I Am Afraid of this Indisputable Pro-choice Argument

by Matt Walsh
I took the bait.

I couldn’t help but open an email with the subject line: “You’re afraid of this pro-choice argument”

Afraid? I’m afraid of a lot of things. Actually, five things: spiders, asteroids, ghosts, head lice, and malaria. But arguments? Especially pro-abortion arguments? Definitely not on the list.

I might be frustrated by them; annoyed, angered, even disturbed, but afraid? I don’t think so.

Here’s Rachel, trying to strike fear into my heart:

Dear Matt, ever since I first read your blog I knew you were a cowardly fake. It wasn’t until I started reading some of your anti-choice articles that my suspicions were truly confirmed. You spend a lot of time picking the low hanging fruit. You attack the weakest abortion rights arguments while ignoring the glaring weaknesses in your own position.

If you had the guts or the brains you’d try to respond to the most important abortion rights argument… bodily autonomy or bodily integrity. This means that we have the final jurisdiction over our own bodies. Nobody can claim a right to our body that goes above our own right. Nobody can use our bodies without consent. We cannot be forced to donate organs or blood to someone else. A fetus must survive on a woman’s body so the woman has a right to withdrawal her consent and her body at any time.

This is the pro-choice argument that no anti-choice fanatic… especially one as stubborn and simpleminded as you… could ever possibly dispute. If you still don’t understand, try to imagine this hypothetical…

Imagine that you wake up one morning in a hospital bed. In the bed next to you is a famous singer. He is unconscious and all of these tubes are connected from him to you. A doctor comes in and explains that the singer became sick and you are the only person with the right blood type to match his. They need you to remain hooked up to him until he recovers… they tell you it should only take nine months. Until then, he needs to use all of your organs… your kidneys, liver, lungs, everything… just to survive. If you unplug yourself, he will die. So do you think you are obligated to stay plugged in? Does he have a right to live off of you like this? Should you be FORCED to stay connected to him?

That’s what situation the pregnant woman is in. Instead of harping on all of these irrelevant issues, I wish you’d be brave enough to address it from this angle. It is immoral to require a woman to sustain a fetus and it is moral for a woman to make a decision with her body based on what is right for her. How can you argue against this?

But I guess your blog is more about preaching to the choir than actually being intelligent and bold in your writing. What a shame.


Here’s my answer:

Dear Rachel,

You’re right. You win. I have no response. I can’t think of any reason why you’re wrong about any of the points you raised.

Well, I can’t think of any reason — except for, like, ten reasons. So I’ll start with five reasons why that hypothetical is flawed, and move on to five additional reasons why your overall argument is flawed.

Here we go:

1. Your analogy is flawed because it presupposes that the relationship between mother and child is no more significant, and carries with it no more responsibility, than the relationship between a person and some random stranger in a hospital bed.

This is absurd. If we’re trying to make this hypothetical as close to pregnancy as possible, shouldn’t the sick singer (or violinist, according to the original iteration of this hypothetical) at least be your child? Your argument doesn’t work because the fact that your child is your child, and not some strange adult from across town, is precisely the point. Hidden cleverly in this hypothetical is the insinuation that one cannot agree that an unborn child has a right to his mother’s body, without agreeing that anyone in the entire world, in any context, for any reason, at any point, for any period of time, has a right to a woman’s body.

Nice try, Rachel.

Just because a mother is expected to be a mother doesn’t mean she’s also expected to be a slave, a prostitute, and a forced organ donor to talented musical artists. Indeed, the extent of our responsibility to a person hinges in many ways on our relationship to them. You would, I assume, agree that you have a responsibility to your born children, wouldn’t you? And your responsibility to them extends far beyond your responsibility to your neighbor, or your plumber, or your trash collector, doesn’t it? The relationship matters. Your hypothetical fails because it pretends that relationships are irrelevant.

2. Your analogy is flawed because it leaves out an important detail: how did the singer become ill in the first place?

Aside from cases of rape, a child is only conceived because two people intentionally committed a particular act which has, literally billions of times, resulted in the conception of a human life.

This singer came down with a terrible sickness. You might feel pity for him, but you didn’t cause him to be sick. You didn’t put him in this state. You had absolutely nothing to do with it. The same cannot be said when a child is conceived.

3. Your analogy is flawed because, when framed properly, it doesn’t strengthen your moral position — it defeats it.

The hypothetical should be this: your own child becomes very sick because of something you did. He needs a blood transfusion and you are the only match. Would you refuse to give him your blood because it infringes on your bodily autonomy? Could this be morally justified? You put your kid in the hospital and now you will choose to watch him die because he ‘doesn’t have a right to your blood.’ THIS scenario would be the closest to abortion. And, if you are consistent in your affinity for ‘bodily autonomy,’ you could not criticize parents who’d rather let their child die than be inconvenienced by a blood transfusion.

4. But, no matter how you frame the hypothetical, it is still flawed because it ignores one crucial thing: natural order.

An unborn child is exactly where he is supposed to be. He couldn’t possibly be anywhere else. This is the fundamental difference between two people hooked up to machines on a hospital bed, and a ‘fetus’ connected to his mother insider her womb. The former represents unnatural and extraordinary measures, while the latter represents something natural and ordinary. The unborn child is where Nature (or God, as I call Him) intends it to be.

The unborn child is not, in any scientific or medical sense, an intruder or a parasite. These words have meanings, and unborn babies do not fit the bill. They are where they are supposed to be. They are where they belong. A fish belongs in water, just as an unborn child belongs in his mother’s womb.

5. Beyond all of these points, the analogy is flawed because abortion is not the same as ‘unplugging’ a person from medical equipment.

It might be quite sanitary and pleasant to refer to abortion as a woman ‘withdrawing support’ from her child, but the procedure goes beyond this. During a ‘termination,’ the baby is actively killed. It is crushed, dismembered, poisoned, or torn apart. It is killed. It is actively, actually, purposefully, intentionally killed.

In fact, even in the original hypothetical — where you’re hooked up to a singer in a hospital bed — while it would be acceptable to unplug yourself, it would NOT be morally or legally permissible to shoot the poor guy in the head. A person’s physical reliance on you does not give you the moral (or legal, usually) right to murder them. ‘Withdrawing support’ is precisely what an abortion isn’t. If it was, then the baby would be delivered and left to die in the corner of the room. Of course, this is how some abortionists conduct business, but it’s illegal. If they’re caught, they go to jail.

6. But the bodily autonomy argument is flawed in ways that go beyond that utterly fallacious and misleading hypothetical. It’s flawed because nobody is crazy enough to consistently apply it to pregnant women.

According to bodily autonomy, a mother could not be judged harshly for smoking, drinking, doing coke, and going skydiving (hopefully not all in the same day) while 6 months pregnant. If you really believe that a woman’s body is autonomous — that she has absolute jurisdiction over it — then you must defend a mother who does things that could seriously harm her unborn child, even if she hasn’t chosen to abort it. This is not a slippery slope argument; this is a reasonable and inevitable application of your principle.

7. The bodily autonomy argument is flawed because it requires you to support abortion at every stage of development.

I’m throwing this in here because most pro-aborts will not (vocally) defend abortion at 8 or 9 months. But — if bodily autonomy is your claim — you must. Is a woman’s body less autonomous when she’s been pregnant for 35 weeks? There is no way around it: bodily autonomy means that it is moral to kill a fully formed baby, at seven months, or eight months, or nine months.

8. The bodily autonomy argument is flawed because you can’t limit it to pregnant women.

You say that our bodies cannot be ‘used’ without our ‘consent.’ Why should this apply only to pregnancy and organ donations? Children, at any age, create profound demands on their parents’ bodies. Whether it’s waking up in the middle of the night for the crying baby, working long hours to pay for their food and clothing, carrying them around when they cannot walk, staying home when you’d like to go out, going out (to bring them to the doctor, or school, or soccer practice) when you’d like to stay in, etc, etc, etc, and so forth. An argument for absolute bodily autonomy means that it can’t be illegal, or considered immoral, for a parent to decline to do any of these things, so long as their decision was made in the name of bodily autonomy.

9. The bodily autonomy argument is flawed because it necessarily justifies things like public masturbation.

If I can ‘do what I want with my body,’ then it becomes very difficult to launch a salient moral or legal attack against a man who chooses to sit in a playground in front of children and pleasure his own body.

10. Finally, the bodily autonomy argument is flawed because our bodies are not autonomous.

I’m often accused of oversimplifying, but I’ve never oversimplified to the extent of you bodily autonomy proponents. Once we’ve considered every complexity and nuance, we can rightly say that our bodies are autonomous in some ways, and in some circumstances, but not in others. We cannot say that they are absolutely autonomous, and I find it hard to believe that anyone truly thinks that.

Any claim or responsibility placed on me, automatically includes a claim and responsibility on my body. Everything I do involves my body. I am my body. CS Lewis would say that I am my soul and I have a body. I agree with him, but for our purposes in this discussion, leaving souls and spirits aside, we are our bodies. Whether we are expected to pay taxes or drive the speed limit or provide a safe and sanitary home for our children, we are using our bodies to meet these expectations. We experience and participate in life with our bodies. Absolute bodily autonomy is inexorably linked with personal autonomy. If my body is autonomous, my person must be autonomous, and if my person is autonomous, then my very existence is autonomous, and if my very existence is autonomous, then it is simply unacceptable and (by your logic) immoral for anyone to expect me to do anything for anyone at any point for any reason.

If you concede that we ought to be expected or even required to do certain things, then you are placing limits on our bodily autonomy. If you place limits on our bodily autonomy, then you are admitting that limits can be placed on our bodily autonomy. If you are admitting that limits can be placed on our bodily autonomy, then you must consider whether abortion falls within or outside of those limits. And here’s the rub: if you contend that abortion falls within the limits on bodily autonomy, you must justify that belief beyond simply reasserting our right to bodily autonomy.

Personally, I think that abortion goes well beyond the limits on bodily autonomy, for all of the reasons I’ve previously stipulated.

There’s your answer, Rachel.

But, except for the ten reasons why you’re wrong, you’re right on the money.

And, except for the ten answers I’ve provided, I have no answers for you.

I guess you win.

Thanks for writing.

-Matt Walsh, http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/03/04/i-am-afraid-of-this-indisputable-pro-choice-argument/

There Is No Such Thing as a ‘Pro-Choice’ Christian – Part 2

by Matt Walsh

Let’s begin with the Bible’s constant and consistent message condemning the taking of innocent life. Exodus, Deuteronomy, Psalms, Revelation, Matthew — all of these books engrave this truth into stone. Psalms, in particular, has a very relevant verse: “They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to demons, and they shed innocent blood, the blood of their sons and their daughters… desecrating the land with bloodshed.”

Question: is abortion the taking of a life? Yes. Call it a fetus, call it an embryo, call it a moose if you like. What you can’t call it is inanimate matter. Therefore, it is a life.

Another question: is that life innocent? Yes. And I shudder to think that anyone would suggest otherwise.

The Bible repeatedly condemns the killing of innocents, but abortion kills the innocent.

Who is still confused?

My favorite pro-life verse is that obscure passage that reads: “Thou shalt not kill.”

Yes, “kill” must be understood as “murder,” and murder can’t be understood to include justified and righteous killing like self-defense, or the defense of a loved one. It is not hard for me to understand “thou shalt not kill (except in matters of self-defense and just warfare). But it is a little difficult to comprehend this version: “thou shalt not kill (unless you’re killing your young child).”

The Bible also teaches that God specifically commanded the human race to “be fruitful and multiply.” Abortion would seem to fall short of that directive.

Scripture says that life is sacred (“I came that they may have life” – John 10 “There shall be no more death” – Revelation 21 “Thanks be to God who gives us victory” over death – 1 Corinthians 15 “He will destroy death forever” – Isaiah 25) and that children are a “gift from God” (Psalm 127).

Most compellingly, the Bible repeatedly says that God creates and forms every human being (“God created man in His image” – Genesis “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you” – Jeremiah). Unless you believe in a flawed and clumsy Lord, you must not think that any life can be accidental, or that God wishes for any of the beings made in His image to be exterminated before they even emerge from the womb. God has a plan for all of us, and our job as parents is to guide our children in following and understanding that plan.

Further, Jesus makes it clear that whatever we do or fail to do for “the least of His brothers” we did or failed to do for Him (Matthew 25). When we abort a child, we are therefore aborting Christ.

I feel sick even typing that sentence, but there is no other way to interpret the matter.

But the most shocking Biblical attacks against abortion cannot be boiled down to one or two sentences. The central point — the Ultimate Moment — of Christianity is, among other things, a stunning rebuke against abortion. Indeed, if there is one issue today that most offends and desecrates the Christian Message, it is abortion.

Think about it: Jesus was miraculously conceived in the womb. He spent his first nine months on Earth as a “fetus.” If abortion wasn’t a grave sin up until that point (even though it was), it would have become the gravest of sins afterwards. Jesus elevated all of mankind when he became one of us. And He became one of us through every stage, so every stage was elevated and sanctified.

Let me repeat this: if you are a Christian then you believe that CHRIST HIMSELF was a “fetus.” How can the “fetus” be anything other than sacred life after such an event?

Just a glob of cells? Is that what a Christian would say of his Savior?image

We don’t know what Christ looked like exactly, but we know he once looked something like this:

And how did Jesus’ life end? He sacrificed Himself for the our sake.


Christianity is a religion of sacrifice, while abortion is a sacrament for those who wish to avoid it.

Sacrifice. Love. Life.

Abortion stands opposed to all of these things, and so it stands opposed to God, and so it stands opposed to Christianity.

That doesn’t mean that pro-choice people can never be Christian, and it certainly doesn’t mean that post-abortive mothers aren’t welcome. Far from it. Christianity is also a religion of forgiveness, and thank God for that, because I am in constant need of God’s eternal mercy.

Christianity is a faith for all people, but it is not a faith for all notions and ideas. You cannot simultaneously profess the Faith while also defending the murder of the innocent. You are welcome into the church, but your belief in baby-murder is not.

You cannot carry the cross and a Planned Parenthood banner at the same time.

You have to drop the one, and pick up the other.

I hope you do. I hope you start today. Now. This moment.

But until then, you cannot follow Christ while you still support the murder of His children.

You cannot be both.

You cannot be Christian and ‘pro-choice.’

-Matt Walsh, http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/05/28/abortion/2/

There Is No Such Thing as a ‘Pro-Choice’ Christian – Part 1

by Matt Walsh

What if I told you that I believe it’s OK to physically abuse your household pets?

Hold on. Don’t jump on my case about it. I’m saying it’s acceptable to torture and torment pets — but only pets. And only your own pets. You certainly can’t go around drop kicking, headbutting, or piledriving your neighbor’s dog, but your dog is a different story.

And you can only punch, pistol whip, and karate chop your gerbils, cats, puppies, parrots, etc, up until a certain age. And only in the most humane way possible.

That’s all. I’m not some kind of psycho animal hater — I’ve never even assaulted my own cat, and I don’t think I ever will — I just happen to think you should have that right, should the need or desire ever arise.

But, beyond this one admittedly unique viewpoint, my overall ideology is pretty mainstream. I mean, I think it’s important to recycle and eat healthy and be nice to people and all that stuff.

Now, what if I told you that I also consider myself an animal rights activist?

Do you think the other animal rights activists will embrace me as their own? Will they allow the title “animal rights activist” to be bent and broadened to the extent that it also includes maniacs who think we ought to vociferously defend a person’s right to smack their pets around?

Alright, maybe this is a bad example. PETA kills thousands of animals every year, yet they seem to be celebrated in the animal rights community.

Still, you get my point. And in case you don’t, I’ll spell it out:

Our beliefs are not packaged, sealed, and sold separately. We don’t formulate our personal philosophy in a vacuum. Your views on one subject will be colored, or clarified, by your views on everything else.

If you think you live in a world where it is morally acceptable to do X, then your opinion on Y must be understood in the context of a world where X is considered righteous.

So this is why you can’t, for instance, advocate for slavery while also being a proponent of civil rights. Either you’re lying about your civil rights stance, or else you have an understanding of ‘civil rights’ which does not include a right to be free from enslavement. If that’s the case, then you are not a believer in civil rights at all, no matter how loudly you insist otherwise.

For very similar reasons, you simply cannot be Christian and pro-abortion.

In order to be both, you’d have to change Christianity into a religion that does not and would not condemn the murder of human children. You’d have to turn Christ into a Savior who embraces infanticide, and God into a Father who creates children but does not necessarily expect us or command us to refrain from violently destroying them.

What you are left with is something that bears no resemblance to Christianity. In fact, you’re left with something that is, in every way, exactly the opposite.

You are the pro-animal abuse animal rights activist, the pro-slavery civil rights proponent, the circular square, the north south. You are attempting to be two diametrically opposed things simultaneously. You’re trying to do something that is not only theologically impossible, but scientifically impossible as well.

If churches in America had any guts, this message would be proclaimed from the pulpit at least once a month. Especially this week, after that revolting story about a ‘Christian’ abortionist.

This man — a mercenary killer of infants — insists that his faith ‘calls’ him to decapitate babies. ‘Dr.’ Willie Parker says that abortion “became this conviction of compassion in a spiritual sense of the deepest level of love that you can have for another person, that you can have compassion for their suffering and you can act to relieve it.”

He’s right when he says that Christianity is a religion of love and compassion. But he understands (or claims to understand) love and compassion to include the extermination of 50 million children worldwide each year. His version of love leaves the ground scattered with the corpses of slaughtered babies. Christ’s love called us all to protect and love children, and warned us that we’d be better off with a stone around our neck, drowning in the sea, than defying that commandment.

Willie’s concept of love, then, isn’t just incompatible with Christian love — it’s the precise opposite of it.

But Willie The Child Killing Quack is not alone. Even Planned Parenthood has a “clergy advisory board” composed of fake clergy, peddling fake Christianity, in order to sell and promote infanticide. Meanwhile, the polls continue to show that a vast number of ‘Christians’ agree with abortion, to some extent or another.

Now, I almost hesitate to point out the numerous Bible verses that clearly and unequivocally condemn all abortion, at any stage, for any reason. I hesitate because I don’t want to reinforce the popular but horribly misconstrued notion that the Bible only teaches against or for a certain act if it somewhere explicitly mentions that act by name.

Scripture must be studied as a whole, in its entirety — not in disconnected pieces. From that view, we see a religion which preaches a message that is, in every facet, from every angle, from every vantage point, completely opposed to the killing of innocent children. It doesn’t need to say “hey, by the way, don’t kill innocent children in the womb,” in order for its anti-murdering-innocent-children-in-the-womb stance to be clear.

In any case, conveniently enough, the Bible is pretty explicit about abortion.

Shall we count the ways?

-Matt Walsh, http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/05/28/abortion/

This Poor Child Is Confused, Not ‘Transgendered’ -Part 2

by Matt Walsh

In fairness, I should mention that Ryland’s ‘true identity’ didn’t just reveal itself through her taste in toys and clothes. She came out and said she was a boy. She said it when she was two-years-old. She made fantastic and nonsensical claims about being something other than what she really is — much like, for instance, every single other toddler in the history of the world.

Walk into a room of toddlers and take a poll. You’ll soon discover that you are actually — according to the self-reported data from two and three-year-olds — surrounded by lions, dinosaurs, aliens, princesses, superheroes, and all manner of other mythical concoctions.

And, yes, you’ll find that many of the boys are girls and girls are boys. It’s extraordinarily common for kids that age to ‘self-identify’ as the opposite sex.

In most cases, you let them use their imagination and have their fun, but you make sure to offer them the proper guidance so that these games aren’t taken too far. If your kid thinks he’s a bird, let him pretend. But the moment he tries to jump out of a window or poop on your car windshield, it might be time to intervene.

Ryland’s parents took a silly thing that a toddler said and indulged it. They fed it. They snatched it out of fantasyland and made it real. Before long, poor Ryland was in the throes of a full-on identiy crisis.

They say that Ryland’s “boy phase” was more than a phase because she eventually started wearing boy suits and boy swimming trunks. “Started wearing.” Notice the way that’s phrased. You’d think she got a job, earned a paycheck, then drove to the store herself and bought her own outfits. In reality, however, one can assume that she only started wearing boy clothes because her parents started dressing her in boy clothes.

Here’s the thing about little kids: they don’t know what it means to be a boy or a girl. That’s why you have to tell them. You have to guide them. You have to show them. They are ignorant of many things. They are helpless in many ways. That’s why they have parents. If your daughter truly is confused, if she’s really starting to think she’s a boy, then you are only going to enforce her delusions when you go out of your way to put her in elaborate outfits specifically designed to foster those confusions:


Ryland — at the age of two, and three, and four, and five, and six — is much too young to even remotely grasp what it means to be a girl. How could she be in a position to reject that which she does not understand? She certainly doesn’t know what it means to ‘be’ the opposite sex. How could she rationally choose to become that which she can not comprehend?

She couldn’t. She can’t. She didn’t. She’s a child with a child’s brain saying childish things. Her parents took advantage, and now they’re using her to earn the attention and admiration of our progressive society.

Harsh? Not nearly harsh enough. This girl is being abused, and we’re all watching and applauding.

You know what they could have done? When their two-year-old daughter called herself a boy, they could have responded with one simple question: “what is a boy?”

If you cannot define it then you certainly can’t decide that you should be it. I guarantee that neither two-year-old Ryland nor five-year-old Ryland could even begin to answer that question. Being an innocent child, she’d probably say something about boys being people who wear jeans and who like to play with toy trucks.

She’s a child. She doesn’t understand what’s going on. She doesn’t know any better.

But her parents do.

And we do.

Maybe it’s time we speak up.

-Matt Walsh, http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/06/03/this-poor-child-is-confused-not-transgendered/2/

This Poor Child Is Confused, Not ‘Transgendered’ -Part 1

by Matt Walsh

Is this it? Have we reached the basement? Is this our cultural rock bottom moment? Is this when our society wakes up behind a liquor store dumpster in the middle of the afternoon, stumbles to its feet, catches its reflection in a puddle of urine and finally whispers, “I have a problem”?

Have we reached the depths of our own delusions? Can it now be said that we have nowhere to go but up?

Stop. Don’t answer these questions. Let me have my silver lining.

Let me fantasize that this story will be enough to cause many of us to snap to our senses. It’s a story about a poor, confused child and a predatory, confused culture eager to use her as a mascot for their latest ‘civil rights’ cause de jour.

It’s a story about Jeff and Hillary Whittington, who were given the coveted Inspiration Award at the famed and prestigious Harvey Milk Diversity Breakfast (you might remember Harvey Milk as the statutory rapist who had sex with a bunch of drug addicted teenage boys). How have the Whittingtons earned such a high and pointless honor? Well, they’ve made some YouTube videos and bragged to the media about their daughter, Ryland, who began to “transition” into a boy at the age of two.

A wild claim, you would think.

…If you’re a bigot.

Yes, the debate is over. The tale of the “transgender” 5-year-old was told to unanimous national applause. Media outlets hailed it as “moving” and “inspirational.” Articles from mainstream sources promised that the story would cause you to weep tears of joy. Millions of people flocked to Twitter and Facebook to shout their undying praise and admiration. A consensus was formed: toddlers can determine their own gender, and that’s it. The matter is settled. Another bit of progressive mania that now must be accepted as infallible doctrine.

Oh, but not just accepted — believed, honored, celebrated. So much as furrow your brow or scratch your head when the Whittingtons talk about how their daughter became their son when she was five, and you will expose yourself as a dangerous, backwards, ‘transphobic’ Neanderthal. To question the existence of ‘transgender’ toddlers is to question the existence of the sun. To defy the transgender-baby-dogma is to believe that the Earth is flat and the moon is made of cheese.

Pull out the stone tablets. Engrave the words ‘transgender toddlers.’

It’s here to stay.

It’s part of our new reality.

It’s the wave of the future.

And it’s nonsense.

A tragedy. A tragedy of nonsense. Horrible, abusive, pathetic, sad, bizarre, tragic nonsense.

This child didn’t ‘choose’ her gender. She didn’t choose to cut her hair and dress like a boy. Kids that age can only wear what you put on them, sport the haircut you assign them, play with the toys you give them, and mostly believe what you tell them they should believe. Tell them there’s a magical fat man who flies down the chimney to bring them presents every Christmas, and they’ll believe it. Tell them that they get to choose their own gender like it’s an ice cream flavor at Baskin Robbins, and they’ll believe it. Their reality is whatever you construct for them.

They are still years from approaching the age of reason. They are not reasonable beings. That’s why they can’t be left at home alone. That’s why they don’t vote. That’s why they don’t own homes or take out loans at the bank. They can’t be trusted to refrain from eating your pocket change, yet these parents think they should be able to exercise radical control over their ‘gender identity’?

That’s insane. This girl did not choose to be a boy. She can’t. She also didn’t choose to be a world famous face for the transgender movement. Her parents made that decision. Her parents decided to make her a ‘boy’ and alert the press.

It’s interesting, when you think about it. If a girl declares that she’s a lesbian, progressives would tell us that this identity cannot be modified. It is ingrained in her soul and nothing can ever alter it. Her sexual preference is immutable. Her sex, however? Fluid. Subject to change. And what if she ‘becomes a boy’ and still finds herself attracted to girls? By their standards, she’s just turned herself straight. But isn’t that impossible? So is she still gay? But if she’s still gay then she’s still a woman, which means she’s not a man, which means your sex can’t be changed.

Any of this making sense?



Indeed, the moment you wade into liberal “gender theory” you will be violently assaulted by a gauntlet of glaring contradictions.

They tell us in one breath that it’s OK for boys to like pink and girls to like blue, and we should stop expecting our sons to play sports and our daughters to play with dolls. These are just social norms, they say. We should not subscribe to such archaic notions. But suddenly they proceed to derail their own narrative when they next inform you that a girl liking blue and a boy playing with dolls might actually be a sign that the girl is a boy and the boy is a girl.


Are colors and toys and sports irrelevant things that have been arbitrarily assigned to certain genders by an oppressive society, or is the color pink so connected with the female identity that a female’s aversion to it is an indication that she isn’t really a female?

Who’s really enforcing gender roles and social norms here? I’d say it’s the people who call a girl transgender if she’d rather join a baseball league than the ballet.

Ryland showed signs of being transgender because she didn’t like girly toys and she didn’t like to wear dresses. My first thought is that maybe she’s a girl who just doesn’t like girly toys or dresses. But apparently girly toys and dresses are so important to the female identity that you lose the identity when you reject the toys and dresses.

The YouTube video displays photos of Ryland in cowboy outfits and Spider-Man costumes, while the text on the screen explains: “Ryland began to show an aversion to anything feminine.”

Hold on. Who says cowboys and superheroes are masculine? Who says a girl can’t be Spider-Man for Halloween? I thought liberals would be the first ones in line to condemn any idea that a girl has to be a boy if she likes things that society commonly associates with boys.


-Matt Walsh, http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/06/03/this-poor-child-is-confused-not-transgendered/

My Wife Is Not the Same Woman That I Married – Part 2

by Matt Walsh

She’s not the same as she was when I married her, but that’s OK because I didn’t marry “the person she was.” I married her — Alissa, the woman, the being, the body and soul. I married the totality of her, which means I married her changes, not just that one, single, momentary version of her that walked down the aisle in that church in Ocean City three years ago.

Do I have a romantic idea of marriage? Sure, but marriage is a romantic idea, isn’t it? It’s not a fairy tale, but it is something supernatural and exciting. Talk to the people who’ve been in it for a long time — 30, 40, 50 years with one person — and they’ll say everything I’m saying, only with much more authority and even deeper conviction.

Life is change. People are change. I’m seeing this play out all around me. As I get older I drift further apart from some of the people I used to consider my closest confidants. But I let myself drift, and so do they, because circumstances also change, and what I’m realizing is that so many of my relationships were only ever circumstantial.

My relationship with my wife, however, transcends the circumstance. If we feel ourselves drift, we reach out our hands and grasp tightly, because I choose to remain at her side, and she at mine. And if I ever look over to find that we’ve somehow lost sight of each other — both now walking alone and lost in that cold night — I will grab a torch and search for her until I find her again. She is my mission, my life’s work, and I’d sooner give up my life than give up on her.

This is all easy to write and easy to say, but, I realize, harder to do. That’s why those of us out here in the thick of it could always use guidance and inspiration, not defeatism and wimpy cynicism. For my part, I will ignore the people like the guy at the grocery store and the ingrates who throw divorce parties, and instead focus on my parents, who’ve been married through thirty years, six kids, and eleven grandchildren. And Alissa’s grandfather, who very recently lost his wife after over 60 years of marriage.

He can’t speak hardly at all these days — mostly the result of multiple strokes — but I was there in his living room when he turned to the person next to him and tearfully said, “partner.”

“She was my partner.”

And she was. A great partner, from everything I’ve heard. Feisty and tough, loyal and loving.

That’s what I want.

One day, hopefully when we’re very old, one of us will die first — the smart money is on me (family history combined with my unhealthy affinity for bacon and red meat). Whoever is living, while stricken with grief and sadness, will be able to look back on a life of sacrifice, and compromise, and joy, and worry, and happiness, and tears, and passion, and love, and simply say, “partner.”

“We were partners.”

I choose that end.

I don’t know when it will happen, or what awaits us in the meantime, but that will be our ending.

I choose it over looking back five years from now and saying, “she was my partner — but then she changed, so never mind.”

So we wake up every morning, sort of the same, but sort of new. We look at each other, we introduce ourselves again, and we choose to love who we see.

We choose to love. And that’s the only thing that will never change.

-Matt Walsh, http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/05/29/wife-person-married/2/

My Wife Is Not the Same Woman That I Married – Part 1

by Matt Walsh

“A reader emailed me last night saying she was recently invited to her friend’s ‘divorce party.’ She wanted my opinion on the new trend.

Divorce party: a celebration of a broken vow. “Hooray! We quit on ourselves and each other! Now let’s dance!

I’d heard of these things before, but I almost hesitated to believe the emailer’s story. I know this sort of nonsense might exist amongst the ‘consciously uncoupled’ types in Hollywood, but I refuse to accept it among normal Americans.

This is wishful thinking, of course. I’m well aware that many normal Americans are just as sad and pretentious as Hollywood elites, only missing the money and fame that’s supposed to come in the package.

So I sat down, wrote a few paragraphs, and resolved to finish it today.

Then, this morning at the grocery store I ran into a guy who reads my blog. We got to talking. After an exchange of pleasantries, the conversation veered into less pleasant territory:

Guy: So, what topic are you working on next?

Me: Well, I got this email about divorce parties, so I think I’m going to write about that.

Guy: OK, what about them?

Me: Well, just that it demonstrates this cavalier, celebratory attitude towards divorce. I think it’s really harmful, and it only perpetuates the problem.

Guy: You’ve been married for… what… a year?

Me: Going on three.

Guy: Going on three. Alright, take it from a guy who’s been married to his current wife for eleven, and went through two divorces before that: you never know what will happen. Nobody plans on getting divorced, but it happens. People can change. Some day you might wake up and find that your wife isn’t the same person you married. It happens. I never thought I’d get divorced, but it happened twice. You never know. Nothing is permanent; people sometimes change.

Me: Yeah. I don’t know much about the future, but I know I’ll be with my wife until one of us dies. Everyone makes their own choices, but that’s ours.

Guy: [laughs] I said the same thing at your age. You think of divorce as this scary thing, but sometimes it’s the only way to be happy. You shouldn’t stay in a marriage if you’re miserable. Things change. You wake up and suddenly she’s not the same person you married. It happens. Trust me.

Me: But that’s not a reason to get divorced, in my opinion.

Guy: I know. But check back in ten years [laughs].

Me: In ten years I’ll be either dead or celebrating my thirteenth wedding anniversary. Who knows, maybe you’ll be celebrating your fourth first wedding anniversary.

That was basically the end of our friendly exchange.

I left angry.

This. This right here. This illustrates the worst thing about our culture. I’m not talking simply about his views on divorce; I’m talking about this bizarre bit of Divorce Evangelism.

This is what we do in our culture. Not just with divorce, but with so many other brands of bad decisions. We first justify them, then we advertise and sell them, then we celebrate them, then we insist that everyone else celebrate along with us. In the case of divorce, it is now a literal celebration. With balloons and invitations and cake.

But, for some reason, when I hear about divorce I don’t feel like popping the champagne bottle or sprinkling the confetti.

Is that because I’m “too young to understand”?

I don’t think so. Look, I know I’m not a marriage expert. I know I’m not in any position to dole out advice — though I’m probably better suited than a guy who has been married three times and still refers to divorce as something that “happens to you,” as if it falls out of the sky like a space rock from the Divorce Belt.

I know that we are young and relatively naïve. Still, we’ve been through a few things together. We’ve been married for almost three years. We’ve had two kids. We’ve moved twice. We’ve driven across Maryland, West Virginia, and Kentucky with two screaming babies — five times. We’ve worried about money. We’ve struggled to pay the bills. We’ve had our laughs, our joys, our fights, our failures, our triumphs. We’ve weathered our share of storms. We’ve dealt with family drama. We’ve had a flooded house. We’ve had two kids sick in the emergency room. We’ve been angry, we’ve been happy, we’ve been tired. We’ve made mistakes. We’ve come to understandings. We’ve failed to come to understandings. We’ve been on Cloud Nine and we’ve been at our wit’s end. We’ve cried. We’ve lost. We’ve won.

We’re still young and we’re still growing, and our experiences might very well pale in comparison to yours, but I have learned at least one thing from all of this: that guy was right — my wife isn’t the same person that I married. When I met her she was a 22-year-old college student. Now she’s a 27-year-old mother of two. Sure she still has the same DNA, the same biological identity, and she’s still the kind of girl who can appreciate a good beer and a fart joke. But she’s not the same. That’s because I married a human being, not a mannequin. I said my vows to a person, not a computer program.

“People sometimes change,” says the wise sage.

No, people always change. They never stop changing. Life is change. Everything is moving, everything is transforming. Everything is changing, all of the time. Life is more of a river than a stagnant, mosquito-infested puddle.

(Dear Lord, look at what this guy has done. He’s got me so worked up that I’m speaking in country-pop lyrics. “Life is a river.” God help me.)

The fact is that you can leave the room for ten seconds, come back, and everything will be slightly different. That’s true of the furniture, the curtains, the carpet, and yes, the people. Especially the people.

Divorcing someone because they change? You might as well divorce them because they breathe.

I’m not making light of it. I know that sometimes people change in a painful and inconvenient manner. I know that my wife could change in ways that don’t cooperate with my projections of how she should be and feel and think.

I guess that’s what people really mean when they say they want a divorce because their spouse “changed.” It’s not change itself they oppose, but changes that challenge them and make them uncomfortable. What they should say is: “I want a divorce because she changed in a way that doesn’t fit inside my comfort zone.”

It’s hard, I know. Every day I’m relearning this one basic truth: my wife has her own brain, her own feelings, her own soul. We are linked now through the bond of matrimony, but she is still her and I am still me. She is a force, a hurricane, a wildfire. She is not a puppet dancing on a string. She is a self — her own self — powerful and mysterious.

Sometimes she laughs at things that used to make her angry, and gets angry at things that used to make her laugh. Sometimes I can read her like a book, but sometimes she wears an expression I’ve never seen. Sometimes she smiles like the world is telling a joke that only she understands.

I’m learning her, and I’ll never finish studying her book because she’s always adding new pages.”

-Matt Walsh, http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/05/29/wife-person-married/