kiaa: (Default)
[personal profile] kiaa
As a scifi addict, this is something I often find myself fascinated about. I'm talking of the ability to gestate a foetus outside the body.

Pregnancy is, by far, the most extreme condition that can be called normal. It puts an amazing amount of stress on the body, it can even kill. Of course, as 'extreme' a stress on the body as it may be, pregnancy is the normal/natural process of humans... a long evolved process. There are soma valid questions out of this - like, if we are going to machine-churn living beings, what will they be... diverse natural genetics or custom-created genes? After all, why go through all the effort to machine-create living beings if we don't make them 'better'? At some point in this scenario 'humans' cease to exist and 'others' take over*. A moral and philosophical issue, by any means.

And then, there's the technical part:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2020/jun/27/parents-can-look-foetus-real-time-artificial-wombs-future

Read more... )
[identity profile] sophia-sadek.livejournal.com
The single idea that recurs again and again in the rhetoric of religious reactionaries is the notion that something is against nature. Prophylactic devices should not be used because they do violence to nature. People of the same sex should not be allowed to wed because their lifestyle is unnatural. These people claim to own a trademark on the definition of nature and they profess to know what is in favor of nature and what is against it.

Are these people opposed to all things artificial? Do they eschew wine made from grapes grown on grafted vines? Do they abstain from the use of optical prosthetics on the grounds that they are not natural? Do they harness a horse to a cart rather than employ an internal combustion engine or an electric motor? Do they carry their belongings on their heads rather than harness a horse to a cart? Do they refrain from opulent rituals on the basis of the artificial trappings of medieval bling? None of these things are considered "against nature" in the minds of these despots.

Margaret Sanger celebrated the fact that the Roman religion adopted the rhythm method as a birth control technique. It validated the essence of her mission. Romans claimed that the rhythm method did no violence against nature, but that other methods did. Why is one artificial means of contraception not against nature and all others are? It has something to do with the Roman hegemony over the definition of nature.

It could be said that there are two very distinct natures. One of them is under strict Roman control. The other is beyond the pale. One is a nature shrouded in darkness and the occult practices of Roman priests. The other nature is open and available to everyone outside of Roman control.

Yes, birth control techniques besides the rhythm method do violence to nature, but only the Roman nature. They do no violence to the other nature because the other nature does not exclude them. Yes, same-sex marriage is against nature, but only the Roman nature. The other nature does not exclude same-sex love.

Links: A Roman position on homosexuality and nature. A Roman position on contraception being against nature.
[identity profile] ddstory.livejournal.com
Hey folks. I know it's Friday and we're supposed to be non-serious here, but I have a question that I've been pondering about ever since I heard it being said around here that the Democratic campaign had tried to dilute the focus point of what should have been the issue #1 on these elections, namely Jobs Jobs Jobs and The Economy, Stupid. I've often heard here lately that various distractions have allowed the discourse to stray way into social issues, despite people not caring about them as much as the economy (as the polls seem to suggest). So I'd like to understand this. How are social issues not economic issues?

Three examples )
[identity profile] ddstory.livejournal.com
[WARNING: very gory NSFW pic, please don't open if you don't want to see dead fetuses!] This article includes a picture of a young mother on the hospital bed, the corpse of her 7-month old stillborn baby laid lifeless beside her after the lethal injection she was given by the local family planning authorities. This is a moment that millions of Chinese families have gone through in recent years, after failing to comply with the One Child policy that's aimed to curb population growth in the most populous country. Pictures like these have circulated around the Internet, being uploaded by families who've endured such massacre, and have caused a huge outcry. Comments vary, but the general sense is expressed by one that made me the most impression: "They say that's what the Japanese devils and the Nazi used to do. Except this is happening now, and it's not a separate incident... These people should be executed..." Another one said, "This is pure murder, plain and simple. These are not real human beings. This country is full of monsters".

Until recently, the drama of this family and millions like it would've gone unnoticed and ignored, especially if it happened in remote rural areas like this. It would've been just part of the statistics. But now the broad online echo is an example of a rising activeness within the Chinese society, showing how much the One Child policy is hated by the Chinese. Despite all the blackout that the state is attempting, there's an increasing number of outlets and ways to express one's position in China. The authorities just can't tap all of it. They're trying to keep the whole thing under a close supervision, so they must be already well aware of the widespread discontent with such policies.

Read more )
[identity profile] chron-job.livejournal.com
I had occasion to listen to a good Episode of Science Friday on NPR this week, which had a substantive interview with Kristina Gemzell

(her credentials)



The meat of it was, that Levonorgestrel based Emergency Contraception (Of which Plan B is an example) does not, despite various claims, have any effect that prevents the implantation of a fertilized egg. Rather, its only effective action is to prevent (or delay) ovulation, which prevents conception.

The relevant studies are linked here and here . They show that there is no statistically detectable pregnancy preventing effect if Levonorgestrel is given post-ovulation. She goes on to say that, should Levonorgestrel be taken post-ovulation, and/or post-fertilization, that it has no effect on the uterine lining, no effect on implantation, and no negative effect on the progression of the pregnancy or the health of the eventual fetus.

Interested parties can listen to the podcast here:

And there is more good information at the show's blog, here:

In a nutshell, so far as it can be scientifically determined, Plan B is a pure contraceptive, and not an abortifacient.

Obviously, those who are opposed to birth control in general will still be opposed to Plan B. But I am very interested in seeing the reaction of certain social conservatives who go to great lengths to couch their opposition to Plan B (and even the more typical oral contraceptive pills) as opposition to abortifacients. Framing, as they do, their opposition in terms of "Life Begins at Conception", will they change their tune, I wonder, when there is clear evidence that Levonorgestrel based Emergency Contraception indeed acts to prevent conception, and ONLY to prevent conception? Some may simply deny the science, and maybe others will even move the goal posts from "Life begins at conception" to "Life begins at insemination."

I think this can be an important litmus test to detect politically motivated insincerity and hidden agendas. Many (including myself) have always harbored the suspicion that "ensoulment" arguments are cynically used as a public relations tool, since 'protecting life' is a far more palatable justification than 'enforcing pregnancy'. Those who continue to typify Plan B as an abortion pill, in the teeth of evidence, reveal the actual unimportance of 'ensoulment' to their political goals. Continued opposition would be yet another small verification to those who believe that the real motivation behind it is the desire to reinforce traditional gender roles and sexual mores by recreating the traditional penalties of sex.
[identity profile] dv8nation.livejournal.com

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17612550

"Every year we are presented with a plan. Every doctor is told how many women we are expected to give contraception to; how many women are to be sterilised," says a gynaecologist from the Uzbek capital, Tashkent.

Like all doctors I interviewed, she spoke on a condition of anonymity. Talking to a foreign journalist could result in a prison term, in a country where torture in detention is the norm.

"There is a quota. My quota is four women a month," she says.

Two other medical sources suggest that there is especially strong pressure on doctors in rural areas of Uzbekistan, where some gynaecologists are expected to sterilise up to eight women per week.


It almost goes without saying that this is horrible. While I support population control in general I certainly don't think that doctors should be lying to and tricking patients for any reason and most certainly not because they were ordered to by the government. It's no wonder Uzbekistan has long been on the outs with the international community.

That said, even if relations have been defrosting a bit I don't really think that there's much other countries can do here. Uzebekistan was under sanctions for a long time so that's old hat to them. I'd say simple bad pulicity would be far more effective than anything else.

[identity profile] telemann.livejournal.com


Levi Johnston has impregnated another girl from Wasilla, Alaska: 20-year-old Sunny Oglesby, a teacher whom he’s been dating a year. Levi is also the papa to three-year-old Tripp, his kid with Bristol Palin. What potent sperm he has! Source. But that's not all. Mr. Johnston is 22 months past due in child support payments. According to court records, Levi is required to pay $1,750 a month (!?!) -- which means his outstanding balance is $38,500. As for why Bristol hasn't attempted to enforce the order -- via wage garnishment or otherwise -- Bristol's attorney tells us, "We forbore pursuing child support collection in the (perhaps naive) hope that Mr. Johnston would do what men are supposed to do and pay his support obligation voluntarily." Source.

Heh, not likely. Personally I think Bristol isn't pushing this because Mr. Johnston has dirt on the Palin family he's not revealed. While this is something of a never-ending soap-opera for political junkies, this personal story happens all the time across the country. Teenagers get romantic and physical, baby gets made, two individuals don't have any real parenting or life skills up to the task, father who can't take care of the child, it goes on and on. I find this story a very timely one in our current national debate about women's rights and birth control. But I do wonder if Levi Johnston knows what a condom is.
[identity profile] telemann.livejournal.com


Earlier this afternoon, Sandra Fluke received a personal phone call from President Obama, two days after she was called a "slut" on Rush Limbaugh's radio show. Ms Fluke attends the prestigious Georgetown University (a Jesuit school) and its president released earlier today a letter of support for Ms. Fluke, strongly critical of Mr. Limbaugh's comments, calling them "vile and misogynistic." Ms. Fluke broke the news about her call from the President during an interview on Andrea Mitchell's show. Fluke was the woman who was to testify before the Republican House Committee hearing but was denied by Darryl Issa, who instead had an all male panel testify on the subject of birth control and freedom of religion. A week later, former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi held a non-binding hearing and asked Ms. Fluke to appear. Rush Limbaugh went on the offensive on his radio show and "...demanded that Fluke release tapes of her having sex in exchange for the contraception that she argued should be covered by employers." Fluke said the President's phone call was completely unexpected and added "What was really personal for me was that he said to tell my parents that they should be proud. And that meant a lot because Rush Limbaugh questioned whether or not my family would be proud of me. So I just appreciated that very much."

Sandra Fluke interview )

Joe Scarborough, a former conservative Republican member of the United States House of Representatives stated in an interview, he's had several conversations with what he described as "fire breathing conservatives" going into panic mode over the recent news cycles painting Republicans as opposed to women's rights and birth control when instead they are allowing President Obama off the hook, and thinks the election will be lost because of the focus on issues that don't matter, and were settled years ago.

Joe Scarborough interview )

It seems that the some in the Republican party are so intent on pushing it more to the right, at the expense of moderate and women voters, the chances of winning the Senate back (Olympia Snowe's retirement all but guarantees that her seat will go to a Democrat), or winning the White House are going to be severely crippled (this has happened already in a key state, Virginia, which has seen a significant movement by independent and women voters from Romney to President Obama because of the forced ultrasound amendment for abortions). While Rush Limbaugh doesn't speak for all conservatives obviously, he is the face for one of the largest audiences in talk radio, and the massive condemnation, he's now receiving should wake him up, or at least give him pause for making such reckless statements
[identity profile] sophia-sadek.livejournal.com
The advocates of despotism like to see themselves as being in the right. In their own eyes, they are blessed angels who crusade against the hellish assaults upon something they call "life." When a human fetus is not carried to term, they feel a personal blow in the gut from the hand of Satan. When a human embryo is flushed from a uterus by a chemically induced menstrual flow, these self-appointed angels of "life" feel as if the forces of evil have gained one more sacrificial victim. When a particle of human pollen bumps its unthinking head against a latex barrier, these despotic souls cringe in agony, tearing their garments and gnashing their teeth in despair over the loss of "life."

These people were wrong before when they claimed that the Antipodes did not exist. They were wrong about consubstantiality and about Jewish literature. They used the arts of darkness to attack anyone who knew better. They persecuted women who practiced healing with herbal remedies, not because these women were a threat to life, but because their detractors were jealous of the ability to heal. Wise women earned respect by helping people rather than by beating them. This put wise women clearly in Satan's camp against the vicars of the One True God.

An ancient sage once commented that people do not sustain themselves only on physical nourishment. There is more to human life than mere physical existence. Those who would force a woman to bear a child against her will have no respect for such ancient wisdom. Many of these vicious vipers have even taken an oath that they will not be the cause of new human life. They seek to enjoy the blessings of limiting their own fertility as they would deny those blessings to others.

I recently remarked to some friends about my personal fortunes. Unlike my peers, I had been spared the shackles of mental enslavement. It was as if the Heavens had smiled upon me, granting me the ability to experience a life that had been denied to others. No charlatan ever professed to dedicate my life to the caesarian Jesus. I never participated in a cannibalistic ritual, nor was I ever urged to do so by family members. Instead, I was encouraged to pursue a path of depth and meaning that cannot be fathomed by the small minds who occupy opulent quarters. Vicious vipers posit me in the camp of Satan and it makes me glad. The ancient sages were all accused of impiety and blasphemy by charlatan authority figures. It is a good place to be.

Had I succumbed to the deceptions of Roman magic, I would have lived a less full life. I would have become a mother against my will. My existence would be more like that of a beast of burden. The yoke of Rome is hard and its burden is heavy.

Do you believe the Vatican when they profess to "defend life?"
[identity profile] dv8nation.livejournal.com
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16931403

US Catholics have strongly criticised a White House rule that would make Church-linked schools and hospitals give employees access to birth control.

Catholic League head Bill Donohue said it would be fought with lawsuits and "maybe even in the streets".


Okay, here's a crazy idea. If they don 't want the pill they don't have to take it. Also, the whole "in the streets" bit just makes me think of priests in Srg. Rock Helmuts waving around picket signs from behind sand bags. But I've had my brain warped by decades of American TV so that might just be me.

A recent poll suggested that 52% of American Catholics believe religiously affiliated colleges and hospitals should have to provide coverage that includes contraception.


So a bunch of Catholics are against this except for the 52% of Catholics who are for it? Ah, American relegion. It's nice to know I can always turn to you when I need to be assured that there are still people out there who are horrified that other people might be enjoying sex.

That said, suck it, Catholic League. If people want the pill they should be able to have it. The US is already behind only China and India in terms of people so some population control is in our best interests.
[identity profile] paedraggaidin.livejournal.com
No, I'm serious, y'all, it really is. Maybe there is something to this "let the market decide" stuff. It surely has worked here (unless you hate Planned Parenthood, as many people do, in which case this is the free market trampling on the heads of little unborn babies, but whatever).

Read more... )
[identity profile] futurebird.livejournal.com
An important question looming on the horizon is: "to what extent can couples determine the genetic make-up of their kids."

I have a simple answer: "It's not evil eugenics if a majority of those with the genetic trait advocate helping future children avoid it. "


For example, I'm quite short, this has not really had a positive impact on my life my husband is tall and I'd be quite happy to let his genes take over the whole height thing. I'd have a similar feeling were I abnormally tall. On the other hand it'd make me angry if someone ruled out darker skin for our child, that'd be cowing to the pressure of racism, I think ... and creepy. (dark skin also protects one from skin cancers and painful sunburns) I don't envy the lengths my husband must go to avoid getting burned. My husband has often been quite cheerful about the prospect of his kids not having a hard time with the sun as he has.

So, I think the solution is to ask people who have these traits if they *want* them passed on or not. In that sense, maybe the "looming question" isn't so big-- most couples will naturally want persevere human diversity, but will not have much interest in saving traits that just make life more difficult.

But of course things are not that simple. Many black folks (for example) might have chosen lighter skin (and some might do so today) to protect their child from racism. I find this depressing and my instinct is to find a way to prevent it. But, should the state have any place in such choices?

There are lots of people who would quickly choose to reduce the chance of their child being gay (I doubt being gay is as simple as a single gene, so mercifully it may not be possible to tamper with this without tampering with other traits) --on the one hand, maybe it's good that gay kids don't end up being born to intolerant people, on the other, there are enough intolerant people that, if the genetics of sexuality were simple enough, we'd probably see a sharp decine in the gay population. I think this is really depressing.

Now I treated the height issue like it was simple, but there are probably some short people who feel differently.

I think we could come up with reasonable laws by asking those who have a given gene what they think about people selecting for it or against it.

And now for a incomplete poll:
Read more... )
PS. Here is a great documentary that relates to these questions.
[identity profile] paft.livejournal.com


Stephen Colbert: This is why we must repeal Obamacare and get back to insurance companies covering only real necessary medical expenses like boner pills.


The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Women's Health-Nazi Plan
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full EpisodesPolitical Humor & Satire BlogVideo Archive




Sean Hannity: This isn't about women's health! It's about birth control. Stop expecting other people to be responsible for every minute aspect of your life in this nanny state you want to create?

Jehmu Greene: But why should we pay for a man's Viagra?

Hannity: That is a medical problem versus a choice to have sex!





Hannity is twice as funny in half the time.

Crossposted from Thoughtcrimes

*
[identity profile] mintogrubb.livejournal.com
When the deer on Vancouver Island got to dangerously high levels, Conservationists re introduced a wolf pack back into the ecology. The deer stopped eating themselves out of house and home and returned to a level of population that their island home could support. Maybe Planet Earth is over run with people, and you have to be cruel to be kind and somehow start to 'thin the Human herd'?

In some African nations, women are regularly attacked and killed by crocodiles. But people accept this as inevitable in the same way that Western people accept road traffic accidents as just an inevitable fact of life.
Neither predators nor accidents have a significant affect on population levels.

In spite of famines, plagues and other natural disasters, human populations continue to steadily rise.
The real brake on human population levels is contraception, most widely practised in the (underpopulated) West.
The UN estimate once that Earth could support 12 billion people; Conservatives in the past have tried to prioritise jobs, income and education towards white men men and regard even white women as somehow 'more expendable' or 'surplus to requirements' - so what is Earth's true carrying capacity, and how do we arrange to meet it?
[identity profile] dv8nation.livejournal.com

http://news.yahoo.com/u-health-body-recommends-birth-control-coverage-181409769.html

A U.S. medical advisory group recommended providing women free birth control and other preventive health services under the nation's healthcare overhaul.

The Institute of Medicine report, commissioned by the Obama administration, recommended that all U.S.-approved birth control methods -- including the "morning after pill," taken shortly after intercourse to forestall pregnancy -- be added to the federal government's list of preventive health services.

"The evidence supporting contraception is quite straightforward. It works," said Dr. Alfred Berg, a member of IOM's Committee on Preventive Services for Women.


Well, if it didn't work then there wouldn't be much point in selling it, would there? *ahem* Okay, smartass asides aside I fully agree with the this idea. People who aren't really interested in being parents tend to not make the best parents. Yes, I'm making a generalization. Live with it.

However, as expected, there is opposition to this.

Without sufficient legal protection for rights of conscience, such a mandate would force all men, women and children to carry health coverage that violates the deeply-held moral and religious convictions of many," said Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, chairman of the Committee on Pro-Life Activities of the bishops' conference.

Ya know, somehow I doubt little Johnny gives a fuck where the sales tax on his Slurpee will be spent by Uncle Sam. But I think this position is absurd. The US is a representative democracy. That means, for good or ill, the people we vote for get to decide how the $ gets spent. Complaining like this is like saying that a pacifist shouldn't have their tax dollars spent on jet fighters.

Top Gun hatin' hippies aside, it's just unworkable that we should all get to decide just where our tax dollars get spent. It would be a paperwork nightmare that makes dealing with a FAFSA seems like a walk in the park. Then there's collection and making sure every penny went where it was intended. Madness! Madness, I tell you.

Living according to your values is your job. Spending your taxes in whys that will benefit the US as a whole is the government's job.
[identity profile] mijopo.livejournal.com
Oh, thanks to [livejournal.com profile] ddstory , I was reminded that its sexual issues week.   I've always been really interested in the issue of sex education in the public school because it's an interesting intersection point between issues of public health and interest and privacy and personal morality.  So allow me to recycle, with minor editing,  some comments I made last year in response to news stories about the pope and condom usage.

As a simple matter of morality I'm disinclined to teach my children that the only prerequisite for sex is taking measures to protect oneself from STDs and pregnancy.  I think parents, at least this parent, want their children to recognize the intimacy of sex and teach them that there are reasons other than fear of STDs and pregnancy to not engage in it casually.  But even setting that aside, as aware as I am of the high infection rates for genital herpes and HPV, not to mention AIDS/HIV, I'm much less inclined to teach my kids, "hey, just use a rubber and everything will be okay". I'm much more likely to strongly urge them, simply in terms of risks to health, to minimize sexual activity until they're with a partner about whose past they're very clear and with whom there is a strong commitment (to lower the likelihood of misrepresentation of sexual history).  At this level, I guess I'm agreeing with the pope, condoms don't offer adequate protection and if the choice is between abstinence and using a condom, the safer choice is abstinence and I want my kids to understand that.  The risk-benefit analysis is fairly conclusive here, to my mind.  So, when teaching my kids, I promote and will continue to promote abstinence, while, of course, ensuring they have the facts about pregnancy, STDs and the avoidance of both.  And in light of STD and birth rate data, I'm also sympathetic to the advocacy of abstinence as a public health policy, but possibly parting ways with the pope in also believing that this should be accompanied by clearly presented facts about birth control, STD protection and STDs and access to such protection.  To put the public health policy comment in starker terms, I do think that school sex ed programs should be very clear that sexual abstinence is the safest and ergo likely the optimal option in most situations.   But I think that the biggest problem here is that we've created a false dilemma, I see no contradiction in advocating abstinence while ensuring that protection is clearly explained and accessible.   (Similarly, I intend to strongly discourage alcohol abuse while also making it clear to my kids that they can always call home for a ride if inebriated, without fear of retribution or punishment.)

Questions:
a) Does preparing adolescents for sex increase the likelihood they'll engage in it?
b) Do STD infection rates make you strongly inclined to discourage your (possibly hypothetical) kids from engaging in casual sex even if protected?  (Do they make you strongly disinclined to engage in casual sex?)
c) Should the public interest and public health concerns trump parental rights to shielding kids from sex ed content?

UPDATE: To clarify (c), I'm wondering not only if you think there should be sex ed in public schools but whether parents should be allowed to have their kids pulled out of class when such lessons occur.  (That is now the case, for example, in my kids' schools, parents can have their child sent to the library during the sex-ed lessons.)
[identity profile] steve-potocin.livejournal.com
"According to a Zogby International survey that I write about in the May issue of Econ Journal Watch, the answer is unequivocal: The left flunks Econ 101.
Zogby researcher Zeljka Buturovic and I considered the 4,835 respondents' (all American adults) answers to eight survey questions about basic economics. We also asked the respondents about their political leanings: progressive/very liberal; liberal; moderate; conservative; very conservative; and libertarian.

In this case, percentage of conservatives answering incorrectly was 22.3%, very conservatives 17.6% and libertarians 15.7%. But the percentage of progressive/very liberals answering incorrectly was 67.6% and liberals 60.1%. The pattern was not an anomaly.

How did the six ideological groups do overall? Here they are, best to worst, with an average number of incorrect responses from 0 to 8: Very conservative, 1.30; Libertarian, 1.38; Conservative, 1.67; Moderate, 3.67; Liberal, 4.69; Progressive/very liberal, 5.26."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703561604575282190930932412.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Just goes to show that the further Left you are....the less you know about Economics.....and that Leftist fantasies about economics are just that: Fantasies....Notice how most of the people with Left-wing views have worthless degrees in the Humanities....whereas people who major in Business or Finance and then go out into the real world trend conservative......When will they learn? Socialism FAILS and thats why Obama is leading us down the Road to Serfdom....

But then again for those us in the Reality-Based Community ie. Conservatives and Libertarians,this is what we've been telling you all along......

The Free Market....AW HELL YEAH!!!..Eat it, Lefties!!!
[identity profile] sophia-sadek.livejournal.com
"If the Creator had meant for people to be citizens of Rome, they'd be born with fasces in hand."

Once we come to see the Pontifex Maximus as the vicar of Caesar, it makes sense that Roman priests oppose birth control. After all, to control one's own ability to reproduce implies freedom from the fear of the blunt instrument of Roman rule. Caesar seeks to dominate all of his subjects to the point of manipulating their reproductive practice.

The other side of the revelation involves the freedom from imposing the Roman bludgeon on children. Parents who were raised in the Roman religion are wising up to the brutality of Roman rule. They don't want their children to be forced into reproducing by accident the way that they had been forced by a vicarious pseudo-father.

If you were a Catholic parent, would you obey the rules of Caesar by trying to beat your children into conformity with Roman social custom? Would you use the fasces of Caesar to bring your offspring into subjugation?
[identity profile] sophia-sadek.livejournal.com
There is no evidence that Early Christians heeded the Roman ban on birth control. In fact, there are hints pointing to the practice of birth control in the early Christian literature. Apparently, the Church didn't subscribe to Roman law on the matter until it took control of imperial affairs in the fourth century.

The ban on birth control made sense for an urban population at the time. If each family did not give birth to an average of five children, the population would decline from disease and warfare. This threat to the city's power was also a threat to the Church's power. One of the crimes that heretical sects were accused of was the crime of trafficking in prophylactic herbs.

To this day, the subjects of the Vicar of Caesar are prohibited from practicing birth control, except in limited contexts such as through monasticism. It is easy to determine whether a person is slave or free by establishing whether they follow the ban or not. Do you obey the laws of Caesar, or do you conform to a higher jurisprudence?

Credits & Style Info

Talk Politics.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods

DAILY QUOTE:
"Someone's selling Greenland now?" (asthfghl)
"Yes get your bids in quick!" (oportet)
"Let me get my Bid Coins and I'll be there in a minute." (asthfghl)

May 2025

M T W T F S S
   12 3 4
56 78 91011
12 13 1415 161718
19202122 232425
262728293031 

Summary