There is a discussion on FB about Texas passing a sonogram bill that does not protect certain groups of preborn babies, such as those conceived in rape, incest, or those with fetal anomalies. My friend Juda Myers is a pro-life warrior who was conceived in rape, and is understandably let down by these exceptions. This has reignited the ongoing debate within the pro-life community regarding incrementalism vs. unconditional surrender. I believe that we can all get to the finish line together. What follows are modified comments I left on FB this morning:
One abortion is one too many. On this all pro-lifers agree. I’ve been party to this discussion with several pro-lifers from around the country, so let me explain the incrementalist’s position and its internal logic.
First, the proaborts do the two-step, one-step. They push their agenda forward two steps, and when we raise hell, they retreat one step (remaining a step ahead. When things calm down, they repeat the cycle again, and again; always advancing one step with each cycle. It’s a brilliant and effective strategy. With every round, they establish a new norm from which they operate.
The pro-life incrementalist’s position does much the same thing. Nobody is saying that they value some babies more or less than others. This tactic is the proabort’s own strategy turned on them. It allows society to begin to value humans in the embryonic and fetal stages of development by giving them the protection of the law. In a word: PERSONHOOD.
Being successful in re-calibrating societal attitudes about the rights and dignity of most babies allows the pro-life movement to bridge the gap for society to accept the dignity of those conceived in rape, incest, or with fetal anomalies. The argument in favor of abortion began with rape and incest, then generalized outward to claim scores of millions not conceived in rape or incest. In regaining lost ground, we’ll win it back in reverse order.
As things stand, holding out for the whole enchilada has not worked, and has consigned millions to their deaths, where they might otherwise have been saved.
No war has ever been won in one giant stroke. It is won a battle at a time, with the conquered ground then used as the staging area for the next battle. Think of MacArthur’s Island-Hopping Campaign across the Pacific in WWII.
For almost forty years the camp demanding all-or-nothing has held sway, and little has changed. Incrementalism can make huge immediate inroads, saving hundreds of thousands of babies per year, and in the process build a pro-life ethic where it never before existed. This can then make it easier to argue that certain classes of the preborn are the victims of discrimination.
I’m with Juda all the way, but the logic of incrementalism seems to save far more babies’ lives than all of the sidewalk counseling ever has. It sucks the huge profits out of the abortion industry, forcing many to close, and allows us to focus and marshall our resources against an ever-diminishing enemy until we completely obliterate their deadly industry by using their own weapon against them: Government.
To not accept this is to play high-stakes, winner-take-all poker with the lives of millions of babies who would otherwise have been saved.
Thoughts?
It’s been said time and again. To think one unborn child’s life is less important than another unborn child’s life, regardless of how they were conceived, is inhumane. Special needs babies are no different. Why, oh why have we come to this?
re: incremental steps slowing the abortion industry – I totally agree with you. Moreover, with something so financially lucrative as abortion, sometimes the backdoor approach works well also. For example, in the late 1800’s, sweat shops employing children were quite prevalent. Shop owners would hire the children rather than their parents because they could get children for a lot less money but it was very unhealthy for kids, working 12 to 14 hours a day in a windowless, badly ventilated factory or shop for 6 days a week and children would suffer and sometimes even drop dead on the job. Naturally there was a movement against this, trying to get legislation protecting children and it rallyed against the practice for over 50 years getting exactly nowhere. (interestingly enough there was a movement in favor of child labor but they called themselves “Society for the protection of children” and guess who was a leader in that movement – none other but our OLD friend, Margaret Sanger!). Anyway, somewhere along the line after all effects to incense the public against child labor had been fruitless (there was just too much money in it!), some brilliant individual got an idea. If the children were in school, they would not be available for the sweat shops and then, when a few years had passed, a law prohibiting this type of child labor could be passed! So they began advocating for the “Compulsory Education Act” – who could object our wanting to educate the children? And no one did. Congress in the 1930’s, actually tacked the “Compulsory Education Act” piggybacking another law and it passed without problems. And within a couple of years, it effectively, stopped the use of children in sweat shops so when Congress passed a law prohibiting child labor, that was done easily also. (REF: Holland, Ruth: MILL CHILD, NY,1970) A few of us, yourself, Dr Reardon and myself, have suggested we should start working “SMARTER” and Jesus is even quoted in the Bible as pointing out that evil men are often taking more intelligent strategies than men of God. I hope a few take your blog and what Dr Reardon has said to heart. For example in one county back East, a mere compulsory “parental consent law” actually cut down abortions by 90%! I’ve tried to suggest us fighting for “informed consent” and “parental consent” – the latter is required for everything i.e. a school nurse cannot give a child an aspirin without parental consent but can refer a child to major surgery (an abortion) without parental consent – that’s insane, medically. As for “informed consent”, an Alan Guttmacher Institute (i.e. Planned Parenthood) survey in the early 1980’s found that “the more women know about abortion, the more they are against it!” Fr Pavone has tried to take this approach for one. A good friend of mine, the “Pro Life Fiddler”, plays his fiddle in public and hands out those fetal models – a picture (or a model) is worth 1000 words or more to let folks know about fetal development at 11-12 weeks! Sadly those of us pursuing these avenues are a minority to whom few seem to listen. 😦
I truly believe that incrementalism as it pertains to the lives of those made in God’s image can best be described by this scripture: There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death. Prov 16:25. It does *seem* right to save the lives of some of the babies but these laws condemn other babies to die…that simply *cannot* be of the Lord, who was CLEAR when He said, Thou shall NOT murder (no, not one). I beseech you to think not like the natural man but to trust in God, renewing your mind to the scriptures and putting all your eggs in the basket that treats every single little life created in the image of God as a person. With God, all things are possible.
Paula,
As things stand now, they are all condemned to death. Incrementalism SAVES many, it condemns no one. Here is my response to Juda Myers, who responded to me on FB as you have here:
Juda,
The pro-life movement will leave no child behind. I think this is a matter of where we begin. As things stand, all babies are on the butcher block, and we have been losing them by over 1 million per year.
I don’t see this as a matter of faith. The Holy Spirit may well be giving us the strategy we need. Four decades of holding out for a miracle have proved disastrous for 53 million babies. Let me explain>
Jesus cured lepers through miracles, which was the only hope they had until the 1950’s. Leprosy is caused by a close first cousin of the bacterium that caused tuberculosis. When the antibiotics were developed to cure TB, we also had the cure for leprosy. This has always made me mindful of Jesus telling the Apostles, “Greater works than these will you do.”
Today, TB and leprosy are cured by a few antibiotic prescriptions. The blind see again thanks to cornea transplants. The deaf hear again, thanks to cochlear implants, etc.
There is a time for faith and miracles, and a time to utilize the gifts and reason with which God endows us. After four decades of no miraculous intervention, perhaps God is speaking to us a message we haven’t wanted to hear. Perhaps He wants us to be like the persistent widow with the unjust judge (how apt). Perhaps He is calling us to rescue our civil government by smart and savvy action.
The pro-life movement has never been short on faith. But, as Jesus reminds us, the children of this world are more clever than the children of light, which is why He also admonishes us to be gentle as doves, but as wise and cunning as serpents.
I believe this to be just such a moment that Jesus had in mind.
Dr., what you’re saying makes sense at an intellectual level, but I disagree with the tactics. I believe that in this war, it’s all or nothing. The reason all or nothing has not worked is because we have not held our politicians accountable in the past, just in the past two years we have seen incredible changes with the tactics of the Tea Party and the Pro Life needs to do the same. The difference between a war analogy and the war on abortion is that, in a real war, even the children have the opportunity to run, speak, plead for mercy – in the abortion war, we are their voice and their actions, they don’t have the opportunity to plead for mercy. In addition, as human beings, we become too complacent with change. When there is a small change, we wipe our hands of the whole situation and claim victory. I truly believe that incremental legislation is a big mistake and cannot be accepted. If we all put our energy in the whole enchilada, it would get done. As for side-walk counseling, its purpose is not to save the babies, its purpose is to show prayerful witness to the parents. Monsignor Reilly has closed down many abortion clinics with sidewalk counseling, all the while keeping in mind that this is a spiritual battle. We must keep our eye on the prize…
Rosalinda,
I see your point. However, we have been trying for the whole enchilada for four decades. In that time, we have expended enormous capital on lobbying and legislation, on backing politicians in primaries. We have put enormous energy into the national level, and have ignored the grassroots level. The horrifying truth is that we have consigned tens of millions to their deaths by rejecting an incrementalism that would have:
1. Saved many from the outset.
2. Established precedents under states rights to effect legislation reflecting the will of the people.
3. Built a consciousness that asks why some babies are prevented from slaughter, while others are not.
4. Debilitated Planned Parenthood and the rest of the abortion industry through massive loss of revenue.
5. Reduced the number of abortion providers drastically, thereby enabling pro-lifers to focus more and more of our resources on fewer and fewer targets, until the residue have been eliminated.
In embracing incrementalism, nobody is saying that some lives don’t matter. We are acknowledging that there are many lives that can be immediately saved. The others are, for the time-being, just as beyond our protective grasp as they are without incrementalist legislation.
To put it in the brutal calculus of war, there are over 1 million babies who are going to die each year while we await the whole enchilada. If we act decisively, we can save hundreds of thousands of those babies immediately. The others are just as doomed, for now. We will take our victories until we can claim all of these babies’ lives. I’ll go even further:
By rejecting incrementalist legislation that would save immediate lives, we are condemning countless babies to slaughter through inaction. I believe God wants us to rescue as many as we can, when we can.
I see very clearly the ideas of both camps, and I understand both philosophies… but it kills me to see us at each others’ throats like this. Maybe one person doesn’t think a no-exceptions personhood law can ever pass–but I hope they wouldn’t vote against it. Maybe another thinks it’s awful that a law requiring women to see an ultrasound and hear about fetal development before killing their baby doesn’t actually tell her she cannot kill her baby–but how can you say the lives of babies saved through this law are worthless? Outlawing partial birth abortion didn’t directly save a single baby–but it did inform much of the public just how gruesome abortion is, and show them that the fetus is fully formed. And the voices crying “But the procedure is the same when you tear apart the baby inside” were valuable too.
I think much has been done that changes how people think about the issue for the better–fetal pain laws. Women speaking out about regret. Children with disabilities, or conceived in rape, or who survived abortion speaking out about how their lives have value and meaning. Personhood initiatives. I think anything which humanizes the unborn is a step in the right direction–outlawing sex-selection abortions, outlawing abortions based on sexual orientation. I think we should keep trying to push that. I would love to see a law outlining the entitlement of fetal human beings to the shelter and nutrition provided by their mothers’ wombs. I am encouraged greatly by the passage of fetal pain laws and ultrasound laws, and I hope we can see personhood laws passed.
Dr. Nadal points out that more than a million babies die each year while we wait for the “all or nothing”. I understand Juda’s position. I also know that, had abortion been illegal in any part, I would not have aborted. My child was not conceived in rape or incest, and there were no abnormalities.
My child was among the millions who have died, while the all or nothing approach has failed.
All unborn children are under the threat of legal death.
We need to save as many babies as we can, as quickly as we can, and continue working until each and every child is valued for the wonderful creation they are.
I think you nailed it, YCW.
“We have been trying for the whole enchilada for four decades.”
Really? I’d like to see an historical narrative of this because I’ve only seen it since 2008. Rape/incest, however, has been written into law for four decades.
I think you’re rewriting history.
Cranky,
Perhaps you are not familiar with the wild internal war in the pro-life movement back in the Reagan years over a Constitutional Amendment that would have outlawed abortion, except in cases of rape or incest? It was so polarizing that we ended up at war with one another, and with nothing legislatively, and scores of millions of babies that could have been saved have since died.
Learn your history before coming here and accusing me of rewriting that of which you are (intentionally?) ignorant.
Opposing bills with rape/incest exceptions is not the same as attempting to pass a “whole enchilada” bill.
Had pro-lifers stuck with “the whole enchilada” year after year since 1973, would there still be a split? Or have these concessions in the Reagan years continued the battle and given us 53 million dead?
When has a rape/incest exception passed and then fixed later? Does God hold us accountable for our success in saving as many lives as possible, or by being faithful to the principle that ALL life is sacred?
Cranky,
Nice change of tone from accusing me of historical revisionism. God holds us accountable for doing all that we can, when we can. See the Last Judgement in Matthew 25. Whatever we fail to do to the least of these, we fail to do for Jesus.
Incrementalism saves all that it can immediately, but does not mean that we stop agitating and militating for saving the lives of all. That’s why it’s called “Incremntalism” and not “Copout”.
Your question, “When has a rape/incest exception passed and then fixed later?” is a bit disingenuous. Few laws aimed at reducing abortion with rape/incest clauses have been passed, and then, only very recently. No one has stopped militating for protecting all lives. Let me turn the tables on your question.
in what state has anyone waiting for the whole enchilada ever seen a reduction in ANY abortions? The all-or-nothing approach folks are willing to consign millions to abortion, rather than act to save them while working to save the others. That’s the great logical fallacy in all-or nothing. While stating that they cannot decide on babies dying, through their inaction, that’s exactly what they do.
Incrementalists, in contrast, do not decide that some must die. They realize that these babies are dead anyway, and seek to save all that they can, when they can. We ARE faithful to the principle that ALL life is sacred, which is why we seek to save as many as possible. The all-or-nothing folk have dug in their heels and tens of millions have died while they insisted on standing on principle rather than acting on principle, even if it meant taking victory in stages.
Gerard,
I have to agree with Cranky here … the Constitutional Amendment with exceptions language can’t be claimed as an “all or nothing” bill when in fact it follows the incrementalist argument you outlined above:
“The argument in favor of abortion began with rape and incest, then generalized outward to claim scores of millions not conceived in rape or incest. In regaining lost ground, we’ll win it back in reverse order.”
Indeed, that Constitutional Amendment with exceptions would have worked exactly in the way you just described.
But the problem isn’t actually with the notion of incrementally fighting against abortion, properly understood. TRUE incrementalist policy does not end with the notion, “and then you can kill the baby.” Ultrasound bills, fetal pain bills, waiting periods … such regulations do two things:
1) They legitimize abortion on philosophical grounds.
The premise upon which such laws are based is that direct and intended abortion is morally permissible when applied under certain circumstances. As Catholics, we know this is morally untenable, and therefore, as a strategy cannot be sought.
2) They further entrench the notion that abortion is a right.
As more and more laws are enacted which merely seek to regulate abortion, rather than directly limiting or abolishing (without concession) it, abortion as a fundamental practice finds itself justified and legitimized. This also has the effect of maintaining the dehumanization of the preborn person.
The ONLY truly moral incremental approach to abolishing abortion is to seek and enact laws which limit or abolish, without compromise, abortion in all circumstances. It would be morally permissible to seek a law which simply states that all procured abortions after the first trimester are illegal, so long as no stronger proposal is currently available. But is such a measure ends with exceptions language (rape, incest, etc), then in effect, the bill says, “and then you can kill the baby,” which is immoral and unsupportable from a Catholic perspective.
–Michael
Your phrasing of the argument as “Incremantalist vs. All-or-Nothing” is disingenuous.
You won’t find pro-life opposition to a bill that bans all abortion past 22 weeks. You will find opposition to a bill that bans abortion past 22 weeks with exceptions for rape/incest.
You won’t find pro-life opposition to a bill that bans abortion in 1 state rather than all 50 states. You will find opposition to a ban that says babies of rape/incest don’t get protection.
“In what state has anyone waiting for the whole enchilada ever seen a reduction in ANY abortions?” So this is a worthwhile pro-life goal? To reduce abortions? How is that different than Planned Parenthood who claim to be doing the same thing with contraception?
I stand by my previous point. Had pro-lifers stood with the principle that all life is sacred, this battle would have ended years ago, and there would be far less than 53 million dead.
And when prolifers support exceptions and proclaim “we’re not saying that some babies should die,” their letting their ACTIONS betray their words.
Cranky,
You obviously are just interested in a fight. You haven’t read and engaged what I have written, but simply dismiss the rationale provided, that is when you aren’t impugning me by accusing me of historical revisionism over history of which you are ignorant.
I don’t mind a debate, but it does require that you do so intelligently. That requires that you:
1. Understand history before accusing me of rewriting it.
2. Show that you grasp the point I’m making, and then describe why you prescind from that point.
3. Stop with acting like a fool by impugning an entire movement with such slurs as: “I stand by my previous point. Had pro-lifers stood with the principle that all life is sacred, this battle would have ended years ago, and there would be far less than 53 million dead.”
This movement has always proclaimed that all life is sacred, and it’s obvious that you have been a sideline observer at best.
Hmmm. Interesting discussion. My peanut of a brain doesn’t know what to make of it all. It seems that more educated and thoughtful minds than mine are at work here. Here are a few dumb thoughts of mine, which I hope don’t prove to be too embarrassing:
A. Michael (@ 5:12 pm) makes the argument that Gerard’s idea of incremental regulations/laws legitimizes abortion on philosophical grounds and, similarly, entrenches the notion that abortion is right.
B. Cranky (@ 5:42) makes the case that the dichotomy of categories “all or nothing” and “incremental” is the legal application of absolute principles by step (geographic, temporal, etc.) rather than the application of increments of the principles themselves.
C. Gerard (unless I’m mistaken, which I usually am) appears to see the same laws/regulations in less absolute terms. Rather, it is the principle of saving lives, here, now, tangible, precious lives, which is absolute. The law is a tool for achieving this end, rather than an absolute reflection of underlying philosophy. I see a similarity here to an earlier post when Gerard’s arguments for lying to save a life were challenged by those who claimed lying was sinful, regardless of the aims, regardless of the results.
I see all points, I think, at least to the extent that my acorn-sized brain can absorb them all, and they’re all good points. But, nonetheless, I tend to prefer “C.” I cannot articulate a particularly profound or compelling reason, it just seems the most “right” to me.
For some reason I thought of Oscar Schindler here. Regarding A: was his saving of some lives through legally sanctioned slave labor legitimizing slave labor, or the evil Nazi system under which cruel slave labor flourished? Regarding B: would Oscar Schindler be a hero if he, like so many others did, waited or even pushed ineffectually for absolute abolishment of slave labor laws and Nazism, rather than using those same laws within that same system to save lives? I realize that the comparison / analogy is not a perfect one. But, if I were a baby in a womb right now, at high risk for suffering an abortion, I would want more people out there — in the world of light and ideas — who thought like Dr. Nadal.
Yes, I am engaging in a fight, because saving lives is worth fighting. God will not ask us “how many lives did you save?” God will ask us “have you listened to my Son?”
What we do to the least of these: throwing under the bus the lives and dignity of those children conceived in rape/incest, because that is what the public can tolerate … yes, there will be an accounting for that.
@ pt: Had Oscar Schindler said, “Before I write down the names of Jews to save, find out which ones were conceived in rape or incest first,” then your analogy would fit.
What some pro-lifers have been trying for 40 years is not “whole enchilada” laws, as your commentary suggests, but compromise laws. If you’re talking about a Personhood initiative, that’s been tried since — 2008 (3 years). If every pro-lifer had not tolerated the specific targeting of babies as not worth saving since the early 70s, this battle wouldn’t exist today.
What do we have left to show for it? You say 52 million are dead because some pro-lifers wouldn’t give up the rape/incest babies. I say 52 million are dead because they would only pass laws they think the public would stomach.
I suppose if abortion-compromise laws save lives, a pro-lifer could support a bill that abolishes abortion with exceptions for blacks and Jews, because if we can save the white babies, at lease we saved as many as we could.
“What some pro-lifers have been trying for 40 years is not “whole enchilada” laws, as your commentary suggests, but compromise laws.”
Again, your ignorance is as large and stunning as your arrogance. It’s impossible to address science fiction being held out as science fact.
The war analogy is a sound one. A war is a series of battles, some small, some large, involving considerable analysis of the opponents weaknesses, and carefully drawn up (and sometimes scrapped and rethought) tactics. To think that the abortion war can be won by an all-out push to make the procedure flat-out illegal in one fell swoop is naive at best, and futile at worst.
“Incrementalism” is not an abandonment of principal, nor a sacrifice of unborn children, it’s a strategy that will save children who would otherwise be aborted. It’s the equivalent of formative battles during a war, battles that “have an observable influence on the direction, duration, or conduct of the campaign.” Those formative battles chip away at an enemy’s strength and ultimately determine the course of the war.
Yes, it would be wonderful to have one decisive battle that would resolve the whole ugly mess, but that is not going to happen, given the economic and political strength of the enemy. Short of Christ’s return (which apparently did not happen on May 21, wacky predictions notwithstanding) we are not going to see a miraculous divine abrupt ending to legal abortion. It is up to us to rely on God’s wisdom and strength as we fight the battles that make up this war.
When talking to one on the fence about abortion…. I always find it easier to bring them over incrementally.
The first step is to teach them that it is a life – have them explain the difference of a baby in NICU, born at 7 months, born at 8 months versus a baby still in the womb – (banning of late term abortions) to eventually teaching them that it is all life – why is the life of a baby conceived in rape have less worth than one not? or why is down syndrome so terrible that you need to kill them (personhood amendments, removing exceptions, down syndrome infanticide)
You are arguing against a group that belives in the “right to choose” over “life” – simply because they don’t see it as life.
Otherwise they only see the horror of rape and incest and lose focus on those who were conceived by this violence…..
The problem with the term “incrementalism” is the same as if you’re talking to someone about “stem-cells.” The term doesn’t nail down specifically what one is talking about.
When someone discusses his opposition to stem-cells therapy, is he talking about adult stem-cells or embryonic stem-cells, or both?
The same with incrementalism. Is he talking about pragmatic incrementalism or principled incrementalism, or both? The pragmatic approach leaves room for the end to justify the means (save baby A, don’t save baby B) -> exceptions. The principled approach never lets the end justify the means (save baby A) -> limits with no exceptions.
pt,
Good analysis there, Dr. Terry. I think your analogy with Schindler is spot-on!!
Cranky,
The term incrementalism implies a step-wise approach to a desired goal. You seem not only massively confused, but are also obviously ignorant of those in the pro-life movement. I know most of the national leadership personally, have read their books, and studied their philosophy, tactics, and strategy. I know of NO ONE in the pro-life movement who thinks that it’s okay to abort some babies. NOT ONE.
Stop being cranky and start getting informed. Pick up the phone and talk to people in leadership positions. The debate within the pro-life community is not over philosophy, but strategy, and that’s what makes this issue so agonizing. People of the same philosophical orientation are at war over two different strategies. I’ll put it as bluntly as I can, and I’ll rely on my friend, Dr. Terry, and his analogy.
Oscar Schindler knew the Jews were dead men (and women) walking. They were dead meat anyway. Railing against Hitler would not only be ineffectual in saving any of them, but would have resulted in Schindler’s death. So, he employed over a thousand as slave laborers in his factory, and saw to it that they were treated well, fed well. He did all that he could, pragmatically, to save all that he could. The means were imperfect, but he is remembered today in Israel as a righteous gentile. Were he able to save more, he would have. Were he able to save all, he would have.
Incrementalism in the pro-life movement seeks to save those whom we can immediately save. It forces the proaborts to capitulate. Right now, they hold all the cards, as the law is on their side. By forcing them to yield ground legislatively, we force them to release their grip on hundreds of thousands of babies who will actually be born as a result of the forced capitulation. These are babies who would otherwise be slaughtered. In other words, incrementalism forces proaborts into a step-wise surrender. Pro-lifers then have momentum on our side as we turn our sights on the next objective, and the next, until we roll up the enemy line and annhilate their industry.
You make a false dichotomy between principle and pragmatism as relates to this issue. You treat them as mutually exclusive categories because you labor under the illusion that pro-lifers have control of this issue as things stand. We don’t. Taking a step-wise approach to annihilating abortion is not “pragmatism as compromise of principle”, as your writing suggests. It is a strategic plan to simultaneously save as many lives as we can immediately save, who otherwise would be killed as we wait for unconditional surrender, and it is also a means of establishing legal precedents for dismantling abortion piecemeal.
It is also a great way of re-calibrating, re-conditioning societal attitudes toward the unborn, a re-calibration that is indispensable to turning public support for the babies conceived in rape/incest, and with poor prenatal diagnoses. This is a war that we are in, and our enemy has understood that from the start and conducted themselves with that understanding. Too many pro-lifers are not schooled in war and how to conduct one. We have the added dimension of countering those who have murdered 53 million humans (Hitler murdered about 13 million) without resorting to violence ourselves. That leaves the only battlefield the legislative process.
Since you are a Cranky Catholic, I leave you with the prayer we pray at the beginning of every Mass:
I confess to Almighty God, and to you my brothers and sisters, that I have sinned through my own fault;
In my thoughts, and in my words, in what I have done, and what I have failed to do.
Failing to act to save those whom we can immediately save, while we formulate our strategy to rescue those who are more difficult to save, is a sin of omission. It also smacks of pride: not saving millions until we get everything we demand in one shot.
@ pt: Had Oscar Schindler said, “Before I write down the names of Jews to save, find out which ones were conceived in rape or incest first,” then your analogy would fit.
@ cranky: I disagree with you, perhaps in your haste to continue your arguing you gave this analogy little thought. Oscar Schindler saved what lives he could with the tools he had. In this context, would it make any sense for him to find out who were conceived in rape…? I’m afraid you’re here to argue rather than think and discuss.
WOW – I wish I was only .1% as brilliant. In the meantime…. I’ll just borrow.
The definition of incrementalism in regards to “LIFE”
The re-calibrating, re-conditioning of societal attitudes toward the unborn, a re-calibration that is indispensable to turning public support for the babies conceived in rape/incest, and with poor prenatal diagnoses.
A ban on abortions past 22 weeks is moral incrementalism that I can support. A ban on abortions past 22 weeks AND carving out an exception for babies conceived in rape/incest is not moral. It discriminates. Those babies are NO different and deserve equal protection. Excluding them is a sin of omission.
“… a re-calibration that is indispensable to turning public support for the babies conceived in rape/incest, and with poor prenatal diagnoses.”
How does a rape/incest exception affect “societal attitudes” and turn “public support for the babies conceived in rape/incest?” The lesson I get from an exception is that there something about those babies that are different and not worth saving at this point in time.
Saving as many lives as possible is moral. That’s what Oscar Schindler did. Saving as many of the lives while screening out others for execution is not moral.
@ cranky: “A ban on abortions past 22 weeks is moral incrementalism that I can support. A ban on abortions past 22 weeks AND carving out an exception for babies conceived in rape/incest is not moral. It discriminates. Those babies are NO different and deserve equal protection. Excluding them is a sin of omission.”
Cranky, please listen to what you just posted. Are babies younger than 22 weeks old less valuable? You are okay with killing them while you save the rape/incest/poor prognosis babies? Aren’t you discriminating against the babies younger than 22 weeks? Why? Because they’re younger? because they’re less alive? Babies younger than 22 weeks “are NO different and deserve equal protection”.
You are compromising your statements/beliefs while accusing others of compromise.
ALL children are valuable. NONE should be allowed to be killed. We are morally bound to save each and every child we can, as quickly as we can.
If five children were drowning, and you were the lone person available to come to the rescue, would you refuse to save any because you couldn’t save all? Or would you plunge in and start saving them, one at a time?
Cranky said:
Saving as many lives as possible is moral. That’s what Oscar Schindler did. Saving as many of the lives while screening out others for execution is not moral.
Schilndler said to the Nazis:
Give me the Jews who can credibly work in the factory.
PT says:
Schindler did not intentially screen out others for exectution, but some could make the point that he did. Dr. Nadal is not suggesting screening out others for abortion, but some could make the point that he is.
Cranky is shooting vapid verbage from the hip (he probably can’t help himself) and is missing the target.
@PT bravo for your comments! And good analogy!
pt clarifies the position even further, as does Laura. Kudos to both. It’s tragic that most Americans do not see the child conceived in rape/incest or with poor prenatal diagnosis as worth living among us.
But that’s the reality with which we are burdened.
Proaborts have used the stigma of these modern day lepers to wedge the door open to all abortion on demand. Since less than 2% of babies are conceived in rape/incest. That means 51.94 million babies were aborted who were not conceived in rape/incest. But cranky has a point. We should wait another forty years, stamp our feet and hold our breath, and consign an additional 51.94 million babies to their deaths along with the two million conceived in rape or incest.
It is pride that makes pro-lifers think that they actually have ultimate decision-making power in this great national tragedy. The fact is, we don’t. We have gone through TEN presidential election cycles since abortion was first legalized, looking for the silver bullet on the Supreme Court that will give us the all or nothing, all to no avail.
The all-or-nothing pro-lifers approach the legislators and make their demand: “All or Nothing”.
Then they get pissy when the answer is, “Nothing.” Demanding all or nothing actually is a tacit affirmation of the legislators holding the cards, and their exercise of control. The tactic ought to be us forcing them into a series of capitulations that seem reasonable. Legislators will follow the perceived will of the people. That will NEVER be accomplished in one giant leap. It simply isn’t the way humans reason and do politics. Look to the example of gays and lesbians.
For four decades they have slowly chipped away at marriage, forcing society to surrender all of the goods and privileges of marriage to them, one at a time. They now live marriage and have it in everything but name only. Having thus appropriated all of the goods and privileges of marriage through legislative incrementalism, they are now poised for the final stroke of the legislative pen. Had they chanted for all or nothing for four decades, they would be no further along today, as they were in 1968.
By contrast, we HAVE chanted all or nothing since 1973, and we are minus 53 million people and counting. We could stand to learn a lesson from the gays.
When you SPECIFICALLY NAME (or screen out) people as NOT WORTH SAVING (rape/incest), then you create in immoral law.
Banning abortion past 22 weeks saves the babies past 22 weeks. Though the babies prior to 22 weeks are obviously excluded from being saved, the difference is that it does not specify that those babies as NOT WORTH saving. You can certainly debate that it is implied they are not worth saving, but you’re not making it THE LAW that they are not worth saving.
Did Schindler ask which Jews were NOT worth saving?
Okay, Cranky. You have crossed the line into troll behavior and I shall no longer approve any of your comments. You are banned from this blog. I have repeatedly stated that they are ALL worth saving, and have made the case with crystal clarity, but you refuse to engage the argument and put words in my mouth.
I don’t suffer fools and trolls very well, and you have crossed the line. This blog is meant for constructive dialog between people of good will, despite their differences. Go throw bombs elsewhere.
Goodbye.
I believe God is an incrementalist. He changes one heart at a time.
We have had a similar debate here in Canada where there are no abortion laws at all, so protecting even one unborn baby is way better than what we have now, which is abortion on demand, all funded by the taxpayer.
This past year one of our Members of Parliament introduced a private member’s bill that would have provided additional legal protection to a women who was coerced into having an abortion she did not choose to have. Some of our pro-life people spoke out against this bill because they believed that it was immoral to save some babies, while not saving all babies. I disagreed with this viewpoint.
(BTW, the bill did not pass, and Canada still has no legal protection for the unborn)
Here is some of that debate:
http://run-with-life.blogspot.com/2010/09/why-as-catholic-i-support-bill-c-510.html
Beautifully put, Patricia.
And Laura, yours was a perfect analogy: If five children were drowning, and you were the lone person available to come to the rescue, would you refuse to save any because you couldn’t save all? Or would you plunge in and start saving them, one at a time?
The bitter extension of the analogy is the knowledge that yes, some are drowning while others are being saved. The sweet hope is that by engineering the saving of some, and educating the world at large on the humanity of those drowning children, eventually the pool will be drained and future generations won’t drown at all.
By standing beside the pool and demanding that we be allowed to save all at once, we succeed in saving none, and the drownings continue unabated.
Having followed this thread since my initial comments, I have a single observation I would like to offer, and then I would like to address the notion of morally permissible laws.
1) It seems to me that as the question of incrementalism and absolutism is debated as a strategy, rather than addressing the most fundamental elements of the question (is it morally permissible, according to Catholic teaching, to support a law that states permissions for abortion), the parties involved tend to draw criticisms from the statements being made that may or may not exist. The end result is this: instead of arguing the positions on their merits or demerits, the debaters complain about being personally attacked. Not only does this not facilitate good dialog, but it makes us all, as a whole, look foolish and childish.
2) In both the divine and human orders, there are two kinds of law: positive and negative.
Positive law is that which must be done and that which MAY be done. Thou shalt keep holy the Sabbath. Thou shalt honor thy father and mother. You must pay taxes. You must submit your car to regular inspections. You may do something previously prohibited.
Negative law is that which must NOT be done. Thou shalt not murder. Thou shalt not steal. You must not park in front of a fire hydrant. You may not sell pornography.
Regardless of which type of law is being decided upon, it must be submissive to the Divine moral laws before it can be considered as a legitimate human law worthy of support. And let’s face it, God does not compromise because in the grand scheme, human life is not about how many lives can be saved (no one escapes this life alive), but how well we lived a good Christian life according to God’s Laws.
Now, the question we face is this: What is permissible and impremissible when supporting a law? We already know that the most fundamental principle of moral theology is that no evil may be done so that good may come of it, no matter how great the good or minor the evil. As that is our first thing, we can look at several types of regulatory laws pertaining to abortion to determine whether it is a moral or immoral law. Here are 5 examples:
A) All abortions are legal at all times for all reasons.
B) No abortion is legal at any time for any reason.
C) Abortions are permitted only before the beginning of the second trimester.
D) No abortion is permitted after the first trimester.
E) No third trimester abortion is permitted, except in cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother.
Case A is clearly immoral as it specifically states the permissibility (positive law) for an immoral act.
Case B is clearly moral because it unyieldingly supports Divine moral laws against murder.
Cases C and D are examples of the use of positive and negative laws which have the same effect … the difference is that one is moral and the other is immoral. Supposing for a moment that both laws were written for a culture that already permits abortions, it is clear that the intent of the law is to dampen the number of abortions taking place. The first of these laws is a positive law which states when an abortion is permitted, while the second is a negative law that simply states that no abortion at a certain point in time are permitted. The first law affirms the rightness of the act to perform an abortion, whereas the second law does not. Since no evil may be performed so that a good may come of it, the first law cannot be morally considered as supportable. And even though the second law does not save those in the first trimester, it does not do this of its own accord, whereas the first law does. If you remove the cultural circumstances of the overarching legality of abortion, the first law will still have to be overturned in order to remove the harmful effects of the law, but the second law may stand alone, remaining a good law.
As such, it is not morally permissible to support a law which states the permissibility of abortion, regardless of the intent of the law, or the alleged number of lives it will save. Can we agree on this as an objective statement?
As for the last case, where a law removes all permissions for abortion, except in certain circumstances … here we have a case of a law maintaining a duality: both positive and negative. In order to understand this kind of law, you have to view it as two separate statements: No abortion is permitted – and – abortion is permitted in cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother. However, because the dual nature of this law cannot be divided, you cannot support one aspect and reject the other … if you wish to pass it, you must simultaneously support both at the same time.
While a case can be made (and I do not intend to make or destroy that case here, at the moment) that it can be permissible to support such a law in certain circumstances, but it must be understood that such a law can never be morally proposed nor can it be morally held as a strategic position. This means that the philosophical underpinnings of the approach to abolishing abortion cannot be hung on the idea that you will have to make continuing compromises along the way, and in fact, there are many moral reasons one should never compromise when it comes to such grave moral matters anyway. The reason is simple, this isn’t just the life of the baby we are talking about, but the immortal souls of both the mother and her doctor/abortionist.
In any event, I leave you with this thought … if we are to win against the Culture of Death, it must be done so through deep prayer, sacrifice, and fasting. This is paramount. This war will not be won in a courtroom, nor will it be won in legislation … this is not a war of laws, but a war for the hearts and minds of everyone God is calling to Himself. If we are being called to bear witness to God and His Divine Commands, will we ever make true converts if we water-down the message with a lower standard? And if watered-down messages are what cause people to “convert” … to what, exactly, are they converting?
Just my $0.02.
Michael
Michael,
It’s late and I’m working on a grant proposal for work. Your serious and substantive comments merit a more thorough reply than I can give here tonight, and will do tomorrow.
However, I take note of the following:
“While a case can be made (and I do not intend to make or destroy that case here, at the moment) that it can be permissible to support such a law in certain circumstances, but it must be understood that such a law can never be morally proposed nor can it be morally held as a strategic position. This means that the philosophical underpinnings of the approach to abolishing abortion cannot be hung on the idea that you will have to make continuing compromises along the way, and in fact, there are many moral reasons one should never compromise when it comes to such grave moral matters anyway.”
I think this is the crux of the difference between us.
Incrementalists are not making or proposing compromises. We are trying to wrest from the grip of the legislators as many children as we can, as soon as we can. We are forcing them to compromise. The reality of the legislative process is that legislators will yield only that which they believe they must in order to stay in the good graces of the electorate. Nothing changed in the pro-life, pro-abort trench war until we brought to light the horror of partial birth abortions, and secured a ban on them. That shocked the conscience of the nation. People were not willing to cede ground on earlier abortions, but were shamed/maneuvered into a ban on this late-term procedure.
In absolute terms, it yielded relatively few numbers saved. However, it put the issue squarely on the front burner.
Next comes the fetal pain bills, which target procedures at an earlier date, again shocking the nation with the realization that babies in utero feel pain. Along the way, each incrementalist battle is driving home the message of the fetuses humanity.
Again, we wrest from the legislators their compromises and concessions. We concede nothing in these legislative actions, but are in fact saving lives, and getting the message onto the front pages of the papers. We are using the legislative process to great effect, with all of our gains coming in the last decade through these new approaches.
More tomorrow.
God Bless.
Michael, the problem I see with your logic–which is very well-thought-out–is that it seems to come down to semantics. We are working in our own culture (the US for most of us, Canada for some) where C or D would equally be an improvement. If C will save lives, how could I call it bad? And if later B passed, B would override C anyway, being passed later. If it were possible, D would be better than C, I agree. But by your logic, a law stating
“Fetal children not conceived in rape or incest who are not endangering their mother’s lives may not be aborted in the third trimester”
would be perfectly moral. It fails to protect some children, but due to a semantic twist, it is also not giving permission to abort them.
In addition, when dealing with third-trimester abortions, we shouldn’t be leaving exceptions at all, whether we are incrementalists or absolutists.
Considering the cases:
Rape or incest is awful, yes, but if one supports abortion in these cases–I do not–one does not suddenly realize in the third trimester “Hey, I’m pregnant!” or “Wait, that was rape” or “It turns out he was my dad” (except in soap operas). You know you are pregnant before the third trimester. Allowing exceptions based on the circumstances of conception makes no sense, unless you are just leaving a loophole so that the mother can lie to get an abortion.
In the case of the life of the mother–the baby must be removed to save her life (sometimes, occasionally, less than it is claimed) but by the third trimester, this is done either by induction of labor or by removing the child through an incision in the uterus. As I am sure we all know, usually labor or a C-section result in a living child. The only difference between delivery and a late abortion is that steps are taken in late abortion to kill the baby. An emergency C-section can take half an hour; a late abortion can take 3 or 4 days. At any rate pausing to kill the child instead of removing him or her whole and well is unnecessary. If the problem is cancer (or other) treatments which may or will harm the baby, early delivery is an option; so is taking the risk of harming the baby in order to save the mother. It seems better to risk harm to the fetus than ensure death. The argument is reduced to the argument for abortion in the case of fetal disease or disability.
I assume that no one has mentioned fetal “deformity” because there is no one here who thinks it is okay to kill disabled children. Fetal disease or deformity can become apparent in the third trimester or shortly before, and commonly a poor prenatal diagnosis results in the parents killing the child–and they are almost always pressured to do so. Poor prenatal diagnosis is very frequently touted as a reason that third-trimester abortions *must* be allowed. Even if the child is doomed to die, why is it necessary to kill the child? If one argues that the waiting is too hard on parents, or that it is like leaving the child on life support when there is no hope–then remove the life support. Deliver the child. We don’t dismember people on life support, and some people miraculously survive when life support is removed, even if doctors were sure they would die. With prenatal diagnosis, there is even more chance of inaccuracy, and sometimes a “perfectly normal” child may be sacrificed on the supposition he or she has a disability (though this is no more or less tragic than the killing of a child with a disability). If the child were delivered rather than dismembered, medical care would be available in the case of a miraculous survival (of an infant presumed not capable of life) or of a misdiagnosis (chances of survival after delivery for a normal fetus are quite good anywhere in the third trimester).
I think anyone who insists on exceptions allowing the killing in the third trimester is on very shaky ground. Much better–if one wants to educate the public–is to explicitly allow in the law early delivery for gravely disabled infants, with the mandate of medical care if they are misdiagnosed, their condition is treatable, and/or it seems they will survive despite a poor prognosis originally being given. The law could also codify early delivery as an option in life-of-the-mother cases, and specify that treatment for the mother which could harm the fetus would be allowed if the doctor and mother considered the risks of early birth outweighed the risks of the treatments. Nip the objections in the bud before they are brought up by addressing them in the law.
Michael,
Regarding your chastisement:
“The end result is this: instead of arguing the positions on their merits or demerits, the debaters complain about being personally attacked. Not only does this not facilitate good dialog, but it makes us all, as a whole, look foolish and childish.”
I have been thanked repeatedly for banning trolls from this blog. Readers become weary of the childishness and immaturity of the trolls, who make blogs into radioactive wastelands. Considering where you work, and your position there (anonymity secure here!), I take note that your site does not sport that type of bombastic behavior. I welcome debate, but when it gets personal, I ban the offender.
As for your discourse on positive law, etc, you miss an essential piece of direction from Matthew 12:
1 At that time Jesus went through the cornfields one Sabbath day. His disciples were hungry and began to pick ears of corn and eat them.
2 The Pharisees noticed it and said to him, ‘Look, your disciples are doing something that is forbidden on the Sabbath.’
3 But he said to them, ‘Have you not read what David did when he and his followers were hungry-
4 how he went into the house of God and they ate the loaves of the offering although neither he nor his followers were permitted to eat them, but only the priests?
5 Or again, have you not read in the Law that on the Sabbath day the Temple priests break the Sabbath without committing any fault?
6 Now here, I tell you, is something greater than the Temple.
7 And if you had understood the meaning of the words: Mercy is what pleases me, not sacrifice, you would not have condemned the blameless.
8 For the Son of man is master of the Sabbath.’
9 He moved on from there and went to their synagogue;
10 now a man was there with a withered hand. They asked him, ‘Is it permitted to cure somebody on the Sabbath day?’ hoping for something to charge him with.
11 But he said to them, ‘If any one of you here had only one sheep and it fell down a hole on the Sabbath day, would he not get hold of it and lift it out?
12 Now a man is far more important than a sheep, so it follows that it is permitted on the Sabbath day to do good.’
13 Then he said to the man, ‘Stretch out your hand.’ He stretched it out and his hand was restored, as sound as the other one.
14 At this the Pharisees went out and began to plot against him, discussing how to destroy him.
I call your attention to verses 11 and 12 in particular. There is a dynamic tension here. The Pharisees rightly pointed to both Divine law, and positive law (regarding how best to observe and keep the Divine law). Jesus shows that positive law which ignores the ability to save a life, even if that positive law is designed to safeguard Divine law, misses the point of the Divine Imperative. We run the risk of becoming Catholic Pharisees when our stand on principle consigns millions to their premature deaths.
The fallacy that Cranky Catholic made was the supposition that we judge those conceived in rape or incest, those with poor prenatal diagnoses, to be unworthy of life. This is patently absurd. Allow me another military analogy from WWII.
German POW’s in Russian captivity were shipped to the Siberian gulags, where 95% died. Some were held in temporary holding areas close to the front lines when captured, until they could be processed further to the rear, and ultimately Siberia.
Now, each of these prisoners mattered to his general. The generals wanted them all back safely. If the generals knew that 200,000 soldiers captured in Stalingrad could be freed by an immediate counteroffensive, how would it be received if some of them insisted that no counteroffensive would be moral unless it had the ability to free those in the Siberian gulags as well. It’s absurd on it’s face, isn’t it? The only way they could liberate those in the Siberian gulags, who were the most difficult to free, would be to win the war. Why let those within one’s grasp go off to certain death simply because we can’t free those beyond one’s grasp? It would be immoral.
That’s our dilemma, Michael. I don’t think Jesus wants us becoming Catholic Pharisees, whose purity prevents us from doing good, from saving lives. Such purity isn’t pure at all. It is self-righteousness, pious preening that blinds us to the plight of those whose lives are within our grasp.
It is lawful to do good on the Sabbath, even if that good involves labor. Similarly, absolutist attempts at overturning Roe in the SC, having failed, necessitate incrementalist measures that save those immediately within our grasp. Each victory places us closer to the gulags, and we will not stop fighting until we have secured ALL babies.
Your arguments are academically sound, Michael. But here in the trenches hundreds of thousands of babies are dying, who might otherwise be saved. Jesus gives us a scenario that cuts through the academic arguments and calls us to consider the spirit of the law, lest we get caught in the vortex of Phariseeism’s insistence on purity of method to the point of sinning against charity.
Perhaps what I find disheartening about these laws are the predictions that they will save babies, but, once enacted, they seem very weak in this area. I have to ask, if a woman is given an ultrasound under this bill by an advocate for abortion, will she see the truth, or simply an obfuscation of the truth of what is seen on the screen. As with “options” counseling, will the abortion advocate that provides the screening simply use this to further advocate for the abortion – see this does not look like a person, just a peanut? Will gestational age be determined by the abortion doctor, it seems to me that they also are well trained at manipulating what is determined by ultrasound. Forgive me, I just don’t believe that these laws will actually be as effective as they “promise” to be.
Cathy, I share your concerns about how these laws are to be executed. I think that an abortion clinic should be prohibited from doing the sonogram, as they have an inherent conflict of interest. Either a CPC, or a medical facility should be required by law to perform the sonogram. Printed pictures of the baby with arrows pointing to identifying facial and other anatomic features complete with the mother’s signature on those arrows as proof of legitimate identification should be a requirement of the law.
Michael said:
This war will not be won in a courtroom, nor will it be won in legislation … this is not a war of laws, but a war for the hearts and minds of everyone.
Cathy said:
I just don’t believe that these laws will actually be as effective as they “promise” to be.
pt says:
These two statements, by two posters, are quite different in their meaning. However, there are similarities. I don’t have knowledge in any way comparable to Dr. Nadal’s, but I can draw on a simple comparison. Some good hearted people made this argument regarding racial equality in this country. But it appears as though they were not correct. That war was won, like most wars are won, on many fronts, including those fought incrementally (and with many compromises along the way) in courtrooms and legislation. And many (if not most) of the hearts and minds that were won were won through these battles. Would you go back in time, if you could, and have us fight the battle of racial equality some other way?
The choice to choose life or death is a grace of God. Laws that force ultra-sound machines into killing centers open up an entirely new fronts for God to change hearts. His face will be present in every blurry image of His creation on the screen. The heart that they will hear beating will become a living pulse of connection with the Creator. God will be present in a tangible way to many for the first time. Battlefield conversions are better than none at all.
If you have ever been present for an untra-sound, instinctively even the hardest heart, knows he or she is viewing something incredible. Once again it is our choice to really see or look away.
I was thinking we were going to be on opposite ends of this debate, Gerard. But, alas, your article proved otherwise. I have dealt with some “all or nothing, now or never” folks here in Virginia also. They seem self absorbed and out of t…ouch with reality. Do they really think that the state laws protecting infants after 20 weeks are a waste of time? Defunding Indiana PP? The Texas sonogram law? This is akin to saying that a new state forbidding slavery back 150 years ago was a waste of time. As the modern abolitionists, we should take every victory we can get in the states while they are at present out of our reach federally.
Saving some lives is always worth it, and these laws can be amended/strengthened later. Let us take the new gallup numbers to heart. Our upsurge has been reversed. If we truly want to reverse that back before November, 2012 – we’d better get honest with ourselves about what is holding us back. And that goes right to the top. We cannot tie ourselves to one political party, or to one religion. MLK didn’t make that mistake. But the big shots in pro life are still making it. MLK got a good ole boy democrat from Texas to sign that bill into law in 1965. We’re NOT going to win anything nationally if we continue to kid ourselves into thinking we are going to convert half of our opponents into conservative Christian republicans.
And we’ve GOT to stop attacking our own allies like Kristen Day and Democrats for Life! That would seem to me to be a no brainer. If someone celebrates Scott Brown’s election, then calls Ben Nelson a sellout – I daresay that shows us their cards. (see: hidden agenda)
Human rights and scientific honesty – and getting the word out to liberals and atheists and everyone else that this is what we are defending – is the only way we are going to win in my opinion.
I don’t think all-or-nothing-ers have a problem with defunding PP; that law doesn’t include permission to kill any child or hoops to jump through which end in killing a child.
Laura Brown’s analogy of 5 children drowning is an accurate one. I have used a variation of this analogy for years, but the purist mindset seems impervious to it. I call it the Lifeboat analogy, and it goes like this:
If you happen to be strolling on the beach one day and you see a large boat capsize some distance offshore, what should you do? Perhaps 100 people are drowning. You see a lifeboat nearby which could hold 25 of them.
Probably, you and some sensible people close by would try to push that lifeboat into the water. But no! A Purist has also been strolling on the beach, and as you try to lauch the lifeboat you find this earnest fellow (and his friends!) planted firmly in front of the boat, heaving and straining to stop you from pushing it down into the water.
Please! you might cry. Even if you Purists don’t want to help us save at least 25 people right now, at least don’t foil our rescue attempt!
“You will thank me on Judgment Day, replies the Purist. The act of launching this inadequate lifeboat is an immoral declaration that the other 75 lives are not worth saving.
We must construct a lifeboat that will hold all 100 of those drowning people. To do less would imperil your immortal soul – and by not opposing you I would imperil mine!”
I do think that, at root, the heresy of the Pharisees is at work here. Unable to comprehend Grace, the Pharisees and their modern equivalents choose certain foundational principles and believe themselves saved by this effort. Your correspondent Michael says it all by believing:
“… human life is not about how many lives can be saved (no one escapes this life alive), but how well we lived a good Christian life according to God’s Laws.”
And yet one has only to read the Sermon on the Mount to see that we will all fail to be perfect in the light of God’s Laws. The orthodox Christian message is that we cast ourselves not upon our confidence about “how well we lived a good Christian life” but upon God’s mercy and grace.
The difficult bit for the pro-life movement is that, like our lifeboat-obstructors in my analogy, the Purists are not content to disagree with the sensible incremental approach and feel compelled actively obstruct it. If they could only be induced to have enough self-doubt to just hold their judgment and see what the incremental approach can do, the world could become a better place.
And it is this world, after all, in which we have been placed.
Lots to respond to here, but I think that the crux of what is being addressed in response to my post lies in Dr. Nadal’s statement:
“Your arguments are academically sound, Michael. But here in the trenches hundreds of thousands of babies are dying, who might otherwise be saved. Jesus gives us a scenario that cuts through the academic arguments and calls us to consider the spirit of the law, lest we get caught in the vortex of Phariseeism’s insistence on purity of method to the point of sinning against charity.”
This isn’t the first time I’ve seen “Pharisee” used on this page in relation to “absolute abolitionists,” and I think that the use of it is inaccurate. The reason Jesus chastised the Pharisees is not because of their adherence to the Law, but because of their greed, hypocrisy and self-adulation. In fact, Jesus admonished His disciples in Matthew 5:18-20:
“Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven. I tell you, unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”
In other words, it is imperative that we maintain purity of principle (also called being scrupulous) as we approach this war against women and babies, which is also why the semantics is important. (Incidentally, the Greek root of the word “semantic” is “semantikos ,” which means “significant” … so semantics is VERY important). Now, unless those using the word “pharisee” really do believe the absolute abolitionist pro-lifers to be greedy, self-righteous hypocrites, I suggest dropping the accusation.
As I stated above, the most fundamental aspect of all moral theology is that one may never do evil so that good may come of it, no matter how great the good or small the evil. Making a law which bans abortion with specific exceptions is not the mere allowance of an evil, but the commission of an evil. In other words, it is really two statements – Abortions are banned … and … Abortions are allowed for certain cases. This falls directly under the this very fundamental aspect of moral theology … an evil is being committed for a perceived greater good. By definition, this is not moral.
On the other hand, making a law which simply states that all “second and third trimester abortions” are illegal, does not participate in the commission of evil because it proposes no affirmative allowance of an evil act. There is a hole in the law (not banning first trimester abortions), rendering it imperfect, but it is not complicit in the act.
This is why the proposal of laws and the strategy to approach the abortion war through the proposal of such laws which effectively end with, “and then you can kill the baby” is not moral. It is morally permissible to vote in favor of such laws, as Evangelium Vitae paragraph 73 states, and under the strictest of circumstances, but this does not extend into moral permissibility for the proposal of such laws or the strategy to use the proposal of such laws to build to eventual abolition. This is our Catholic Faith. This is the teaching of the Church. Certainly, we are free to accept or reject it as it is written, but it is not up for reinterpretation nor are we free to claim that either the Church is wrong or the Church teaches otherwise.
I take issue with the claim that “The whole enchillada” was tried and did not work! When exactly? provide the examples of “tried”, because I don’t see them. Incrementalism has been “tried” since the beginning and has now been a dismal failure for almost 40 years. How long are you going to “try” and fail before you realize it doesn’t work and that the GIANT loopholes you are creating are just resulting in more and more babies being unprotected and dying! I have heard them say they will “come back for the rest” for 40 years, but have they EVER? Not once! Until ALL life is proteccted, NO LIFE is protected!
Hi Pam,
Can you cite for me the incrementalist approaches of the 1970’s-1980’s? I honestly know of none. When Reagan offered an incrementalist constitutional amendment, the absolutists won out.
I have no business commenting at this point — the greater moral thinkers already having spoken here. But the kids didn’t let me get a word in edgewise today, so I’ll speak, buy gum, finally, I’ll speak!
As far as I know, Pam Stenzel, every important fight ever won, with longstanding and powerful armies on both sides, was won in bits and pieces, for example, the fight for racial equality, the fight against communism, various fights against organized crime, fights against ignorance and poverty in parts of the world, fights for moral clarity on various issues, etc. I cannot provide an example of an important victory over an entrenched enemy, on any physical, spiritual or moral battleground, that came all at once, as a whole enchilada, especially while at the same time rejecting outright any gains that would have been made by step or by compromise. Perhaps tough, as usual, I’m simply ignorant. I’m grateful for any historical perspective.
Michael said “it is imperative that we maintain purity of principle as we approach this war against women and babies, which is also why the semantics is important.” (Ironically, those are exactly – almost verbatim — the words used by a militant feminist I know who was arguing for abortion on demand.)
The words of theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer may not be as authoritative, eloquent, or profound, but they may be worth considering nonetheless:
“I thought I could acquire faith by trying to live a holy life. I discovered later, and I am still discovering right up to this moment, that it is only by living completely in this world that one learns to have faith. Who stands fast? Only the one for whom the final standard is not his reason, his principles, his conscience, his freedom, his virtue, but who is ready to sacrifice all these, when in faith and sole allegiance to God he is called to obedient and responsible action.”
Wow! You hit that one out of the park, Paul!
Michael,
Please see Father Clark’s guest post where he treats this issue in regards to Double-Effect.
https://gerardnadal.com/2011/05/26/case-for-incrementalism-round-deux/
And with a protestant theologian being upheld as a higher authority to Catholic moral teaching, I retire my debate.
Wishing your debate a happy retirement! May it spend its golden years in soft surroundings, engaged in gentle activities and quiet meditation…
As a prolifer in the 1970’s and 1980’s I know of no such incremental approach to enact prolife legislation or protect unborn children. Generally it was an all or nothing approach.
I was a prolife teen during this time and attempting to enact prolife legislation or to keep current bans on abortion was the tour de force.
Meanwhile our proabort counterparts were working hard to push abortion as a woman’s right to her body.
Our counter-response was that if people KNEW “it” wasn’t a blob of cells – if they became educated about the unborn baby they would “understand” the humanity of the unborn baby.
This tactic has been largely unsuccessful for a number of reasons. The main one is that we never foresaw the depth to which moral relativism would take over the way people think and act. And the 1970’s was the decade that followed the civil rights movement. This decade fed off of this movement and led to people working for other “rights”; divorce, child support, beginning of the gay rights movement, workplace rights etc.
I think many people now see abortion framed in terms of rights – a woman’s right to do what she wants with her body trumps the unborn baby’s right to life.
The recent Gallup Poll seems to show that while many believe abortion is wrong, they do believe abortion should be available in certain circumstances.
Personally, I believe that the whole personhood initiative and pushing the rights of the baby as being equal to that of the mother is brilliant. It may be that other factors will help us – burgeoning debt means that certain “services” will no longer be funded. Many countries are also very worried about their dearth of population meaning public policy will likely try to influence people about the positive aspects of children.
I believe we should work for whatever gains and protections we can get for the unborn child.
Whether that be incrementally or otherwise.
I’m sorry, but I just can’t let this go without a response.
PT quoted Lutheran theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and the quote was lauded by Dr. Nadal:
“I thought I could acquire faith by trying to live a holy life. I discovered later, and I am still discovering right up to this moment, that it is only by living completely in this world that one learns to have faith. Who stands fast? Only the one for whom the final standard is not his reason, his principles, his conscience, his freedom, his virtue, but who is ready to sacrifice all these, when in faith and sole allegiance to God he is called to obedient and responsible action.”
Not only does this statement contradict itself, but it implies that there can be a contradiction in God Himself. The question is “who stands fast (in relation to faith)?” Bonhoeffer claims that the one who stands fast in faith is the one willing to sacrifice reason, principle, conscience, freedom, and virtue in order to maintain allegiance to God through obedience and responsible action.
This is an insane statement … it really is. For one thing, without reason, principle, conscience, and virtue, there is no obedience to God or any action responsibly allied to His Divine Will. For another, One cannot sacrifice those things which God teaches (through reason, revelation and grace, we receive right principles, a well formed conscience, and virtue) and remain in obedience to Him. There is no contradiction in God!
According to this “logic” (and I use the term VERY loosely in relation to this quote), the early Christian martyrs who refused to offer a pinch of incense to false gods were wrong because they were not willing to sacrifice “reason, principle, conscience, freedom, and virtue” to perform a “responsible action.” Many of those martyrs had young children they would leave orphaned should they refuse to offer that pinch of incense. The world told them, “It’s RESPONSIBLE to offer that pinch of incense. You have to consider your children. Who will care for them if you are executed. Besides, it’s not like you actually BELIEVE in the gods … it’s just an act to satisfy the emperor, so you aren’t even betraying God in your own heart.” They knew then that they couldn’t engage in even the slightest evil in order to preserve their lives, the lives of their family, and the lives of their friends specifically because they COULD NOT “sacrifice reason, principle, conscience, freedom and virtue” for the perceived “greater good.”
To praise this quote is not only an affront to those early Christian martyrs, but to rational thought.
The first thing that bothers me in regards to this post, is the presumption that the sonogram law protects any baby. If we are honest, the law still does not protect the child after the sonogram is performed. That is why such laws are seen as, after you do this, you can kill the baby laws. At no point, does the law protect the baby, unless having a law stating that once you take my picture and look at it, you can kill me is considered protection.
As for Oscar Schindler, the man risked his life to do what he did. Had he been caught, his fate would have been the same as the people he was attempting to save. We, each of us personally, do not have the worry that we are in danger of abortion.
We do have mutual concerns, that, to my knowledge, are addressed in the Personhood amendment, for, while we are not subject to being placed back into the womb, we are subject to old age and disability and our culture is quickly making an effort to make old age and disability unacceptable and a matter of economic good as opposed to right to life and the duty to protect the most vulnerable in our society.
Personhood, then, does not seek to simply end abortion. Personhood seeks to protect each of us, here for our two cent debate, from the course of philosophical, bioethic and scientific shenanigans which seek to deprive each of us and our loved ones of the right to life. The “whole enchilada” is a lot different when you come to recognize that you are a part of it. Please, let me know, who wants to be the exception to Personhood? Seriously, any one of us could be next.
God bless!
Cathy, I think the problem I have with sonogram viewing is that really it’s almost too late.
Women who are considering abortion usually have no other options. They see themselves as being in a gigantic pit. Once the abortion mindset develops and abortion is an option many women simply don’t have the courage to change direction. They probably know they should but they can’t.
This is why more than just sonograms should be offered. I think sonograms should be a last effort.
Instead we as a society need to recognize that a woman who is considering abortion as a option, generally speaking has many other issues going on. This goes for teens, married women, older women etc.
These issues need to be addressed.
For many of these women, it’s only AFTER the abortion, when the dust has settled that they are able to see that maybe there were alternatives. But in the panic of an unplanned pregnancy, that kind of thinking just isn’t there.
I had no doubt about Michael’s return, of course, but I am wondering what took him so long to post again.
Bonhoeffer words (don’t confine yourself to the one set of quoted sentences) reveal a maturation process, an evolution in thinking (and more) that came, at least in part, from taking action against the Nazis that he felt necessary on a moral level but that led to him sacrificing both his life and a way of life that he once thought holy. The incongruity was resolved in the wisdom that, while likely inherent in the man, evolved in the trenches. As a Bonhoeffer scholar said: “What moved him to action was his awareness of a Christian’s paramount duty to act responsibly in the world, even when that action comes into conflict with conventional ethics.” I would guess that applies to Catholics as well, Michael, but who am I to say; that is clearly your department.
More from scholars: Bonhoeffer’s, it would seem, is an argument for ethical maturity — and courage — enough to risk setting aside abstract solutions when concrete circumstances demand it. “For Bonhoeffer, ethics is a matter of history and blood,” said James H. Evans, president of Colgate Rochester Divinity School. “There is no universal ethics. There are no principles to resort to. Yesterday’s ethical decisions can’t be prescriptive — every situation is unique. You have to seek God’s will anew each day. It is through this freedom that Christians become creative in ethical actions.”
Let’s turn this around, Michael – maybe it will help (although I doubt it). One can have as a principle that all women should be able to have abortion on demand (and many people do), but perhaps can be motivated to take an action that is contrary to such principles, because they begin to see / understand the relationship between a particular action and God? Or would that be really “insane?”
Any, I give up. I’m off to see a man about a horse…
Cathy & Mary Catherine,
The point of a sonogram bill is to put a hurdle between the woman and the abortion. It’s what was called earlier in these posts a “positive” law. It doesn’t say go ahead and kill. It says you must see a picture of your baby.
It gives a bit of time, when rational thought can come back in after the panic.
It’s proven that a percentage of women who see an ultrasound or sonogram do NOT abort.
You see, they DO have choices, they don’t SEE that they have choices. If the sonogram is performed by someone who will not gain from the woman’s choice to abort, the true facts of human life are there before her eyes.
That DOES change women’s minds. Often it gives them the courage to stand up against those who are pressuring her to abort.
Women have changed their minds after being shown a fetal model. No effort to convince a woman not to abort is “too late”.
Sadly, it doesn’t change every woman’s mind, but it is PROVEN to change some. Those babies are saved.
“You see, they DO have choices, they don’t SEE that they have choices. If the sonogram is performed by someone who will not gain from the woman’s choice to abort, the true facts of human life are there before her eyes.
That DOES change women’s minds. Often it gives them the courage to stand up against those who are pressuring her to abort.”
I agree and have said as much but….
I have no doubt Laura that it will help some women. It is just that in my experience, a woman who is being pressured to abort MUST be removed from that pressure, given time to depressurize and be placed into a safe place where she can truly make the decision she needs to.
I believe some women will stand up after seeing the ultrasound and resist the pressure to abort.
However, in my experience, many other women will not because they will go back into that environment that is filled with coercion.
I use to sidewalk counsel and so many women didn’t want to abort. Sometimes they would come with us and stay a day or two in a safe place and then would go back home only to show up at the abortion clinic the next day to have the abortion.
Those are the women we really need to help. Perhaps we need safe houses like those for abused women only these are houses that are safe for pregnant women to go to when they feel threatened…..
I was just telling my daughter this and I will throw it out here and see what others think:
In Canada in the mid 1970’s the law was that abortions could only be done in hospitals by doctors and could only be approved for reasons of “health” by a committee in the hospital.
Prolifers were livid because they knew this was the thin wedge to abortion on demand.
Now the problem with this law was that “health” wasn’t defined.And because it wasn’t defined this meant that women who wanted abortions were being approved under the broad definition of psychiatric and mental health problems. Very few, if any were done for legitimate health reasons because as most doctors know there aren’t many reasons (if any) for aborting a pregnancy.
The result of this incremental approach was that everyone knew these committees were no more than rubber stamping abortions – the stats reflected this as abortions increased dramatically each year.
Feminists screamed bloody murder and this law was struck down. It was helped of course by Henry Morgentaler who decided he would do abortions whereever and when ever he pleased for whatever reason.
Canada has no law on abortion – the only country in the Western world in such a situation. It is possible to be in labor and have your baby aborted.
So I would say incrementalism worked very well for abortion rights activists in Canada.
Michael 5/26 2:04 makes some excellent points in regard to purity of principle (and what Cranky was also getting at earlier).
I think we need to view incrementalism differently than “kill some to save some”. That is not acceptable.
Let’s start at the beginning. Why have we come to these proffered compromises? It’s because Roe v. Wade set forth through judicial fiat that abortion is a “right”. Any legislation offered to deny abortion at any point will be shot down until a pro-life majority sits on the Supreme Court. Therefore, only legislation that serves to “inform” without overly “burdening” the woman and her “right” to abortion has any chance of passing the Supremes.
Hence, we have parental notification, parental consent, waiting periods, medical standards, facility requirement laws, etc. The partial birth abortion ban does not ban abortion, only the method. Other methods are still available. Ultrasound bills are another example of “informing” legislation. These laws either rely on making abortion more inconvenient for the providers or mothers, without being overtly “burdensome”, or rest on the hope that once women understand what they are about to do, i.e., kill their BABIES, that they will decide not to. Of course, due to the existence of evil and sin, some mothers will still kill their babies with full knowledge and consent, as will other murderers in society (but we put those others in jail).
So the consent, notification, ultrasound, etc. laws may be viewed as incremental in that they reduce abortion in steps, albeit indirectly, rather than outlawing it all at once. Though the death toll could be higher, I don’t consider over 1 million abortions/year something to brag about.
These fetal pain bills and late term abortion bills being passed are starting to challenge Roe v. Wade. If no one takes them to the courts, they can stand. If challenged, who knows what will happen? Perhaps some may think the rape/incest exceptions would make them appear less “burdensome” for women who have already been traumatized. But from a logical perspective, a life is a life, regardless of circumstances. Then again, the Supreme Court is not known for its logical rulings.
If I were crafting legislation to incrementally make abortion more difficult to obtain, I would be very careful with the wording (semantics). I would not include any language allowing abortion under any circumstances, for if Roe v. Wade were overturned, there would now be LAWS on the books that permit abortion, even if just for rape/incest.
Besides, I think the rape/incest exceptions are a red herring that draws attention, time, and effort away from what could be a great teaching moment when pro-life bills are introduced. Instead of saying, “Oh yeah, there’s the usual rape/incest exceptions, so please pass it”, wouldn’t it be nice to hear, “Senator Kirk, please explain to me why this human being, genetically, uniquely distinct, deserves to have her arms and legs and head ripped off by a suction machine because she was conceived in rape”?
Ron Paul, many years ago, hit the nail on the head when he said a Constitutional Human Life Amendment was not the way to go because it was near impossible to achieve, nor was it necessary. He said a simple law defining personhood as beginning at conception would strike the Achilles’ heel of the Roe v. Wade decision. And personhood knows no distinction between modes of conception or physical differences.
I want the whole enchilada. The key is electing the right cooks.
[…] Coming Home makes the case for an incrementalist approach to pro-life activism. […]
Hi Gerard,
I couldn’t help but notice that you encountered Cranky Catholic…You may have banished that personality of hers but she has a thousand names but only one motive and that is to control the pro-life movement…She attacks all those with any voice and power in the movement because she wants to be the only voice in the movement…You called her a troll and most of that word is in the word that most describes her “CONTROL”…
She will show up with lots of other online names to attack you again…
On the topic at hand I agree with you and wish we would learn from our opponents who used incrementalism to bring us to this horrific place of abortion on demand for all nine months of pregnancy…
Once again, I repeat she has a thousand online names and profiles and your friends list on Facebook is full of her…
Lucy
Lucy, thanks for the 411 on Cranky. Can you send me the FB profiles when you get a moment?
I’ll have to keep a close eye for her here.
God Bless.
Michael,
You sound like an intelligent man with a higher commitment to constructive conversation than Cranky. But you have seemingly fallen into a logical fallacy which I don’t have the time to learn the name of when you state: “…. Now, unless those using the word “pharisee” really do believe the absolute abolitionist pro-lifers to be greedy, self-righteous hypocrites, I suggest dropping the accusation.”
It is you who describe the heresy of the Pharisees as greed, self-righteousness, and hypocrisy, not I. I would never say such mean and off-the-point things about those who disagree with the explicitly incrementalist strategy to overcome the evil of abortion. You yourself appear to be a non-explicit incrementalist, since you would vote for, even perhaps propose, a blanket ban on all abortions past a certain gestational age. (Perhaps you could find a way to vote for a law which says that no abortions are allowed which end the life of a baby past a certain genetic age who was conceived as a result of consensual intercourse by two people who are not first-degree relatives, but that is a separate discussion.)
The Phariseeism which I wish to discuss involves those who seem full of confidence that they have earned divine approval by counselling perfection: the perfect prolife law, no matter how small the democratic mandate available for it at the moment, must continue to be proposed, and other approaches must be condemned and obstructed.
The practical effect of this in Canada in 1991 was that a weak and minimally effectual law, one that would have at least maintained mention of abortion in Canadian law, was defeated by, in effect, the combined effort of pro-abortionists and the purists. The practical effect of purism more recently in Canada has been to contribute to the defeat of sensible laws about coercion to abort and about making the killing of a fetus (in the course of an assault) an aggravating factor.
Is it possible, Michael, that what Bonhoeffer means when he says that one might set aside “… his reason, his principles, his conscience, his freedom, his virtue,…” is that one could come, through practical experience or revelation, to have a healthy self-doubt about one’s (“his”) own understanding of these good things?
The opposite, an impermeable confidence in – for instance – one’s own strategic reasoning, could infect either side in the purist vs. incrementalist debate but seems hitherto to be more characteristic of the purists.
The impression left is that the purists wish more than anything to avoid contamination, moral and spiritual, through contact with any law that, by omission, implies the legitimacy of abortion in any circumstance. Thus a purist might have voted against the law which banned the transport of slaves while not abolishing all existing slavery, and so forth.
If you have time to reply to this, I will be alert for any engagement of this issue of Phariseeism.
“genetic age” – I mean gestational age
Hi Gerard,
A word to the wise is sufficient at this point…
Someone has reminded me that the purists did not try to obstruct the unborn victims of crime law in Canada (I say erroneously that they did in my last post). That bill died because an election was called. Hopefully it will be proposed again.
“Roxanne’s Law”, an anti-coercion bill, did run into opposition from purists.
Will I may be wrong but I think most prolife groups in Canada supported Bill C-510.
As far as I remember the bill was defeated Dec 15/10 in the House of Commons.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/prime-minister-stephen-harper-votes-against-bill-banning-coerced-abortion/
It is a blatant lie that the so-called “all-or-nothing” approach has been the predominant plan for eradicating abortion-on-demand since the Roe v Wade decision. Rather, many and various so-called incremental band-aids have been applied. Informed consent, parental notification, mandatory ultrasound, fetal pain and all the other recent attempts to REGULATE abortion are only the latest avenues of compromise. Tilting at “partial-birth” was another colossal waste of effort. It spelled out in court the exact hoops one needed to jump through to legally murder babies pre-born instead of the not-even-preferred post-born method. As if to underline the futility, along comes Kermit Gosnell who, unable to perfect the drug-to-the-heart technique, simply waits and ‘snips’ later in a non-enforced regulatory environment.
Justice Blackmun included the poison pill in his majority opinion but it laid dormant until relatively recently. The definitive “enchilada” as Dr. Nadal describes it was never even pushed to its full logical effect. So much more has been learned since 1973 about embryology and all the developmental stages through neonatology that personhood is an even more obvious benefit-of-the-doubt assertion than it was for Justice Blackmun’s theorizing under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments protection.
MaryCatherine,
You said “I may be wrong but I think most prolife groups in Canada supported Bill C-510.”
This link shows how numerous pro-lifers opposed the bill. One in particular is Geoff Cauchi, who as this article says, is an adviser to Campaign Life Coalition (CLC). Cauchi is also president of Alliance for Life Ontario (AFLO) and AFLO never came out in support of the bill. This article also says that “Hughes said CLC cannot support a bill that acknowledges abortion as a permissible option for Canadian women”:
http://www.theinterim.com/features/bill-c-510-creates-controversy-within-pro-life-community/
CLC later said that they recommended MPs vote for C-510, but that CLC wanted to amend the wording of the Bill when it went to committee. In other words, they did not support the bill as it was written. They wanted it to go to committee so it could be changed to their liking. And how realistic would that be, given how many pro-abortion MPs we have in Canada? See this link:
http://www.lsn.ca/news/first-hour-of-debate-on-roxannes-law-takes-place-in-canadian-parliament/
See these two articles by Cauchi as well, they are long, but leave no doubt that Cauchi did not support Bill-C510:
http://catholicinsight.com/online/features/article_1037.shtml
http://catholicinsight.com/online/political/abortion/article_1091.shtml
I can only conclude from all of this, that there really wasn’t the necessary support–at least not from the “political arm of the pro-life movement”–that would have helped the bill to pass. Given the pro-abortion opposition we face, it takes a lot more enthusiastic and active support than this to have any chance of success.
The following groups did campaign proactively in support of c-510:
Priests For Life Canada
http://www.priestsforlifecanada.com/English/News_Events/Roxannes_Law/Roxannes_Law_Parish_Letter_EN.pdf
Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) Canada
http://arpacanada.ca/index.php/action-items/current-action-requests/966-1-action-item-support-bill-c-510-roxannes-law
Evangelical Fellowship of Canada
http://www.evangelicalfellowship.ca/page.aspx?pid=7516
4MyCanada
http://4mycanada.ca/Emails/
And yes you are correct, the Bill was defeated in the House of Commons. Canada still has no legal restrictions on abortion.
The first thing that Christians and Catholics must remember is that the pro-life movement is not exclusively a Christian or religious movement. Neither are the victims of abortion always the children of Christians. The pro-life movement is attempting to bring a message of life to an entire diverse society as a whole. Therefore we are attempting to legislate and culturally define a barbaric practice out of existance one small step at a time.
The war against abortion is a war but a war of a different kind. It is a war of ideas. The difference between incrementalism and absolutism creates some of the most passionate discussion between pro-lifers. Nothing, in my opinion, will rid us of abortion as effectively or as permentently as incrementalism. The ground that was lost from the legalization of abortion was lost one step at a time and it must be regained one step at a time.
One bold step to end abortion instantly will leave too much terrain unsecured, unmarked and undefined. A liberating force that reaches too far usually becomes detached from its line of support, weakens and is easily driven back. Each step must be defined, marked and secured left with a defending force. This means that every type of abortion must be honestly addressed, defined and ultimately abolished.
The all or nothing approach as meritorious as it may seem, to me suggests impatience, a lack of long term vision and perhaps at times, a lack of maturity. No one who accepts victory in stages is suggesting or believes that not all life is sacred. However, we must not only do what is right, but we must do what is possible. We do not proceed upon this endeavor merely as an ideal against a perverse ideology. We must do more.
As a practical matter we are engaging in the saving of human lives and we must use all the tools that are at our disposal to acheive that end peacefully. This includes prayer, side walk counseling, education, adoption, parental consent, government defunding in addition to legislation that permits or requires women to be fully informed about the procedure they are about to procure from abortion providers.
An all or nothing approach may appear ideologically pure, but over time, I believe that it can only extend the life of abortion as a commercial practice and cultural disaster. The pro-life movement cannot be exclusively a movement about laws. It must be a movement that changes an entire culture one heart and mind at a time. A society and culture that protects life must not simply be a policy, it must be a legacy.
Brian,
Perhaps what is most upsetting is, in regards to the “pro-abortion” advocates, is, we are not dealing with simply proclaimed atheists and proclaimed non-Christians. In as much as you say that the pro-life movement is not exclusively Catholic or Christian we have souls who, with their mouths proclaim to be Catholic or Christian, who proclaim a right to abortion. My niece, over ten years ago, went for a five-month ultrasound with her second child. She paid $5 for a copy of her ultrasound. When her child was discovered to have a fetal anomaly, the doctor told her about it and recommended abortion. When my niece asked for the copy of the ultrasound, they told her the part of the machine that makes copies was broken. When she returned, pregnant, for her sixth month visit, her doctor looked at her like she had grown a second head and told her she would not bring that baby into the world. She was dropped by both her OB doctor and her pediatrician for the crime of having a defective baby. In the manner in which they did it, it was a judgment not against their lack of specialization in caring for this baby, it was a judgment against mom for bringing a special needs baby into the world when abortion was perfectly legal.
Perhaps, that is the reason, I “get in a tizzy” over the exceptions. The majority of pro-lifers have not recognized the “tizzy” others get in when you choose life in an exceptional case.
I also get in a “tizzy” when people suggest that abortion was “passed” in the United States, as far as I know, it was not “passed”. Much like the case of same-sex marriage laws it came through state laws and state judiciary decisions, then ultimately the Supreme Court which declared it legal by judicial fiat.
Ten years before the Roe v. Wade decision, no one would have ever thought that the United States of America would ever legalize abortion. Ten years ago, no one would have ever thought that the United States of America would ever legalize same-sex marriage. As we “incrementally” make the case for life, in our own institutions of higher learning, our future is given over to students whose teachers are educating them in the rightness of bestiality, infanticide and euthanasia. Incrementally, we are at a cross-roads and we do not recognize what will be upon us ten years from now.
Call me a purist, if you will, somehow, I don’t consider it an insult.
God bless you!
Cathy, and Other Friends,
In my original post, I assiduously avoided terminology such as ‘purist’, ‘absolutist’, etc. I intentionally used the colloquial ‘whole enchilada’ to avoid labels that may be taken as pejorative by ally’s in this pro-life fight.
I ask that we be careful in their use, and to bear with one another lovingly. Each other is not the enemy here. The enemy tears babies apart in their mother’s wombs. Our debate is one of strategy, and not ideology.
God Bless
Patricia
Thank you for your links.
Having been involved with Jim Hughes’ organization when I was a young woman, I no longer support him or his organization for reasons I won’t go into publicly on a blog.
I was disappointed that this law did not pass. My experience is that Hughes and his organization are very vociferous campaigners and perhaps bear a great deal of responsibility for the law not passing.
CLC’s tactics did not work in defeating Morgentaler either. Perhaps it is time this group sits down and rethinks their strategy.
Thank you Gerard for providing this platform for prolifers to discuss strategy.
Are we not the Educational Arm of the Pro-Life movement? Our role then is to educate. As we accomplish that job, and do it well enough, and by the grace of God, the people’s hearts will change. How often have we heard, “The laws will not change until the people’s hearts have changed”? We need to change hearts by education and by prayer.
If other sectors feel compelled to make laws that do not protect all the babies, then so be it, but that is not our job. Our job as pro-lifers is to defend the defenceless. We are the ones who say we care – that every life has infinite value and dignity. We are the only ones that will stand up for the weakest of the weak – the handicapped ones and the ones conceived in rape and incest. Who knows, but that God has chosen those particular special ones to change the most hearts?
I want you to think about this – this is the crux of the issue – Is it our job to stand up for some of the babies, OR to stand up for all the babies?
No, it is not up to us to abandon even one of these most helpless, most voiceless, most defenceless ones. We, the heart changers are THEIR only hope. We must not compromise.
Jeannie Hedley says “Are we not the Educational Arm of the Pro-Life movement? Our role then is to educate. As we accomplish that job, and do it well enough, and by the grace of God, the people’s hearts will change. How often have we heard, “The laws will not change until the people’s hearts have changed”? We need to change hearts by education and by prayer.”
I agree that prayer and education are of the utmost importance. But it is only part of the solution.
Providing legal protection for the unborn is as important as education and prayer, and it is another vital strategy we cannot ignore. Legal protection also defends the defenceless.
There is a also another very subtle but extremely key reason why legal initiatives are so imperative.
It is the actual debate itself–which ensues when an abortion law is introduced–that is key. I am sure you have noticed that most of the time in Canada when there is no law on the subject matter of abortion on the table, that there is also nothing being written or discussed in the mainstream media on the topic of abortion. Everything goes completely quiet.
How do we change hearts and minds when the public is not even talking about abortion? The last two bills in Canada that would have limited abortion in some circumstances were Bill C-484 and C-510. Both of these bills produced lots of mainstream media attention. People were talking about abortion; letters to newspapers were being written. Articles were being written and being read by the public at large.
Now all is quiet in Canada in the mainstream media. Not a peep. How will this deafening silence help change hearts and minds? Yes we can educate and we can pray, but if nobody outside the world of pro-lifers is talking about abortion, little will change.
As far as compromising is concerned, we are not compromising with incremental legislation. We are being realistic. If a Member of Parliament introduced a law that would ban abortions outright, although he or she would be very brave indeed, he or she would also be the laughing stock of the country. And the law would have absolutely no chance at ever being passed.
We need to take note about what our American neighbours are doing. They are continually introducing laws that would in some way limit abortions. There is always abortion related discussion in the US and there is always discussion in the media. Americans are always debating abortion.
Canadians on the other hand, allow themselves to be led like sheep to the slaughter, by Prime Minister Harper’s un-abating mantra of refusing to reopen the abortion debate. We supposedly live in a country where freedom of speech is enshrined in our Constitution. Yet we are told continually and ad nauseum by our politicians, that there will be no debate on abortion. Introducing legal protection for the unborn allows us to have that abortion debate–the very debate our politicians refuse to let us have.
And if we do not engage in the abortion debate across our country by all citizens, what does this mean for us?
It means that in Canada, a woman will continue to be able to have an abortion at any time during her pregnancy up until the moment she gives birth. It means that in Canada, a woman will continue to be able to have an abortion for any reason at all–or for no reason whatsoever. It means that in Canada, a woman can still have an abortion that will continue to be 100% paid for, by you and by me, and all other pro-life people, whether we like it or not.
Yes “every life has infinite value and dignity”. That is exactly why we must fight this battle on all fronts: education, prayer, changing hearts, and most definitely last, but certainly not least, we must provide legal protection for these little souls.
Hopefully can do all of this with great love for the unborn, and with great love for each other.
Jeannie says, “We must not compromise.” In Canada compromise is not even possible because in Canada there is no law to protect unborn babies. It has to be understood that any law that would limit the harm of abortion would not result in a compromise simply because a compromise can only exist when opposing sides give something up in order to gain something.
There is no law protecting unborn babies in Canada. Sorry to keep repeating this but everyone has to understand, there is no legal protection for unborn babies in Canada.
In Canada, if a law was passed to limit the harm of abortion this could only result in a wining situation. Nothing could given up because very sadly in Canada there is nothing to give up. No, In Canada we have nothing to give and therefore would not be compromising anything, just saving lives.
The continual message of how greed drives people who support abortion are simply wrong. You will never win by demonizing your opposition with such simplistic thought. People who are pro-abortion are driven by the same impulses you are. It’s about women’s rights, why don’t you address that issue? Pro-abortion people think that pro lifers are anti-women. Pro-lifers think that pro-abortion people are in it for the money.
OK Mark, let’s talk about women’s rights. Let’s start with these rights:
– The right to make an “informed” choice:
a) informed as to the risks of abortion – like perforated uterus or bowel, excessive bleeding/haemorrhaging, infection and/or scarring (leading to future infertility) damaged or incompetent cervix (leading to miscarriages or premature births in subsequent pregnancies), increased risk of breast cancer, even death!
b) informed as to the psychological risks – like remorse, guilt, despair, depression, alcohol and/or drug abuse, eating disorders, low self-esteem, self-condemnation, flashbacks, nightmares, problems with intimacy, trouble bonding with born children, self-destructive behaviour, even suicide!
c) informed as to development – that the human heart starts beating 21 – 24 days after conception, that by 7 – 8 weeks after conception, (the time when most abortions occur) all body parts are present – they just need to grow & develop (if allowed to) for a few more months;
d) informed as to the procedure – that abortion literally tears the little living body apart, limb from limb;
e) informed as to the alternatives – adoption (as open as she wants it to be), or help with parenting (from pregnancy help centres, churches, community organizations);
: a study by The Elliott Institute found that 84% of aborted women received inadequate counselling beforehand, and 67% received NONE.
– And how about the right to be protected – from illegal sexual abuse and trafficking (google Live Action for proof of cover-ups );
– The right to be helped to choose life, instead of feeling like they have “no choice” but abortion;
– The right to free counselling for those who regret their abortion – who have to live with the fact that they killed their own child;
– The right to make her own choice – a study by The Elliott Institute calls abortion The UnChoice – their survey found that 64% of aborted women felt pressured by others to abort; coercion can lead to physical injury of the woman and her unborn baby, and/or even death for one or both of them.
How can we call it a choice, if we’re only willing to support her if she chooses death for her child (no wait times, ‘privacy’,and here it’s even publicly funded!) Sounds to me like women should have a right to be protected from abortion, not a right to do it.
Jeannie Hedley, I’m not pro-abortion, and it’s not clear to me exactly where Mark Anderson stands, but I don’t think your arguments will win the day…. or even a minute. Your posts remind me of a cartoon in a magazine of an old lady in NYC yelling at the top of her lungs: “WHO ARE YOU CALLING CRAZY??!” …to a fire hydrant. Your rant was not really responsive to Mark’s point, might I point out, and furthermore, somehow the thread of incrementalisms versus enchilada-ism has been lost.
Dr. Nadal,
I think this article illustrates how incremental laws with exceptions causes us big problems later on in fighting for a full ban on abortions: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/11/us-abortion-states-idUSTRE75A28P20110611
I’d be interested in your thoughts.
-Michael
An incremental pro-life law, by accepting exceptions, actually makes it impossible to ban abortion altogether?