Good for those students.Ace6301

At Western Kentucky University there is a display of 3700 crosses set up by the university group Hilltoppers for Life. The 3700 crosses represent how many babies are killed by abortions per day in the United States. Well a group of vandals decided to vandalize this display by putting condoms over the crosses, and the Hilltoppers for life folk caught them and called police, but the police refused to arrest the vandals saying that they were not committing vandalism.

Hilltoppers for Life owns the crosses so it is their property, so how is this not vandalism (never mind the fact that this is sacrilegious). The vandals, mostly art students, said that what they were doing was part of an approved assignment. As John Sohl, president of Hilltoppers for life said "how does the university have the right to approve assignments that vandalize and desecrate the property and displays of other people?"

And apparently one of the students who vandalized this display actually got school credit for doing so. Quite crazy.

http://studentsforlife.org/2012/04/20/wku/

Depends on who the president is. I don't vote based on race or gender.

I wonder how the Republicans will react to this......of course Jesus loves cutting benefits to the poor.

BossPerson

Obama recently put out his budget for fiscal year 2013, but Bishop Richard Pates, the Bishop of Des Moines, and Chairman of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Committee on International Justice and Peace and Carolyn Woo, President of Catholic Relief Services have sent a letter to Congress urging Congress to reject certain cuts to funding for International Poverty Programs.

Bishop Pates and Woo note that CRS and the Catholic bishops understand the financial challenges ("we support fiscal responsibility") faced by the U.S. (particularly the bad economy and the national debt) and that Obama's budget increases the International Affairs Budget by 2.4%, but say that the proposed cuts to life-saving programs could "cost lives" and note that the International Affairs budget which funds these programs accounts for 0.5% of the U.S. budget overall (thus cuts to these programs won't make much difference on the overall deficit). Woo and Bishop Pates say they are particularly concerned about cuts to: "Migration and Refugee Assistance, HIV/AIDS, other health and nutrition programs, and International Disaster assistance".

Obama's budget mostly includes small cuts to these foreign aid programs (about 4 to 6%), but cuts some programs by 25 to 30%, though it does also increase funding for some programs (in fact it increases debt relief for Sudan by 1983%). Overall Obama's budget cuts funding to international anti-poverty programs by 0.8% compared to the budget for Fiscal Year 2012, but that it cuts funding by 4.2% compared to the budget for Fiscal Year 2010.

The letter also includes a nice table of all the programs that are cut or increased and shows how much money they were allocated in 2012 and in Obama's budget for 2013.

The letter can be found here:http://actioncenter.crs.org/site/DocServer/2012-03_Letter-Chart_International_Assistance-House.pdf?docID=7843

What are your thoughts, are you for or against these proposed cuts?

1731 Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one's own responsibility. By free will one shapes one's own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude.

1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.

1733 The more one does what is good, the freer one becomes. There is no true freedom except in the service of what is good and just. The choice to disobey and do evil is an abuse of freedom and leads to "the slavery of sin."28

1734 Freedom makes man responsible for his acts to the extent that they are voluntary. Progress in virtue, knowledge of the good, and ascesis enhance the mastery of the will over its acts.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a3.htm

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="KamuiFei"]

And the left is better how?

You know the line between Republican and Democrat is so thin, that its essentially non-existant. Both want big government, more spending and war.

MadVybz

So long as a government exists there is no such thing as absolute freedom.

[QUOTE="Jandurin"]speak for joe rat????MrPraline

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="Jandurin"] are there them that don'tMrPraline

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

[QUOTE="JoeRatz16"] That seems quite similar to the Federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act.However I think the intent of these bills is not so much to discourage partial-birth abortions, but to mandate that babies that are born alive after a failed abortion attempt, are not killed post-birth and are given necessary medical treatment to save their lives.

As for Partial-Birth Abortion, a year after BAIPA was passed, a Federal Law Banning Partial Birth Abortion was passed in 2003.

theone86

I know this Federal law, but, now that I think about it, this also brings up the question if this law is more so an attempt to increase the power of state governments by making them level with the federal. Since it is already illegal on a federal level, it can lead to a federal charge and, given the South Carolina bill is similar to the federal law, it would be a rational assumption, albeit it is most likely not the only factor for the genesis of the state bill.

Ummmm...so it's already illegal at a federal level and states are coming out and passing redundant legislation. Let's just call a spade a spade, this is an attempt to use a functionaly worthless piece of legislation to bring a potential wedge issue to the national stage in an election year.