Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

I received this message on Facebook from a woman — going by a clearly fake name — who had apparently created a dummy account just for the purpose of messaging me anonymously. Not long after I read it, she either blocked me or deleted her profile. I actually wanted to respond to her privately, but she didn’t give me that option. Instead, I will answer her this way. Her “arguments” are right out of the pro-abortion playbook, so this exchange is of some general relevance:

Matt Walsh— You are a f**cking moron and you suck at writing (and take it from a woman: you are very ugly person), but I was curious to see how terrible and stupid your show would be….. considering every blog post I’ve read appears to have been written by a retard… In fact everything I’ve ever seen you write on your website, Facebook, Twitter…. All of it beyond stupid…. so I tuned in online…… and of course the first thing I hear is you ranting about abortion. That’s what I would expect from a Christian extremist nut job. Your comments were judgmental and hurtful to all women…. We don’t need to hear some d*ckhead bullsh*t misogynistic opinions about abortion…. My next email is going to be to your boss to try to get you removed from the air.

I’ve worked in women’s health service so I thought I’d educate you on a few things. I’m sure this will fall on deaf ears but maybe you’ll re-post my message in one of your “famous” blogs and even if you try to embarrass me….everyone will see the truth……

First, abortion is not an “industry”. It’s not something people do for the money……. Abortion doctors could make a lot more money in another medical field but they decide to enter the women’s health field because they want to help women.

Second, abortion is not “killing” a “person”, it is terminating a pregnancy. Period. An unborn fetus is not a baby….. its a fetus. Period.

Third, what don’t you f**king people understand about this…. women have the RIGHT to control their OWN BODIES. The fetus can only survive by draining resources and nutrients from the mother. The mother has the right to end that if she wants to. A fetus is scientifically considered a parasite….. it has no rights. Period.

Fourth, why is it that Christians are so concerned about “babies” BEFORE they’re born but then after they’re born you people don’t give a sh*t? If women didn’t have access to abortion there would be a lot more unwanted children out there. There would be more poverty. Why don’t Christians concentrate on that? If you aren’t out there adopting babies you have no right to complain about abortion.

Fifth, speaking of which…… don’t like abortion? Don’t have one.

Sixth, I’m not even going to get into a debate about when “life begins.” It begins when the mother decides that she wants to carry her fetus to term. It’s a baby if she wants it to baby…… That’s not a determination anyone else gets to make. When I was pregnant it was always a baby to me because I wanted to give birth to her. If I had made a different choice then I would have terminated, but I never would have “killed” a “child”. I would have terminated a fetus.

Seventh, if you hate the world because of abortion…. maybe you should kill yourself.

You claim that pro-choice people don’t have facts… well here are a bunch of facts. let’s see if you have the guts to respond….. I know anti-choicers have trouble dealing with facts.

Dear Ms. Anonymous,

Thank you so much for listening to my show, reading my blog, and even tracking me down on Facebook and Twitter. Now, let me see if I understand this: you have sought me out via every available medium, you’ve actively pursued my writings and you read them intently, you took time out of your day to listen to my show, and you do all of this because you think I’m “stupid” and “terrible”? OK. Well, what else is a rational person to do when they encounter someone with whom they vehemently disagree?

Personally, I see people write disagreeable things on the internet every day. It never occurred to me that I ought to become obsessed with their every word and stalk them across cyberspace, eating up every morsel and message that springs forth from their keyboard. I guess we’ve all got our hobbies. But maybe you ought to consider Zumba or something;I don’t think this pastime is good for your mental health.

In any event, as you requested, your message is now published for the world to see. I’ll dissect and respond to all of your “points,” and we will let the public decide who’s made the better case. One last side note: I appreciate your constructive criticism of my writing. Here’s one for you to contemplate: there’s rarely a reason to put seven periods in a row. That’s not, like, actual English punctuation. Really, one period will do just fine. And perhaps you might consider utilizing a comma on occasion? Something to think about. But don’t pay attention to me, I’m just a “retard” — and an ugly one at that. We can’t all be monuments of grace and beauty, Ms. Anonymous. I can certainly tell you, as a parent, I’m hoping my son one day brings home a woman who uses phrases like “d*ckhead bullsh*t.” Talk about class and femininity.

Anyway, let’s take this one-by-one:

-First, abortion is not an “industry”. It’s not something people do for the money……. Abortion doctors could make a lot more money in another medical field but they decide to enter the women’s health field because they want to help women.

Dictionary.com defines “industry” thusly:

noun

1. the aggregate of manufacturing or technically productive enterprises in a particular field, often named after its principal product: the automobile industry; the steel industry.

2. any general business activity; commercial enterprise.

So, abortion is not an industry? You mean it is not a productive commercial enterprise? That’s funny, because my research tells me abortion clinics generally charge 400 to 500 dollars for a first trimester abortion (always looking out for poor people). That makes it not only financially “productive,” but one of the most lucrative of all “medical” procedures. The CEO of Planned Parenthood rakes in 400 grand a year, can we not deem that a “productive” income? Speaking of Planned Parenthood, they made over a billion dollars last year. Do you know where they derived their largest chunk of income? The tax payers. But do you know what came in second? Mammograms. Just kidding, Planned Parenthood doesn’t offer mammograms. The answer is abortion. Of all the “services” they provide, abortion is their bread and butter.

Ms. Anonymous, you are confused. Crisis pregnancy centers are the facilities that usually don’t generate profits. Abortion, on the other hand, is a billion dollar INDUSTRY in this country. Abortion clinics are, in fact, very good at milking every dime from their operation. That’s why they gather the body parts of dead babies and sell them to cosmetic companies and research firms. Sure, this is technically “illegal,” but there’s a loophole that allows clinics to charge a “reasonable payment” for the “transportation, preservation, implantation, quality control and storage of human fetal tissue.” In other words, they aren’t allowed to sell dead babies… But they’re allowed to sell dead babies. Aren’t you progressives always concerned about closing loopholes that enable corporations to evade regulations? Well, here’s one for you. Now go Occupy Planned Parenthood.

Abortion doctors could make a lot more money in another medical field? Perhaps, so what’s stopping them? Is it their passion for “terminating fetuses”? Actually, I think that’s even scarier than the reality: many of them couldn’t hack it as legitimate doctors, so they became abortionists as a fallback option. That’s why they often don’t have admitting privileges at local hospitals. Abortion advocates will claim that this is motivated by “bias” against abortionists, and they’re right. Real doctors and real medical professionals, who uphold their Hippocratic oath to heal the sick, to “tread with care in matters of life and death,” and to avoid “therapeutic nihilism,” have little respect for quacks and mercenaries whose “art” consists of shoving a piece of equipment up a woman’s birth canal and ripping her baby to shreds. An abortionist is a “doctor” in the same sense that a guy who deals crack to middle schoolers can be considered a “pharmacist.”

-Second, abortion is not “killing” a “person”, it is terminating a pregnancy. Period. An unborn fetus is not a baby….. its a fetus. Period.

Ms. Anonymous, what you’ve engaged in here is a fallacy known as “drawing a distinction without a difference.” Saying “abortion isn’t killing a person, it’s terminating a pregnancy” is like saying “jogging isn’t exercise, it’s physical exertion.” Again to Dictionary.com:

Kill: to deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of; destroy, slay, extinguish.

Person: a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.

Which of these terms doesn’t apply to the act of deliberately assassinating an unborn human? For it to not qualify as killing, the unborn human would have to be not alive. But how can a human be not alive, yet not dead? There are only two things a human can be: alive or dead. So which is it? If the baby is dead, then why is it being aborted? You call it “termination” — OK then, what precisely is being terminated? A clump of tissue? A wart is a clump of tissue. A pimple is a clump of tissue. So why don’t we consider dermatologists to be “abortion doctors” in their own right? Could it be that a skin blemish doesn’t have its own unique DNA and it can’t develop its own vital organs? Let’s go back to the dictionary (you’ll notice I’m sort of a stickler for using words according to their actual definitions):

Alive: having life; living; existing; not dead or lifeless.

Does the unborn human not exist? Is it dead and lifeless? Is it possible for a being to be dead and lifeless with the mere potential to be living and existing? Ms. Anonymous, we’ve ventured into philosophical waters, and I’m not sure that you know how to swim. Reality dictates that a BEING must always BE from the moment that it IS. Can a being be, but not be at the same time? Can a being be an actual being and a potential being simultaneously?

Hello?

Are you still there?

By the way, “fetus” derives from the Latin for “offspring.” So what you just said was: a fetus isn’t a baby, it’s an offspring. That’s like saying, “this isn’t a cow, it’s a mammal.”

-Third, what don’t you f**king people understand about this…. women have the RIGHT to control their OWN BODIES. The fetus can only survive by draining resources and nutrients from the mother. The mother has the right to end that if she wants to. A fetus is scientifically considered a parasite….. it has no rights. Period.

Wow, is this what you tell your child?

“Mommy look? That woman’s belly is big! That means she has a baby inside!”

“No sweetie, she is the victim of a parasitic infestation.”

You must be a barrel of fun. Good Lord.

Couple of things here. At no point in your existence were you ever somebody else’s body part. I think I’ve seen a few sci-fi movies where the monsters multiply that way, but that’s all quite factious, I assure you. Also, and I hate to be so predictable with my whole “stop making up definitions” schtick, but here I go again: a parasite, by definition, must be of another species. If there’s any mother walking around with another species in her womb, please alert the CDC or the circus.

Your point — if I may be so bold as to call it that — seems to be that a “fetus” needs its mother for nutrients and so therefore it can be executed. In other words, “it depends on me so I may kill it.” This is quite the ruthless worldview, but one that’s shared by many people, like third world dictators. My primary problem with this philosophy is that it’s morally and intellectually hideous. As a secondary issue, you “pro-choice” cowards lack the courage of your own convictions. I know your whole position is built on arbitrary designations, fabricated gray areas, and blurred lines, but on this point your inconsistencies really shine through.

An unborn human totally relies on its mother, this is true. But so does a born human for the first several years of its life (or the first several decades, in some cases). An infant is more demanding, more restricting, and more expensive than a “fetus.” It requires more resources, more attention and more time. A mother is REQUIRED BY LAW to provide everything that child needs, or else make other arrangements for it. If the “other arrangements” include euthanizing it, she will face criminal penalties. A baby needs its mothers milk (milk that comes from her body), if the mother chooses not to feed him this way, or is unable to, she must feed him formula. Buying formula every week can be a huge financial strain, but it is one the parents must assume. Not feeding him is not a legal option. A “fetus” needs your body, a baby needs your entire life. You must give your body to a “fetus,” you must give your entire existence to a baby. Why does the former come with an escape hatch but not the latter?

Why do we FORCE parents to care for their children? Well, because we are a civilized society, and that is their obligation. Can you think of one solid, consistent, salient, moral or intellectual reason why a “fetus” can be exterminated because of the demands it makes on is mother, but a newborn infant, who makes even more taxing and cumbersome demands, can’t be?

-Fourth, why is it that Christians are so concerned about “babies” BEFORE they’re born but then after they’re born you people don’t give a sh*t? If women didn’t have access to abortion there would be a lot more unwanted children out there. There would be more poverty. Why don’t Christians concentrate on that? If you aren’t out there adopting babies you have no right to complain about abortion.

You’re right. There are a lot of unwanted children out there. Let’s put them all out of their misery. After all, if the POTENTIAL that a child might have a difficult life is enough to justify its extermination, why shouldn’t the ACTUAL fact of a child’s difficult life justify it as well?

You’re a progressive, which means you deal not in facts but in narratives. That’s what you just did there with your “Christians don’t care about people after they’re born” spiel. There’s no chance of a productive conversation when you’re just inventing generalizations out of thin air. Here, I can do that, too:

Astronauts hate kittens!

Plumbers don’t drink orange juice!

Marine biologists are bad tippers!

This is a fun game. Here’s another one:

Liberals base their arguments on utter nonsense!

Wait, that last one was true. Sorry, I cheated.

In truth, not only do Christians help poor people, they help poor people more than any other group on the planet. Travel to any chaotic, disease infested, disintegrating, poverty-stricken corner or crevice on the map, and you will find missionaries, convents, monasteries and Christian charities serving the hunger, healing the sick and clothing the naked. You won’t find many left wing feminists or pretentious Western liberals, but you will find Christians. Christians do most of the adopting, most of the serving, most of the helping, most of the feeding, yet you’ve managed to not only diminish their work, but completely deny it altogether. Why do you think Christians care so much about “fetuses” in the first place? Is it our sinister desire to “invade your uterus,” or could it be our true and sincere concern for the vulnerable and downtrodden?

Actually, I’m not aware of any pro-life person ever accessing a woman’s uterus against her will. I am, however, under the distinct impression that abortionists do quite a bit of uterus-invading.

To your “if you aren’t adopting babies you can’t have an opinion about abortion” statement: come on, now you’re not even trying to make sense. Here again is a standard that I’m certain you don’t apply consistently. Can I have an opinion about arson even if I’m not a firefighter? Can I have an opinion about puppy abuse even if I don’t have a puppy? Can I have an opinion about theft even if I don’t work in loss prevention? I guess not. I suppose, by this litmus test, we are all only entitled to, like, two or three opinions.

-Fifth, speaking of which…… don’t like abortion? Don’t have one.

Do you always use bumper sticker slogans in debates about serious moral issues?

Anyway, I can use this logic, too:

Don’t like guns? Don’t buy one. Don’t like slavery? Don’t buy one. Don’t like carjacking? Don’t steal a car. Don’t like genocide? Don’t commit one. Don’t like oil spills? Don’t become an oil tycoon. Man, arguing is fun when you release yourself from the bonds of coherency.

-Sixth, I’m not even going to get into a debate about when “life begins.” It begins when the mother decides that she wants to carry her fetus to term. It’s a baby if she wants it to baby…… That’s not a determination anyone else gets to make. When I was pregnant with my daughter it was always a baby to me because I wanted to give birth to her. If I had made a different choice then I would have terminated, but I never would have “killed” a “child”. I would have terminated a fetus.

When your daughter was in your womb, she had, from the moment of conception, a certain DNA and genetic code that was unique to her. If you had “terminated” her, she would have ceased to exist. That specific identity — that person who lives in your house right now — would be extinguished from the universe. Her light, her laugh, her love, her beauty — gone, never to be duplicated. All that she has done, all that she will do, all that she will give to the world — no more. Finished. Forever. Even if you conceived again a year later, the new baby would not be the same as the one you aborted. Don’t pretend that you could have terminated her but, somehow, it wouldn’t have been “her.” It was her, it is her now, and she has only ever been her.

Life, Ms. Anonymous, is many things. It is a scientific reality. It is a philosophical mystery. It is a spiritual miracle. Whatever it is, it IS. And it most certainly does not hinge on anyone’s emotional state. It is pure, unmitigated insanity to claim that a woman’s feelings can somehow alter the physical and metaphysical facts of another’s existence. I bet you’re the type that mocks Christians for being “anti-science,” aren’t you? Yet you just, presumably with a straight face, claimed that the very DEFINITION OF LIFE ITSELF is somehow subjective, and can only be determined on a case by case basis, according to the emotional desire of the woman who conceived it. Can you cite some scientific evidence to validate this claim?

I’ll wait.

-Seventh, if you hate the world because of abortion…. maybe you should kill yourself.

I’ve considered your proposal, and I politely decline. I don’t hate the world, I don’t hate you. I pity both.

-You claim that pro-choice people don’t have facts… well here are a bunch of facts. let’s see if you have the guts to respond….. I know anti-choicers have trouble dealing with facts.

Facts? Where? You literally failed to make even one factual statement. Well, except for the part about me being ugly :::single tear rolls down cheek:::

Thank you for reading, Ms. Anonymous. I’ll pray for you.

God bless.

Our Privacy Policy has been updated to support the latest regulations.Click to learn more.×

Send this to a friend