The abolitionist faction of the pro-life movement has garnered an increasing amount of attention recently. Abolitionists, like most pro-lifers, carry a heavy zeal for the cause to end abortion in the United States. This is an admirable aim that ought to garner the respect of all those who understand the injustice of abortion.
However, there are serious philosophical issues with this faction. In this work, I will consider one of the most glaring problems, that being the opposition to incremental political progress with respect to ending abortion.
The abolitionist movement, according to their official website, has five tenets. The fifth tenet is titled “immediate and uncompromising.” Analysis of this tenet will suffice to demonstrate the error in their position.
“Immediate and uncompromising” is the fifth listed tenet on the official abolitionist website and is screenshotted above.
Let us proceed by working through different lines from the tenet itself.
“We believe that allowing abortion in some cases along the way to its total abolition is neither strategically sound nor consistently Christian.”
In this sentence, two separate views have been posited. Firstly, that incrementalism is not “strategically sound.” Secondly, abolitionists hold that incrementalism is not “consistently Christian.”
On the matter of the poor strategic approach of incrementalism, I will say very little. To say that this approach is less politically effective than the general pro-life approach requires an investigation that I encourage you to pursue. Most of this work will instead consider the notion that incrementalism is not “consistently Christian.” This should not give the impression that strategy is unimportant, but rather focus on the more preeminent question of the legitimacy of incrementalism in principle. If something is disordered in principle, then no practical considerations will suffice to make it justified in itself.
“We reject incremental abolition, the and the gradual regulation of evil. This fight is not an issue of what seems practical, achievable, or reasonable. It is an issue of obedience to God.”
The rejection of “incremental abolition” may potentially oppose the good. Therefore, it should not be outright rejected. For example, if a person is capable of passing a law that stops the majority of intentional killings of the unborn, and thus pursues it with the intention of protecting innocent life, he has done good. In this way, the action is properly ordered. If, for example, he supports everything the previous law does and institutes moral legitimacy to the other intentional killings of the unborn, this is contrary to the good. To kill an unborn child is intrinsically evil and thus cannot be justified.
Moreover, incrementalism can be understood both in an erroneous way and a proper way. The aim should never be to protect in our positive law the practice of killing the unborn. This action is always intrinsically evil. A justified incrementalist approach would result in laws that prohibit and limit abortions while not supporting legislation that explicitly protects the killing of the unborn.
Absolutely rejecting this approach, when it is most properly pursued, would mean one may be rejecting the good. Ontologically, the action that is pursued is good in itself. God, being the infinite good, means that the action is in some way reflective of God himself. But abolitionists reject this action. Therefore, abolitionists, by opposing “incremental abolition,” assuming it is done correctly, will have opposed God to some degree.
On whether this battle is not about being practical, this is a contradiction to what was implied previously, that being that incrementalism is not the optimal practical approach. Therefore, considerations surely have been given to the practical merit of the abolitionist case.
The notion that the “fight” that abolitionists engage in on this issue is not reasonable is in itself an absurdity. If accepted to be true, it would invalidate their entire argument. An argument void of reason would be no argument at all, for an argument requires a process of reasoning. Secondly, this is contradictory to how abolitionists act. Abolitionists utilize exegesis and attempt cogent argumentation to demonstrate their case.
On obedience to God, we must discuss what this means. Ultimate obedience is when the human will is in alignment with the divine will. This is fully realized in the beatific vision or heaven.
What then does the pursuit of incrementalism have on a person's will? Well, we must understand the nature of the pursuit itself. By choosing to do the good of saving the innocent, with the intention of protecting the innocent, a person's will is brought closer to the divine will. If one chooses to do this good with the previous reason and with the intention to glorify God, a person's will is brought into greater alignment with the divine will.
As we can see, to what degree the will is corrected will depend first on the action itself and then the circumstances surrounding it. For incrementalists who pursue it in the most orderly way, who don't have immoral intentions for pursuing the good but do pursue it, the habitualization of their approach will result in some degree of correction of their wills.
“God never accepts a gradual repentance of sin (individually or nationally) but rather demands a radical cutting off and turning towards Christ alone in total faith. Jesus declared to sinners, ‘Go, and sin no more.’ (John 8:11) Repentance is not an evolutionary transition from darkness to light over time. Repentance is a complete reversal of belief, thought, and action.”
It is true that God does not accept a gradual repentance of sin. But this is not what the incrementalist does.
The incrementalist first must discern what is eternally true about the abortion issue. Here he finds that abortion is unjustified. Then, he considers whether or not this injustice should be permissible. He shall consider both the gravity of the evil and its political implications. What he will discern is that it is both a grave tragedy and inimical to the flourishing of the political community. Thus, he will seek to end the injustice.
However, he does not begin with a blank slate but examines the political tradition inherited by the community and the current landscape. After all, man is a political animal. He then engages in an intellectual investigation as to what is the best way to deal with this injustice. He may find that complete abolition is not feasible, therefore opting for a compromise. This entire process ought to be guided first by divine revelation.
If he decides on incrementalism for his political approach, he will not have necessarily “gradually repented” of his sin. He would have chosen an approach that produces good, which is not disordered or sinful in itself. In no way has he necessarily affirmed a notion contrary to human dignity, justice, or goodness.
The focus here was to provide a brief explanation of how opposing a proper view of incrementalism in principle is irrational, therefore making it incompatible with Christianity. This was done by demonstrating how incrementalism, properly pursued, is in itself not necessarily contrary to the good; rather, enables participation in it.
Some might implore that a defense of the current implementation of incrementalism is required to show that its opposition is truly irrational. But this would be mistaken. The claim commonly made against incrementalism, and reiterated in the official abolitionist text above, is that it is contrary to Christianity itself, which is first and foremost a matter of principle.