Former President Jimmy Carter is the most prominent Democrat calling on the Democratic Party to change its abortion stance. Carter says that he, as a Christian, is against most abortions, and that he started the federal program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) in order to help women take care of their children and make them feel like they do not need an abortion.

Carter says the Democratic platform should reflect his position on abortion, which is that the government should push anti-poverty measures to reduce the demand for abortion and that abortion should only be allowed when to save the mothers life or when the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest. Carter says that adopting this position, rather than the current position supporting abortion for any reason at all, would help draw more support to the Democratic party, including "Republicans who abandoned the Democrats because of abortion" (probably talking about "Reagan Democrats", i.e. Democrats who started voting Republican when Reagan got elected because they disliked the pro-abortion stance of the Democrats).

Democrats for Life of America (DFLA) is trying to get the Democratic Party to change it's platform on abortion in order to have more of a "big tent" approach and appeal to more voters.DFLA is pushing a petition calling for a big tent for Democrats and seeking ?neutral language? in the party platform.

?The Democratic Platform currently contains language to allow taxpayer funding of abortion. National polls have consistently demonstrated that most Americans do not support the government paying for abortion. The Democratic Platform language should be inclusive and endorse the views of all Democrats,? the group says on its web site in support of the petition. ?In fact, a February 2012 Quinnipiac University poll found that nearly thirty percent of Americans would not vote for a candidate with whom they disagreed on abortion but agreed on other issues. The Democratic Platform language should be inclusive and endorse the views of all Democrats.?

The petition calls for the following language in the Democratic party platform:

?We respect the conscience of each American and recognize that members of our Party have deeply held and sometimes differing positions on issues of personal conscience, like abortion and the death penalty. We recognize the diversity of views as a source of strength and we welcome into our ranks all Americans who may hold differing positions on these and other issues.

However, we can find common ground. We believe that we can reduce the number of abortions because we are united in our support for policies that assist families who find themselves in crisis or unplanned pregnancies. We believe that women deserve to have a breadth of options available as they face pregnancy: including, among others, support and resources needed to handle the challenges of pregnancy, adoption, and parenthood; access to education, healthcare, childcare; and appropriate child support. We envision a new day without financial or societal barriers to bringing a planned or unplanned pregnancy to term.?

The Current Language in the Democratic Party platform is the language drawn up in 2008 which states: "The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman?s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right". This platform has been criticized for eliminating the Clinton era language that said abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare" (the current platform only mentions legal, not safe or rare) and for seeming to advocate taxpayer funding for abortion (i.e. the phrase "regardless of ability to pay").

DFLA contends that the Democratic Party's failure to moderate its position on abortion is costing it votes, pointing to polls that say most Americans oppose government funding for abortion.

Considering that Planned Parenthood tries to portray itself as a "reproductive health-care" organization, the fact that many of their employees seem to be ignorant of biological information is rather unsettling.

Here is a video by a secular pro-life group exposing the "unscientific bs" put forth by abortion supporters, including Planned Parenthood staff.

For example the video shows a Planned Parenthood employee saying that a fetus at 7 weeks gestation "has no legs, no arms, no head, no brain, no heart", yet a pregnancy timeline on the website of the baby formula company Similac has this headline for 7 weeks gestation: "Week 7: Baby's face becomes more defined". How could the face become more defined if the fetus doesn't even have a head?

Both the Similac timeline and the secular pro-life video show a picture of a fetus/baby at 7 weeks gestation, in this pictures, you can clearly see that it has a head, arms, and legs (looking closely I can even see finger and toe bones in the ultrasound picture).

The reason women are often treated as second class citizens is quite simple: men are generally physically stronger and have historically monopolized military roles (partly because their stronger, partly because small societies can't afford to lose a lot of women in battle because that could seriously imperial the population).

Recently in California, members of the group Occupy San Francisco have tried to seize control of a piece of property owned by the Catholic Archdiocese of San Francisco which was originally a high school but is now used by the archdiocese to rent out to tenants in order to fund a scholarship program for poor people. Occupy San Francisco protestors have tried to seize this building, one time in may and one time in April, because they want to use it as a homeless shelter (of course Occupy is a big movement so if they want to set up a homeless shelter why can't they pool their money and some property to use for that purpose, or heck why not rent that very building in stead of trying to seize it).

Because the Occupy protesters were storming the property, Police were called in and the Occupy people started throwing pipes and bricks. One Occupy protester threw a brick or a metal object at a police officer, but the officer ducked and another Occupier got hit by the projectile.

George Wesolek, director of Communications for the Archdiocese of San Francisco, pointed out that Occupy San Francisco claims to represent the poor people against the wealthiest people but that claim is inconsistent with their recent actions, such as a rampage where they destroyed property in the mostly poor "Mission District" of San Francisco and their storming of property held by the Catholic Church which provides one third of all the social services given to poor people in San Francisco.

Unfortunately, during the course of the two break in attempts of the Church property, the building sustained about $25,000 to $30,000 worth of damage, which rendered it unleasable.

Story here.

[QUOTE="JoeRatz16"]

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

Again, it's not vandalism. You're welcome to discuss the offensiveness or sacrilege side of things, but don't make false accusations.

toast_burner

But yes it is offensive and sacrilegious.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]Atheists as well.Zeviander

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] That is unfortunate.Ace6301

How dare people have their own personal beliefs and want to stand united for a cause.

[QUOTE="Zeviander"][QUOTE="JoeRatz16"]Why what's wrong with the display?Oleg_Huzwog

You dunce. That just means the university doesn't endorse one over the others. It doesn't mean they're supposed to pretend religions don't exist or actively prevent free expression from their students.

[QUOTE="JoeRatz16"]Why what's wrong with the display?Zeviander