Abortion: The Irrepressible Conflict
                                                                                                                  by Eric Rudolph
Copyright 2008, Eric R. Rudolph
All rights reserved.
Effective date of registration April 17, 2009
Registration number TXu 1-687-306


Introduction
      In Mother Jones Magazine D. Redman recounts her abortion experience.  Even though she’s usually circumspect in her sex life, Ms. Redman and her partner fail to use contraception.  It is soon after Roe v Wade, so after learning that she is pregnant the decision is now between her and a physician.  Her friend Judith begs her to carry the baby to term, so she can adopt him.  But Redman thinks only of the burden: “My time consumed by the tedious daily activities that I’ve done my best to avoid.  Three meals a day.  Unwashed laundry. . .”1   No, she has no time for maternal tedium.  She schedules a chemical abortion.
       After injecting the chemical solution into her uterus, the doctor tells Redman it should take only a little time to “end the growth of the fetal tissue.  By Sunday you won’t see on the monitor what we call a heartbeat.”2   Chemical abortions are experimental and she feels “almost heroic,” as if she’s blazing a trail to freedom for millions of women to come.
     Although she is told not to exert herself as the chemical goes to work, Redman remembers that she is supposed to participate in an upcoming Women’s Day march.  She’s determined not to miss the march, despite the risk.  As she is marching arm and arm with her sisters, the blood starts to come, staining her pants and running down her legs.  At first she is reluctant to continue marching.  But then remembering what the march is all about, she soldiers on, holding her “wound” for all to see as a reminder of the price of freedom.  Redman is filled with a sense triumph.  She exults, “Our bodies, our lives, our right to decide . . . .My life feels luxuriant with possibility.  For one precious moment, I believe that we have the power to dismantle this system.  I finish the march, borne along by the women. . . .”3
     In Ms. Redman’s mind her abortion was a rite of passage, something she had to endure in order to experience what it really meant to be a woman.  The triumphalist language is similar to a war story.  Her account reads like the narrative attached to a Purple Heart medal.  Her abortion is like a wound suffered while in service to some noble cause.  To anyone with an ounce of morality D. Redman’s abortion story is absolutely disgusting.  She expresses no ambivalence about her abortion; she has absolutely no sympathy whatsoever for the aborted child.  Instead, she exults.  You are probably thinking that D. Redman has been institutionalized somewhere.  Surely someone with such a warped value system is not walking the streets.
     Ms. D. Redman, however, is not a bizarre psychopath lurking in the shadows of society.  And Mother Jones is not an underground rag for the criminally insane.  Both are representatives of the egalitarian Establishment, and are now considered to be on the cutting edge of “progressive” thinking.  Persons such as Redman and the editors of Mother Jones dominate American culture today.  They make the movies, write the books, and control most of the universities.  To them Roe v Wade is just as significant a victory for women as Brown v Board of Education was for minorities.  They believe that abortion-on-demand is the greatest victory for women in the long struggle for freedom.  Nature presented women with a biology that constantly threatens to make them pregnant.  From the beginning of time men have taken advantage of this Achilles Heel to keep women in subjection.  Friendly divorce laws, welfare programs aimed at women, the right to vote-all helped women.  But until women achieved “reproduction freedom,” they were still competing on an uneven playing field.  Contraception and abortion finally gave women the tools needed to break the chains of patriarchal slavery and start leveling the field.
     This thinking is seen clearly in D. Redman’s article.  This is the philosophy behind the pro-abortion movement.  It is part of a larger egalitarian philosophy that now dominates the Western world.  No doubt the majority of Americans still can’t digest this pro-abortion argument.  To make their argument more palatable to the masses, egalitarians deny the personhood of the unborn child and rely on a libertarian defense of privacy.  But this is polemical camouflage.  The people who make this argument are collectivists, not libertarians.  After you read the writings of pro-choice ideologues like Judith Jarvis Thomson, Mary Ann Warren, Michael Tooley, and Naomi Wolf it is clear that to them abortion is about equality not privacy.  They are more than willing to recognize that the unborn child is a person.  In their minds, female equality is more important than the life of a child.  Since “women are unique in their ability to be burdened by pregnancy, giving men a distinct advantage in social and political advancement, women should have the right to abortion based on the constitutional principle that all people deserve equal protection under the law,” said Ruth Bader Ginsburg.4  Abortion allows women to level the playing field and the deaths of millions of unborn children are necessary to achieve equality between the sexes.
     Abortion once again shows egalitarianism at its logical extreme.  The ideology is so seductive, yet always so murderous.  Behind the high-sounding catch word “equality” is a mass grave.  In the past two hundred years, more people have lost their lives to this ideology than to any other political, idealogical or religious cause.  The Jacobins murdered hundreds of thousands of Frenchmen in the 1790s.  The Bolsheviks did in about 20 million people in Russia.  A true socialist, Mao Tse-tung thought that the bourgeois mentality was too ingrained in the Chinese people.  To overcome centuries of bourgeois brainwashing a state of perpetual revolution was instituted.  When he believed that the seeds of counterrevolution were taking root, it was time to “weed the socialist garden.”  Probably 30 million people were “weeded out” under Mao’s regime.  Pol Pot was a big fan of Mao.  Coming to power in 1975, he aimed to create an agrarian utopia in Cambodia.  Like Mao, Pot believed that capitalism was a city-based phenomenon.  If he could only get rid of all those city-dwellers in Phnom Penh, a socialist paradise was possible.  So he emptied the city, driving all the people into re-education camps, where they were to learn agrarian socialism.  Over 2 million people failed Pot’s exam, so they were clubbed or shot.  And since 1973, 50 million children have been sacrificed on the altar of progress in America.  All these massacres share the same motive-equality.  The only difference between Mao and Margaret Sanger is method.
     Fighting against the egalitarian juggernaut, conservatives in America have been on the defensive for the last seventy years.  Rooted in the Christian teaching against killing the innocent, and the traditional respect for motherhood, Western conservatives have consistently opposed abortion and infanticide. In morality and common law, before the twentieth century abortion was never tolerated in the West.   Laws against the practice date from the earliest time.  Until the early nineteenth century, however, there was little scientific knowledge about when life began in the womb, so laws against abortion were inadequate and often unenforceable.   Roe v Wade was not, as liberals now contend, a return to the laissez faire attitudes on abortion that supposedly existed before the anti-abortion statutes were enacted in the mid-nineteenth century.  On the contrary, Roe was one of the many social and political changes that followed in the wake of an egalitarian triumph that swept across the western world in the twentieth century.
     Egalitarians and conservatives offer principled arguments on the issue of abortion:  pro-abortion and pro-life.  Left out of this equation, however, is the average American.  In the debate over abortion he is generously called a “moderate,” as if to imply that he has weighed the arguments from both sides and finds merit in both.  Actually he is morally ambivalent.  He has no agenda, no convictions, no real opinions at all.  He is what Ortega y Gasset called mass-man.  Left to himself, he follows his appetite. On abortion his appetite is for it.  In public, he says he is against abortion; in private, he drives his wife, his girlfriend, his daughter to the back door of the local abortion mill.  Unlike the egalitarian, mass-man doesn’t care about equality; he simply wants sex without consequences.  The abortion clinic is his sexual vomitorium.  He wants to eat his fill of sex, and if pregnancy should occur, he wants the option of vomiting up the excess in order to avoid responsibility.  As long as the actual killing is kept at a distance, he couldn’t care less about the victims of his diet.  Mass-man is now the medium of power in the Western world.
     Even though mass-man is the wind that propels the ship of state today, minorities are still battling for control of the rudder.  Whether conservatives or egalitarians finally get control of the rudder will determine if the West sails safely to its destination or founders on the rocks of cultural oblivion.  Abortion is the issue that will decide who controls the ship once and for all.  No other issue is more heated.  No other issue has the potential to tear our country apart at the seams.  And that is why abortion is the most important issue of the age.
     On one side, conservatives are dedicated to preserving the nuclear family.  Conservatives believe childbirth is central to a  
women’s role in life.  For the most part they derive their values from the Christian ethic.  To these people abortion is murder.  On  
the other side, egalitarians see women as a historically oppressed group.  They believe the nuclear family has traditionally been  
used to repress women.  Egalitarians view childbirth as something secondary to the fulfillment of personal career goals. Their  
values are derived from the radical secularism of the Enlightenment.  To these people abortion is an essential human right.  At  
this level of the debate there can be no compromise.  Both of these world views cannot exist indefinitely under one system of  
laws; either one or the other must go.  More than any other issue abortion reveals the basic conflict between conservatives and  
egalitarians that centers on this question:  Is America an identity born of the Western Christian Culture, or is it a pile of culturally  
neutral abstractions derived from the Enlightenment?
       Like it or not, this question must be answered once and for all.  This is a struggle for the soul of the Western culture.  It’s a Cain and Able story.  Until the issue is resolved, we cannot go on together.  We cannot camouflage the issue by speaking of “bipartisanship”; we cannot “agree to disagree.”  We must decide once and for all whether abortion is a sacred human right, or whether it is rank murder.
Next  Chapter 1 History of Abortion
Table of Contents
Introduction
Chapter 1 History of Abortion
Chapter 2 Roe v. Wade
Chapter 3 The Debate
Chapter 4 Mass Man
Chapter 5 The Media
Chapter 6 Hour of Decision
Introduction References.
1. Mother Jones Magazine (Jan- Feb 1994)
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, “Some Thoughts on Autonomy and Equality in Relation to Roe v. Wade,” in
The  Abortion Controversy: Twenty-Five Years After Roe v. Wade,
(Belmont, CA, Wadsworth Publishing, 1998) Poijman and Beckwith, p.105



For Abortion: The Irrepressible Conflict in pdf for easy read or printable form, click here.