What is the answer to this 10th grade question on a biology test?

[Moonglow]

“John and his sister Brittany are high school students in a small town. Their mother Jill is 40 years old and has just learned that she is pregnant with a child. Genetic testing has indicated that the child has Down’s syndrome. Their family doctor has recommended that Jill have an abortion. John and Brittany’s mother and father have called the family together to discuss their options. Which of the following statements describes how the family should make this decision?

A. The parents should wait until the baby is ready to be born, then re-do the genetic tests to see if the results have changed.

B. The parents should consider many aspects of this decision including, religious beliefs, financial burden, the effect on other family members, the mother’s health, the doctor’s recommendation and the life of the unborn child and then make the best decision for everyone.

C. The doctor has more scientific knowledge. The parents should follow the advice of the doctor and have the abortion.

D. The parents should consider the wishes of the mother, since she will carry the greatest responsibility for the child, and do whatever she wants.”


Heck, I do not know? Wasn’t I paying attention in biology class? Maybe there is no correct answer but what is the objective of this question then? I thought the article said it was on a test?

I know… the school and the defendants of liberal “morals” will tell us this is some rogue teacher who put this in there and it has nothing to do with social engineering which the conservatives and Christians are screaming about that is taking place in our public schools and government policies.

Ok, thanks. Just tell me what happens when we die since you school administrators and govt rulers are so smart. But if you cannot answer that question then do not usurp the authority given by God to parents and tell the kids it’s great to choose to be a homosexual if you are confused, or tell them you too can be a transgender if you feel like it, or tell them if you want a secret abortion without your parents even knowing you are pregnant we can arrange that, or tell them the best ways to have sex as a teen and all the ways you can have sex without intercourse at ages so young it would make a lecher blush.

The Virgin Mary said “what angers God most in these times is man’s shameless immorality and foul ingratitude.” (But is anyone even listening, much less care?)

Question on Utah biology test about aborting fetus with Down syndrome prompts policy change

You could not be more wrong..This little test is for people to make a decision if presented with an occurrence in ones life.....You on the other hand seem to have no reasoning skills as you have flown off the wall with your knee-jerk response

Why the uproar then?

I did not say that the teacher or school said there is a correct answer. I said that public schools should not be in the business of programming students to think abortion is ok, or homosexuality is a choice for them to make and it's ok, or we need to learn about she-males and make this just as important as learning to read, write and speak properly.

Ok? It is not about this test, it is about our government and schools playing God. It is actually evil.

The answers are mere suggestions, no one is promoting abortion in the questionnaire anymore than they are suggesting fratricide...And there is a choice by the student to select a category from which to live.Did you think that no one ever tried to influence another humans choice of paths to follow in this world....Religion does it also....Parents, friends, peers, work, education, self reflection...all have an influence from a bias, yet it is all up to the individual to decide..

The correc answer wasn't provided as a choice. Nevertheless, the question doesn't belong in a biology test. This is programming our children.

Nonsense.

No one is ‘programming’ children.

As already correctly noted: as children grow to become adults, they will in time make decisions about such matters on their own, free to do so consistent with their own beliefs, their right to do so protected by the Constitution.

Many are overbearing parents that demand what their kids will do, and buy toys they want and not what the kids want, from my observations..

 

[JoeB131]

^^^ more liberal delusion that they are upholding the Constitution when they don't afford a human baby's basic right to life.

Fetuses still aren't people, guy.

here's why I support legal abortion. I mean other than the PURE JOY I get out of seeing how much it upsets the Christian assholes.

Women are going to get abortions no matter what the law is. Always have, always will.

In the Philippines, abortion is illegal. yet Filipina women have anywhere from 500,000 to 800,000 abortions a year and about 4000 a year require medical attention due to botched abortions.

In Romania, the Communist Government tried to outlaw abortion and birth control in 1967 to boost the country's population. It worked for all of one year before people figured out how to get around the laws.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Guy, we aren't talking about the Truth here. You made a claim a person made a statement. You should be able to cite a source.

I can cite a source, but I do not care to. I have dealt with years and layers of cynicism on these boards when it comes to providing evidence for God and for many divine manifestations. I already know the kinds of responses I get to them from those who have no interest in being sincere or set in their positions of denial. Usually mockery or suggestions of wild improbable “explanations” --- things like mass hallucination, weeping statues are all hoaxes contrived by nuns, etc. --- or more often than not just a quick dismissal or indifference.

Jesus said an evil age is eager for a sign but no sign will be given it except that of Jonah. Jonah was in reference to Himself three days in the tomb and the resurrection. No sign will be given means every sign or manifestation that God does or has provided they look for reasons to try to pretend it is not a sign or they ignore it. They may be fooling themselves, but not God.

Yeah I've posted the links to the criminal acts of PP so many times that when assholes demand links to "prove" it, I just tell them to fuck themselves. They know, and I know, and I know they know, that I have posted the verification a thousand times. They just do it as a distraction, and to lend teeth to their pretense that they don't know exactly what is going on, and approve it.

You’ve posted nothing but lies, spin, and misinformation – consistent with those hostile to a woman’s right to privacy, seeking only to increase the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.

You’re a proven liar beyond dispute, you’re also a deranged social right extremist, also proven beyond dispute – fortunately we have a Constitution and its case law to protect the rights of citizens from your lies, hate, and extremism.

 

[jon_berzerk]

a friend of mine who happened to be on the governors council on developmental disabilities

who had a son with multiple problems once told me

about having such a disabled child

she said it is like taking a trip to Hawaii but along the way

the plane gets routed to Jamaica

it is still a wonderful trip

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

TURZOVKA SAID:

“I know… the school and the defendants of liberal “morals” will tell us this is some rogue teacher who put this in there and it has nothing to do with social engineering which the conservatives and Christians are screaming about that is taking place in our public schools and government policies.”

No, you don’t know – this is an idiotic lie, it’s delusional and completely devoid of fact or merit.

Liberals defend the Constitution and its case law, privacy rights jurisprudence in particular, which protects the right of citizens to make such decisions in accordance with their own good faith and good conscience, free from unwarranted interference from government.

^^^ more liberal delusion that they are upholding the Constitution when they don't afford a human baby's basic right to life.

More ignorance from the right.

That the Constitution protects a woman’s right to privacy is, again, a settled and accepted fact of Constitutional law:

‘[A]n abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection." Id., at 159. From this holding, there was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life."’

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

Clearly this is not ‘delusion,’ it’s written plainly for all to see and understand, the culmination of over a century of 14th Amendment privacy rights jurisprudence, consistent with the Framers’ original intent that limits be placed on the authority of government to interfere with personal, private matters concerning one’s life, as “[a]t the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.” ibid

 

[Unkotare]

That's not a biology question.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Liberals defend the Constitution and its case law, privacy rights jurisprudence in particular, which protects the right of citizens to make such decisions in accordance with their own good faith and good conscience, free from unwarranted interference from government.

Yes, I can tell how honorable the liberal mission is just by observing the past and present of many of its recent leaders. You call that honor and goodness?

We are willing to discuss ideas with you, but not be played as an idiot.

Respecting the rights of others, respecting the rule of law, and respecting the protected liberty of women to decide for themselves whether to give birth or not absent unwarranted interference from the state is both honorable and good, consistent with being good citizens and advocates of the Constitution and its case law; that’s the sole mission of liberals.

And liberals would enjoy nothing more than engaging in good faith discussion concerning all manner of issues in the context of private society and our free and democratic society.

Sadly, the idiocy manifest when many on the right leave the realm of private society and debate between and among private citizens, and enter into the realm of governance and the law by seeking to disadvantage through force of law those with whom they disagree, and as a consequence preclude any good faith discussion concerning all manner of issues of the day.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

That’s the genius of our Constitutional Republic: that citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men, as men are incapable of ruling justly – laws seeking to compel a woman to give birth against her will through force of law predicated on subjective religious dogma is proof of that.

Bullshit. Liberals only hold up the Constitution when they think it suit their needs, like baby killing, yet don't extend any rights to a busines who doesn't want to participate in gay weddings. Somehow, their right to hold their privately held feelings don't count. There was never a problem for them to refuse before and now they are supposedly in violation. The SCOTUS was wrong in the unconstutional decision the right to privacy allows unfettered abortions. And now pro-baby killers want that right extended up to birth in all States.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

As already correctly noted: as children grow to become adults, they will in time make decisions about such matters on their own, free to do so consistent with their own beliefs, their right to do so protected by the Constitution.

Not when we make it illegal again for convenient abortions which 99% of these usually are.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

That's not a biology question.

That is a question that a liberal would put on a math exam too, and have done so similarly. Social engineering of the youth thanks to Marxists.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

TURZOVKA SAID:

“I know… the school and the defendants of liberal “morals” will tell us this is some rogue teacher who put this in there and it has nothing to do with social engineering which the conservatives and Christians are screaming about that is taking place in our public schools and government policies.”

No, you don’t know – this is an idiotic lie, it’s delusional and completely devoid of fact or merit.

Liberals defend the Constitution and its case law, privacy rights jurisprudence in particular, which protects the right of citizens to make such decisions in accordance with their own good faith and good conscience, free from unwarranted interference from government.

^^^ more liberal delusion that they are upholding the Constitution when they don't afford a human baby's basic right to life.

More ignorance from the right.

That the Constitution protects a woman’s right to privacy is, again, a settled and accepted fact of Constitutional law:

‘[A]n abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection." Id., at 159. From this holding, there was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life."’

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

Clearly this is not ‘delusion,’ it’s written plainly for all to see and understand, the culmination of over a century of 14th Amendment privacy rights jurisprudence, consistent with the Framers’ original intent that limits be placed on the authority of government to interfere with personal, private matters concerning one’s life, as “[a]t the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.” ibid

Enjoy your bogus privacy rights to murder babies while you can because when Donald Trump becomes president he's going to pick the next tour Supreme Court justices from the list of 11 that he gave us. Because after that you won't have the right to abort a baby on a whim except to save the Life of the mother.

 

[turzovka]

Fetuses still aren't people, guy.

You only wish the constitution made clear what you say is so true. It does not. Even attorneys who argued for legal abortion in 1973 admit later on it really had no constitutional basis for making their case.

If a fetus is not a person then why do 38 states currently have fetal homicide laws? Homicide deals with people, not animals or other forms of life.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx
Currently, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws. The states include: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. At least 23 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization").

 

[HenryBHough]

The death penalty was designed for those who would convert education to indoctrination. Someday it will be applied universally. The world will be better for it - if only for the vast reduction in overpopulation.

 

[Unkotare]

The death penalty was designed for those who would convert education to indoctrination. Someday it will be applied universally. The world will be better for it - if only for the vast reduction in overpopulation.

There is no "overpopulation."

 

[JoeB131]

Bullshit. Liberals only hold up the Constitution when they think it suit their needs, like baby killing, yet don't extend any rights to a busines who doesn't want to participate in gay weddings. Somehow, their right to hold their privately held feelings don't count.

I think you are a little confused. People have the right to be homophobes, but businesses aren't people.

Fetuses aren't people, either.

Hope that clears that up for you.

There was never a problem for them to refuse before and now they are supposedly in violation.

Actually, there was a problem if they refused on the basis of race, gender or religion. They were in clear violation of public accommodation laws. SOME (but not all) states have expanded these established laws to include sexual orientation. So a store can't deny you service for being a white straight male christian, and i cannot deny service to a hispanic gay woman who worships Wicca. Once again, everything balances out .

The SCOTUS was wrong in the unconstutional decision the right to privacy allows unfettered abortions. And now pro-baby killers want that right extended up to birth in all States.

Sigh. Okay, I'm going to assume you were born after Roe v. Wade was decided. Here's a reality check. Before Roe, women got abortions. They went to their OB/GYN, who performed the abortion and wrote something else down on the chart. Women were not prosecuted for getting abortions, and doctors weren't prosecuted for performing them unless they really messed up and injured the woman. ALL SCOTUS did was end a bunch of state laws that no one was actually following.

 

[JoeB131]

Enjoy your bogus privacy rights to murder babies while you can because when Donald Trump becomes president he's going to pick the next tour Supreme Court justices from the list of 11 that he gave us. Because after that you won't have the right to abort a baby on a whim except to save the Life of the mother.

1) Trump isn't going to win.

2) On the off chance Trump DID win, there's no chance he's appoint radicals. Of the 8 Republicans appointed since Roe v Wade, Four of them have consistantly voted to uphold the decision. You couldn't get Roberts to overturn ObamaCare, you think he's going to overturn Roe?

3) On the off hand chance that SCOTUS had a brain fart one morning and overturned Roe, that would merely turn the issue back to the states. 30 states would STILL have legal abortion in the absense of Roe.

Effect of Overturning Roe v. Wade

That last part would be the worst thing that could ever happen to Republicans. Imagine millions of women who usually don't care about politics, who have now been branded "Murderers" by the law! You want to see a political earthquake, that would be an earthquake

 

[JoeB131]

You only wish the constitution made clear what you say is so true. It does not. Even attorneys who argued for legal abortion in 1973 admit later on it really had no constitutional basis for making their case.

If a fetus is not a person then why do 38 states currently have fetal homicide laws? Homicide deals with people, not animals or other forms of life.

Okay, I know you are a religious retard, so I'm going to make this very simple for you.

If the woman wants it, it's a baby.

If she doesn't want it, it's "that problem I need to take care of."

Even before Roe v. Wade put the State Abortion Laws out of their misery, the fact is women were never prosecuted for having abortions. It simply wasn't done. Furthermore, doctors who performed abortions were almost never prosecuted for doing so. One notorious abortionist named Ruth Barnett (sp) performed over 50,000 abortions between 1919 and 1969. She even wrote a book about it. yet the only time they could get close to making her pay for it was when she injured a patient.

Hey, but I was talking to the Virgin Mary last night, and she told me she was totally cool with Abortion. No, seriously, after we passed around the bong with Bhudda and C'thulhu, she told me she didn't know where people like you got this idea God had a problem with abortion, as it is NEVER MENTIONED IN THE BIBLE.

(Yes, I'm openly mocking you now.)

 

[HenryBHough]

There is no "overpopulation."

Denial!

Not just a river in Egypt anymore!

 

[georgephillip]

• “The parents should consider many aspects of this decision including, religious beliefs, financial burden, the effect on other family members, the mother’s health, the doctor’s recommendation and the life of the unborn child and then make the best decision for everyone."

Question on Utah biology test about aborting fetus with Down syndrome prompts policy change
"Evolutionary (Biology)
Evolutionary research is concerned with the origin and descent of species, as well as their change over time, and includes scientists from many taxonomically oriented disciplines. For example, it generally involves scientists who have special training in particular organisms such as mammalogy,ornithology, botany, or herpetology, but use those organisms as systems to answer general questions about evolution."
Biology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Unkotare]

There is no "overpopulation."

Denial!....!

Reality. Let go of a false crisis from the 70s.