Matt Cassady: The Right To Kill Your Equal

We all enter the world through a woman and (spoiler alert) everyone dies.

Regardless how you exit this world (natural causes or freak accident) no human being’s immortal. We’re all here today and gone tomorrow.


Aside from various man-created hierarchies, are there any universal categories to determine who’s greatest amongst us? 

Today, people judge others on:

• What family they come from?
• Their level of attractiveness?
• What occupation they have?
• How financially stable they are?

All these categories are based on one person’s opinion over another’s. Yet, they’re all shallow reasons and, in the end, everyone’s time runs out. 

How are Value and Worth Determined for Human Beings?

Considering how fragile life is, it’s almost comical how one human being believes they have the right to determine the value of another fellow human on genetics alone.

If everyone comes into the world through a woman, and eventually dies, how can any human lay claim to be superior over another? No one’s immortal. Everyone’s life expectancy is around 80 – 100 years. Therefore, the only way anyone can claim dominance over another is through complete ignorance.

Like members of the Klu Klux Klan (KKK).

Each member of the white supremacy group arrived into the world through a woman and eventually will die, exactly like the very people they hate. Therefore, only through complete ignorance handed down from generation to generation would members of the KKK believe they’re superior over anyone.

Adolf Hitler believed the Arian race was superior to any other. Yet,  the 1936 Olympics and World War II revealed the Arian race wasn’t, in fact, the most superior race. A reality Hitler came to terms with moments before taking his own life. 

It poses the question, “How could white supremacy groups or the Nazi’s believe their lives were more valuable than those they oppressed?” 

What Technology Can’t Confirm

With the latest advancements in medical technology, we’re able to see a child inside the womb. Technology can identify many physical traits of a child before they come into the world.


Yet, what technology cannot determine is the value and worth of a child.

Currently, no machine exists which can identify a child’s real potential to either be a benefit or burden on society.

Studies confirm the majority of abortions are single moms who prefer a future without the inconvenience of a child. Which begs the question, “What’s so important in a woman’s life who elects to have their baby’s life end?”


What’s so important in the mother’s future which warrants all distractions be eliminated?

Will her important plans have a long term effect on society – even after she passes away? Is she working on a cure for cancer? Will she be able to figure out how to repair the ozone layer? Or, is her decision self-serving?


False Narrative Claims Baby is Part of Mother

The “My Body My Choice” Delusion

And- REALITY CHECK – even if those scenarios were actually the case, guess what, she could have the child and still pursue her passion. 

What pro-choice supporters refer to as “justifications” are actually lame excuses to manipulate themselves into believing they’re doing some type of justice for the world, especially the most manipulating reason ever, “I just couldn’t bring that not wanting to bring the child into this world to save it from potential suffering.”

Can Value Be Determined Inside Woman’s Womb?

In determining if a life will be a benefit or a burden on society, some type of special characteristic or trait would need to be identified early on while a child was still in the womb, perhaps through an advanced ultrasound.

Ultrasounds which could zero in on certain character traits in determining the child’s overall benefit or threat.

At the present time, ultrasounds only determine we’re all the same, that we’re all, in fact, equal. Which means, to have an unborn fetus killed is to pretend you have the right to know they’ll be more of a burden on your life, and the false truth your life is so important than theirs.

As Americans, we’re granted the right to life, not the right for a convenient life. Our life is determined by the choices we make.

Who Should Die?

Those who murder don’t respect life. Therefore, they’re not worthy to keep theirs! Murderers choose to kill for their own personal reasons.


They’re people who kill their genetic equals.

If someone chooses not to respect the life of their genetic equal (i.e., serial killers) then it’s justified to have that person executed. Why? Because they infringe on another human being’s right to life.

During trials, there’s a point where family members and friends are allowed to share their pain with the killer. Generally, during those testimonies, those who speak try to humanize victims in an effort to shame and guilt killers.

Yet, when it comes to abortion, the goal is to dehumanize the infant in the womb. 

So, murdering outside the womb comes with consequences, yet if the child’s inside a womb, U.S. lawmakers and pro-choice supporters consider it to be a noble act.

The irony is, U.S. laws lock up or execute killers because they’re a threat to our society while providing women the legal right to kill their equals without repercussions. 


Matthew Cassady: False Narrative Claims Baby is Part of Mother

In August 1999, photographer Micheal Clancy was allowed to sit in on a spina bifida operation taking place at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee. 

The patient was a 21-week-old unborn child by the name of Samuel. 

Once the surgery was completed, surgeons were preparing to sew up the womb when, according to Clancy, something amazing took place.  

“Out of the corner of my eye I saw the uterus shake, but no one’s hands were near it. It was shaking from within. Suddenly, an entire arm thrust out of the opening, then pulled back until just a little hand was showing. The doctor reached over and lifted the hand, which reacted and squeezed the doctor’s finger. As if testing for strength, the doctor shook the tiny fist.” 


Clancy took the famous image, which has circled the globe, showing proof of development inside the womb. 

Four months after the surgery, Samuel was born. 

The event changed Clancy’s view on life forever. Before that day, Clancy considered himself an open-minded pro-choice supporter. Upon witnessing life in the womb, it became crystal clear to him, he wasn’t witnessing a clump of cells. 

Since that fateful day, Clancy has been a pro-life supporter ever since. 

Pro-choice supporters claim the baby is part of the mother. 

Meaning, removing a child from the mother’s womb is supposedly similar to removing a cancerous tumor or another body part (like tonsils). If this were true, it would mean the baby is an extension of a mother, just like an arm or leg. 

Yet, science confirms, in order to be considered part of a body the actual  PART would have to share similar genetic code as the rest of the body. Unfortunately, science dispels that notion as an infant’s body has its own DNA structure. 

How Can One Live and One Die? 

Why is it a mom may live yet – under different circumstances not related to abortion – a child dies? Or, how about a mom who dies but a child can still be delivered alive? 

How is this possible if both are simply part of the mom? If that was the case, when the mother or baby died, the other one would as well. 

This is proof they’re two separate individuals. 

In prenatal surgeries, an infant is left connected to the umbilical cord and given anesthesia as medical professionals (key phrase) have discovered the child can feel pain. If the child was nothing, it would have no feelings of pain, or the mother would likely feel the pain as well if it was, in fact, part of her. 

Plus, those same medical professionals refer to the child they’re operating on as a patient, which is why they create medical records in such cases. 


The “My Body! My Choice!” Delusion

Not Acceptable to Harm a Pre-Born yet Acceptable to Kill One

When a pregnant mother is murdered, her killer is charged with a double homicide. And, if a pregnant mother abuses drugs or drinks heavily while pregnant, she’s charged with child endangerment. 

Pregnant and Addicted.jpg

Yet, if she chooses to have an abortion which ends a child’s life, it’s OK. 

Odd how our society shames a mother who ENDANGERS her unborn child with drugs or alcohol but if she chooses to hire a doctor to murder her child, it’s perfectly legit. In fact, it’s likely she’ll be embraced by pro-choice advocates and considered courageous. 

Being Inside Something Doesn’t Make it Part of Something

When someone goes inside their house, they don’t become part of the house. When someone boards a plane, they’re not part of the plane. When a boat is placed in the water, it is not part of the water.

You get the idea. 

Founder and director of Eternal Perspective Ministries, Randy Alcorn who wrote, ‘Why Pro-Life? Caring for the unborn and their mothers’ summarized it perfectly stating, “Human beings shouldn’t be discriminated against because of their place of residence. The child’s nature doesn’t magically change in the twenty inches between the uterus and the birthing room.” 

Matthew Cassady: The “My Body My Choice” Delusion

Chanted at women’s rights marches, shouted during pro-choice rallies, and screeched in protest toward pro-life advocates is the epic 1970’s political anthem . . .

 “My body! My choice!” 

A popularized feminist slogan in support of a mother’s legal right to make life and death decisions of their unborn children. An alleged social issue which takes away one set of rights so another can choose to live free from parental responsibilities and maintain their free-from-adulting lifestyle. 


For decades, pro-choice advocates have successfully manipulated U.S. lawmakers, Supreme Court justices, along with average citizens into believing abortion is both necessary and a woman’s rights issue.

However, it’s much more complex than that.

Both arguments, purposely, set aside the gruesome details and injustices carried out against the unborn.

We’re no longer in the dark about what point life inside a mother is considered a child.

Latest advancements in medical technology have confirmed life does, in fact, begin at conception. Yet, pro-choice advocates continue to ignore facts, instead shifting this controversial issue into a false moral debate of who’s rights are more important. One thing’s for certain, it’s certainly not about equality. If it were about equality, abortion would be illegal. 

Ultra sound on woman's body.jpg

When comparing the context of, “My body! My choice!” to how abortion advocates apply it, the meaning isn’t really about freedom or choice. What may have initially begun as a movement for woman’s rights has gradually transitioned into a narcissistic preference to be free from consequences and responsibilities. 

It’s become very evident, the cry for freedom is nothing more than a wolf of false narratives disguised to appear as a sheep of women’s right’s causes.


Much of the pro-choice strategy requires distorting the TRUTH.  

It’s about denying the reality of what an abortion is and redefining constitutional rights. 

Why do pro-choice supporters become so irate when pro-life protesters display images of aborted fetuses? If pro-choice advocates are so convinced their position was valid, why do those photos generate such outrage? 

Photos of aborted fetuses are, agreeably, disturbing. 

When questioning an abortion advocate how they can consciously support such a disgusting practice, it’s actually hard for many of them to answer. It becomes a struggle to dispute strong visual evidence so, instead, they change topics from defending murder into a deceptive moral right’s issue. 

However, the real issue is not gruesome photos of dismembered fetuses, it’s the act which is responsible for it. 

Abortion activists prefer to remain in the dark regarding the outcome of an abortion. Because, seriously, who could look at those images and justify abortion? It’s easier to go through an abortion when you’re oblivious to the reality of it.

Because what abortion does to an unborn fetus is difficult for even the most coldhearted liberal to defend. 

The strategy behind pro-choice brainwashing is a mixture of dismissing sciencecreating alternate realities, and selective word choices.

Dismissing Science

Science is not a democracy.

Science is about facts. Conclusions and outcomes are not determined by how many are in support or opposed to an idea. The study of science consists of theories, hypotheses, and solid answers. Everyone knows theories and hypothesizes require research and experimentation to find conclusive answers. 

Determining when life began used to be a tougher debate. Before the advancement of medical technology, answers were unclear and opinions were based on personal perspectives and religious reasons. 

Yet today, science has confirmed life begins at conception.

Regardless, like children refusing to listen to reason, pro-choice advocates choose to cover their ears, close their eyes and sing out loud; holding on to out-dated arguments which have long been disproven. 

Advocates for abortion still claim the only thing which exists at conception is a lifeless clump of cells. However, the cells in question are living cells with separate DNA. Meaning, a living being is in the process of development at conception.


The “clump of cells” is a fictional tale or alternate reality used as a coping mechanism to reduce guilt and long-term regrets. 


False Narrative Claims Baby Is Part of Mother

The Right to Kill Your Equal

Create an Alternate Reality

Humans are naturally hardwired to internally validate bad decisions before and after they’re made. 

The greater impact a decision has on ourselves or someone else, the greater need to focus on the good while blurring out the bad. Therefore, well-crafted narratives are necessary for those who choose abortion to help reduce feelings of guilt, remorse and a possible lifetime of regret. 

When a woman consents to intercourse, she’s aware the only one who may get pregnant is her. And, no form of over-the-counter or medically prescribed birth control is 100% save. There’s always a chance pregnancy can happen even when various forms of protection are used. 

At the present time, legalized abortion allow women to be much more promiscuous.


In this day and age, it’s easier to throw caution to the wind knowing, for a small fee, if something should unexpectedly find its way into her uterus, she can have it removed and go on with her life. 

There are several selfish-justifying excuses liberals use to neutralize the severity of abortion. 

One is by playing the victim. Pretend to feel conflicted about the decision, then admit they’re just not adequately equipped to raise a child. The false-victim narrative is a way to feel validated as a result of being  . . . 

• Unprepared to take on parental responsibilities
• Financially unstable
• Less likely to finish school or get a decent job

Basically, the child’s considered to be an injustice on her. Yet, by exercising her ‘right to choose,’ she chooses to carry out an injustice to another living being. 

The other deceptive belief some women use is convincing themselves they’re doing the child a favor through a mercy killing; a ridiculous thought process where the mother not only believes she’s sparing the child from a lifetime of hardship but also – narcissistically – believes she’s noble for doing it. If that was true, we could all justify murdering anyone with that logic. 


There are also claims a child inside the womb is worthless.

Sadly, there are medical professionals who validate that claim (which proves even some medical professionals with PhD’s aren’t experts in ethics or morality).

With that line of reasoning, what criteria determines who has a purpose and who doesn’t? 

If children in the womb are considered to be meaningless, can we also consider any elderly individual in need of around-the-clock care to be meaningless? At that point in their life, they are no contributing to society necessarily. If euthanasia was a legal practice, we could save taxpayer dollars used to support those in nursing homes and hospice facilities. 

Why don’t we just do that? Because it’s inhumane, just like abortion. 

Selective Word Choices

Words like ‘murder’ and ‘kill’ are considered insensitive by liberal orthodoxy.

Instead, more appealing terms like ‘abort’ and ‘terminate’ are preferred. Word choices which sound less convicting. 

You can terminate a program. You can terminate an employee. You can abort a mission. You can abort a computer program. So, what do ‘abort’ and ‘terminate’ really have to do with sucking a human being into a vacuum or tearing it apart with surgical instruments? 


Pro-choice is a term abortion advocates associate to ‘freedom’ and ‘rights’. 

However, ironically, the phrase has been used throughout history to support many injustices. 

Before slavery was abolished in 1865, pro-choice slavery implied a white man had the RIGHT to buy and sell slaves. It meant slave-owners should have the FREEDOM to own other human beings with no restrictions by the government (part of what set off the American Civil War).

Today, there’s no argument, African American human rights were violated.

A portion of abortion pro-choice supporters try to politically ride the fence, claiming, “I, personally, would not have an abortion, however, I’d support a woman’s right to choose.” A claim used to invoke a sense of moral high-ground, an attempt to seek acceptance on both sides of the debate.

Yet, what pro-choice supporters don’t understand, they’re either pro- or anti-abortion; they can’t be both. If you’re pro-choice, you’re pro-abortion.Or, if you claim, “I’d never do it myself” you’re actually against it. 

Consider this, imagine an older gentleman claiming he was pro-choice when it came to rape.

He states, “I’d never rape someone myself yet I support the choice for another human being to rape another.” Would anyone – in their right mind – consider his position to be noble? Even after stating he wouldn’t do it himself? Not likely. The issue isn’t the fact he wouldn’t rape anyone, the issue is the absurdity he would even support rape. Therefore, knowing he supports rapists, it could be assumed he also would do it if he thought he could get away wth it.

Similar to slavery and rape, abortion is a violation of human rights. It’s about one human infringing on another’s rights for selfish gain.


Although liberals believe denying an abortion is an infringement on their rights, they overlook the fact it’s not a mother’s body which gets torn apart and disposed. Someone dies during an abortion procedure, and it’s not them. 

It’s an act which doesn’t take the real victim’s human rights into consideration. 


So far, we know abortion activists reject scientific evidence. 

To accept life begins at conception would discredit (which it does) what the pro-choice movement, supposedly, stands for which they claim is freedom. 

However, as abortion advocates protest for the freedom to choose, the freedom they’re adamant about retaining is not only the right to legally end a child’s life, it’s more about WHY they want to end their child’s life. The real freedom they desire is the freedom from responsibilities. 

Again, we’re in an age where women can be more promiscuous, with an available out if they should get pregnant. 

Plus, with numerous false and self-serving narratives to neutralize the severity of abortion, more women today are feeling less and less guilty or ashamed following an abortion. 

According to a study published by PLOS One, 95% of women they interviewed said they did not regret their decision. Hold on ! There’s an ‘however’. 

However, the study also revealed the majority who claimed they didn’t regret their decision surrounded themselves with a good support group. They gravitated toward people who helped them create a justifiable narrative to have an abortion.  


So, the question is, what would they’ve done if they had other people in their lives who supported a child’s right to life? What if pro-life supporters encouraged them to have their child and provided them the necessary physical and emotional support needed? 

This falls under the “It’s not what you know (abortion to be physically and morally wrong), but who you know (to help you justify it and feel content with a decision which takes a human life). 

The “My body! My choice!” delusion is unfortunately driven by a movement intent on defying responsibility and accountability for poor choices.

It’s a position which holds strongly to the denial of reality and false narratives. 

Abortion should NEVER be an option. There are government programs which may need to be reformed to better serve single mothers. Programs which offer better resources to single moms and struggling families up to a certain point they can support themselves and their families. 

Or, reform the adoption process to provide couples (who cannot have children) with a child if the biological mom feels unfit to raise a child. 

These options are, unquestionably, significantly moral and just compared to taking the life of an unborn child and creatively thinking of false narratives to justify the decision. 

Science Proves Life Begins At Conception

For centuries people from around the globe believed the sun revolved around the earth.

There were some scientists and astronomists who had a hunch that the earth revolved around the sun. Yet, without PROOF, that theory was considered delusional. It took about 18 centuries between the time the first person revealed the theory until it was proven as fact. 

Science is Factual

Science is about facts which dispel myths and opinions.

Science is not a democracy which allows opinions and different viewpoints to enter the equation.  Therefore, just because THE MAJORITY believes an idea is factual, science will prove or disprove it.

 Pro-choice Disregards Proof

The intense debates in support of abortion are opinion focused rather than fact based. 

Arguments centered around whether a woman should have the RIGHT to murder a child (I use the term murder as that’s the true nature of abortion. To say “abort” or “terminate” are pro-choice terminology phrases used to dilute the severity of abortion). 

Pro-choice supporters make the argument, “At conception, it’s nothing more than a CLUMP OF CELLS”. Yet, science confirms the so-called “clump of cells” are, in fact, LIVING! Therefore, science (which is not a democracy where majority rules) confirms a living being begins at conception.

Science vs. Feelings

Consider this, if scientists discovered the same “CLUMP OF CELLS” on a distant planet, you know what they’d say?

They’d likely scream, “We’ve discovered LIFE!”

Yet, pro-abortion advocates debate hard proof with their feelings and opinions. In fact, some I’ve debated admit, “Well, I don’t believe a clump of cells is a baby”. Even with the knowledge provided by medical professionals confirming cells at conception are ALIVE, the truth is instead diluted by opinions and well-crafted justifications to lessen the severity of abortion. 

Matthew Cassady: Women’s March Serves As Masquerade for Presidential Insults

Less than 24 hours following President Donald Trump’s inauguration as the 45th President, hundreds of thousands of women activists assembled throughout our nation, as well as around the world, in support of women’s rights.

Many demonstrators marched proudly, displaying their knitted pink stocking caps complete with cute kitten ears cleverly referred to as ‘Pussy Hats’. The caps became a symbol of outrage toward sexually explicit comments made by President Trump over a decade ago. In addition to the caps, other feminist marchers dressed up in vagina costumes to send a message to the president, “this pussy’s not for grabbing!”

Pussy Hats.jpg

While the majority of marchers wore respectable clothing, a small percentage of female demonstrators removed their shirts displaying their breasts with black tape covering their nipples.

Demonstrators arrived with picket signs protesting specific issues while others carried messages of hate toward the Trump Administration such as, “Not my president!”, “Love Trumps Hate!”, and “F-Trump!”.

The initial platform was to draw awareness to women’s issues yet many protesters who took part in the march came with different agendas geared toward other social causes which were neither gender-specific or fell under the women’s rights crusade.

Unclear Purpose

A pamphlet posted online listed the different causes demonstrators were marching for regarding women’s rights which included fair wages, reproductive options, freedom from sexual violence, and access to more affordable medical services and options.

However, other protestors voiced concerns over a multitude of other social issues including immigration reform, healthcare reform, environmental protection, police brutality, racial profiling, gay and transgender rights, freedom of religion, and illegal immigrant protection. Again, issues which were neither gender-specific nor categorized as women’s rights. 

Trump Labeling

If this protest was necessary, why didn’t take place during the Obama, Bush or Clinton Administrations?

There are no indications women’s rights in America are in jeopardy under the Trump Administration. The same issues women equality advocates marched against the weekend of January 21, were identical to those under the Obama Administration. It’s no secret, those who opposed the President used the audio leak of Trump’s crude comments about women, 11 years ago, as the basis for their march. Ironically, when asked questions about Bill Clinton’s sexual behavior and convictions during his presidency, it seemed to be a non-issue. Therefore, the march leaned more toward hatred of Trump than actual issues laid out in the event’s pamphlet.


Democratic congresswoman, Elizabeth Warren, stirred up fears with accusations the Trump Administration was preparing to carry out their attacks against women, immigrants, LBTG community, and religious groups.

In addition to Warren’s fear-based presentation, liberals have taken comments made by Trump, while he campaigned for the presidency, and continue to cast a shadow of false narratives which claim he’s a racist, homophobic, and xenophobic.

Considering Trump’s cabinet picks include women, different races, and a gay man, Trump doesn’t appear to fit the narratives his opponents have labeled him.

Was This About Equality or Creating a Narrative?

The key word repeated throughout the march was “EQUALITY”.

Equality for women.
Equality among races.
Equality for Muslims.
Equality for the LBTG communities.
Equality for immigrants.

Pop singer and Hollywood actress Madonna added her two cents at the rally, delivering a five-minute politically-fueled speech criticizing the President, revealing her deep desire to commit a terrorist act on the White House, however not forgetting to end it on a positive note encouraging attendees to always “choose love”.


The musical pop star claimed the march was “. . . the beginning of OUR story.” However, it wouldn’t be until the second day of protests as to who’s story Madonna was specifically referencing.

When pro-life activists arrived on the scene Sunday morning, it was abundantly clear the story Madonna referred to was inclusive to specific political ideologies. Ideologies which excluded certain groups from the EQUALITY the march was supposedly meant to represent.

During America Ferrera’s speech, the female actress explained the march was for, “. . . the moral core of this nation, against which our new president is waging a war.”

The irony, women came to march for their own “moral code” which supports the right to life movement, only to face harsh resistance toward their side of the abortion argument. Highly emotional pro-choice advocates surrounded the 50 pro-life supporters chatting, “My body my choice!” while blocking signs which said, “Abortion betrays women”. One pro-life advocate claimed she was spit on while another had her sign ripped to shreds.

A movement organized to empower ALL women to rise up and defend their freedoms apparently came with fine print, excusing the abuses and harassment of pro-choice supporters toward pro-life advocates. The march revealed the movement wasn’t so much about equality as it was about following a specifically crafted narrative.

What organizers overlooked was the fact reproductive rights are not owned by one specific group.


Pro-life advocates want to march for many similar causes such as more affordable medical options for pregnant women, required paid maternity leave, and the creation of more social programs to help single mothers or low-income families.

Yet, pro-choice advocates see the pro-life movement as a threat to their current freedom to choose abortion as a form of birth control. Therefore, in typical non-tolerant and hostile fashion, liberal opponents refuse to consider anything which contradicts the deceptive narratives they’ve worked hard to develop over the decades.


When Bill Clinton was caught lying about his affair with Monica Lewinski, he was impeached by the House of Representatives yet saved by the Senate.

He then went on national television and delivered his famous four-minute scripted national apology speech ending with, “So tonight, I ask you to turn away from the spectacle of the last seven months, to repair the fabric of national discourse, and turn our attentions to all the challenges, and all the promise of the next American century.”


Following Clinton’s television appearance, liberals were quick to forgive as Republicans demanded Clinton’s resignation. Liberals asked conservatives to ‘get over it’ and ‘move on’. Lectures from Democrats followed about the importance of moving forward and working together to repair the county; not rehashing Clinton’s wrongdoings with a young intern.

Ironically, one of the biggest reasons for the march was due to massive liberal outcry of Trump’s audio leak. Even though the recording took place 11 years ago, he apologized for it and clarified it was nothing more than ‘locker room talk’, those who oppose him are still less than forgiving and continue to rehash the comments.

When you consider the multitude of issues represented during the march, the consistent presidential-bashing speeches by celebrities and politicians, along with the timing of the event; the true nature of the protest is easily recognized. The so-called “Women’s Rights” movement was a masquerade for the real objective of creating a platform to insult the man who defeated their candidate for president.