Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
| utsfl:classroom:seminars:pbp310h [2018/03/22 10:34] – balleyne | utsfl:classroom:seminars:pbp310h [2023/08/14 08:28] (current) – mmccann | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| What is incrementalism? | What is incrementalism? | ||
| - | * Clarke Forsythe, Politics for the Greater Good: The Case for Prudence in the Public Square((https:// | + | Let's start with a video from We Need a Law, discussing incremental initiatives, such as their International Standards |
| - | * Philosophy of Prudence: Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas | + | |
| - | * History of Social Reform: William Wilberforce, | + | |
| - | * " | + | |
| - | * Critique of Incrementalism | + | |
| - | * Legitimizes abortion | + | |
| - | * Provides political cover for those who want to attract pro-life voters while keeping | + | |
| - | * Defence of Incrementalism | + | |
| - | * Debate over incremental laws serve an educational purpose, e.g. partial birth abortion ban | + | |
| - | * Incremental laws keep abortion debate alive politically | + | |
| - | * Incremental laws have been effective at lowering abortion rates | + | |
| - | * Political prudence means seeking to achieve the maximum change possible at a given time | + | |
| - | First, we'll look at a debate between incrementalism and immediatism surrounding Abolish Human Abortion in the US, to help more clearly articulate our principles. Then, we'll turn to the Canadian debate over gestational limits and which kinds of incremental measures are acceptable to apply those principles. | + | {{youtube> |
| - | ===== AHA: Incrementalism vs. Immediatism ===== | + | Incrementalism is a political strategy to reach a goal through achieving success in small, discrete increments, rather than all at once. In this seminar, we'll discuss: |
| - | In the US, Abolition | + | * Incrementalism vs. Immediatism: |
| + | * Gestational Limits: Why some pro-lifers oppose this particular incremental measure, and how to respond | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | First, we'll look at a debate between incrementalism and immediatism that we can see from a movement of anti-abortion abolitionists, | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Abolitionism: Incrementalism vs. Immediatism ===== | ||
| + | There is a small but vocal movement of abolitionists, | ||
| + | |||
| + | e.g. | ||
| + | * [[http:// | ||
| + | * [[https:// | ||
| + | * [[https:// | ||
| + | * Some [[https:// | ||
| + | |||
| + | Abolitionists use the term [[http:// | ||
| + | * They oppose the secular approach of the educational arm (based on science and human rights), and argue that you must share the Gospel explicitly to fight abortion (rebuttal: [[https:// | ||
| + | * They oppose the pastoral arm for seeing the post-abortive as victims rather than seeking punishment and justice | ||
| + | * They oppose the political arm for incremental measures, and argue that the only moral response is to advocate for immediate abolition | ||
| + | |||
| + | They say: | ||
| + | * The term " | ||
| + | * Pro-lifers prefer gradual, | ||
| + | * You can be a secular pro-life; you cannot be a secular abolitionist | ||
| + | * Pro-lifers prefer common ground; abolitionists prefer to proclaim the Gospel | ||
| + | * The pro-life movement argues that we should focus on saving the babies. The abolitionist movement argues that we should focus on converting the culture. Abolitionists believe that saving souls holds the key to saving babies. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Today, our focus is specifically on // | ||
| - | * Abolish Human Abortion | ||
| - | * Debate exists in an American context, but responding to AHA helps to define and provide clarity to our moral beliefs and strategic practices | ||
| - | * [[http:// | ||
| - | * The term " | ||
| - | * Pro-lifers prefer gradual, over immediate, abolition | ||
| - | * You can be a secular pro-life; you cannot be a secular abolitionist | ||
| - | * Pro-lifers prefer common ground; abolitionists prefer to proclaim the Gospel | ||
| - | * The pro-life movement argues that we should focus on saving the babies. The abolitionist movement argues that we should focus on converting the culture. Abolitionists believe that saving souls holds the key to saving babies. | ||
| * T. Russell Hunter, AHA vs Gregg Cunningham, CBR (2015): https:// | * T. Russell Hunter, AHA vs Gregg Cunningham, CBR (2015): https:// | ||
| * The Tree: 54: | * The Tree: 54: | ||
| - | * Cunningham rebuttal: 1: | ||
| - | * T. Russell Hunter: | ||
| * If it's an injustice/ | * If it's an injustice/ | ||
| + | * Argues that supporting incremental laws is some how endorsing or condoning sin((Caleb VDW: Laws forbid things, what an incremental law forbids is evil, and well worth forbidding, forbidding one thing does not endorse any things not forbidden by that particular law | ||
| + | |||
| + | For example, if the law against murdering born persons were up for debate today, with the options of either A) continuing to forbid the murder of born persons, or B) not forbidding any murder whatsoever, the " | ||
| + | |||
| + | There is also no logical reason why this logic ought to be constrained to the specific injustice known as murder. So once you hold the " | ||
| * We must call the nation to repentence for national sin -- there is no talking about abortion in a way that it's not a spiritual issue, secular people need to hear about sin also | * We must call the nation to repentence for national sin -- there is no talking about abortion in a way that it's not a spiritual issue, secular people need to hear about sin also | ||
| - | * Misrepresents Wilberforce was an immediatist and opposed incrementalism (or at least repented of his support of incrementalism) | + | |
| - | | + | |
| * "We are moral absolutists, | * "We are moral absolutists, | ||
| * Strategy: how the ends will be achieved by the means | * Strategy: how the ends will be achieved by the means | ||
| Line 43: | Line 53: | ||
| * Totally against rape exception, "but I can count" -- knew he didn't have the votes to pass legislation without a rape exception, but that introducing a very narrow rape exception could default Planned Parenthood' | * Totally against rape exception, "but I can count" -- knew he didn't have the votes to pass legislation without a rape exception, but that introducing a very narrow rape exception could default Planned Parenthood' | ||
| * There' | * There' | ||
| + | * History of Social Reform | ||
| + | * Hunter misrepresents Wilberforce was an immediatist and opposed incrementalism (or at least repented of his support of incrementalism) | ||
| * Wilberforce: | * Wilberforce: | ||
| * He started fighting the slave trade, instead of slavery, because "he could count." | * He started fighting the slave trade, instead of slavery, because "he could count." | ||
| Line 53: | Line 65: | ||
| * Moral immediatist: | * Moral immediatist: | ||
| * Strategic incrementalist: | * Strategic incrementalist: | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[https:// | ||
| + | - First, it assumes that pro-lifers have the power to immediately end abortion but simply won’t((Caleb VDW: Incrementalism ad we hold it is often compared to the incrementalism after the American civil war. A major difference there is that the American slavery incrementalism argued that we ought to work in increments while immediately abolishing slavery was well within their reach (as evidenced by the fact that in the end slavery did, in fact, end immediately), | ||
| + | - Second, the immediatist argument assumes no steps are better than any steps | ||
| + | - Third, immediatists get their history wrong | ||
| + | |||
| + | > As Princeton University professor Robert George points out, “public opinion and other constraints may limit what can be done to advance a just cause”: | ||
| + | > | ||
| + | >> Politics is the art of the possible. . . . The pro-life movement has in recent years settled on an incrementalist strategy for protecting nascent human life. So long as incrementalism is not a euphemism for surrender or neglect, it can be entirely honorable. Planting premises in the law whose logic demands, in the end, full respect for all members of the human family can be a valuable thing to do, even where those premises seem modest. Fully just law would protect all innocent human life. Yet sometimes this is not, or not yet, possible in the concrete political circumstances of the moment. | ||
| + | > | ||
| + | > Pro-life advocates are not satisfied with the status quo; they abhor abortion and would stop it immediately if they could. They are not “regulationists” who decide which babies live and which die. They have no such power. Instead, they work to pursue the good and limit the evil insofar as possible given current legal realities. That is not compromise. | ||
| + | |||
| + | So, we must be moral immediatists, | ||
| ===== Gestational Limits ===== | ===== Gestational Limits ===== | ||
| - | In Canada, every major pro-life organization supports incrementalism((http:// | + | FIXME **Gestational |
| - | EV73 | + | FIXME it gets more complicated when you look at other legislative initiatives... |
| - | > Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. [...] | + | * AFLO opposed Molly Matters - see [[https://www.mollymatters.org/ |
| - | > | + | * AFLO opposes Bill C-233 (Sex Selective Abortion Act) - though CLC has supported it |
| - | > In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting | + | * Made a distinction between M-412 (just condeming sex selective abortion), and a law (C-233) which some feel cannot be supported because it makes sex selective |
| - | Yet also EV73, very next paragraph: | ||
| - | > A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favouring abortion, often supported by powerful international organizations, | ||
| - | * objections on principle versus justifications as incremental step | + | ==== Extra Content ==== |
| - | * strongest objection (that I've never heard anyone make): how can we fight age=based discrimination with age-based discrimination? | + | |
| - | * WNAL Direction Matters((https://weneedalaw.ca/ | + | * Clarke Forsythe, Politics for the Greater Good: The Case for Prudence in the Public Square((https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/small-steps-toward-justice-a-review-of-clark-forsythes-politics-for-the-gre)) FIXME quick notes from someone who has read the book |
| + | * Philosophy of Prudence: Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas | ||
| + | * History of Social Reform: William Wilberforce, | ||
| + | * " | ||
| + | * Critique of Incrementalism | ||
| + | * Legitimizes abortion | ||
| + | * Provides political cover for those who want to attract pro-life voters while keeping abortion legal | ||
| + | * Defence of Incrementalism | ||
| + | * Debate over incremental laws serve an educational purpose, e.g. partial birth abortion ban | ||
| + | * Incremental laws keep abortion debate alive politically | ||
| + | * Incremental laws have been effective at lowering abortion rates | ||
| + | * Political prudence means seeking to achieve the maximum change possible at a given time | ||
| + | FIXME incrementalist step (age verification) helping shut down pornogrpahy sites https:// | ||