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.

 

Are women being turned into livestock again?

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 13 2004 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Teller
It is not only men that rape you know.There have been countless cases of female attended rape.


Make that "countable." The number of sexually aggressive women is very small. A sample describing the sexually aggressive acts of 10 women does not compare to the large number of legal cases where women were sexually assaulted by men.



News Flash--woman enjoy sex, woman coerse men into having sex, woman use what is know as their feminine wiles into getting men into bed. Sex is a two way conversation, and the results are the responsibility of both parties.


I don't think anyone disputes this. What they do dispute is forced sex -- AND the notion that birth control is strictly the woman's provenance AND the widespread, multicultural notion that it's somehow demeaning to make a man use birth control.

One man can father far more children than a single woman can birth.




posted on Nov, 13 2004 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by The Teller
It is not only men that rape you know.There have been countless cases of female attended rape.


Make that "countable." The number of sexually aggressive women is very small. A sample describing the sexually aggressive acts of 10 women does not compare to the large number of legal cases where women were sexually assaulted by men.

Yeah I agree with your point it probably is countable. Still exists a lot though, and much more than any figures would show:this includes female -male rape. But I take your point.


What they do dispute is forced sex -- AND the notion that birth control is strictly the woman's provenance AND the widespread, multicultural notion that it's somehow demeaning to make a man use birth control.
One man can father far more children than a single woman can birth.

Again good point. But this thread is not really about rape at all. I think the essence is the prohibitive way American pharmicies, and GP's are secluding woman the right to birth control. A point that is strange to most people in the UK as well as the very zealous conservative Pro-Life movement is too. So lets get back on track about this. Woman have the right to choose, woman have the right to free and available birth control. I mean since the introduction of the Pill in the sixties the population growth has increased four fold compared to the century before. One of the arguments against the Pill was we would stop reproducing and endanger the speicies!



posted on Nov, 13 2004 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Teller
Again good point. But this thread is not really about rape at all. I think the essence is the prohibitive way American pharmicies, and GP's are secluding woman the right to birth control. A point that is strange to most people in the UK as well as the very zealous conservative Pro-Life movement is too. So lets get back on track about this. Woman have the right to choose, woman have the right to free and available birth control. I mean since the introduction of the Pill in the sixties the population growth has increased four fold compared to the century before. One of the arguments against the Pill was we would stop reproducing and endanger the speicies!


Rape is relevant to the debate in that it is very common (often used by soldiers against civilian women during war), and a compelling reason why birth control and abortion should be freely available, even in a pro pro-life atmosphere. The consequence isn't just the physical assault, but a permanently altered life. Two lives, if you take into consideration any resulting baby.

On a side note, after reading the responses about women raping, I would invite people to look into the statistics for themselves. The one I hear most consistently is 1 in 4 women have suffered sexual assault of some kind, perpetrated by a male. Not to belittle the infinitesmal percentage of males who have been sexually assaulted by females, but for all practical purposes, most women need to be wary of most men. Because you can't tell by sight which male is safe and which is a predator. Sad but true.

But populations where women are allowed to choose the size of their family would seem to produce a more enlightened culture. Maybe growing up in a culture that respected women's choices as much as men's could make a difference in how people get along together. With only a couple of kids to raise, and more resources (jobs, teachers, child care), parents could focus more on educating their kids to be good citizens, not just good consumers.

And good point about the rising birth rate, even with the pill being around for decades. Is that because 3rd world populations (without much birth control) are growing exponentially? Or is it just that people are being "peer pressured" to have kids by a more pro-life, pro-consumer, pro-religious mindset that benefits from a larger population? Or just plain laziness in taking care of business? In any case, it seems kind of important to get a handle on the population explosion, and do what we can to raise standards of living, and birth control is rather key to that end.

--Saerlaith



posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 07:10 AM
link   
I wonder what kind of outrage would occur if a pharmacy decided it just was going to stop selling insulin, something like that. I bet there would be a stronger outcry against it.
Face it people, there are women out there who's doctor has perscribed the pill for serious physical ailments. Are these pharmicists endangering lives, just like they would be if they were withholding insulin from a diabetic?



posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 08:22 AM
link   
Pharmacists are there to make money.

Doctors dish out prescriptions because they is how they "handle" problems and that is how they get paid.

Neither is working from the "what is the best option for the patient" point of view. If they did, they would be PREVENTING problems not providing palliatives.

Using sex for recreation cheapens it. Using sugar, salt and fat in the diet weakens a body's ability to respond to stress. Going outside without a coat on when it's raining is wishing for bedrest. Sitting in an Emergency Room waiting room for twelve hours is asking for an infection.

The medical profession in this nation is not about healing in the first place. It's about processing papers and handing out simple palliatives except for the dying. The dying get heroic measures that cause pain and suffering if they keep you alive or pain and suffering if your spirit leaves and you die.

This is plain "nuts" "crazy" "insane." Women who accept this modality of "care" have no self-respect in the first place.



posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Emily_Cragg

Using sex for recreation cheapens it. Using sugar, salt and fat in the diet weakens a body's ability to respond to stress. Going outside without a coat on when it's raining is wishing for bedrest. Sitting in an Emergency Room waiting room for twelve hours is asking for an infection.



I agree, the medical profession has alot to be desire of it. But, well....

"Using sex for recreation cheapens it."

Is only your opinion, and it differs from mine. To me, if you have two partners who don't agree on that issue, that sex should only be for procreaton, well, insisting on it just might lead to alot of divorces....

And, we know where the religious group will side when there is that disagreement, don't we.



posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Emily_Cragg
Pharmacists are there to make money.

Using sex for recreation cheapens it. Using sugar, salt and fat in the diet weakens a body's ability to respond to stress. Going outside without a coat on when it's raining is wishing for bedrest. Sitting in an Emergency Room waiting room for twelve hours is asking for an infection.

This is plain "nuts" "crazy" "insane." Women who accept this modality of "care" have no self-respect in the first place.


I'm not getting the correlation between "cheapened" recreational sex and going without a coat etc. It should be something like having sex without protection can put you at risk. Sex is actually part of a healthy human life, and done "right", is good for you. (Right meaning with protection, both against diseases and pregnancy.)


Even apart from its psychological benefits, having sex creates physiological changes that relieve anxiety, mask pain, aid sleep, reduce stress, foster fitness, boost immune systems, stave off heart attacks, maybe even promote longevity, experts say.

www.azcentral.com...

It's when you bring religion into it that it becomes a moral issue rather than a biological one.

And yes, the pharmacuetical industries are making bank off of people, thanks to Bush & Co policies. Just ponder a bit, exactly who benefits from a captive population of breeding women. The average citizen doesn't. If you check out the links I posted previously, you can see that limiting family size is good for the economy, good for the environment, good for kids, good for parents. But creating a sustainable culture and mindset sure puts a crimp in all those corporations who depend on fresh crops of consumers who are looking for a cheap and disposable lifestyle.

Providing free birth control and more sexual & relationship education would be a forward-thinking government policy. But intead ther are just ever more ads for drugs to perk up one's "love" life, help you sleep, give you energy, and so on. If we could just slow down, have decently paid meaningful jobs, know kids were getting quality educations, we could retire comfortably and have good, affordable healthcare - wouldn't that go a long way towards making our society happier and healthier??

--Saerlaith



posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 08:30 PM
link   
I thought this thread was going to be about livestock and it's really about trollops. What a let down.



posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 09:19 PM
link   
I don't think any of this is a serious thing. Birth control need not be free, because it is already readily availible, even the pill.

You can get the pill sent to you through the mail from the internet. That way it's about 10 bucks a month.

Condoms are fairly cheap, although not fool-proof. It really isn't difficult in America to restrain yourself. Restrain does not mean not having sex.

Having sex outside marriage will happen always, so no point fighting it through legislation. We can expect people to be responcible if the means to be responcible are out there, and they are.

6 pages to say that is a bit extreme.



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Saerlaith
Providing free birth control and more sexual & relationship education would be a forward-thinking government policy. But intead ther are just ever more ads for drugs to perk up one's "love" life, help you sleep, give you energy, and so on. If we could just slow down, have decently paid meaningful jobs, know kids were getting quality educations, we could retire comfortably and have good, affordable healthcare - wouldn't that go a long way towards making our society happier and healthier??
--Saerlaith

Exactly and that is the sytem we have here in the UK. With the exception of maybe there is a bit of a pension crisis at the moment. But we have Free contraception to male and females.We have a free sex guidance and councelling service. We have decently paid jobs, a good quality education system.And FREE heatlthcare.



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 09:49 AM
link   
Are women being turned into livestock again?

I can make mine squeal like a pig does that count?


I live in the middle of the bible belt and birth control is everywhere including FREE birth control at the clinic. and as KJ pointed out it can be got over the web and through the mail and I dont see how that could be stopped.



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 09:54 AM
link   
One way to halt your attitude is for her to walk out the door and not return.

Shift happens.



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Emily_Cragg
One way to halt your attitude is for her to walk out the door and not return.


I guess that was directed at me. Squeal like a pig was a line from "deliverence"

Its what we like to call a "joke" Its not a bad thing.



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 10:12 AM
link   
My face would crack if it had to adapt to a yoke.

Straighten up. We can't have laughing.

My goodness. That would ruin our reputations.




posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 11:00 AM
link   
.
.
.

Saerlith and all - great thread. Thanks.

...FYI - I don't think women were ever NOT breeding livestock. ...The situation is tweaked and manipulated as part of an ongoing process, but has never 'stopped.'

...My research on the "eugenics" and "women's" movements made me aware that both movements were/are manipulated opportunistically to serve the same purpose - and grew out of my research on a disease called fibromuscular dysplasia.

Understanding this disease helps identify how and why women today are manipulated as breeders.

...In a nutshell, the disease first causes mutations in the stem cells for connective tissue - it destroys the walls of blood vessels and lymph vessels and then moves on to chew holes in organs, joints and muscle too. ...Along the way it damages the immune system and causes mutations, creating different new diseases. It is incurable, most often untreatable, and under-diagnosed. It can be passed on congenitally in an infectious form or as a "genetic" mutation.

This disease has been spreading and mutating in the USA since around WWI. It was acknowledged officially in 1938, when authorities could no longer deny congenital transmission. ...The last published stats show that 7,000 adult Americans are diagnosed every single day in autopsy, with garden-variety fibromuscular dysplasia. ...these stats refer to reported cases, and reporting this disease is not mandatory - in fact, it's discouraged. [See eMedicine for stats, Koplan (Caplan?); you do the math],

The disease has long been recognized as a crisis - and the dominant "health strategy" was and is "non-intervention" in hopes that an "immune population" would "emerge." The science that supports breeding for immunity is flawed - but that's another discussion.



We are being forced to breed so that a stronger, lower maintenance immune population will emerge, to serve our corporate rulers. ...but of course, no one wants to support the "failures."




FYI - The research is solid - but last time I posted a reference list it blew something up here and I got "warned."
.



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow

We are being forced to breed so that a stronger, lower maintenance immune population will emerge, to serve our corporate rulers. ...but of course, no one wants to support the "failures."





Also - we are not being treated or cured, not because it's not possible, but because it's cheaper to let us live and die sick, and part of the long term breeding program.



.

[edit on 15-11-2004 by soficrow]



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Ahhhhh. I suspected this--from the long-term behaviors and procedures of the medical profession which are, the nearly complete neglect any and all chronic conditions until the point of surgery is reached; and then total helplessness is achieved, along with rejection of the victim by his or her family. Death soon follows.

Bastards.

I will bookmark your sources. This is a very important part of the Satanic Dominion--to breed cheap models that learn quickly and do what they're told, exclusively.

Naturally, the story on fluoride substantiates and enlarges on the motives to produce the "right kind" of dumbed-down citizen.

The story on fluoride is at the bottom of this file. "Find" fluoride.

www.abidemiracles.com...




posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
.

Saerlith and all - great thread. Thanks.

...FYI - I don't think women were ever NOT breeding livestock. ...The situation is tweaked and manipulated as part of an ongoing process, but has never 'stopped.'

We are being forced to breed so that a stronger, lower maintenance immune population will emerge, to serve our corporate rulers. ...but of course, no one wants to support the "failures."




I think humans in general are being "permacultured". I've done a lot of reading about how new breeds of livestock are engineered, and how cows are being bred for docility by culling out any that show independence, nervousness, problems giving birth, etc. It only takes a few generations to do this with domestic animals, so I'm assuming the same holds true for humans.

If you look at marketing, movies, religion, etc. there is a constant pressure towards highly defined and rigid gender roles. Men are being cultured to be aggressive, yet rather lazy (watch sports, play video games, drive to the woods in an SUV instead of going hiking). Women are being cultured to be "man-hungry" - get surgery, wear impractical girly clothes, tolerate undesirable behavior from men, practice learned helplessness ("oh honey, can you open this jar for me, math is hard" type stuff). This kind of sets up the sexes to be opposites, rather than complementary ends of a spectrum. I think it's a divide and conquer thing to keep people from teaming up to make culture work for us, rahter than being a product of corporate culture.

The birth control issue ties in with the fact that smaller families mean more resources and a richer individual life. And empowered women mean empowered families, and that benefits all of us but the corporations dependent of fresh crops of "permacultured" consumers and worker bees.

It's been really interesting and educational to get a feel for other people's opinions on this topic. Thank you


--Saerlaith



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Emily_Cragg
Ahhhhh. I suspected this--

I will bookmark your sources.



?are you talking to me Emily Cragg? ...as in do you want some references and links?


.



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 09:17 PM
link   
This whole idea is much too long term to really benefit anyone living now. Breeding of animals (especially humans) takes a long time to get something accomplished.

I just don't see the point. Personally, you can take byproducts, and string them together with bombastic theories and get people to believe them.

Do I think some people have nasty ulterior motives? Yes. But being realistic about the reasons is key.


[Edited for spelling... As always]

[edit on 15-11-2004 by KrazyJethro]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join