Differences

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

--- utsfl:classroom:seminars:pbp310h [2021/03/25 20:34] – balleyne
+++ utsfl:classroom:seminars:pbp310h [2023/08/14 08:28] (current) – mmccann
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ====== PBP310H: Incrementalism in Pro-Life Politics ======
 What is incrementalism? Is it ethical? Is it prudent?
+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.
 {{youtube>eB_ZhmPZZJY}}
@@ Line 9: / Line 11: @@
-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.
+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.
-FIXME Sex Selective Abortion
+===== Abolitionism: Incrementalism vs. Immediatism =====
-  * Some make 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
+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.
-===== AHA: Incrementalism vs. Immediatism =====
+e.g.
-In the US, Abolition Human Abortion opposes incrementalism outright, in favour of immediatism over gradualism/incrementalism.
+  * [[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.
-  * NOTE: Our purpose here is to focus on the //political strategy// of incrementalism versus immediatism. The question of the role of explicit evangelism in pro-life activism is one of educational strategy, a topic that could be addressed at another time (see [[https://www.reformedprolifer.com/pro-life-activism/item/why-we-fight-the-way-we-fight|Why we fight the way we fight]])
   * 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 we'll worth forbidding, forbidding one thing does not endorse any things not forbidden by that particular law
+        * 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.
@@ Line 67: / 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.
+So, we must be moral immediatists, but strategic incrementalism. That's how social reform happens.
 ===== Gestational Limits =====
 FIXME **Gestational limits debate now at [[PBP411H]]**
+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
@@ Line 88: / Line 102: @@
       * 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://dailycaller.com/2023/08/08/major-porn-sites-shutting-down-state-age-restrictions/