Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors

How We Should Answer the “Coat Hanger” Abortion Threat

News Division

An actress and Democratic gubernatorial candidate, Cynthia Nixon, holding a coat-hanger while talking about her mother getting an abortion in the 1960s.

Like toddlers threatening to hold their breath if they don’t get their way, pro-abortionists are again using the decades-old, “If abortion is outlawed, women are going to get ‘coat hanger abortions'” argument. How do we respond?

The threat is simple: If abortion is criminalized, women will resort to having illegal, ‘back alley’ abortions in which they must use less-than-sterile, less-safe ways to collapse their baby’s skulls. So then, to keep homicidal women safe during their murder-procedures, we need to make in-womb infanticide legal.


Often called a ‘self-induced abortion,’ there are numerous home procedures one can undergo to fatally stab, puncture, crush, or poison their babies from the inside. Different cultures have used different methods to kill their kids in utero.

Some infanticidal moms consume mutton marrow, carrot seed soup, or papaya seeds (whether or not these methods work is medically unproven). Others go straight for blunt-force trauma, bellyflopping onto a hard surface, throwing themselves down flights of stairs, douching with turpentine, or intentionally undergoing hypothermia.

But the most notorious of way to achieve a self-induced abortion is the infamous ‘coat hanger’ method, in which a steel wire is inserted into the uterus through the cervix and used to bludgeon the baby. Needless to say, these methods all leave the mothers scarred, poisoned, or wounded, but leave their babies dead.


To answer the question, we need only apply the logic to killing abortion doctors (which for the record, we are against, unless it’s after abortion is criminalized and they’ve been legally found guilty in a court of law).

Let’s say, hypothetically, we were advocating for the assassination of abortion doctors, and we present our argument that assassinating abortion doctors ought to be safe, legal, and rare. While we personally would not assassinate abortion doctors, and that’s not a decision we would make, we don’t want to tell anyone what they can or cannot do with their body.

And so, goes our logic, there should be a safe place where you can take an abortion doctor and in a sanitary environment, collapse his skull and rip apart his limbs. This is a far better alternative, some would contend, than assassinating abortion doctors in back alleys. This is a far better alternative to risking our own personal safety by struggling with their assassination, using our own two hands. Something, after all, might go wrong unless it was in a controlled environment.

Therefore, in our hypothetical argument, assassinating abortion doctors should be legal because if not, we’re going to assassinate abortion doctors anyway. But if it’s not legal, those who exercise their choice to assassinate abortion doctors will be putting their own lives and health in jeopardy to take the life of the abortion doctor.


Surely at this point, any honest person would admit that we shouldn’t make it easier or safer for someone to kill someone else. Instead, a right-minded person would argue, we should make it as hard and as dangerous as possible to murder someone else.

There is no other absolute moral wrong in which we seriously argue that it’s our responsibility to make it safer to do because some will do it anyway.

Here’s a newsflash: If you murder someone, you deserve to die. I’ll go one step further. If you murder someone, you should die (assuming murder is criminalized and you have been found guilty in a court of law, with the penalty carried out by the state).

So if a mother is bound and determined to kill her baby no matter what, I would prefer she do it in the most dangerous, least-safe environment possible. I would say the same for rapists; if they’re going to rape women anyway, I would prefer they do it in the most dangerous, least-safe environment possible. I don’t want sanitized and “safe” rape-centers for men who are going to rape women no matter what. I want rape criminalized, and if they are going to rape anyway, I hope they try it in a place with concealed carry.

So when a wicked and evil woman says, “If you don’t let me legally kill my baby, I’m going to do it in a way that might hurt myself” we should all respond, “Well, then you get what you deserve.”

“But, we might hurt ourselves,” they could respond.

Okay. What do you want us to say?

“Please, kill your baby in the safest way possible.”

No, the best way to answer the ‘coat-hanger’ abortion argument is to listen to their arguments about how their decision to illegally murder their unborn child might affect their health, look them in the eye with total moral clarity, and say…good.

[Publisher’s Note: Don’t assassinate abortion doctors. Or babies.]