Well this was, indeed a refreshing read. It is not only galling but incredibly counterproductive when advocates for life bicker and call one another names like so many school yard bullies. Pro-aborts and, I might add, Satan, couldn't be more delighted. Meanwhile babies continue to die by the millions each year and, let's not forget the walking wounded who are the mothers to these lost blessings. I am for any means that will end abortion 'rights" in this nation and around the world. Perhaps that will happen when the Church gets off their pews to work at changing hearts and minds. Proverbs 24:10-12 gives us the commandment to rescue those being led to death. PP has had nearly 100 years to brainwash the population. We, the Church, have allowed it to happen. That said, if we can chip away at Roe and therefore create as many roadblocks as possible to obtaining an abortion then we must do so. Doing nothing while crossing our fingers hoping that by some miracle Roe will be overturned is folly.
The fact that you invent a incrementalism/personhood dichotomy is telling. One has nothing to do with the other. Abortion regulations and bans are about stopping a negative. Personhood is about recognizing a positive. Personhood isn't opposed to incrementalism, provided the incremental tactic does not explicitly violate the dignity of a class of persons. You talk about incrementalism like people talk about stem cells. What KIND of stem cells are you talking about ... adult or embryonic? What KIND of incrementalism are you talking about? Principled or pragmatic?
"One has nothing to do with the other." Thus the dichotomy. Do you believe there are not two very different legal strategies being debated by pro-life people? "Abortion regulations and bans are about stopping a negative." Yes. That's because things like partial-birth abortion and late-term abortion are negatives that we may be able to stop long before we can stop all abortions by getting the Supreme Court to recognize the positive. "Personhood isn't opposed to incrementalism, provided the incremental tactic does not explicitly violate the dignity of a class of persons." Yes, but whether incremental bills violate the dignity of a class of persons is precisely the debate that's being had. I suspect you think that the 20-week abortion ban violated the dignity of younger preborn babies and those conceived in rape, but I do not. I may be wrong about that, but simply stating that the bill violates human dignity is not enough. "What KIND of incrementalism are you talking about? Principled or pragmatic?" I believe we should attempt to determine the farthest we can go towards ultimate victory, and then go that far. And then we do the same again and again, until we win. Greg Koukl referred to that during a radio debate with Bob Enyart as "graduated absolutism," but I haven't found that phrase in philosophical dictionaries, so call it what you will. The reason I'm an incrementalist is for pragmatic reasons. I want abortion to end as soon as possible, and because of the practical limitations before us, I believe the fastest way to end abortion is to create dialogue about it, partially through the use of common-sense legislation that some pro-choice people agree with, like banning elective abortions that painfully kill babies with working nervous systems.
I am for any means that will end abortion 'rights" in this nation and around the world. Perhaps that will happen when the Church gets off their pews to work at changing hearts and minds. Proverbs 24:10-12 gives us the commandment to rescue those being led to death. PP has had nearly 100 years to brainwash the population. We, the Church, have allowed it to happen.
That said, if we can chip away at Roe and therefore create as many roadblocks as possible to obtaining an abortion then we must do so. Doing nothing while crossing our fingers hoping that by some miracle Roe will be overturned is folly.
You talk about incrementalism like people talk about stem cells. What KIND of stem cells are you talking about ... adult or embryonic? What KIND of incrementalism are you talking about? Principled or pragmatic?
Thus the dichotomy. Do you believe there are not two very different legal strategies being debated by pro-life people?
"Abortion regulations and bans are about stopping a negative."
Yes. That's because things like partial-birth abortion and late-term abortion are negatives that we may be able to stop long before we can stop all abortions by getting the Supreme Court to recognize the positive.
"Personhood isn't opposed to incrementalism, provided the incremental tactic does not explicitly violate the dignity of a class of persons."
Yes, but whether incremental bills violate the dignity of a class of persons is precisely the debate that's being had. I suspect you think that the 20-week abortion ban violated the dignity of younger preborn babies and those conceived in rape, but I do not. I may be wrong about that, but simply stating that the bill violates human dignity is not enough.
"What KIND of incrementalism are you talking about? Principled or pragmatic?"
I believe we should attempt to determine the farthest we can go towards ultimate victory, and then go that far. And then we do the same again and again, until we win. Greg Koukl referred to that during a radio debate with Bob Enyart as "graduated absolutism," but I haven't found that phrase in philosophical dictionaries, so call it what you will.
The reason I'm an incrementalist is for pragmatic reasons. I want abortion to end as soon as possible, and because of the practical limitations before us, I believe the fastest way to end abortion is to create dialogue about it, partially through the use of common-sense legislation that some pro-choice people agree with, like banning elective abortions that painfully kill babies with working nervous systems.