Incrementalism or absolutism to fight abortion?

There has been much debate recently about the best strategy for the pro-life movement (if the current situation can be dignified with the name of a movement, which is itself debatable).

Should we be seeking incremental changes to the abortion laws or outright abolition of abortion?

The incremental approach is, I am told, more politically astute.  By reducing the age limit at which abortions can be conducted, from 24 weeks to 22, then to 20, then to 18, then to 16, we can create a momentum that will both save some lives in the short term, and make total abolition more achievable in the long term.

The absolute approach, I am told, is unrealistic, and just what the pro-choice lobby want us to adopt.

I am not convinced.

I am not finally convinced either way; but I incline strongly towards the absolute position for a number of reasons, some moral, and some practical.

However, I am interested in the discussion and am open to influence - particularly if I have missed or misunderstood anything.

My view at present is that the absolute position is better because, fundamentally, it is what we truly believe.  That allows us to operate with integrity and clarity.

Further, I think the general public is more usefully engaged in a debate about whether abortion is right or wrong - in the fundamental issues of the humanity of the unborn child and its rights - than in a debate about whether abortion is OK up to X weeks, but distasteful (and therefore illegal) beyond then.

I have no way of knowing which strategy is really going to be successful (and neither does anyone else). But I think we should strive to do the right thing.

The most recent change to the abortion time limit, the reduction from 28 to 24 weeks, came along with an exemption: abortion being de-criminalised up to birth, for children with (or suspected of having) a serious handicap.

It seems to me that this was a terrible price to pay: removing any shadow of protection from the most vulnerable of all, in the name of political pragmatism, even though the intentions were, presumably, good.  

People will doubtless tell me that lives have been saved as a result; though that is clearly a very difficult proposition to prove. First, one would have to do the invidious calculation of babies that might otherwise have been aborted between 24 and 28 weeks’ gestation, versus the increased number of handicapped babies aborted.  Anecdotal evidence of one or two instances one way or the other doesn't really add anything to the debate here.

But even that sum (and should one even DO sums like that?) is not the whole answer.  Human behaviour is complex, and it could well be that an earlier time limit pushes some women into an earlier decision to abort - a decision that might not have been taken with more time.  One of the brutal things about abortion is that it pushes women in distress to make catastrophic decisions with a deadline. Yet research on unwanted change suggests that over time people typically go through a predictable sequence of reactions from initial denial, through anger and despair, to (frequently) acceptance and integration.  That is why there is so much truth in the maxim that an unwanted pregnancy does not necessarily mean an unwanted baby.  There is a real risk that earlier time limits make it likely that women feel they have to make a decision as they are in anger and despair.

Further, imagine if the exemption had been for black, or Christian, or gay, or female babies.  Would anyone have voted through legislation with such an exemption, even on the grounds that some other lives would be saved?  If not, why is it OK in the case of handicap?

And why is it that such exemptions should not be voted through?  At the most profound level, simply because they are wrong. But even at the political level they are unwise: they would come back to haunt us. That I call political naivety.

That encapsulates my fear with ‘politically realistic’  solutions: that they will always involve compromises which we should not make.

But the other approach, the absolutist approach, I am told, is politically naive: total abolition will never be passed through parliament in one go.

I have various problems with that line of argument.  One is that I do not believe that humans can foretell the future with such certainty: history would certainly suggest otherwise. 

A second is that I do not buy the implied corollary: that the incremental approach is more likely deliver total abolition by a process of ‘momentum.’  The belief that it could I see as equally naive as the absolutist approach. Just think it through: we might (conceivably) get a reduction from 24 to 22 weeks; or even 20, or even 18.  I can’t imagine a political process along those lines that would take that down to 16, 12, 8 and finally 0.  So where does that strategy lead? Or am I missing something here?

A third is that focusing on such a strategy implies building alliances with others who may support us for part of the journey but not all of it.  That is likely to result both in compromises that we should not make, and also, finally in a sundering of the ways, that could make them particularly potent critics of our continued push for final abolition (for that surely must be the endgame for any serious pro-lifer.)

To be honest, I do not see either strategy as likely to deliver what we want, if we rely solely on political strategies; and to me that is the biggest danger - that we see this as a political issue, first and foremost.  It is not.  It is a spiritual battle, a moral battle, a philosophical battle, a humanist battle, and an ethical battle.  

My contention is that we should fight on those grounds: that to fight purely in political ways is already an error; that a political solution will only be possible if we can convert hearts and minds of the medical profession, of the caring professions, and of the public at large; then the political solution will become a possibility, and an enduring one, that won’t be reversed at the next change of government.

As long as we have a culture of recreational sex, of abusive sex, of contraceptive sex, of sex without commitment or consequences, abortion will always be required (licitly or illicitly) as a backstop.

That, of course, is a much larger problem, effectively the re-evangelisation of society. But as a Christian pro-lifer, that is the only solution that I can envisage.

Is it possible?  In human terms, probably not; but to God all things are possible.

And as Mother Teresa reminded us, we are not called to victory, but to faithfulness.  If we are faithful, God will deliver the victory in His way.  

So our task becomes building a Civilisation of Love: educating and converting society by our lives, example, prayer, and charity; as well as by our outreach, our campaiging and so on.

For me, the caring and educational work have always been at least as important as, and possibly more important than, the political battles.  Here at least we can point to lives saved with no others sacrificed.  And here we are operating in ways that command respect and demonstrate that our concern is human well-being, not the various motives attributed to us by political opponents.  Moreover, here we are directly contributing to building the Civilisation of Love.

I am not saying we should not fight the political battles, of course; but that they must be subordinate to, and congruent with, the larger spiritual mission on which we are engaged.

Likewise, I am not saying that we should not support a vote to reduce the time limits on abortions, should one present itself: if it has no unacceptable strings attached.  But to make that the focus of our strategy seems highly questionable to me; as does denigrating those who take an absolute position (and vice versa, of course).

To misquote Lord Acton: Politics tends to corrupt and absolute politics corrupts absolutely.

The stakes are not merely the lives of the unborn innocents (enormously important though they be), but also the souls of all involved - including our own.  We lose that perspective at our great peril.