Christians Say the Darnedest Things: “Real” Women Marched in Right to Life March by Matt Walsh

matt walshFirst, there won’t be nearly as many news cameras.

Second, there won’t be any vagina costumes or vagina signs or vagina hats. There won’t be any reproductive organs on display at all, except perhaps by the counter protesters. The participants will be putting their message — not their genitals — forward.

Third, the speakers won’t be going on any vulgar or profane tirades. The march will be family friendly.

Fourth, there won’t be any discussion of blowing up the White House.

Fifth, the marchers will not be demanding any special entitlements. They will not be looking for free birth control, or free tampons, or free anything. They will not be making any personal demands, because this march is not about them. The people who make their voices heard today do so not for their own sake. They do so for the sake of those who cannot speak for themselves.

The march participants stand to gain nothing from this. Their motivations cannot be selfish because their demands are not self-serving. Every single person — hundreds of thousands of them — will be marching in the place of someone else. The march last week, and so many others of its type, have been made up mostly of people saying, “Do such and such for me. Give me something. Help me. Me. Me. Me.” But the March For Life is different. The March For Life says, “Do this for them. Give them a chance. Give them their rights. Help them. Them. Them. Them.”

And the “them,” of course, are pre-born children. Whereas the people at the so-called Women’s March said, “Forget them, let them die,” we at the March For Life say, “Remember them, let them live.” These are the two competing points of view. Here is the great dividing line in our culture. The question is asked and must be answered: “Should these children be given a chance to live or not?” How you answer that question will determine on which side of the line you belong.

Our culture has answered with a cruel and callous “no” for the past 40 years. The so-called Women’s March echoed that answer. The feminist movement, liberalism, the media, the Democratic Party, academia — all of these powerful forces join together in shouting “no.” No, give them no chance. Give them nothing. Take everything from them. Take their dignity. Take their rights. Take their lives. And when they are dead, take some more. Take their limbs, their livers, their brains, their hearts, carve them up and make use of the pieces. Take it all. They are nothing to us. They are insects. They are lower than insects because we would sooner acknowledge the life of an insect than the life of this “clump of cells.” They are dirt. Let them die, then. Pick apart their carcasses and throw the rest in the dumpster. This is the answer the pro-aborts shout proudly from the rooftops.

Well, today in Washington DC a great many people will gather to deliver a different answer.

— Matt Walsh, The Matt Walsh Blog, Today is the Real Women’s — and Men’s — March, January 27, 2017

print

Subscribe to the Daily Post Digest!

Sign up now and receive an email every day containing the new posts for that day.

I agree to have my personal information transfered to MailChimp ( more information )

I will never give away, trade or sell your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Powered by Optin Forms

9 Comments

  1. Brian

    Matt Walsh does not need to say anything original. He simply pushes the fundy buttons of outrage and victimization. Those who reject the hatred called Christianity love insects more than people. (Get it? People who support women are addled.) Christians are about to be tortured and killed by non-believers. Non-believers don’t just want to disagree, they want to harm dear Christians who have given their lives to serve dear Jesus whose dear blood was shed for ALL.
    His message is the emotional plea that ignores Science and the individual’s right to be free. A clump of cells was never a person. Ask the all-knowing Gawd! It knew you before you were an idea! Those it forgot it did so to abort the very idea of them before they became a twinkle in somebody’s eye.
    So many men all up in arms about women’s lives. So many male protestors reacting to women wanting to speak in whatever voice they choose. So many dick-dumb statements:
    Hey Matt! There were not so many cameras because there were so few people in comparison. It wasn’t the demons hiding the equipment.
    Second, the marchers will not dress up using free ideas, using vaginas or whatever to say in symbol what needs saying. Your marchers are not allowed to dress up with ideas of their own. They must carry a Cross, deny the self while you praise them for it…they have one choice. In the other march, many choices were represented. Christians not so addled were there too, Matt, marching for freedom for all.
    Third, that you suggest suppression and shame is ‘family friendly’ is quite typical of believers like you, Matt. Family Friendly means conforming to rigid rules set down by misogynists? No swearing? Is that it? No free expression. The reality of your term, family friendly, is really ‘freedom-hating’. March lock-step, Matt. Left, right, left right black and white black and white.
    Fourth, It is not a crime to express hurt and rage. When a person is harmed, they react in their emotions. Only in a North Korea must they turn all emotions to joy in praise of the One, Matt. This is America. We value expression, free expression. You hate freedom and would harm those who insist on being rude because they feel something important to them and are in some pain.
    Fifth, to say that your marchers want nothing is really really funny… And to use tampons! The point about tampons, you dim light, is simply that they are taxed and cost too much. The point is in comparison. Your misogyny is leaking out, Matt. And when you say that these marchers of yours will not be making any personal demands, you are simply lying. What you mean is that their personal lives have been suppressed and they will seeking what they are told to seek, the Gawd-truth or whatever as opposed to their own personal wishes. This is called the march of denial, Matt, personal denial. Hate your evil self and seek Jesus. It is quite sick, Matt. Your question, Should children be allowed to live or not, is sick, Matt. Of course they shouldn’t, you blurbette. All children should be murdered. (What the fuck is wrong with you people!)

    Reply
  2. Lynn 123

    The extremes on both sides turn me off. Let them have their fun hurling invective at each other. What does it all accomplish?

    Reply
    1. Bruce Gerencser (Post author)

      As long as pro-lifers start every discussion with “Abortion is murder and those who support it are murderers”, there is no hope of finding common ground. Pro-lifers want to outlaw ALL abortion, so where’s the space for compromise or coming to a common agreement on how to reduce abortion rates?

      Reply
      1. Lynn 123

        I agree there’s no common ground between the extremists on both sides. I guess the only hope is that there are lots of people somewhere in the middle, so maybe we’ll end up with laws somewhere in the middle. And maybe various approaches will be used to reduce abortion rates. I never hear much passion re reducing abortion rates; but I don’t follow the subject closely.

        Reply
        1. Bruce Gerencser (Post author)

          You missed what I am saying. It is Pro-lifers who are, for the most part, the problem. They refuse to budge an inch, going so far as to demand constitutional protection from blobs of cells. I know plenty of pro-choice people who are willing to work with pro-lifers to reduce the need for abortion. Of course, reducing the need means ready access to birth control, sex education, and morning after drugs. And guess who adamantly opposes all three? Pro-lifers.

          Reply
          1. Lynn 123

            I’m thinking of extremists as those opposed to birth control and any abortion at all vs. those who want abortion available til birth.

            I think “how to reduce abortions” is a separate issue.

  3. Scott

    The “pro-lifer’s” are also anti-birth control and against comprehensive sex education. They are way more interested shaming women for having sex, than in accepting sexuality as a normal part of being human. They are also way more interested in kids when they are in utero than when born, as seen as the way they treat schools, child cares and women who work with young kids.

    I’ll show an interest in compromise when they stop the attacks on Planned Parenthood, contraception and sex education. Until then, we need to stay at “red alert”.

    Reply
    1. Lynn 123

      Well, it sounds like nobody’s planning on compromising, so either one extreme or the other will win or there will be a mixture. (lol-I’m famous for stating the obvious.)

      Reply
  4. Suzanne

    Tattoos and booze? Walsh is dicing with the devil I tells you! LOL

    Reply

Leave a Comment

You have to agree to the comment policy.