Rather than rehash the column as it appeared in today's Washington Times, I'll link to it now. Please read it. (note: if you read this May 1st or thereafter, click on April 30th in the calendar). A young man writes that he and his fiancee decided to "terminate the pregnancy". He is upset by the reaction of her sister, who obviously is pro-life. Jeanne Phillips, who now functions as "Abby" spouted the usual pro-abortion sloppy logic.
First, let's be clear. What the engaged couple did was to murder their baby. While Abby snidely says that the sister "had no vote", neither did that poor child. As far as being "none of (the sister's) business", may I point out that this lady was the aunt of the murdered child? It was this aunt, vilified by "Abby" who alone saw the truth of the situation and who alone acknowledged the humanity of this poor person whose only crime is that he or she existed.
Abby did get one thing halfway right, and that is "decisions have consequences". Some of the consequences will be post-abortion syndrome. Moreover, about 90% of these couples who abort their child will soon separate; let's face it - the murder of your child is not a healthy start for a relationship.
As far as it being "none of her business", should that aunt have realized that her sister and brother-in-law were beating their two-year-old, should she seek help or "mind her business"? The answer to that is the same for the abortion, since abortion is no less child-abuse than protracted torture of the child.
Lifenews gives more food for thought, as well as contact information for this deluded "Abby".
Jacques Cartier and Canada's Catholic Heritage
3 hours ago