Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
utsfl:classroom:seminars:pbp310h [2020/04/03 15:51] – summarized Klusendorf balleyne | utsfl:classroom:seminars:pbp310h [2023/08/14 08:28] (current) – mmccann | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
What is incrementalism? | What is incrementalism? | ||
+ | Let's start with a video from We Need a Law, discussing incremental initiatives, | ||
+ | {{youtube> | ||
+ | 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: | ||
+ | * Incrementalism vs. Immediatism: | ||
+ | * Gestational Limits: Why some pro-lifers oppose this particular incremental measure, and how to respond | ||
- | * Clarke Forsythe, Politics for the Greater Good: The Case for Prudence in the Public Square((https:// | ||
- | * 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 | ||
- | First, we'll look at a debate between incrementalism and immediatism | + | First, we'll look at a debate between incrementalism and immediatism |
- | ===== AHA: Incrementalism vs. Immediatism ===== | + | ===== Abolitionism: Incrementalism vs. Immediatism ===== |
- | In the US, Abolition | + | 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: | ||
* 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 | ||
* Cunningham position: 28:30-33:05 | * Cunningham position: 28:30-33:05 | ||
Line 56: | Line 66: | ||
* Strategic incrementalist: | * Strategic incrementalist: | ||
- | ==== Klusendorf Summary ==== | + | [[https:// |
- | [[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), |
- | - First, it assumes that pro-lifers have the power to immediately end abortion but simply won’t | + | |
- Second, the immediatist argument assumes no steps are better than any steps | - Second, the immediatist argument assumes no steps are better than any steps | ||
- Third, immediatists get their history wrong | - Third, immediatists get their history wrong | ||
Line 68: | Line 77: | ||
> 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. | > 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 ===== | |
- | + | ||
- | + | ||
FIXME **Gestational limits debate now at [[PBP411H]]** | FIXME **Gestational limits debate now at [[PBP411H]]** | ||
- | FIXME Caleb VDW comments: | + | FIXME it gets more complicated when you look at other legislative initiatives... |
+ | * AFLO opposed Molly Matters - see [[https:// | ||
+ | * 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 | ||
- | "[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 | ||
- | [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 " | ||
- | 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" | + | ==== Extra Content ==== |
+ | |||
+ | * Clarke Forsythe, Politics for the Greater Good: The Case for Prudence in the Public Square((https:// | ||
+ | * Philosophy of Prudence: Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas | ||
+ | * History of Social Reform: William Wilberforce, | ||
+ | * "partial advances, even if they are no more than limitations on an existing unjust law or condition, can create momentum for progress" | ||
+ | * 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, | ||
+ | * 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 | ||
- | Also, I put " | ||
+ | FIXME incrementalist step (age verification) helping shut down pornogrpahy sites https:// | ||