Bible study rules for public schools ...

Bible study rules for public schools proposed

There are 153777 comments on the The Courier-Journal story from Feb 10, 2010, titled Bible study rules for public schools proposed. In it, The Courier-Journal reports that:

FRANKFORT, Ky. - The state would create rules for teaching about the Bible in public high schools under a bill filed Monday by three Democratic senators.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Courier-Journal.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#103878 May 17, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
A general statement was posted.You,Chrome and Mike took it personally.
Why you might have felt it applied to all of you,I can not explain.
Otherwise,why did you respond?....
I tend to wear shoes that fit me,if they don't fit,I throw them out.
Again you forget how you earlier directly called us foolish.
We did not forget.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#103879 May 17, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's come together. Let's make a compromise: abortions prior to 26 or 28 weeks (I'll have to look it up, can't remember which is the prevailing science) are OK. Always. No questions, no subjecting girls to horrifying videos to slut shame and pressure them away from their decision. No Bible beating. You want an abortion at 14 weeks, here you go.
But after 26 weeks we limit it to rape, incest, risk of death of either the baby or the mother or both.
I can have that conversation. But when it comes to voluntary, early abortion that is not something we can compromise on. It is the right of the mother, period.
Regarding sex ed, I agree we need a much more robust approach to that topic. Abstinence can be part of it, but not exclusive. Kids are going to get nasty as soon as they can. If you were ever a teenager you know this is true. The only thing stopping a teenager from having sex at any given moment is opportunity. Prepare them correctly.
Jus who would decide the risks of health? Problem is, you would be trusting government with life and death decisions. Would you trust the government with your loved ones life?
No one is pushing for abortions, but their is a massive problem when you let government make these decisions.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#103880 May 17, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
No it is a failure to hold someone accountable for the misuse of their bodies. It is a failure to recognize that another life form is now dependent on what they do with their body. You favor granting people the right to be irresponsible at the expense of another life.
irresponsible? So if a married couple is using contraception yet it fails to stop a pregnancy, are they irresponsible?

What I struggled to understand as a Christian was, if god does not want you to have a lot of sex, why did he make it so desirable?
It makes much more sense that we evolved that desire in order to ensure reproduction.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#103881 May 17, 2013
LOL in a suit wrote:
Ahhhh, the old should abortion be legal discussion has returned. In the holyhatebible god killed lots of kids. From what one reads in the holyhatebible it can be said god still kills kids. I would go as far as to say god likes killing the bible shows us this. Just one of the many reasons the holyhatebible should not be around our children in public schools with all the bad moral lessons the holyhatebible contains no wonder crime is on the rise. 98% of prison populations are religies. Go figure.
And they think we atheists oppose them because we are just searching for god. The many reasons we list do not add up in their mind.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#103882 May 17, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
Very weak argument.
85% of abortions are from unwed mothers.
25% unmarried women
36% of abortions are on women whom it is not their first abortion
13% had more than 2 children already
33% are women 20-24 in age
24% were 25-29
50% are less than 25 years old
Abortion rate of women on Medicaid is three times that of other women.
For reasons given: 75% say a baby would interfere with their work, school, or other responsibilities. 50% say they are single or having trouble with a spouse.
Only 12% say it was health related with the mother.
Under 1% was due to rape.
So between 1973 to 2008, 50 million abortions took place. And only 13% were due to health or rape. Almost all the others boil down to irresponsible behavior.
Average cost of an abortion is $451.
Your argument is weak to support murder.
My argument is so strong, it is why abortion is legal.
What may be the less likely person getting the abortion is the person who's rights we still must protect.
I gave a hypothetical that is based upon reality. You failed to answer the hypothetical.

“Speaker of Mountain Wisdom....”

Since: Jan 10

London, KY

#103883 May 17, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>And they think we atheists oppose them because we are just searching for god. The many reasons we list do not add up in their mind.
I love being repetitive....

"It is Impossible to have a Logical, Rational conversation with a Irrational, Illogical person" - Q

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#103884 May 17, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
I was asked what the LDS church stance is on those that die before born. I answered accordingly.
So you trust mans answers?

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#103885 May 17, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>So you still cannot get an answer out of that ghost?
It has never been relevant to my life, so I haven't asked.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#103886 May 17, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>No, you denied what I stated, which again was: Without medical assistance most fetuses are not born alive.
How is this relevant to abortion?

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#103887 May 17, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Based on your definition here, apes, monkeys, chimpanzees, cats, dogs .... well a lot of animals are human as well.
And imagine that, none of them purposely abort their pregnancies.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#103888 May 17, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>No, no.

Statistically, crime correlates with poverty. Poverty is increased when reproductive rights are decreased or denied. That much should be common sense, right? Look at areas where poverty is a problem. Look at the families. What do you see? Tons of kids. Look at areas of affluence. What do you see? Fewer kids.

People with privilege tend to be educated. They tend to control their reproduction, pushing more of their resources into fewer offspring.

In families where living on food stamps is essentially a tradition they pump out a lot of babies. You sometimes see kids coming out of those groups break that tradition by NOT having kids early or at all.

It is NOT the kids fault. But uncontrolled reproduction HARMS children that are already here. Controlling reproduction (abstaining, using the pill, using condoms, and aborting unwanted pregnancies) greatly improves average income and living standards.

The second part is a loaded question. If a woman gets pregnant and then has an abortion within a reasonable amount of time she is not killing her child. She is ending her pregnancy. A fetus is not a kid with snotty nose, it doesn't even have a sense of self or awareness before 26 weeks or so.

Now, we can have a serious discussion about limiting "late term" abortions. I'm down with that discussion. But prior to 26 weeks it ain't your business, it ain't my business, and it damn sure ain't the government's business. So don't go down that road of "baby killing" argumentation. I don't have any patience for claptrap.
In your first argument you are treating the symptom instead of the root cause.
Instead of spending the money on women's rights to abort children, and instead of clinics making money by aborting children, spend that money and effort into preventing unwanted pregnancies, and then you are treating the root cause.

On your second argument, early or late term should make no bearing on the decision of when this cessation of life is morally acceptable. If you have to try to define "reasonably acceptable" then you are trying to make yourself feel better about ending the life of a child.
ProvenScience

London, KY

#103889 May 17, 2013
Quantummist wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not it... I'm waiting for someone to notice what the image captured.... It's like looking for Waldo.....
It captured the scientific evidence that you are a bndwdth hog!
ProvenScience

London, KY

#103890 May 17, 2013
Quantummist wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not it... I'm waiting for someone to notice what the image captured.... It's like looking for Waldo.....
Adapt with computer graphics programs.
ProvenScience

London, KY

#103891 May 17, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>The controversy is, should a woman be forced to carry the fetus. The government feels they cannot be forced to carry.
Good, because that kind of thing is really NONE of the governments business.

“Speaker of Mountain Wisdom....”

Since: Jan 10

London, KY

#103892 May 17, 2013
ProvenScience wrote:
<quoted text>
It captured the scientific evidence that you are a bndwdth hog!
Save your pop cans and you too can afford a good ISDN connect....
ProvenScience

London, KY

#103893 May 17, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
No, no.
Statistically, crime correlates with poverty. Poverty is increased when reproductive rights are decreased or denied. That much should be common sense, right? Look at areas where poverty is a problem. Look at the families. What do you see? Tons of kids. Look at areas of affluence. What do you see? Fewer kids.
People with privilege tend to be educated. They tend to control their reproduction, pushing more of their resources into fewer offspring.
In families where living on food stamps is essentially a tradition they pump out a lot of babies. You sometimes see kids coming out of those groups break that tradition by NOT having kids early or at all.
It is NOT the kids fault. But uncontrolled reproduction HARMS children that are already here. Controlling reproduction (abstaining, using the pill, using condoms, and aborting unwanted pregnancies) greatly improves average income and living standards.
The second part is a loaded question. If a woman gets pregnant and then has an abortion within a reasonable amount of time she is not killing her child. She is ending her pregnancy. A fetus is not a kid with snotty nose, it doesn't even have a sense of self or awareness before 26 weeks or so.
Now, we can have a serious discussion about limiting "late term" abortions. I'm down with that discussion. But prior to 26 weeks it ain't your business, it ain't my business, and it damn sure ain't the government's business. So don't go down that road of "baby killing" argumentation. I don't have any patience for claptrap.
Excellent post!
ProvenScience

London, KY

#103894 May 17, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>irresponsible? So if a married couple is using contraception yet it fails to stop a pregnancy, are they irresponsible?
What I struggled to understand as a Christian was, if god does not want you to have a lot of sex, why did he make it so desirable?
It makes much more sense that we evolved that desire in order to ensure reproduction.
There's that lil wolfy dog drool showing.....down Fido, sit...good boy.

“Speaker of Mountain Wisdom....”

Since: Jan 10

London, KY

#103895 May 17, 2013
ProvenScience wrote:
<quoted text>
Adapt with computer graphics programs.
No Way!... I would never alter a photo...

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/--0b180i_Ce...
ProvenScience

London, KY

#103896 May 17, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>And they think we atheists oppose them because we are just searching for god. The many reasons we list do not add up in their mind.
Would you like a squeaky chew toy to slobber on while you search?

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#103897 May 17, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Jus who would decide the risks of health? Problem is, you would be trusting government with life and death decisions. Would you trust the government with your loved ones life?
No one is pushing for abortions, but their is a massive problem when you let government make these decisions.
I agree. But this isn't a cut-n-dry issue. It is messy as hell. And you gotta start talking somewhere.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Barbourville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Who's in charge of the fb festival entertainment 2 min Ledford Dean 10
Timmy Jordan aka pork and Shannon 1 hr omg 13
School board employees hide cash THEFTS ! 2 hr wondering 4
Is Paul Baker a good Disability Lawyer? (Dec '12) 8 hr myrahnna 86
Daniel Boone 2016 10 hr partyondudes 11
Everyone's is for Freedom of Speech............... 10 hr Knox county mad man 4
News Farr back in custody - 10 hr Knox county mad man 1
Who will be the next Knox Co. Judge Exec.? 18 hr Martin 101

Barbourville Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Barbourville Mortgages