This article posits that the change in the Democratic platform language about abortion makes the platform more inclusive. A previous article in Slate made the argument that the change is more unequivocally pro-choice. The first article was correct. This article is politically motivated double-speak. Come on Catholics please vote for our candidate, please.

Two different articles, two different authors. You're surprised that different authors have different interpretations?

BTW, when the Catholic Church start nominating candidates?

This article is designed to convince Catholics beyond all logic that they ought to vote for what is the most pro-choice ticket and platform the Dems have put forth in years. The initial article was not trying to do this and thus had an honest take on the platform change.

Should catholics only vote based on one issue? It would seem the church doesn't think so, sine it specifically allows for support of a pro-choice candidate as long as that support is because of their other policies and positions.

I would also ask can't rational, intelligent people disagree on the best method to reduce the number of abortions or are we just all supposed to pretend that outlawing it will actually accomplish anything other than rich people will get 'dnc's" and other such procedures while the poor will resort to back alleys, home induced abortions, and other far less safe procedures?

Inquisitor:

This article is designed to convince Catholics beyond all logic that they ought to vote for what is the most pro-choice ticket and platform the Dems have put forth in years. The initial article was not trying to do this and thus had an honest take on the platform change.

Again, what's your point? They were two different interpretations by two different authors.

My point is (I will repeat it one more time as you seem to enjoy reading it so much) is that this is a dishonest politically motivated article.

Yes, it is politically motivated. So is every other article about politics.

I still don't understand why you think it's a big deal that two different authors have differing opinions.

Two differing opinions = not a big deal

Two differing opinions when one opinion makes no sense = a big deal

The other article provides a useful counterpoint. I don't understand why you think it is such a big deal that I pointed out the contradiction. I did not state that slate needs editorial consistency or anything of that kind. I merely brought up the other article to show how weak this article is. Hope that helps.

Inquisitor:

My point is (I will repeat it one more time as you seem to enjoy reading it so much) is that this is a dishonest politically motivated article.

You sound surprised.

I can count on one hand # of honest politically motivated articles.

The article obviously made sense to the author. Just because you don't like the POV of the one doesn't mean it has no merit.

Are you just going to keep replying as long as I do?

Anyway the two articles take essentially the same facts and draw two completely different conclusions. The possible explanations for this are two. One the authors have two different POV's or the author have different motivations. I believe it is two because the conclusions of the first article from logically from the facts while the conclusions of the second article do not.

Se Fine

Inquisitor:

Are you just going to keep replying as long as I do?

Yes. :-)