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.

 

Funny: Alyssa Milano Calls For Sex Strike

page: 8
36
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2019 @ 10:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: ketsuko

it's a federal law that bans it!!!
federal laws trump state laws!!!




Ummm. . . except for Sanctuary City/State laws.



And Gun bans.



But yeah, sure!

BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


And marijauna laws.




posted on May, 13 2019 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar

I think it was Gingrich and his merry band that put the shame in when they made sure that every kid in the country knew the alternative use of cigars by having it blasted daily over the airwaves.
Interesting thing being that one by one the speakers fell all for their own sexual misadventures. Three in all during the Clinton fiasco and a fourth took the gavel. That fourth man fell not that long ago and imprisioned for the most despicable of acts- sexual abuse of young boys.
Hmm. Maybe the wives of our politicians have been using this tactic all along trying to influence policies. And they aren't as capable as you think they are to cope since the result is that they blow themselves out of the political landscape.


There is a bar in Thailand called Lewinsky's and when you walked up to the bar a 6 foot picture of Monica in all her glory was there smoking a big cigar.

The biggest changes I have seen since Trump is that the left have developed some form or righteousness as they now yell... "Oh the shame" and in the recent past they were all sexual progressives. "The Righteous Left" just doesn't roll across the tongue very well though...



posted on May, 13 2019 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

If women could do this they already would have. The reason there IS birth control in the first place is because of women and their inability to control their own sexual desires...with the eventuality of accidentally having a child in the process. Good luck with your self control. LOL



posted on May, 13 2019 @ 11:52 AM
link   
After eight pages of posts and we are still at the point of determining when is it acceptable or unacceptable to abort. The heartbeat bill puts it at roughly 6 weeks where NY's new law allows for abortion to happen up to the birthday. Personally I'm not against abortions but I do think there should be a limit unless the Mother's health or some other unusual situation is driving the choice. When women use abortion as a form of birth control while nothing else is ever used or it is pushed as a first choice due to the greater profits it generates for abortion clinics will all erode society over time as to a value we put on life in general. Many parts of the world life has little value and I don't want us to fall back into that view.


edit on 13-5-2019 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2019 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: IlluminatiTechnician

Sanger started her first clinic long before husbands lost their right to rape their unwilling wives and women were lined up outside of the place to learn about the primitive methods of the time to prevent births. And the more wealthy class were taking trips to France where it was legal to buy products that were developed for that purpose.
That was before wives were protected legally from spousal rape. Before women had anything close to parity in the job market or wages. Before most of them could even hold a bank account in their name. Before separation and divorce came with welfare or enforced child support.
So tell me again how the only reason birth control was needed was because women couldn't keep their legs crossed because it seems to me men did everything they could to put women in a position where saying no (to anything really) had a good chance of leading to a life much more unpleasant for her and her kids.
Heck even the danged religious doctrine being taught at the time was geared to strip her of any power



posted on May, 13 2019 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

But the NY law doesn't allow for "abortion up to the time of birth" unless those circumstances you mention is met.
Special circumstances like rape or incest. Non-viable fetuses that aren't gonna be able to survive outside of the womb. And when there is a great risk to the women life or health.
I can only assume that you object to the rape or incest cases and think that 11year old kids should be forced to have kids.

To me what we have laid out in row seems to be about right. Legal up to the point of viability (according to when a normal healthy fetus can survive outside of the womb) with exceptions made if certain conditions are met after that point.
You cannot prove weather a person did or didn't use birth control and I think you want to just assume that since she is pregnant she must not have. Don't believe it can be legislated fairly.



posted on May, 13 2019 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: IlluminatiTechnician

Sanger started her first clinic long before husbands lost their right to rape their unwilling wives and women were lined up outside of the place to learn about the primitive methods of the time to prevent births. And the more wealthy class were taking trips to France where it was legal to buy products that were developed for that purpose.
That was before wives were protected legally from spousal rape. Before women had anything close to parity in the job market or wages. Before most of them could even hold a bank account in their name. Before separation and divorce came with welfare or enforced child support.
So tell me again how the only reason birth control was needed was because women couldn't keep their legs crossed because it seems to me men did everything they could to put women in a position where saying no (to anything really) had a good chance of leading to a life much more unpleasant for her and her kids.
Heck even the danged religious doctrine being taught at the time was geared to strip her of any power


Yes, this is true, but in today's world women have way more options. Don't you think that as a more modern civilized equal society, we should make adjustments to taper back the need for abortions?

I do believe that in today's world there are so many other options of birth control that abortion should not be considered an acceptable option by our society. It should be discouraged.



posted on May, 13 2019 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: infolurker

Imagine the sound of all the REEEE!! When those progressive girl’s boyfriends cheat on them with maga hat wearing, bible toting, gun nuts.

On a personal note, i’m not sure how i feel about a world where Alyssa Milano stops having sex, i mean, if anything is going to set this planet straight again, it probably will have something to do with Alyssa Milano having sex right?


but i guess now we know who’s the BOSS.


I guess now we know who is the BOSS of their own body.



posted on May, 13 2019 @ 01:13 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar




That was before wives were protected legally from spousal rape.

Have you been to the middle east?
Spoken to any muslim women?
I think they would disagree with you.
Just a hunch...



posted on May, 13 2019 @ 01:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: infolurker

Ummm. . . .

So she wants progressives to boycott sex in protesting the one thing progressives use most because of sex.

She does know that if fewer people have sex, fewer people would want abortions and would subsequently place abortion clinics out of business.

She's retarded.


Not only that, but how many people who are addicted to sex can control their urges? It takes a STRONG will to do this. Something most people actually lack. I wouldnt worry about what she is trying to do because its extremely hard to control other people's urges without them going to a psychologist or a group to help them out of addictions.

All this will do is have people seek alternatives like Cheating, or resort to online porn to satisfy those urges/ addictions.

There is alot we can learn through the laws of human nature. It is extremely difficult to control a side of us that has been untamed for thousands of years. I highly recommend studying this topic in this video.



Those of you reacting to Alyssa's comments, need to understand that what she is suggesting is doomed to fail. All she is trying to do is weaponize an addiction. But the funny thing about addictions is that it can be replaced with something else.



posted on May, 13 2019 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar

But the NY law doesn't allow for "abortion up to the time of birth" unless those circumstances you mention is met.
Special circumstances like rape or incest. Non-viable fetuses that aren't gonna be able to survive outside of the womb. And when there is a great risk to the women life or health.


Though I have not studied the law it allows for abortions to be determined and performed by non-doctors and the wording was changed from risk of life to health risk. Both of these open up extreme grey areas since to all births have inherent "health risks" associated with them and that health risk can be determine now by a non-doctor...Also, we could just say mental health risks, as in the mother doesn't want the baby and so well past 26 weeks it is aborted well within the new law due to depression.



I can only assume that you object to the rape or incest cases and think that 11year old kids should be forced to have kids.


Seems you want to put words in my mouth to just create something out of thin air to argue against me...That's got to be breaking at least two or three logical fallacies rules. I said "Personally I'm not against abortions but I do think there should be a limit unless the Mother's health or some other unusual situation is driving the choice." Do you think a pregnant 11 year old meets my criteria, also would you wait well past 26 weeks to abort with a 11 year old? Your triggered responses don't even make sense.



To me what we have laid out in row seems to be about right. Legal up to the point of viability (according to when a normal healthy fetus can survive outside of the womb) with exceptions made if certain conditions are met after that point.
You cannot prove weather a person did or didn't use birth control and I think you want to just assume that since she is pregnant she must not have. Don't believe it can be legislated fairly.


That is my main point...what is "it seems about right"?


edit on 13-5-2019 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2019 @ 02:07 PM
link   
If my woman said that to me, I would just rub one out as I yell. "Here you go! It's the champagne of victory!"

-Bill Burr



posted on May, 13 2019 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

11 yr pregnancies are less likely to be noticed. The kid might not realize what is going on with her body and the parents might be more apt to think the pudgy stomach is more to do with overeating than pregnancy.
So women should have to suffer and their health deteriorated to the point where she is about to die. It okay of she loses the function of major organs because some just don't trust the diagnosis of medical professionals enough?

And why don't you at least read up on the laws outside of what the pro-life are spouting about them before you repeat their outrageous claims?



posted on May, 13 2019 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar


11 yr pregnancies are less likely to be noticed. The kid might not realize what is going on with her body and the parents might be more apt to think the pudgy stomach is more to do with overeating than pregnancy.
So women should have to suffer and their health deteriorated to the point where she is about to die. It okay of she loses the function of major organs because some just don't trust the diagnosis of medical professionals enough?

And why don't you at least read up on the laws outside of what the


Once again do you feel your 11 year old scenario meets my intent of what I said, I do... So what is your point here, what are you debating on this?

As to spouting pro-life outrageous claims... As I said, they changed the wording from risk of life to health risk... do you agree with that? If so, do you agree there are 1000s of directions with health risk that do not include risk of life? Putting the decision making and actions in the hands of a non-doctor once again opens up a whole new area of interpretation of what is a health risk...

What above is outrageous claims to you.

Finally can you say that depression is not a health risk? Also, answer my question of what is "it seems about right"?



edit on 13-5-2019 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2019 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

What is right-- the parameters laid down by row vs wade with sensible exceptions once the fetus becomes viable.
And I will have to go back and check the actual law but I really don't think that it is gonna less to nurse practitioners and midwives to diagnose these kinds of cases anyways. Kind of think the diagnosis needs to be from a doctor. But I will check and make sure.
As far as mental illness goes you seem to want to portray that as just someone pretending to be depressed but in the other side of that spectrum we could have a psychotic maniac who decided midway thru the pregnancy to quit taking her meds because she learned they were dangerous to the baby and the options being presented is to either throw her in the psych ward till her delivery or let her terminate the baby which considering that the meds had probably already adversely affected the baby the doctors would probably prefer anyways.
Simple question is who would you prefer decided your medical care? A trained doctor it a bunch of laws written by a group of people most of whom have no medical training or knowledge of your particular case?

I remember when the case of the nine year old girl in south America came into the news and was being discussed. Her doctors were saying the twins she was carrying was a threat to her. There were quite a few people claiming that were lying too!!



posted on May, 13 2019 @ 05:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Xtrozero

What is right-- the parameters laid down by row vs wade with sensible exceptions once the fetus becomes viable.
And I will have to go back and check the actual law but I really don't think that it is gonna less to nurse practitioners and midwives to diagnose these kinds of cases anyways. Kind of think the diagnosis needs to be from a doctor. But I will check and make sure.


What is viable seems to be a sliding definition with extremes on both ends.



As far as mental illness goes you seem to want to portray that as just someone pretending to be depressed but in the other side of that spectrum we could have a psychotic maniac who decided midway thru the pregnancy to quit taking her meds because she learned they were dangerous to the baby and the options being presented is to either throw her in the psych ward till her delivery or let her terminate the baby which considering that the meds had probably already adversely affected the baby the doctors would probably prefer anyways.
Simple question is who would you prefer decided your medical care? A trained doctor it a bunch of laws written by a group of people most of whom have no medical training or knowledge of your particular case?


You seem to always go full extreme in your examples, first 11 year old not knowing what is going on with her pregnant body well past 26 weeks and now some psychotic maniac off her meds. I would suggest that there is a much higher percentage chance of people taking advantage of this new law for nothing more than looking for an easy way out from a situation that is just a level of inconvenience for them.


edit on 13-5-2019 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2019 @ 05:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero
I would suggest that there is a much higher percentage chance of people taking advantage of this new law for nothing more than looking for an easy way out from a situation that is just a level of inconvenience for them.

I think having to risk your life with a pregnancy and birth and then raise a human being you didn't want for a couple of decades is a little more than an inconvenience. But even if it wasn't, I don't think I'd be all that comfortable with forcing a woman to "own up to their mistakes," and "tough it out" and "take responsibility."

Contraception. Easy answer. If I was Blue Shift Hitler, I'd throw a lot of money at research to come up with a sure-fire birth control method -- for both men and women -- that would be mandatory at child-bearing age but relatively easy to reverse once a couple (or individual) proves that they can afford and know how to raise a kid, and pass a test to prove it. People always say you need a license to drive a car, but not to have a kid. Maybe requiring a kid license would be a good place to start.

But it ain't gonna happen.



posted on May, 13 2019 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
Have you really observed most rallies of progressive women. Most look like the north end of a south bound mule. No surgery needed.



posted on May, 13 2019 @ 08:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

Viable in the context I used here. Is the gestational age of the fetus that Is accepted as being long enough along to be able to survive outside the womb with proper medical care. There is also such a thing as a non-viable pregnancy where because of problems with the fetus it had little chance of surviving long after birth.
And as far as me going out to the extreme well you are the one talking about killing babies the day before delivery like as if its a common occurance. My psychotic maniac story might have been a tad exagerated but I actually sat and talked to the women who told me the real story. In that case it was the state the ordered the abortion because of the meds she was on. Yet I have never met anyone who would go that long in a pregnancy just to up and decide in the ninth month to end the life of the baby without it being an extreme situation. Have you? If so was she crazier than my psychotic maniac? And by what I read no doctor would do that to a healthy baby. If the pregnancy was posing a danger to the mother the kid would just have an early birthday. Maybe in some rare case a women where neither a natural birth or a csection were possible perhaps some drastic measure might be taken don't know. But well ya lets act like 9 month abortions are more plentiful that 11 year olds getting pregnant.
Oh and I looked it up. Ya they are classifying nurse practitioners and doctors assistants as trained certified medical professionals that are able to provide abortion services. There might be other professionals also but those were the only two I saw mentioned. As near as I can tell doctors assistants have to work under a supervision of a doctor.
Nurse practitioners can operate more independently and are trained in specialized fields. The first qualification that must be met to get certified is that you have to be an RN which I might be wrong but isn't that about the equivalent of a bachelors degree along with a bunch of clinical hours? Once you have the RN you can opt to become nurse practitioner which I looked at Rochester university's website. They offer a master's and doctorate program for a couple of the specializations. And again you need a bunch more clinical hours.
So I don't know how that stacks up with the qualifications for being a doctor But I also read that they started the nurse practitioner program in an attempt to expand healthcare into the poorer rural communities. I guess if you are poor and not a city dweller you can make due with substandard care.
I have no idea if a nurse practitioner would be considered qualified to independently handle a pregnancy once complications arise or diagnose the severity of fetal abnormalities but many times in such cases doctors don't feel qualified either and will send the patient to specialist to get their opinion.
Oh and when they added risk to the woman's health ( including mental health) they just brought state laws up to being in compliance with federal law and supreme court decisions.



posted on May, 13 2019 @ 08:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue Shift

I think having to risk your life with a pregnancy and birth and then raise a human being you didn't want for a couple of decades is a little more than an inconvenience. But even if it wasn't, I don't think I'd be all that comfortable with forcing a woman to "own up to their mistakes," and "tough it out" and "take responsibility."


Is there anyone but you right is saying all your " "? Don't think so... So what do you think is too far in a normal pregnancy with no other issues to have an abortion?



edit on 13-5-2019 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
36
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join