May
22
Pro-Life Incrementalism vs Abolitionist Immediatism
Longtime readers might remember that I have mentioned and quoted from Samuel Sey’s “Slow to Write” blog before. Sam recently wrote a post explaining why he takes the incrementalist approach to pro-life activism over the abolitionist immediatist approach. I thought Sam did a fine job of laying out both approaches and pointing out pluses and minuses on both, as well. While I was familiar with the arguments, I have excerpted the section that I found most notable and helpful below.
— — —
“[A]bolitionists also claim the reason why the pro-life movement wants to supposedly regulate abortion is because we profit off of abortion.
Those accusations are so asinine they are not worth refuting. However, I’ll address the basis for most of the false accusations the pro-life movement receives from abolitionists: the argument over incrementalism and immediatism.
Abolitionists claim pro-life people are complicit in abortion and guilty of compromise and injustice because of our incrementalist approach to fighting abortion. However, they are profoundly incorrect theologically and politically.
If incrementalism is sinful, every abolitionist who votes for the Republicans is a hypocrite. If incrementalism is sinful, every abolitionist who voted for Donald Trump is guilty of unrepentant sin. Candidly, abolitionists are the anti-abortion version of Never-Trumpers.
Though a majority of them voted for Trump, like Never-Trumpers, they refuse to acknowledge the righteous basis others have for thinking differently than they do. They refuse to acknowledge they are inconsistent incrementalists.
The Republicans are not immediatists, yet abolitionists vote for them anyway, presumably because they rightly believe the alternative (Democrats) are significantly worse. Since the Republicans have adopted a pro-gay marriage stance, does that make abolitionists who vote for them complicit in homosexuality?
Of course, not. However, from my conversations with some abolitionists — many of them haven’t considered this inconsistency and hypocrisy. The truth is, we are all incrementalists. Some of us just refuse to admit it.
Every genuine pro-life person would like to immediately and completely ban all abortions. Pro-life Christians like me are not pragmatists by preference, we are pragmatists by necessity. Indeed, we want to abolish abortion. However, we are unashamedly committed to saving as many babies as possible until we have the power to save all babies.
Unlike abolitionists, we do not believe it is right to allow all babies to get murdered if we are unable to save all of them. Especially since that kind of thinking is one of the reasons why Canada is one of only two nations in the world (with North Korea) without law or restriction on abortion….
Incrementalist pro-life bills are not ideal. However, they are effective and unfortunately — necessary. Like every genuine pro-life person, I’m happy to save as many babies as possible through incrementalism until we’re finally able to ban abortion, with zero exceptions.”
— — —
Like Sam, I have great respect for abolitionist immediatists like James White (a former incrementalist, I believe) and Jeff Durbin (EAN), and I appreciate their passion for banning abortion altogether and the work they do on that mission field. I echo that end goal. But, I also (and for a much longer time) have great respect and appreciation for the work of incrementalists like Scott Klusendorf (LTI) and Voddie Baucham and, in much more recent years, Samuel Sey. I side with the latter group. Both sides ought to be able to work together to save as many unborn babies as we can, yet only one side seems to be willing to do so.
I urge you all to read Sam’s full blogpost. If you would like to watch a debate between an incrementalist and an immediatist, set aside ~3 hours (or less, if you can follow it at faster speed) and get comfy…
