---
title: "Reframe the debate: it is abolition vs. regulationism, not abolition vs. 'incrementalism'"
description: "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…"
type: "argument"
id: "arg-regulationism-not-incrementalism"
category: "Philosophical"
mode: "Offensive"
source_url: "https://www.abhortion.org/arguments/arg-regulationism-not-incrementalism.html"
---

# Reframe the debate: it is abolition vs. regulationism, not abolition vs. 'incrementalism'

**Category:** Philosophical · **Mode:** Offensive · the positive case

## 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.

## 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.

## Discussion questions

1. Is the objection really about how long abolition takes, or about what the bill legalizes in the meantime?
2. What does a bill 'regulate' if it specifies when and how a child may lawfully be killed?

## Source transcript

Drawn from William Wilberforce against the 'Gradual Abolitionists' — 'Incrementalism is code for regulationism... shift from abolition-vs-incrementalism to abolition-vs-regulationism.'.

## 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.'](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_Trade_Act_1788) _(history)_
  (encyclopedic) · Wikipedia
  **Supports:** historical example of a regulation regime (Dolben's Act) as distinct from abolition

## Related

**Related scriptures:**

- [2 Corinthians 4:2](../scripture/2-corinthians-4-2.md)
- [Deuteronomy 16:20](../scripture/deuteronomy-16-20.md)

**Related arguments:**

- [“William Wilberforce is the model incrementalist: he took ~20 years and accepted partial…”](def-wilberforce-gradualist.md)
- [History's lesson: regulation entrenches an evil; abolition removes it (the Wilberforce case)](arg-wilberforce-regulation.md)
- [Immediatism — dealing with sin fully and now — is the biblical pattern; gradual toleration is not](arg-immediatism-biblical.md)