Rules For Radicals

So, I commented over at American Thinker; Selwyn had a post on Obama, Dobson and abortion that I just couldn’t resist. I wrote ‘You folks are all clear-thinking fans of Selwyn so I’m certain you will have some interesting answers to this question-What should be the penalty for having an abortion? What legal punishments should be required of the person who performs such a procedure and what of the woman who recieves one?’

Several Antichoicers said that the doctors and women should die, though one woman qualified that juvenilles shouldn’t face the death penalty for having an abortion. I found that rather progressive of her. A poster named James responded to the questions by referring to Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. I didn’t initially realize that he was accusing me of employing them as upon reading them they made sense to me as a blueprint for how the Antichoice movement operates. It was quite ironic.

The Antichoice viewpoint is not a rational one. It’s adherents cannot distinguish between reality and their own wishful thinking. They believe that Abstinence Only programs are actually effective when the facts on the ground point to the clear conclusion that these programs only make it more likely that a teen will engage in risky impulsive sex without contraception. When you push Antichoice activists on the idea that contraceptives and non-moralistic sex education programs are the best tools we have to prevent the unwanted pregnancies that lead to abortion there is a cracking sound as they become unhinged and you discover that their opposition to abortion comes from something much darker than their unlimited love for the unborn. It is the sexuality and freedom of women they hate with a passion uncontested; the idea of a woman unsubmissive to their tradition of patriarichal dominance fills them with disgust and blind unreasoning rage.

There’s something else, too. Have you ever wondered why men like Cheney, Rove and Scalia are so concerned with all the little fetuses in the bellies of poor women across our nation? One of the commenters over there hit on it when he was describing the emminently rational intellectuals of the Antichoice movement: ‘Often their opponents can do nothing more but scream something about Roe v Wade and that abortion is a consitutional right. Talk about a document that says nothing of the sort. Not to mention that Roe v Wade is based on deeply flawed consitutional logic.’ That ‘deeply flawed constitutional logic’ he is referring to is the Right to Privacy.

The Supreme Court determined that a Right to Privacy exists based on a reading of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments, which, combined with the Ninth Amendment which states that there are rights that are not enumerated in the Constitution that the People still retain (in other words, the Founding Fathers were saying that just because they didn’t think to include it, a right could still be held.) creates very strong support for their decision. What this means is that to undo Roe V Wade one would have to undo the Right to Privacy and all of the decisions that preceded that final one. Roe V Wade was the final case that sealed the argument that had been building for decades; the right for a person to not have their mail searched for vibrators and for married couples to use contraception all were part of this series of cases. In the same way the Loving Decision was an affirmation of the Fourteenth Amendment, Roe v Wade affirms that a Right to Privacy exists. If a woman’s womb is not private, than what is? For men who think that the Antichoice efforts do not apply to them, this is the issue that should get their attention.   

What is most striking is the lack of Biblical support for the Antichoice argument. One of the posters was lecturing me that ‘Thou Shall Not Kill’ even as she advocated the death penalty for those who have abortions.  ‘Thou Shall Not Kill’ is from Exodus 20. There are several chapters immediately after the Ten Commandments are given that are the specific laws explaining the Commandments in terms of what is murder, etc.
Exodus 21:22-25 reads “If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she has a miscarriage but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.” This means that according to the law as set down by God as part of the Ten Commandments that causing a woman to miscarry against her will is not murder; so how could an abortion she consents to possibly be a murder? This is not some obscure passage about hygenic law but rather God’s law delivered to the people of Israel-should we subvert the Constitution for Biblical law as some people suggest, the case for legal abortion would be even stronger than it is now. But then, logic and law isn’t something that fanatics pay much attention to.

My own parents were in high school when I was conceived. They chose not to abort me and instead married when they were 18. They just celebrated their 38th anniversary and take delight in their three sons and two grandsons. I don’t believe their lives would have been better if they aborted me, but I wouldn’t know if they had. Abortion at that time wasn’t legal and while my mom was six months pregnant with me one of her friends died trying to abort her baby. She bled to death alone in a dirty room. When society removes people’s options they do desperate things. When I read Alinsky’s rule # 11, “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem.‘ it struck me as an apt description of how the Antichoice movement operates. They wish to undo progress and remove people’s options without any thought as to how the consequences will play out.

2 Responses to “Rules For Radicals”

  1. Anti-choicers are not irrational. Pro-Choicers are murderers. Plain and simple. You are a baby killer, or, you support people who are. May God have mercy on your soul.

    • Albert-
      What a rational argument you have made.
      Let’s follow it.
      So, if you think that I am a baby killer and that people like me are baby killers, how dare you let us walk around killing babies? What the hell is wrong with you, you uncaring, amoral monster? How can you be so weak and self-involved that you allow people like me to pile up heaps of baby corpses at the end of our driveways every week for the garbageman while you just sit there and pray for our souls and occasionally weakly point out that we are baby killers? What happened to your balls?

      Either you really believe what you wrote here, which means that if you don’t immediately start assassinating people like me and women who get abortions you are as craven a coward that has ever walked the Earth, or you don’t really believe what you wrote and are simply using hyperbole on teh internets which makes you a silly little man.
      So which is it? Are you a coward or are you just a big silly willy?
      Let me know.
      Either way, thank you for your thoughtful contribution to the discussion; it certainly was an enlightening observation that will lead everyone to consider the issues at hand more carefully.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: