§ 1 The argument
The word 'incrementalism' confuses the debate, because taking many years to win is not the issue — a movement can file abolition bills every year for two decades and still be immediatist. The real dividing line is the content of the bill: does it call for total abolition (and simply take time to pass), or does it regulate how and when children may be killed? Abolitionists propose renaming the opposing approach 'regulationism': a regulation bill specifies the conditions, instruments, and justifications under which an abortion is permitted — and thereby licenses the very killing it purports to oppose.
§ 2 Supporting points
- Duration is not the issue: an abolition bill filed yearly for 20 years is still immediatism.
- 'Incrementalism' historically replaced the discredited term 'gradualism' as a rebrand.
- A regulation bill defines lawful killing (stage, method, justification) — that is the true contrast with abolition.
- Clarifying terms prevents the Wilberforce-took-time objection from masquerading as an argument for regulation.
§ 3 Discussion questions
- Is the objection really about how long abolition takes, or about what the bill legalizes in the meantime?
- What does a bill 'regulate' if it specifies when and how a child may lawfully be killed?
§ 4 Related
Source transcript
Drawn from
William Wilberforce against the 'Gradual Abolitionists' — 'Incrementalism is code for regulationism... shift from abolition-vs-incrementalism to abolition-vs-regulationism.'
§ 5 References
Slave Trade Act 1788 (Dolben's Act) — first British law to regulate (not abolish) slave shipping; 'Wilberforce feared the act would establish the idea that the slave trade was not fundamentally unjust, but merely an activity that needed further regulation.'
history
Supports: historical example of a regulation regime (Dolben's Act) as distinct from abolition