Three Reasons Why You Cannot Embrace Both Immediatism and Incrementalism

When I first began my involvement in the abortion fight, I was an immediatist. We would actually go to the deathcamps themselves and interpose at the doors – placing ourselves between the preborn child and the abortionist’s murderous tools. That’s about as immediatist as you can get.

I was soon introduced to the incremental model of pro-life politics, however, which I gladly jumped into – I was just thankful for anything people were doing to help the babies. Over the next ten years, I spent countless hours working on legislation that nibbled at the edges of abortion. Most of it accomplished very little, sometimes nothing at all, and often the courts would rule it unconstitutional.

In other words, I did what countless others have done. I embraced both immediatism and incrementalism. But over the years, I learned that you cannot embrace both when it comes to political involvement. 

For those not familiar with these terms, politically speaking, immediatism or abolition calls for the immediate interposition and total abolition of abortion. Only legislation that proffers complete abolition of abortion and protection of the preborn – and nothing less – is embraced by abolitionists. 

Incrementalism, on the other hand, calls for chipping or nibbling away at abortion. Passing small measures to curtail the number of abortions being committed now with the hope of f ...