Ooh, look! I'm about to actually write a blog post ABOUT something!!
Several people I know read and subscribe to a blog written by a guy named Matt Walsh. I see his stuff re-posted to my facebook timeline semi-frequently and occasionally I'll click on the link and read his posts. Walsh is witty and humorous and at first I thought I liked him. And the thing is, I do like him. I just realized recently, that underneath the wit and good writing skills, the content is lacking somehow. Specifically, I'm disappointed with the way Walsh, a Christian guy writing about pop culture, parenting, gender roles, and miscellaneous other "hot topics" processes his thoughts.
I'll address just one example today, because it's the one that rankles me most. Below is a link to his piece about why abortion is like puppy-murder. Click and read through it if you want a more thorough run-down of the issues that are being brought up here.
I'll say right up front that the title of this blog post bothered me right away, but I slogged through, even though I'm pro-choice. I gave the thing a chance. But in the end, here's why it's a terrible and juvenile thing to compare abortion to puppy murder:
1. Who is really "murdering" puppies? This first point is incidental. I know very very very few people who murder puppies. Walsh first posted the picture above, a little of adorable yellow lab puppies, proceeded to relay a recent story from the media about a cop who shot a guy's dog 'for no reason,' and then compared that to mothers ending the lives of their unborn children. The cop who shot the dog was not engaging in "puppy murder." He was being rash and probably out of line, but not murdering a puppy. C'mon now.
2. Putting Fido "down." We ROUTINELY spay and neuter dogs so that puppies will not be born. Furthermore, when medical issues arise, we also routinely euthanize dogs. Both of these things, if you're going to carry the comparison to it's logical conclusion, is practically the same as "puppy murder," but Walsh doesn't go there.
3. Abortion isn't a casual, routine procedure. No woman in her right mind finds herself with an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy and jumps up and down in glee at the thought of going through with an abortion. No woman is exclaiming "yay, I get to end the life of my unborn child today!" And yet, the way people like Walsh describe these women, that's what you might assume.
Walsh claims it all boils down to a fundamental value of human life. But the truth is, we don't value human life at all. Just look around. Who values the quality of life of the mother who is already not able to make ends meet, is relying on welfare to get food on table, and has no emotional support system available to her? (by the way, the percentage of persons who fit this description, according the United States Census Bureau, has risen in the U.S to almost 14%). Once that kid is born, those who were most outspoken about "the value of human life at conception" turn heel and abandon both mother and child-- and not only that, but the same are often actively working in congress to limit what few resources states can provide to her and her child. But poverty is just one reason a person might consider getting an abortion. Instead of addressing the multitude of reasons women might have to consider ending a pregnancy, Walsh exercises his male privilege to speak for over half of the [less fortunate than himself] population, make gross generalizations, and boldly assert that "any" reason is irrational and illogical.
The bottom line, here, is this:
In all reality, we treat our dogs better than we treat our women and children in this country.
So it's a cute ploy (it's really not, though) but Matt Walsh needs to shove it. I don't care how you fell about the debate. The reasoning behind Walsh's post is silly and smug and doesn't cover the bases at all.
FIN.
*Your regularly scheduled posts about food and books and cleaning poop off of things can now resume.*
Several people I know read and subscribe to a blog written by a guy named Matt Walsh. I see his stuff re-posted to my facebook timeline semi-frequently and occasionally I'll click on the link and read his posts. Walsh is witty and humorous and at first I thought I liked him. And the thing is, I do like him. I just realized recently, that underneath the wit and good writing skills, the content is lacking somehow. Specifically, I'm disappointed with the way Walsh, a Christian guy writing about pop culture, parenting, gender roles, and miscellaneous other "hot topics" processes his thoughts.
I'll address just one example today, because it's the one that rankles me most. Below is a link to his piece about why abortion is like puppy-murder. Click and read through it if you want a more thorough run-down of the issues that are being brought up here.
I'll say right up front that the title of this blog post bothered me right away, but I slogged through, even though I'm pro-choice. I gave the thing a chance. But in the end, here's why it's a terrible and juvenile thing to compare abortion to puppy murder:
1. Who is really "murdering" puppies? This first point is incidental. I know very very very few people who murder puppies. Walsh first posted the picture above, a little of adorable yellow lab puppies, proceeded to relay a recent story from the media about a cop who shot a guy's dog 'for no reason,' and then compared that to mothers ending the lives of their unborn children. The cop who shot the dog was not engaging in "puppy murder." He was being rash and probably out of line, but not murdering a puppy. C'mon now.
2. Putting Fido "down." We ROUTINELY spay and neuter dogs so that puppies will not be born. Furthermore, when medical issues arise, we also routinely euthanize dogs. Both of these things, if you're going to carry the comparison to it's logical conclusion, is practically the same as "puppy murder," but Walsh doesn't go there.
3. Abortion isn't a casual, routine procedure. No woman in her right mind finds herself with an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy and jumps up and down in glee at the thought of going through with an abortion. No woman is exclaiming "yay, I get to end the life of my unborn child today!" And yet, the way people like Walsh describe these women, that's what you might assume.
Walsh claims it all boils down to a fundamental value of human life. But the truth is, we don't value human life at all. Just look around. Who values the quality of life of the mother who is already not able to make ends meet, is relying on welfare to get food on table, and has no emotional support system available to her? (by the way, the percentage of persons who fit this description, according the United States Census Bureau, has risen in the U.S to almost 14%). Once that kid is born, those who were most outspoken about "the value of human life at conception" turn heel and abandon both mother and child-- and not only that, but the same are often actively working in congress to limit what few resources states can provide to her and her child. But poverty is just one reason a person might consider getting an abortion. Instead of addressing the multitude of reasons women might have to consider ending a pregnancy, Walsh exercises his male privilege to speak for over half of the [less fortunate than himself] population, make gross generalizations, and boldly assert that "any" reason is irrational and illogical.
The bottom line, here, is this:
In all reality, we treat our dogs better than we treat our women and children in this country.
So it's a cute ploy (it's really not, though) but Matt Walsh needs to shove it. I don't care how you fell about the debate. The reasoning behind Walsh's post is silly and smug and doesn't cover the bases at all.
FIN.
*Your regularly scheduled posts about food and books and cleaning poop off of things can now resume.*
Walsh is interesting, but he's also sensationalist, which I dislike. His comparison of abortion to "puppy murder" is a stretch, and a poor one - agreed. But I agree very much with this statement:
ReplyDelete"If human life has an intrinsic value, then it must possess that value in all situations and through all stages, otherwise the value is not intrinsic — it is earned, acquired, and conditional."
Could he have handled this entire argument better? Absolutely. And it would perhaps be better coming from a woman, since he cannot actually ever experience this particular situation. But I agree with him, that circumstances, however tragic and compelling, do not negate the intrinsic value of human life, at any stage.
And on that note, I agree with you 100%, that our society is failing to value the lives of the "already born" among us, whose circumstances lead to the very question of abortion in the first place.