Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/4/07 10:01 PM, GaiusIuliusTaberna wrote:

Now on the abortion issue my plan is this: mandatory abortions for teenage mothers who don't use contraception and there significant other and a subsequent charge of first degree murder for being irresponsible enough to bring into this world a life they couldn't support and had to destroy, when there are hundreds of cheap means of contraception readily available.

But that's what religion is for to give us morals, that's not the states job. Which it why Vice should be legal. Why should my tax dollars be used to fight a ridicules war on Vice and the subsequent jailings it causes when we can be saving money by legalizing it with restrictions and achieve the same (or better in my opinion) result. Religion is free (most of the time) the state isn't.

I don't understand? We should legalize abortion, in fact, promote it? That is going against major ethic and moral values. Not to mention that Abortions are expensive, dangerous and sends out a message that degrades the very moral fiber of sex by saying that it is for pleasure only instead of providing the gift of life.

Also, people elect their representatives sometimes based more on their moral values, like gambling, sex and drugs, than on the policies that they promote. I think it is the states job to make sure that their state or country has high moral values because that is what gives the state life and prosperity.

At 8/2/07 10:29 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: And, naturally, certain things, even if regulated, can be detrimental.

Exactly.

Although legalizing and regulating could clean up those industries a little, it would give off the idea that things like gambling and drugs aren't bad. So I'm not sure if legalization of those things throughout the entire country would be the best idea. You want vice? That's what Vegas is for. So people can still do these things, but contained.

And as far as that scientific progress thing goes, you're absolutely right. Stem cell research could lead us to some pretty amazing things some day, but it's sitting there stagnant because some stupid politicians let religion taint their political decisions.

At 8/5/07 12:30 AM, Me-Patch wrote:

At 8/5/07 12:18 AM, fahrenheit wrote:

At 8/4/07 04:06 PM, GaiusIuliusTaberna wrote: Rome fell because of stupid savage barbarians like you!

Wrong again Mr. Savage, would you like to try and double your points?

This guy knows nothing about Rome. I don't get the name.

You know nothing abut Rome because you don't get the name. Its based on a Latin version my real name which since odds are I'll never meet any of you anyway's so I don't care about saying it Giuiano Taverna
Giuliano: Gaius-Iulius Taverna: Taberna
Trust me this is accurate I had it custom made by a roman revival group: http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Main_Page

Besides I get it your pro barbarian I'm anti barbarian. That doesn't make you right and me wrong we just differ in opinion about what was more important: that the engineering, philosophic, medical, administration, and warfare tactics of the ancients were largely destroyed drastically lowering the quality of life or that it would eventually lead to the modern civilization with far superior technology. (Assuming the Romans wouldn't have made those advances centuries earlier anyway's.) Also despite the way I used it earlier I mean non roman when I say barbarian.

Also I acknowledge that there were some good things about things about barbarian culture but that was a primitive tribal culture and going from an industrialized bureaucratic super power to tribal aristocracy and proto bureaucracy is a step backwards from where we are today

At 8/5/07 12:53 AM, Gwarfan wrote:

At 8/4/07 10:01 PM, GaiusIuliusTaberna wrote:

Now on the abortion issue my plan is this: mandatory abortions for teenage mothers who don't use contraception and there significant other and a subsequent charge of first degree murder for being irresponsible enough to bring into this world a life they couldn't support and had to destroy, when there are hundreds of cheap means of contraception readily available.

But that's what religion is for to give us morals, that's not the states job. Which it why Vice should be legal. Why should my tax dollars be used to fight a ridicules war on Vice and the subsequent jailings it causes when we can be saving money by legalizing it with restrictions and achieve the same (or better in my opinion) result. Religion is free (most of the time) the state isn't.

I don't understand? We should legalize abortion, in fact, promote it? That is going against major ethic and moral values. Not to mention that Abortions are expensive, dangerous and sends out a message that degrades the very moral fiber of sex by saying that it is for pleasure only instead of providing the gift of life.

Also, people elect their representatives sometimes based more on their moral values, like gambling, sex and drugs, than on the policies that they promote. I think it is the states job to make sure that their state or country has high moral values because that is what gives the state life and prosperity.

Well all I can say is we disagree. I think religion should handle morals and not the state for the sake of pragmatism and freedom. Wile you believe that the state needs to legislate morality for the sake of prosperity and moral fiber. I acknowledge your opinions I disagree but I acknowledge your opinions. Perhaps we could explore the importance of the ability to out law over the ability to regulate and consider how bad the vices that I have mentioned are all ready in there illegal status. I think it would be an interesting topic.

Oh and on the abortion issue I wasn't joking. That may seam extreme but think about it would you want to be born in abject poverty, with no opportunities, and no life to parents whom resent you as a curse. And as for first degree murder well being irresponsible enough to warrant this law and the termination of life when it can so easily be prevented deserve nothing less than to be held to the full extent of the law and be held accountable, but I digress.

At 8/5/07 09:17 AM, GaiusIuliusTaberna wrote:

Oh and on the abortion issue I wasn't joking. That may seam extreme but think about it would you want to be born in abject poverty, with no opportunities, and no life to parents whom resent you as a curse. And as for first degree murder well being irresponsible enough to warrant this law and the termination of life when it can so easily be prevented deserve nothing less than to be held to the full extent of the law and be held accountable, but I digress.

Oprah was born to a poor black inner-city family. Yet look how far she got? What if Da Vinci had aborted? Or Mother Theresa? Or Julius Caesar? I'm not saying that abortion was an option back then, but what if it were? You'd be throwing away POTENTIAL for bettering the human race.

sorry too long too read.
I was falling asleep.

At 8/5/07 04:10 PM, Gwarfan wrote:

At 8/5/07 09:17 AM, GaiusIuliusTaberna wrote:

Oh and on the abortion issue I wasn't joking. That may seam extreme but think about it would you want to be born in abject poverty, with no opportunities, and no life to parents whom resent you as a curse. And as for first degree murder well being irresponsible enough to warrant this law and the termination of life when it can so easily be prevented deserve nothing less than to be held to the full extent of the law and be held accountable, but I digress.

Oprah was born to a poor black inner-city family. Yet look how far she got? What if Da Vinci had aborted? Or Mother Theresa? Or Julius Caesar? I'm not saying that abortion was an option back then, but what if it were? You'd be throwing away POTENTIAL for bettering the human race.

Ah, I see you're using a modification of the classic 'You just killed Beethoven' argument. Kudos to you for replacing the name Beethoven with the names of other famous people. I've forgotten the refutation for this one, but I'll get back to you in a little while.

At 8/5/07 04:23 PM, Darkside-void wrote:

At 8/5/07 04:10 PM, Gwarfan wrote:

At 8/5/07 09:17 AM, GaiusIuliusTaberna wrote:

Oh and on the abortion issue I wasn't joking. That may seam extreme but think about it would you want to be born in abject poverty, with no opportunities, and no life to parents whom resent you as a curse. And as for first degree murder well being irresponsible enough to warrant this law and the termination of life when it can so easily be prevented deserve nothing less than to be held to the full extent of the law and be held accountable, but I digress.

Oprah was born to a poor black inner-city family. Yet look how far she got? What if Da Vinci had aborted? Or Mother Theresa? Or Julius Caesar? I'm not saying that abortion was an option back then, but what if it were? You'd be throwing away POTENTIAL for bettering the human race.

Ah, I see you're using a modification of the classic 'You just killed Beethoven' argument. Kudos to you for replacing the name Beethoven with the names of other famous people. I've forgotten the refutation for this one, but I'll get back to you in a little while.

Aha! Here it is:

By this argument from a human's 'potential', you must also include failure to have sex at every opportunity as an act of murder, or 'throwing away potential' or whatever ridiculous sort of thing you want to call it. Resisting rape would be the same. By not impregnating a woman (or not being impregnated, if you are a woman), you may have never allowed some future famous star to be born. How can you live with yourself? Oh, the humanity! Etcetera, etcetera. On the surface, your argument seems to have merit, but look closer and you'll see that it is full of hot air.

For the record I was referring to promiscuous teenagers (I thought that obvious) who don't us contraception. Of cores you shouldn't persecute rape victims or for that matter a victim of condom failure.

Lets reveres the wasted potential argument what if you had 3000 babies bourn out of wedlock in abject poverty 5 of them become great pillars of the community 30 of them go insane and become serial murderers 2064 of them become average people 900 of them become poor homeless or on welfare and 1 becomes the next Hitler/Jim Jones/Timothy McVeigh would it still be worth it? Yes people can rise above there station in life but they'd be just as likely if not more to go insane and in either case would probably have a miserable life and wish to never have been born hence my point. He or she might be the next Julies Caesar/mother Teresa but I seriously doubt it.

At 8/5/07 04:37 PM, Darkside-void wrote:

Aha! Here it is:

By this argument from a human's 'potential', you must also include failure to have sex at every opportunity as an act of murder, or 'throwing away potential' or whatever ridiculous sort of thing you want to call it. Resisting rape would be the same. By not impregnating a woman (or not being impregnated, if you are a woman), you may have never allowed some future famous star to be born. How can you live with yourself? Oh, the humanity! Etcetera, etcetera. On the surface, your argument seems to have merit, but look closer and you'll see that it is full of hot air.

I don't understand? Children who are never conceived don't have potential because they don't exist. When you have a child in the womb, that is potential. A non-existent child having potential? That makes no sense. And there is something called a woman who can't conceive a child, does that mean her life is a waste? I think not.

At 8/5/07 05:56 PM, Gwarfan wrote:

At 8/5/07 04:37 PM, Darkside-void wrote:

Aha! Here it is:

By this argument from a human's 'potential', you must also include failure to have sex at every opportunity as an act of murder, or 'throwing away potential' or whatever ridiculous sort of thing you want to call it. Resisting rape would be the same. By not impregnating a woman (or not being impregnated, if you are a woman), you may have never allowed some future famous star to be born. How can you live with yourself? Oh, the humanity! Etcetera, etcetera. On the surface, your argument seems to have merit, but look closer and you'll see that it is full of hot air.

I don't understand? Children who are never conceived don't have potential because they don't exist. When you have a child in the womb, that is potential. A non-existent child having potential? That makes no sense. And there is something called a woman who can't conceive a child, does that mean her life is a waste? I think not.

Absolutely correct it's not yet conscience so it has no potential I just think sluts and jerks should pay for being irresponsible dumb asses key example when I was in high school we had sex Ed almost every year and 2 of my friends in the sex Ed class were going out. They nodded and agreed time and time again when the subject of safe sex was brought up yet they still had unprotected sex and then had to get an abortion! dumb asses like that should rot. (Obviously I don't hang out with them anymore)

P.S. I don't know what party you're with, but I must say it really sucks to be a republican who agrees with the supreme courts pro choice stance. I empathize with Rudolph Giuliani.

I'm independent but I agree with a lot of the right-wing ideas and policies. But the Dems also have a lot of good ideas. We need to learn to compromise with the two parties and develop a system that satisfies the majority of the people, with both right and left wing ideas.

At 8/5/07 06:19 PM, Gwarfan wrote: I'm independent but I agree with a lot of the right-wing ideas and policies. But the Dems also have a lot of good ideas. We need to learn to compromise with the two parties and develop a system that satisfies the majority of the people, with both right and left wing ideas.

Absolutely nothing in this world is black and white and despite party issues the only issues that count is the ones that are unilateral and it's those issues that require open-mindedness and compromise.

At 8/5/07 12:30 AM, Me-Patch wrote:

At 8/5/07 12:18 AM, fahrenheit wrote:

Rome fell because of stupid savage barbarians like you!

Wrong again Mr. Savage, would you like to try and double your points?

This guy knows nothing about Rome. I don't get the name.

...I think I'm the only one on NG who gets to make the call about who knows what about Rome.......

Unless there are some other Classics majors out there that I don't know about.....

At 8/5/07 08:15 PM, Imperator wrote:

At 8/5/07 12:30 AM, Me-Patch wrote:

At 8/5/07 12:18 AM, fahrenheit wrote:

Rome fell because of stupid savage barbarians like you!

Wrong again Mr. Savage, would you like to try and double your points?

This guy knows nothing about Rome. I don't get the name.

...I think I'm the only one on NG who gets to make the call about who knows what about Rome.......

Unless there are some other Classics majors out there that I don't know about.....

Well to be fair wile I have no formal schooling in the subject. I've devoted a considerable amount of time to studying the ancient world especially Rome. I claim to know about it because I do. I don't claim to be some kind of infallible expert, but I'd be interested in your input regarding our Barbarian VS Roman discussion.

Minus the head butting.

People can live without Recreational Drugs; most of which have prooved to be fairly bad for the body. Beleive me when i say you don't want people Capitalising things like Heroin and cocaine. [Raw Tobacco was bad enough to kill Al Gore's Sister; But when companies make it so that Addiction is almost certain once you go for it you can't turn back]

As for prostitutes, women have more oportunities in western nations then they have ever had for 10,000 years. [Before that women were fairly superior in terms of they're usefull-ness for survival] I think it's the escence of a good state to try to prevent the expanse of both uncessesary and destructive professions.

but I'd be interested in your input regarding our Barbarian VS Roman discussion.

It'd be my pleasure.

But first we need to discuss what we would all agree on as the "fall of Rome" before we can start discussing WHY it fell.

I'll start by saying I think the phrase is best described as when the power and influence of the Roman Empire officially ceased existing.

I for one lean more towards 1453 than the traditional 476. My reasoning being that the Eastern Empire was indeed Roman in everything except language (greek instead of latin). Byzantine is a modern term, the peoples of that region called themselves....Romans.

If you propose the 476 date, I'd simply like to know why. I don't like that one very much, one reason being Rome ceased being the capital nearly a century ago.

In both cases I think the primary reasoning behind the fall of Rome was eclectic. It wasn't just the Romans themselves, it wasn't any single outside force. It was interactionism between the two.

On Rome's side, the depletion of its manpower through civil strife, and the lack of new military advances meant that the gap between Rome and opposing powers could be closed. Rome didn't start losing wars until her enemies started forming their own legions, fighting like Legionaries themselves.

In this case, Roman power fell due to Rome's own negligence on important aspects of empire maintenance that went...unmaintained.

The second is outside influences. The push of the Huns westward meant that EVERYONE was pushed west, encroaching on Roman territory. Hence barbarian tribes, usually German started showing up around Rome....eventually sacking it in 410.

In terms of what was better for civiliation:
Romans, by FAR. The world existing after the decline of Roman power is what we call the Dark Ages. We are continually digging up Greek and Roman artifacts that continue to surprise us in how modern and forward thinking they were. People have recently dug up what some consider to be the first computer.....made of wood.....

The fact that they were even THINKING about such things clearly shows an evolved state of mind, one which doesn't reappear until the Renaissance, and one which to this day seems to not be very prevalent in our society.....

Feel free to agree, disagree, tear apart whatever! Happy hunting.

I'm sorry imperator but why is that important for this discussion; did somone sugjest that gambling/ prostitution / drugs caused the fall of the roman empire?

At 8/5/07 09:09 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: I'm sorry imperator but why is that important for this discussion; did somone sugjest that gambling/ prostitution / drugs caused the fall of the roman empire?

No, it was a tangent. It's one of the side debates going on in the thread.

At 8/5/07 09:14 PM, Imperator wrote:

At 8/5/07 09:09 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: I'm sorry imperator but why is that important for this discussion; did somone sugjest that gambling/ prostitution / drugs caused the fall of the roman empire?

No, it was a tangent. It's one of the side debates going on in the thread.

Tis true!

At 8/5/07 05:56 PM, Gwarfan wrote:

At 8/5/07 04:37 PM, Darkside-void wrote:

Aha! Here it is:

By this argument from a human's 'potential', you must also include failure to have sex at every opportunity as an act of murder, or 'throwing away potential' or whatever ridiculous sort of thing you want to call it. Resisting rape would be the same. By not impregnating a woman (or not being impregnated, if you are a woman), you may have never allowed some future famous star to be born. How can you live with yourself? Oh, the humanity! Etcetera, etcetera. On the surface, your argument seems to have merit, but look closer and you'll see that it is full of hot air.

I don't understand? Children who are never conceived don't have potential because they don't exist. When you have a child in the womb, that is potential. A non-existent child having potential? That makes no sense. And there is something called a woman who can't conceive a child, does that mean her life is a waste? I think not.

Firstly, when I said that a woman who couldn't conceive would be punished (et al.) I was trying to reflect what your position on abortion would bring to the table if we really considered what defines a human being versus a non-human being. I don't think I made that very clear and I apologize.

Secondly, there is never a 'child in the womb' as you say. A fetus is only a child once it exits the mother during birth. Before that point it is and always will be some stage of a fetus, and is not considered a human being. Fetuses who are in the womb have the same potential as a fetus that was not conceived. The point at which it has potential is the moment it is born onwards.

Further, following your apparent belief that a child in the womb is a full human life, what would happen if a woman suffered a miscarriage? We know of plausible causes for miscarriages, you know. We could easily trace back the cause of it. Should we then prosecute the person who caused the miscarriage (most likely the mother herself)?

Did you know that in El Salvador having an abortion is an actively prosecuted felony? If a woman seeks care at a hospital, and a hospital employee notices that she has a perforated uterus (sign of a back alley abortion), she is reported to the police. Within a few minutes the police will be there. The woman is tied down and her body is treated as a crime scene. All she did was have an abortion... but that's an illegal act worthy of prosecution... I know you didn't mention anything like this, but I thought that it might get the gears in your head turning a bit.

If I've missed anything, let me know. I'm feeling a bit drowsy.

Thanks for that

My selection for Theodoric as my 3 place. Was for his sons attack on the city of Rome which in its symbolism was devastating for the entire empire. Just as I would give Philip the second of Macedon credit for the success of his son against Persia likewise I give Theodoric credit for the success of his son (and the fact that like Hannibal Barca's father he didn't exactly discourage him) of curse the Huns were the catalyst for all this which is why Attila there arguably greatest leader gets the number 2 spot.

And the fact that they played a part in the dark ages which were at least in my opinion one of the greatest self-inflicted catastrophes in the history of civilization.

Its funny though we commonly get images of a barbaric horde as a disorganized mess of troops with mismatched and randomized equipment yet it is true that they had learned and applied legionary tactics from the Romans when many a Goth's and Hun served in the legion's as Axilia. And in the Mideveil era the use of pillum Testuto and indeed gladii samnite shields and most other equipment commonly associated with a legion was fazed out. Instead of tactical units a sort of hoard consisting off non combat oriented members of house hold whom were nothing but a burden and who's tactical inefficacy was well documented during the crusades. I wonder how these armies would have faired against a properly equipped roman legion and if those changes where an improvement or a degeneration of roman tactics. But I seriously digress (for any one whom doesn't know what I'm talking about, me and a few other people were having the same argument in two different topics. some how?) (Though for some reason I can't find the other Topic did it get removed?) It was called the 5 most evil.

The Romans could have good moral values and legalized vice and despite what the aristocracy was doing the common plebian, slave, or freedman on street level was still upholding the tenants of roman values (minus the cult of Baccus which was outlawed anyway).which prove my point that it won't lead to a downward spiral into utter degeneracy. Ancient roman aristocracy where comparable with modern day celebrities in how the public viewed them (actors where slaves in roman society) and like modern day celebrities some where good others where corrupted beyond redemption so if you think that's evidence of lack of morals do you also consider Paris Hilton a good model of an average moral American? or for that matter Pamela Anderson?!

Morals are the dominion of the church and parents to instill upon the masses and in my opinion wile the government should regulate vice to limit any harmful effects it may have it would achieve more (with a huge boost to the economy) by using the garnered tax dollars to educate the populace against the very vices that funded it. There you solve a problem by solving another problem like a positive domino effect.

And if a few morons destroy themselves in the process than all the better.

As for abortion if anyone doesn't understand my stance. Ask me to clarify and I will as best I can.

At 8/3/07 09:46 PM, GaiusIuliusTaberna wrote:

At 8/3/07 09:15 PM, TheThing wrote: Refuted argument

This is how prostitution can be regulated. They would carry cards with expiration date's if one is caught with an expired card or no card they would be monitorial tested and if found positive they would have the name of the disease tattooed on there leg above the bottom of normal underwear. If there negative than just a fine of prison for repeat offenders. This will work because customers will if smart only use the services of an up to date card carrying Hooker. Also when prohibition ended the mob bosses didn't continue to run the alcohol industry so your argument is mute.

But the problem is that any person can roam the streets and ask for money in exchange for sex. Having the government giving them a card is pointless; it costs us tax money to track down every hooker and print out a card for them. Also, what you're suggesting is that when the card runs out and they're caught with it, is when they should be tested for diseases; it should be monthly test. Also, I have no clue what you're talking about with the mob bosses.

As for gambling and Indian casino's my point was the government doesn't get taxes from them and as a result taxes are slightly higher that they would be of course if Indian casino's paid taxes then I would drop the issue of weather or not the money actually goes to the people that need it. And like I've been saying Illegal Vice = crime

They pay taxes like every other casino. They pay them to the government. They have to pay them by law. If they don't, they go to jail. The money has to at least stop at one of the tribe member's hands, so it goes to the tribe. I don't know where you heard that the Indian tribes don't pay taxes on their casino earnings, but they do.

Also you're seriously exaggerating about my sentences. At least I use spell check and use "the" instead of "the". I don't see how you can refute my argument and in the same breath say you can't understand it.

What I said was I was refuting what I could understand. The way you set up your sentences made it, as a reader, hard to understand. You rarely used commas, and had a lot of run-on sentences. And I'm not even going to address the sentence before that.

"But the problem is that any person can roam the streets and ask for money in exchange for sex. Having the government giving them a card is pointless; it costs us tax money to track down every hooker and print out a card for them. Also, what you're suggesting is that when the card runs out and they're caught with it, is when they should be tested for diseases; it should be monthly test."
Well when they made alcohol legal crime didn't touch it. Why any one can make a bottle of boozes in there basement and sell it on the street. I'll tell you why when you're given the choice between some shady guy with a bottle of bathtub gin and a legit store with good booze which do you think people would choose?
Like wise the prostitute with proof she's clean will succeed where the questionable one will not. The revenue from taxes will be more than enough to deal with illegitimate hookers and then some. On top of that the hooker would pay for her own monthly check up just like you buy a new drivers license every year.
"Also, I have no clue what you're talking about with the mob bosses."
Mob bosses, crime?! Have you ever heard of a pimp, drug lord, or casino skimer?
"What I said was I was refuting what I could understand. The way you set up your sentences made it, as a reader, hard to understand. You rarely used commas, and had a lot of run-on sentences. And I'm not even going to address the sentence before that."
If you can argue with me, you can obviously understand me, so give it a rest. So my grammar sucks I'm a scientist /historian/ politician not a writer and I am at least trying. I you disagree, disagree. Don't criticize my grammar in place of a legitimate argument this topic isn't about English.

At 8/2/07 10:00 PM, GaiusIuliusTaberna wrote: Let me start by saying I don't hate America. It's just certain things really frustrate me like laws based on religious morals and not logic. Religion and state are separate right? Well then why do we have religious laws based on Jewish cultural norms passed down throw Christianity?
I will name some examples:

Prostitution: I really miss the days where we treated women as dispensable objects of pleasure too. And wouldn't this paint a brilliant picture of how Americans should respect their own government.

Gambling: Why not ruin lives by allowing ourselves to take away the working classes money, the class with the environment suited for compulsive gamblers. "What? They can do gamblers anonymous?" Well that's just fine except that since you ARE the working class, you have two jobs, but I'm sure you have enough time for rehab stints. Who wouldn't want to add on more anxiety by attending GA meetings instead getting your rush at slots? Let's not forget about the children, who are even more likely to become compulsive, and those that do have a 20% likelihood of considering suicide once they've lost their futures. Fine move there.

Drugs: There's no way legalizing drugs could have negative effects. Sure it could turn into what alcohol has become and have twice as many DUIs and deaths by car crashes under the influence, but seriously, shouldn't we risk that for the sake of getting our high?

you can't call it a free country with out the freedom to willingly be employed by or willingly practice the aforementioned industries.

Just because some of us aren't religious, doesn't mean we don't have morals.

At 8/7/07 01:23 PM, EKublai wrote:

At 8/2/07 10:00 PM, GaiusIuliusTaberna wrote: Let me start by saying I don't hate America. It's just certain things really frustrate me like laws based on religious morals and not logic. Religion and state are separate right? Well then why do we have religious laws based on Jewish cultural norms passed down throw Christianity?
I will name some examples:

Prostitution: I really miss the days where we treated women as dispensable objects of pleasure too...

Wow you have no Idea what you're talking about do you? How much of my argument have you read 1 post or 2? I want to legalize vice to limit it not encourage it for god's sake educate your self. You are seriously making me question humanity.

At 8/7/07 01:52 PM, GaiusIuliusTaberna wrote:

At 8/7/07 01:23 PM, EKublai wrote:

At 8/2/07 10:00 PM, GaiusIuliusTaberna wrote: Let me start by saying I don't hate America. It's just certain things really frustrate me like laws based on religious morals and not logic. Religion and state are separate right? Well then why do we have religious laws based on Jewish cultural norms passed down throw Christianity?
I will name some examples:

Prostitution: I really miss the days where we treated women as dispensable objects of pleasure too...

Wow you have no Idea what you're talking about do you? How much of my argument have you read 1 post or 2? I want to legalize vice to limit it not encourage it for god's sake educate your self. You are seriously making me question humanity.

legalizing is encouraging. with or without limitations. It shines a bad light on the government and it says, to me, that we are willing to use a women's body as an object as the foundation of a taxable business.

At 8/5/07 09:26 PM, Darkside-void wrote: Secondly, there is never a 'child in the womb' as you say. A fetus is only a child once it exits the mother during birth. Before that point it is and always will be some stage of a fetus, and is not considered a human being. Fetuses who are in the womb have the same potential as a fetus that was not conceived. The point at which it has potential is the moment it is born onwards.

Well we could spend the rest of our lives defining when a fetus actually becomes human, and we would still have our own opinions. See thats the great thing about politics, everyone has their own values and beliefs.

Further, following your apparent belief that a child in the womb is a full human life, what would happen if a woman suffered a miscarriage? We know of plausible causes for miscarriages, you know. We could easily trace back the cause of it. Should we then prosecute the person who caused the miscarriage (most likely the mother herself)?

Miscarriages are completely different than abortions. I feel that if a woman causes the miscarriage on her own, than she has just killed her own baby purposely. So she should be prosecuted. But if it was a natural uncontrolled miscarriage than there should be no penalty.

Did you know that in El Salvador having an abortion is an actively prosecuted felony? If a woman seeks care at a hospital, and a hospital employee notices that she has a perforated uterus (sign of a back alley abortion), she is reported to the police. Within a few minutes the police will be there. The woman is tied down and her body is treated as a crime scene. All she did was have an abortion... but that's an illegal act worthy of prosecution... I know you didn't mention anything like this, but I thought that it might get the gears in your head turning a bit.

That is probably because the way she got it could've made her contract a disease or something, possibly a contagious or STD. I don't really know El Salvador.

Human hormones are set at a level for an intended reproduction capacity that far excedes our needs. For this reason people are more promiscuous then is actually required to get live and prosper.

Promiscuity is not a biologically beneficial trait anymore; and that's as far as a christian excuse for being against it as can be.

At 8/7/07 02:46 PM, Gwarfan wrote: Well we could spend the rest of our lives defining when a fetus actually becomes human, and we would still have our own opinions. See thats the great thing about politics, everyone has their own values and beliefs.

Or we could just reach a relative consensus on the fetus issue and move past it. What are your values/beliefs about when it becomes human? I'd be interested in knowing what you think of it.

Miscarriages are completely different than abortions. I feel that if a woman causes the miscarriage on her own, than she has just killed her own baby purposely. So she should be prosecuted. But if it was a natural uncontrolled miscarriage than there should be no penalty.

Fair enough, I guess.