Bible study rules for public schools proposed

Feb 10, 2010 Full story: The Courier-Journal 131,073

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.

Full Story

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#104426 May 22, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>You are confusing what a fetus will become with what a fetus is. Before consciousness there is no self, therefore no suffering.

But the mother is a real person with a self and a history. Her suffering is a very real concern.

So yeah, if she has a "valley girl moment" and wants an abortion it ain't your business. There's no person to suffer. A potential person is being terminated, not an actual person.

Now before you go to the extreme, I'm not saying girls should use abortion as birth control. And they don't. There aren't that many abortions being performed anyway and nearly all of them are very early in the pregnancy. This idea of a genocide of infants is an invention of right wing nutters and appeals to the dumbest people only.

Abortions should be: rare, safe, early.

F*ck what the church thinks about it. It ain't the church's vagina, now is it?
We disagree so much on this.
Once an egg is fertilized, it is human and is considered a stage of development. Development goes from zygote, to child, to adolescent, to adult, to golden years.
There are people today in hospitals or nursing homes that have no feeling or are unconscious, should we kill them too? Should we pull the plug on those that are being kept alive by machines?

Aren't that many abortions being performed? In the US alone: 1.2 million per year. What would be considered a lot to you?
That equates to 137 per hour
1 every 26 seconds.
Not that many?
If these were homocides of 5 year olds would it seem alarming to you then?

I'm not talking about a church. I'm talking about children that deserve to live their life.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#104427 May 22, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>So you wish to withhold marriage to homosexuals due to your superstition and yet cannot understand why we oppose your religion?
America is not a theocracy. We should not be making law due to your superstitions.
Would you not be just as upset as I if Muslims became a majority in America and they made superstitious laws (Sharia law)?
I am sure your church would love it if women could be kept from high ranking jobs also.
We get it, you and your church are bigots. And you wonder why so many look at your church as if it were a cult?
Show us your church is a leader in morality then we can talk about it following an actual god.
Withholding rights and privileges due to race, sex, or sexual persuasion is not moral. Your church has done all three and is still doing two of them.
You and your church learned nothing from its racism debacle.
Calm down Mike. No need for insult on an opinion forum.

Marriage began within religion. Why would someone even care about marriage if they don't believe in any form of religion? Civil unions are just fine with me for gays. They should receive the same benefits as marriage. The word marriage matters to religious people because it carries the belief that God is a part of the union. Civil union carries all the same rights in the rest of the world, but it isn't recognized by God. Since you don't believe in God, why would you care if He recognized it or not?

No, I would not wish women be kept from high ranking jobs. I have no problem with female CEO's or politicians (except Hillary haha. Is she female?). I would vote for a woman for president if her views and intentions were acceptable. Please don't speak for me.

If you want to learn about the leader of my church, google him. Thomas S Monson

“There is no god.”

Since: Jan 12

USA

#104428 May 22, 2013
In the early 1900's we could expect to live about 46 years, today we can expect to live about 75 years, of course this is mostly due to medical and scientific advances(no god required). Infant mortality was about 160 per 1000 births in the early 1900's, today about 5 per 1000 die, once more it is mostly attributed to medical and scientific advances(no god required). Of course the life you live(rich or poor) played a part along with the weather, food availability, war, and epidemic proportioned diseases(no devil required). I would have to check but I think about 900,000 to 1.1 million infants die a year due to premature birth(just in america). Consider miscarriages, how many fetuses just get flushed and the mother never knows. I have seen estimates that go as high as 40% of all sperm and egg meetings end in death before leaving the womb.

So if we go from the early 70s(abortion became legal) till today about 60 million abortions have been done. During this same time about 140 million have died in the womb. During the same time frame about 200 million have been okie dokie.

No god exists.
But.
If a god did exist according to the holyhatebible this mythical sky critter is responsible for everything.

Soooo, over 40 years,
Abortions=(Allowed by "The Mythical Sky Critter") 60 million dead babies.
The mythical sky critter=140 dead babies in the womb.
Oleo lord, god in a jesus suit wins the body count.

Cherry picking.
It's a religie head up the shiite canal thingy.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#104429 May 22, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
He was foreordained. There is a difference. Yes He had choices. But the veil was gone from His remembrance, unlike our position. So He knew His purpose and understood its importance. So though He could have ignored His calling, He chose to honor the will of the Father.
I respect your opinion, but...
Churchgoers are an incredible species.
If logic contortions were physical, there would be 2 billion circus performers in the world.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#104430 May 22, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Churches are teaching fiction, and you are here defending that is all they teach. You oppose them teaching modern inventions that reduce abortions.

You cannot expect me to take you seriously when you complain about abortion so much then shirk the churches role in reducing abortions.
Face palm

Churches teach abstinence until marriage. This is the number one, absolute, 100% method to prevent an abortion.
It is not their place to teach how to use contraceptives any more than it is their place to teach sexual positions.
It isn't their place to teach gun safety tips to avoid accidental deaths.
It isn't their job to teach drivers education to prevent car accidents.
It isn't their job to teach chemical reactions to avoid accidental science fair mishaps at home.
It isn't their job to teach how to paint to prevent accidental falling off ladders.
I hope you get the point.

You cannot expect me to take you seriously if you think Church holds the responsibility to teach these things. They teach the gospel of Jesus Christ (at least mine does, the one you are currently attacking)
stuck in a lodi

Elkhorn City, KY

#104431 May 22, 2013
stuck in a lodi wrote:
<quoted text> I did not say it was 100% fool-proof. The majority of people who put the condom on in the correct manner do not experience "bursting or breakage". My point is; it's better than having no protection and risking such diseases.
For your second point, I said I encourage NO SEX UNTIL AFTER MARRIAGE, what part of that did you not understand? But I'm not going to pretend to be stupid in thinking that they will marry as a virgin! It is my responsibility as a parent to teach them SEX ED 101. for both genders! Yes and Amen wrote:
AMEN!
Lust of anything is bad, sex, money, power!
It all withers, rusts, and blows away!
What we think important today is garbage tomorrow!

I'm still trying to figure out how to take all the good stuff with me when I die.:) j/k

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#104432 May 22, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>And abstinence teaching does not stop kids from having sex. So neither approach is one hundred percent effective. This is why both need to be taught.
And I think if they do happen to get pregnant, abortion and adoption is an option.
Teaching kids that murder is wrong doesn't prevent murders either.

I agree that kids should be taugh about contraceptives. It should be the parents' role to teach this. I am also just fine with a course in school about it since there are so many deadbeat parents that won't teach their kids. But I think they should bring a real doctor in to teach this part of the course, as I have seen PE teachers first hand that failed miserably at teaching it effectively.

And I can't agree that abortion should be their option.
stuck in a lodi

Elkhorn City, KY

#104433 May 22, 2013
Do Whut Wrote: No, I would not wish women be kept from high ranking jobs. I have no problem with female CEO's or politicians (except Hillary haha. Is she female?).

lmao, perhaps she"s one of those she-males :) You know; the type that makes you wanna say ewwww

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#104434 May 22, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>How an I mixing topics? Your churches stance on blacks holding the priesthood and women holding the priesthood is different how? Just how is this a separate topic?
So you are offended? Well you should be, it offends me how your church has bigoted policies. It is one large reason I left the Mormon church. Do you want other to leave your church for these reasons?
You refuse to think the church could be wrong on women and the priesthood, but you should take note, they were wrong on blacks and the priesthood for over a hundred years. So why do you have such absolute blind faith they could not be wrong now?
Now go and run from my points like you so often do.
It is different, completely. There was no revelation given that blacks should not hold the priesthood. We already talked about this. This was Brigham's opinion and no one questioned it when they should have. Males as the only holders of the priesthood was a direct revelation from Jesus Christ. This is what makes the situations different. Once Jesus Christ speaks, the church obeys.

No I'm not offended.

Did I run from anything?

“pervinco per logica”

Since: Feb 12

Eradicate willful ignorance.

#104435 May 22, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
IUD's: if they prevent an egg from being fertilized, then there is no chance of a life resulting. I realize that they can be used a few days after sex too. Not sure I agree with that method of use, but then again the egg may not be fertilized yet.
I'm not sure if you are aware, but IUDs, as with other chemical/hormonal birth control methods, generally attempt to prevent fertilization either by preventing the release of eggs or killing sperm. These attempts do fail. And these birth control methods generally have "backup" effects that cause the uterus to be unfavorable for pregnancy, causing the fertilized egg to be rejected.
This fact is a large part of my confusion about the opinions of "life begins at conception" people who also support birth control methods like this. It would seem to me that these have a significant chance of essentially being automatic abortion of a zygote, and would therefore be absolutely incompatible with such a view. Is this a matter of people not understanding the mechanism involved, or do they consider it an unfortunate side effect that is OK because it generally tends to happen less than 10% of the time.
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
No, those that are taking the proper precautions and become the 1-3% do not get a free pass in my opinion, because they knew the chance that they were taking. Unless they fall in the category that it may put their own life at risk, abortion should not be an option for them.
Yes, they know the risks, but you know the risks when you get in a car. If you have a wreck, should you not be able to get help with the situation, or should you have to lay in the ditch bleeding and just deal with it because you knew the risks?
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
Just curious, how can something be off hundreds of percent?
I tend to say things that way because people generally do not "get" the difference between 1% and 2%. It's not that they intentionally try to diminish the difference, it's just the way the human mind works unless you train it to deal with statistics. The fact is, a 2% occurrence happens 100% more often than a 1% occurrence. So if something actually happens 10-11% of the time instead of 1%...
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
And why do you care so much about my position? And why won't you share yours?
Because you're capable of being more articulate than the vast majority of people I've seen that share your general opinion on this. Maybe you could explain your position where others have utterly failed. Perhaps you will actually consider questions that I have about things that I see as highly inconsistent. I mean, after almost a week of prodding, you've eventually given me pretty good answers.

I don't share my opinions because things get very very gray for me after a point. This isn't black or white and I don't have any stance that I could hold firm to (and CERTAINLY nothing that I would stand on a soapbox for), whereas you apparently do. I honestly don't know what I would be inclined to do in some situations, and I can see multiple sides with valid points.
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
There are people today in hospitals or nursing homes that have no feeling or are unconscious, should we kill them too? Should we pull the plug on those that are being kept alive by machines?
I'm not sure that going down that path is beneficial to your position. If an individual is brain dead, then I cannot imagine why a single penny should be spent keeping the rest of their body "alive" when there are people with fully formed and functioning brains suffering and dying all over the world, and the organs of the brain dead person could undoubtedly save many lives. It does far more good for humanity (and is clearly the moral choice) to simply let them go, and it's utterly selfish on the part of the families that cling to nothing for years and years.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#104436 May 22, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>The common link is, your church just sticks to teaching fiction and does not concern itself with actually teaching what helps people the most.
This is entirely your opinion.
I believe the Church teaches salvation which lasts for eternity. To me there is nothing that helps me more than leading me back to live with my Father in Heaven.
stuck in a lodi

Elkhorn City, KY

#104437 May 22, 2013
I'm just saying this not a specific toward anyone here. Going to church does not make one a christian no more than going to Mcdonalds makes you a hamburger! This is just my opinion , not directed to anyone at all

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#104438 May 22, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
Calm down Mike. No need for insult on an opinion forum.
Marriage began within religion. Why would someone even care about marriage if they don't believe in any form of religion? Civil unions are just fine with me for gays. They should receive the same benefits as marriage. The word marriage matters to religious people because it carries the belief that God is a part of the union. Civil union carries all the same rights in the rest of the world, but it isn't recognized by God. Since you don't believe in God, why would you care if He recognized it or not?
No, I would not wish women be kept from high ranking jobs. I have no problem with female CEO's or politicians (except Hillary haha. Is she female?). I would vote for a woman for president if her views and intentions were acceptable. Please don't speak for me.
If you want to learn about the leader of my church, google him. Thomas S Monson
There is no footing to support the notion that marriage began as a religious act. If you are wed by a secular Justice of the Peace or sea captain, you are married - not unioned. Are there any women bishops in the LDS? NO. If you do not actively advocate women in your "priesthood," then you do not wish for women to have high ranking jobs. Don't propose invalid statements just to support religious opinion.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#104439 May 22, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Piggly Wigglies do not claim to be getting messages from a god and do not claim to be promoting agendas to life. Your church does.
Talk about changing the subject.
Not changing the subject, just relating the absurdity.

The message from God is abstinence, remember?

Police don't say "You must always wear your seat belts. But if you choose to disobey, make sure you throw your arm in front of your toddler in the front seat to prevent them from going through the windshield"

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#104440 May 22, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
...
It is not their place to teach how to use contraceptives any more than it is their place to teach sexual positions...
Maybe not. But should they (churches) be going out of their way to disrupt the teaching of contraceptive use? That seems irresponsible to me, but yet it's happening.
stuck in a lodi

Elkhorn City, KY

#104441 May 22, 2013
Ummm Wrote: I don't share my opinions because things get very very gray for me after a point. This isn't black or white and I don't have any stance that I could hold firm to (and CERTAINLY nothing that I would stand on a soapbox for), whereas you apparently do. I honestly don't know what I would be inclined to do in some situations, and I can see multiple sides with valid points

Wow! I must say I completely admire and respect your comment above ,and agree that alot of topics are gray areas for alot of people.
Allow me to be the first to say Thank You for finally answering it.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#104442 May 22, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
It is different, completely. There was no revelation given that blacks should not hold the priesthood. We already talked about this. This was Brigham's opinion and no one questioned it when they should have. Males as the only holders of the priesthood was a direct revelation from Jesus Christ. This is what makes the situations different. Once Jesus Christ speaks, the church obeys.
No I'm not offended.
Did I run from anything?
Yes. Jesus did not create the hierarchy of the church. That was done later - by men, and for 1900 years the church has diligently connived to defame Mary as a harlot and completely dismiss the roles of women in Jesus' entourage.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#104443 May 22, 2013
The Churches do teach "Thou shalt not commit adultery" and to "Flee fornication". Besides that if you are old enough for intimacy then you are old enough to know about birth control. Before you become pregnant is the time for birth control, not after the fact. That cuts down on the need for so many abortions butt..a friend and I have discussed the horrific incidences of rape of a young girl or incest. Should an eleven year old girl be forced to carry and bear their own father's, uncle's or brother's etc. child? Would we in all honesty want our daughter to endure such a thing? Makes for a big decision and a lot of thought. Challenges even my strongest beliefs. Seriously.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#104444 May 22, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>i think the language of "valley girl" is what leads one to abortion over adoption.
The condemnation you just showed towards the burden of raising a child is cause for some to abort in secret instead of being judged by the likes of you in church.
This is just another reality you ignore.
Abortion in secret or in public, or legal or illegal is still ending the life of a human.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#104445 May 22, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
Face palm
Churches teach abstinence until marriage. This is the number one, absolute, 100% method to prevent an abortion.
It is not their place to teach how to use contraceptives any more than it is their place to teach sexual positions.
It isn't their place to teach gun safety tips to avoid accidental deaths.
It isn't their job to teach drivers education to prevent car accidents.
It isn't their job to teach chemical reactions to avoid accidental science fair mishaps at home.
It isn't their job to teach how to paint to prevent accidental falling off ladders.
I hope you get the point.
You cannot expect me to take you seriously if you think Church holds the responsibility to teach these things. They teach the gospel of Jesus Christ (at least mine does, the one you are currently attacking)
Do whut, it is though, the Church's place to teach morality, which also includes men raping women and girls, or sex for money and drugs. That is a good percentage of unwanted pregnancies now. It does not all fall on the woman or young girl. Men are just as guilty. Seems the Church lacks in teaching men and boys the same moral guidelines as they do the females. "Guys keep your hands off her till marriage" should be taught the same as "girls save yourself till marriage". It still takes two!

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
KY What's mitch McConnell done for coal, when ther... 2 min Venom 5,449
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 5 min Obama Zombies 153,977
KY Hundreds of birds die in western Ky. (Jan '11) 29 min put that spoon 81,642
bad renters HELP 41 min deadbeats 1
tiffany jackson 45 min yolanda 8
The parent who flipped off and threatened every... 57 min 26 hwy 6
KY Woman's head stepped on by Rand Paul supporters (Oct '10) 59 min Bill 26,280
kC principal injured 1 hr Sarah J 7
Knox parent goes off at Bell and Knox football ... 2 hr Weirdos 9
Knox parent out of control goes after student a... 20 hr fan 15
•••
•••
•••

Barbourville Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Barbourville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Barbourville News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Barbourville
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••