Woman Attempts to Abort Famous Person's Grandchild, Then Goes Public

Pro-life LifeSiteNews.com has a headline invoking "Star Wars" and Mark Hamill because, like so many millions of other people, he apparently encouraged a woman knocked up by his son to kill off his grandchild before that child could be born.

The lie behind the abortion movement's slogan, "a woman’s right to choose," is known to the women who have experienced heavy pressure - and often outright coercion - to abort their babies.

Yeah, it's funny how so many people who say "It should be her choice" whenever anyone says elective abortion is a bad thing 1) want strangers to be forced pay to have her child killed, and 2) speak out against women who CHOOSE to deliver their children, especially if they already have more than a couple.

Indeed, as countless testimonies from post-abortive women attest, the pressure exerted on women to kill their children - by husbands or boyfriends, and even their own families - is often so extreme as to make the word "choice" a mockery.

Most of the boyfriends would drop the pressure entirely if they could unilaterally choose a "financial abortion" the way women can unilaterally choose an actual abortion. Now this is where someone will say, "If he doesn't want to pay, he should keep it in his pants!" but many of the same people will be enraged if someone else says that if she doesn't want to be pregnant she should keep her legs together. He's expected to "live up to his responsibilities" when his choice in the matter literally ends as soon as his cells leave his body but her choices continue for 9+ months. So much for equality.

This experience of pressure when she was at her most vulnerable played itself out recently in the life of Maegan Chen, a Los Angeles model who was seeing Nathan Hamill, son of Mark Hamill, best known for his portrayal of Luke Skywalker in the Star Wars movies.

I wonder how many guys she's dated who aren't wealthy or don't have rich parents? Not that the answer has anything to do with anything.

Privacy For Nuclear Families and Empty Nesters

Dr. Laura has this thing in which she says once the youngest kid is 18, they should be be out. She's also against adult siblings and elderly parents moving in to a husband & wife home or even onto their property in a separate dwelling. She says this is because the husband and wife need their privacy.

I scratch my head with this one. Almost everything Dr. Laura says makes a lot of sense, especially when you know her reasons. I don't recall hearing her reasons for this.

The grown kids should be out, from what Dr. Laura has said, for their own good. They need to spread their wings and get the hang of flying on their own. Adult siblings, like everyone else, should be able to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and live independently. As far the the elderly parent, I can't help but wonder if this is somehow related to Dr. Laura's own personal experience.

She doesn't say that, though. She says the husband and wife need their privacy.

I can understand that some people want their privacy. They want to live alone with their spouse and nobody else. Fantastic. They should have their privacy.

But she makes it as a blanket statement for everyone.

What if both spouses sincerely WANT the sibling or the parent(s) there?

My guess is that Dr. Laura's position is that, deep down, the unrelated spouse can't possibly want their sibling-in-law or parent-in-law living on the same property.*