“Catho-Light” implies that there can be a “light” version of Catholicism, but it’s still, in some way, Catholicism. The whole point is that Catholicism is X and these people are saying, “But I think X entails some things that ought not be the case.” Sorry, that’s not the way Christianity is preserved and taught by the Holy Spirit through the Roman Catholic Church. If a person decides to put their own interpretation of God’s truth above that of the Church of Rome, that’s unfortunate, and we have called such individuals “Protestant” since the 16th century. People have free will to cease following and believing in the Church of Rome as God’s earthly head of His Church, but they cannot still be Catholic, in any sense.

(Dear Orthodox brethren: chill. Your side of the discussion is another set of issues entirely)

Hence “Catholyc.” It looks a lot like Catholic, even can be pronounced the same way, but it’s definitely not Catholic, and the difference is plain.

That’s why the Left relies on the Courts instead of the Legislatures. The unelected are so much more discrete and tasteful.

Just one of his many mistakes.

I had read the article from the website “Nuns Pushed out of Convent” and thought that the website was representing the ones who’d stayed in schism, not the ones who left and reunited with the Church.

Thanks for clarifying who’s who and reassuring me that the group your were lauding are the ones who’ve returned into full communion.

http://www.sistersofmarymotherofthechurch.org/67,fortyyearsonthemount

It’s ironic that the Peta ad was only rejected because of provocative content – animals have more rights than a human unborn.

You over-estimate the thinking abilities of your fellow citizens.

Because I’ve been thinking about this all day and I cannot for the life of me come up with one single, solitary glimmer of an idea for a “tasteful” ad that pertains to either side of the debate.

Abortion is, by definition, NOT IN GOOD TASTE. Good grief, how can we possibly discuss dead babies in a tasteful fashion?

Perhaps you think we should not discuss it? Pardon me while I iron my hanky, find my smelling salts, and pull on my white gloves.

And further, what images of Sarah Palin could a pro-abortion group run? I’m trying to picture that and cannot. Please be specific and graphic, because I am not understanding you, and therefore I suspect you are both disingenuous and passive aggressive. But please, lay your cards on the table and I will happily retract that.

- Rape/incest: yes, reluctantly

A true lefty would NEVER agree that ANY ban on ANY procedure is EVER acceptable at ANY time.

The reason I say PBA ban isn’t a slippery slope is 1) it’s a reasonable ban that most normal people would agree is a good thing if they knew the truth and 2) that slippery slope argument is just a red herring that lefties use when they know the truth hurts them, the parallel to their yelling “Racist!” in most other arguments.

I personally won’t rest until abortion is banned. Period. I’m willing to accept exceptions for the life of the mother, that’s “life” as in “she’s going to die if we don’t do an abortion”, with the procedure done in a hospital not a “clinic”. I would also entertain, reluctantly, exceptions for incest and rape but only if the incest or rape is reported in a timely fashion (like a week, maybe) and, with respect to incest, somebody is criminally charged.

As far as the argument that PBA is the first step on a slippery slope, I wouldn’t disagree with that. I’m perfectly willing to get to a total ban one small step at a time. PBA ban, small restrictions, bigger restrictions, second trimester ban, total ban works fine for me. The rationale, and the reason it will work, is that in order to sell increased restrictions to the public, they have to be convinced that we’re talking about saving innocent human life and not just dealing with a “cell mass”. That’s why the butcher’s lobby was so up in arms about the PBA ban which is supported by 90% in polls. It’s obvious butchery and their support of “the procedure”, which was not all that uncommon, shows them to be what they are: people who could justify Joseph Mengele’s work.

There will be no compromise.

I’m amazed you can get out the door in the morning without written instructions and help.

First of all, you are being overwhelmed by your liberal feelings. Guess who has most abortions? Women just like Barack’s mom. Single women who are having minority babies. (Side note, you probably aren’t aware that Margaret Sanger – the founder of PP and liberal icon – promoted abortion as a way to eliminate minorities, mostly blacks. And that the majority of PP butcher shops clinics are in minority neighborhoods.)

Given the target market for PP, it makes perfectly good sense to show those people that the child they’re carrying has the real potential to be something other than a nuisance or just an addition to their AFDC payments. This ad actually gives those women, who for years have been targeted with the message that their baby is nothing and they are losers, HOPE that the child they’re carrying could really amount to something and maybe change the world.

This is hardly “shock and awe”. (Boy are you stupid.) Shock and awe in an abortion commercial is showing body parts that look like the remains of a baby who’s been chopped to pieces (because that’s exactly what happens in an abortion). Or a pile of little, easily recognizable bodies that have been burned to death with saline injections in their “mother’s” womb. This is the exact opposite of that approach.

Over the years the pro-life movement has NOT been losing traction. In point of fact it’s been gaining momentum. Now, if restrictions to abortion are put on local ballots, they generally would pass. Even most “pro-choice” advocates are more than willing to accept fairly significant restrictions – see my above dialog with self-proclaimed liberal and “pro-choice” person DL80. The only reason unfettered abortion exists in parts of the country is the courts. Voters and state legislators are willing and ready to restrict it. Poll after poll – even polls run by NARAL – show that people want restrictions such as the one’s I outlined above on abortion.

You are being dismissive. You’re also proudly flacking your single digit IQ and inability to do rational thought. Frankly I don’t care what you think, because you don’t think. You’re nothing more than a Troll in Troll’s clothing.