PBP310H: Incrementalism in Pro-Life Politics

What is incrementalism? Is it ethical? Is it prudent?

• Clarke Forsythe, Politics for the Greater Good: The Case for Prudence in the Public Square¹⁾ quick notes from someone who has read the book
  • 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”²⁾
  • 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.

In the US, Abolition Human Abortion opposes incrementalism outright, in favour of immediatism over gradualism/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
  • 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
    • 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
    • “We are moral absolutists, but strategic and tactical incrementalists, not because we want to be but because we must be”
      • Strategy: how the ends will be achieved by the means
      • Unstated: there's a confusion between the education/prophetic arm's role (moral immediatism) and the role of the political arm (strategic incrementalism)
    • Hunter presupposes that the pro-life movement has the power to end abortion right now, and we just choose to not do it… he says the only solution is the “magic wand” solution (or miraculous, but suggests AHA are the only ones praying)
    • Professor Michael New published a peer-reviewed study of post-Casey state legislative restrictions and regulations on abortion reduce the abortion rate and save lives: https://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF11C45.pdf
    • 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's very broad rape exception. Cunningham. Not one single abortion had been funded by the state under that narrow rape exception when he checked. “I put the rape exception in to save babies' lives, and it did.”
    • There's a secular and a spiritual argument, but we'd better be able to make secular, human rights and social justice based arguments for those for whom the spiritual arguments would not resonate. We don't talk Greek to the Romans or Roman to the Greeks. (Yet create an opportunity to share the Gospel, working with campus ministry, etc)
  • History of Social Reform
    • Hunter misrepresents Wilberforce was an immediatist and opposed incrementalism (or at least repented of his support of incrementalism)
    • Wilberforce: moral immediatist but strategic and tactical incrementalist.
      • He started fighting the slave trade, instead of slavery, because “he could count.”
      • On the way, he supported legislation that forced slave ships to be redesigned, and they made arguments related to pain and suffering of the slaves
      • Wilberforce also supported legislation that banned slave traffic from foreign ports, so it could only involve British ports, totally incremental
      • His last speech to Parliament talked about compensating slave holders for emancipation, and he was attacked by abolitionists for it; he knew he had to do it to get the votes, for the abolition of slavery
    • Abraham Lincoln
      • sat on the emancipation proclamation until he thought he could make it, and excluded the border states, in order to preserve the union
    • Martin Luther King Jr.
      • Moral immediatist: argued against segregation and racism in all forms
      • Strategic incrementalist: picked his battles carefully, strategically, incrementally, for political change

Gestational limits debate now at PBP411H

Caleb VDW comments:

“[7:41 p.m., 2019-12-11] Caleb VDW: Laws forbid things, what an incremental law forbids is evil, and we'll worth forbidding, forbidding one thing does not endorse any things not forbidden by that particular law, any feelings otherwise are misapplied if they produce opposition to the incremental law. [7:41 p.m., 2019-12-11] Caleb VDW: Well* [7:45 p.m., 2019-12-11] Caleb VDW: 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.

Also, I put “incrementalist” and “immediatist” in brackets because there is frequently obfuscation around these terms. 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.”