that any pro-choice person believes this. i know that this can not be done by just telling ppl not to do it. it's been proven over the years that this does not work. while i believe the final say is with the woman who is bearing a child of whether to abort or not, i also hope that men are part of the decision making process in a very healthy honest way.
Cameron - I guess it doesnt really take a village then after all.
I don't entirely support them, but the guys who wrote Freakonomics made this hypothesis:
"Perhaps the most dramatic effect of legalized abortion, and one that would take years to reveal itself, was its impact on crime.
"In the early 1990s, just as the first cohort of children born after Roe v. Wade was hitting its late teen years-the years during which young men enter their criminal prime-the rate of crime began to fall. What this cohort was missing, of course, were the children who stood the greatest chance of becoming criminals. And the crime rate continued to fall as an entire generation came of age minus the children whose mothers had not wanted to bring a child into the world. Legalized abortion led to less unwantedness; unwantedness leads to high crime; legalized abortion, therefore, led to less crime."
[url=http://www.freakonomics.com/ch4.php]http://www.freakonomics.com/ch4.php[url]
that's a slippery-slope fallacy if i ever saw one
Well, if you boil it all down to money, it seems that it would be cheaper to have government funded abortions because it will cost American more with their tax dollars to support the children born who will be supported by welfare.
I think the issue of choice is pretty interesting: people say they should have the right to choose to or not to have a child AFTER conception. To me, it seems like you have already made the choice when you have intercourse. I am not trying to say people ought to not have sex to fix the problem, but every time you do, you run the risk of having a child-sex isn't just about the sex, but that is how humans reproduce as well..in case anyone forgot that little piece of information.
Gay marriage: It is my opinion that the American system is too hypocritical when it comes to this issue. States have banned it for centuries because they were started with religious implications. So as time has gone by, states have behaved secularly-it's not like everyone really agrees with this religious base that the law was founded on, but oh...when it becomes a hot topic then all the conservatives say that gay people shouldn't get married,like they have been following the religious code all along..I think that is pretty pathetic. My question is why people think it should be banned? Do these people really have such strong convictions about the sanctity of marriage, or is it just agenda trying to be pushed. If they sincerely do follow that religious code day in and day out, then at least they are being true and not being hypocritical.
I realize theism isn't the most popular thing within this forum; however, I am a theist, and worship Jehovah God. I believe he created man and woman to be one in marriage, and not man and man or woman and woman.
i see no benefit in legalizing gay marriage..
since there is no proof that sex orientation is determined by genetics, that means that its influenced by environment.
and since its influenced by environment, then legalization of marriage would increase the number of homosexuals dramatically.
i don't think there has been an honest discourse about the effects of homosexuality. i mean our society got this far because of protests and PR tricks..
i don't see it as a civil rights issue because of genetics vs. environment issue.
i ran into this website yesterday.. really something to think about..
http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/lively.html
I see all kinds of proof that pasha is "gay". I wonder if pasha's gay obsession is genetic or environmental. I see no benefit in pasha's gay obsession, however.
Does this look real gay or what?
wow i don't know how we went from abortion to linking a site that incinuates the homosexuals to cause the holocaust but this thread could turn ugly any second now.
Also mjh00c what about the other gods and deities?
I think that when government and religion are interwoven into a legal issue, it only causes trouble.
back on topic - I count abstinence as also a 'choice' but when you enforce it upon other nations (and cultures) and deny healthcare support then it is used as a bartering tool. The lives of others, especially from other countries, should not be used for political gain.
"i don't think there has been an honest discourse about the effects of homosexuality."
pasha, you are correct. you have been making claims of homosexuality's relations to promescuity and violence in the "gay architects" thread and have yet to back it up with any proof of this. maybe you'll choose to do so so here.
i agree the government shouldn't say how a woman should control her body. however, i think the question is when do you consider the beginning of life?
i think most people will agree its not the second a baby pops out of the wound or the umbilical cord is cut. some countries use to allow postnatal abortions (especially india to control dowry rights). i don't see a big difference, and its hard to argue in that case a woman is controlling her own body.
pasha, if you really want to discuss the issues you brought up here, go back to the appropriate board, "gay architects". We're all waiting with baited breath for your replies there.
actually if you wanted to look at sex and violence just turn your attention to dictatorial control.
idi amin advocated that all his troops should have sex once a day in order to keep them calm and stop any possible coup attempt (this is a proven method done by a number of dictators). and for an added bonus just look at what has happened in Darfur where the rape of internaly displaced women has been used to subjugate the fur tribe... or in South Africa where once in their lifetime 3 out of 5 women are raped... i could go on... but you get the picture
if i remember correctly the right that roe v. wade is largely based upon is the right to privacy.
and as far as homosexuality, sodomy, etc. that the ultra right is screaming about - the ones screaming the loudest have the most to hide.
And don't forget the rape of the Sabine women which began the great civilization of ancient Rome.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.