…she should be.
“Outrage over innocents,” her column in the February 6, 2016 Post, perfectly describes how most people who are pro-life feel not only about animal abuse, but about abortion, too.
Urback describes how terrible it is to see an animal mistreated:
I think the explanation has to do with the way we perceive the victims: as wholly innocent, uncomplicated, blindly trusting. That’s not to suggest adult victims “deserve” their fate, but simply that an abuse against a child, for example, isn’t diluted by details. A child is simple, pure and untarnished, which makes it unconscionable that someone would hurt them.
The problem with abortion is, of course, that we don’t see the unborn child as suffering. We don’t want to. Discussions of when the fetus feels pain remain hotly contested, as all things to do with abortion are.
However, it is good to note with this column that the genesis of the concern, the outrage that a pro-life person feels as regards the taking of life in the womb is ultimately the very same concern the animal lover feels. It is the same picture of an innocent being hurt, for no reason at all.
Animal lovers, picturing the face of a devoted dog, who wants to be with people, who just wants to be in the thick of things… playing games, getting treats, putting a paw on our knees, need to see pro-lifers similarly, as compassionate people, concerned for the fate of innocent life, wherever it may be found.
For more on these thoughts, look up Mary Eberstadt.
A much loved pooch who has since gone on to serve with the Canadian National Institute for the Blind.
by 
Didn’t Robyn urback write a column on how you can be outraged at those nasty Planned Parenthood videos, and yet still be pro-choice. Pretty sure that she’s pro-choice.
at least she’s outraged by the PP videos, rather than pretending they are fake…