This woman exercised her right to abort her infants, and now she’s being unjustly persecuted

HT_megan_huntsman_blur_h_jt_140413_16x9_992

Someone get this printed on a t-shirt:

“Free Megan Huntsman!”

Slap it on a bumper sticker. Start the campaign.

Megan Huntsman — every bit the same sort of feminist hero as Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards or Abortion Martyr George Tiller — is being persecuted. Prosecuted and persecuted before our very eyes (in the year 2014!) all for allegedly making a choice. A difficult choice, mind you. An alleged choice that she must have grappled with torturously.

She considered her options and, in the end, came to the conclusion that she wasn’t ready to be a mother. So she terminated her post-birth fetuses — six of them — and put them in boxes in her garage, according to the charges.

Police say that Ms. Huntsman has admitted to conducting this medical procedure, and why shouldn’t she admit to it? Why shouldn’t she have the freedom to make decisions about her life and her body, and why shouldn’t society herald her bravery in doing so?

Now, it’s true that I am a man and so I have no right to form an opinion on whether a fetus ought to be suffocated, either in its pre or post-birth stage of development. We know that one cannot reach an objective conclusion unless one is emotionally tied to the issue at hand, which is why, according to the dictates of jurisprudence, every jury is stacked with people who’ve been personally victimized by whatever type of crime the defendant stands accused.

Be that as it may, I am also a modern, progressive, American (in the year 2014, for God’s sake!) and so I have dutifully formulated my ideology through the passive absorption of popular culture. This process can only bring one to the inescapable realization that the worth of a fetus, or “human being” as right wing propagandists and biologists might call it, really depends on the feelings of the unwilling host, or “mother” as rabid Republican loons might refer to her.

Melissa Harris-Perry said as much a few months ago, confidently declaring that life begins when the woman feels like it. Cecile Richards has, for her part, insisted that the issue of life is irrelevant to the matter entirely, and Obama famously professed that, although he has taken a position on abortion, the job of formulating a theory that would justify that position is really quite above his pay grade.

So if the definition of ‘life’ hinges on the mother’s emotional willingness to call it life, and if the whole subject is irrelevant and impossible to quantify anyway, then who are you to tell Megan Hunstman that her post-birth fetuses were ‘people’ and had ‘human rights’?

You can’t. We can’t. And it is a travesty of justice that the criminal courts would even try. Look, it’s not the 1950s; it’s 2014! Time to move out of the Stone Age. Only a Neanderthal would think that the God given right to an abortion somehow ends at the moment of natural birth.

We’ve drawn this line in the sand, but the line is arbitrary. Indeed, whatever argument you make for abortion can easily be made by Ms. Hunstman.

Let’s go down the list:

Pregnancy is an incredible burden on a woman; who are we to tell her what to do with her own body?

This is the most trusty and commonly cited reason to support abortion, and the argument is important because it clearly defines the fetus as an extension of a woman’s body, or else negates the rights of the fetus by using its dependence on the woman’s body against it.

If the fetus is a part of the mother’s body, why should it not be considered as such once it is born? If it was literally a body part, then that is its nature, and if that is its nature, then how could its nature change upon birth? My thumb, my arm, my bladder, these are all pieces and parts of me. If I were to have one removed, would I suddenly lose jurisdiction over it? Surely, my thumb has no legal rights, no protections outside of the laws that protect me — the person to whom my thumb is a mere member. If I chopped off my thumb and threw it in the garbage, could I be accused of ‘murder’?

But if the fetus is a person, or a human, or at least some entity distinct from the mother, then, our argument goes, its DEPENDENCE on the mother’s body means that it cannot claim any rights which would supersede her own.

Alright, so what of a post-birth fetus? Is it now somehow able to exist independent of the woman? Of course not. In fact, it becomes all the more demanding. It needs not only its mother’s body, but almost all of her time, her energy, her money, everything. A pre-birth fetus ONLY needs a woman’s body, a post-birth fetus needs her body AND everything else. So how does the post-birth fetus get off the hook? It makes no sense.

Sure, a woman can find other people to fill those roles, and she can buy formula rather than breastfeed, but SHE is still LEGALLY REQUIRED to go out and seek those replacements, which is not only a hassle, and possibly financially cumbersome, but emotionally taxing. Who are we to FORCE her to do that? If the technology existed for a woman to transfer her pre-birth fetus from her uterus to someone else’s, or to a machine of some sort, I can’t imagine that any self respecting pro-choice feminist would throw up her hands and say, “Alright, no more abortion — now all women who don’t want their fetuses need to undergo a fetal transfer!”

Obviously abortion rights would still be protected even if pregnant women had an option in between giving birth and having an abortion. To relent would be to tolerate yet another imposition on women, brought upon by a paternalistic society dominated by white male Christians.

Yes, Utah is a Safe Haven state, which means a baby can be abandoned at a hospital, no questions asked. But, again, that is only one way to deal with a post-birth fetus. Who are we to say it is the RIGHT way? And who are we to hoist that opinion onto anyone, least of all a woman in the midst of such a difficult moment in her life?

A fetus isn’t fully developed, so it isn’t a person.

Tying ‘personhood’ to physical development — where would the abortion rights movement be without this essential argument? A fetus, remember, is only a clump of cells. It can’t even breathe through its lungs or use an iPhone yet. What about a post-birth fetus? Sure, it has attained a few more developmental milestones, but it’s far from fully developed. A fetus doesn’t become rational and reasonable until it’s about 93 or 94 months old. Scientists believe the brain itself isn’t finished forming until it hits about 309 months of development.

The point is this: if the abortion rights camp rejects, as it should, the inane idea that this mysterious entity with its own DNA and genetic makeup should be considered a person at conception — or, in other words, at the moment in which its unique DNA and genetic makeup come into existence — and if we reject the idea that it should be considered a person at any other random gestational point thereafter, why should we automatically concede the matter once the fetus emerges from the birth canal? If a lack of physical development makes the creature/body part/whatever-it-is undeserving of personhood, then we must see that logic all the way through.

Full physical development — i.e. personhood — does not occur, for most fetuses, until they are 26 or 27 years old. And then physical deterioration immediately begins, but we can have the forced euthanasia debate some other time. If incomplete physical development contributes in any way, shape, or form to our pro-abortion position, then we have universally tied development to human rights. We have said that, to some degree, the fullness of our rights rests on the fullness of our physiological formation. Think of the glorious implications if we only possessed the courage to apply this reasoning consistently!

Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one.

In other words, butt out. None of your business. It doesn’t concern you. Ms. Hunstman could say all of these things, and I’m sure she has.  Anyone who has ever done anything to any other person could also say this to every person to whom he or she didn’t do it. This means we really shouldn’t have an opinion about almost everything that’s happening, has happened, or will happen — including, for instance, the Holocaust and the Manson killings — as the vast majority of the world’s events will not directly and immediately impact us in any obvious way. Once we’ve more roundly adopted this slogan, we will be free from much of the onerousness of having a moral compass, because we will have defined ‘morality’ as simply ‘a distaste for that which inconveniences oneself.’

Women will have abortions anyway, we need to make sure they are done safely.

The appeal to inevitability. Well, as long as there are women who wish to have pre-birth abortions, there will also be women who wish to have post-birth abortions. The only question is whether they will be able to do them in a safe and sterile environment. Infanticide has been around for as long as abortion — probably longer. No law against it will ever stop it from happening.

Without abortion, there will be a lot of unwanted children, who Republicans will refuse to provide with food stamps and welfare.

In my research, to be honest, I’ve yet to find very many Republicans who categorically oppose welfare. This appears to be more of a Libertarian position, but don’t tell that to the progressive college kids who fancy themselves Libertarian because they like drugs and booze.

In any case, as we have established, once a fetus is ‘unwanted,’ it will be destined to a pointless life of misery and sadness. Why should we, as a society, only have the opportunity to alleviate them of that burden while they are in the womb? If they are unwanted in the womb, they will be unwanted out of it. This was a point on which Margaret Sanger — the founder of Planned Parenthood — was very clear. Those who might be a drain on society must be exterminated.

It’s unfortunate that Ms. Sanger was photographed at KKK rallies and such, but that doesn’t mean we should dismiss her ideas. Her ideas are the cornerstone of the abortion rights movement, after all.

It’s clear what must be done: free Megan Hunstman. If we aren’t disgusted by terminating a fetus in the womb (and we shouldn’t be — in the year 2014, for goodness sake!) then why are we pretending to be disgusted by the termination of a thing merely moments after it, according to popular notions, stops being a fetus? How could one be a right and the other reprehensible, when the acts are the same, the motivations are the same, and the results are the same?

I’ve even seen pro-choice people wonder aloud about why she didn’t “just go get an abortion.” How absurd is that? So if she had gone to some building and asked some man to do it for her, it would be fine, but instead she waits a few days and does it herself and now she’s suddenly Satan Incarnate? She terminated them seconds after they emerged from her body, and so she’s a serial killer, but if she’d killed them as they emerged, she’d be a role model for the pro-choice cause? This is insanity.

Why are we selling ourselves short? The ideology of abortion allows for so much more, yet we limit ourselves because — why? Because we fear the Christians? This is understandable — those monsters regularly resort to militant tactics, like sign-holding and prayer — but we shouldn’t let them bully us around. If Ms. Huntsman is charged with anything, it should be for practicing medicine without a license. But, really, she’s guilt of nothing more than being an empowered woman.

What a shameful lack of conviction my pro-choice brothers and sisters have demonstrated. Come, let us take our beliefs to their logical conclusions, and then toast to the Land of Freedom and Peace we will have finally forged for ourselves!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

1,224 Responses to This woman exercised her right to abort her infants, and now she’s being unjustly persecuted

  1. MJ says:

    You are SO RIGHT Matt! Any chance we can contact your mother and ask her if she will make the decision to terminate you now, since it’s all her choice? I’m sure she’ll see with this post that you were a terrible mistake.

    • jeshkahope says:

      You’re just a mean spirited person. Please don’t reproduce, that’ll benefit the world immensely.

      • NotBuyingIt says:

        The transparence of your opinions are hilarious. The second someone agrees with you, you christen them with intelligence, but this guy’s wit doesn’t meet your approval? Spare me.

        • jeshkahope says:

          His wit?
          You lost me.
          Granted I didn’t say anything nice either. I also didn’t say Matt’s mother should “abort” ie murder him because he desrves is “she’ll see with this post that you were a terrible mistake”.
          I don’t agree with myself all the time so go find someone else to bother, spare me please.

    • Eric Hyde says:

      MJ, put on your sarcasm lenses and read the whole article.

    • sarahrrunge says:

      Hahaha – exactly what I was thinking! This entire post should have been aborted after the first paragraph. An FYI for Matt Walsh – a fetus is, by definition, unborn. Saying “post-birth fetus” is like saying “post-birth unborn mammal”. But don’t be discouraged Matty- its fascinating to read a blog written by an ape. Just be careful not to smudge the computer with that poo you’re so fond of throwing around.

      • TheKnowerseeker says:

        A “fetus” is, by definition, Latin for “baby”.

      • Gee says:

        I spy someone who failed Latin.

        • Someone did fail Latin, YOU. In Latin, fetus means “offspring” “bearing” “bringing forth” or “hatching of young”. A fetus is a child, which is a baby, which is a human being, which is somebody’s offspring. Get the picture now?

    • TheKnowerseeker says:

      Did you not recognize that the entire article is sarcasm? Matt believes the opposite of everything asserted in the article.

    • mo says:

      Anything to say on the content of this post?

      Or just wishes for Matt’s murder?

    • analyticalperspective says:

      Dear MJ,

      I tell people to have compassion for those who sincerely disparage and condemn the lives of others. And sometimes I make snarky comments that I probably shouldn’t because people can’t hear my tone or see my body language to know that I’m being a smart-A and amusing myself.

      Sincerely, with somber expression, I have compassion for you now.

      Sir or Ma’am, what has happened in your life to cause you to think that it is okay to wish senseless death on another?

      I have three options:

      1.) You have committed similar acts or know someone who has committed similar acts of abortion and you are:
      a. hurt
      b. angry
      c. suffering from low self-esteem, therefore you act out your anger on Matt

      2. You are a person with a far-leaning liberal perspective who is incensed at the hubris of people whose perspective leans far right

      3. You are a sociopath

      I don’t think the answer is #3.

      I want you to know that I have vented my pain on Matt when he touched on one of my failures pertaining to marriage, but it was a pointed response statement, because my goal is to help people ‘feel’ from another perspective in order to get them to ‘think’ from another perspective. I equally advocate for Matt to develop a well-rounded perspective so that even if he continues to disagree he will at least understand and develop a modicum of empathy.

      I don’t need to meet Matt to know he’s a good-hearted, young man. He has two beautiful children and a wife who all love him. He provides for them. They depend on him. Their moral welfare is positively influenced by his own. I’m confident Matt will not be teaching his family racism, prejudice, or intolerance. I’m confident that he won’t be pointing fingers and condemning people to hell; he’s merely pointing out the possibilities based on his knowledge and beliefs. He has that freedom and he’s exercising his right. The very last thing he should do is die, because he is a benefit to our society and the world. He certainly should not die senselessly. I defend him. I would defend someone like Matt with my life.

      I do wish to help you let go of your emotional hurt and anger, dear reader. Let me know if and when you are tired of being hurt and afraid. Whether you are a sociopath or a wounded person, I know you.

      My e-mail address is:

      heathermelissa3@gmail.com

  2. Paul says:

    I would like to know why bacteria would be considered life on Mars but a heartbeat isn’t considered life on earth… Its a sad world we live in…

  3. Paige says:

    it’s actually comical how disgusting of an article this is. “reaching” is an understatement, but enjoy your oblivion and obvious out of touch reality.

    • Cyberguy64 says:

      It’s satire. Educate yourself.

    • Kelsey says:

      I’m not sure you picked up on the satire here. Are you annoyed because you read it as pro-choice or as pro-life??

    • jeshkahope says:

      “Some of you aren’t going to like this one. Well, nobody can like the issue being discussed, but some of you, even some on my side, will think that this kind of dark, morbid satire isn’t appropriate.

      You might be right. But I’m not worried about being appropriate. I’m worried about jolting people out of their coma.

      It’s truly insane that Megan Huntsman — the woman who was arrested this week for birthing six infants over ten years, and then killing them — is so widely condemned, while abortion is so widely accepted, or even celebrated. It is an extreme level of cognitive dissonance that allows millions of Americans to call Huntsman a killer while calling abortionists ‘medical practitioners.’ It’s a special sort of lunacy, or a dangerous kind of ignorance, that makes someone miss the irony in the Justice System that punishes Huntsman and protects Planned Parenthood.

      So, I have here assumed the pro-choice position, and merely extended its own arguments out to their logical conclusions — a conclusion that results in hailing and celebrating Megan Huntsman the same way pro-choicers hailed and celebrated George Tiller. I would never make light of abortion, but I will make a mockery of it. Just as I would never make light of the devil, but he surely deserves to be mocked.

      I disgusted myself writing this. It took me four days because I couldn’t stomach it. I wasn’t sure if I’d even post it. But here it is”

      Educate yourself. Matt is pro-life. This is satire.

  4. Amber says:

    Thank you Matt! You’ve done it again. Expertly articulated my feelings. I will be sharing this.

  5. Kristi says:

    according to Walsh, a “post-fetus” isn’t a person because IT isn’t fully developed yet. so with this theory, how old does a baby have to be before it is considered murder- the 93 month mark, the 309 month mark, or the 26 year mark which were all mentioned?? with this “fully developed” argument, Walsh should be protesting the imprisonment of murderers of victims under 26 years old…cuz they are just “post-fetuses”. disgusting. If a person can breath on their own, no matter what the age, it is MURDER if you are the cause of their last breath.

  6. Kristana Beard says:

    Saw this acouple days ago on the news via my phone but couldn’t read it. ( took to long to load). Its VERY scary in general that anyone would want abort their child yet alone do it themselves, but hello people who have a “office title” , like Obama we need to say enough is enough on all forms of abortion. There might b a deeper question we need our “office people” to ask themselves. Why is killing a baby any different on the inside as opposed to outside? And why do u think all these funny feelings come up when we do. Answer: Because KILLing any human being in any form is wrong!!!!!! Just b/c you don’t see them doesn’t mean they aren’t there. I have an associates, so what do I know, right? Lol that’s my little soap box for the night.

  7. Michelle Womble says:

    Seriously her major crime here is using this method as a form of birth control. Too many woman think this is the easy way out anymore. I mean even the morning after pill would be better. Making poor decisions with no consequences. This choice wasn’t painstaking after the first time, if then, or she would have been more careful. She lacks respect for the human creation process & it’s a slap in the face for those of us who desperately want children & can’t have them. & if she weren’t charged with the current charges she would at least be charged with Improper Disposal of Human a Remains under your argument. Plain & simple this is unacceptable. She has rights to her body & I’m pro choice, but a woman should be of sound mind & body to make good choices & repeated self abortions is completely contradictory to that. Something has to happen to prevent others from repeating this despicable behavior.

    • Matt(Not Walsh) says:

      Not only this is a slap in the face to people who want children but can’t have them, all the women getting abortions daily is also. My wife and I can’t have kids even though I would love nothing more than to have one or two of my own.

      • TheKnowerseeker says:

        Dear Father, please bless our brother Matt (not Walsh) and his wife with a little one to hold, cherish, and raise with Your love and wisdom, whether by biological means or adoption, and please bless Matt’s family in all ways. In Jesus’ name, Amen.

        • deelilynn says:

          “Dear Father, please bless our brother Matt (not Walsh) and his wife with a little one to hold, cherish, and raise with Your love and wisdom, whether by biological means or adoption, and please bless Matt’s family in all ways. In Jesus’ name, Amen.”

          Amen and Amen, TheKnowerseeker!!

      • LilyL2182 says:

        Oh yes because you Matt should be the #1 concern of very pregnant woman.

  8. Margery says:

    Can you call it abortion if she carried her babies full term, gave birth to them while they were alive, breathing and crying, then she went on to suffocating 6 breathing humans, killing them…. can you call it abortion then? But maybe with the first or even the second infant deaths that it could be some how justifiable, but six full term babies? There has to be some justice for human life. Because she knowingly knew she was pregnant six times and all six times she knowingly premeditated the end results of those babies… abortion sure when the fetus is 4,5 or 6 months of fetus life but 7,8,9 months that’s human life and by that time only you’ve allowed that human to live inside you.

    • Casey says:

      I heard my baby’s heart beat at 12 weeks. I felt him move at 4 months. He would get startled if there was a loud noise and I would feel him jump. I could tell when he was awake and when he was sleeping by how active he was in my belly. He was alive in my womb…just as those babies were alive in Megan Huntsman’s womb. Why does the timeline of murder matter? It is murder even before 4, 5, or 6 months. It is murder if a person knowingly ends a human life at any stage for any reason. This post is saying that to justify abortion but abhor this woman’s actions is the ultimate hypocrisy. And it is. Abortion is disgusting.

    • Katie says:

      That wasn’t an abortion that was murder. As soon as they took a breath they were considered a baby and if the mother kills them then she should pay.

      • jeshkahope says:

        But why not before the first “breath”?

        • TheKnowerseeker says:

          Exactly. Those who are “pro-choice” because they don’t know better (as was I once) need to do the research, while informed folks who remain “pro-choice” have *got* to be psychopaths. Terror and pain, people: That’s what many unborn babies experience through “abortion” (murder).

        • jeshkahope says:

          I was pro choice until I read this article and thought about my stance as I view abortion as murder personally and was only pro choice because I didn’t feel I could say that someone else shouldn’t do something because I didn’t believe in it. Well I’m against “regular” murder outright so Matt satirical blog really opened my eyes to my hypocrisy. Thanks!

      • Len Johnson says:

        Same thing–abortion is murder. The question, I believe, is not so much when the taking of human life is murder but rather the question of who is man. If we humans are the product of an unguided, accidental process of time and chance, the taking of human life is legally defined by a majority vote directed by the current trend of cultural thinking– which is, in turn, guided by the the pragmatic and self-serving whims of each of us. If we are a product of an unguided combination of chemicals and the prime reality is matter, then there is no such thing as right and wrong. The universe could care less. It only knows the laws of physics. For that matter it does not care or know. It is impersonal. On the other hand, there is the possibility that man is the purposeful result of a transcendental God who tells us that life is sacred and that the shedding of man’s blood is a serious crime. So the question that needs to be answered by each of us is which is it–Did man have a personal or an impersonal beginning?

      • Momof7 says:

        But what if she couldn’t afford one? It’s a baby when it comes out and tries to breathe, but it’s fine if the child is not yet breathing? This should be an alternative then, right? This “poor woman” couldn’t afford abortion, so she took the cheaper way out. She waited until the baby came out and then had an abortion! Why is it okay if a doctor does it, because he’s getting PAID?

        If it’s good for the goose, Katie…

        You really need to analyze your position. It’s hypocritical to the MAX.

        • Chris says:

          Ugh. I really find it hard to understand how people can’t see the difference between ending the life of a being that LIVES INSIDE OF YOU and ending the life of a being that doesn’t. Even if you are pro-life you should at least understand that this distinction is hardly an arbitrary one. Before a baby is born, there is a conflict of rights. After the baby is born, that conflict no longer exists; the mother clearly has other options and can either put the baby up for adoption or even abandon it, but it’s no longer in her body, so she can’t kill the baby. The right of abortion doesn’t exist because we think mothers should have the blanket right to kill their children, it exists because we think they should have control of their own bodies. No baby in the body = no conflict of rights = no right to kill.

          Now whichever side of that conflict you come down on (the unborn’s right to life > the woman’s right to bodily autonomy, or vice versa) you should at least be able to acknowledge that this conflict EXISTS, but Matt’s post and most of the comments here simply pretend the whole conflict away. I don’t believe all pro-lifers are completely uncaring about the rights of women to control their bodies, but if anything makes the case for that, it’s the majority of pro-lifers commenting on this site.

      • mo says:

        @ Katie

        LOL! “considered a baby”? According to who? You? What nonsense.

        Tell me, what was it before then?

    • LSCS-XO says:

      What is the difference……6 abortions still equal 6 dead babies. Murder is murder.

      • Chris says:

        Most abortions occur before 24-28 weeks, which is the earliest point at which fetuses can possibly have neural activity, which gives them the capacity to think and feel. I think there is a HUGE difference between killing a being that can think and feel pain, and killing a being who cannot. There is also a big difference between killing a being that is using your body to live and killing a being that you could just as easily give up for adoption or even abandon with minimal harm. It’s amazing to me that the posters here, who claim to be so concerned about this issue, have given it so little thought that these differences simply never occurred to you.

    • Kristeen says:

      4.5 months or 6 months?? Really??? My son (who is 2.5 years old) was alive starting day 1, month 1. At 4.5 months I got to see him WAVE to me during an ultrasound meeting. I saw his mouth moving, his legs kicking, his heart beating. He’s very much alive today as he was day 1.

      • Becca says:

        My mom says I was twirling my hair when she went to find out if I was a boy or girl. It’s a habit I still haven’t manage to kick 22 years later…but you know, I was only alive because my mom wanted me to be her daughter of course

    • Matt(Not Walsh) says:

      They are calling it abortion in Belgium where it is legal now to give birth and then have the baby killed.

  9. Aaron says:

    Seven babies were murdered. Using this as a platform to approach abortion shows that you have sociopath tendencies. The first thing I thought of when I read the original story was: “The person who killed those babies should suffer a horrible death.” Now if you really, really feel the same way about people who have abortions, including the women whose lives are threatened by continuing to carry fetuses, you can call me your enemy.

    You are manipulative. Your blog is venomous. I hope you have no children to which you can pass your twisted ways of thinking and which you will inevitably abuse, because let’s be honest, while I think abortion is morally wrong, I happen to know that you represent the group of people who care less about children once they are born than you do when you can use them to control women who may or may not have anything to do with abortions.

    • Tim Brown says:

      And when did they become babies Aaron? When they were born, just before? After birth? It’s not manipulative. It’s being logical….which by your comment demonstrates you have no idea how logic works in this particular case.

      Let’s call if for what it is “PRO-choice” for what? Finish the phrase….”Pro choice to murder your BABY.”

      And don’t give me the nonsense about “It’s a woman’s body.” Whose body is it being torn apart in the womb of the woman? Whose body is it being scalded with acid, or having its brains sucked out and then discarded into a toilet, bucket or trash can. I’ll give you a clue….it ain’t the woman’s.

    • Sator says:

      We Christians don’t think of anyone as deserving an horrible painfull death. Because we believe in hating Sin and loving and helping Sinners, much like you hate eroine and help junkies recover. In this specific case this applies to mss Huntsman as to any girl under going abortion.
      That clarified, if you want to try and pass someone as manipulative child abuser that doesn’t care about children but about controlling women you could certanly start by addressing his argument logically. Certanly you can find some proof in our guest’s posts of the fact that he doesn’t care about his twins, if it’s so obvious to you.
      Alternatively, you could read what you’re writing and realize you’re the only venomous person here.

      • Chris says:

        Sator: “We Christians don’t think of anyone as deserving an horrible painfull death.”

        *snort* I’m sorry, but this is hilarious. Many, if not most, Christians believe that we are all deserving of Hell without Christ’s redemption, which is often depicted as far more horrible and painful than any physical death, and which lasts FOREVER. So the idea that Christians don’t believe that anyone deserves a horrible painful death might be technically true, but ignores the glaring fact that an important doctrine is that even more horrible things should happen to all non-Christians AFTER death.

        • Sator says:

          Hell is not death. Hell is being away from God’s grace. You go there because you didn’t want to accept God’s forgiveness. You didn’t want it because you couldn’t renounce your sins, the limited things that keep you entertained here, in exchange of the only Unlimited one. Read Dante to make it clear. It is said that existing eternally without God’s Grace is like being thrown in a lake of fire and sulphur. Perhaps its not so bad: you seem to be doing pretty well while doing your best to ignore God’s Grace and twist the argument in a direction it never should have gone to, misunderstanding my words in a perhaps not completelly un Planned way. Perhaps if you or someone you know and admire do end up there, not much will change by your point of view.

    • Sarahbclark! says:

      He is being facetious. Everything he said is basically the opposite of what he believes, he is just using the arguments that pro abortion supports use.

    • Casey says:

      First off, I can’t find anywhere in this post where Matt said he thought the person who killed the babies should suffer a horrible death. You said that and then said “If you really, really feel the same way about people who have abortions….” So really you are putting words into his mouth and then condemning him for it. You are saying things that make no sense about a person you obviously don’t know. So it is probably best in this situation to heed the old “if you can’t say anything nice (or anything of value, or anything that makes sense) best not to say anything at all.” Perhaps next time though. One can always hope.

    • Mimi says:

      “I happen to know that you represent the group of people who care less about children once they are born than you do when you can use them to control women who may or may not have anything to do with abortions.”

      Okay, please explain. I read Matt’s blog regularly and I have never seen this in him. Being against the murder of children in the womb has nothing to do with controlling women and certainly (IMHO) doesn’t mean you don’t care about children after they’re born. Do you have empirical data to back up your comment, or is this just your opinion?

    • What an immoral, hypocritical, insulting person…

    • Curious says:

      Aaron. How would you reply to what Matt said about if she had gone to the doctor say 3 weeks prior to going into labor and had the baby’s life taken at that point? Would you view her differently and why?

    • Matt(Not Walsh) says:

      This was a satire. Matt Walsh wrote this blog to attack every single argument that “pro-choice” people make. He is pro-life and is for the prosecution of this woman.

    • Tapeman says:

      Haha! You clearly are taking him too seriously. This blog post, along with many of his other posts, plays on something called HYPERBOLE. I don’t know if you’ve heard of it, but it essentially means to exaggerate or blow up something to the point of ridiculousness. In other words, the only reason he writes like this is because it gets views and draws readers, which is how he makes money. It’s his job!

      That being said, he almost certainly does not actually view the issue as declared in this article, as he likely knows that it’s going too far and not being entirely fair. But, like I said, it gets views and it gets people talking about it, which draws more views, making the post successful. Don’t take what he says to heart, since he doesn’t actually mean it the way it sounds.

    • Curtis says:

      You don’t know anything about this writer, obviously. Especially since you do nothing to actually approach his points. Can you demonstrate why abortion and child murder are different? Because according to the arguments that support abortion, child murder is just a logical extension of the same arguments.

    • Tiffany says:

      Aaron, please understand that Matt is a satirical writer. He is not actually espousing this; merely, he is trying to lead thought-provoking discussion to make people realize that abortion is not any different from what this woman did to her babies.

    • Lisa says:

      Um. What? How do you “happen to know” this about this guy? Seems you are jumping to conclusions about his conclusions.

    • Bro says:

      Your comment is venomous itself, and your accusation of Matt having sociopath tendecies was uncalled for, and also just wrong. And you followed it by expressing your desire for the woman to die a horrible death. And then you say that Matt will inevitably abuse his children, and that you “happen to know” that he does not care about children, based off of a single post of his (it couldn’t have been more than one, because in the last one he talks all about his children and how much he loves them, so you would have known that he has kids). Finally, it’s pretty obvious (to me at least) that this post is talking about women who choose to abort just because they don’t want their children, and says nothing about pregnancies which threaten the life of the mother. Check out the fourth paragraph from the end. Look up the number of ectopic pregnancies, etc, which actually threaten the life of the mother, compare that to the number of abortions, and see how out of place your statement was.

      I don’t know you, I don’t know what you’re like, how you act, or anything about you. You may be a great guy. I hope you are, we need more in this world. Your comment was terrible, though.

    • Kelsey says:

      Matt is a proud father of twins, a vociferous pro-lifer, and now the author of one amazing piece of satire.

    • Daniel says:

      Aaron, do you really think there is a difference between killing a baby as it is coming out of the birth canal (which is technically “legal”) versus once it has traveled a few inches further and is born? Both should be considered murder, and that is the point Matt is trying to make. He isn’t trying to justify the woman who killed her babies – he’s condemning her and abortionists with the same crime.

      As a father, I know for a fact that my child was alive and responsive in the womb before his birth. You can’t tell me that my unborn son wasn’t “human”. You could say that he wasn’t “fully developed” or “self aware”, but neither are the millions of mentally/physically retarded people among us. Should they not have “rights” either because they can be a “burden” to others who are more developed than they?

      And you say that Matt belongs to a “group of people who care less about children once they are born”. Really? Is that group fathers? Or Christians? Maybe you should take a look at his recent blog post about how his two children bring true joy into his life.

    • Sandi Corbin says:

      Aaron, thank you for seeing this article for exactly what it is! A manipulative piece of garbage! So sick of the sanctimonious thinking they have the right to attempt to shame people who have a different opinion than they do! I am also among those who do not believe in abortion, however I don’t feel that my opinions supersede those of the person actually involved. It is not my choice to make, but theirs. And I also couldn’t agree more with your analysis of the type of individual who wrote this article. They are indeed representative of the group of people who care less about children once they are born! If the writer wants to look for someone to “shame”, he should look no further than his mirror!

      • That guy says:

        Your opinion or my opinion may not supersede those of the person actually involved, but do you know what does supersede it? The authority of God. God said Do Not Kill. There is no difference between killing a child inside the womb or killing it outside of the womb. There is an old quote that says “Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.” If you consider yourself a moral person, and I can see that you do since you claim the moral high ground over Matt Walsh, then you cannot in good conscience say it’s okay for someone else to make the choice to kill their baby. This whole argument of “I don’t personally believe in it, but it’s the other person’s choice” is morally bankrupt. I don’t personally believe in slavery or child prostitution, and I believe that slavery and child prostitution are wrong across the board. It’s not someone’s choice to accept slavery or child prostitution as right. If it’s wrong we have a moral obligation to step up and say that it is wrong.

    • ThePete says:

      You don’t think infanticide is the inevitable result of a pro choice culture?

      Also, You yourself say abortion is morally wrong, and yet you attack those who fight against it as wanting to control women. Sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it to.

    • TheKnowerseeker says:

      “I happen to know that you represent the group of people who care less about children once they are born than you do when you can use them to control women who may or may not have anything to do with abortions.”

      — I’m assuming you’re talking about conservatives. First, I’m not a conservative: Yes, I’m to the right on social issues (“family values”) but to the *left* on class/economic justice, and neutral on race. Thus, I do care about everyone’s babies, regardless of race or income, yet I am pro-life and a Christian. (By the way, it is entirely Christian to love all people of every possible diversity.)

      Furthermore, I have never met a Christian conservative who had any real desire or ability even to control women or people in general, unlike the atheists Richard Dawkins in the present and Joseph Stalin in the past. Another group of men who do desire to and succeed at controlling their women all the time are Muslims, which has nothing to do with Christian conservatives.

      On the other hand, I have met many an assertive woman in fundamentalist Christian churches.

  10. Julie says:

    I think they should of had a decent PHOTO of her. That photo is trying to make us think she is mad. Whether she is or isn’t they are putting that awful photo there to sway our opinions and making us distant ourselves from her to make her look different. If we saw a normal photo of her – people would maybe feel differently. Whatever she is – she has certainly had great trauma and so has her body and mind.

    • tom says:

      Julie, it’s called a mug shot you moron! You must be a real winner. The woman killed her newborn children for Gods sake and your sticking up for her?

    • Matt(Not Walsh) says:

      To me, the mugshot photo of her looks more shocked.

    • James says:

      Why? Everybody who’s ever been charged with a crime has been taken to jail, had a mugshot taken, and kept under some kind of bond (in her case, bond is $6,000,000). She’s not being treated any differently than anybody else. Plenty of alleged criminals out there whose only picture shown was a mugshot.

      • Matt(Not Walsh) says:

        Yep, and people who were not criminals, like George Zimmerman. The only photo the media ever showed was his mugshot taken after Obama and his lackeys forced the DA to press charges on a man who was defending himself. The media never once showed the pictures of all the injuries Zimmerman obtained while the thug Trayvon Martin was sitting on top of him slamming his head repeatedly into the concrete.

    • deelilynn says:

      You certainly have a strange sense of priorities, Julie 😦 Perhaps a photo of her smiling while wearing her weekend best would have made you happy?? And as for your comment: “she has certainly had great trauma and so has her body and mind.” —– What about the great trauma she caused those seven born babies??

  11. advayd says:

    Hi Matt,
    Have you ever heard of a ‘strawman argument’? Well, that is what you are guilty of here. I must admit that you are quite the satirist, but you are also misleading people to a great extent. From the number of likes and shares of your article, it is clear that you are popular. That means you should be a little bit more responsible with your blogs.

    Let me ask you (and let’s see if you have the answer), how many pro-choice advocates have really come out in support of this woman? The last time I checked, the only ‘Free Megan Huntsman campaigns’ around on the web are actually satirical. The case in question has nothing to do with abortion, you know that very well. Yet, you decided to fallaciously twist the story to a different issue (abortion), misrepresent the views of people on the opposite side of the abortion debate and came out looking cool to all of the so-called ‘pro-life’ individuals here (and probably got people clicking on those ads on your page making you some good money in the process – well played, sir).

    While we are on the topic of abortion, here’s a thought. Do you even understand what pro-choice means? If you are pro-life, how come you think a woman should die while giving birth without giving a choice about her own life? Ever heard of the Savita Halapannavar case? You know, the woman who was denied abortion despite the fact that her life was under serious threat? What happened there? An innocent woman and her unborn baby both died. For what? Oh right, it must have been god’s will to kill the woman and her child, who are we to question? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar

    Did it ever occur to you that women get pregnant when they are raped, out of no fault of their own. You expect them to carry that child to birth, don’t you? What about mentally retarded women that are raped? Oh, right – god’s will.

    Did it ever occur to you what it means to hold your postion? If your mom’s life had been put in jeopardy because of you when you were in her womb, you demand that it is morally upright that your mother should die and that you should be allowed to live. Think about that for a moment and tell me that is not self-serving. Oh, oops. Forgot again – the whole god’s will thing again.

    Good for you Matt. I hope the convictions of your followers are re-affirmed with this brilliant article you have written here. It would probably make you feel good about yourself, because all of those progressive lunatics are converting to ‘pro-life’ in droves because of your one article. Catch the satire in that.

    • Eva says:

      Hi, advayd. Have you ever heard of hard cases? Rare cases? Individual circumstances? Because literally every example you used to argue why abortion is good don’t even account for 1% of total abortions. That’s 1% of mothers being rape victims or in danger of their life, 99% of mothers electing to shun their responsibilities at the cost of her baby’s life.

      “If you are pro-life, how come you think a woman should die while giving birth without giving a choice about her own life?”
      Clearly you neither have read a lot of Mr Walsh’s posts nor have you ever spoken to a pro-life person, an obstetrician, a midwife, or a woman that’s gone through nine months of pregnancy. This is the 21st century. In the US, per 100,000 live births 17 women died. In the UK it was 8. That’s 0.017% in the US and 0.008% in the UK. Pregnancy is not a death sentence. It’s a perfectly natural and normal process for a woman to go through, and in this day and age, medical care for women is the greatest it’s ever been. Also, NO doctor would, faced with circumstances of mother’s life vs child’s life, would ‘choose’ the baby over the mother, nor would they choose the mother over the baby. They would explain the risks to the mother, or if she’s unable to make the decision, to the father/the mother’s family. They would then make the decision. If it’s an emergency case then ethically they have to do their best to save BOTH the mother and the baby.
      In the case of Savita Halappanaver, when she was admitted on the sunday she was told she was miscarrying due to an infection and the medical course of action was to accelerate delivery once the baby’s heart stopped, which happened on the Wednesday. She was suffering from sepsis, which is more difficult to diagnose in a pregnant woman, especially one who’s miscarrying. It was a tragic turn of events and it’s never been proved that an abortion would have helped her. She had an infection that caused her to miscarry and miscarriages cause ruptures and bleeding which, coupled with the infection caused the sepsis. Here’s the investigative medical report;

      Click to access hse-savita-halappanavar.pdf

      “Did it ever occur to you that women get pregnant when they are raped out of no fault of their own. You expect them to carry that child to birth, don’t you? What about mentally retarded women that are raped?”
      Yes, I’m sure Mr. Walsh wasn’t AT ALL aware that women who are raped MIGHT get pregnant. Again this is incredibly rare. Assuming the woman who was raped wasn’t on any birth control, the rapist managed to ejaculate, the sperm managed to reach the fallopian tubes, the egg managed to get fertilised and managed to implant despite the woman’s body being under a whole lot of stress, assuming the woman didn’t take a morning after pill or seek medical attention and assuming that, despite the woman’s mental and physical state, the zygote implanted and developed to the embryonic stage without miscarrying, yes the woman can be pregnant. And then what happens? She’s faced with a whole other set of challenges, ones she should not have had to face; this is true. She’s also faced with an enormous pressure from society to abort. She’s being told ‘it’s the spawn of the rapist, why would you want to keep it?” and “it will make things so much worse for you, it’ll traumatise you more!”
      In reality, it’s a baby. It’s her baby. That baby has her DNA, they have a heartbeat and a brain and developing organs. That baby will grow into a human being no differently than babies who weren’t conceived through rape. Rather than shoving abortion in her face, why don’t we instead encourage her to see this as a new beginning? A way for her to make some good come out of what has happened. A way for her to beat this. This could be her raising the child and becoming a mother, or it could be her giving another family the greatest gift on earth.
      One thing that is certain is that abortion will NOT help a rape victim. If anything it will traumatise them more.

      “If your mom’s life had been put in jeopardy because of you when you were in her womb, you demand that it is morally upright that your mother should die and that you should be allowed to live. Think about that for a moment and tell me that is not self-serving.”
      Again, this an incredibly unlikely turn of events. My mother was in this situation with my sister. She was long overdue and was causing my mother all sorts of problems, eventually causing her to need an emergency C-section. While my mother was open and bleeding on the table and they took my sister away, you know what she said? It wasn’t “I can’t believe how selfish my baby is, demanding I risk my life like that!”
      It was “Where’s my baby? Is my baby okay?” She looked at the surgeon who was in the process of trying to stitch her up and control her bleeding and said “You tell me she’s breathing and then you can go back to me.”
      Mothers are amazing that way. My mother was willing to bleed to death on an operating table as long as she could hear her baby cry, her baby who she hasn’t even seen yet. Due to all the drama surrounding my sister’s birth, she was advised not to go through with my birth. But she did. And here I am. And she’s still alive and kicking too.

      Also, ‘the whole god’s will thing’? Where is this mentioned at all? I don’t believe in god, but I believe in the sanctity of life, and if there’s a law in place that says women can terminate a life for the sake of they’re own convenience then that needs to be fixed at once. And if people choose to argue this law based on one or two cases where the mother was legitimately in danger, well that’s insulting to
      A) the mother who was legitimately in danger
      B) the little life she lost
      C) the millions of little lives that have been thrown away for reasons which, in comparison to the reasons you’ve listed, mean absolutely nothing.

      • advayd says:

        All of what you’ve written is still irrelevant because pro-choice has nothing to do with statistics – it is about a woman’s rights. It doesn’t matter whether 17 women die or 1 dies out of 100000 during pregnancy; the important thing is that no woman should be told that she should die while giving birth rather than choosing to abort. Anf really? 17 out of 100000 seems trivial to you? For someone who claims to self righteously uphold the sanctity of life, you sure like trivializing deaths.

        • Eva says:

          Of course I’m not, my point is that the risks to the mother of DEATH are minimal at best. It’s ridiculous to argue that if a woman has a 0.017% chance of death that she should absolutely have a right to kill her child. It would be funny if it wasn’t so depressingly true that people think this is a legitimate argument.
          The point is that abortion shouldn’t be available on demand to everyone just because there are a few cases where people might need it. Abortion isn’t a right.
          Yes I believe that life is precious, especially when that life is vulnerable and is just beginning – does that make me self righteous? I think it’s far more self-righteous to claim you’re supporting women’s rights by demeaning the very first stages of human life as well as the most natural, beautiful and innately feminine process in the world.

      • Liz says:

        Well stated, Eva. Thank you.

      • LilyL2182 says:

        That’s it. I’m convinced. Set up the Abortion Committee. Surely deciding for by committee must be better than let women choose for themselves.

    • Kelsey says:

      Straw men go both ways, and there is one big one in your post. No pro-lifer would EVER say that a mother must die in childbirth. We only say that it is unacceptable to deliberately kill the baby. That does not prohibit treatments to save the mother’s life that might result in the baby’s death, or even such treatments that are certain to result in the baby’s death. This may seem like splitting hairs (it did to me at first), but this can make a difference in the actual operation used, and even if it doesn’t, the intent and purpose of any action can drastically change its moral value.

      As far as victims of rape, they are a tiny percentage of abortions and are not an acceptable basis to keep abortion legal in general cases; moreover, there is absolutely no research showing that abortion is beneficial to these survivors, but there is at least one study showing that abortion is actually harmful to them–in some cases, even more harmful than the initial attack. Abortion is also not helpful in cases of incest. Besides the fact that the girls in incestuous relationships have been groomed into them, believe they are consenting, and often want to KEEP the child, it is in the abuser’s interest to pressure their victims into abortions in order to hide and continue the relationship.

      Matt’s point is that the same arguments that support abortion can be used to support Huntsman’s actions, and after reading hundreds of these comments I have not seen a single one that contested that point. He is pointing out a huge flaw in the logic that supports abortion: Once we support killing innocent people in *these* circumstances, how can we in good conscience NOT support killing innocent people in *those* circumstances? Given the biological similarities of the fetus and the newborn, this is not a trivial question.

      • advayd says:

        The percentage argument again… really are perople just statistics to you?

        • Kelsey says:

          Partly because Matt’s blog is not very conducive to actual debate, and partly because we clearly did not interpret my post in the same way, I’m really not sure what you’re referring to.

          What exactly is “the percentage argument,” and what did I say that you attributed to it?

        • advayd says:

          The point where you say rape victims are a tiny percentage… SO what? We are talking about individual people here, not numbers. See my other reply… you seem to be confused which side you are on or you are downright confusing me…. you do seem to be splitting hairs

    • TheKnowerseeker says:

      I do not see how Matt is arguing against a Straw Man; he is simply extrapolating the philosophies of the informed yet die-hard “pro-choice” advocates to their logical conclusions: That is, by reason, the philosophies should pardon the actions of mothers who murder their born children just as it pardons the actions of mothers who murder their unborn.

      Pro-choicers claim to be the authority on the morals or values that should apply to the abortion phenomenon and debate. Well, a moral or value has to be backed by a philosophy (or a religion); otherwise it’s not a moral but a whim. And a philosophy (or religion) has to hold under all circumstances; otherwise, it’s just a fancy.

      You don’t get to pick and choose when your philosophy/religion will hold and when it won’t: Oh, you can decide that all you want within the world of your own mind if that’s your game, but it won’t stand up in the eyes of other people in the real world, and neither will you as an individual. People respect other people they see living according to a philosophy and never wavering from it, but they hate hypocrisy.

      Make no mistake about it: In the pro-life view, abortion is always murder, even if a woman aborts her unwanted baby fathered by a rapist, or the woman’s health is in jeopardy. It’s just that most of us pro-lifers are begrudgingly willing to allow the woman in these cases to choose her own life (literally or figuratively) over her baby’s… though for those women who choose not to abort even in these circumstances, they are heroes (heroins) in our eyes. My wife has always asserted that she is one of those women: May God forbid either of those situations ever happening to her, but if they did, I would stand by her pro-life beliefs. And I would be the loving daddy that baby needs.

      • advayd says:

        How do you conclude that a physiologically dependent child that can potentially be harmful to the survival of an individual is the same as a born child that is now an individual themself? No… you cannot apply the same philosophy. .. sorry.
        It never stops to amuse me that these so-called pro-life beliefs are so open to sacrificing a life, just like pro-choice. Yet, the title of being pro-life only goes to one side of the debate, as though pro-choice is anti-life. You yourself have used the words ‘choose not to abort’ in your comment. This is precisely what pro-choice is about; having the ability to choose. You unknowingly just supported a pro-choixe stance becuase what if… just what if… you wife had

        • Eva says:

          “How do you conclude that a physiologically dependent child that can potentially be harmful to the survival of an individual is the same as a born child that is now an individual themself? No… you cannot apply the same philosophy. .. sorry.”
          Okay, so much wrong with this statement:
          1) A child that is born is still physiologically dependent on their mother. They can’t walk, talk, feed themselves, go to the toilet or be left alone.
          2) The potential for them being harmful isn’t their fault. They don’t deserve to be killed because their presence might cause problems for the mother. Not when there’s so much medical care available for her to minimise these problems as much as possible.
          3) The unborn child isn’t an extension of their mother’s body anymore than the born child is. The unborn child has a unique genome, set of organs and metabolic system, exactly the same as a born child. The unborn child just needs to be physically joined to the mother until they are ready to be born, where they then need to be constantly by the mother’s (or other responsible adult’s) side until they can function for themselves. The unborn child is an individual in exactly the same way as a born child, teenager, adult and elderly person is an individual.

          Pro-life don’t want to sacrifice ANY lives. The number of women that die giving birth to their child is far lower than the number of babies that are actively killed because their mother doesn’t want them. Which side is sacrificing more lives? Really?

      • advayd says:

        Continued. … made pregnant by a rapist and her life was under threat? How wou ld it be if she had no choice? Perhaps you would consider your wife a martyr. .. but it is bullying to expect everyone to be that way too.

      • Kelsey says:

        “It’s just that most of us pro-lifers are begrudgingly willing to allow the woman in these cases to choose her own life (literally or figuratively) over her baby’s”

        I would not say this is an accurate description of pro-life beliefs. At least not my beliefs. Women have as much of a right to life as their babies do, so if both lives are in jeopardy it is up to her and the doctor to decide who is most likely to be saved. Yes, mothers do have the option to go above and beyond, but I would “begrudge” a woman who chose not to defy death.

        Rather, I would have the doctors do everything in their power to save both lives. If a treatment necessary to save the mother’s life results in the death (or probable death) of her baby, that is tragic and she will need love and support, and not the begrudging kind! But from an analytical viewpoint, I would argue that the treatment is morally acceptable so long as it is necessary to save the mother’s life life and that is the primary purpose. If the purpose is simply to kill the child, then it is murder via abortion.

        • advayd says:

          Two statements here
          Women have as much of a right to life as their babies do, so if both lives are in jeopardy it is up to her and the doctor to decide who is most likely to be saved.

          “Rather, I would have the doctors do everything in their power to save both lives.”
          make you a pro-choice advocate despite you claiming to be ‘pro-life’. Look at the words you are using here ‘decide’, ‘would have’, ‘up to her’. This indicates choice, friend. You don’t seem to be clear on which side of the debate you are on and that is why you find yourself disagreeing with people you think are on the same side as you.

          TheKnowerSeeker would rather have his wife die than his baby and expects everyone to think the same way. He doesn’t want the woman to have a choice or ‘begrudgingly’ wants the woman to have a choice. Not good enough.

        • Kelsey says:

          Let me clarify that I use these choices ONLY when the mother’s and baby’s lives are in dire danger. The mother can CHOOSE, at that point, whether to sacrifice (or risk sacrificing) her life for her child. The doctor can help her CHOOSE which treatment is most appropriate to save her life, the baby’s life, or–ideally–both lives. The difference between me and someone who identifies as pro-choice is identifiable in the phrasing of my previous comment: I did not say the mother and her doctor should decide whether they want to save the baby, or which life they want to preserve, but who is more likely to be saveable. If it is possible to save both lives, then doing anything else is repugnant. I am only discussing situations where it is NOT possible to save both lives.

          It is permissible to conduct a life-saving operation on a woman even if it results in the death of the baby because of the doctrine of double effect. For example, this would make it morally acceptable to remove a fallopian tube in which the baby implanted. Without removing it, the tube will rupture, the mother will bleed to death, and the baby will die as well. By removing the fallopian tube, the mother’s life is preserved. The baby will die because it cannot yet survive in the outside world, but since this is the only way to save the mother’s life, it is morally acceptable. However, if an operation were conducted that simply removed the embryo from the fallopian tube, that would be an abortion and not morally acceptable.

          http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/ Here are four requirements for the doctrine of double effect to properly apply:

          A person may licitly perform an action that he foresees will produce a good effect and a bad effect provided that four conditions are verified at one and the same time:

          1. that the action in itself from its very object be good or at least indifferent; (Removing a fallopain tube meets this requirement, while intentionally killing a child does not)
          2. that the good effect and not the evil effect be intended; (The good effect would be saving the mother’s life. If there is any way to save the mother’s life without bringing about the bad effect [the baby’s death], then obviously that would be the morally correct action)
          3. that the good effect be not produced by means of the evil effect; (This requirement excludes the abortive operation I described above, in which the doctor removes the embryo from the fallopian tube. This is using the bad effect of the child’s death to bring about the good effect of saving the mother’s life. Removing the fallopian tube will unavoidably bring about the child’s death, but it is not the MEANS to save the mother.)
          4. that there be a proportionately grave reason for permitting the evil effect” (1949, p. 43). There is nothing more grave than a person’s life in jeopardy. Triage reasoning says that if only one life of two can be saved, we should save the one most likely to survive into the future. In most cases, that would be the mother. Of course every mother has the choice to go above and beyond and to sacrifice her life (or risk sacrificing it) for her children. But any woman who does not do that makes her choice with the input (and/or pressure) of doctors, and I will condemn no woman who trusts and believes her doctor when he or she says that a certain operation is necessary to save her life, and without it she will die.

          Another version of these requirements has the following for number four: The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect.

          This, I suspect, is the aspect you take the most issue with, and as I said above, the mother and baby have an equal right to life. So how can we say that the mother’s life is valuable enough to justify the child’s death? First, we must acknowledge that in the worst of cases, as with tubal pregnancies, it isn’t just the mother’s life or the child’s–it’s the mother’s life or none at all. Condemning a woman for choosing to save herself in this circumstance is extreme. It’s like condemning her for not running into a burning building to save her child. Yes, plenty of mothers would do so in a heartbeat, but not everyone can. And those who didn’t or couldn’t still lost a child, so they need love and support.

          In blurrier cases, it might be a case of either the mother’s life or the baby’s, in which case we are weighing one life against one life, and a choice must be made. It is the most terrible choice imaginable, and I would not wish it on anyone, but that does not change the fact that it does arise and families must grapple with it. Again, let me emphasize that this reasoning only applies when the mother’s life is in the gravest of danger. My understanding is that in most cases, doctors are able to closely monitor a risky pregnancy and allow it to progress as long as possible, then induce early labor or perform a C-section to remove the baby and let the mother start to recover. Even in this case, choices must be made. If that is no longer an option, choices must be made. The pro-choice position is that women ought to have a choice until X, Y, or Z point in pregnancy; mine is that, at a certain point, there are unavoidable and unimaginable choices that must be made. If that qualifies me as “pro-choice” in your book, then so be it, but I’ll go on calling myself pro-life.

  12. Pingback: Misplaced satire | Advay Ðrišh†i

  13. DoubleThink is an up and coming blog that is extremely satisfying for every kind of a person, be it the thinker, the optimist, the pessimist, the poet, the musician, the couch-potato, the bookworm or the photographer.We are a bunch of people with different backgrounds, contradictory opinions but one voice. And this blog is our voice.
    Come hear us at :
    http://doublethinkhub.wordpress.com/

  14. In the first paragraph I can tell this article is RIDICULOUS! First of all, did you even look into the facts? She did not kill those infants because she wasn’t ready to be a mom! SHE HAS THREE YOUNG ADULT CHILDREN. This women is the definition of crazy! She chose which of her 10 children that she “liked” and killed the others. Your argument makes any abortion supporter look like a fool. Anyone who supports abortion would agree, its the women’s body and therefore she has a choice to pursue pregnancy… once you give BIRTH it is NOT your body anymore, but the body of an innocent ALIVE infant. This women MURDERED 6 children… she deserves all the punishment and persecution she receives with what little humanity we have left. SMH.

    • Eva says:

      The body of an innocent live baby is still present before birth, It’s just inside the mother’s womb. You know, where pre-birth infants are supposed to be and where they’ve been since mammals evolved…

    • That guy says:

      The baby is not even part of the woman’s body when it’s in her womb. She’s sheltering and feeding the baby, but it’s an independent organism from the very start. In fact, during pregnancy many anti-rejection hormones are produced that keep the woman’s body from rejecting the baby like a transplanted organ. It’s quite amazing and many anti-rejection drugs are being developed as a result of this process.

      A woman has the choice to pursue pregnancy, but she should not have the choice to pursue killing her baby. It’s a baby from the moment of conception.

    • Matt(Not Walsh) says:

      The first paragraph should have let you know that this was a satire blog meant to bring to light the ridiculousness of the arguments that pro-abortionists make.

    • Kelsey says:

      “Your argument makes any abortion supporter look like a fool.” I think that was his goal.

    • TheKnowerseeker says:

      Actually, we don’t yet know what her criteria may have been for keeping some and murdering others — and that includes YOU not being in the know. Could be that she was OK with being a mom of the first three (if they were indeed first) but not with being a mom of any further children, which goes back to not being ready to be a *mom* (of more than three children). By the way, babies are ALIVE even before they are born, and after a point they’re even aware enough to feel pain and terror if aborted. Murder is murder.

  15. Nadine says:

    Thank you again for saying what everyone else is too afraid to say!! Keep it up – your blog is much needed.

  16. Adam says:

    Here you go again.

    For those of you who haven’t figured it out yet, Matt uses this wonderful magic trick, which allows him to write the same article over and over and over and over again and “win” every argument. Here it is:

    Matt takes a six week old glob of cells that wouldn’t fill a tablespoon, and then he takes, say, a 16 year old girl studying for her SATs. He then waves his magic wand, says “SKIDDELLY-BOP!” and then the glob of cells and the 16 year old are precisely the same thing! Ta-DAH!The glob of cells is now a human being with hopes and dreams and aspirations, and abortion is now murder! This makes for all sorts of easy, hassle-free and utterly lazy comparisons! For instance, there is no difference between this crazy bitch in Utah, who delivered these babies, brought them home,and then killed them, and a 15 year old girl who got raped and is walking into Planned Parenthood. Same thing. Easy peasy. Both heartless murderers, and Matt doesn’t even have to leave his couch or examine his conscience, which is blessed with the fire of the lord, and is therefore as pure as the driven snow.

    From atop his high horse at the peak of Mt. False Comparison, Matt can then judge and judge and judge until his heart is content. Rubber broke? Too bad. On the pill and it didn’t work? Doesn’t matter. Got raped? Nobody cares. You should have lived your life in a manner that pleases Matt Walsh, because what pleases Matt Walsh pleases Jesus, and both Jesus and Matt Walsh want you to remain celibate until you are married, living in the suburbs, and regularly attending a church that Matt and Jesus both approve of. And since Jesus isn’t really giving interviews these days, we’re just going to go ahead and take Matt’s word for it. Ok? Ok.

    • Joy says:


      That’s a “six week old glob of cells.” See those eyes, ears, and limbs? At this point, when your mother was pregnant with you, had she had you soaked in acid….your life would have been terminated. And your future “hopes and dreams and aspirations” would “ta-DAH” …not exist. But it’s okay. It’s her body, right?

      • Adam says:

        Wow. Eyes, ears, and limbs, but no developed brain or consciousness. So in the event that I was soaked with acid or whatever, I wouldn’t have known anything about it, anymore than a stalk of celery getting pulled out of the ground.

        • Joy says:

          Week 6: The neural tube closes
          Growth is rapid this week. Just four weeks after conception, the neural tube along your baby’s back is closing and your baby’s heart is pumping blood.

          http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/pregnancy-week-by-week/in-depth/prenatal-care/art-20045302

          “The pituitary gland, which releases hormones, is forming, along with the rest of her brain. You can’t hear it yet, but her heart (which has divided into the right and left chambers) is beating at about 150 beats a minute – twice the rate of yours.”

          http://www.babycentre.co.uk/6-weeks-pregnant#ixzz2zfhBA0SD

          Week 6 – Gestational Age (Fetal Development – Week 4):
          The formation of the lungs, jaw, nose, and palate begin now. The hand and feet buds have webbed structures that will become the fingers and toes. The brain is continuing to form into its complex parts. A vaginal ultrasound could possibly detect an audible heartbeat at this time. The embryo is about a ½ inch in length.

          http://americanpregnancy.org/duringpregnancy/fetaldevelopment1.htm

          Does celery have a heartbeat?? Wow, such disrespect for human life. How is it possible with so much evidence available, that one could EVER believe that a human embryo is not a living thing? Fear. Fear that if pro-life is correct and pro-abortion is wrong, our generation will have stood by and let the greatest human genocide in history happen.
          This is not debatable. There is no grey area – this is completely black and white. Life is not subjective on the terms of deciding whether or not something is actually a human or actually a living being, based on whether they want the baby or not. Why is it only a baby if you want it? If you actually had sex because you were trying to procreate, you would consider that a human life from conception. You would be rejoicing with your spouse that life was created when you saw that “positive” show up on a pregnancy test. Why is it suddenly not a life if you didn’t want to get pregnant?

    • Eva says:

      Given that your entire comment is a prime example of idiocy and ignorance, I’m just going to address your point about rape.
      It’s a hideous and traumatic experience to go through, and when girls get pregnant as a result it just seems to make everything worse.
      I have nothing but compassion and empathy for rape victims. BUT being a rape victim does not give you the right to kill a child, a baby, a foetus, whatever you want to call it. Society reacts appallingly to rape-pregnancies. This hypothetical 15 year old girl will hear nothing except ‘your baby’s the product of a monster’, ‘this will scar you for life’, ‘you can’t possibly want this rapist spawn’. And she’s been raped. She’s traumatised. She is the most vulnerable she will ever be. And now there’s all this pressure on her to get an abortion as if it’s a magical fix. It’s not. It’s another invasive procedure that will cause her more pain, more shame and more guilt. And once the spawn in her belly is finally gone, she will be left with
      A) all the memories of her attack still intact
      B) all the humiliation and shame she felt before the abortion
      C) new found shame at the knowledge that she killed her child (this part may hit her immediately as she walks out of the clinic, or 20 years from then when she has her next kids)
      It doesn’t matter what the circumstances are. Electing to have an abortion is electing to kill your child. And in the case of babies conceived in rape – how would you feel finding out that your mother conceived you in rape? And that society condemned you for it? Society would have demanded your mother had an abortion. They would have seen you as nothing but a spawn of a rapist. An invader who didn’t deserve a chance at life and why? Because your biological dad was a sick and twisted monster? And now that your born what’s different? You’re a bit older. Your dad was still a rapist. Your mum was still put through a horrendous ordeal in order to conceive you. But people can see that physically you’re no different than those who weren’t conceived in rape so it’s different now. It’s ridiculous. Babies are babies, no mattter the circumstances. Abortion is murder, no matter the circumstances.

      • Adam says:

        Babies are babies. Six week embryos are six week embryos. The two are not even remotely the same, and you or Matt saying so does not make it so.

        • Kelsey says:

          Babies are babies. Six week embryos are six week embryos. One grows and develops to become the other. They are the same organism, and you pretending that they have nothing in common does not make it so.

      • Phoenix says:

        Eva, I wish you every opportunity to experience it for yourself.

        • Eva says:

          Phoenix, the fact that you would even consider saying that to a complete stranger shows you’ve never experienced anything like it. And for your information I HAVE experienced that. When I was a child no less. I was beaten and raped by my so-called ‘boyfriend’ when I told him I wasn’t ready to have sex. So there, you happy now you sick bastard? You got your wish.

        • Eva says:

          Is there any way to get this comment of Phoenix’s removed? It’s so unbelievably hurtful and just a downright evil thing to say. Any other rape victim that comes on here could read this and become very upset. I just had to call my Mum at work because I was so angry I could hardly breathe and was physically shaking. Anyone who would wish something like this on another person, especially one who they don’t know, is repulsive.

        • TheKnowerseeker says:

          Phoenix, I wish you every opportunity to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior, and Eva nothing but blessings from The Father.

        • Eva says:

          Thank you TheKnowerSeeker. I really appreciate that.

        • Chris says:

          Pheonix, while I strongly disagree with Eva, your comment is repulsive and awful.

      • Becca says:

        Exactly. And just the mere fact that there are so many support groups for rape victims who were further traumatized by have their babies aborted illustrate the fact that abortion WILL NOT heal the trauma of rape.

      • Chris says:

        Eva, I had planned a long rebuttal to your comments, but then that misogynistic psychopath had to come in and ruin it. All I will say now is that I am so sorry if you were triggered by his comments. I cannot believe anyone on either side of this issue would make light of such an experience. His comment should be deleted.

        • Eva says:

          Thank you. I’ve emailed Mr. Walsh, but I doubt he’ll get to it for a while.

        • Sator says:

          Why Remove his shame? Let the comment stay so that everyone that reads it can know how disgusting people can get.

        • Eva says:

          I appreciate the sentiment, but it’s not worth shaming one asshole when many other victims may read and be hurt by his hate.

    • Matt(Not Walsh) says:

      Glob of cells is just the term people use to make themselves feel better about the fact that they are ending a human life. Here’s a basic fact for you. At five weeks after conception, a baby, not a clump or glob of cells, has a heartbeat. Most women or young girls are not even aware they are pregnant until this point. I seriously wonder how many of them would choose to end that life if they listened to that heartbeat before they murdered their own child.

      • Chris says:

        The heartbeat is irrelevant to the morality of abortion. What matters is consciousness, which does not develop until far later, past the point where abortion is generally legal. If such a thing as the soul exists, it is intimately tied to our consciousness.

        • Sator says:

          (Spoiler: english is my second language and i dont remember the translations for most of the technical terms i’m going to use. Its not anything esoterical anyway but just things you learn studying basic biology, histology and physiology at college).
          Its widelly know that monocellular organism do have a form of limited consciousness: the reflex known as “arousal” or irritability lets a cell “know” (as far as it can know things) of the chemical status of its surroundings through alterations of its electrochemical membrane potential thus making even the humble escherichia coli capable of foraging for food and escape or defend itself from batteriophage viruses.
          This same electrochemical membrane potential is the result of differing concentration of ions (mainly Na and K to be simple, that’s the reason the membrane Protein known as “Na and K pump” that mantain such difference of potential is so important and gets to spend so much ATP or chemical energy to function) and that’s also the building block of the Nervous system’s function.
          Basically a neuron is a cell specialized in converting informations through alteration of its electrochemical membrane potential to other cells. Many neurons (and other cells that help them providing infrastructure) make a nervous system that “somehow” produces consciousness such as that you and i enjoy.
          This long aside is to explain that the qualitative difference in consciousness between you and a zygote stems from quantitative criteria only. Its just a difference in development: your nervous system doesn’t do anything different from what a zygote does when we talk of consciousness: you just had time to develop several billions of specialized cells that had in turn the necessary time to form synapses between each others and store memories as enngrams. A zygote just has to make do with two cells. For now.
          If “consciousness” in the human sense is what separates a human with rights from a teaspoon of cells, then mss Huntsman, again, did no wrong since it can be argued that children up to when they can talk and walk and perceive time as linear and think in the abstract aren’t “conscious” as we do. Some of these touch stones of development come months or years after birth. If consciousness in the absolute sense is what separates “humans” from other things (that is you define “human” as “an animal with consciousness”) then everything that is conscious like the escherichia choli of before, is “human” and shouldn’t be killed because your consciousness and his differ only qualitatively not mechanically in the absolute sense and your definition of human now doesn’t discriminate based on the quality of consciousness. Enjoy life as a Breatharian and never take drugs that could kill the thousands of species of microorganisms that live with you as symbionths.
          This is, of course, patently insane and an example of the mental gymnastic you have to do to keep your argument afloat once you know the facts.
          Try defining “human” as “an animal with human genome in its entirety and with either the capacity or potential to express all of it” and then take the Oxford dictionary definition of “person” as “a human being”. This is what you do 99% of the time anyway. You’ll see that the “pro life” position is just the “no silly arbitrary exceptions to the definition of Person we use day to day” position. This perhaps will help you understand us better.

    • Kelsey says:

      What I find interesting is that atop your “high horse,” you claim that a “glob of cells” and a 16-year-old are somehow inherently different, when the only thing that separates one from the other is time. Both are made up of cells, both are humans, both are alive. What makes Matt’s comparisons so incorrect?

      • Chris says:

        It seems disingenuous to say that the only thing separating a six-month old fetus and a 16-year old is “time.” What truly separates them is consciousness. Fetuses do not have neural activity until about 24-28 weeks. The vast majority of abortions, over 90%, are performed before a fetus has any neural activity. Without neural activity fetuses are incapable of thinking or feeling. Now of course they are still human lives, but I don’t see how a being who lacks any and all cognition can be qualified as a person yet. When adults lose all capacity for cognition we consider them braindead. Yes, most fetuses who are aborted would eventually have become persons with cognition, but at the point of abortion they are still potential persons. The rights of the woman to bodily autonomy must be considered, and the rights of a person will always outweigh the rights of a potential person to me.

        To compare this horrible case to most abortions is ridiculous. The babies at this point all had neural activity and were able to think and feel. Furthermore, they no longer needed to depend on the woman’s body for sustenance–she had already carried the babies for nine months and at this point could have easily given them up, either through legitimate means or simply leaving them at a hospital. Not a great choice, but better than killing them. In consider most abortions acceptable because I balance the fetus’ right to life with the mother’s right to bodily autonomy. Persons have the right to life, but they do not have the right to use someone else’s body to live against their will. After pregnancy, that conflict no longer exists.

        • Kelsey says:

          Neural activity is only one among many, many developmental milestones we could point to as the landmark when a human organism becomes a person. What’s more, it isn’t relevant to personhood because plenty of creatures that exhibit neural activity are not persons.

          It’s true that a 16-year-old exhibits neural activity and an early fetus doesn’t. It’s equally true that the 16-year-old can think abstractly and tell right from wrong, both of which are much more relevant to personhood, and the fetus cannot. Neither can a two-year-old, but no one claims that the two-year-old isn’t a person because it hasn’t yet developed to a certain point or gained certain abilities.

          In order to develop neural activity, the fetus must first possess a functional set of neurons. Why shouldn’t the development of the brain be the landmark? In order to develop a brain, the embryo must first be conceived. Why shouldn’t that be the landmark?

          What is so significant about neural activity that makes it the magic point when a living, growing, developing clump of cells turns into a living, growing, person?

    • Sator says:

      What you people won’t understand no matter how many times i or anyone care to explain is that the Qualitative differences between a child and a fetus stem from their quantitative differences in development only. I have heard people say that a zygote with XX sexual chromosomes isn’t “Female” but just has the potential of being Female. Well its a pretty narrow “potential” since she can grow only to be Female.
      If the humanity of an individual and its rights depend on their development what exactly stops you from killing childrens? Or people Affected by anormal development from a genetic or external cause? If a human isn’t such at conception and hasn’t got her HUMAR RIGHTS at conception, can you care to define for me a non arbitrary moment at wich we can define her as human? Once she’s been conceived the difference between her and her own mother is a matter of development only, and if you can decide that someone is not human still based on her development only what stops you from defining other people as non-human? It wouldn’t be any more arbitrary.
      That’s the whole point of Matt’s post. You and your collegues are the illogical ones insisting that if a baby has allready exited a Womb, killing him is homicide while if he’s killed while still inside its a Medical procedure. You’re the ones for wich “humanity” is a magical thing that either applies to a teaspoon of cells or not based on the mother’s (or some bureaocrat) preference and stage of development rather than a Category that applies to certain lifeforms regardless of other facts about them. You fail at syllogysm forever and yet you’ve got the sheer nerve to try to pass as an “intellectual” or even better as a “free thinker”.
      On the religious side of the debate i won’t pronounce because your logical fallacies don’t need God to be disproven (as Matt showed by not mentioning Him in his article). I’ll just remember you that God gave a pretty extensive interview 2000 years ago and He rocket the fundations of the world when He did. Hope he doesn’t get back to educate you and the other pro choices on the matter while you’re still in this world.

      • Sator says:

        “… rather than a Category that applies to certain lifeforms that fit the biological requisites regardless of other facts about them”
        Here. It’s clearer now.

      • Chris says:

        “Or people Affected by anormal development from a genetic or external cause? If a human isn’t such at conception and hasn’t got her HUMAR RIGHTS at conception, can you care to define for me a non arbitrary moment at wich we can define her as human?”

        The question isn’t really when the fetus becomes human, it’s when it becomes a person. I understand the confusion because a lot of pro-choicers use these terms interchangeably, but they should not.

        As far as a non-arbitrary criteria for personhood: neural activity. Children have it, babies have it, fetuses below 24-28 weeks do not. If a human does not have neural activity its rights are automatically less valid than the rights of a human with neural activity, i.e. the mother.

        • Sator says:

          Pure sophism: a human IS a person. Its the very dictionary definition of the term. There was no ambiguity on this untill pro-choicers needed it to justify their actions. We NEED no ambiguity on this untill we meet non human persons, such as aliens.
          Neural activity is also just another arbitrary point of development that falls under my previous post because having brain activity or not is, normally, a matter of development and discriminating on humans based on their level of development is exactly what you shouldn’t be doing.

        • Sator says:

          That said, Chris. I like you. You’re the first pro choicer i’ve met that tried to address the point of the matter rather than insulting me when faced with this kind of reasoning. Thumb a up.

  17. Sara says:

    The people on here calling Matt a bad person really need to got back to school and learn what the word “satire” means. Seriously, the entire thing drips with sarcasm. If you think this blog is supposed to be true you must think the Onion is the best place to find local news. Before you think about leaving a negative comment go right now and look up the word satire!

  18. Pingback: The Daley Gator | The 25 best blogs right now?

  19. mb says:

    Sarcasm is a dangerous tool.

  20. Scott says:

    Let me preface, I’m adopted and thank my biological mother everyday for choosing to be responsible for my wellbeing, and giving me up for adoption. She obviously wasn’t prepared to be a mother, but knew a mother would be prepared for me.

    Don’t want to have a baby? Keep your legs closed. It’s simple. If you have sex, then be prepared to accept that pregnancy is a possibility. I do believe there are certain circumstances that make abortion acceptable (i.e. rape victims).

    • Phoenix says:

      That’s really charming how your saddle the female with all of the responsibility of the pregnancy. But I’m glad you’re at least more logical than Make-Rape-Victims-Keep-Their-Children-Eva up there.

      • Eva says:

        Excuse me Phoenix? When did I say ANYTHING about ‘making’ rape victims keep their child? Do you know or understand ANYTHING about being a rape victim who has to face the possibility of being pregnant? Well I certainly do. And it’s horrible. It’s terrifying. It’s something I wouldn’t wish on my deadliest enemy. One thing I know for sure is that abortion is the last thing a rape victim needs. I said we should make SOCIETY see rape victims and their babies differently. I then said we should offer the victims support and encouragement to take what has happened and make it work for them. Use it to start over and make something good come out of what’s happened. How will an abortion do that? How will socially pressuring a vulnerable and broken woman into having an invasive procedure which terminates a little, innocent (yes, INNOCENT) life make anything better for her? I’d love to hear your answer. You don’t know true terror until you’ve been raped, or a similar situation, and you don’t know a thing about impossible choices until you’ve had to face the possibility that you’re pregnant with your rapist’s child. You also don’t know a thing about how damaging abortion really is, even to women who haven’t been raped. So take a long look at my comments and then have a long think about why I feel that way before you judge me.

      • Kelsey says:

        If women want all the power to decide whether or not to have an abortion, then women get all the responsibility in deciding whether or not to have sex.

      • TheKnowerseeker says:

        If you’re a victim of rape, but you turn around and victimize the innocent baby that has resulted, what does that make you then? Two wrongs don’t make a right.

        • deelilynn says:

          “If you’re a victim of rape, but you turn around and victimize the innocent baby that has resulted, what does that make you then? Two wrongs don’t make a right.”

          The Knowerseeker, couldn’t have said this any better!! Thank you!!

  21. Katie says:

    She didn’t abort her children she murdered them. An abortion is only an abortion if it’s before they take their first breath. She did this 6 times and then hid it from everyone si that in fact shows she knows what she did was wrong. She needs to go to prison for life. Whoever supports her is condoning murder. A woman has the right to choose to have an abortion but a woman doesn’t not have the right to kill her child because she doesn’t want to be a mom. She could have called the police or a hospital and they could have helped her. She deserves to rot in prison with all the other baby killers. I have no sympathy for her or her choice because 6 kids were murdered

    • Eva says:

      “A woman has the right to choose to have an abortion but a woman doesn’t not have the right to kill her child because she doesn’t want to be a mom.”
      It’s the same thing! That’s like me saying ‘Kids have the right to play football in the park but they don’t have the right to kick a ball around.’
      An abortion IS killing a child because you don’t want to be a mum and you can’t be bothered waiting nine months and then letting someone else be a mum. Once you’re pregnant that means you ARE a mum. You have a child growing inside you and it’s your child, no matter how you might ‘feel’ about it. It doesn’t negate the fact that it’s your child and your responsibility.

    • Kelsey says:

      “An abortion is only an abortion if it’s before they take their first breath.”

      And that makes it acceptable because….

      • Chris says:

        The “first breath” argument is obviously not very good. A much better dividing line is neural activity. Most abortions are performed before a fetus has any neural activity, thus the rights of the pregnant woman clearly outweigh the rights of the fetus.

    • Sator says:

      Since you’ve defined a human being as something that breaths, you’ve also said that anyone that ever needed Medical assistance for breathing ( someone drowing, for instance) was not a human being for the duration of his problem and resumed being so when he started breathing again. No one dies of suffocation, because if you’re not breathing you’re not human. That’s what you said by formal logic.
      Don’t even START trying to convince me that someone’s first extrautherine breath is qualitatively different from any other Breath he’ll take in his life except for the fact that it’s the first, and so that “breathing’ isn’t an arbitrary starting point for life. Any Medical professional can describe you the anatomical details of the breathing act and clear the matter.
      Also you’ve just said that “post natal abortions” are fine if the baby still hasn’t cried.
      Just to remember everyone what side is the illogical one in this debate.

  22. Rigsby says:

    This is the dumbest article I’ve ever read. I honestly don’t think the author even believes what he’s writing and is just trying to be controversial in order to get attention. Anyone who can’t see anything wrong with a woman carrying a baby to full term, giving birth and then strangling said child because she decided she didn’t want to be a mother should be dragged into the street and shot. Women have rights over their own body not the fetus. If you don’t want kids get your tubes tied, use protection, or don’t have sex. Its simple.

    • Matt(Not Walsh) says:

      You’re right, he doesn’t believe what he wrote here. It’s satire used to prove a point about how ridiculous all the arguments people make when arguing for abortion.

    • Kelsey says:

      “I honestly don’t think the author even believes what he’s writing and is just trying to be controversial in order to get attention.”

      So close!

    • TheKnowerseeker says:

      It’s satire/sarcasm.

  23. Heather says:

    Are you friggin stupid? The babies were born, completely able to live. She MURDERED those babies. Had she went while being only a few weeks pregnant and had a proper abortion there would be no issue. You are an arrogant man who is obviously uninformed and unable to comprehend any logical thoughts. I can only pray that you do not and never have children.

    • Matt(Not Walsh) says:

      That’s the point of this blog. Why does it matter when she ended the children’s lives? Why is it different if she went two or three months earlier and had the babies killed at planned parenthood? What is the difference between her murdering her babies right out of her body, and someone doing the same thing at a “doctor’s office”?

    • Sator says:

      “and had a proper abortion”
      No such thing. The point of Matt’s post is that you can’t tell that woman ANYTHING about why what she did was wrong that you couldn’t also be telling to an abortionist. And that you can defend her using the same arguments pro choicers use, for the same reasons in the same way.
      If you think she’s a criminal, there’s no “proper abortion”.

  24. Dave says:

    You are a disgusting asshole Matt .
    Kill your self please.

  25. Lisa says:

    You do realize that there are people out there (granted, God Willing, still a small handful) who would read this and nod in agreement all the way through. No irony inferred or expected. This is what is really scary. You are only predicting the next step here, Matt. The one we all fear.

  26. Brittany says:

    I will say here what I said to a person who shared this post. I believe this is in very bad taste. When i read this I don’t see a christian. Instead an arrogant jerk. Have your beliefs, either way, but at least try and seem like a decent person doing it. Btw I am a christian but choose to believe that loving and showing unjudgmental support will more likely lead to a right decision than hate and sarcastic judgement any day. Actually I’ve been a part of that love and support that has changed someone’s mind. It is NOT your job to spread hate but instead love. Have a happy easter

    • Kelsey says:

      There is a place for nonjudgmental love. Lots of places, actually. Outside abortion clinics would be just one example. But there is also a time to shout your point in the strongest words you can, because any pro-lifer who is not outraged by the atrocities that happen every day is not practicing what they preach, and sometimes that outrage is exactly what is needed to snap someone out of complacency or ignorance.

    • Sator says:

      I’m sure Jesus showed unjudgemental support to the merchants in the temple. Or to the scribes and Pharisees despite the fact he called them whitewashed graves.
      We love all sinners allright, for we are sinners just like them in the end; but we DO GET to hate their sins. And if in the process of loving sinners and hating sins and sinful ideas and concepts people get offended, SUCKS TO BE THEM.

  27. Katherine says:

    Wow!! I can’t believe how many people do not realize that this article is satire!! (For those who aren’t familiar with the term, it’s SARCASTIC!!) He is extremely conservative (as am I) and is trying to prove a point that abortion is just as much murder as killing someone in cold blood outside of the womb!

  28. dani says:

    As long as we’re all interested in logical comparisons, can we talk about how believing in God is the same as believing in Santa Clause?

    • That guy says:

      Except that there is a mountain of evidence and logical arguments for the existence of God, whereas it’s very clear that the story of St. Nicholas has been transformed over time into the current Western interpretation of Santa Claus. BTW it’s Santa Claus. Santa Clause is a movie starring TIm Allen.

    • Kelsey says:

      Matt actually did a post on that, though it was focused on passing on your beliefs to your children. His argument is, if you believe that God truly is real, then you should teach that to your children, because that is teaching your children about moral truths and a higher power. If you do not believe that Santa Claus is truly real, and honestly who does?, then you should not teach your children that he sneaks into their house and leaves presents and eats the cookies they baked Christmas Eve, because that would be lying.

    • Phoenix says:

      I can’t. Hahahaha

    • Eric says:

      You do know that Santa Claus was a real person, right? If you are trying to make an argument against the existence of God, I would use a different person than Saint Nicholas (Who was a real person and a Christian, no less).

      • Kelsey says:

        Saint Nicholas was a real person. He does not live at the North Pole, drive a flying sled headed by a red-nosed reindeer, direct an army of toy-building elves, or visit children on Christmas Eve dropping off presents. Santa Claus is not Saint Nicholas.

  29. peter says:

    If having an abortion is really something to be cool about (the pro abortion stand), why are those who favour abortions so angry and hateful about the issue. Guilt?

  30. Erik says:

    I can’t decide which is funnier: Matt’s satirical post or the loony windbags who take it at face-value and shriek in outrage…but there are others out there who mock this post as a fallacy or misleading, who blithely accept the societal norm without acknowledging the eventual conclusion of such rationales. Apparently, until a baby is born and THEN magically and officially becomes a ‘baby’, it’s a parasitic clump of cellular goop feeding on its host’s body and can be eliminated whenever she feels like it. Some folks can’t accept that the difference between a socially acceptable practice and a morally repugnant act of murder is decided only by the baby’s position relative to a woman’s birth canal. Regardless of a society’s acceptance of abortion as a result of rape or incest or whatever, the corollary is accurate and Mr. Walsh is simply leading the conclusion one. step. further.

  31. Liz says:

    This issue never should have been politicized as it has. It serves neither the mother nor the child by assigning a political ideology to and setting up a false dichotomy between whose life is more worthy. It’s nauseating, as a pregnant woman one week shy of my due date, to see political leaders playing tug-of-war between me and my unborn child.

  32. Phoebe says:

    This article is fantastic but many of the comments range from slightly to sickeningly alarming. There are some people who just don’t get satire; other people who maintain the horrifyingly inconsistent view that although Megan Hunstman’s actions were evil, abortion is acceptable even despite the mind-blowingly obvious refutations of this impossible, illogical stance in the article; and most shockingly those who sincerely believe this article is not satirical and yet still agree with it. I will be praying.

  33. graywanderer says:

    I had to read it twice to catch the satire, since Barrack Obama TWICE voted to support postpartum “abortions”

  34. Martin Lundell says:

    I am pro-choice. If a woman gets pregnant, that’s her choice. The ONLY situation that warrants being addressed is when that choice is infringed upon, which is actually quite rare. I’m still not pro-abortion, I am pro-adoption. There are many, many desperate loving couples out there awaiting children.

    • Kelsey says:

      Martin, please do some more research into rape survivors and abortion. Research has shown that abortion after a rape is not beneficial to the survivor and may actually be more traumatizing than the rape. It is not helpful in cases of incest either, as the girls in those relationships are too often thoroughly groomed into them, think they are in love, and want to keep the baby. It is the abuser who pressures these girls into aborting in order to hide and continue the relationship.

  35. Shonna says:

    SMH at some of the comments here. Pro-choice advocates who support abortion all the way up to the 9th month – are being complete hypocrites by wanting this woman punished. Look in the mirror as you are condemning her. You belong where you think she does.

  36. Kyle says:

    Solid post. Must have been painful to write. Trying to pretend to support a position that makes no sense, while also making it seem sensible at face value had to be challenging. Those who haven’t grasped the finer nuances of satire should read Swift’s ‘A Modest Proposal.’ It’s very similar to this post. http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html

  37. Barton O says:

    You, sir, are the undisputed master of the straw man argument.

    Dave Barry wishes he were as funny as you.

  38. Lilian says:

    Excellent satire, Matt. Well done!

    One bone I have to pick is the term “post-birth fetus”, which is impossible by definition of “fetus”. Perhaps you could use the term “postnate” instead? Postnatal homo sapiens? So-many-months postnatal? It would remain the ridiculous terminology you were going for and also be technically accurate.

    • TheKnowerseeker says:

      “Fetus” is Latin for “baby”. That’s all it is and all it’ll ever be, because a baby is a baby.

    • Kelsey says:

      His point was not to be strictly scientifically accurate, but to emphasize the similarities between the fetus and the infant. There is a rhetorical theme supporting abortion that a “fetus” is not a “baby” or is not a “person,” so emphasizing that the fetus is the same entity that is later called a neonate, infant, and toddler undermines that argument.

  39. bloggenfels says:

    Absolutely right. Ms. Huntsman is simply an abortion-rights pioneer, pushing the freedom to abort to its logical and proper conclusion.

    She should be *celebrated* not prosecuted. In my town we have a library branch named for Margaret Sanger. I think I’ll start an effort to name one after this courageous woman.

    • Kelsey says:

      This is a lot shorter than Matt’s post. I’m hoping that you’re continuing with the same satire, but your tone is so matter-of-fact that I’m honestly not sure. You ARE being satirical, right?

  40. isa015 says:

    let me just say this once, for the sake of everyone here:

    THIS POST IS SATIRE.

  41. Pingback: This woman exercised her right to abort her infants, and now she’s being unjustly persecuted | LifeChoice

  42. Struth says:

    I find it interesting that many women in my husband’s workplace are very vocal about a woman’s right to choose the abortion of a “fetus”, but when one of the women there falls pregnant, they always ask, “How’s the baby?”, not “How’s the fetus?”. Why is this baby worthy of the title, but one they have no connection to is not? Why is it considered human, while others are not? Why are some babies considered precious, but others are not? It is not the baby itself, or the stage of its development, that determines its worth, it’s the mother’s attitude, it’s society’s attitude. Perhaps we should spend less time trying to determine when a life becomes “human”, and spend more time reflecting on our own attitudes toward those weaker and more dependent. What kind of sadistic society preys upon the needy? And what does this attitude say to our children (or at least the ones we let live)? On one hand we tell children that it’s honourable to be kind to others and to care for those who need our help; and on the other we quickly disregard life– stripping it of it’s right to live– the moment it impedes on our lifestyle. …I apologise to the confused generation of future-citizens we are raising.

    • TheKnowerseeker says:

      That reminds me of a doctor’s visit my wife had early in her pregnancy with our first child, that I was present for: The nurse referred to our baby as a “fetus”, and although “fetus” is Latin for “baby”, I knew what she was getting at, so I quickly corrected her with “baby”, and she sighed a breath of relief and used the term “baby” from then on. The rest of our visit was upbeat from there. (My wife actually did not notice the nuance until I discussed the visit with her later.)

      • Kelsey says:

        Thanks for sharing this story. My ultrasound tech used the term “fetus” and I didn’t even think to ask her to use “baby” because “fetus” is a medically accurate term. I’ll remember to say something if it happens again.

  43. Proud to be Pro-Choice(s) and Pro-Reproductive Justice says:

    If anyone is interested in a more personal side to the reasons why a person gets an abortion, I suggest browsing through the testimonies collected through the 1 in 3 campaign which features the personal experiences of the people who have had an abortion. I read through many of the stories and it taught me that the issue is most often not just a matter of choice, it is a matter of numerous factors, the majority being uncontrollable, and helped me to understand the reasons why a person would go through with an abortion.

    Here is the website for the campaign:

    http://www.1in3campaign.org/en/

    • Matt(Not Walsh) says:

      I read through about 15 of these and saw only one case where I’d agree to maybe getting an abortion. That one was a young 14 year old who was raped. And the only way I’d agree is if she didn’t have family to help her get through this and find a family to adopt it. The worst one I saw was the one who said that she had the baby tested pre-birth and found out that her baby would have a genetic condition and she had it aborted rather than have the additional expense of having a special needs baby. They can phrase it differently, but that’s what it ultimately comes down to. Most of them are saying things like they are not in the relationship that they want to be in when they have a child or similar things. Guess what? They chose the men, and they chose to have sex with those men. Maybe if they aren’t in the relationship they want to be in, they should end it and try to find the one that they will stay with forever. But nope, they choose to sleep with someone they don’t intend to stay with just for the temporary pleasure. This is why so many people on the pro-life side are angry. They are desecrating the lives of children for their temporary pleasure. This is purely selfish and they can argue all they want, doesn’t change what they are.

    • Sator says:

      Your site and book opens up saying that one in 3 women will have an abortion in the course of their life.
      You just opened your site and titled your book over an obvious lie. Give me One singular reason for wich i should continue reading it.

    • TheKnowerseeker says:

      It’s not hard to imagine why the type of women who choose to murder their babies in utero and then not regret it later make that choice (sociopathy), but I decided to do the honest and honorable thing and waste some time looking at that website you posted first before commenting. Yeah, I looked, and… nothing surprising there… well, except for some shock over stereotypical allegories being passed off as personal testimony. But even that’s not surprising knowing how liberals operate. Anyway, I considered counting the number of the many “I”s (as in me, myself, and I) in each of the testimonials versus the total lack of “my baby”. Yeah, it’s quite telling.

    • deelilynn says:

      A bunch of self serving malarkey!!

  44. WomanWhoKnowsHerPlace says:

    The Bible actually acknowledges a difference between murder and abortion. This isn’t satire, just a poor attempt, because it isn’t funny, just ignorant and sick.

    • deelilynn says:

      “The Bible actually acknowledges a difference between murder and abortion.”

      Perhaps I truly missed these Bible passages … Could you please site which scriptures acknowledge the difference??

    • AmicusC says:

      perhaps you should re read the definition of satire. *hint* humour is not a requirement.

  45. Deborah says:

    This is the most horrible piece of writing I have read in a long time. I starting to think that if your mum knew how you would turn out maybe she would have decided to….
    Have you heard of murder? You obviously have no moral compass so what’s to stop someone killing their 1yr old? 5yr old? Father? Mother? You? A baby has separate DNA and is not part if their mother. It is an individual human being. Stop discriminating against a child that can’t speak up for itself. Everyone woman has the choice – protection while having intercourse. It’s not a tough one, just take steps not to get pregnant and also save yourself some STDS along the way.
    Stop trying to condone murdering children!

  46. Nadia says:

    There are such opposing and controversial opinions on this subject, I as a blogger am terrified to touch on my own views and experiences. What I can say is that Matt Walsh is an excellent writer, and has the ability to entertain. I have long been a follower and I commend this (and all other) posts/articles he writes.

    For those of you who aren’t familiar with Matt, his satire is a style that few can pull off as effectively as he can. There is no need to throw harsh insults at him.

    To Matt: Good job. I hope you don’t let these comments get you down. Keep it up!

  47. LilyL2182, I ask you, since abortion kills a defenseless, innocent human being, SHOULD IT go unpunished? Truthfully, we are being wrong and mean when we see that abortion IS the killing of a defenseless, innocent human being and choose to look the other way, aren’t we? Just because something is legal does NOT make it right, does it? Every abortion STOPS a beating heart, Lily, something is legal does NOT make it right, does it? Every abortion STOPS a beating heart, Lily, and every abortionist knows that. Abortion IS premeditated killing. If abortion were illegal, proving first-degree murder would be quite easy in the case of the abortionist. Since a woman getting an abortion does not perform the procedure, there is, for her, no direct action that results in the death of her baby. Unlike the abortionist, the mother does not actually commit the offense. Where abortion is legally murder, seeking an abortion is solicitation of a criminal act, so there should be a criminal solicitation prosecution for a woman who has an abortion. How would it be wrong or mean to punish the crime of abortion?

    When the church calls on the state to prohibit abortion, the state is not being asked to establish a religion. Nor is the state being asked to be the church. The church is simply asking the state to be the state. Since it IS the ROLE of the STATE to PROTECT, SUSTAIN, and MAINTAIN human life, and it is the conviction of the church that abortion involves the DESTRUCTION of human life, then it follows that the church has the RIGHT to call the state to outlaw abortions. The church is not asking the state to baptize human beings, but to protect the lives of unborn humans.

  48. Mark Davis says:

    As to your last point… Saving an unwanted child from abortion doesn’t make us responsible for said child, and more than a policeman, fireman, or soldier becomes responsible for the lives they save. it’s an absurd argument which ignores any responsibility of the mother, the father, the extended family on either side, or the fact that growing up adopted or even “in the system” means you at least got to live.

  49. Kris says:

    Completely disgusted by this hateful article. Christians like you make us all look like hate mongering, judgmental, small minded idiots. And yes, I AM AWARE IT IS SATIRE. Very morbid, twisted, and inappropriate satire. Perhaps you should consider putting in an application to be the pastor of Westboro Baptist Church, I heard they recently had the position open up.

Comments are closed.