The Ultimate Gift Certificate ? OMG

[graylocks]

Acer wrote:
Inform me about this aspect: Bill Clinton once said "Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare." We have the legal part covered, and the safe part, and, thanks to vouchers, we can even make them affordable, but what is being done to make them rare?

i think there is a fair amount of public service education happening that addresses unwanted pregnancies and safer sex. the rare part comes from making sure people, especially teenagers, understand the possible ramifications of their choices.

[vision63]

Hi Acer. Bill Clinton isn't the definition of what's relevant regarding a woman's reproductive rights.

You want rare? Then prepare to help girls and women to not be defined primarily by their reproductive capabilities and the perceived power derived from that. Help them to grasp ahold of their own fates and not be subservient to the male engineered concepts of girlhood and womanhood. They should never have to see a Verizon commercial where the mother is serving the husband and the kids while they lounge at the dinner table and we're to assume that she was at home all day long and he was out toiling, when in reality they both likely worked an entire day, yet it was her job to in addition prepare and serve the meal while he and the kids argued over cell phones.

Prepare to teach boys and men that girls and women don't exist solely to provide erotic services, a sparkling home, ensure that their lineage is extended, tend to them when sick, all with a smile and twitch of their tail-feathers.

We live in a culture where a man is supposed to "show" that he can sustain a family before he can become eligible for mate consideration, but a woman is eligible is she makes fries at McDonalds. It perpetuates the concept that men are in the power position and that women live to serve that power instead of their own.

Too many women have babies simply to "ensure" that their men stay around (which never works). Too many men perpetuate a woman's insecurity through manipulation and selfishness. Sometimes by cherry-picking scripture that favors subservience and obedience. I've seen it all.

You have to go into affected communities to help girls understand their power. That the good tidings of the world is there for them too, not just the people they see on Tv. Nearly every kid I deal with think that college is impossible to get into. Because every news story talks about how much it costs and how competitive it is. They think it's not for them. They'll go to some TV Commercial school and end up with a giant student loan bill and no job. One girl was telling me how much Stanford costs and how only a few people can get into there. When I told her that Cal State East Bay doesn't have enough students and that it only costs a couple of thousand a year (if she lives at home) she didn't believe me. I took her there and introduced her to an admissions person.

These girls sometimes get pregnant and think that the boy is going to be there all the way. Oftentimes, it's the last time they see him. Then they look at their lives. Teens these days actually have fewer abortions than the previous generation did per capita (I've been told). They're getting it. Now only if men would.

[mattkime]

vision - the much simpler (but in no way easier) method is for the children to have father figures.

(hand thanksgiving dinner with someone that works with at risk children.)

[vision63]

mattkime wrote:
vision - the much simpler (but in no way easier) method is for the children to have father figures.

(hand thanksgiving dinner with someone that works with at risk children.)

Then be prepared to help boys understand that life is a full-on journey and not a moment to moment series of satisfactions. Help them to grasp the totality of their existences and that every action they take has consequence, good, indifferent or bad. Help them to understand that we "need" them to be productive parts of our whole, because we want them to add to the dialog.

You can't just sit there and expect them to just "get it" at some magical point. We have to teach them that their lives are important and the actions that affect their lives means something to us too. We have to care enough to show them that their ill behavior "disappoints" us and that we're concerned how it affects their lives. But you have to earn that respect by either being a part of their lives or supporting those that endeavor to be their big brothers and help guide them. That's how you create responsible fathers.

[mattkime]

vision - thats nowhere in the No Child Left Behind test!

[kj]

>>>In both cases, if I don't "get" something, or if I think "that sure sounds odd to me!"...it's just my head, not the world, that's of limited experience.

Don't imply I have limited experience. You have no idea. kj.

[kanesa]

vision63 wrote:
Hi Acer. Bill Clinton isn't the definition of what's relevant regarding a woman's reproductive rights.

You want rare? Then prepare to help girls and women to not be defined primarily by their reproductive capabilities and the perceived power derived from that. Help them to grasp ahold of their own fates and not be subservient to the male engineered concepts of girlhood and womanhood. They should never have to see a Verizon commercial where the mother is serving the husband and the kids while they lounge at the dinner table and we're to assume that she was at home all day long and he was out toiling, when in reality they both likely worked an entire day, yet it was her job to in addition prepare and serve the meal while he and the kids argued over cell phones.

Prepare to teach boys and men that girls and women don't exist solely to provide erotic services, a sparkling home, ensure that their lineage is extended, tend to them when sick, all with a smile and twitch of their tail-feathers.

We live in a culture where a man is supposed to "show" that he can sustain a family before he can become eligible for mate consideration, but a woman is eligible is she makes fries at McDonalds. It perpetuates the concept that men are in the power position and that women live to serve that power instead of their own.

Too many women have babies simply to "ensure" that their men stay around (which never works). Too many men perpetuate a woman's insecurity through manipulation and selfishness. Sometimes by cherry-picking scripture that favors subservience and obedience. I've seen it all.

.

Wow, I am truly impressed.

I wish I had time to express more but I have to go to work.

I just want all of you to think about your Thanksgiving dinners because I think it shows how little our culture has changed despite the Woman's Movement. Who cooked, served, and cleaned up after the meal in your house? The only difference in most cases from the 1950's and now is that the woman probably had to get up on Friday and go to work.

Abortions will become rare when you teach personal responsibility to both sexes about birth control.

[Mike Sellers]

Acer wrote:
Inform me about this aspect: Bill Clinton once said "Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare." We have the legal part covered, and the safe part, and, thanks to vouchers, we can even make them affordable, but what is being done to make them rare?

Maybe if more of the people who claim to oppose abortion would offer to adopt unwanted children. "Pro-life" shouldn't stop the minute a child emerges from the womb.

[Ted King]

Black Landlord wrote:
[quote=Ted King]

Here is an AP story where they say the vouchers could be used for abortions:

http://www.newsday.com/business/nationwo...3112.story

It's not clear in the article to whom that statement is attributed.
I wrote for clarification but I'll bet they're being bombarded.
I thought about that same thing but decided that it was a reasonable inference that they could be used for an abortion from the quoted response that follows the line after the statement that vouchers could be used for an abortion: "The vouchers could be applied to the cost of an abortion. "I certainly don't think anyone would consider giving it for that purpose," spokeswoman Kate Shepherd said." Why would she say that she didn't think anyone would consider using it for that purpose unless they could be used for that purpose. Seems like if they couldn't be used for that then she would much more likely have just said something like, "They can't be used for that purpose."

Here's another article that comes much closer to making the point explicity - this is actually the first one I read about it initially but I couldn't remember which Google hit it was when I came back to researching so I missed it when I wrote the post you quoted:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008...-vouchers/

"Ms. Cockrum said that while the certificates may be redeemed for abortions, 'I can't imagine that could happen.'"

There's still some wiggle room for interpretation, but my guess is that the vouchers are good for any of the services provided although when they were setting up the program I don't think they envisioned anybody would actually buy and give a voucher as a Christmas present specifically for a woman to use it for an abortion.

[Greg the dogsitter]

kj wrote:
>>>In both cases, if I don't "get" something, or if I think "that sure sounds odd to me!"...it's just my head, not the world, that's of limited experience.

Don't imply I have limited experience. You have no idea. kj.

I wasn't even thinking about you...swear-to-God.