I am worn out after a protracted back and forth with softwarecreator on this thread. To be short and sweet: I had no objection to the story itself. My point is simply that Katie expresses concern for animals, but never does so for unborn humans. I see a moral obtuseness in that. Do you need to be so quick in accusing a fellow FReeper of being nonsensical?
I don't watch any of the morning shows and don't have the slightest idea what Katie does and doesn't express concern for. If she does believe abortions should be legal and available (which she probably does, but, once again, I pay no attention at all to the woman), then there's absolutely no way she would express concern for an unborn person on the show, would she? And even if she wanted to, how would she intro it? Show an abortion?
Sorry about the nonsensical remark. I should have just stuck with non sequitor.