Bible study rules for public schools proposed

Feb 10, 2010 Full story: The Courier-Journal 131,386

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

#104208 May 20, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Public schools tried that abstinence only teaching and the results proved it ineffective. So keep up the poor teachings and keep seeing abortions increase. Your choice, deal with the results.
Also consider how it makes church look ineffective for the real world.
I enjoy being different than the rest of the "real world". There is nothing wrong with teaching abstinence. The only fault lies in human weakness. Think about the teaching itself. If all abstained from pre-marital sex and even after marriage, used contraceptives until they were ready to start a family, huge amounts of problems would decrease. Really think about what the world would be like if they followed that advice.
There would be less families on welfare. There would be stronger family units which improve society as a whole. There would be more people finishing high school and even further education, which means a smarter society. There would be less divorce. There would be more families with a father and a mother to provide guidance to children and be good examples.
There would be less jealousy because they would know their spouse is going to be faithful, which leads to more focus while at work. Man, the list goes on and on.
So don't blame a good teaching. Blame weak human nature.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#104209 May 20, 2013
_Ummm_ wrote:
That's only a partial answer to one of the questions (if I assume that "the mother's life is in danger" means that there is a significant change of the actual pregnancy killing her, for medical reasons). Please go point by point and be thorough, even if your answer appears to be consistent with your first statement, as there are many nuances. I'd like to understand better.
do whut wrote, "<quoted text>
I think you know what I meant. I worded it that way on purpose. I'm a southerner. I say "you" sometimes where a northerner would say "one".
But again, I think you knew what I meant. Just like I know you don't really mean "most theists do not attend church""

No, I really didn't know what you mean if it wasn't what you said. And I hope you don't "know that I didn't mean it", because I also DID really mean that most theists do not attend church. The only confusion could be what exactly defines church attendance, and I would say that going 1-2 times a year does not mean that you attend church. Including that group is the only way you reach a majority in this country among Christians. It's not even close among many other religions in this country, and generally speaking in most other countries.

And do remember that these already low rates are all self reported, and self reported values will always be skewed significantly high due to the reporting individual's guilt and self-perception of being religious. Studies have shown that the self reported rates may be in excess of 50% higher than reality.

Most theists do not attend church.
You know I wasn't suggesting Mike attends church. Period

My mistake on the assumption on your other point.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#104210 May 20, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
I enjoy being different than the rest of the "real world". There is nothing wrong with teaching abstinence. The only fault lies in human weakness. Think about the teaching itself. If all abstained from pre-marital sex and even after marriage, used contraceptives until they were ready to start a family, huge amounts of problems would decrease. Really think about what the world would be like if they followed that advice.
There would be less families on welfare. There would be stronger family units which improve society as a whole. There would be more people finishing high school and even further education, which means a smarter society. There would be less divorce. There would be more families with a father and a mother to provide guidance to children and be good examples.
There would be less jealousy because they would know their spouse is going to be faithful, which leads to more focus while at work. Man, the list goes on and on.
So don't blame a good teaching. Blame weak human nature.
Abstinence vs. safe sex? Reality check.
People can't even understand "Don't drink and drive, wear your seat belt, don't speed, use your turn signals, leave your cellphone alone, etc., etc." and the religious compliment of society blames young adults for being a jumbled mess of hormones.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#104211 May 20, 2013
_Ummm_ wrote:
That's only a partial answer to one of the questions (if I assume that "the mother's life is in danger" means that there is a significant change of the actual pregnancy killing her, for medical reasons). Please go point by point and be thorough, even if your answer appears to be consistent with your first statement, as there are many nuances. I'd like to understand better.
do whut wrote, "<quoted text>
I think you know what I meant. I worded it that way on purpose. I'm a southerner. I say "you" sometimes where a northerner would say "one".
But again, I think you knew what I meant. Just like I know you don't really mean "most theists do not attend church""

No, I really didn't know what you mean if it wasn't what you said. And I hope you don't "know that I didn't mean it", because I also DID really mean that most theists do not attend church. The only confusion could be what exactly defines church attendance, and I would say that going 1-2 times a year does not mean that you attend church. Including that group is the only way you reach a majority in this country among Christians. It's not even close among many other religions in this country, and generally speaking in most other countries.

And do remember that these already low rates are all self reported, and self reported values will always be skewed significantly high due to the reporting individual's guilt and self-perception of being religious. Studies have shown that the self reported rates may be in excess of 50% higher than reality.

Most theists do not attend church.
My answer answered all three of your questions. If the mother is in danger of dying, then the child would have no mother to nurture the child. Situations are different, so even then the child could still be reared by the Father and day care while he is at work, for example. But that won't work for every one. So I think if it is deemed that the mother could die, abortion should be an option.
If it is thought that the child will suffer and not live long, it still isn't a reason to kill him/her in my opinion. I know families that have been through this very thing and are so grateful that they got to know that child and love him. They value that time in their lives as the greatest time yet.
And I know some people that were thought to have disabilities that ended up being fine and lead happy, productive lives. And they talk publicly about how the doctor tried to get their parents to abort the pregnancy.

There is a woman (giann

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#104212 May 20, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>My answer answered all three of your questions. If the mother is in danger of dying, then the child would have no mother to nurture the child. Situations are different, so even then the child could still be reared by the Father and day care while he is at work, for example. But that won't work for every one. So I think if it is deemed that the mother could die, abortion should be an option.
If it is thought that the child will suffer and not live long, it still isn't a reason to kill him/her in my opinion. I know families that have been through this very thing and are so grateful that they got to know that child and love him. They value that time in their lives as the greatest time yet.
And I know some people that were thought to have disabilities that ended up being fine and lead happy, productive lives. And they talk publicly about how the doctor tried to get their parents to abort the pregnancy.

There is a woman (giann
Sorry, hit send by accident.
There is a woman (Gianna Jesson) that everyone should listen to. Google her sometime and listen to her talk about abortion.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#104213 May 20, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>Abstinence vs. safe sex? Reality check.
People can't even understand "Don't drink and drive, wear your seat belt, don't speed, use your turn signals, leave your cellphone alone, etc., etc." and the religious compliment of society blames young adults for being a jumbled mess of hormones.
Still, you can't blame the weak for failure to follow good rules.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#104214 May 20, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, hit send by accident.
There is a woman (Gianna Jesson) that everyone should listen to. Google her sometime and listen to her talk about abortion.
Just because I am rather bored and since I agreed with you twice may as well hit this with you.

The ethical implications of abortion work in so many directions, the definition of life is so inaccurate as well, and there are so many factors to determine if an abortion is necessary or not, to simply outlaw it would be taking any and all blame for yourself. But to leave it to the woman and her medical physician to decide makes them responsible for making the correct choice, and there are cases in which an abortion will save the life of the woman. Without medical science most fetuses never live, they are either stillborn or aborted naturally, often when the woman's body is at risk to carry to term it will abort the fetus as well. Medical science has made it so finding these cases is easy, but not until the natural abortion has been suppressed, thus placing the woman in danger. If your god was real, it's basically defying your god's own will at that point, if you want to put it all existential.

So the question is this, what gives you any more of a right to deny nature (or your god's will) than the woman?

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#104215 May 20, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Just because I am rather bored and since I agreed with you twice may as well hit this with you.

The ethical implications of abortion work in so many directions, the definition of life is so inaccurate as well, and there are so many factors to determine if an abortion is necessary or not, to simply outlaw it would be taking any and all blame for yourself. But to leave it to the woman and her medical physician to decide makes them responsible for making the correct choice, and there are cases in which an abortion will save the life of the woman. Without medical science most fetuses never live, they are either stillborn or aborted naturally, often when the woman's body is at risk to carry to term it will abort the fetus as well. Medical science has made it so finding these cases is easy, but not until the natural abortion has been suppressed, thus placing the woman in danger. If your god was real, it's basically defying your god's own will at that point, if you want to put it all existential.

So the question is this, what gives you any more of a right to deny nature (or your god's will) than the woman?
Natural causes, again, is different from intentional aborting the pregnancy. I showed the stats for reasons for abortion and health of the mother was less than 1%. The overwhelming reason stemmed back to irresponsible behavior of single adults. This should be outlawed because it has nothing to do with medical science or health of the mother.

But since we're back on it, what part of medical science are you saying is necessary to save most pregnancies?

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#104216 May 20, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
I enjoy being different than the rest of the "real world". There is nothing wrong with teaching abstinence. The only fault lies in human weakness. Think about the teaching itself. If all abstained from pre-marital sex and even after marriage, used contraceptives until they were ready to start a family, huge amounts of problems would decrease. Really think about what the world would be like if they followed that advice.
There would be less families on welfare. There would be stronger family units which improve society as a whole. There would be more people finishing high school and even further education, which means a smarter society. There would be less divorce. There would be more families with a father and a mother to provide guidance to children and be good examples.
There would be less jealousy because they would know their spouse is going to be faithful, which leads to more focus while at work. Man, the list goes on and on.
So don't blame a good teaching. Blame weak human nature.
Well you can keep trying to get people to defy human nature but the reality this human nature is the reality of our world. You ignore this fact to the peril of many abortions.

Contraceptives can lower the human nature factor.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#104217 May 20, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
Natural causes, again, is different from intentional aborting the pregnancy. I showed the stats for reasons for abortion and health of the mother was less than 1%. The overwhelming reason stemmed back to irresponsible behavior of single adults. This should be outlawed because it has nothing to do with medical science or health of the mother.
But since we're back on it, what part of medical science are you saying is necessary to save most pregnancies?
Medications to regulate the hormonal balance of the mother, most often, sometimes more drastic medications or procedures though rarely.

As to the rest, so you are willing to say that you have more of a right to oppose the will of your god (should it exist) or nature than the woman does? Their reasons are not what's at stake here, they have to answer for those themselves regardless of what you believe or do not believe, regret in such a matter can be the equivalent of "hell." What is at stake is, are you willing to take the responsibility for the decision all on your own and absolve them of any responsibility at all? If not, then outlawing it is a bad choice for everyone.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#104218 May 20, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Abstinence vs. safe sex? Reality check.
People can't even understand "Don't drink and drive, wear your seat belt, don't speed, use your turn signals, leave your cellphone alone, etc., etc." and the religious compliment of society blames young adults for being a jumbled mess of hormones.
I honestly don't think he's saying to teach abstinence only, but to merely recommend it as the best method. You cannot deny that abstinence is pretty much a surefire method to avoid pregnancy, for those willing to follow it.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#104219 May 20, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Be fair now, he did not recommend it being taught in place of actual health science, but merely pointed out that it is one of the most effective methods of birth control, and for that, he is not wrong. Please stop making him correct so much. Mormonism is attractive to agnostic theists more than gnostic theists, and the only serious problem I have with them is the anti-gay nonsense and their chauvinistic tendencies. They do have some sensibility.
I am not sure "say what" wants as he is so vague in most of his answers.
His last post sounds as if he expects some Utopian world that needs no birth control.

It may not bother you that he and his religion are not pro active on contraception, but I am.
For one, I see so many children being raised, or more accurately, not raised by parents that planed or are ready for children.

Teaching can consist if both but religion often does not speak of birth control due to it blocking nature in an artificial manner.
Many times this leaves young persons that are striving for abstinence but fail, then end up pregnant with an unwanted child due to lack of contraceptive education.
stuck in a lodi

Elkhorn City, KY

#104220 May 20, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Abstinence vs. safe sex? Reality check.
People can't even understand "Don't drink and drive, wear your seat belt, don't speed, use your turn signals, leave your cellphone alone, etc., etc." and the religious compliment of society blames young adults for being a jumbled mess of hormones.
lol Oh the people understand the consequences of their actions ,they just choose to ignore it. For the second part, explain in your opinion how the religious compliment of society blames young adults for being a jumbled mess of hormones?

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#104221 May 20, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
Still, you can't blame the weak for failure to follow good rules.
That's the f'ing TWILIGHT ZONE.
Blame is a reaction, not a solution. Do you blame someone for kiting a check to feed their children or pay rent? Society says yes. Do you prosecute "too big to fail" bankers? Society says no.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#104222 May 20, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
I honestly don't think he's saying to teach abstinence only, but to merely recommend it as the best method. You cannot deny that abstinence is pretty much a surefire method to avoid pregnancy, for those willing to follow it.
I understand that. Unlike DW, many moralists object to the teaching of preventative methods and protections.
Orlando public schools built a shiny new high rise for their offices. The school board paid $50,000 for an 'abstinence only' course out of Texas and paid the company's spokesperson's way to make a presentation to the board. The course stressed 2 things - the "Chastity Pledge" for the girls and graphic presentations of STDs and abortions. It did not mention any form of birth control. The VERY FIRST TIME the pristine auditorium was used in this "Educational Leadership Center", her speech revolved around the phrase "Education is not the answer."
Does that kind of program work? What is the percentage of married couples who have had premarital sex?

“pervinco per logica”

Since: Feb 12

Eradicate willful ignorance.

#104223 May 20, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
You know I wasn't suggesting Mike attends church. Period
Nor was I. You may want to re-read.
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
My answer answered all three of your questions.
Not really. If it did, I would not ask for further information.
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
If the mother is in danger of dying, then the child would have no mother to nurture the child. Situations are different, so even then the child could still be reared by the Father and day care while he is at work, for example. But that won't work for every one. So I think if it is deemed that the mother could die, abortion should be an option.
This is what I thought you meant.
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
If it is thought that the child will suffer and not live long, it still isn't a reason to kill him/her in my opinion. I know families that have been through this very thing and are so grateful that they got to know that child and love him. They value that time in their lives as the greatest time yet.
This is consistent with what you stated, but as I indicated, things are more complex than that first simple answer could adequately address.

Your scenario is standard fare, but standard fare has always been a bit confusing to me. Self awareness is not a thing that occurs in almost all cases like this. There is almost no chance of a real life, yet there is almost complete chance of suffering. This is not a thing that could ever be for the benefit of the defective, dying child. It is for the benefit of the parents alone. To me, this is wrong. It seems simply selfish on their part. I recognize the negatives in aborting due to mild birth defects, but I don't know of any way to justify allowing a child to be born if it is almost certainly going to suffer. There is a wide swath of grey area in these types of issues, but I think that people who perform abortions due to significant defects are easily as justified as those who do not.
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
And I know some people that were thought to have disabilities that ended up being fine and lead happy, productive lives. And they talk publicly about how the doctor tried to get their parents to abort the pregnancy.
This is true. And there are plenty of cases of parents being notified of severe defects, parents refusing to believe, and the child living for a few excruciating hours.
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a woman (Gianna Jesson) that everyone should listen to. Google her sometime and listen to her talk about abortion.
I am aware of her. She's a good example of why late term/saline is stupid and horrible. But I wouldn't go much further than that.

So, now you've been fairly specific on most. But some are still not addressed to the degree that I understand your position:
_Ummm_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Is it ever fine to terminate a pregnancy after an egg has been fertilized, in what cases, and why?
In this case, I'm not speaking of overt abortion. I'm speaking of things that are considered birth control that still accomplish the same thing... preventing an already fertilized egg from being born. Please be specific about which cases you consider it OK/not OK.
_Ummm_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Is the body, life, and livelihood of a pregnant rape victim more or less important than a cluster of a few hundred cells sitting in her uterine wall?
Recognizing that rape can result in pregnancy (unwanted by both parties, one had no choice), permanent body changes for the victim, stigma of being a young single mother for the victim, major setbacks in the life of the victim, and the passing on of the genes of a complete waste of life... do you agree that from the second the egg is fertilized forward, there should be no action taken to stop the pregnancy?

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#104224 May 20, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Medications to regulate the hormonal balance of the mother, most often, sometimes more drastic medications or procedures though rarely.

As to the rest, so you are willing to say that you have more of a right to oppose the will of your god (should it exist) or nature than the woman does? Their reasons are not what's at stake here, they have to answer for those themselves regardless of what you believe or do not believe, regret in such a matter can be the equivalent of "hell." What is at stake is, are you willing to take the responsibility for the decision all on your own and absolve them of any responsibility at all? If not, then outlawing it is a bad choice for everyone.
I have no idea what you are asking here. Can you reword this? It doesn't look familiar to me at all so I do not think this is what I said at all

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#104225 May 20, 2013
stuck in a lodi wrote:
<quoted text>
lol Oh the people understand the consequences of their actions ,they just choose to ignore it. For the second part, explain in your opinion how the religious compliment of society blames young adults for being a jumbled mess of hormones?
Old enough to know better and too young to care - is that a prosecution or a defense? Nevermind.
I was corresponding with do whut. Be advised that if I find someone to be too whacked to follow the conversation rationally, I might not respond. Don't take it personally.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#104226 May 20, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>I am not sure "say what" wants as he is so vague in most of his answers.
His last post sounds as if he expects some Utopian world that needs no birth control.

It may not bother you that he and his religion are not pro active on contraception, but I am.
For one, I see so many children being raised, or more accurately, not raised by parents that planed or are ready for children.

Teaching can consist if both but religion often does not speak of birth control due to it blocking nature in an artificial manner.
Many times this leaves young persons that are striving for abstinence but fail, then end up pregnant with an unwanted child due to lack of contraceptive education.
I'm not saying that contraceptives should not be used or taught to youth. I'm saying it isn't the responsibility of a church to be the teacher.

Abstinence is absolutely the best method of contraception. And if you took abortion off the menu of answers for irresponsible teen behavior, more would practice it. I doubt it would reduce sexual activity, but it would certainly raise that awareness that they will be forced to deal with the consequences (something not taught to youth as much as it should be).
But you keep banking on contraceptives as if it is the silver bullet. Did you see the statistic on the percentage of abortions that occurred that claim they USED contraceptives and they didn't work?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#104227 May 20, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no idea what you are asking here. Can you reword this? It doesn't look familiar to me at all so I do not think this is what I said at all
No, I cannot reword, and if you are looking for a cookie cutter argument, you certainly do not want to deal with me. It's simple, we are already opposing nature, thus if there is a god the will of that god, by increasing the number of pregnancies born alive by a huge number, not a small number, but a lot. So is it better to continue to deny the natural course of things, or to give the responsibility to the woman to determine what is right in this matter? Either way, you or she is taking fate in their hands, if you take the fate in your hand, ban abortions, then you are also taking responsibility for the outcome, complete responsibility, as a human being, and in doing so, more than likely also opposing the will of nature, the will of your own god that you profess to believing in.

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.

Manchester Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
vote for Allen Roberts is a vote the gays 2 hr car mat 3
School board Race 2 hr Wayne the pain 27
shooting on 66 8 hr Ruby 9
suboxone 8 hr Tiffany 1
Why are gas prices are down in Manchester? 10 hr Worried 6
The Billionaire's Choice 10 hr fed up 2
Kentucky Needs Grimes 10 hr Ole Dog 49
Breaking News Wes Whitehead and WoodyGate 18 hr Darryl 20
Manchester Dating
Find my Match

Manchester People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Manchester News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Manchester

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]