Abolish Human Abortion leader Don Cooper wrote on Facebook two days ago:
I am an abolitionist. I am calling for the immediate abolition of human abortion. And anyone who opposes the immediate abolition of abortion I consider an enemy of God, an enemy of my neighbor, and enemy of me.
That’s a noble thought but certainly not earth-shattering. There’s no pro-lifer in the world who “opposes the immediate abolition of abortion.”
Yet, do not be confused. When those calling themselves “immediatists” call for the “immediate” abolition of abortion, they don’t really mean immediate. When pro-lifers challenge them to stop talking and just do it already, they mock us for advancing the Straw Man of Overnightism (right).
AHA co-founder T. Russell Hunter hedged his bets during the April 25 “Immediatist vs Incrementalist” debate against Center for Bio-Ethical Reform’s Gregg Cunningham, stating the tree of abortion must be hacked with an ax “over and over and over, no matter how long it takes” – a signal for patience.
Except there is one tiny people group for whom patience in this instance is not a virtue – it’s deadly.
In a comment to my Part II post, Hunter wrote to “think of the abortion tree as more like Redwood,” the world’s biggest tree.
In a comment to my Prologue post, Hunter reiterated, “As I said in the debate, Immediatism has to do with what we are calling for and focusing on, it does not have to do with what we do on a daily basis or how long it takes for us to achieve abolition.”
In yet another comment Hunter wrote, “Immediatism often produces incremental results….” What in the world?
And so we return to my “freaked out obsession,” those preborn children caught in that unknown span of time between now and “no matter how long it takes” to abolish abortion.
During the debate Hunter persistently tried to evade Cunningham’s questions about those particular babies, since Hunter and AHA oppose incremental legislation that is proven to save them, even though Hunter admitted three times (I actually found a fourth, at 1:26:11 in the video) he knows such legislation works.
In another comment to my Prologue post Hunter admitted it again, writing: “Sorry Jill, I never say that the numbers saved ‘don’t matter,’ I only say that you guys are being deceived (and deceiving others) into believing that reducing the numbers leads to abolition…”
So, “reducing the numbers” (“numbers” being Hunter’s inhuman term for children) of those slaughtered by abortion doesn’t necessarily equate to abolishing abortion, in Hunter’s opinion, even though for those kids abortion was obviously abolished.
Hunter’s opinion is grossly uninformed, I might add, since Hunter admitted during the debate (at 1:35:26) he hadn’t read the foremost statistical study listing specific “numbers” saved by incremental legislation. So how does he know?
It appears the only AHA-sanctioned way to pull children from the branches of abortion during the time between wanting the “immediate abolition of human abortion” and actually abolishing it is protesting at abortion clinics, as Hunter wrote in another comment:
Abolitionists are going into the fields to save as many as we can and change as many minds as we can while we call for the total and immediate abolition of human abortion. We go out to the killing fields to rescue children because we are not just sitting at home and supporting the incremental schemes of politicians and lobbyists who write laws specifying which of the children in the field must be protected now and which in the field must be protected later.
Nice to “call for the total and immediate abolition of human abortion,” but what’s the plan? How many of the 738 remaining abortion clinics in the U.S. (from a high of 2,176, no thanks to AHA) does AHA cover on a daily basis? One? Two? Five?
It would be great if there were fewer to cover, right? No. AHA fights regulations to close those clinics, even though Hunter admitted in the debate (at 1:27:56) he didn’t think William Wilberforce was immoral to regulate slave ships for the same reason.
AHA also fights legislation that would keep pregnant mothers from going to abortion mills in the first place, such as informed consent, parental notification, waiting periods, and abortion bans.
It’s crazy. But what’s crazier is this: Hunter launched his fight against pro-life incrementalism with no immediate and functional plan of his own in place to replace the plan he was seeking to destroy. Hunter posted this on his Facebook page yesterday, infuriating me even more. Click to enlarge…
So Hunter knew when he launched AHA in 2011 immediatism would take “a long time,” and there would be “a long period in which it was impracticable.” But he had no safety net prepared for the children from whom he would go on to rashly attempt to remove protections. He had no immediate and workable plan in place to save the children he was pulling the rug out from under.
To this day, four years later, AHA has no cohesive, wide-ranging plan to save these kids.
Did Hunter “think it through”? Clearly not.
All one can conclude is Hunter would prefer that these children die rather than be saved in a way in which he disapproves.
And mock those standing in a gap he is too small to stand in…
Confession: In some things, I am incrementalist. Posted by T. Russell Hunter on Tuesday, 5 May 2015
It’s all just so funny, isn’t it?
Steve at the Triablogue blog nailed it yesterday:
It’s risky for AHA to level the charge of “methodological moral relativism,” for that’s apt to boomerang. AHA mortgages the lives of babies here and now in the hopes of saving every baby’s life in the future – except for all the babies they sacrifice in the interim in the furtherance of their long-range goal. What’s that if not ruthlessly “pragmatic” and methodologically “relativistic”?
Part I: Let babies die today, we can save the rest later
Part II: There’s only one way to cut down a tree?
Part III: Social justice history vs TR Hunter
Part IV: Straw men and the Bible
Scott Klusendorf: Debate between Gregg Cunningham and T. Russell Hunter
Jonathan Van Maren: Four observations from the Cunningham vs. Hunter debate