In An Unsurprising Douche Move, Matt Walsh Uses The Baby Murder Abortion Cliche
You’d probably think that Megan Huntsman, the woman who admitted to strangling or suffocating her six infants before placing them in boxes in her garage is a deeply disturbed murderer who should be punished for the crimes she’s committed.
But you would be wrong. Don’t feel bad, though, it’s only because you have a tiny woman brain. Matt Walsh, professional white whiner and douche extraordinaire is here as always to explain it to you, whenever you’re done making sandwiches or ironing clothing or making your man happy.
According to Matt, if you’re pro-choice, you have no right to have this point of view because after all, these are just “post-birth abortions.” Let’s take a quick left turn into Crazytown and see what young Matt has to say, shall we?
“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.“
EXACTLY. See, little ladies? Terminating an unwanted or non-viable pregnancy is just as bad as giving birth to and then systematically killing a newborn child. Matt knows a lot about uteri. Having never had one, he can be completely objective. And because he’s completely unfettered by reason or a rudimentary understanding of 6th grade biology, he can just make up whatever he needs to to make a point.
For instance, he has no problem making the leap from blastocyte to frat pledge, where he argues that humans aren’t fully developed as autonomous creatures until they’re 27-years-old, which he reasons means that it should be legal to kill your child up until that point. When you think about it, this makes a lot of sense, you guys! A fetus is exactly the same thing as a newborn, right down to the adorable little gill slits and pseudo-tail.
Honestly, I haven’t seen this much crazy crammed into a single piece of writing since I read my roommate’s goth poetry journal freshman year, but I’m going to skip all of that and go straight to the conclusion that he draws:
“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 don’t really know what to say here. I’d love to make some snarky little joke here, but at the end of the day, six newborn babies, babies that were breathing and crying and could have been legally surrendered and potentially loved by someone lost their lives at the hand of a very sick or very evil woman. I don’t know why Megan Huntsman chose to carry her babies to term and then murder them. And neither do you, Matt. You don’t know her motivations. The possibility that her “motivations are the same” as a rape victim or a woman carrying a wanted baby that will likely die in terrible pain shortly after birth is slim to none.
I do know that if Matt Walsh’s argument against abortion was any good, he wouldn’t need to capitalize on this tragedy to mansplain it to us.