top of page
Free-thinking-ministries-website-logo.png

Pro-Life Incrementalism

  • Writer: Josh Klein
    Josh Klein
  • Jul 2, 2024
  • 7 min read

Updated: Nov 11

I am a staunch abortion abolitionist. I believe that human life and personhood starts at conception and thus that any ending of that life intentionally is murderous. I have written some on the topic here at FreeThinking Ministries (Read: After Roe) and debated the topic in various ways and venues throughout the years. I have made the argument for life from scripture and without scripture. In fact, I have argued that the 14th amendment of the United States supports a federal ban on abortion because, as I see it, the preborn child is a person and such a person is conveyed all the rights of personhood upon conception. Thus, the 14th amendment applies and any law that disrupts the right to life of the preborn person is unconstitutional and should be eradicated.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

nor shall any State deprive any

person

of life, liberty, or property,

without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the 

equal protection

 of the laws.

I can and have made all of these arguments but the pro-life movement is consistently fragmented. It tends to work against itself more than anything else. People with varying strategies demonize the other side, fight against them, and call them either “not really pro-life” or “ineffective.” Both sides have a point. For the staunch abolitionist, such as myself, nothing other than a total ban on the murderous practice of abortion is acceptable. Laws limiting legal abortion to 12 and even 6 weeks are still abhorrent even if just a little less abhorrent than laws that allow for abortion up to point of birth. If abortion really is the hostile taking of an innocent human person’s life it is murder. And all murder should be illegal. I’ve heard more liberal Christians maintain that if less abortions is the goal then we are headed in the wrong direction. Keeping it legal but raising awareness might decrease abortions on a state-to-state basis. Perhaps some statistics bear this out, however, the rebuttal is obvious. Suppose homicide was legal in some states and that the statistics showed that legislating it did not necessarily lower the homicide rate does it follow that homicide itself

should

be legal? In other words, is the goal simply to lower the rates or is the goal to make murder itself illegal? While abortion and murder rates are important, regardless of rate, a society that legalizes homicide is not a just society even if the murder “rate” in such a society is relatively unaffected. A civil and moral society believes that murder is illegal and if abortion is murder then rates matter less than the moral objectivity of act. Thus, murder should be against the law regardless of statistics and murderers ought to be held accountable. The same would then be said for abortion. It is not simply the limiting of the act but the just punishment of those who commit the act. That is to say that abolitionists don’t want abortion illegal

only

because we believe it will result in fewer abortions but because a moral society ought to consider all forms of murder morally reprehensible and illegal on their face. This is why abolitionists scoff at the idea of incrementalism. Would one consider incrementalism to other forms of murder? To theft? To genocide? Of course not! In many cases the all or nothing approach of the abolitionist makes the most logical and moral sense. Why try to slowly make murder illegal? Shouldn’t it just be illegal? However the practical pro-lifer embraces incrementalism. After all, it is incrementalism that delivered us the overturning of Roe after nearly 50 years, not the abolitionist approach. It was the abolitionist approach in states like Kansas and Ohio that resulted in the enshrining of abortion law into those states’ constitutions. Life after Roe has been a veritable minefield for the pro-life movement. The disorganized infighting has resulted in loss of ground in many states and in some cases caused even more liberalization of abortion access. The incrementalist will point to the lack of efficacy of the staunch abolitionist and, in many cases, they would right. Unfortunately, abortion has been euphemized to the point that the logic of the abolitionist position is unrecognizable to most every day people. This leaves the pro-life movement in somewhat of a quandary. Those of us who believe any elective abortion is, in effect, murderous, are left with the options of supporting legislation that either will not pass or will pass but will legalize certain types of murder. One position is ineffective, the other is untenable. Rock meets hard place. The pro-abortion movement, on the other hand, has no such issues. Their general cohesiveness makes messaging easier, funding faster, and legislation easier to pass. What are we to do? Recently, I had the opportunity to help facilitate garnering signatures for a petition that proposed a pro-life constitutional amendment in the state of Nebraska. My church hosted the opportunity to sign the petition for its congregants. I am so proud of my church, many others did not answer this call, but ours did. That is not to say if your church did not or would not that they sinned or abdicated their responsibility, different churches receive a call to different types of social interaction. However, it is to say that the church I am part of answered a specific call with eyes towards the end in mind regardless of social pressures concerning politics. In the words of our pastor:

"This is NOT a political statement. Rather, we are addressing this because it is a deeply biblical and moral issue because it is literally an issue of life and death that would deeply impact countless lives of the most vulnerable in our state."

However, my church also chose the *less* pro-life petition. One that enshrines current law into the constitution which allows for abortion up to 12 weeks (first trimester).

(if you would like to see how to get involved with said petition please check footnote number 4 below)

I helped to facilitate one of the petition signing locations and had a conversation with a man upset about our choice to support this particular petition instead of the abortion ban petition which would make abortion illegal across the board. His comment was something along the lines of:

“Why are we, as a church, supporting an unbiblical law? It’s wrong.”

I share the man’s sentiments. Yes, this law is unbiblical and yes (Psalm 139, Exodus 21:22-25, Luke 1:41), it is wrong. However, given the options, it seemed to be the best one. I sought to explain to the man that Nebraska could go for broke and try to ratify an abortion ban in the constitution but that, due to polling numbers, it would be very unlikely to pass. However, the planned parenthood petition which enshrines abortion up to birth as a constitutional amendment in Nebraska is likely to pass if it garners enough signatures. Thus, we chose to be strategic as a church. Instead of potentially losing ground (like Ohio and Kansas) we chose to drive a stake into the ground to anchor the movement to no less than this and then still have the opportunity to move forward. It’s worth noting that if the Nebraska Family Alliance petition passes it does not preclude further legislation on abortion (Planned Parenthood’s DOES). This means that the fight does not stop if this is passed but it is at least saved from regressing. In many cases in the Christian life we must choose the best of two bad options. There is a Charles Spurgeon quote that is making the circulation on social media that says:

“Given the choice between two evils, choose neither.”

But reality is not that simple in matters of politics and legislation. Sure, both laws are evil, both allow for the taking of innocent life. However, one ensures that there is nothing (or at least severely limits our options) we can do about it in the future and the other ensures that there is. Much like the choice for an immoral candidate this choice is oriented towards future hopes and possibilities rather than defeatism or principled losing. People will say the law is imperfect, I not only agree but I would go a step further. In its own way this law

is

evil. But it is the less evil of the two options and it is the only evil that leaves a door open for objective good to be done in the future. In this way, incrementalism can be good and effective. However, incrementalism as a goal in and of itself is not. We must take as much ground as possible with each step, and each time we gain ground we must redouble our efforts. In a war the general does not rest on his laurels after winning one battle even if that battle was significant. The war remains. So too should our disposition be in the battle for life. Too often the pro-life movement segments itself and competes. Even now, the fact that two pro-life petitions are circulating in Nebraska while only one pro-abortion petition circulates points to the disconnect among pro-lifers and the cohesion of pro-abortionists. The wording of the total abortion ban also lacks some clarity on the idea of elective abortions (a note I made to a man soliciting signatures for it just recently). If the 12 week enshrinement were the only option on the table I would not have participated in the process but given its competition our choice as a church, and mine as a believer, was clear. Limit evil where possible, hold the ground, and then press forward in the battle. If this petition passes it is not a victory for the pro-life movement but it is a loss for the pro-abortion movement. I encourage you, if you are voting in the state of Nebraska come Nov. 5

th

2024 make yourself aware of the options. Even if you do not want to vote for president at least vote against death and for life and for the future ability to introduce more comprehensive legislation that saves lives and as always, stay reasonable.

Notes

 
 
 

Comments

bottom of page