O, but the century is only two and a half years old. 97.5 more years to go. [lol]
You know, we're not going to agree here. There is no way to equate wearing pants with creating the abortive society or the reverse, stopping abortion by never wearing pants.
When the abortion and pants are connected with Catholic faith and morals, there is a valid need to be concerned.
You should know that de Castro Mayer and Williamson have said that abortion can ended "by example". A sign of good Catholic is that (s)he accepts Catholic morals. Therefore, no abortion, no women in pants. I've already seen links in this thread pointing to stuff related to modesty and pants - and I'm not the only one putting in such links.
Another sign is that a Catholic accepts Catholic teaching. That means no abortion, no women in pants, because these things have been condemned by the Church for all time - and no amount of "evangelizing" in the name of situation ethics will change that. So one has to stop supporting modernist thinking and situation ethics.
Here's a question for you: if you think abortion is wrong today like it was wrong 200 years ago, why do you think it's okey to for women to wear pants now when that was never heard of (let alone accepted) 200 years ago?
I don't know which is more alarming - the fact that Williamson said it, or that you and others see nothing wrong with it.
What's more alarming is that people tell me they believe, but then act like Catholic faith and morals can change. If it's true that they really do change, I guess the whole thing about papal infallibility would be a lie as well, huh?