Sarah Palin Says she's open to teaching creationism in public schools

[VietCowboy]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/29/sarah-palin-says-she-open_n_122519.html

John McCain's vice-presidential pick, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, is an evangelical Protestant with a strong record of opposition to abortion and an openness to teaching creationism in the public schools.
Palin is the mother of five children, one of whom was born with Down Syndrome. She learned that her son had Down Syndrome when she was four months pregnant, and she told the Associated Press in May that she never considered ending the pregnancy. "We've both been very vocal about being pro-life," she said in the AP interview. "We understand that every innocent life has wonderful potential." Palin also said of her son, whose name is Trig Paxon Van Palin, "I'm looking at him right now, and I see perfection. Yeah, he has an extra chromosome. I keep thinking, in our world, what is normal and what is perfect?"
Read the whole story here. (http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles_of_faith/2008/08/sarah_palin_on.html)

[BigDFan5]

SHe wants to teach all sides, creationism, evolution etc

[TheKey]

What's wrong with this?

[SuspectCorner]

What's wrong with this?

Church is the place for creationism to be taught - our public schools are for the teaching of SCIENCE...

[Jarv]

Church is the place for creationism to be taught - our public schools are for the teaching SCIENCE...

Both are theories bro...Open your mind to the possibilities... ;)

[yeahyeah]

This type of thing is very scary to me. Intelligent Design is about as scientific as dowsing.

[burmafrd]

huffington. real great source there.

[Big Dakota]

And Alice falls down a rabbit hole:lmao2:

[Bizwah]

Both are theories bro...Open your mind to the possibilities... ;)

It seems the left is more close-minded than the right anymore.

[nathanlt]

Church is the place for creationism to be taught - our public schools are for the teaching of SCIENCE...

Evolution is a theory built on faith, not science... The scientific method calls for observation, the origins of time cannot be observed.

Freedom of ideas is perfectly fine. Let's not limit the discussion of origins to one faith (evolution) and not the other (creation)

Oh yeah, Darwin denounced his theory before his death.... So he ultimately came to the conclusion that it was in error.

[burmafrd]

There is some scientific proof of evolution. We can trace man from early to Neanderthal to Cro Magnon. However, there is a lot of what has happened that there is no evidence of (missing link). And we do not really know when man truly developed sentience. Some would say that that was when he got is soul.

[Signals]

Church is the place for creationism to be taught - our public schools are for the teaching of SCIENCE...Thats called censorship.

[vta]

There is some scientific proof of evolution. We can trace man from early to Neanderthal to Cro Magnon. However, there is a lot of what has happened that there is no evidence of (missing link). And we do not really know when man truly developed sentience. Some would say that that was when he got is soul.

The theory of evolution does not erase the possibility of a God, it's simply a step in the discovery of how man has formed in the natural world. Regardless of how we've evolved, there is nothing to say that man wasn't formed by a greater power.

Everything 'evolves'. It's a natural progreesion and law of physical nature. Understanding this isn't a creation of fact, it's an understanding of it. There need not be a dividing line between proponents of scientific and theological understanding. We'd serve our interests better to stop creating lines of division and instead, scrutinize the complete theories of human life from all angles.

[hairic]

Scientifically speaking, creation is a hypothesis and evolution is a theory. Theories have a more strict definition in science.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=scientific+method

If you want to teach creationism in schools, it has to be in a class that's not a science class. We don't have the means to prove or disprove it yet, meaning it can't be scientific and has no business in a science class.

[Bizwah]

Scientifically speaking, creation is a hypothesis and evolution is a theory. Theories have a more strict definition in science.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=scientific+method

If you want to teach creationism in schools, it has to be in a class that's not a science class. We don't have the means to prove or disprove it yet, meaning it can't be scientific and has no business in a science class.

As a member of the religious right, this just isn't a big deal to me.

Let the schools teach my kids about evolution. I teach them the Truth at home every day. I can't MAKE my kids accept and the Truth. But it's my job to teach them the Way.

I'm not one of those guys that screams for Creationism to be taught in schools. Again, I teach it daily to my kids. I certainly don't want the government to ruin the wonderful Truth of Creation by telling the school a watered-down truth.

I do worry about kids that don't have Christian parents....but I don't think it's the government, or schools that should "force" it. The local churches should reach out to those people.

[jrumann59]

Church is the place for creationism to be taught - our public schools are for the teaching of SCIENCE...


Its Ok for Muslim senstivity to be taught to further understand muslims but it isn't ok to teach creationism. Why is it the Libs always want compromise for thier ideas but don't like it when the other sides compromises.

[jrumann59]

Evolution is a theory built on faith, not science... The scientific method calls for observation, the origins of time cannot be observed.

Freedom of ideas is perfectly fine. Let's not limit the discussion of origins to one faith (evolution) and not the other (creation)

Oh yeah, Darwin denounced his theory before his death.... So he ultimately came to the conclusion that it was in error.

If that is the cause then I ask the the Theory of Global warming not to be taught on the same grounds.

[VietCowboy]

Evolution is a theory built on faith, not science... The scientific method calls for observation, the origins of time cannot be observed.

Freedom of ideas is perfectly fine. Let's not limit the discussion of origins to one faith (evolution) and not the other (creation)

Oh yeah, Darwin denounced his theory before his death.... So he ultimately came to the conclusion that it was in error.

Quoted from Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin

Though Darwin wrote of religion as a tribal survival strategy, he still believed that God was the ultimate lawgiver.[117] His belief dwindled, and with the death of his daughter Annie in 1851, Darwin finally lost all faith in Christianity. He continued to help the local church with parish work, but on Sundays would go for a walk while his family attended church.[118] He now thought it better to look at pain and suffering as the result of general laws rather than direct intervention by God.[119] When asked about his religious views, he wrote that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God, and that generally “an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind.”[120]

The “Lady Hope Story”, published in 1915, claimed that Darwin had reverted back to Christianity on his sickbed. The claims were refuted by Darwin’s children and have been dismissed as false by historians.[121] His daughter, Henrietta, who was at his deathbed, said that he did not convert to Christianity.[122] His last words were, in fact, directed at Emma: "Remember what a good wife you have been."[123]

and

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hope.html
About the myth and Lady Hope, His daughter wrote: "I was present at his deathbed," she wrote in the Christian for February 23, 1922. "Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but in any case she had no influence over him in any department of thought or belief. He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier."

[trickblue]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/29/sarah-palin-says-she-open_n_122519.html

John McCain's vice-presidential pick, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, is an evangelical Protestant with a strong record of opposition to abortion and an openness to teaching creationism in the public schools.
Palin is the mother of five children, one of whom was born with Down Syndrome. She learned that her son had Down Syndrome when she was four months pregnant, and she told the Associated Press in May that she never considered ending the pregnancy. "We've both been very vocal about being pro-life," she said in the AP interview. "We understand that every innocent life has wonderful potential." Palin also said of her son, whose name is Trig Paxon Van Palin, "I'm looking at him right now, and I see perfection. Yeah, he has an extra chromosome. I keep thinking, in our world, what is normal and what is perfect?"
Read the whole story here. (http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles_of_faith/2008/08/sarah_palin_on.html)

Church is the place for creationism to be taught - our public schools are for the teaching of SCIENCE...

And Alice falls down a rabbit hole:lmao2:

I thought the Democrat party was the party of "choice"...

Since neither are proven, why not teach both and let the student choose?

[yeahyeah]

Its Ok for Muslim senstivity to be taught to further understand muslims but it isn't ok to teach creationism. Why is it the Libs always want compromise for thier ideas but don't like it when the other sides compromises.


Muslims believe in creation too...thus "Muslim"= one who submits to god

[Doomsday101]

I see nothing wrong with teaching both

[zrinkill]

I thought the Democrat party was the party of "choice"...

Since neither are proven, why not teach both and let the student choose?

:bow:

[VietCowboy]

I see nothing wrong with teaching both

sure, why don't the reps stop with the pro-life stuff and allow our gays to marry. what, why not give our LGBTQ the "choice" to choose which person they should marry?

[zrinkill]

sure, why don't the reps stop with the pro-life stuff and allow our gays to marry. what, why not give our LGBTQ the "choice" to choose which person they should marry?


I have no problems with gay marriage ..... as far as the pro life stuff how bout that baby be given a choice to live?

[VietCowboy]

I have no problems with gay marriage ..... as far as the pro life stuff how bout that baby be given a choice to live?

then parents should not ever restrict their children's choices. If they don't want to eat, sleep, bathe, go to school, we should give them that choice too.

[zrinkill]

then parents should not ever restrict their children's choices. If they don't want to eat, sleep, bathe, go to school, we should give them that choice too.

So you are comparing getting a child to eat, sleep, and bathe ........ to killing it?

Wow.

The things you pro abortion people will say.

[Doomsday101]

sure, why don't the reps stop with the pro-life stuff and allow our gays to marry. what, why not give our LGBTQ the "choice" to choose which person they should marry?

Currently that is the states that determine things like allowing gay marriage or not. I'm one who believes in States rights and in my view it should be up to the states to set the curriculum of their schools within reason of meeting a national fundamental standards of education. As I have said before I think the people of Texas should run the state of Texas and not the federal Government.

[Cajuncowboy]

So you are comparing getting a child to eat, sleep, and bathe ........ to killing it?

Wow.

The things you pro abortion people will say.

Left is off their nut.

This is way funnier than the last election cycle when they ran that boob Kerry. It is now officially over. They have nothing but an empty suit.

[VietCowboy]

So you are comparing getting a child to eat, sleep, and bathe ........ to killing it?

Wow.

The things you pro abortion people will say.

A fetus is not a child to me, it has the potential to be a child, but not yet. You would not call a child an adult would you and give it all the rights of an adult?

[VietCowboy]

Currently that is the states that determine things like allowing gay marriage or not. I'm one who believes in States rights and in my view it should be up to the states to set the curriculum of their schools within reason of meeting a national fundamental standards of education. As I have said before I think the people of Texas should run the state of Texas and not the federal Government.

then I hope the federal government takes away the over 1,100 laws that give hetero-marriages rights not given to LGBTQ marriage rights.

[Doomsday101]

then I hope the federal government takes away the over 1,100 laws that give hetero-marriages rights not given to LGBTQ marriage rights.

Dems control both houses what the hell have they been doing? They can bring any topic up for debate and a vote so where are they? Oh yeah vacation. 2 things they don't miss voting for their own pay raise and taking vacations. :laugh2:

[Cajuncowboy]

A fetus is not a child to me, it has the potential to be a child, but not yet. You would not call a child an adult would you and give it all the rights of an adult?

If a woman is pregnant and is murdered and her baby dies the person is charged with double murder.

Pretty much end of story!

[VietCowboy]

At around 21 days the heart starts beating ....... sorry but that is true.

It goes from being a cluster of cells to a living human being.

Before 21 days I have no problem with aborting the pregnancy .... why is that time period so hard to consider when a human life is in the balance?

because a woman's life is in the balance too. Because women die all over the world from childbirth everyday. Because unlike someone who is dependent on a machine which has no human rights, like a person in a persistent vegitative state, a fetus is dependent on a person who's rights supercede that of the fetus since the mother IS 100% a human person. I have no problem outlawing abortion after a fetus is viable and can survive outside the womb by itself, which is around 21 weeks right now with our technology, but if a fetus has 0 chance of surviving outside the womb, it is but a potential human being and the rights of the mother above all needs to be respected.

I got into this with peplaw, so I do not want to do it again. You can read our discussion.

[zrinkill]

A fetus is not a child to me, it has the potential to be a child, but not yet. You would not call a child an adult would you and give it all the rights of an adult?

At around 21 days the heart starts beating ..... sorry but that is true.

It goes from being a cluster of cells to a living human being.

Before 21 days I have no problem with aborting the pregnancy .... why is that time period so hard to consider when a human life is in the balance?

[Cajuncowboy]

because a woman's life is in the balance too. Because women die all over the world from childbirth everyday. Because unlike someone who is dependent on a machine which has no human rights, like a person in a persistent vegitative state, a fetus is dependent on a person who's rights supercede that of the fetus since the mother IS 100% a human person. I have no problem outlawing abortion after a fetus is viable and can survive outside the womb by itself, which is around 21 weeks right now with our technology, but if a fetus has 0 chance of surviving outside the womb, it is but a potential human being and the rights of the mother above all needs to be respected.

I got into this with peplaw, so I do not want to do it again. You can read our discussion.

:laugh2:

And you are still wrong.

[zrinkill]

because a woman's life is in the balance too. Because women die all over the world from childbirth everyday. Because unlike someone who is dependent on a machine which has no human rights, like a person in a persistent vegitative state, a fetus is dependent on a person who's rights supercede that of the fetus since the mother IS 100% a human person. I have no problem outlawing abortion after a fetus is viable and can survive outside the womb by itself, which is around 21 weeks right now with our technology, but if a fetus has 0 chance of surviving outside the womb, it is but a potential human being and the rights of the mother above all needs to be respected.

I got into this with peplaw, so I do not want to do it again. You can read our discussion.

5% - 8% of abortions are because of health reasons, molestations, or rape (and most of that percentage is in the rape or molestation cases)...... so there goes that argument.


I also think its murder to kill someone in a vegetative state unless they have a defined will asking for that.

[VietCowboy]

If a woman is pregnant and is murdered and her baby dies the person is charged with double murder.

Pretty much end of story!

nope, not always. only after a certain time. In Laci's case, even though Laci died, she was 8 months pregnant, and there was a chance the baby could have survived outside the uterus.

[Cajuncowboy]

nope, not always. only after a certain time. In Laci's case, even though Laci died, she was 8 months pregnant, and there was a chance the baby could have survived outside the uterus.

Whatever. I'm not arguing it anymore in this thread. At the end of the day, it's just more proof that the left has no regard for human life that isn't their own.

Pitiful and sad.

[VietCowboy]

5% - 8% of abortions are because of health reasons, molestations, or rape (and most of that percentage is in the rape or molestation cases)...... so there goes that argument.


I also think its murder to kill someone in a vegetative state unless they have a defined will asking for that.

first, I think rape and molestation are extremely underreported in the US, but that is a separate issue. Second, until the mother's risk of childbirth is 0, absolutely no chance a mother can die, I will support abortion.

[VietCowboy]

Dems control both houses what the hell have they been doing? They can bring any topic up for debate and a vote so where are they? Oh yeah vacation. 2 things they don't miss voting for their own pay raise and taking vacations. :laugh2:

oh yes because any law giving gays rights should have gotten the stamp of approval from our own president who works hard 365 a year!!

[Cajuncowboy]

first, I think rape and molestation are extremely underreported in the US, but that is a separate issue. Second, until the mother's risk of childbirth is 0, absolutely no chance a mother can die, I will support abortion.

Well then, you wil be for killing all babies because there will never be a zero risk of that and that is why the left are seen as unreasonable. They make statements like that.

[Cajuncowboy]

oh yes because any law giving gays rights should have gotten the stamp of approval from our own president who works hard 365 a year!!

You think the President ever really has a day off? Really?

[VietCowboy]

Well then, you wil be for killing all babies because there will never be a zero risk of that and that is why the left are seen as unreasonable. They make statements like that.

being pro-choice is not anti-life as so many of you wish we believed.

[zrinkill]

Second, until the mother's risk of childbirth is 0, absolutely no chance a mother can die, I will support abortion.

Right ..... I do not think it has anything to do with "mothers risk" to 99 percent of those who are pro abortion.

I think they simply just want an "out" if they get pregnant and do not think they can handle it.

And thats a sad thing.

[Cajuncowboy]

being pro-choice is not anti-life as so many of you wish we believed.

Sure it is. If you are giving someone the right to just willy nilly kill a baby you are pro killing the baby.

Spin it how you want but that's it.

[Doomsday101]

oh yes because any law giving gays rights should have gotten the stamp of approval from our own president who works hard 365 a year!!

President is against it plain and simple but the Dems control both houses they can bring it to a vote they can push their agenda and hold the Republicans feet to the fire yet they don't do it because as they found out in the last election the American people by and large are also against it even in some states that have dem senators and congressmen and they are not going to fight that fight and lose their seats over gay marriage.

[yeahyeah]

At around 21 days the heart starts beating ..... sorry but that is true.

It goes from being a cluster of cells to a living human being.

Before 21 days I have no problem with aborting the pregnancy .... why is that time period so hard to consider when a human life is in the balance?

Because I and many others including the SUPREME COURT, considers a fetus viable at about 24 weeks..not 21 days.

The central holding of Roe v. Wade was that abortions are permissible for any reason a woman chooses, up until the "point at which the fetus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus) becomes ‘viable,’ that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uterus), albeit with artificial aid. Viability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus#Viability) is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade#cite_note-Roe-0)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

[trickblue]

I have no problems with gay marriage ..... as far as the pro life stuff how bout that baby be given a choice to live?

then parents should not ever restrict their children's choices. If they don't want to eat, sleep, bathe, go to school, we should give them that choice too.

How about giving the father a choice. It's 50% his DNA...

Kind of a prenatal alimony type thing...

[Brandon]

I'd like to jump in on the abortion issue. I believe it should be allowed IF, the women is under the age of 16 OR the women, any age was raped.

You can't with a clean conscience say that a women who gets raped, MUST keep the baby and give birth to it, that is wrong and disgusting.

[VietCowboy]

How about giving the father a choice. It's 50% his DNA...

Kind of a prenatal alimony type thing...

I would not mind it if the father can carry it too. If the father can carry the baby, any woman who get's a abortion is a murderer.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

I agree with the poster above who says if you are going to teach it (and it is an issue up here too so no I am not sticking my nose in US internal affairs), then it should be taught as a comparative religion course, not in a biology or science course.

[trickblue]

I would not mind it if the father can carry it too. If the father can carry the baby, any woman who get's a abortion is a murderer.

So since he can't carry it, he shouldn't have a say?

[CanadianCowboysFan]

So since he can't carry it, he shouldn't have a say?

problem is, if he wants an abortion and she doesn't, he pays child support, she wants an abortion and doesn't tell him, she has it.

guy is in a no win situation

by the time the guy knows and gets an order stopping the abortion, she has already had it, or if there is an order and she breaches it and has the abortion anyway, does throwing her in jail for contempt bring the baby back, no, what are his damages?

it would be great for family lawyers, would be another way for us to milk our clients dry

[VietCowboy]

So since he can't carry it, he shouldn't have a say?

yep..

[trickblue]

yep..

Well then if she chooses to have it and he doesn't want her to, he shouldn't have to pay child support...

Edit: Just saw CCF's post... he said it better...

[VietCowboy]

Well then if she chooses to have it and he doesn't want her to, he shouldn't have to pay child support...

Edit: Just saw CCF's post... he said it better...

agreed.

[1fisher]

then parents should not ever restrict their children's choices. If they don't want to eat, sleep, bathe, go to school, we should give them that choice too.

That's got to be the DUMBEST thing I EVER read..... :rolleyes:


excuse the poor grammar...

[1fisher]

I'd like to jump in on the abortion issue. I believe it should be allowed IF, the women is under the age of 16 OR the women, any age was raped.

You can't with a clean conscience say that a women who gets raped, MUST keep the baby and give birth to it, that is wrong and disgusting.



Yea... that's the ticket.. Take the easy way out. Two 16 year olds have sex. She gets pregnant and decides to kill the baby. Yea, that's a great way to be responsible for your actions!

I hate people that take the easy way out! :mad:

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Yea... that's the ticket.. Take the easy way out. Two 16 year olds have sex. She gets pregnant and decides to kill the baby. Yea, that's a great way to be responsible for your actions!

I hate people that take the easy way out! :mad:

some would argue that is not taking the easy way out, it would be a gut wrenching decision she would have to live with for the rest of her life

My sister had an abortion and it was the right decision for her at the time, but now that she is past child bearing years and sees my son, I am sure she wonders if she made the right decision, but for her it was the right one at the time.

It is not a black and white answer

[Viper]

A fetus is not a child to me, it has the potential to be a child, but not yet. You would not call a child an adult would you and give it all the rights of an adult?

Life means so little today. This is the most idiotic reasoning I have ever read in my life! All I can really do is shake my head, while my heart breaks for another babies life.

I have one question for you VietCowboy;

Is it an absolute that a fetus is not a human being at it's beginning stage of life?

[ABQCOWBOY]

How about giving the father a choice. It's 50% his DNA...

Kind of a prenatal alimony type thing...

Ding - Ding - Ding.

[ABQCOWBOY]

yep..


Why???

[ABQCOWBOY]

agreed.


This is good. Since your a democrate and the democrates have controlling body in both houses, I think you should have the laws changed cause right now, if a man doesn't pay his child support, he's going to jail.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Yea... that's the ticket.. Take the easy way out. Two 16 year olds have sex. She gets pregnant and decides to kill the baby. Yea, that's a great way to be responsible for your actions!

I hate people that take the easy way out! :mad:


16 really isn't even old enough to understand the ramafications of a decision such as that. It's really a shame IMO. There are Pro's and Con's to each side of this discussion but at the end of the day, each person has to be responsible for the choice they make and live with it. I can not imagine what my life would be like had I decided to abort a Child. My whole life is about them. How would I live? I don't know but I suspect the answer to that would have been, not very well.

[VietCowboy]

Life means so little today. This is the most idiotic reasoning I have ever read in my life! All I can really do is shake my head, while my heart breaks for another babies life.

I have one question for you VietCowboy;

Is it an absolute that a fetus is not a human being at it's beginning stage of life?

of course, but if you'd read my position on this when discussing with with peplaw (and this is pretty much all I will comment on this issue from now on), when we get the technology to ensure any the following:

1) a machine can support a zygot/embryo/fetus as well as a woman right after conception
2) women have 0 chance of dying in childbirth
3) the time at which a fetus can go without a woman's support to survive
4) all fertilized sperm can become a human (the study below found 53% of their pregnancy was lost)


http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/319/4/189

We studied the risk of early loss of pregnancy by collecting daily urine specimens from 221 healthy women who were attempting to conceive.....We identified 198 pregnancies by an increase in the hCG level near the expected time of implantation. Of these, 22 percent ended before pregnancy was detected clinically. Most of these early pregnancy losses would not have been detectable by the less sensitive assays for hCG used in earlier studies. The total rate of pregnancy loss after implantation, including clinically recognized spontaneous abortions, was 31 percent.

Any of those scenerios occuring would make me not support abortion. Until then, a woman's right supercede that of the thing she, and only she, can support (thing = fetus) since it is no guarantee that it would become a human person, the fetus should not have the same rights as a human person, and the mother has a right to choose whether or not abort is not wrong to me.

There are many morality issues surrounding this, regarding aborting clones, genetic counseling, rape, incest, fertility (selective abortions - when you have 7 growing fetus's you sacrifice a few to save the rest and mom; freezing/throwing away fertilized eggs, etc). But for me, it comes down to dependency only one person and viability of the fetus.

Anyway, that's the last I'll take about this subject.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

I think the Rhinoceros Party in Canada, a joke party in the 1970s and 80s said it best re abortion.

Its position was that there were a lot of people alive who should have been aborted (face it none of you would be upset if Osama and that Iranian guy's mom had aborted them) and that many who were aborted, shouldn't have been.

[ABQCOWBOY]

of course, but if you'd read my position on this when discussing with with peplaw (and this is pretty much all I will comment on this issue from now on), when we get the technology to ensure any the following:

1) a machine can support a zygot/embryo/fetus as well as a woman right after conception
2) women have 0 chance of dying in childbirth
3) the time at which a fetus can go without a woman's support to survive
4) all fertilized sperm can become a human (the study below found 53% of their pregnancy was lost)


http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/319/4/189

We studied the risk of early loss of pregnancy by collecting daily urine specimens from 221 healthy women who were attempting to conceive.....We identified 198 pregnancies by an increase in the hCG level near the expected time of implantation. Of these, 22 percent ended before pregnancy was detected clinically. Most of these early pregnancy losses would not have been detectable by the less sensitive assays for hCG used in earlier studies. The total rate of pregnancy loss after implantation, including clinically recognized spontaneous abortions, was 31 percent.

Any of those scenerios occuring would make me not support abortion. Until then, a woman's right supercede that of the thing she, and only she, can support (thing = fetus) since it is no guarantee that it would become a human person, the fetus should not have the same rights as a human person, and the mother has a right to choose whether or not abort is not wrong to me.

There are many morality issues surrounding this, regarding aborting clones, genetic counseling, rape, incest, fertility (selective abortions - when you have 7 growing fetus's you sacrifice a few to save the rest and mom; freezing/throwing away fertilized eggs, etc). But for me, it comes down to dependency only one person and viability of the fetus.

Anyway, that's the last I'll take about this subject.

Unfortunatly, all of this is trumped by the fact that the first choice involved is, in most cases, a concious one. Aside from rape, the women has also made the very concious decision to have sex. As a direct result of that very concious decision, a life can be created. The responsability of that decision rests on both the father and the mother. If the mother does not want to risk all that is outlined in the above post, then they should not engage in sexual practices IMO. It is as simple as that. To say that because the mother is taking all the risk, so to speak, and there for is the only voice of authority is such life and death decisions is falicy. It is a concept that should have gone by the way side along with women not having the right to vote etc. It is past due for men to have a voice in what happens to children IMO.

[junk]

Since neither are proven, why not teach both and let the student choose?

There is absolutely no way that any religion should be taught in school.

Which religion's version of creationism are we going to be teaching? If you teach one, you have to teach them all. When is there going to be time for things that students really need to learn like reading, writing, science and math?

I think part of the problem with this issue is that Christians groups only see their beliefs as the ones that need to be taught.

As far as evolution, it has occurred. That doesn't mean that creation couldn't be part of the equation, but there is no doubt that evolution is something that occurs in nature. Teach the concept of evolution and leave any concepts of our origins out of the curriculum.

If you want religion to be part of the curriculum, send your child to a private school.

[ABQCOWBOY]

There is absolutely no way that any religion should be taught in school.

Which religion's version of creationism are we going to be teaching? If you teach one, you have to teach them all. When is there going to be time for things that students really need to learn like reading, writing, science and math?

I think part of the problem with this issue is that Christians groups only see their beliefs as the ones that need to be taught.

As far as evolution, it has occurred. That doesn't mean that creation couldn't be part of the equation, but there is no doubt that evolution is something that occurs in nature. Teach the concept of evolution and leave any concepts of our origins out of the curriculum.

If you want religion to be part of the curriculum, send your child to a private school.

I probably lean towards this view as well. The simple truth is that we don't have the resources to teach our children the basics needed to be a productive, contributing adult as it is. There simply are not enough hours in the day to add this to the curriculum.

However, I do think that the pendulam has swung too far on this issue. You can no longer celebrate Christmas or say Grace at lunch. There are just a lot of these simple things that are stepping on religious practices (regardless of what religion is being taught these children) that I don't believe to be right. I am fine with not teaching religion. I'm not okay with preventing young children from practicing some of there own personal religious beliefs in school. So long as those practices do not interfere with the actual teaching or present a danger to any of the other students, I think it should be allowed.

[trickblue]

There is absolutely no way that any religion should be taught in school.

Which religion's version of creationism are we going to be teaching? If you teach one, you have to teach them all. When is there going to be time for things that students really need to learn like reading, writing, science and math?

I think part of the problem with this issue is that Christians groups only see their beliefs as the ones that need to be taught.

As far as evolution, it has occurred. That doesn't mean that creation couldn't be part of the equation, but there is no doubt that evolution is something that occurs in nature. Teach the concept of evolution and leave any concepts of our origins out of the curriculum.

If you want religion to be part of the curriculum, send your child to a private school.

It wasn't an issue when I was in school... we learned them both...

This nation was founded on Christian principle. It doesn't matter whether you are Christian or not, it's a fact.

If we were to take every thing with a Christian background out of this country (and many are working on just that) I don't think you will like the end result...

[junk]

It wasn't an issue when I was in school... we learned them both...

This nation was founded on Christian principle. It doesn't matter whether you are Christian or not, it's a fact.

If we were to take every thing with a Christian background out of this country (and many are working on just that) I don't think you will like the end result...

OK, do you want your kids to learn about Scientology, Mormonism, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism as well?

Why is it just OK to teach Christian beliefs? So what if this country was founded on Christian principle? It's been populated by a melting pot of backgrounds and that is one of the things that has made it great. It's supposed to be a place where you can go to be free to believe what you want. So, why should students be forced to learn things they may not believe in?

Schools should stick to teaching tangibles. Proven concepts that have applicable real world concepts. It's a parent's job to teach morality and religion, not a school's.

Like I said, if you want to religion taught in school, put your kid in a private school, but keep religion the hell out of school and government.

[trickblue]

OK, do you want your kids to learn about Scientology, Mormonism, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism as well?

Why is it just OK to teach Christian beliefs? So what if this country was founded on Christian principle? It's been populated by a melting pot of backgrounds and that is one of the things that has made it great. It's supposed to be a place where you can go to be free to believe what you want. So, why should students be forced to learn things they may not believe in?

Schools should stick to teaching tangibles. Proven concepts that have applicable real world concepts. It's a parent's job to teach morality and religion, not a school's.

Like I said, if you want to religion taught in school, put your kid in a private school, but keep religion the hell out of school and government.

That's not what I was saying...

We were predominantly taught evolution in school with the teacher usually throwing in different theories from other entities since nothing is definitive...

Religion should NOT be taught in public school in any way shape or form...

What I meant by Christian influence is our holidays, traditions, laws and way of life are greatly influenced from Christian tradition. Now many have been secularized such as "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" but it doesn't change the fact from whence it came.

My point was many great memories are created from those Christian influences whether you are Christian or not. Christian influence isn't all bad no matter what your beliefs...