Prudential approach vs. Absolute approach
This is for pro-lifers interested in the debate on Incrementalism vs. Purism, hereafter known as Prudentialism vs. Absolutism, brought to the fore by the Open Letter to James Dobson a couple weeks ago.
These are notes from a speech today, “Prudence vs. all-or-nothing: lessons from Lincoln and Wilberforce on the morality of imperfect legislation,” by Clarke Forsythe, president of Americans United for Life, at its legal institute:
We all want to make a difference, but we are tempted to think sometimes anything less than the perfect is a compromise. That is not true. That is not prudent. That is inconsistent with the real world we live in with its constraints, limits and obstacles – the teaching of prudence.
Prudence is an intellectual and moral virtue dating back to Plato and Aristotle. It was incorporated into Christian ethics by Augustine in The City of God, the “first comprehensive statement on politics” by any church father, according to Kraynak.
Prudence is “wisdom plus,” or wisdom in action. Prudence is about making the right decisions and implementing them well.
For politics and legislation, prudence boils down to four questions:
1. Is the goal worthy?
2. Are we exercising wise judgment as to what’s possible in a situation?
3. Do we successfully connect means to ends? Can we connect means and resources to achieve those goals?
4. Do we preserve the possibility of future progress when all the good is not immediately achievable? Do we avoid a final or total compromise?….
Prudence is not pragmatism. Pragmatism is amoral. Prudence applies to the moral good, but it does not dictate the perfect good. It forces us to aim for the greatest good possible given the constraints and obstacles.
Prudence is not incrementalism. An increment is a step. Incrementalism is a step-by-step approach. By itself incrementalism does not define goals. It doesn’t supply the moral purpose; it doesn’t supply the end I’m trying to achieve. In any situation, incrementalism may be what is needed, but it is a tactic, not a strategy.
Prudence is not compromise. The definition of compromise is, “A settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions.” The term “compromise” s used as a political epithet to attack people. But one has to consider whether there were concessions by both sides. We use the term way too casually. If you’e not conceding anything, you haven’ compromised. If you concede and the other side doesn’t; you’re not compromising. You’ve been blocked.
The aforementioned four questions lead to the concept of “legal fences.”
I cannot think of a time over the last 34 years when pro-lifers attempted compromise. They have simply attempted to erect legal fences.
To explain, if your neighbor owns pit bulls that run wild, and you build a fence around your yard to protect your family, you are not aiding and abetting pit bull violence by so doing.
Thinking of abortion, we try to fence it in due to constraints outside our control, when prohibition is not possible.
We aren’t the first generation to address these questions. Wilberforce dealt with them all the time.
Wilberforce put legal fences around the slave trade before the final push. By the time the final push was made in 1807 to abolish the slave trade, slavery had been reduced 75%. Then it took another 25 years to prohibit slavery altogether.
The Republican position that slavery could not be spread, i.e., they fenced it in, was what led to secession, nothing more than that.
Despite this long prudential tradition, despite the successes of Wilberforce and Lincoln, there are still ethical objections to this approach.
Many people ignore legal and political limits and constraints, and this is not prudent. This is moral absolutism. It does not lead to effective progress, and it is simply not responsible.
What do we do with absolutists?
Try to reason with them. At some point move on. Continue to discuss prudential reasoning with those who have not been persuaded.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
It’s so wierd seeing abortion-is-murder absolutist calling a faction within their camp absolutist in a derogatory way via a dispute about tactics. I think maybe uncompromising is a better word.
Cam, “uncompromising” is not actually a better word. The opposite would be “compromising,” which prudentialists are not.
There is nothing to compromise, don’t you see? In 1973, abortion was legalized on demand with no constraints, for all intents and purposes.
All abortion laws since then have been attempts by our side to take ground back.
Jill,
Again, buy a dictionary.
LOL.
Try looking at it this way. I see those labeled as absolutists wanting to adhere to an all-or-nothing strategy, while the rest of you know it’s just not going to happen without qualifying compromising enough to just get something through.
In this particular case [your response to mine], you are equivocating ultimate intent with strategy.
Cam, look at it this way. There’s a wall that appears unpenetratable.
Two groups want to tear down that wall. One group won’t accept anything but complete demolition all at once, and they’re waiting for such theorized time as that is possible.
The other group is not waiting. It is and has been shooting cannon balls at the wall in hopes of cracking it and eventually demolishing it.
Both groups have the same ultimate goal. There is no compromise involved, only differences in strategy.
But, strangely, the demolition group is now shooting cannon balls at the cannon ball group.
Jill after the whole letter fiasco, I actually had written a blog around the idea that pro lifers should follow the incremental-ist camp (no I have not converted ;) ) simply because it makes far more sense.
But I have another question, why did you emphasize republican? (my history nerd is preparing to pop out)
Dan, I’m glad to read of your open mind on the topic of prudentialism.
Are you speaking of the mention in my post of Lincoln/Republican’s incremental approach to overturning slavery? Those were Clarke’s words, not mine.
I don’t want to get into a battle about Lincoln, the Republicans and slavery. That’s another nonwinner.
lol Jill, I see you could tell where I was headed, political parties at that time are virtually incomparable by todays standards, though I think I read somewhere by todays standards lincoln was a moderate of sorts. XD (It’s official, Im a nerd :D)
Im an incrementalist on certain issues on my side of the political spectrum, it simply seems more rational/makes more sense
Actually, I learned from Clarke today, as my notes on his talk indicated, “incrementalism” isn’t the right word to apply to our current situation.
Increments are steps, void of morality, part of the strategy but not the goal. Prudence is a virtue. The current strategy is a prudent strategy of fencing in abortion until such time as it can be done away with. What are your thoughts on this?
well, steps toward a goal technically would be devoid of morals, but technically one could still call it incrementalism and still be correct, taking steps to achieve the goal.
To be honest, the fencing in just seems like a more fancy way of putting it, you simply make the enclosure smaller and smaller until eventually the dog can no longer survive and dies (hypothetically of course), which to me seems like taking more and more steps to limit abortion until it is completely restricted/done away with
Yes, Dan, you have it. I wish I could show you the fencing diagrams Clarke showed today comparing the Wilberforce movement and the pro-life movement. But he’s using them in a book he is just finalizing and didn’t know if the publisher would like that.
What I mean to say about incrementalism/prudentialism is that the incremental steps have to withstand the prudent test questions. They must all be moral steps. I know you agree. Perhaps I am nit-picking. It’s late. I think my brain is fried for the day.
so because of the issue involved it makes it moral and thus prudent?
We could incrementally do away with abortion but, not when we continually make laws that codify, reaffirm that it is ok to kill a child, murder a child, because a condition is met.
We end up chipping away at the personhood of the baby. Which hardens the heart of the public against the baby.
Be prudent, incremental without compromising. Not all incremental laws need to end with and then you can kill the baby.
Here are two of the latest headlines Jill:
Planned Parenthood Reports Record Abortions, High Profits in Fiscal ’05-’06…
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200706/CUL20070615a.html
Level of abortions reaches record high of 200,000 a year in UK…
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23401185-details/Level+of+abortions+reaches+record+high+of+200%2C000+a+year/article.do
Why do you think your compromised incrementalism is working in light of these facts?
And, would you support, or have you ever supported, an incremental law that will keep abortion legal after Roe is overturned?
One more: What evidence do you have that Colorado Right to Life and Bob Enyart are absolutists? I work for Enyart and personally know the board members on CRTL and they all tell me that incrementalism is great, as long as it won’t keep abortion legal after Roe is overturned.
Note to readers: The open letter to Dr. Dobson said, and I quote, “Incrementalism is fine.”
Incrementalists (Team A)keep stating that purists (Team B) will never accept any incrementalism. Even though, Team B, time and time again, point out that some incrementalism is good and justified. (ex.) save one mother and baby from going into planned parenthood, even though a dozen other mothers turn deaf ears to the sidewalk counselors, and abort their babies. (ex.) end abortion in S. Dakota, by supporting legislation, even if New York has no such legislation pending, and abortion, there, remains legal. The list goes on. It’s hard to have an honest debate with Team A when their very first talking point is dishonest.
Moral guidance from Plato and Aristotle? no thanks. I’ll take my guidance from JESUS CHRIST.
re; the four points of prudence…Pretend you’re Hitler, and see if you can answer yes to each one.
One more… Americans United for Life re: pba ban, “praises ruling”… a ruling that James Dobson now admits has the authority to save NOT ONE BABY. A ruling that states..”a leg might be ripped off,” etc. to “kill the fetus.”
The mechanics of war are analogous to the mechanics of the abortion holocaust (AH).
In war and the AH you have enemies fighting each other usually over possession of land, lust for power or money (all just representing control), an ideology, or for just plain psychopathic hatred.
In the AH the enemies are pro-aborts vs. pro-lifers. The weapons are public opinion, marketing strategies, money, political intimidation, judical manipulation, and inflicting impotence on teh rule of teh majority, all of which usually have little to do with why the war is being fought. I have always said that the battle is not about abortion, but about power and the exercise therof. If the proponents of abortion lose this battle, what do they really lose? Their care and compassion for women? It is an oxymoron to believe that they care aboout women, I mean at least 50% of the babies murdered are women. IT’S THE POWER STUPID!
In war and in the AH, both sides have propagandists, however, it is always obvious which side has attached itself to evil or the godless side.
In war, the casualties are wounded soldiers, dead soldiers, brokenhearted parents and relatives, and life-long woundedness.
In the AH the casualties are murdered babies, mentally scarred mothers, fathers with no say, and untold future losses. Not to mention one Holy God with His mercy vs. justice scale in hand and a dead aim trigger finger.
The analogy is therefore valid.
In war, each side wants to win. Until there is a definite victor, or complete victory, the war goes on and hostilities persist. A good example would be the Korean War.
If we take the absolutist way of looking at things, a war can only be won by one major absolute victory. They fail to realize that wars are won a battle at a time. It requires a test of wills and perseverance and here is the crux of the matter: THE TRIAL MUST BE ENDURED, HE CROSS CARRIED. The war in the Pacific theatre was not concluded by the atom bomb, only shortened for the purpose of reducing casualties. Had an atom bomb been dropped on Hiroshima, let’s say right after Pearl Harbor, the United States would have lost simply because public opinion would have been swayed by such an overwhelming response.
Would an absolutist aid a wounded soldier by admistering morphine (fetal pain legislation) or change a battle plan (adopt an incremental approach) or take whatever victory they could get in the fog of war? Not if they apply the same illogic to the abortion holocaust. There would be no negotiations (they fight other pro-lifers who have the same desire and goals while the enemy gains ground), they want no rules for the treatment of prisoners (legislating restrictions on abortion wherever possible), no policy on the status of the wounded or the administering of morphine (fetal pain legislation), they want no hospitals in the battlefield (restriction on how abortions are performed), etc., etc., etc.
An absolutist would say, “All these things are aiding and abetting the enemy because they do not result in our single minded goal of total victory”, when in reality they are part and parcel to winning the war.
If you want to win the war faster, I believe the church must wake up. It is in a stupor.
I travelled with and campaigned for a dear friend in a gubernatorial race last year. This man is clearly pro-life, pro-marrriage and pro-traditional family values. It was almost impossible to get churchces, visa vi, the pastors and church leadership, to buy into his candidacy because of their gutless, spineless fear of losing their 501c3 tax exempt status.
So, a step in the right direction to ending abortion is changing this law. Sure, it will take a while but if it’s not done, we have no chance of engaging our fat, lazy, and soon to be vomited out lukewarm church.
The reality is that the church majora could care less about the abortion issue because not enough hell has been raised about it. It’s amazing to me how little it is spoken of. My goodness, I have actually had self-called Christians come on this site arguing for abortion. That’s because there’s litle or no biblical teaching going on about it. This must change.
HisMan, you wrote: “My goodness, I have actually had self-called Christians come on this site arguing for abortion. That’s because there’s litle or no biblical teaching going on about it. ”
No, it’s because there’s nothing in the bible against abortion.
Jill Stanek said:
“Actually, I learned from Clarke today, as my notes on his talk indicated, “incrementalism” isn’t the right word to apply to our current situation.”
You’re right. The correct term is “Pro-Life Incrementalism”. That term is not “void of morality”.
Charles Rice stated concisely that if Roe v Wade were overturned, the so-called pro-life laws we have fought to have passed over the years like the parental notification law would keep abortion legal in those states that law had been passed. That is where the problem lies Jill. Well, that and the thinking of those like Scalia who say “It would be just as wrong to make a law the opposite of Roe v Wade (making abortion illegal for the entire nation) as it was to make a law like Roe v Wade.”
FYI, Scalia is in no way a pro-life judge and neither are any of the other judges on the Supreme Court bench despite the media’s attempt to make the nation believe that some of them are.
Also FYI, all 5 Catholic Supreme Court justices who joined in on Anthony’s majority opinion automatically excommunicated themselves when they endorsed finding “less shocking methods” for slaughtering babies.
I also must second what Mark B said. Plato and Aristotle are not good guides philosophically. Their influence on Augustine (specificly regarding “perfection” and “impassibility”) and Augustine’s influence on Christian theology and philosophy the following centuries has been HARMFUL.
The promotion of Aristotle and Plato’s philosophy by those in the church is one of the main reasons why so many people think that if a baby is violently slaughtered it must have happened because God had a reason for it to happen.
That is SICK SICK SICK!!
Jill,
It’s fascinating that employ virtually the exact same language as I have yet come to a different conclusion.
I can certainly understand why you would stoop to such semantics to counter any notions that you might… gasp.. compromise. With respect to your ultimate ends, sure, there’s no compromise, but in no uncertain terms, every bit of legislation you all attempt to pass is a compromise: “a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands.”
You can redefine the english language all you want, but short of backing nothing except a complete ban on all abortions, you all are compromising, and nobody with 5 year old’s capacity for nuance is buying your pious little ruse.
Maybe that’s it… are you english as a second language? That would certainly explain your wholly novel and erroneous employment of the english language.
Cam, look at it this way. There’s a wall that appears unpenetratable.
Two groups want to tear down that wall. One group won’t accept anything but complete demolition all at once, and they’re waiting for such theorized time as that is possible.
The other group is not waiting. It is and has been shooting cannon balls at the wall in hopes of cracking it and eventually demolishing it.
Both groups have the same ultimate goal. There is no compromise involved, only differences in strategy.
But, strangely, the demolition group is now shooting cannon balls at the cannon ball group.
Jill, that is an excellent analogy. That is exactly what I believe that we are attempting to do.
HisMan: ” It was almost impossible to get churchces, visa vi, the pastors and church leadership, to buy into his candidacy because of their gutless, spineless fear of losing their 501c3 tax exempt status.”
..this may be a major reason why abortion is legal today…..churches should drop the 501c3 status, pay the taxes and have a voice in the political arena.
Oh, bloody…why are people dissing on Aristotle and Plato? They were BRILLIANT.
SoMG:
Wrong again SoMG. A truly educated person would know what the Bible teaches even if they didn’t believe it. And don’t use a Book that was authored by a God you don’t believe in to support a cause that He thinks is an abomination.
No coup here.
The entire Bible is a treatise against abortion because it’s about life and how God is the God of Life and urges us to choose life over death, over, and over, and over, and over, and over again. Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
Lolitta, you said “We end up chipping away at the personhood of the baby. Which hardens the heart of the public against the baby.”
Actually, the exact opposite is the case. Personhood and respect for the dignity of the human person were lost, destroyed, when the court ruled that killing babies was legal.
The key is to restore that dignity so that the hearts of the people can be turned toward those babies.
Were starting from scratch, so to speak, and need time to convince the culture that they should in fact respect human life. This is just one reason to use prudentialism (great terms Jill).
I’m all a bout prudential. The way I see it is like the progression of a moratorium on the death penalty. We began to create more humane methods of capital punishment and worked to improve conditions on death row. Then we work on legislation that will eventually lead to a complete moratorium. It’s happened before and will happen again. Only a matter of time.
There’s no reason this method can’t work for the pro-life movement as well.
there seems to be a solution that should stop this useless bickering … pass laws stating any procurement of abortion MUST have included that all fetal pain must be nullified … ie. yes on fetal pain = no on abortion. Please note: that so far abortion has solely focused on the woman’s health/wishes. Such legislation evens the field in favour of life without any critique of how abortion is being used as back-up contraception.
I once saw a documentary on fetal development. Long before there was any myelinization of the nerve tracts, the developing fetus put up its arm to block the light from the camera-probe. The commentator thought the action to be deliberately avoidance of a painful stimulus.
I once saw a documentary on fetal development. Long before there was any myelinization of the nerve tracts, the developing fetus put up its arm to block the light from the camera-probe. The commentator thought the action to be deliberately avoidance of a painful stimulus.
I firmly believe that there is sensory awareness in the very young unborn children that we are simply not able to measure yet. But I feel that it won’t be long before it’s provable.
Argument from ignorance:
“The entire Bible is a treatise against abortion because it’s about life and how God is the God of Life and urges us to choose life over death, over, and over, and over, and over, and over again. Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!”
“I firmly believe that there is sensory awareness in the very young unborn children that we are simply not able to measure yet. But I feel that it won’t be long before it’s provable.”
Physiologically… that is physically… there is no wiring. Do your appliances work when their not plugged in??
It’s so encouraging to see that the wisdom of the past–Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Wilberforce, Lincoln–is still being applied to the complex moral and philosophical issues of the present. Forsythe shows keen insight into modern politics and their moral implications.