Sex strike

I'm on mine 9 years and counting.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Funnily enough the people in America who want to control women's bodies don't actually give a **** about the child once it's born. Born into poverty? So work harder and don't dare ask for state assistance you cretin! We forced your mother to give birth to you, our work here is done. They honestly dont care one bit about children being born into dire circumstances. Seems to be the general attitude of these absolute hypocrite

Ah, that old ridiculous chestnut. Yeah, every single person who is prolife are all childless, niece-less and nephew-less heartless folk who turn the other way if they so much as see a child coming and care not a jot when they hear about even horrific child abuse in the news, absolutely hate the blighters they do, born children mean nothing to them, 'tis all about controlling women ya see, even for the prolife women.

Would you stop. In my experience those who feel abortion should only be legal on the basis of medical necessity, or in extreme (and thankfully rare) cases of pregnancy as a result of rape and/or incest, absolutely care about children who are born. It's pathetic, to the point of laughable, to make such an argument, even if you could even call it that.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I think it's more that she doesn't agree with the stupidly low limit of 6 weeks...

There is nothing stupid about basing elective abortion legislation around the presence of a fetal heartbeat. The absence of a heartbeat is something we have long associated with a person's demise and so it's only logical then that it should play a role in when we declare that a human being is alive. I understand why there would be disagreement on it and other fetal heartbeat bills have eventually been struck down when challenged as a result of those arguments (every chance this one will be too) but at least respect the reasoning behind why many feel a heartbeat is at least relevant here, even if you don't agree that it is.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

And what do you think about women who suffer miscarriages potentially being jailed if they can't prove they didn't cause it? Sounds like something you'd hear happening in Saudi Arabia, not the US. Actually who am I kidding, it's perfectly on par with parts of the US and their beliefs/attitudes when it pertains to women

Sanctimonious scaremongering. The notion that women that have miscarriages in Georgia will have to prove they were natural or end up jailed is absurd. The amendment does not do what you're suggesting it does and the State of Georgia has said as much.

The heartbeat bill did not repeal a number of Georgia criminal statutes that explicitly apply to abortions and unborn children, and it does not overrule controlling legal authority holding that these statutes bar prosecution of a woman for terminating her own pregnancy.

Code Section 16-12-141 is the exact section that was amended to include the heartbeat provision. If a person performs an abortion in violation of the heartbeat bill, then Code Section 16-12-140 applies. It does not impose life imprisonment on anybody, and Georgia courts have held that it does not apply to a woman who self-terminates, only to third parties who perform an abortion.

In Hillman v. State, the Court of Appeals of Georgia rejected the prosecution’s effort to imprison a woman who shot herself in the stomach to kill her unborn child. Interpreting Section 16-12-140, it said, “This statute is written in the third person, clearly indicating that at least two actors must be involved.” Accordingly, it “does not criminalize a pregnant woman’s actions in securing an abortion, regardless of the means utilized.”

Second, the Georgia code section that criminalizes “feticide” (such as when a man attacks a woman for the purpose of killing her unborn baby) specifically states that “nothing in this Code section shall be construed to permit the prosecution of . . . any woman with respect to her unborn child.”

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Jewish married women do! The men do not alas.

Being Jewish Law, it’s never that straightforward


Sex is the woman's right, not the man's. A man has a duty to give his wife sex regularly and to ensure that sex is pleasurable for her. He is also obligated to watch for signs that his wife wants sex, and to offer it to her without her asking for it. The woman's right to sexual intercourse is referred to as onah, and it is one of a wife's three basic rights (the others are food and clothing), which a husband may not reduce. The Talmud specifies both the quantity and quality of sex that a man must give his wife. It specifies the frequency of sexual obligation based on the husband's occupation, although this obligation can be modified in the ketubah (marriage contract). A man may not take a vow to abstain from sex for an extended period of time, and may not take a journey for an extended period of time, because that would deprive his wife of sexual relations. In addition, a husband's consistent refusal to engage in sexual relations is grounds for compelling a man to divorce his wife, even if the couple has already fulfilled the halakhic obligation to procreate.

Although sex is the woman's right, she does not have absolute discretion to withhold it from her husband. A woman may not withhold sex from her husband as a form of punishment, and if she does, the husband may divorce her without paying the substantial divorce settlement provided for in the ketubah.


Kosher Sex, jewfaq

Does Ms. Milano not realise that it takes two people to have sex and that both must consent? Or is she merely targeting the bi/lesbian market?