Abolitionism versus incrementalism

[Pergamum]

Abortion abolitionism has taken hold of the Reformed world...and that is not a great thing. Rather than another strategy for ending abortion (which is a legit position), many AHA folks engage in a lot of "friendly fire" aimed towards the broader Pro-life movement. They spend much time calling for churches to repent and engaging in debate against good Pro-life people and criticizing the Pro-life movement.

Abolish Human Abortion (AHA) promotes an "immediatist" ideology against abortion and opposes all "incrementalist" or "gradualist" attempts to end abortion through legislation. AHA attacks pro-lifers and defines themselves against Pro-lifers (some deny that they are "Pro-life" at all, but are, instead, "abolitionists") for allegedly “regulating” abortion rather than calling for its immediate abolition. "They insist pro-life incremental strategies are not only mistaken, they are based on evil compromise and because of that evil compromise, we are losing the abortion fight. On the web and in social media, AHA is primarily known for its attacks on pro-lifers, often with a strong dose of spiritual superiority."

They use statistics and research and materials produced by the larger Pro-life movement...and then turn around and devote much of their effort towards denigrating that very movement.

I find many of these "abolitionists" very annoying. Please don't become one of them.


Here is a debate between abortion incrementalism versus immediatism, where the abolitionists get blown out of the water and are found wanting: Debate between abolitionism and immediatism

Here is a good analysis of that debate: Analysis of the debate

Also here: Another perspective on the debate

And here is an excellent PDF making a detailed case against AHA's strategy: PDF of Abolition of Reason

The Bible seems to employ incremental corrections to the People of God through the ages as they matured. The OT abounds in regulations upon the existing evils of polygamy and slavery. It appears God worked by incremental ways. Was He at fault for not wholly and immediately calling for an end to polygamy and slavery? Were these mitigating regulations "worldly" or sinful?

In the history of the anti-slavery movement, Wilberforce, as well, employed incremental means.

 

[Taylor]

It sounds like your issue is with annoying people rather than a position. And I think we can all agree that any position, when handled poorly, can be bad. But that doesn’t make the position itself bad. That’s an ad hominem fallacy.

I consider myself an abolitionist, but I won’t shoot across the bow of incrementalists. I think they are not necessarily wrong, but not strong enough. As I read Scripture, I never find God saying, “With regard to this evil, just slow it down.” Rather, what I find is, “Thou shalt not.” I just can’t conceive of God, when it comes to individual of societal sin, ever being pleased with “working on it” as opposed to stopping it. The kings of Israel were commended for stopping evil, not just slowing it down.

Here’s my issue with incrementalism when it comes to abortion. I find it to be inconsistently applied. Is this same approach taken with any other issue? For example, anytime someone says that American slavery should not have been abolished, but rather slowly diminished until it was gone (because the sudden ending of slavery did cause significant problems), they are scorned and ridiculed virtually out of society as radicals. Why is abolitionism good when it comes to slavery, but not abortion? Abortion is a worse evil! And what about sex trafficking? Should we be incrementalist about it? Murder? Child abuse? Rape? In my experience, the abortion incrementalist when it comes to these other issues often suddenly becomes an abolitionist.

 

[B.L.]

I'm unfamiliar with all that is raging between the various factions you described, but if calling for the immediate end to the killing of the unborn makes one an abolitionist then sign me up.

 

[Deleted member 11889]

The Bible seems to employ incremental corrections to the People of God through the ages as they matured. The OT abounds in regulations upon the existing evils of polygamy and slavery. It appears God worked by incremental ways. Was He at fault for not wholly and immediately calling for an end to polygamy and slavery? Were these mitigating regulations "worldly" or sinful?

Adding to that, is there anyone whose personal growth in their walk with the Lord has been anything other than gradual?

I am friends with a pro-life warrior who regularly encounters virulent hostility from immediatists. It's a sad and wicked thing, the hatred spewed at him by professing believers.

 

[Taylor]

Adding to that, is there anyone whose personal growth in their walk with the Lord has been anything other than gradual?

There is a difference between what something is and what something should be. Yes, our sanctification is gradual, but we are to aim to abolish sin, are we not? Following this line of argument, someone could say, “Well, my sanctification will only ever be gradual, so I won’t try so hard to kill sin outright, but rather just gradually reduce it.” Of course, nobody argues this way, because we all recognize the difference between reality and aim.

I am friends with a pro-life warrior who regularly encounters virulent hostility from immediatists. It's a sad and wicked thing, the hatred spewed at him by professing believers.

Again, this is not a problem with abolitionism, but with a person. We need to be careful not to commit ad hominem here. There is nothing inherent to abolitionism—or incrementalism—that logically requires someone to be nasty about it. I’ve seen plenty of nasty incrementalists. But that’s not because they are incrementalist, but because they are simply jerks.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I am going to annoy everyone by arguing that there is a place for both outlooks. Experience seems to show that we often need a combination of purists and (principled) pragmatists if we are going to achieve anything. The purist outlook is necessary to continually remind us of what our end goal must be, i.e. the complete and utter legal abolition of abortion. The incremental outlook is, for practical purposes, necessary to start the ball rolling towards that desired end. If we go too far with the abolitionist mindset, we will not welcome steps in the right direction. This sort of purity spiralling is silly; it is the equivalent of starving to death rather than eating half a loaf. Conversely, if we go too far with the incremental mindset, we will be overly content with half-measures when we need to be ever pressing towards the mark of total abolition.

 

[Taylor]

I am going to annoy everyone by arguing that there is a place for both outlooks.

I was actually going to say the exact same thing if the thread developed. Since you said it, I will go ahead and offer my agreement. These positions—incrementalism and abolitionism—are in my view not mutually exclusive, nor are they opposed to one another. I actually think wisdom is necessary, as in many issues. My opinion is that, for now, abolitionism works better when focused on smaller communities and local governments, and incrementalism works better on the national level. Both working together in these respective spheres can do a lot of good, from bottom to top and top to bottom.

 

[Eyedoc84]

Some abolitionists are against any legislation that supports restrictions without full abolition. So for instance they would oppose a bill that bans abortion for any reason past 2 weeks just because it doesn’t go far enough. They are not willing to take victories where they may be had.

 

[Deleted member 11889]

I am going to annoy everyone by arguing that there is a place for both outlooks. Experience seems to show that we often need a combination of purists and (principled) pragmatists if we are going to achieve anything. The purist outlook is necessary to continually remind us of what our end goal must be, i.e. the complete and utter legal abolition of abortion. The incremental outlook is, for practical purposes, necessary to start the ball rolling towards that desired end. If we go too far with the abolitionist mindset, we will not welcome steps in the right direction. This sort of purity spiralling is silly; it is the equivalent of starving to death rather than eating half a loaf. Conversely, if we go too far with the incremental mindset, we will be overly content with half-measures when we need to be ever pressing towards the mark of total abolition.

@Reformed Covenanter but this is precisely where immediatists make a glaring error. The dichotomy between incremental progress and wanting all abortion ended forever is a false and outrageous lie unjustly pinned on pro-life workers. ALL genuine pro-lifers want a complete and total end to abortion and they would be happy to see that result brought about here and now. Immediatists miss that reality. Abolitionism is not the healthy purism of which you speak; it's a bizarre and toxic mix of legalism, perfectionism, and irrationality. This doesn't happen often but on this matter I totally agree with @Pergamum and not just because he's bribing me with chicken sandwiches.

 

[Taylor]

Immediatists miss that reality. Abolitionism is not the healthy purism of which you speak; it's a bizarre and toxic mix of legalism, perfectionism, and irrationality.

You should really seek to be more restrained here. This is a sweeping and scathing accusation, especially considering there are people on this board—myself included—who consider themselves abolitionists. A better way to say this would be to add the qualifier some, or perhaps even many.

 

[retroGRAD3]

@Reformed Covenanter but this is precisely where immediatists make a glaring error. The dichotomy between incremental progress and wanting all abortion ended forever is a false and outrageous lie unjustly pinned on pro-life workers. ALL genuine pro-lifers want a complete and total end to abortion and they would be happy to see that result brought about here and now. Immediatists miss that reality. Abolitionism is not the healthy purism of which you speak; it's a bizarre and toxic mix of legalism, perfectionism, and irrationality. This doesn't happen often but on this matter I totally agree with @Pergamum and not just because he's bribing me with chicken sandwiches.

All I ever see is straw men from you in regards to abolitionism.

 

[retroGRAD3]

This is the same outlook and approach I take.

It sounds like your issue is with annoying people rather than a position. And I think we can all agree that any position, when handled poorly, can be bad. But that doesn’t make the position itself bad. That’s an ad hominem fallacy.

I consider myself an abolitionist, but I won’t shoot across the bow of incrementalists. I think they are not necessarily wrong, but not strong enough. As I read Scripture, I never find God saying, “With regard to this evil, just slow it down.” Rather, what I find is, “Thou shalt not.” I just can’t conceive of God, when it comes to individual of societal sin, ever being pleased with “working on it” as opposed to stopping it. The kings of Israel were commended for stopping evil, not just slowing it down.

Here’s my issue with incrementalism when it comes to abortion. I find it to be inconsistently applied. Is this same approach taken with any other issue? For example, anytime someone says that American slavery should not have been abolished, but rather slowly diminished until it was gone (because the sudden ending of slavery did cause significant problems), they are scorned and ridiculed virtually out of society as radicals. Why is abolitionism good when it comes to slavery, but not abortion? Abortion is a worse evil! And what about sex trafficking? Should we be incrementalist about it? Murder? Child abuse? Rape? In my experience, the abortion incrementalist when it comes to these other issues often suddenly becomes an abolitionist.

 

[Pergamum]

I am going to annoy everyone by arguing that there is a place for both outlooks. Experience seems to show that we often need a combination of purists and (principled) pragmatists if we are going to achieve anything. The purist outlook is necessary to continually remind us of what our end goal must be, i.e. the complete and utter legal abolition of abortion. The incremental outlook is, for practical purposes, necessary to start the ball rolling towards that desired end. If we go too far with the abolitionist mindset, we will not welcome steps in the right direction. This sort of purity spiralling is silly; it is the equivalent of starving to death rather than eating half a loaf. Conversely, if we go too far with the incremental mindset, we will be overly content with half-measures when we need to be ever pressing towards the mark of total abolition.

I agree. We should not eat each other alive, though. Many AHA folks slander the normal "Prolife" folks and call them compromisers. As you said, it is better to have half a loaf then no loaf at all.

If imperfect laws that are PASSED save 20,000 babies a year, that imperfect law is better than any perfect abolitionist law that will NEVER pass.

@Reformed Covenanter but this is precisely where immediatists make a glaring error. The dichotomy between incremental progress and wanting all abortion ended forever is a false and outrageous lie unjustly pinned on pro-life workers. ALL genuine pro-lifers want a complete and total end to abortion and they would be happy to see that result brought about here and now. Immediatists miss that reality. Abolitionism is not the healthy purism of which you speak; it's a bizarre and toxic mix of legalism, perfectionism, and irrationality. This doesn't happen often but on this matter I totally agree with @Pergamum and not just because he's bribing me with chicken sandwiches.

Oh..now it is chicken sandwicheS (plural)? Ok ok....I will mail you two.

 

[py3ak]

So for instance they would oppose a bill that bans abortion for any reason past 2 weeks just because it doesn’t go far enough.

What's the difference between that and supporting ongoing abortion? I understand the principle is different, but if reducing the number of abortions is opposed, isn't the end result the same?

 

[Deleted member 11889]

I agree. We should not eat each other alive, though. Many AHA folks slander the normal "Prolife" folks and call them compromisers. As you said, it is better to have half a loaf then no loaf at all.

If imperfect laws that are PASSED save 20,000 babies a year, that imperfect law is better than any perfect abolitionist law that will NEVER pass.

This is another error made by many immediatists... de facto assuming (though not admitting this) that pro-lifers are responsible for the baby murders and every baby killed is on our shoulders. If a house was on fire and I had to choose 1 person inside to save, am I culpable for the deaths of the others? I didn't set the house on fire.

 

[retroGRAD3]

This is another error made by many immediatists... de facto assuming (though not admitting this) that pro-lifers are responsible for the baby murders and every baby killed is on our shoulders. If a house was on fire and I had to choose 1 person inside to save, am I culpable for the deaths of the others? I didn't set the house on fire.

Who assumes that? Do you have any evidence to back up any of your assertions? Or, are you just going to continue to straw man?

 

[Taylor]

Who assumes that? Do you have any evidence to back up any of your assertions? Or, are you just going to continue to straw man?

To be fair, I have heard abolitionists argue such things. I have even said such things in my past immaturity. The problem is arguing that this is because of something inherent to abolitionism. It's rather because some people are simply jerks. The sad reality is that there is nastiness on both sides. Case in point: in a thread condemning the nastiness of abolitionists, the only nastiness has not come from an abolitionist.

 

[retroGRAD3]

To be fair, I have heard abolitionists argue such things. I have even said such things in my past immaturity. The problem is arguing that this is because of something inherent to abolitionism. It's rather because some people are simply jerks. The sad reality is that there is nastiness on both sides. Case in point: in a thread condemning the nastiness of abolitionists, the only nastiness has not come from an abolitionist.

I don't doubt there are jerks out there on both sides, but the commentary being made by @Irenaeus appears to almost always take aim at every abolitionist (or "immediatist" as he continues call us) without qualification.

 

[Pergamum]

To be fair, I have heard abolitionists argue such things. I have even said such things in my past immaturity. The problem is arguing that this is because of something inherent to abolitionism. It's rather because some people are simply jerks. The sad reality is that there is nastiness on both sides. Case in point: in a thread condemning the nastiness of abolitionists, the only nastiness has not come from an abolitionist.

There is nothing "nasty" about arguing against abolitionism. This is a needed thread because so many in the Reformed world have adopted AHA's position and slander those who differ. Even the way that AHA (Abolishing Human Abortion) defines the Prolife movement is slanderous, for they claim, "“Pro-lifers prefer gradual, over immediate, abolition.” That is a lie.... Prolifers do not "prefer" a gradual end to abortion. We all want to see abortion ended.

Let us use a war analogy: in any war with an entrenched foe, sometimes you must make slow gradual advances against the enemy trenches, one at a time. The Allies at Normandy wanted a total defeat of Hitler, but it took many months and small battles to get there. Nobody would claim that America actually did not want Hitler to be defeated because the Allies landed in North Africa and then Italy before landing in France. If they really wanted victory, why didn't they sail straight to Germany? In real life war and politics, AHA's position is absurd and never works. Even God dealt with His people gradually and progressively.

Likewise, it took William Wilberforce 2 decades to end the slave trade....what a pathetic compromiser he was for being content with small steps forward every year instead of immediate abolition.

 

[Charles Johnson]

I'm at a bit of a loss as to why these debates get so heated. Personally I'm happy to support any and all restrictions on abortion, whether full or partial. I wonder if a false dichotomy has been created, whereby it is said that if someone supports the one, he cannot support the other?

 

[Pergamum]

I don't doubt there are jerks out there on both sides, but the commentary being made by @Irenaeus appears to almost always take aim at every abolitionist (or "immediatist" as he continues call us) without qualification.

Irenaeus has never stated a bad opinion ever on the Puritanboard. He is nearly infallible and is the most astute theologian I've ever met.

 

[retroGRAD3]

There is nothing "nasty" about arguing against abolitionism. This is a needed thread because so many in the Reformed world have adopted AHA's position and slander those who differ. Even the way that AHA (Abolishing Human Abortion) defines the Prolife movement is slanderous, for they claim, "“Pro-lifers prefer gradual, over immediate, abolition.” That is a lie.... Prolifers do not "prefer" a gradual end to abortion. We all want to see abortion ended.

Let us use a war analogy: in any war with an entrenched foe, sometimes you must make slow gradual advances against the enemy trenches, one at a time. The Allies at Normandy wanted a total defeat of Hitler, but it took many months and small battles to get there. AHA's view of abortion is unrealistic. Likewise, it took William Wilberforce 2 decades to end the slave trade....what a pathetic compromiser he was for being content with small steps forward every year instead of immediate abolition.

Again, you are putting words in the mouth of the people here and now. Also, the term "Pro-lifers prefer gradual, over immediate, abolition." is mostly true when we are talking about non-Christian "pro-lifers". I don't doubt Christian pro-lifers sincerity at all. From what I have seen at least, there are two sides, there are people who truly are pro-life and then there is the pro-life industry. The pro-life industry are those that go into places where abolition bills are actually on the table and push them out of the way to introduce something instead that doesn't do anything. For example, a bill that prevents the abortion of mentally handicapped babies. The parents will just say, "well, I'm not doing this because of the handicap. I am doing it because I don't want the baby." Baby is still murdered. The industry will also say, we aren't Christian and we are not pro-life because of Christian values. In the end, it is a political game for them and the donations will continue to roll in. They don't want abortion to end, because then their golden goose would be gone. THAT is who I push back against. When it comes to abolition and incrementalism among Christians, I have no issues partnering and cheering on either because I know in their hearts they want the same thing. I just think abolition is preferable.

 

[Taylor]

There is nothing "nasty" about arguing against abolitionism.

Of course not, but that's not what I was referring to. I was referring to the sweeping characterization by one on this thread—which has not been retracted—that abolitionism is bizarre, toxic, legalistic, perfectionistic, and irrational. To say that was nasty and, given the thread's topic, ironic. That's why I pointed it out.

I wonder if a false dichotomy has been created, whereby it is said that if someone supports the one, he cannot support the other?

I think so. In my view, abolitionism and incrementalism are not necessarily opposed, and can definitely work together for good. My concern in this thread is a failure to distinguish between a position and its less-than-noble adherents. No logical connection has been established between abolitionism and nastiness. It has just been asserted.

 

[Pergamum]

I'm at a bit of a loss as to why these debates get so heated. Personally I'm happy to support any and all restrictions on abortion, whether full or partial. I wonder if a false dichotomy has been created, whereby it is said that if someone supports the one, he cannot support the other?

Many abolitionists such as some of those working with AHA define their position in opposition to the "Prolife Movement" in such a way that it does produce a dichotomy. I think many "Prolifers" could work with AHA...but many AHA members disparage Prolifers as compromisers. This sort of friendly fire makes it hard to work with them.

 

[Pergamum]

Again, you are putting words in the mouth of the people here and now. Also, the term "Pro-lifers prefer gradual, over immediate, abolition." is mostly true when we are talking about non-Christian "pro-lifers". I don't doubt Christian pro-lifers sincerity at all. From what I have seen at least, there are two sides, there are people who truly are pro-life and then there is the pro-life industry. The pro-life industry are those that go into places where abolition bills are actually on the table and push them out of the way to introduce something instead that doesn't do anything. For example, a bill that prevents the abortion of mentally handicapped babies. The parents will just say, "well, I'm not doing this because of the handicap. I am doing it because I don't want the baby." Baby is still murdered. The industry will also say, we aren't Christian and we are not pro-life because of Christian values. In the end, it is a political game for them and the donations will continue to roll in. They don't want abortion to end, because then their golden goose would be gone. THAT is who I push back against. When it comes to abolition and incrementalism among Christians, I have no issues partnering and cheering on either because I know in their hearts they want the same thing. I just think abolition is preferable.

Your reply sounds slanderous towards many. To say that many Prolifers "do not want abortion to end" is an example of the slander committed by many AHA proponents towards those in the Prolife movement. This is why debates of this sort get heated...because abolitionists often cannot NOT slander Prolifers. It seems part of their identity to define their movement as an alternative or competitor to the current Prolife efforts going on.


I also think that politicians can be sneaky, but we do not know their motives. I highly doubt that any politician's sole "Golden Goose" is the Prolife movement. This would mean that they are purposefully creating ineffective laws that appear to do good but truly do nothing. If they are ineffective, then they would not continue to be re-elected. Most politicians do not need to purposefully plan to be ineffective and incompetent, it comes naturally to them despite good intentions. Rather, politicians sense that if they reach too far at once they will be thwarted, but small incremental steps are the best and most pragmatic way to gain ground. Since liberals are winning most elections in the USA, most conservatives see that they need to make slow steady advances where they can because there is so much opposition.


A bill to prevent the abortion of mentally handicapped babies is a very good law. Bravo! If you cannot save ALL babies, then at least save these...

 

[retroGRAD3]

Your reply sounds slanderous towards many. To say that many Prolifers "do not want abortion to end" is an example of the slander committed by many AHA proponents towards those in the Prolife movement. This is why debates of this sort get heated...because abolitionists often cannot NOT slander Prolifers. It seems part of their identity to define their movement as an alternative or competitor to the current Prolife efforts going on.


I also think that politicians can be sneaky, but we do not know their motives. I highly doubt that any politician's sole "Golden Goose" is the Prolife movement. This would mean that they are purposefully creating ineffective laws that appear to do good but truly do nothing. If they are ineffective, then they would not continue to be re-elected. Most politicians do not need to purposefully plan to be ineffective and incompetent, it comes naturally to them despite good intentions. Rather, politicians sense that if they reach too far at once they will be thwarted, but small incremental steps are the best and most pragmatic way to gain ground. Since liberals are winning most elections in the USA, most conservatives see that they need to make slow steady advances where they can because there is so much opposition.


A bill to prevent the abortion of mentally handicapped babies is a very good law. Bravo! If you cannot save ALL babies, then at least save these...

You ignored much of the nuance in my response. I was specifically speaking of "non-christian" prolifers.

I also never said abortion was the "sole golden goose". Just that it is one of them. Also, liberals are NOT incrementals for the most part as they just force everyone to accept their views or they will cancel them. I would say they have been much more effective that the RINOs on the conservative side. In any case, that aspect is going beyond the topic.

Also, with the mentally handicapped bill. The point was it didn't stop abortions as someone can just give a different reason for why they want to murder their child.

 

[Deleted member 11889]

I don't doubt there are jerks out there on both sides, but the commentary being made by @Irenaeus appears to almost always take aim at every abolitionist (or "immediatist" as he continues call us) without qualification.

Ok, three things. First, prior to this thread I know nothing about your views on this topic. If my characterization of immediatism doesn't apply to you, well and good. That doesn't change my view of immediatism as a whole because, second, everything I have said is based on things I have seen and witnessed for myself. If you support the actions of groups like the AHA, if you share in the immediatist tendency to make false dichotomies and launch friendly fire at pro-life groups, then I am happy to affirm that I believe you to be in error as well, but that's not my main point which has nothing to do with you and everything to do with a movement that I see as erroneous and harmful.

Third, on the subject of straw men, I submit the following statement: "If you want to play politics with children's lives that's on you." This is exactly what I am talking about, if proving my point for me was your goal. Immediatists need to stop with the insinuations about other pro-lifers. Yes, many professing pro-lifers are not actually concerned about the unborn; many are trying to score points or get votes. They are wolves and liars. Such is not true of the many pro-lifers who find themselves in the crosshairs of the immediatists.

 

[Deleted member 11889]

Irenaeus has never stated a bad opinion ever on the Puritanboard. He is nearly infallible and is the most astute theologian I've ever met.

Hush, Perg. You're blowing my cover.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Brothers, I appeal to you to remember the Scriptures and that Christ has purchased us with his blood. As a sister in Christ but also as a moderator of the board I remind that harsh speech has no place. Please to make amends graciously and continue the discussion charitably.

 

[retroGRAD3]

Ok, three things. First, prior to this thread I know nothing about your views on this topic. If my characterization of immediatism doesn't apply to you, well and good. That doesn't change my view of immediatism as a whole because, second, everything I have said is based on things I have seen and witnessed for myself. If you support the actions of groups like the AHA, if you share in the immediatist tendency to make false dichotomies and launch friendly fire at pro-life groups, then I am happy to affirm that I believe you to be in error as well, but that's not my main point which has nothing to do with you and everything to do with a movement that I see as erroneous and harmful.

Third, on the subject of straw men, I submit the following statement: "If you want to play politics with children's lives that's on you." This is exactly what I am talking about, if proving my point for me was your goal. Immediatists need to stop with the insinuations about other pro-lifers. Yes, many professing pro-lifers are not actually concerned about the unborn; many are trying to score points or get votes. They are wolves and liars. Such is not true of the many pro-lifers who find themselves in the crosshairs of the immediatists.

I can accept we have misunderstood each other at points. However, you are guilty of everything you have just accused me of doing. It has been demonstrated in this thread. As to my comment "If you want to play politics with children's lives that's on you.", this was a reaction to you calling my position unbiblical and then further challenging me to call God a heretic, that was ridiculous. In any case, I don't think there is anything else to discuss. The main points from both of our sides have been made.