Bible study rules for public schools proposed

Feb 10, 2010 Full story: The Courier-Journal 131,107

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

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#104366 May 21, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
Think of what germs do for us though. They aren't all bad. Just like vultures. They are disgusting but serve a purpose.
Irrelevant to the point, just as it is irrelevant that there are more microbes in the human body than there are human cells. Millions died before Pasteur, Lister, Jenner, Salk - and if one makes that claim that a god provided the means to discover, that same god prohibited those discoveries from coming sooner.
The "loving god" is supremely amoral, detached and dispassionate, just as should be expected of a figment.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#104367 May 21, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course I believe in a divine plan, just not predestination. There is a huge difference
So Jesus wasn't predestined to become a martyr - he could have just opened a furniture shop, had a bunch of kids and lived to a ripe old age grousing about the temple, taxes and the occupation just like his neighbors did.
ProvenScience

London, KY

#104368 May 21, 2013
stuck in a lodi wrote:
stuck in a lodi wrote:
using condoms are 90 to 95% effective when used with other agents as spermacide or birth control. This is fact! I cannot answer for those people who are not smart enough to read directions for use of how to apply poperly , or are not informed on the risks/benefits factor.
damn Dr. Clark says 99% effective, I was wrong! I wasn't agreeing with you proven science. I still stand on , and completely agree with my stats! Not Yours. Simply because I stated using a condom ALONG WITH spermacides AND birth control makes that % of effectivness CORRECT!
Actually, it has also been noted many times, such can WEAKEN (as in break down) the materials condoms are sometimes made of.

PROVEN SCIENCE.

If you cannot deal with actual FACTS, don't even bother to respond, because your ignorance will just be ignored.
ProvenScience

London, KY

#104369 May 21, 2013
Skeptical Spectacles wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently you don't read as well as you think you do:
"Each year, 2 out of 100 women whose partners use condoms will become pregnant if they always use condoms correctly."
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topic...
"correctly" being a KEY word.

15-24 % in a NON-perfect world.

If you can NOT be GOOD, at least be safe.

Just admit it-there are far more proven effective means of prevention of unwanted pregnancies...for those TRULY sincere about such--it just reliess on FEMALEs being HONEST enough with themselves (let alone the poor saps that believe the bullchit bunk of anything else), to face the FACTS.
ProvenScience

London, KY

#104370 May 21, 2013
Skeptical Spectacles wrote:
<quoted text>
Planned Parenthood placed condoms (male condoms) in the 15-24% ineffective grouping because, according to their stats, if used incorrectly condoms are only 82% effective. If used correctly they are 98% effective.
Hense that excuse of "its duh condoms faurlt"

Nope-never found such ineffective percentages to be acceptable here. But then again, never wanted to "trap" (mistakingly and definetly NOT purposely-- anyone into anything either-so always felt better much SAFER than sorry was always the more intelligent option for sure!!

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#104371 May 21, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
Think of what germs do for us though. They aren't all bad. Just like vultures. They are disgusting but serve a purpose.
OK. So God created all things, even the ones that kill us.

Doesn't that make God indistinguishable from nature?

If your God is just nature...good ole scientifically-demonstrable nature...then I believe in God.

Just a label, right?

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#104372 May 21, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
If someone you don't know kills someone else you don't know, is it your business? No, not really. But would you want the killer prosecuted and kept off the streets? Most people would say yes.
It's alive. You shouldn't kill it because you had a valley girl moment and decided you just don't need that burden right now.
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?
stuck in a lodi

Elkhorn City, KY

#104373 May 21, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
Prior to about 26 weeks a baby cannot feel pain and has no awareness yet. It is not a person, in any reasonable sense of the word. It is alive, of course. But not a person yet.
A woman usually knows shes pregnant long before 26 weeks. Check your science website again. Make sure the word "god" isn't in the URL or else you'll get junk.
So you are of the opinion that when a 12-yo girl willingly has sex with her boyfriend and gets pregnant she should become a 12-yo mother? Because that's a recipe for poverty and teen pregnancy. It is a cycle.
Abortion should be the favored option in a case like that. Always. To hell with the idea that a penis shoots a soul into a vagina. That is not reality. Reality is little girls getting knocked up and ruining their lives because mom and dad believe in magic.
And I don't even care if it was a choice or not. And I don't care about the age of the mother. If a 35-yo woman has sex without protection, gets pregnant, and decides she does not want to have a baby then she should be able to get an abortion. And it isn't my business or yours. Ever.
The last thing I'd want as a woman is some wrinkled old white dude in a suit sitting on Capital Hill with his hands in my vagina telling me what to do with it.
I don't want to interrupt, but I completely agree!
stuck in a lodi

Elkhorn City, KY

#104374 May 21, 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?
Completely agree with this one too * I butted in again* sorry

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#104375 May 21, 2013
_Ummm_ wrote:
Thanks for supplying most of the answers.
<quoted text>
Not just those. You're oversimplifying, or perhaps aren't aware of the methods of operation. You must also consider IUDs and standard birth control hormones (pill/injection/implant/patch/ ring). Are those OK, and why/why not?
<quoted text>
To me, this is kind of like "well, she just lost a hand already. losing another is not a big deal". It may not be the intent, but that's how it sounds when you bring the fact that she is traumatized even without enduring pregnancy.
<quoted text>
Now we're getting somewhere. I finally see where you acknowledge that this issue is not black\white. Is this feeling extended to young women who take precautions, use protection properly, and manage to be that 1-3% that fails? Especially if they are in no financial position to be raising a child or are part of a community in which their are significant repercussions for being a young single pregnant girl?
<quoted text>
Not sure how reported rate of occurrence is relevant in any way to this discussion. If we were going to discuss it, I would bring up how the vast, vast majority of rapes are never reported and how the reporting of rape as a reason for abortion could be expected to be many hundreds of percent off. But, again, irrelevant since I'm just trying to understand your position.
Good points. Especially in touching on the fact that rape reporting is very low, mostly because we shame women sexually.

"Smart said she “felt so dirty and so filthy” after she was raped by her captor, and she understands why someone wouldn’t run “because of that alone.”"

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/...

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/mccollo...

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#104376 May 21, 2013
stuck in a lodi wrote:
<quoted text>
Completely agree with this one too * I butted in again* sorry
There's no such thing as butting in on a public forum. Butt away!
ProvenScience

London, KY

#104377 May 21, 2013
Skeptical Spectacles wrote:
<quoted text>
Your posts suggest otherwise.
<quoted text>
Not according to the link you provided. If you click on the male condom graphic you'll get the rest of the info (which you obviously didn't take the time to read).
Condoms are ~82% effective if used incorrectly. I'll say that again so maybe you can understand what Planned Parenthood is telling you:
Male condoms are approximately 82% effective if they are not always used correctly.
If always used correctly they are approximately 98% effective.
Good, informative web site isn't it.
ProvenScience

London, KY

#104378 May 21, 2013
stuck in a lodi wrote:
<quoted text>
You know I'm pretty damn ignorant on alot of things, sometimes I have to read one's post couple or three times to get the jest of that person's views. I don't pretend to know everything, but I strive to learn something everyday! But when it comes to Proper use of Condoms and the stats of safe sex..That's pretty much a NO Brainer for me! I'm sure all men can relate: Nobody likes taking a shower with a raincoat on! But b4 I subject myself to an STD, I will "suit up" so to speak!
Nothing wrong with that philosophy, that protects everyone from that type of thing (STD's)then.
I don't claim to know everything either, but as a female, I always found that which offered the MOST protection in preventing unplanned, non-mutual mistakes from occuring, to be the BEST options by far!
stuck in a lodi

Elkhorn City, KY

#104379 May 21, 2013
ProvenScience wrote:
<quoted text>
"correctly" being a KEY word.
15-24 % in a NON-perfect world.
If you can NOT be GOOD, at least be safe.
Just admit it-there are far more proven effective means of prevention of unwanted pregnancies...for those TRULY sincere about such--it just reliess on FEMALEs being HONEST enough with themselves (let alone the poor saps that believe the bullchit bunk of anything else), to face the FACTS.
I read this or saw this somewhere & can't remember where or when I did, but anyway it was about abstinence. It read that 50% of those people who take the vow of abstinence break it within the first year. If I run across it again I will post it here , because I know you are gonna call me a liar again.
ProvenScience

London, KY

#104380 May 21, 2013
stuck in a lodi wrote:
<quoted text>
I read this or saw this somewhere & can't remember where or when I did, but anyway it was about abstinence. It read that 50% of those people who take the vow of abstinence break it within the first year. If I run across it again I will post it here , because I know you are gonna call me a liar again.
I never called you a liar to start with, I just provided a website (with some actual real world statistics, and other informative information- rather than just bullchit opinion) to look at.

(and maybe hense the ol' COMMON SENSE saying...if anyone can't be good---they can at least be careful-eh?)
stuck in a lodi

Elkhorn City, KY

#104381 May 21, 2013
Abstinence-only-until-marriage as a method of birth control is spectacularly ineffective. Like other methods, abstinence-only-until-marriage works if 'used' consistently and correctly. Common sense as well as available research, suggests that in the real world, it can and does fail routinely – as evidenced by the staggering proportion (95 percent) of Americans who have had premarital sex.[15] A recent study of teens who made a public pledge to abstain until marriage questioned the youth again six years after they made the pledge. Researchers found that over 60 percent had broken their vow to remain abstinent until marriage. The study also found that teens who took virginity pledges begin engaging in vaginal intercourse later than non-pledging teens, but that pledgers were more likely to engage in oral or anal sex than non-pledging virgin teens and less likely to use condoms once they become sexually active. The study found that pledgers were much less likely than non-pledgers to use contraception the first time they had sex and also were less likely than other teens to have undergone STI testing and to know their STI status. As a result, the STI rates between pledgers and non-pledgers were statistically similar.[7,8]
stuck in a lodi

Elkhorn City, KY

#104382 May 21, 2013
Yes you did. and then you changed my original post to reflect your %'s , which was wrong! I still don't believe you understand that what you posted was wrong ,and/or misleading.
stuck in a lodi

Elkhorn City, KY

#104383 May 21, 2013
Your own website that you posted stated a 98% effective rating of condom use when used correctly and properly! now I must ask you, what part of that don't you understand?
stuck in a lodi

Elkhorn City, KY

#104384 May 21, 2013
anyway, here is one of those sites if you want to read it in it's entirety http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications...

“Speaker of Mountain Wisdom....”

Since: Jan 10

http://www.panoramio.com/user/

#104385 May 21, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
Prior to about 26 weeks a baby cannot feel pain and has no awareness yet. It is not a person, in any reasonable sense of the word. It is alive, of course. But not a person yet.
Then everyone convicted of homicide for killing one should have those convictions overturned right? Since it is impossible for someone to commit Homicide if what they are committing homicide on is not a person... All those that have kicked a woman in the belly and killed a fetus, All those that have killed a woman carrying a fetus should have the homicide convictions overturned and retried for assault only in the killing of the fetus...

Scott Peterson was given the death penalty because he was convicted of a Double Homicide... If he had only murdered one Person he would have gotten 20 to life...

But beyond that Your view is simply Opinion and is not a legal status.. Legal Status is provided by individual State Laws covering Homicide and in many states a Fetus is Absolutely Legally considered a Person... Some states specifically state it in those exact words.. Some state is as a Homo sapiens

Ala. Code § 13A-6-1 (2006) defines "person," for the purpose of criminal homicide or assaults, to include an unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability and specifies that nothing in the act shall make it a crime to perform or obtain an abortion that is otherwise legal.

Ohio Rev. Code Ann.§ 2903.01 et seq.(2002) define aggravated murder, murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, negligent homicide, aggravated vehicular homicide, aggravated vehicular assault, felonious assault, aggravated assault, assault and negligent assault. The law applies to a person, which includes an "unborn member of the species Homo sapiens, who is or was carried in the womb of another."

W. Va. Code § 61-2-30 recognizes an embryo or fetus as a distinct unborn victim of certain crimes of violence against a person, including homicide and manslaughter.

And so forth....

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
KY What's mitch McConnell done for coal, when ther... 10 min gary 7,194
KY 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 10 min Cornelius Scudmister 155,448
the bowman girls 2 hr hate liars 6
who owns the most land on crawfish (Sep '07) 2 hr Time Tells It All 52
Big Fat Jane Foister 3 hr Time Tells It All 9
cold heartless or down right cruel 5 hr You asked 5
new store in manchester by burger king (Apr '11) 10 hr Brony 96
School Board Tax 13 hr Entitlement 54

Manchester Jobs

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 ]