The NYT recently published a brief op-ed piece by one Judy Nicastro – a self-described “non-religious”, “old school liberal” from Seattle. In fashionably maudlin prose, Nicastro writes about aborting her son at 23 weeks. That repulsive little article is a good example of the worldview of abortion proponents.

Now, what was the reason for Nicastro’s decision to kill her unborn child? Perhaps her life, or even health was in danger? Or did she become pregnant as a result of rape or incest? Nope, none of the above. You see, her son had a hole in his diaphragm and only one formed lung chamber and she did not want to deal with the inconvenience of her son being hospitalized and on life support for a long time.

But what if a perfectly healthy baby grows up into a perfectly healthy teenager who is then grievously injured as a result of an auto accident and is placed on life support? Would Nicastro euthanize him to spare herself and her husband the inconvenience of visiting him in the hospital and seeing him all intubated and covered with bandages? I suspect that she would, if it were sanctioned by some judge or legislator. Such is the dreary, selfish, soulless world of child killers who hide behind the slogans of “women’s rights”, “reproductive freedom”, and “the right to privacy”.

And in some ways, Judy Nicastro’s husband is an even more despicable character. After all, he’s described as being “Catholic”. What kind of Catholic would acquiesce in his wife’s abortion? Whatever happened to Ephesians 5:22? I suspect that Nicastro’s husband either hasn’t set his foot in a church since his confirmation, or attends one of those “churches” where the sermon is about “social justice” and the “mass” is accompanied by guitar playing.