Among those of us who are fighting to end abortion, there are many passionate, and differing, opinions on the right way to achieve our goal. In some cases, there are even disagreements about what our true goal really is.
Our inevitable points of disagreement can strengthen our movement as iron sharpens iron. They can also cause brutal infighting and divide us into factions more concerned with attacking each other than attacking the enemy.
Many advocates for life have found themselves contemplating whether we ought to pursue an incremental approach, or if we should refuse to settle and pursue total abolition immediately.
One side contends that incrementalism is immoral, sinful, and unjust. The other contends that incrementalism is the most pragmatic way to achieve our long-term goals. It is like eating an elephant one bite at a time vs eating it in one massive bite.
Hopefully we can all agree that ideally, we would completely end abortion in one swift action. Afterall, if our goal is not to totally end abortion, then we must have lost our way on the path.
Let’s look closer at the debate before us. Without being married to the labels of different factions, it is often those who consider themselves abolitionists who are opposed to incrementalism. One of the leading abolitionist groups, Abolitionists Rising, clarifies that, “We seek to abolish abortion totally and immediately. We do not call for incremental legislation that regulates the who, what, when, where, and why of legal abortion.”
My best representation of their position is that laws like heartbeat bills, which protect some babies but not all, are immoral and show partiality under the law. To their credit, the abolitionist movement is growing rapidly, and many young people are hungry to take bold action to defend life.
However, this position makes the good the enemy of the perfect. Heartbeat laws are NOT ideal, they are NOT the end goal, but they do save lives. It would be an amazing victory for life if we passed a national heartbeat bill banning abortion at 6 weeks gestation, but it would not be the end of the fight.
That said, incrementalism is not inherently virtuous.
We should always pursue the greatest obtainable good. If we can ban abortion in one move, that is what we should do. If the greatest obtainable good, for now, is a national heartbeat bill then that is what we should pass.
Yet there will be times when we have the total political and pragmatic ability to pass legislation in a state to completely ban abortion. In that scenario if we chose to not go all the way but rather settle for an incremental approach purely for the sake of incrementalism that is utter foolishness. If we are given a chance to save the unborn, we should take it. We should not paralyze ourselves into inaction because of our fears of what could be.
To the believer in Christ, it is hard to understand praying to God for the opportunity to do good but then saying “no, now is not the right time” when He answers those prayers and gives us the chance. Surely, we do not think we know better than God.
Incrementalism should never be our goal. Our goal must be the complete and total end of abortion. If that goal cannot be achieved at this exact moment, we should win the battles required to make it achievable. Much like George Washington did not defeat Cornwallis in one single battle. He had to fight many battles until the moment was right and he could finally achieve full victory. During those smaller battles he never lost sight of what victory truly meant.
Hopefully these debates among those who defend life will prove fruitful and iron will sharpen iron so that we can regroup and move forward to finally end abortion. Like the slavery abolitionist Frederick Douglass said, “I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong.”
In Defense of Life,
Victor Nieves
President, Life Issues Institute
Leave a Reply