“Immediatist vs Incrementalist” debate analysis, Part V: Sacrificing children to the idol of abolitionism
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…
[raw]
Confession: In some things, I am incrementalist. Posted by T. Russell Hunter on Tuesday, 5 May 2015
[/raw]
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”?
Read previous posts:
Prologue
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
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.
So what’s the immediatist way to cut the grass then? The only alternative to starting somewhere and cutting each area one step at a time would be to preach at it until God finally mows down the entire lawn and stops the grass from growing any higher than the ideal height.
Best. Analogy. Ever, Navi.
1 question: How has the pro-life movement actually gone into the field and changed a mother’s mind about abortion?
The PLM will not succeed until they go out and actively start changing hearts and minds.
Another question: What is the PLM doing to help mother’s that have chosen life? We (abolitionists) offer financially assistance to the family, help raising the child, and even offer to adopt for the mother. It seems to me the pro-life movement is really just pro-gestation.
Nicole, hi.
Hundreds of thousands of members of the pro-life community have been protesting and praying for decades at abortion clinics, on the streets, at homes of abortionists/workers/leaders and at events. There are also 40 Day for Life events. Are you under the impression that AHA launched such efforts?
Also, there are over 3,000 pregnancy care centers across the country that provide help to pregnant mothers in crisis before and after they have their babies, churches that provide physical and financial help, and individuals who provide help, foster care, and adoption. Have you never heard of them either?
Thanks, Jill
1 question: How has the pro-life movement actually gone into the field and changed a mother’s mind about abortion? The PLM will not succeed until they go out and actively start changing hearts and minds. Another question: What is the PLM doing to help mother’s that have chosen life? We (abolitionists) offer financially assistance to the family, help raising the child, and even offer to adopt for the mother. It seems to me the pro-life movement is really just pro-gestation.
Wow. I was hoping this question was a joke. Guess not.
Is the brainwashing strong in the “abolitionist” movement? Unbelievable.
Nicole – Yes – Pro-lifers have gone to the abortion clinics and have been since abortion was legal – where have you been for 42 years? I have personally stood for years outside the death camps calling out to women and helping those we could. Pro-lifers risked arrest and were assaulted many times for actions at the abortion clinics http://tinyurl.com/kkqlfw8. It was pro-lifers who removed the aborted babies AHA now uses on their signs from the trash or clinics http://tinyurl.com/prh493p and http://tinyurl.com/ox9y534. Pro-lifers financed the law firms that now defend abolitionists as well as pro-lifers who speak out. It has been the regular giving of pro-life people that has funded pregnancy resource centers nationwide. To your specific point, of course pro-lifers personally get invested in the women – opening up our homes- supporting and loving them. You think that is a new concept? Think again. It is quite ignorant to believe that after 42 years of legal abortion- pro-lifers have not helped women or stood at the clinics to cry out for the babies. Sadly, it reveals what I have long held that many abolitionists within AHA fail to do actual research or understand our history at all. It is much easier to lob accusations than to look honestly at the truth.
Jill, video tip:
When you cite timecodes of videos, you can hyperlink them with YouTube’s Share feature, then checking the “Start at” box. That way the reader will be taken directly to the portion you’re referring to without having to scrub the timeline.
Cranky, just saw what you’re talking about, great, will add those links to my post, thanks!
I know…seriously ?
I volunteered at a CPC (Crisis Pregnancy Center) over TWENTY YEARS ago – (Yes…Pro-lifers have been helping from WAY back – even longer than that)
Our center put mothers in touch with ALL KINDS of resources –
We gave them maternity clothes /baby layettes , diapers, car seats, etc.
In addition, we took them to dr. appointments and job interviews.
When needed, we also referred them to adoption agencies and agencies that help with food, utilities, etc.
And, it’s still being done to this day.
I mean… where has Nicole BEEN ?
I noticed someone is missing from the discussion… the Gospel. There’s you’re first problem.
Nicole–yes we have been at the clinics. Yes we help the moms. The CPC I support shares the gospel with each mom. One mom was going to abort her 5 month old son and her car broke down. She chose life at the CPC and then accepted Jesus as Savior! Pro-lifers bought her and her husband and kids a NEW MINIVAN. How’s that for helping a mom who chooses life? I thought that was pretty awesome. Since I had no hand in that personally I can “brag” about it. I thought it was just a beautiful way to show the love of Christ and meet her needs. She was so excited to have a working vehicle to get to church every week and grow in her new Christian faith!
I was there faithfully at the clinic until my toddler began to not sit still in his stroller. Once he is in preschool a few days a week this fall I’ll be back at the clinic with my newest son who is due to be born in a few months. Till then I support pro-life work by gathering diapers, wipes, formula and clothes for the CPC near my home. And I pray.
You know what I DON’T do? I don’t fight other pro-lifers in their efforts. I don’t align myself with the abortion industry to strike down laws that would save babies. You know…things like that. Things that AHA does.
The doctrine and practice of immediatism has never been opposed to long hard work or constant and consistent toil on behalf of those whom we are seeking to save. ImmediatISM is not simply a synonym for “immediate” in the way that modern day anti-abolitionists so constantly frame it.?? It never has been and it never will be (regardless of how many people the fool into believing that this is the case).
Immediatism is about what we call for, work for, focus on, and demand. We demand the Abolition of Human Abortion (rather than the regulation of the practice of abortion or the banning of this or that procedure or place that the evil deed is done). We seek the establishment of justice for ALL pre-born human beings (rather than seeking to establish laws which protect human beings who have reached a certain age or stage of development or who meet the current criteria our culture deems worthy of first order protection such as being conceived in consensual sex and possessing the right number of chromosomes).
We view abortion as a national sin and focus on the evil of abortion in and of itself as murder, seeking its total abolition. Our opponents agree with us morally that abortion is murder but do not treat it practically as murder in and of itself. They focus on fighting the way that abortion is done and to whom and seek to limit the number of abortions that take place by dealing with abortion methods or practice by degrees.
The anti-abolitionists of our day want to keep this stark difference from the view of their fans, financial supporters, and future staff members. We want to get their fans, financial supporters, and future staff members to repent of placing their faith in the incremental measures and schemes of the past Four Decades. We want these pro lifers to cease their focus on abortion methods or permissions and stop putting bandaids on the corpse of this culture of death and go instead out onto the streets, to the mills, and everywhere else demanding the abolition of abortion, repentance of the sin of child sacrifice, and help us pass laws to establish justice in keeping with that resolution. We want people to unify together under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and work on the ABOLITION of abortion rather than focus on its regulation.
This is the difference and all the incrementalists talk about how we hate babies and would save a baby in a box that was dying ten feet away from us because its not all the babies and we would have to take steps to get to him, is nothing but a paranoid attempt to keep their own people from looking at what we actually are saying and doing.
Matthew 6:1-8 perhaps Veronica?
People who belong to AHA are out of their minds and really delusional. Look, I am prochoice. Having said that, hear me out (even though I may be posting to the choir).
It is insane to think that one day all abortions will cease and that AHA tactics will be the ones responsible. I can tell you that the prolife movement is making far more progress today than it was even during the confrontational days of Operation Rescue. Sidewalk counseling vs. blocking clinics is a no brainer when it comes to dealing with the often fragile mind of a woman seeking an abortion. Operation Rescue didn’t stop that many abortions overall at the clinics; rather, it merely delayed most of them. And, in many cases, it ended up that women ultimately decided to have their abortions because they were not going to be told what to do. Sidewalk counseling, on the other hand, may not succeed all the time, but it enforced the old adage, “You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.”
Even though I am prochoice, I realize that there is an acceptance of abortion in the country–forget about the polls because ultimately they don’t mean a thing to the woman getting an abortion. But AHA people are delusional to think they will have that much of an impact in reversing acceptance of abortion. Rather, they turn people off with their judgementalism. I mean, come on, doing their thing in places like McKinney, Texas, at noon on a Sunday in the middle of the town square when people are going out to eat after church? Picketing at churches to tell those churches that they aren’t zealous enough against abortion?
And, AHA’s criticism of incrementalism is absurd. But that’s another discussion for another day.
This whole discussion seems complicated, but that’s because we’re viewing abolishing abortion as a goal.
I thought the goal was to save lives. Abolishing abortion achieves that goal en scale.
Abortion is an act, not a thing, that results in lost lives.
If we can legally, morally and ethically save a single life through our efforts, we have won a victory. Now let’s win another one.
If a person has the ability to carry 1 out of 100 people out of harms way in the case of a fire, will we decry his ability and say that he shouldn’t do that unless he can carry all 100?
This debate feels like pro-life navel gazing to me.
T. Russell, you totally missed the point of my post.
It’s not that I don’t like immediatism. As I’ve said many times, and has been demonstrated by my support of personhood efforts, I support pretty much all nonviolent efforts to stop abortion. I have shown support for several AHA endeavors such as the Project Frontlines (https://www.jillstanek.com/2014/03/puppies-sheets-going-great-lengths-hide-the-reality-abortion/) and drop cards (https://www.jillstanek.com/2013/01/spread-the-anti-abortion-message-anywhere-and-everywhere-with-drop-cards/). I helped put Todd on the map with his church protests.
But the point I’ve made several times in my posts on the debate, particularly yesterday, is you didn’t make a wide-range plan for the babies who will be caught between NOW and when abortion is abolished. Worse, you began bashing current incremental plans to save them. I really can’t believe you missed that.
As Steve from Triablogue wrote: “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’?”
Now T Russel Hunter is using the starfish analogy. Here is what he said on facebook:
“Have you ever heard the story about the man who went out to the shore to throw starfish back into the sea and keep them from drying out in the sun… Well, the story goes that even though this man well knew he couldn’t save all the starfish across the world’s beaches, he nonetheless did all that he could to save those he was able to save, for it made a great difference to them.
…
Now imagine a shore with 100 starfish stranded on it and a person going out in the morning who chooses to pick up 2 of them, to toss them back into the ocean. Then imagine that person leaving the beach to hold a press conference and send out a fundraising letter asking for money to help him go pick up more starfish in the future.
Next imagine that many of the people who had been received that fundraising letter for forty years decided to go out to the shore the next day and start picking up starfish themselves rather than send the guy who chose to pick up 2 out of 100 another check.
This will give you a pretty good idea of the fundamental difference between immediatism and incrementalism and paint a pretty clear picture of why it is that professional pro-life incrementalists dislike everyday immediate abolitionists so much.”
My response is this:
“Now imagine that that man didn’t even pick up 2 of them but let them all dry out in the sun and lectured and reprimanded people who were trying to pick up some of the starfish. Imagine that that man told the others that if you can’t save them all don’t save ANY because only saving 2 is wicked and proves you don’t have Jesus.”
AHA would let ALL the starfish die. And AHA can’t comprehend why the other people are trying to raise awareness and get more people down on the beach to rescue starfish because they refuse to see that there are just so many you need more people down there picking them up. AHA would shrug and say “It isn’t right to save these 2 starfish while all the others die so let them all die on the beach because we can’t throw them ALL back in today.” THAT is AHA in a nutshell. And why I can’t support them though I really really want to. I agree with AHA on so many things but their willingness to let some babies die so they can feel morally superior is just DISGUSTING.
I’m surprised at the amount of energy being expended here.
[…] to cut down a tree? Part III: Social justice history vs TR Hunter Part IV: Straw men and the Bible Part V: Sacrificing children to the idol of abolitionism Scott Klusendorf: Debate between Gregg Cunningham and T. Russell Hunter Jonathan Van Maren: Four […]
[…] to cut down a tree? Part III: Social justice history vs TR Hunter Part IV: Straw men and the Bible Part V: Sacrificing children to the idol of abolitionism Part VI: Christians and the legislative process Scott Klusendorf: Debate between Gregg Cunningham […]
[…] to cut down a tree? Part III: Social justice history vs TR Hunter Part IV: Straw men and the Bible Part V: Sacrificing children to the idol of abolitionism Part VI: Christians and the legislative process Part VII: So fundraising is wrong? Scott […]