Huh? Wha?
On the other hand, if the ad prevents just one unnecessary abortion, maybe it's worth it. Who knows? That one child could be a girl who grows up to be the first female Pope. Imagine the potential.

I am, perhaps, naive, to expect better of professional religion writers. But permit me a moment of my own offense. I wonder... is he just a jerk or is he using tacky rhetoric to present his case that the chance of a fetus growing up to be President is so excruciatingly tiny, eclipsed only by the zero chance of a girl becoming Pope, that let's not worry about any who are lost in the gestating process?

The Washington Post's David Waters took offense at the CatholicVote.org video aired on Inauguration day as being "disingenuous at best, exploitive at worst." The only thing I see being exploited is the moment. The inauguaration of our first black president is a teachable moment. This 40 second video is meant to provoke thought, not make a complete and well-reasoned case against abortion. Does Mr. Waters think the BET viewers should be protected against something that could lead them to come to conclusions outside of the usual liberal party line? [Of course, besides tossing off his own offensive humor, Waters also quotes a more pragmatic sort who put forth the whole Freakonomics sort of thought that the same video could have been made about Timothy McVeigh. Blech.]