It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ted Cruz says there is no ‘war on women’ because we don’t have a condom shortage

page: 8
15
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 06:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom

The way I see it, guys have two choices:

1. Keep their sperm and DNA to themselves, under their ownership

-or-

2. Let it go



I love this. Best answer ever.



Once it leaves your body, you no longer have any control over it. You can't will your sperm to do anything. it might be your DNA, but do you have "rights" associated to your hair clippings? (those contain your DNA too) What about all the skin cells shed?


Perfect!
edit on 1-12-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 06:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic




I find it some sort of amazing and hilarious that men keep discussing women's reproductive health care, like it's their business.


When women start having children through immaculate conception or without the need for male sperm, then i suppose you will have a leg to stand on

I find it frankly offensive that women believe that males who are also the biological parents of the offspring have no say in it what so ever.....

Militant feminism at work


The way I see it, guys have two choices:

1. Keep their sperm and DNA to themselves, under their ownership

-or-

2. Let it go

Once it leaves your body, you no longer have any control over it. You can't will your sperm to do anything. it might be your DNA, but do you have "rights" associated to your hair clippings? (those contain your DNA too) What about all the skin cells shed?

Just because your DNA becomes involved in a chemical process that eventually creates another human, doesn't mean you have to deal with it for 9 months. Your body doesn't actually physically change once you part with your sperm. A woman's does. Why should a man who spent (on average) less than 10 minutes with the woman have any say over how she spends the next 9 months of her life?


This is great.

Let it go indeed.

Arguing using a premise of a situation or situations that will very rarely actually happen is more than pointless.



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Not being a prude, but did anyone find it rather crude that Mr. Cruz referred to condoms as "rubbers"?

More than a little snide, dismissive and gutter-sniping of him, no? Not very Presidential.

Interestingly here, as in other discussions, it seems that some arguing for the man's "interest" (and by that I mean, as they do, literal ownership as in "it's my child") in a pregnancy is monetary. "Well, then, if the man has no say, he shouldn't have to support the child."

Whether that is true or not (there are arguments both ways) ... what is most striking is that the argument being made is so mercantile ... money, ownership, etc. with nothing said about interest in the actual human baby.

Fertilized egg = woman's body

Embryo = woman's body

Fetus (prior to viability) = woman's body

Fetus at viability = complex legal issue

Born human = a child that is the legal responsibility of both parents

This is not difficult to comprehend.
edit on 1-12-2015 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 06:21 PM
link   
If there was a "war on women" there would be a newborn baby shortage.



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I know right!!? "Rubbers"?

Your post, as per usual, is spot on.

"At Viability" is the line in the sand. If the baby could/can survive outside the womb, and is otherwise healthy, then it ought not to be "surgically dismembered". Even if the mother's life is in danger, if a Cesarean procedure can be done and both live - well, that is the obvious optimum choice.



edit on 12/1/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 06:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Gryphon66

IKR? "Rubbers"?

Your post, as per usual, is spot on.

"At Viability" is the line in the sand. If the baby could/can survive outside the womb, and is otherwise healthy, then it ought not to be "surgically dismembered". Even if the mother's life is in danger, if a Cesarean procedure can be done and both live - well, that is the obvious optimum choice.




As you know, I am personally against abortion, but unabashedly pro-choice.

I'm not sure how we can do much better than our current system, but as the technology changes, I do think that the legal definition of viability should be updated.

I know many women who have had abortions, and many who have chosen to have children.

I know of no one who was happy to have an abortion, but I do know several who are unhappy to have had children (they love their kids, but there are circumstances.)

When I see the anti-choice folks being real about supporting free birth control, sex education, single-mom social support, a better adoption and foster family scenario ...

... well, I don't expect aliens riding unicorns either.



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

I was speaking about that part about the separation of church and state..... ya know that one that kind of says that the gov't can't infringe on our religious rights but ALSO can't exalt any one religious belief legally above any other. and it does seem that the ones trying to hardest to weaken that are among the christian right! and if you have ever listened to cruz's father well, it seems like he thinks it should be weakened also.... in favor of their own beliefs of course...



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


I'm not sure how we can do much better than our current system, but as the technology changes, I do think that the legal definition of viability should be updated.

Exactly. If the fetus/baby can be saved via medical tech and intervention, then that would be the best-practice choice.

I have relatives who gave birth to preemies. I also worked in a NICU/maternity ward for several months.

A baby who may not be "wanted" by his or her parents can be given up for adoption - surrendered at any fire station, or hospital, or police department, etc - there is no excuse for ending the child's life.



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Humans are procreation machines -- nature has finely tuned us over hundreds of thousands of years to be extremely efficient at producing as many kids as possible.

The problem?

We don't live as nomadic hunter gatherers anymore. Most of us don't even live on farms anymore, where extra kids were just more free labor.

We don't NEED more kids, yet your biology and everything that makes us "US" is telling us to mate. Our hormones control us like a powerfully addictive drug, causing us to see out the opposite sex tirelessly.

Biologically this is how we are programmed, but we no longer need that programming -- the Earth has enough people.

We've outgrown our programming, and the only way around it is to "trick" biology with things like birth control.

Honestly, I actually know quite a few guys would would get a shot once every few years to keep from getting a woman pregnant. I know I would.

"I can't even get him to take out the trash, let alone wear a condom! What makes you think he'll get a shot every few years?!"

Spending 15 minutes at a doctor's office vs. 18 years of child support is why. There's a reason fewer people my age are getting married and having kids, ITS EXPENSIVE! The cost/reward ratio just isn't there in today's American society!
edit on 1-12-2015 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 08:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs

A baby who may not be "wanted" by his or her parents can be given up for adoption - surrendered at any fire station, or hospital, or police department, etc - there is no excuse for ending the child's life.




I agree also about ending of life but then we get into an area we do not want to be.

The area of choice and your body and the mob dictating both of them, do we really want this?

I am pro life but also think people should have freedom of choice about what they want to do or do with their body.

I, for one do not want to live in a world where that is gone.

Think of it this way, your body, your choices and that they are gone because someone does not agree with your choices or agree with a modification you have done to your body(tattoo, piercing, plastic surgery or something drastic), do you want that?


edit on 1-12-2015 by theonenonlyone because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 06:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Well I did say that the research looks promising. I didn't completely write the idea off. I'm going to wait and see on this.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 06:57 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

you would expect that cruz would appoint like minded people as his state campaign co-chairs wouldn't you? I mean I would!!
well he has appointed Cynthia Dunbar as one of his virginia state co-chairs...




Among other far-right views, Dunbar says she opposes the separation of church and state since she believes the founders wanted the government to promote religion. After leaving the school board, Dunbar admitted that she tried to shape the state’s curriculum in order to cure America of being a “biblically illiterate society” by teaching “the ‘laws of nature’s God’ revealed through the Holy Scripture.”

That came as no surprise, as Dunbar once led the board in praying for “a Christian land governed by Christian principles” and asserting that the Bill of Rights came straight out of the Bible. She similarly told a Washington, D.C., prayer rally that schools cannot instruct in an environment “devoid of the presence of the most high God,” praying for God to “invade our schools.” In a speech in favor of a sweeping anti-abortion bill, Dunbar asserted that lawmakers “don’t have the freedom to make any laws if they are contrary to what God has said in his Holy Scripture.”

Dunbar believes that the U.S. was designed to have “an emphatically Christian government” and must have a “biblical litmus test” for public officials, saying that they must have “sincere knowledge and appreciation for the Word of God in order to rightly govern.”

www.rightwingwatch.org...


so well, I could assume that while ted cruz demonizes ISIS and I've seen all these, at the least, suggestions that if we don't do something we will all be living under sharia law, well, he is all for weakening that one little item that would keep any type, christian or islamic law system from being instituted in the US!



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 07:40 AM
link   
Whenever Ted Cruz opens his mouth, I must frantically and hastily cover my ears, lest I die from cerebral haemorrhaging.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 07:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Me too.

He's on a total roll this week. The topic of this thread's just the tip of the iceberg.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

"It was as if a millions of brain cells cried out in pain, and then were silent."

Mind giving a few examples? While it may inevitably make me want to snap my hardwood desk in half using nothing but my forehead and repetitive blunt force trauma, it is good to stay aware of what politicians are saying. If only so you can warn others of their utter stupidity and/or insanity.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
The war on women is indeed fabricated from the left

Especially if you look at the Obama administration and many democrats in power and how they pay their women less then their men...

Its a proven fact...

This whole thing is made up to try and once again cause a divide and curry up decent....

Its ridiculous.....

There is no shortage of Birth control that is a fact, and there are thousands upon thousands of places that offer a multitude of contraceptives...

Ridiculous


Exactly



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

At the end if the day it is the womans final choice unless you plan to tie her up for nine months and force her to carry it.
The law also agrees with me.
edit on 2-12-2015 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Folks, abortion is one hundred percent LEGAL, and all of this crap about defunding, limiting, etc going on within the rapidly deteriorating GOP is nothing more than obstruction to the legal procurement of abortion, to the point that they repeatedly target Planned Parenthood and ALL of their needed services.

All Cruz does with his stupid statements is pander to the Republican base because he's too stupid to learn from the mistakes of candidates past. Way to rile up those who already support you! Good luck getting that rhetoric to translate well with the moderate voters you will need to actually win anything.

This is my favorite part of an election year. 2016 should be outstandingly full of GOP candidates making ludicrous and offensive statements regarding women, rape, women, minorities, etc. If 2012 holds form, it will be a laugh fest.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 12:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
There's a reason fewer people my age are getting married and having kids, ITS EXPENSIVE! The cost/reward ratio just isn't there in today's American society!


I'm learning its happening World Wide. Any place women can stand up for themselves without being killed.

Its become a "problem" in China because of the predominately male culture and shortage of women. Chinese women are choosing education and career.

In Africa women are creating women only villages. They've found ways to support themselves and I think the government now subsidizes some of them.

Women need to empower women.

Its very sad that so many "women in religion" still believe they are supposed to be subservient to men.

Men like Cruz just need to go away.




edit on 2-12-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join