Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- utsfl:classroom:seminars:pbp310h [2019/03/20 09:30] – [Gestational Limits] balleyne
+++ utsfl:classroom:seminars:pbp310h [2023/08/14 08:28] (current) – mmccann
@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 What is incrementalism? Is it ethical? Is it prudent?
-  * 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
+Let's start with a video from We Need a Law, discussing incremental initiatives, such as their International Standards law - a late-term abortion ban.
-    * Philosophy of Prudence: Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas
-    * History of Social Reform: William Wilberforce, Abraham Lincoln
-      * "partial advances, even if they are no more than limitations on an existing unjust law or condition, can create momentum for progress"((Forsythe, Politics for the Greater Good, 13.))
-    * 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
-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>eB_ZhmPZZJY}}
-===== 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 Human Abortion opposes incrementalism outright, in favour of immediatism over gradualism/incrementalism.
+  * Incrementalism vs. Immediatism: Is incrementalism ethical or prudent?
+  * 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, 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.
+===== Abolitionism: Incrementalism vs. Immediatism =====
+There is a small but vocal movement of abolitionists, in particular in the United States, who argue that immediate abolition is the only moral response to abortion, and gradualism or incrementalism is immoral / a betrayal.
+e.g.
+  * [[http://abolishhumanabortion.com/|Abolish Human Abortion]]
+  * [[https://freethestates.org/|Free the States]]
+  * [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5iePBTji1I|Babies Are Murdered Here]] / [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FQII2DVyWU|Babies are Still Murdered Here]]
+  * Some [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWZB3tGDn3c|Canadian examples]]
+Abolitionists use the term [[http://abolishhumanabortion.com/abolitionism/the-difference-between-pro-lifers-and-abolitionists/|"pro-life" as a pejorative]], and criticize all three arms of the pro-life movement:
+  * 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://www.reformedprolifer.com/pro-life-activism/item/why-we-fight-the-way-we-fight|Why we fight the way we fight]])
+  * 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-life" expresses a moral opinion, what you think; abolition expresses moral action, what you aim to do about it
+  * 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.
+Today, our focus is specifically on //political// strategy. (We've addressed why we take a secular role in apologetics and the relationship between pro-life activism and Christian ministry in other webinars.) While this debate exists mostly in an American context, understanding the criticisms of immediatists can help us to clarify our principles on incrementalism.
-  * 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://abolishhumanabortion.com/abolitionism/the-difference-between-pro-lifers-and-abolitionists/|Pro-Lifers vs Abolitionists]], according to AHA
-      * The term "pro-life" expresses a moral opinion, what you think; abolition expresses moral action, what you aim to do about it
-      * 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://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oi4vVTae30
     * The Tree: 54:30-1:04:50
       * If it's an injustice/sin, then abolish it immediately (not "overnight" but "work while the day lasts" for immediate and total abolition); opposed to gradualism
+        * 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 "incrementalist" would be able to argue consistently against scrapping laws against murder, whereas the "immediatist" would have to argue that such a murder law excludes preborn children, and is therefore an evil law.
+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 "immediatist" view, you cannot consistently defend any law except an absolutely perfect omnibus bill that forbids every injustice worth forbidding without exception, since apparently by not forbidding an injustice e we would be condoning it. ))
       * 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
     * Cunningham position: 28:30-33:05
@@ Line 53: / Line 66: @@
         * Strategic incrementalist: picked his battles carefully, strategically, incrementally, for political change
-===== Gestational Limits =====
+[[https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/abortion-dies-by-a-thousand-votes|Scott Klusendorf says]] the immediatist argument is fundamentally flawed, and summarizes Gregg Cunningham's position:
-In Canada, every major pro-life organization supports incrementalism((http://www.theinterim.com/features/survey-of-pro-life-groups-on-gestational-limits-and-incrementalism/)). However, several organizations vociferously oppose gestational limits as an incremental measure.
+  - 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), whereas our "incrementalism" is instead an argument that we ought to end abortion as immediately as possible while recognizing the unfortunate fact that an immediate end to the whole trade is unachievable at this time. The difference between electing to use increments when immediate solutions are available, and electing to use increments because immediate solutions are not, is very morally relevant, and very frequently ignored by those desperately trying to stay atop their apparent moral high ground.))
+  - Second, the immediatist argument assumes no steps are better than any steps
+  - Third, immediatists get their history wrong
-Guidance comes from Catholic moral theology, namely, Evangelium Vitae 73.2:
+> As Princeton University professor Robert George points out, “public opinion and other constraints may limit what can be done to advance a just cause”:
-> 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. [...]
+>
->
+>> 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.
-> In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to "take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it".
+>
+> 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.
-Opponents of gestational limits argue that gestational limits are an intrinsically evil form of incrementalism, and cannot be supported in good conscience.
+So, we must be moral immediatists, but strategic incrementalism. That's how social reform happens.
-Yet also EV73.3, very next paragraph:
+===== Gestational Limits =====
-> 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, in other nations-particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation-there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter. In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.
+FIXME **Gestational limits debate now at [[PBP411H]]**
-So, are gestational limits intrinsically evil? Are they an unjust means to achieving a just ends of restricting abortion?
+FIXME it gets more complicated when you look at other legislative initiatives...
+  * AFLO opposed Molly Matters - see [[https://www.mollymatters.org/2016/01/pro-choice-or-pro-life-your-opinion-does-not-matter-here/|the comments]]
+  * AFLO opposes Bill C-233 (Sex Selective Abortion Act) - though CLC has supported it
+    * 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 abortion illegal but they believe it implies that all other abortions are licit
-On the side against gestational limits, Colin Harte writes an entire book on this, Changing Unjust Laws Justly, and Canadian pro-lifer Geoff Cauchi has written extensively on this as well within the Canadian pro-life movement. Cauchi argues:
-  * Gestational limits are intrinsically unjust, and thus can never be supported in good conscience
-  * He calls EV 73.2 the "No Exceptions Statement" and EV 73.3 the "Politician's Rule"((Peter Ryan argues there's absolutely no basis for restricting EV 73.3 to politicians only))
-  * Key to this view is that Canada has no law on abortion, therefore to create a law that allows for abortion based on age or circumstances of conception would be intrinsically evil, and that this is radically different than if Canada did have an abortion law already and a proposal was to restrict it or limit it further
-    * This is viewed as bargaining away the rights of some children for others((Cf. AHA)), "buying the votes" with the lives of children
-  * strongest objection (that I've never heard anyone make): how can we fight age=based discrimination with age-based discrimination? It'd be like gradually abolishing slavery through racist incremental steps, like starting by emancipating the lighter-skinned slaves, then moving to darker-skinned slaves
-  * Self-identified as "principled incrementalism" (as opposed to a "do nothing" or "magic wand" approach)
-    * We can propose incremental measures that are not intrinsically unjust, ie. that do not discriminate against pre-born children, e.g. defunding abortion, parental consent/notification, etc.
-  * This is a distinctly Catholic objection, based on interpretations of Catholic moral teaching, yet it is a minority view among Catholics: the major consensus of Catholic moral theologians, or Bishops such as Archbishop Miller of Vancouver or Cardinal Collins, is that a gestational limit is not an intrinsically unjust measure that can never be supported, but could be a just way of restricting the evil of abortion as an incremental measure
-  * In Summary:
-    * Since Canada has no abortion law, promoting a law that restricts only some abortions (for example, making abortions after 12 weeks illegal), would mean that we are legalizing and condoning all of the abortions that are not banned (e.g. those happening before 12 weeks)
-    * Jan 2014 Interim: We find politically motivated compromise that creates arbitrary demarcations to protect some human lives but not others to be abhorrent, adding the insult of age discrimination to the injury of death by abortion. Protecting pre-born human life requires political action, not political compromise.
-  * The UK is a big question, where gestational limits were viewed by the pro-life movement as a mistake
-    * The plural of anecdote is not data, and the empirical questions matter: would any given gestational limit actually save lives (or would there be an educational value to the law)? But the empirical objection is different from the principled objection. //Any// incremental measure should be subject to an empirical analysis
-What are the problems with this view in opposition to gestational limits? WNAL Direction Matters((https://weneedalaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2016/11/Postition-Paper-on-Gestational-Laws.pdf))
+==== Extra Content ====
-FIXME
-  * What is not illegal is legal
+  * 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
-    * We already have a gestational limit: birth (Section 223 of the Criminal Code on when "a child becomes a human being")
+    * Philosophy of Prudence: Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas
-    * New restrictions do not make abortion legal, it's already legal
+    * History of Social Reform: William Wilberforce, Abraham Lincoln
-  * In a country with no restrictions or laws pertaining to abortion, regulating abortion is a critical step towards making it illegal
+      * "partial advances, even if they are no more than limitations on an existing unjust law or condition, can create momentum for progress"((Forsythe, Politics for the Greater Good, 13.))
-    * Theory of Change: Direction Matters
+    * Critique of Incrementalism
-      * From pre-1969 to present, we've gone in the wrong direction from illegal abortion, to regulated abortion, to decriminalized abortion
+      * Legitimizes abortion
-      * In order to protect pre-born human rights and make abortion illegal, we have to reverse the legal process, to go from decriminalized to regulated to illegal
+      * Provides political cover for those who want to attract pro-life voters while keeping abortion legal
-  * How is gestational incrementalism different from other forms of incremental laws?
+    * Defence of Incrementalism
-    * Does defunding abortion discriminate against children based on the economic status of their parents, and save poor babies but condemn rich babies?
+      * Debate over incremental laws serve an educational purpose, e.g. partial birth abortion ban
-    * Would parental consent laws discriminate against children based on the beliefs of their grandparents, saving the babies of pro-life grandparents but condemning the babies of pro-choice grandparents?
+      * Incremental laws keep abortion debate alive politically
-  * Is there an issue of scandal? Would supporting gestational limits send a message to the public that the pro-life movement is okay with abortion before the limit?
+      * Incremental laws have been effective at lowering abortion rates
-    * Mark Penninga responds to Marie-Claire Bissonnette who raises this point: https://arpacanada.ca/news/2019/03/05/even-in-a-world-with-chemical-abortion-canada-still-needs-an-abortion-law/
+    * 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://dailycaller.com/2023/08/08/major-porn-sites-shutting-down-state-age-restrictions/