The Seattle Post Intelligencer recently ran an op-ed about the relevance of post-abortion syndrome. They state that post-abortion syndrome does not exist, except in the minds of some remorseful post-abortive women. That regret, the editorial board claims, has been taken advantage of and labeled by Project Rachel, the Catholic church’s ministry for people involved with abortion.

Post-abortion syndrome first appeared in the news over three decades ago, so it’s unlikely that the organizers behind Project Rachel coined the term. Judging by the accusatory tone of the article, that’s not really the point the author(s) is trying to make. Like an angry person losing an argument, the article veers from irrelevant subject to irrelevant subject.

Intelligent design is attacked as “myth.” The post-abortion/creation link in their opinion is that both are “bogus” and not scientifically valid. I’m sorry, but in my opinion you’ve done nothing more than prove that you are liberal and invalidate your point because you didn’t stay on the topic. A baby, born or unborn, is factually alive and real no matter how you believe the baby came to be. Creation has nothing to do with abortion or post-abortion syndrome. (For the record, I do believe that God created the universe from a void in 6 literal days.)

In the end, the op-ed rants that because religious groups use the term “post-abortion syndrome” it’s obviously a bigoted and manipulative definition. Never mind their earlier “non-biased” attack on creationism. We’ll let that one slide in the name of good journalism.

The bottom line… Take your local opinion pages on pro-abortion issues with a grain of salt. They’re opinion, so they will obviously have a slant. Most of the time though, the argument is so poorly executed that it gives you the opportunity to have a great pro-life conversation at the water-cooler.