Daily Archives: August 14, 2007

More thoughts on Incrementalism

How would it sound if someone said, “I am against terrorism, but I think it’s a good step if we can just stop terrorists from blowing up big buildings.”

How would it sound if someone said, “I’m against slavery, but I’m going to fight it incrementally, by freeing my own slaves after I die” Oh, yeah, that’s what the early Americans said, and we know how well their policies worked.

How would it sound if someone said, “I think Hitler’s dangerous, but maybe he’ll stop if we let him have Czechoslovakia? Who cares about Czechoslovakia, anyway?” Oh, wait, they did say that, and look what happened.

How would it sound if someone said, “I think the holocaust is bad, but let’s fight it incrementally”?

Advertisements

Good news for EWTN: bad news for us

Go figure. Every time I move to a new place with a really cool bishop and/or pastor, they leave.

So, I moved back to SC, partly in enthusiasm over Bishop Baker, a friend of Cardinal Arinze who supports the Latin Mass and bans pro-aborts from receiving Communion.

He’s also a supporter of EWTN, which is why he’s just been appointed to Birmingham. Good news for EWTN, especially since it seems to indicate Vatican support for EWTN.

However, it means that our diocese will be without a bishop.

NRLC is not Pro-Life

National Right to Life Committee pushes this idea of “incrementalism,” which has done absolutely *nothing*. They praise the idea that, after 30+ years of abortion on demand, we get one nominal ban for just *one* kind of abortion procedure, and the only reason *that* ban exists is that there are alternative forms of abortion to achieve the same end. And that ban took over ten years from its original introduction until the Supreme Court decision in Gonzalez v. Carhart. And all that incrementalism won’t save a single life. It just gives the Republicans a way to pat themselves on the back and encourage naive pro-lifers to vote for them to spend another 10 years doing *nothing* to stop the senseless slaughter of innocent babies.

How can anyone who is pro-life claim that this ban is a good thing, when it specifically allows for other forms of abortion?

I remember sitting in front of the TV in 1992, waiting for the Supreme Court to announce its decision in _Planned Parenthood v. Casey_. Now, keep in mind that the 1989 PA Abortion Control Act was an “incrementalist” law, specifically written to meet the requirements under which _Roe_ said abortion could be regulated (which had never been put into use previously). So it was naive to hope that the Supreme Court would overturn _Roe_ in this case.

What did the Supreme Court say? That abortion had become accepted as a fundamental “right” and that it was not right to overturn _Roe_.

Bush got elected by appealing to pro-lifers. Clinton wrote *three* executive orders, within hours of his inauguration, that provided sweeping funding for abortion from the federal government. Bush only overturned *one* of those executive orders, leading to a long legislative fight (where does that stand, anyway?)

We had a solid Republican majority in the House and Senate, with a Republican president, and all we got were two Supreme Court justices who said they didn’t have any intention of overturning _Roe_, a position voiced by the President *after* they were confirmed (anyone remember Harriet Miers?)

Meanwhle, the NRLC has been a consistent cheerleader for Bush.

If Giuliani were the GOP candidate in 2008, he’d get glowing endorsements from NRLC.

But the worst sign of NRLC’s evil is the South Dakota abortion ban, which NRLC specifically campaigned *against*. It is one thing to favor an incrementalist stance. But to actively oppose a non-incrementalist law shows that the NRLC has no real interest in ending abortion.

Its entire existence is to immunize the pro-life movement against the evil of abortion in America.

There’s an old story about putting a frog in cold water and gradually turning up the heat until the frog unwittingly boils. The incrementalists have used this anecdote to justify their approach.

Nevermind that abortion on demand came into the US by one sweeping Supreme Court case, and not by any “incrementalist” action. But in 35 years, the only people who’ve made “incremental” gains are the pro-abortionists. In 35 years, abortion in the mind of the American public has gone from a taboo, a scandal which was considered, at best, a “necessary evil,” to a fundamental right.

Meanwhile, pro-life groups cheer loudly against smoke-and-mirrors, Phyrric “victories” like _Gonzalez v. Carhart_. When _Roe_ came out, pro-lifers mourned. Today, the Supreme Court says, “abortion is permissible” and “a fetus is an organism,” and pro-lifers say, “Yay!”

So who’s the frog the incrementalists are trying to boil?