There has been some debate lately in the pro-life community about the incrementalism approach to pro-life legislation. Recently, I posted my objections to the fetal pain laws, and my view of incrementalism in legislation. Just to clarify, I'm for pro-life legislation such as parental notification, ultrasound laws, women's right to know laws, defunding Planned Parenthood, etc., as long as these laws do not favor one unborn baby in the womb over another. Now Paul Stark has a rebuttal to my post and states a defense of pro-life incrementalism:
In Defense Of Pro-Life Incrementalism
By Paul Stark
Pro-life opponents of incremental legislation seem to offer two main objections. First, they contend that supporting an incremental law is wrong in itself because such a law does not protect all unborn children. I believe this position is deeply misguided because it considers the law in isolation rather than in its social, legal and political context. The context is that the Supreme Court has imposed a nationwide policy of abortion on demand and has (under the Court as currently constituted) severely limited the types of abortion restrictions legislatures can enact. In these circumstances, a law to ban partial-birth abortions, for example, does not sanction non-partial-birth abortions, but rather is an attempt to ban those abortions that can be banned given the current reality of Court-mandated abortion on demand. To support such a law is not to be complicit in the abortions the law does not prohibit; it is to try to limit the evil of abortion to the greatest degree possible. It is precisely because of our pro-life commitment to human equality that we should work to save every unborn child we possibly can from unjust killing, rather than let some die simply because we cannot save all.
Indeed, a long intellectual and Christian tradition holds that it is ethical to pursue a partial good in politics when the ideal is not possible, as Clarke D. Forsythe explains in his recent book, Politics for the Greatest Good: The Case for Prudence in the Public Square. Most leading Christian and pro-life thinkers of today agree.
The second objection to incremental legislation is that it is not effective in saving lives from abortion. But research from Dr. Michael New and others has shown that incremental pro-life measures have reduced the number of abortions. Lives are saved because of these laws -- and even a single human life matters.
The critic of incrementalism could argue that while lives may be saved in the short term, legal abortion is further entrenched and accepted in the long term. I highly doubt this is true. Incremental legislation helps educate the public about the nature of the unborn child and the killing of abortion. The assumptions and beliefs that undergird public support for incremental measures often lead naturally to support for the full pro-life position. For example, what makes sex-selection abortion so wrong (killing a human being based solely on sex) also makes all abortions wrong (for all abortions, then, are the killing of a human being); what makes third-trimester abortion wrong is what makes first-trimester abortion wrong (the differences in fetal age are not morally relevant); what makes partial-birth abortion wrong is what makes D & E abortion wrong. Moreover, incremental pro-life proposals keep the abortion issue an ongoing subject of public debate and consideration. So incremental legislation helps undermine, not entrench, legal abortion in the long term. In addition, the long-term success of incrementalism is demonstrated historically in the context of other issues, as Forsythe explains in detail.
Both objections to incrementalism are unpersuasive. Incremental pro-life laws are ethical and effective. They save lives and move us closer to what justice requires: protection for every unborn child by law.
3 comments:
Paul, I appreciate your interest in trying to find the most effective way of ending or reducing abortions, but there are more complicated questions we have to answer, such as whether efforts to save "even a single human life" undermine our efforts to achieve "protection for every unborn child in law".
Now, I know you tried to address this, but you did so mainly by reference to Clarke Forsythe, whose book is easily refuted. I'm currently completing a book which addresses all of these issues, including a refutation of Forsythe's arguments.
I know it wasn't your intent, but you also use a straw man argument, by saying we "contend that supporting an incremental law is wrong in itsself because such a law does not protect all unborn children." Forsythe's book intends to "refute" this straw man too, which is partly why it fails. Our concern on this point is twofold: 1) it's not that these laws are incremental, it's that they are moral compromises -- I'll show you in a moment some laws that are incremental and save lives, but which are NOT morally compromised; 2) these compromised laws aren't bad because they don't protect every unborn child, they're bad because they set a false value separation between babies who are protected and babies who are not. You recognize that they're all at risk right now, and you're right, but by passing these laws we're condoning the relative value difference between, for instance, babies who are older vs. younger (as Monte correctly pointed out, re: fetal pain).
These laws "teach" society, but they do not teach that every life is valuable. Instead, a law that says abortion prohibited after 20 weeks teaches society that abortion is bad after 20 weeks, but also teaches abortion is "okay" (society hears "less wrong") before 20 weeks. Basically, society learns that the more a baby looks like a baby, the more wrong it is to end the baby's life. This is a rejection of the Right to Life, and is instead upholding the concept of a "limited right to choose."
Dr. New has done studies on some types of regulatory laws, and he thinks they're great -- his research shows that they're stopping small percentages of abortions, and that is great. BUT his research says the most effective laws are parental consent laws, for obvious reasons -- they impact 100% of the targeted group of moms. The great thing is 15% of underage moms are prevented from aborting by their parents. The tragic thing is the vast majority -- 85% -- of the parents tell their kids to go ahead with the abortion. That's "buy-in" -- that's society learning they have a right to kill kids. And instead of just the moms being supportive of that right, now the parents support it too, and a parent's support in killing a baby only reinforces the minor child-mom's impression that it's all right. That's devastating!
More in part 2...
...part 2
Also re: Dr. New's studies. The overall percentage of abortions impacted is small. Sure, it sounds great to think that 5% of 1.6 million abortions is alot. But at what cost? At the cost of entrenching abortion in the minds of the public? At the cost of reinforcing the concept of a "limited right to choose?" And these laws suffer from the laws of diminishing returns, too -- 120 more laws would only save slightly more kids. The end result is while you might eventually impact 20-30% of abortions through these incremental laws, it would eventually become impossible to impact any more, and the remaining 70-80% of abortions would continue into perpetuity (partly because we've taught society they have a right to kill some kids -- a "limited right to choose").
There are uncompromised ways to pass incremental laws. Ultrasound bills simply say before you have an abortion you're either required to see an ultrasound or sign a consent form waiving your right to see one. The 7-8 ultrasound bills passed recently basically say, "Do this, and then you can kill your baby" -- the "limited right to choose" thing again. Instead, the same requirement could be made to apply to every pregnant woman. If we did it with every woman, and don't connect it with abortion, it wouldn't legitimize abortion in the eyes of society and the law.
The same could be done with parental consent -- parental consent for any invasive medical procedure does NOT inherently endorse a "limited right to kill your baby". But it would have the same impact on the number of abortions.
Just some ideas to promote thought, reflection and dialogue -- I'm hoping you and others will read my full arguments in my book when it comes out soon.
Ed Hanks
Ed -- Thanks for your response.
I understand your distinction between a law that doesn't save everyone (not necessarily wrong on your view) and a law that is "morally compromised" (which is wrong on your view because it says some are protected and some are not). But I still disagree that the latter kind of law is in fact morally compromised. Given the context of legal abortion, and given the intent of those supporting the bill to limit the evil of abortion to the greatest degree possible (for instance, by protecting pain-capable unborn children when we are unable to protect the rest), I absolutely think such measures are morally permissible. I do not think I am "condoning the relative value difference" of different unborn children by wanting to protect those I can rather than protect none. I think to protect some rather than none is morally better and closer to what justice requires.
As to the question of effectiveness and long-term strategy, I agree that we have to assess the wisdom of particular measures (whether a law has the effect of fostering pro-abortion attitudes, etc.). But I am not convinced that the typical pro-life laws undermine the long-term goal of prohibiting all abortions. I think they tend to do the opposite. Everyone knows these laws stem from a movement committed to ending abortion entirely. Pro-life measures show that abortion law is not "settled," but constantly being changed and debated. I think absent such measures legal abortion could easily become entrenched and solidified.
Two other points:
-- You criticize parental consent laws, but it's not obvious to me that requiring girls to get parental permission before having an abortion (even when they do get that permission) teaches a worse lesson than saying that they don't need parental permission at all before having an abortion. I'm certainly not convinced that it can negate the 15 percent or so of minor abortions that are prevented by these laws.
-- I don't see how, through incremental laws, "it would eventually become impossible to impact any more" abortions. The idea is that we enact greater and greater limits, and at the natural end of this process it would not be the case that "70-80% of abortions would continue," but rather all abortions would be prohibited by law. That's incrementalism.
I look forward to your book.
Post a Comment