tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post4510786610629560131..comments2023-09-11T08:30:08.843-07:00Comments on Life Training Institute Blog: Incrementalism Debate Opening Argument [Clinton Wilcox]SKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01905606527143286458noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-64937017208625174622015-09-17T07:14:05.994-07:002015-09-17T07:14:05.994-07:00Not at all. As Jesus himself said, we need to be a...Not at all. As Jesus himself said, we need to be as gentle as doves but as shrewd as serpents. The Gospel saves sinners from Hell, but it doesn't guarantee a pro-life convert. There are atheists who are pro-life, and there are Christians who are pro-choice. I don't bring up the Gospel in a conversation on abortion because it's off-topic. Even if I don't make a Christian convert, I can at least make a pro-life convert by appealing to science and philosophy. After all, all truth is God's truth, so by using science and philosophy to support the pro-life position and the fact that all human life is valuable, I am making arguments that are consistent with Christianity.Clinton Wilcoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17018335374680419858noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-41864491442855496182015-08-27T07:49:18.783-07:002015-08-27T07:49:18.783-07:00Sounds like you are more worried about political p...Sounds like you are more worried about political pragmatism than the power of the Gospel. zachsmcdonaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10292534534349024489noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-55078644447921663712015-05-23T12:48:06.169-07:002015-05-23T12:48:06.169-07:00The fact that they incorporate that face-saving di...The fact that they incorporate that face-saving distinction into their position makes it no less ad hoc. It's not a principled distinction. Rather, it's special pleading. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-11138425192368239442015-05-23T12:32:15.896-07:002015-05-23T12:32:15.896-07:00Wait a second, you didn't answer my question. ...Wait a second, you didn't answer my question. Do you think the parental consent law that i described would be more difficult to pass than a similar abortion parental consent law?Drew Hymernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-24234448997423888932015-05-23T12:27:16.329-07:002015-05-23T12:27:16.329-07:00Steve, the concept of jurisdiction isn't ad ho...Steve, the concept of jurisdiction isn't ad hoc but baked into the AHA view. T. R. Hunter argued in that debate with G. Cunningham that Wilberforce was an immediatist, not an incrementalist. But Wilberforce didn't outlaw slavery in the US, but only in Britain.Drew Hymernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-24848607536448858832015-05-23T12:07:47.136-07:002015-05-23T12:07:47.136-07:00"And all Clinton has done is claim an implica..."And all Clinton has done is claim an implication is there. Claiming it is not proving it. i think it's quite obvious that the implication isn't there."<br /><br />No, he didn't just claim it. He provided a supporting argument to illustrate the parallel with abolitionism. <br /><br />"Read the words of the ND proposed amendment."<br /><br />A "proposed" amendment. Do you have an example that's been signed into law? stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-71107325210717908502015-05-23T12:04:34.755-07:002015-05-23T12:04:34.755-07:00You keep talking in the abstract about writing law...You keep talking in the abstract about writing laws a better way. Have you ever drafted legislation? Do you actually know what's involved in getting enough fellow lawmakers to vote for your bill? What specifically do you mean by "written in a better way"? What evidence do you have that laws like that get passed?stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-48387938598347902602015-05-23T11:57:26.878-07:002015-05-23T11:57:26.878-07:00>>You haven't shown that the implication...>>You haven't shown that the implication isn't there.Denying it is not disproving it. <br /><br />And all Clinton has done is claim an implication is there. Claiming it is not proving it. i think it's quite obvious that the implication isn't there. Read the words of the ND proposed amendment. Maybe you can explain where it implies "you can go out of state to kill your baby". <br /><br />>>But a bill is worthless unless it becomes law.<br /><br />OK. Sure. But consider an abortion parental consent law. You could write it so that it pretty much says "as long as your parents give the ok, you can kill the baby". But why do it that way when it could be law written a better way?<br /><br />Don't we think that parents should consent before their kids get tatoos? Get a drug from the school nurse? Get a gall stone operation? Of course. So, instead of saying "and then you can kill the baby", you write the law broadly to handle any non-emergency operation, pharmaceutical drug, and so forth. You don't think such a law could pass? Drew Hymernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-33003967496388112632015-05-23T11:53:43.861-07:002015-05-23T11:53:43.861-07:00Drew keeps missing the point. AHA accepts geograph...Drew keeps missing the point. AHA accepts geographical discrimination but rejects chronological discrimination. That's an ad hoc distinction. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-65202012627034300702015-05-23T11:44:19.007-07:002015-05-23T11:44:19.007-07:00>> I'm just using your own argument as a...>> I'm just using your own argument as a reductio to show the absurdity of it.<br /><br />My argument? Huh? I'm not defending the AHA "immediatist" position. Where did you get that? I suggested in earlier post "And we should write [incrementalist] legislation", so it should be obvious that i'm not buying the immediatist" line. i'm just disagreeing with you on certain points that i believe don't help your position.<br /><br />I agree that if we have the power to change the law in multiple states, we should do so. OK, so we ban abortion in two states. i don't see how those bans are defective because they don't apply to all fifty states. In those two states those bans would be immediate. You could say that they're incremental in a very broad sense but i think that's kind of cheating because they're not incremental on their own terms; those terms being that laws only apply within the law's jurisdiction. Going further, even a US constitutional amendment would only be incremental in the way your using the term because French babies are still being murdered. So, i really don't think your reductio works. To you it seems "immediate" must mean we have to have a global ban on abortion. i think that is a strawman and really distorts the meaning of the term "immediate". Why can't "immediate" have a reasonable jurisdictional proviso?<br /><br />>>How does incremental legislation imply "and then you can kill the baby"?<br /><br />Well, if the law says a woman must wait 24 hrs before having an abortion, it's saying that a woman can have an abortion. So, there's the "and then you can kill the baby" bit. If the law says, she has to receive certain information before having an abortion, it's saying that the woman can have an abortion.<br /><br />To evaluate a law on the "and then you can kill the baby" standard, all you have to do is envision Roe v. Wade overturned. Now, look at the law. Would the law say that abortion is legal? If the answer is "yes" then it's an "and the you can kill the baby" law. <br />Drew Hymernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-1269847190337214372015-05-23T10:41:36.265-07:002015-05-23T10:41:36.265-07:00"You're imagining an implication that isn..."You're imagining an implication that isn't there."<br /><br />The same way "abolitionists" are imagining and implication that isn't there when they argue the same thing about incremental bills. I'm just using your own argument as a reductio to show the absurdity of it.<br /><br />"You're using an unreasonable standard to judge legislation. Legislation can only be judged within it's own jurisdiction. It doesn't make any sense to suggest that a law in New Jersey is somehow defective because it has no power in Idaho."<br /><br />It does if you have the power to change it in both states. Instead of working state-by-state, you should be working on the national level. Otherwise, you're discriminating against unborn children based on geography. You should be supporting an amendment to the US Constitution, not state-wide bans on abortion.<br /><br />"More importantly i think, you're equivocating on two different concepts. One concept is incrementalism and the other concept is "and then you can kill the baby". These two issues are separate. One can write incremental legislation that doesn't imply 'and then you can kill the baby'. And we should write such legislation."<br /><br />How does incremental legislation imply "and then you can kill the baby"?Clinton Wilcoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17018335374680419858noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-16008812566574251772015-05-23T08:40:04.751-07:002015-05-23T08:40:04.751-07:00You haven't shown that the implication isn'...You haven't shown that the implication isn't there. Denying it is not disproving it. <br /><br />Clinton is judging (hypothetical) abolitionist laws by the same yardstick that abolitionists use to measure prolife laws. But they don't like it when the tables are turned and they double standard is suddenly exposed.<br /><br />You can *write* a bill anyway you like. But a bill is worthless unless it becomes law. A bill that's never signed into law never makes any difference. It's just a feel good intellectual exercise. Mentally writing ideal bills that will never pass, will never be enacted. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-30170547633032822332015-05-23T06:40:19.822-07:002015-05-23T06:40:19.822-07:00>>Clinton is respond to AHA on its own terms...>>Clinton is respond to AHA on its own terms. <br /><br />If so, AHA is being sloppy in its use of language. <br /><br />A lot of incremental legislation does imply "and then you can kill the baby". I don't condemn such legislation because i understand the political realities surrounding the issue. But i think we really should write legislation that avoids the "and then you can kill the baby" pitfall. It makes it a better bill and it satisfies all the pro-life factions.Drew Hymernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-17236071266970654062015-05-23T06:34:34.372-07:002015-05-23T06:34:34.372-07:00>>You're implicitly implying that unborn...>>You're implicitly implying that unborn children in all other states are not as valuable.<br /><br />You're imagining an implication that isn't there.<br /><br />You're using an unreasonable standard to judge legislation. Legislation can only be judged within it's own jurisdiction. It doesn't make any sense to suggest that a law in New Jersey is somehow defective because it has no power in Idaho.<br /><br />More importantly i think, you're equivocating on two different concepts. One concept is incrementalism and the other concept is "and then you can kill the baby". These two issues are separate. One can write incremental legislation that doesn't imply "and then you can kill the baby". And we should write such legislation.Drew Hymernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-28806591077911458672015-05-22T21:04:06.988-07:002015-05-22T21:04:06.988-07:00That doesn't seem right to me. After all, if y...That doesn't seem right to me. After all, if you pass a personhood bill in one state, you're implicitly implying that unborn children in all other states are not as valuable. You're discriminating based on geography. If you really want to ban all abortions, you need a national ban (but then, there would still be abortions legal in other countries).<br /><br />At any rate, it's just a silly argument. It doesn't reflect the reality of the situation. It's just rhetorical nonsense. By supporting incremental legislation, we are not picking and choosing whom to kill. ALL unborn children are currently marked for death. Incremental bills just save what lives we can when we can.Clinton Wilcoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17018335374680419858noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-58482268379959765762015-05-22T09:11:51.356-07:002015-05-22T09:11:51.356-07:00I believe Clinton is responding to John's clai...I believe Clinton is responding to John's claim that: "Immediatists of abortion support state based total abolition as well as national based total abolition…Laws supported and written by immediatists call for the total abolition of abortion in whichever jurisdiction the law is written for…"<br /><br />But that would mean the individuals seeking the abortion (e.g. the mother, boyfriend) would still be free to have the baby aborted in another state where abortion isn't banned. <br /><br />He didn't suggest the wording of the bill would say "but you can still kill your baby in another state."<br /><br />Rather, he's saying that's a logical consequence of patchwork state laws. That *is* implied by laws that vary from state to state. That's the result of different laws in different states. <br /><br />Also, the "it's okay to kill the baby" imitates the language which abolitionists use when caricaturing incremental legislation. Clinton is respond to AHA on its own terms. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-88686969504352567552015-05-22T05:27:48.683-07:002015-05-22T05:27:48.683-07:00>>For one thing, every “immediatist” bill wo...>>For one thing, every “immediatist” bill would also ends<br />>>with “...and then you can kill the baby.” <br /><br />You're incorrect on this part of your argument. If the unborn's right to life is protected in one state, it doesn't in any way imply that it's ok to kill the baby in a different state. Here's the right to life bill that was on the ballot in ND in 2014:<br /><br />The inalienable right to life of every human being at any stage of development must be recognized and protected.<br /><br />There's no implied "and then you can kill the baby" in there.Drew Hymernoreply@blogger.com