History's lesson: regulation entrenches an evil; abolition removes it (the Wilberforce case)

§ 1 The argument

The British slave-trade abolitionists learned that regulating an evil is the chief obstacle to abolishing it. The 1788 Dolben's Act regulated conditions on slave ships rather than ending the trade; Wilberforce himself feared it would entrench the idea that the trade was 'not fundamentally unjust, but merely an activity that needed further regulation.' For roughly two decades he filed bills for total abolition, and in his 1807 Letter he condemned 'gradual instead of immediate abolition' as having proved, in effect, 'the most efficient supporters of the slave trade' by giving zeal time to cool. Abolitionists apply the lesson directly: incremental abortion bills that regulate rather than abolish entrench the practice they claim to oppose.

§ 2 Supporting points

The 1788 Dolben Act regulated (did not abolish) the slave trade — the first British law of its kind.
Wilberforce feared regulation would establish that the trade merely needed adjusting, not ending.
Wilberforce filed total-abolition bills repeatedly; the Slave Trade Act passed the Commons 283–16 in 1807.
In his 1807 Letter, Wilberforce blamed gradualism, not the pro-slavers, for prolonging the trade.

§ 3 Discussion questions

Why did Wilberforce fear the 1788 regulation act more than open opposition?
If regulation entrenched the slave trade, what does that predict about bills that regulate abortion?

Source transcript Drawn from William Wilberforce against the 'Gradual Abolitionists' — The core of the Wilberforce talk: regulationism, not pro-slavery, was the chief enemy of abolition.