Iowa set to ban abortions after six weeks

a reply to: bulwarkz

that's okay, because you've already proven my point...
the pro-life claim that women can just not have sex if they don't want to have a baby at the current time is unacceptable for some men....
you included it seems like.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: bulwarkz

that's okay, because you've already proven my point...
the pro-life claim that women can just not have sex if they don't want to have a baby at the current time is unacceptable for some men....
you included it seems like.

I had to read that like 5 times to try to understand your point and I can assure you I never argued those points. I keep telling you, even tried to offend you claiming nobody wants to rape you, screw you or marry you. That should imply not caring if you want the right to tell me no.

ANd just because I reject you and your brand of crazy that does not make me a rapist or even a prospect for a cheap feel. So how did that prove your point?
My point is the westernized 3rd wave feminist type is the final nail in the relationship coffin.
We do not want you lady.
That is what it has come down to.
Womens hypergamy destroyed the game once it melded with 3rd wave feminism. It made a whole bunch of toxic, single bitter wards of the state.
I am convinced you believe everything you have said actually means something to you but you only admitted to being an unrestrained gossip that cannot wait to turn gossip into a topic.
You made no point
You just came here to whinge about men and blame them for your special and unique brand of idiocy.


So your point is, the best I could follow, You are an old and single lady and Annee is at least 10 years older than you.
Are you implying Annee is a really old single lady

a reply to: bulwarkz

I never said that YOU were a rapist or that YOU WANTED TO RAPE ME did I ....
what I am saying is that your reaction to me telling women that if they didn't want to have a kid they shouldn't be having sex seems to have offended you... although it seems that having the prolife crowd saying it doesn't?
so why is that, because I carried it into the marriage bed instead of centering in on the unwedded?

Women who promote that type of unfair power balance as absolute in who guards the right to sex in a marriage certainly promote the use of prostitution within marriage as well. Correct?
Women OWN the bedroom. If you choose to use it manipulatively as a given right i suggest you learn to love cats. Lots of cats.

or are those not your words?? there are valid health reasons why a women may wish to space their kids a healthy time span apart.. it not only ensures a healthy pregnancy for the women, but also healthy babies born. so, when they say if you don't want kids, don't have sex, well, for the men involved what they are saying is stay celebate till she decides enough time has passed for her to regain her health from the previous pregnancy. it's not me promoting it, it's the pro life that is... I'm just trying to tell them just how unrealistic it is...
the point I was making about the age of annie and me was merely trying to explain just how the things were different. there wasn't laws against marital rape and quite frankly.... weather or not a wife had a choice on weather she was gonna have sex or not was solely up to the husband!!!

you can portray me any way you want, I really don't give a dang!! and, telling true stories about the people I have run across in my life isn't "gossip"... it's real life happenings that blow the stereotype that you seem to be trying to pin on me and so many other women. marrying up, marrying down, whatever... the majority of people just marry the people they think they want to spend the rest of their lives with... and as much as you wish to portray me as this evil man hater....
I married the man I met while I was in high school, and yes, we separated a few times briefly through the 40+ years of our marriage. we raised three kids together to the best of our ability. and, we were together till death do we part... on good terms with each other!! and gee... this was a guy that forced himself on me a few weeks after I gave birth to his second child...
a few separations kind of made him understand that that wasn't something I was willing to put up with...

When you held back sex from your husband for whatever reasons should he have the right to have a girlfriend or use prostitutes.
Should he bribe you? Hold back resources?
Your black and white 40 year old excuses mask what you do not seem to want to adress in your bat crazy examples that have no merit on the discussion you replied to.
And that is you think the bedroom is about feminist politics.
Everone of my responses to you is in that context.
Your examples are just yours for why you tortured your husband his whole life.
Nothing to do with anything I was adressing


a reply to: dawnstar

a reply to: bulwarkz

so me not wanting to have sex a couple weeks after having a kid is torture???

get real joker!!!!

it amazes me how these jokers think that a relationship with a woman is just purely a transaction for getting sex.

kinda shows the lack of experience tbh...

a reply to: fiverx313

kind of makes me think that feminism isn't the problem here...

someone should clue the guy in that having babies usually comes with stitches and doctors recommendations not to have sex for six weeks...
and if that is torture for the poor, poor father, so much more painful that having those stitches ripped out...
I don't know what to tell them...
just thank god most men are a tad bit stronger in character I guess.

originally posted by: bulwarkz

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: bulwarkz
Why did you marry him then in the first place?

He was hard working, a good provider, intelligent, and treated me like a Queen. He simply did not want to share me, not even with his own children.

Would you suggest I choose him over the children? Women have done that.

I suggest you changed. Maybe he thought you would be a good mother before he married you.
Maybe you used his children against him?
And in the end it is his fault because he worked to support all of you and all you wanted was his attention so you punished him through isolating his affections from both you and his children.

Isolation of affection is still grounds for divorce in most States even today.

I'm not going to respond to any more of your posts.

I give you straight answers -- you move the goal posts.

We went to marriage counseling. They released me -- kept him. You can stop reaching now.

originally posted by: fiverx313
it amazes me how these jokers think that a relationship with a woman is just purely a transaction for getting sex.

kinda shows the lack of experience tbh...

That could only be you projecting.
I am in a thread about sex and its results you dolt

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: bulwarkz

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: bulwarkz
Why did you marry him then in the first place?

He was hard working, a good provider, intelligent, and treated me like a Queen. He simply did not want to share me, not even with his own children.

Would you suggest I choose him over the children? Women have done that.

I suggest you changed. Maybe he thought you would be a good mother before he married you.
Maybe you used his children against him?
And in the end it is his fault because he worked to support all of you and all you wanted was his attention so you punished him through isolating his affections from both you and his children.

Isolation of affection is still grounds for divorce in most States even today.

I'm not going to respond to any more of your posts.

I give you straight answers -- you move the goal posts.

We went to marriage counseling. They released me -- kept him. You can stop reaching now.

Don't play the victim. You used your personal history all glammed up to make yourself look good only in making a point.
But your own story lacks volumes in your own accountability.
It isn't like I am taking shots at you. You used yourself as the basis of your arg.
Are we to believe you because obviously you never did anything wrong other than you were enamored and adored by your court.
You do not get a free pass just because you are a woman. It was your example. You used your own abortions as an example for promoting other women to kill their own children and you even think you deserve to be seen as noble in doing so.
I do not think aborting your own is very noble and certainly not taking the high ground in a moral argument.
I just see selfish behavior throughout your entire story.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: fiverx313

kind of makes me think that feminism isn't the problem here...

someone should clue the guy in that having babies usually comes with stitches and doctors recommendations not to have sex for six weeks...
and if that is torture for the poor, poor father, so much more painful that having those stitches ripped out...
I don't know what to tell them...
just thank god most men are a tad bit stronger in character I guess.

An appeal to pity.
Lets just face it.
I do not believe your claims. I just simply do not.
I DO BELIEVE you now believe your own story after telling it ever since.
Your crazy catlady manhating stories certainly could be true.
But I doubt it. You ladies are emotional creatures and instead of being offended like Annee, you just roll with it.
I do not believe you.
Did you vote for Hillary and still would if you could?
I'ld bet you aren't even ashamed to answer yes to that question

Seems to me that all the people who are pro choice should pack up and leave Iowa

Wouldn't that be a hoot

originally posted by: Wildbob77
Seems to me that all the people who are pro choice should pack up and leave Iowa

Wouldn't that be a hoot

Nah, no need. This law will never see the light of day. It's incredibly unconstitutional, and will be struck down in Circuit Court straight away.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: Wildbob77
Seems to me that all the people who are pro choice should pack up and leave Iowa

Wouldn't that be a hoot

Nah, no need. This law will never see the light of day. It's incredibly unconstitutional, and will be struck down in Circuit Court straight away.

What's unconstitutional about it? The SCOTUS has said that the States have the right to regulate abortion procedures so long as they are not outright banned.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

What's unconstitutional about it? The SCOTUS has said that the States have the right to regulate abortion procedures so long as they are not outright banned.

LOL! No, they didn't! Dream on!

LOL Source please!

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Teikiatsu

What's unconstitutional about it? The SCOTUS has said that the States have the right to regulate abortion procedures so long as they are not outright banned.

LOL! No, they didn't! Dream on!

LOL Source please!

Sigh.

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 162 "We repeat, however, that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman, whether she be a resident of the State or a non-resident who seeks medical consultation and treatment there, and that [the State] has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life."

lol

a reply to: Teikiatsu


How come you left out this part of the decision?

With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion

SCOTUS never authorized the states to proscribe abortion when a heart beat is detected. States may only proscribe abortion, consititutionally, after viability is achieved.

This law is unconstitutional, and will never see the light of day. It will be be blocked by the circuit court, like others of its kind. It's a waste of tax payers' money.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Teikiatsu


How come you left out this part of the decision?

Because it doesn't matter.

SCOTUS never authorized the states to proscribe abortion when a heart beat is detected. States may only proscribe abortion, consititutionally, after viability is achieved.

SCOTUS doesn't 'authorize' anything. It judges the legality of existing law. In the case of Roe vs. Wade the question was whether or not States could prohibit abortion.

This law is unconstitutional, and will never see the light of day. It will be be blocked by the circuit court, like others of its kind. It's a waste of tax payers' money.

That is your opinion, and you are welcome to it. But the States have every right to push back against bad precedent based on medical opinions that are over 40 years old.

Blocking something does not mean it is unconstitutional, and the State can still appeal.

Side note: It's fascinating how things become a waste of taxpayer dollars when libs want to gum something up in the courts.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Blocking something does not mean it is unconstitutional, and the State can still appeal.

Actually, not. There is no appealing a SCOTUS ruling.

However, the Court can overrule a prior decision when a new case comes before it. As this one might do. If the Court agrees to consider it. Because there is no doubt it will be contested all the way there.

a reply to: Teikiatsu


What Phage said. This law is unconstitutional, according the guideline established in Roe V Wade. The threshold for states to ban abortion is viability, not a detectable heart beat, or pain capability or 20 weeks. Until the law is changed, it's still viability.